Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal

like 0

that is the most ridiculous response ever we all know that Bruce lees dead what sense does it make to say that a dead guy can defeated a living guy. nobody in there right mind would say that. use your common sense man. i didn't say dead Bruce lee or zombie lee like be for real this is debate.org. debate! since u didn't put anything to back up your argument you just wasted a round and i am winning so far VOTE PRO

Carslile

that is the most ridiculous response ever we all know that Bruce lees dead what sense does it make to say that a dead guy can defeated a living guy. nobody in there right mind would say that. use your common sense man. i didn't say dead Bruce lee or zombie lee like be for real this is debate.org. debate! since u didn't put anything to back up your argument you just wasted a round and i am winning so far VOTE PRO

Entertainment

Bruce-Lee-can-Defeat-Chuck-Norris/1/

VOTE PRO. yea

Carslile

VOTE PRO. yea

Entertainment

Bruce-Lee-can-Defeat-Chuck-Norris/1/

I accept, and just to say I like pic like someone when I said the pic.

emospongebob527

I accept, and just to say I like pic like someone when I said the pic.

Entertainment

Bruce-Lee-can-Defeat-Chuck-Norris/1/

Bruce Lee is dead; <URL>... Chuck Norris is still alive; <URL>... All your argument fails unless you can prove a dead body can win in a fight and that Bruce Lee is still alive.

emospongebob527

Bruce Lee is dead; http://en.wikipedia.org... Chuck Norris is still alive; http://en.wikipedia.org... All your argument fails unless you can prove a dead body can win in a fight and that Bruce Lee is still alive.

Entertainment

Bruce-Lee-can-Defeat-Chuck-Norris/1/

that is the most ridiculous response ever we all know that Bruce lees dead what sense does it make to say that a dead guy can defeated a living guy. nobody in there right mind would say that. use your common sense man. i didn't say dead Bruce lee or zombie lee like be for real this is debate.org. debate! since u didn't put anything to back up your argument you just wasted a round and i am winning so far Thanks to Pro for his response. Pro's grammatically incoherent response above is a bit hard to make out, but since I'm very consummate at things such as being able to know what they are generally saying even though it is crippled with massive failure, I can address it. Pro concedes his entire argument by agreeing that Bruce Lee is dead. As is entailed from his resolution; Bruce Lee can Defeat Chuck Norris. Of course since Bruce Lee is dead, this can never hold true. Thank you.

emospongebob527

that is the most ridiculous response ever we all know that Bruce lees dead what sense does it make to say that a dead guy can defeated a living guy. nobody in there right mind would say that. use your common sense man. i didn't say dead Bruce lee or zombie lee like be for real this is debate.org. debate! since u didn't put anything to back up your argument you just wasted a round and i am winning so far Thanks to Pro for his response. Pro's grammatically incoherent response above is a bit hard to make out, but since I'm very consummate at things such as being able to know what they are generally saying even though it is crippled with massive failure, I can address it. Pro concedes his entire argument by agreeing that Bruce Lee is dead. As is entailed from his resolution; Bruce Lee can Defeat Chuck Norris. Of course since Bruce Lee is dead, this can never hold true. Thank you.

Entertainment

Bruce-Lee-can-Defeat-Chuck-Norris/1/

Who doesn't like Bugatti Veyron's? I mean they're basically the fastest cars in the world except for some other car that beat it by 5 mph when it drove for a minute on a straight plane runway! It's the greatest car in history and you can't deny it, the smart thing to do is either not accept this debate, or accept and forfeit immediately.

SquidKing

Who doesn't like Bugatti Veyron's? I mean they're basically the fastest cars in the world except for some other car that beat it by 5 mph when it drove for a minute on a straight plane runway! It's the greatest car in history and you can't deny it, the smart thing to do is either not accept this debate, or accept and forfeit immediately.

Cars

Bugatti-Veyrons-are-the-awesomest-cars-in-history/1/

Speed isn't everything, the Veyron doesn't exactly have the best handling and doesn't look very good. It's acceleration could also be easily beaten.

cha-the-politician

Speed isn't everything, the Veyron doesn't exactly have the best handling and doesn't look very good. It's acceleration could also be easily beaten.

Cars

Bugatti-Veyrons-are-the-awesomest-cars-in-history/1/

I'm tired of seeing all of these complaints about the public school system. Bullying has always been one of the most beneficial aspects in schools. Lets face it. Today, alot of our kids are rotten to the core. Giving them a good tap with a belt (or in my case, a hose pipe) will get your thrown in jail nowadays, so the legal system pretty much encourages that we spoil our children. But right when our rotten kids get to school, they learn their lesson real fast when someone twice their size decides to teach them a physical lesson. It's not until this point that these kids learn their lesson and become humble. Most of these kids turn into geeks/nerds. Without bullying, we probably wouldn't even have the Bill Gates we know and love. One could argue that bullying is what builds our economy. Thus, bullying should be made mandatory in schools. Here's my plan: On orietation day, the shools principle would find suitable candidates for the task of bullying and assign them to their territories. The bullies would be handsomely paid $10.00 a week for their services (in addition to any amount of money they can get from their victims). The bullies would be able to keep 5 out of the 10 dollars they make as the other 5 would go into their college fund (as lets face it, life usually goes down hill for these bullies after high school, so putting money into a college fund for them would be all the more beneficial). And that's all I've gotta say.

Adolph_Hitler_Rules

I'm tired of seeing all of these complaints about the public school system. Bullying has always been one of the most beneficial aspects in schools. Lets face it. Today, alot of our kids are rotten to the core. Giving them a good tap with a belt (or in my case, a hose pipe) will get your thrown in jail nowadays, so the legal system pretty much encourages that we spoil our children. But right when our rotten kids get to school, they learn their lesson real fast when someone twice their size decides to teach them a physical lesson. It's not until this point that these kids learn their lesson and become humble. Most of these kids turn into geeks/nerds. Without bullying, we probably wouldn't even have the Bill Gates we know and love. One could argue that bullying is what builds our economy. Thus, bullying should be made mandatory in schools. Here's my plan: On orietation day, the shools principle would find suitable candidates for the task of bullying and assign them to their territories. The bullies would be handsomely paid $10.00 a week for their services (in addition to any amount of money they can get from their victims). The bullies would be able to keep 5 out of the 10 dollars they make as the other 5 would go into their college fund (as lets face it, life usually goes down hill for these bullies after high school, so putting money into a college fund for them would be all the more beneficial). And that's all I've gotta say.

Education

Bullying-in-middle-high-school-builds-character-for-victims-thus-should-encouraged./1/

I am mixed about whether or not being bullied can help build character, but I am certain that it should not be encouraged. 1. First and foremost, many kids are bullied purely because of physical weakness, even though they may be strong and self-confident people in and of themselves. But because of constant harassment, they may eventually snap. I cite a New Jersey public school case where an intelligent, but severely overweight teen, after enduring years of abuse, eventually came to school in a trench coat and sunglasses with a firearm a-la-Matrix, intending to shoot and kill two bullies who has assaulted him. Fortunately, he placed his trust in a friend, showing him the firearm, and was arrested. My point is, it's not possible or advisable to encourage negative behavior for the sake of a possible *good* outcome. We have no idea how a bullied person would react. 2. In addition, bullies themselves need to be bullied. If you hire them for that position, how would these bullies grow as people? The benefit, if there IS any, would go entirely to the victims, whereas the bullies would become more and more violent because their behavior is encouraged. Perhaps you may breed a country half-full of smart people, but the other half would be violent, bloodthirsty sociopaths. 3. Slippery slope. If your advice was taken for those reasons, where else could people apply it? In the office? In congress? In a hospital or nursery? People don't stop growing mentally, so should people working a 9-5 job be punched in the gut periodically to ensure that they don't get delusions of grandeur? What about criminals who assault other people? Can they then argue that they were helping mankind by doing what they do, and after beating someone up, they simply walk free? 4. This is immoral. The principle of double effect is a test in which someone can determine whether an act is good or evil. 1. The act in question must be either good or neutral in nature. Bullying others is neither good nor neutral in nature. It involves hurting other people physically. 2. The intention is for the good effect and not the evil effect. Yes, the intention is for the strengthening of a personality. 3. The good outweighs the evil enough to make the risk worth it. No. Bullying may strengthen a personality but it may not be worth it, especially because there may be psychological damage, or the amount of benefit towards development is simply not worth the physical/mental pain. 4. The good effect does not come about because of the evil. Failed. The good effect only comes about by way of the evil effect. The test declares an actions evil when it fails even one of the four. In this case, it has failed three out of the four. Therefore, this action is morally evil.

Kleptin

I am mixed about whether or not being bullied can help build character, but I am certain that it should not be encouraged. 1. First and foremost, many kids are bullied purely because of physical weakness, even though they may be strong and self-confident people in and of themselves. But because of constant harassment, they may eventually snap. I cite a New Jersey public school case where an intelligent, but severely overweight teen, after enduring years of abuse, eventually came to school in a trench coat and sunglasses with a firearm a-la-Matrix, intending to shoot and kill two bullies who has assaulted him. Fortunately, he placed his trust in a friend, showing him the firearm, and was arrested. My point is, it's not possible or advisable to encourage negative behavior for the sake of a possible *good* outcome. We have no idea how a bullied person would react. 2. In addition, bullies themselves need to be bullied. If you hire them for that position, how would these bullies grow as people? The benefit, if there IS any, would go entirely to the victims, whereas the bullies would become more and more violent because their behavior is encouraged. Perhaps you may breed a country half-full of smart people, but the other half would be violent, bloodthirsty sociopaths. 3. Slippery slope. If your advice was taken for those reasons, where else could people apply it? In the office? In congress? In a hospital or nursery? People don't stop growing mentally, so should people working a 9-5 job be punched in the gut periodically to ensure that they don't get delusions of grandeur? What about criminals who assault other people? Can they then argue that they were helping mankind by doing what they do, and after beating someone up, they simply walk free? 4. This is immoral. The principle of double effect is a test in which someone can determine whether an act is good or evil. 1. The act in question must be either good or neutral in nature. Bullying others is neither good nor neutral in nature. It involves hurting other people physically. 2. The intention is for the good effect and not the evil effect. Yes, the intention is for the strengthening of a personality. 3. The good outweighs the evil enough to make the risk worth it. No. Bullying may strengthen a personality but it may not be worth it, especially because there may be psychological damage, or the amount of benefit towards development is simply not worth the physical/mental pain. 4. The good effect does not come about because of the evil. Failed. The good effect only comes about by way of the evil effect. The test declares an actions evil when it fails even one of the four. In this case, it has failed three out of the four. Therefore, this action is morally evil.

Education

Bullying-in-middle-high-school-builds-character-for-victims-thus-should-encouraged./1/

As you should well know, the flag of America is the good 'ole red, white and blue. As a symbol of our nation, I contend that the burning of it in any way for whatever reason - as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual like burning people's houses down - should be legal. My argument in favor of this is that freedom of speech and expression allows us to burn the flag for reasons such as protest. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [1] From virtue of the First Amendment, flag burning should be legal. ---References--- 1. <URL>...

TheSkeptic

As you should well know, the flag of America is the good 'ole red, white and blue. As a symbol of our nation, I contend that the burning of it in any way for whatever reason - as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual like burning people's houses down - should be legal. My argument in favor of this is that freedom of speech and expression allows us to burn the flag for reasons such as protest. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [1] From virtue of the First Amendment, flag burning should be legal. ---References--- 1. http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Society

Burning-the-Flag-of-the-United-States-of-America-Should-Be-Legal./1/

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge, and I hope it goes well. =====Counterarguments===== "So the free speech clause of the first amendment reiterates that the federal government was granted no authority to abridge the freedom of speech. I believe most of us agree on the importance of this natural right in that it protects dissent and unpopular sentiment." ----> So it's obvious from this statement that my opponent and I agree on what the free speech clause does for citizens. However, he denies the legalization of burning the flag because he claims it is treason. However, labeling flag burning as treason is factually incorrect. Under the US law, treason is defined as: "consist[ing] only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."[1] So unless the person who was burning the flag was rallying people to wage war again the American government, THEN it will be treason. And even then, the flag would have nothing to do with it but rather the words spoken. The authors were concerned with defining treason because making a broad definition of it (as the British did), can allow the government to abuse it's definition and carry out actions against dissenters, etc. 1. Analogy of throwing ring This analogy, and the rest of my opponent's argument, begins to lie on very shaky grounds. This is because he assumes things to be true that are not necessarily so. I will demonstrate with his analogy: "Now imagine that instead, she pulled the engagement ring off her finger, threw it at you, chucked you the bird, and stormed out the door. You would probably feel much more concerned about the relationship." ----> Yes, but how does this equal treason? True, someone throwing off their engagement ring at their fiancee mostly conveys a much stronger emotion (unless those two have some weirrrddddd ways of communicating). However, this at best is a form of expression - you can't arrest her for throwing her ring at you. And yes, perhaps it does mean she doesn't want to marry. But does this necessarily mean so? NO! Yet, let's go even further and say she does want a marriage either - but this is just dissent. Treason is inciting people to wage war against a government, to attack it with (obviously) forms of violence. Does the act of throwing your ring at your fiancee necessarily mean you want to beat the crap out of him when he's sleeping? NO. My opponent's analogy fails because he confuses the terms "dissent" and "treason". 2. Flag burning isn't dissent, it's treason! My opponent cites past examples of where burning the flag was done after conquering a nation, defeating it, etc. True, this may be the prevalent tradition of the past - but this does NOT mean it's so now. To say so would be to commit the genetic fallacy[2]. I can use the analogy of the ring. Originally, it symbolized a man claiming "ownership" over a woman in Rome[3]. Over time, traditions change and it's erroneous to rely on the past to say what is thought of in the future. Secondly, saying that everyone who burns the flag is saying "attack America" is a hasty and presumptuous generalization. How do we know what they truly think? And who CARES what they truly think? As long as they are not gathering people to wage war against America, or they themselves aren't committing acts of violence or espionage, then it should be perfectly legal for people to burn flags. For instance, what if I personally thought America should be invaded and conquered? Can you incriminate me for treason? No, I have to explicitly commit an act of treason such as creating websites for "the destruction of America's infrastructure". "How would one suppose we distinguished between the guy who burns the flag because he wants free health care, and the guy who wants the US to cease to exist." ----> This is actually a point for my side. How can we tell? We can't! This is why the authors wanted the definition of treason to be specific - otherwise wish washy definitions such as torture (look at Bush) can become manipulated and abused. And as I said before, it doesn't matter what people think but what they DO. Perhaps the man who burns the flag wants the US to cease to exist - but does he show it? Does he go around rallying an guerrilla militia? If he did than THAT would be treason - not burning a flag. =====Conclusion===== All forms of expressions should be legal. The only times they can not is if they either explicitly call for treason, or expressing them would cause harms to others (you're form of expression may come at smacking people, which won't be defended). Flag burning is just a tool for expression - it is the people behind the burning who decide what the message is. ---References--- 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>...

TheSkeptic

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge, and I hope it goes well. =====Counterarguments===== "So the free speech clause of the first amendment reiterates that the federal government was granted no authority to abridge the freedom of speech. I believe most of us agree on the importance of this natural right in that it protects dissent and unpopular sentiment." ----> So it's obvious from this statement that my opponent and I agree on what the free speech clause does for citizens. However, he denies the legalization of burning the flag because he claims it is treason. However, labeling flag burning as treason is factually incorrect. Under the US law, treason is defined as: "consist[ing] only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."[1] So unless the person who was burning the flag was rallying people to wage war again the American government, THEN it will be treason. And even then, the flag would have nothing to do with it but rather the words spoken. The authors were concerned with defining treason because making a broad definition of it (as the British did), can allow the government to abuse it's definition and carry out actions against dissenters, etc. 1. Analogy of throwing ring This analogy, and the rest of my opponent's argument, begins to lie on very shaky grounds. This is because he assumes things to be true that are not necessarily so. I will demonstrate with his analogy: "Now imagine that instead, she pulled the engagement ring off her finger, threw it at you, chucked you the bird, and stormed out the door. You would probably feel much more concerned about the relationship." ----> Yes, but how does this equal treason? True, someone throwing off their engagement ring at their fiancee mostly conveys a much stronger emotion (unless those two have some weirrrddddd ways of communicating). However, this at best is a form of expression - you can't arrest her for throwing her ring at you. And yes, perhaps it does mean she doesn't want to marry. But does this necessarily mean so? NO! Yet, let's go even further and say she does want a marriage either - but this is just dissent. Treason is inciting people to wage war against a government, to attack it with (obviously) forms of violence. Does the act of throwing your ring at your fiancee necessarily mean you want to beat the crap out of him when he's sleeping? NO. My opponent's analogy fails because he confuses the terms "dissent" and "treason". 2. Flag burning isn't dissent, it's treason! My opponent cites past examples of where burning the flag was done after conquering a nation, defeating it, etc. True, this may be the prevalent tradition of the past - but this does NOT mean it's so now. To say so would be to commit the genetic fallacy[2]. I can use the analogy of the ring. Originally, it symbolized a man claiming "ownership" over a woman in Rome[3]. Over time, traditions change and it's erroneous to rely on the past to say what is thought of in the future. Secondly, saying that everyone who burns the flag is saying "attack America" is a hasty and presumptuous generalization. How do we know what they truly think? And who CARES what they truly think? As long as they are not gathering people to wage war against America, or they themselves aren't committing acts of violence or espionage, then it should be perfectly legal for people to burn flags. For instance, what if I personally thought America should be invaded and conquered? Can you incriminate me for treason? No, I have to explicitly commit an act of treason such as creating websites for "the destruction of America's infrastructure". "How would one suppose we distinguished between the guy who burns the flag because he wants free health care, and the guy who wants the US to cease to exist." ----> This is actually a point for my side. How can we tell? We can't! This is why the authors wanted the definition of treason to be specific - otherwise wish washy definitions such as torture (look at Bush) can become manipulated and abused. And as I said before, it doesn't matter what people think but what they DO. Perhaps the man who burns the flag wants the US to cease to exist - but does he show it? Does he go around rallying an guerrilla militia? If he did than THAT would be treason - not burning a flag. =====Conclusion===== All forms of expressions should be legal. The only times they can not is if they either explicitly call for treason, or expressing them would cause harms to others (you're form of expression may come at smacking people, which won't be defended). Flag burning is just a tool for expression - it is the people behind the burning who decide what the message is. ---References--- 1. http://www.usconstitution.net... 2. http://www.nizkor.org... 3. http://ezinearticles.com...

Society

Burning-the-Flag-of-the-United-States-of-America-Should-Be-Legal./1/

I thank my opponent for his substantive arguments - they are far better than the ones I normally encounter. =====Counterarguments===== "First, I did not equate the act of tossing a ring/breaking off a marriage with treason." ----> Well then it was somewhat confusing since I misinterpreted what you meant, but no matter. 1. The Analogy of the Ring to Flag Burning Let's assume that burning the flag is as universal a message as is throwing one's ring off. Even if they both convey a universal message, this doesn't mean that flag burning should be illegal. To make it illegal, we have to first make sure that it is treason - which you have NOT proven. This analogy is impotent until you have proven that burning a flag is treason. 2. Meaning of burning a flag "Destroying the symbol in demonstration can only convey the message of the desire to destroy, or the want of destruction of, the entity in which that flag represents." ----> Or it can symbolically call for a change of the entity, in this case the United States of America. 3. Genetic fallacy Your misinterpretation of the genetic fallacy is "what truly makes no sense and can be easily dismantled." The genetic fallacy states that it is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context [1]. The original meaning of burning a flag does not necessarily mean it is the same today. Take the marriage ring for example - back then the meaning was MUCH different (slavery, male owning women, etc.). When you bring up examples of historic examples of burning the flag, this doesn't mean anything for the symbolism of burning a flag today. My opponent's analogy to the ring fails, because the universal meaning for a ring means marriage. Burning the flag, nowadays, carries much more diverse meanings. People can burn flag for political, social, or maybe even religious reasons. This is usually a call for change - not universal support for waging war on America. 4. Definition of treason My opponent's attempt at equating burning a flag and treason is quite comical. He plays a large definition game, and in the end it seems as if he is correct. However, if you simply look at the result it's convoluted and erroneous. By "adhering to our Enemies", the Constitution means when one helps the enemy. When they go on "their side". If this isn't obvious enough, my opponent goes on to say that committing any act that is against the idea of "America" should be treason because it aligns with the enemy. But this is preposterous - agreeing with the enemies of America does NOT equal treason. To commit treason is to actually SUPPORT or HELP the enemy cause. To fulfill this prerequisite my opponent attempts to argue that we can "indirectly bolster the moral of our enemies" which would thus constitute helping them thus being treason. The fallacious quality of this argument is astounding. Just because people dissent from America does not mean they are aiding enemies. If this is true, then social progressives, people who want to change laws currently existing in America, and anyone who isn't a conservative for the most part can be considered an enemy. What if a host on TV said America sucks? Should he be tried for treason? Of course not. Again, my opponent's argument relies on the fact that burning a flag is universally meant to be advocating destruction of the entity it represents. Obviously, it does NOT. My opponent attempts to equate expressing oneself to violence by using the definition "vehement". How is making an expression vehement constitute a violent ACT? Me getting pissed off at someone isn't a violent action - unless I hit them in the face with my fist. 5. Interpretation of burning the flag True - people can misinterpret what people mean when they burn the flag. But then that's just their ignorance or lack of clarity for both sides then. Even if they totally misinterpret the flag burning, it means nothing for the legality of flag burning. The expression is still valid and should still be free under the freedom of expression. =====Conclusion===== Flag burning is protected under the freedom of expression and is not considered treason. This is because it is not a violent act, it does not call for others to wage war against America, and it does not explicitly state support for America's destruction because there is NO universal message for burning the flag (because there are people who legitimately burn it for political reasons, and not for anarchy of America). ---References--- 1. <URL>...

TheSkeptic

I thank my opponent for his substantive arguments - they are far better than the ones I normally encounter. =====Counterarguments===== "First, I did not equate the act of tossing a ring/breaking off a marriage with treason." ----> Well then it was somewhat confusing since I misinterpreted what you meant, but no matter. 1. The Analogy of the Ring to Flag Burning Let's assume that burning the flag is as universal a message as is throwing one's ring off. Even if they both convey a universal message, this doesn't mean that flag burning should be illegal. To make it illegal, we have to first make sure that it is treason - which you have NOT proven. This analogy is impotent until you have proven that burning a flag is treason. 2. Meaning of burning a flag "Destroying the symbol in demonstration can only convey the message of the desire to destroy, or the want of destruction of, the entity in which that flag represents." ----> Or it can symbolically call for a change of the entity, in this case the United States of America. 3. Genetic fallacy Your misinterpretation of the genetic fallacy is "what truly makes no sense and can be easily dismantled." The genetic fallacy states that it is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context [1]. The original meaning of burning a flag does not necessarily mean it is the same today. Take the marriage ring for example - back then the meaning was MUCH different (slavery, male owning women, etc.). When you bring up examples of historic examples of burning the flag, this doesn't mean anything for the symbolism of burning a flag today. My opponent's analogy to the ring fails, because the universal meaning for a ring means marriage. Burning the flag, nowadays, carries much more diverse meanings. People can burn flag for political, social, or maybe even religious reasons. This is usually a call for change - not universal support for waging war on America. 4. Definition of treason My opponent's attempt at equating burning a flag and treason is quite comical. He plays a large definition game, and in the end it seems as if he is correct. However, if you simply look at the result it's convoluted and erroneous. By "adhering to our Enemies", the Constitution means when one helps the enemy. When they go on "their side". If this isn't obvious enough, my opponent goes on to say that committing any act that is against the idea of "America" should be treason because it aligns with the enemy. But this is preposterous - agreeing with the enemies of America does NOT equal treason. To commit treason is to actually SUPPORT or HELP the enemy cause. To fulfill this prerequisite my opponent attempts to argue that we can "indirectly bolster the moral of our enemies" which would thus constitute helping them thus being treason. The fallacious quality of this argument is astounding. Just because people dissent from America does not mean they are aiding enemies. If this is true, then social progressives, people who want to change laws currently existing in America, and anyone who isn't a conservative for the most part can be considered an enemy. What if a host on TV said America sucks? Should he be tried for treason? Of course not. Again, my opponent's argument relies on the fact that burning a flag is universally meant to be advocating destruction of the entity it represents. Obviously, it does NOT. My opponent attempts to equate expressing oneself to violence by using the definition "vehement". How is making an expression vehement constitute a violent ACT? Me getting pissed off at someone isn't a violent action - unless I hit them in the face with my fist. 5. Interpretation of burning the flag True - people can misinterpret what people mean when they burn the flag. But then that's just their ignorance or lack of clarity for both sides then. Even if they totally misinterpret the flag burning, it means nothing for the legality of flag burning. The expression is still valid and should still be free under the freedom of expression. =====Conclusion===== Flag burning is protected under the freedom of expression and is not considered treason. This is because it is not a violent act, it does not call for others to wage war against America, and it does not explicitly state support for America's destruction because there is NO universal message for burning the flag (because there are people who legitimately burn it for political reasons, and not for anarchy of America). ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Society

Burning-the-Flag-of-the-United-States-of-America-Should-Be-Legal./1/

Hello everyone, and thank you, Skep, for inviting me to debate you on this subject. As you all have read, my opponent has suggested that burning the American flag, for the purpose of protest, is protected by the first amendment's free speech clause. I disagree. I believe burning the flag, in protest, is treasonous and therefore not protected. First, lets examine what the free speech clause does protect. It is important to understand the context in which this and the following nine articles of amendments were created and ratified. When the Constitution was being debated for ratification within the individual states, many citizens of those states voiced concern that a) too much authority was being asked to be given to the new federal government, or b) the provisions in the Constitution could be construed to give the new government more authority than was intended and agreed upon. Most states came to a compromise which was that they would ratify the document on the presumption that the first Congress would introduce a "Bill Of Rights" addressing the concerns that the states had. Yet, as Hamilton had argued in his article Federalist Paper #84, "...bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects,..." and are of no use to the document proposed. We were ratifing the authority "We The People" were granting to the United States, not asking for protection of certain liberties against it. In other words, we were telling the government what authority it will have, not bargaining authority away from it. So the first Congress, instead of drafting a bill of rights which was contrary to the philosophy that the new government was created on, presented to the states "furthur declaritory and restrictive clauses" to be amended to the Constitution. In other words, reiterations that these powers were not granted to the United States in Art.I, and more importantly, all authority not granted to the united states is to be left to the states, irregardless of whether it was specifically enumerated in the articles of amendment. See Amndts. IX and X. So the free speech clause of the first amendment reiterates that the federal government was granted no authority to abridge the freedom of speech. I believe most of us agree on the importance of this natural right in that it protects dissent and unpopular sentiment. So the question, it seems to me, is whether burning the flag is a form of expression of dissent, protected from the authority of the United States, or an act of treason, entirely subject to the authority of the United States. I will attempt to present an analogy, please bear with me. Suppose you and your fiance had gotten into an argument. In the heat of things, she says, "you know what, I am going to my mothers". She leaves. Is she upset? Yes. Is she in disagreement with you and/or you conduct? Yes. Did she call off the wedding? No, or at least, she did not convey that message to you. Now imagine that instead, she pulled the engagement ring off her finger, threw it at you, chucked you the bird, and stormed out the door. You would probably feel much more concerned about the relationship. The point I am trying to make is that the action of burning the flag says something. Yes, it says dissent, but it goes further and suggest aggression and severance. As the action of throwing the ring says "deal off", burning the flag says "deal off". Now one might say that if the flag burners intention was to only severe ties with the U.S., that that does not amount to treason. This may be true except that, as the flying ring symbolizes more than just a need to cool down, the burning of a state's flag symbolizes more than dissent and severance. In fact, the conduct is universally understood as the desire of, or the accomplishment of, the destruction or conquering of a state. The colonist burned the king's flag as we declared our independence. Whenever a fort has been taken, the conquered flag is replaced by the new inhabitants' flag. When we were attacked, extremist muslims and socialist burned our flag in celebration of the success of their brothers. How would one suppose we distinguished between the guy who burns the flag because he wants free health care, and the guy who wants the US to cease to exist. As a side note, I would like to say that I do not want the Feds to round up any stupid kids for burning flags and charging them with treason. My reason for debating the subject is that because we withhold the right to dissent, we need to exercise it with responsibility. I am not worried about the kid who youtubed himself burning the flag, wanting to or seriously contemplating burning the White House. I am worried about the lack of understanding of the message it sends and the ills that will fall upon a free society that downplays it.

lordjosh

Hello everyone, and thank you, Skep, for inviting me to debate you on this subject. As you all have read, my opponent has suggested that burning the American flag, for the purpose of protest, is protected by the first amendment's free speech clause. I disagree. I believe burning the flag, in protest, is treasonous and therefore not protected. First, lets examine what the free speech clause does protect. It is important to understand the context in which this and the following nine articles of amendments were created and ratified. When the Constitution was being debated for ratification within the individual states, many citizens of those states voiced concern that a) too much authority was being asked to be given to the new federal government, or b) the provisions in the Constitution could be construed to give the new government more authority than was intended and agreed upon. Most states came to a compromise which was that they would ratify the document on the presumption that the first Congress would introduce a "Bill Of Rights" addressing the concerns that the states had. Yet, as Hamilton had argued in his article Federalist Paper #84, "...bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects,..." and are of no use to the document proposed. We were ratifing the authority "We The People" were granting to the United States, not asking for protection of certain liberties against it. In other words, we were telling the government what authority it will have, not bargaining authority away from it. So the first Congress, instead of drafting a bill of rights which was contrary to the philosophy that the new government was created on, presented to the states "furthur declaritory and restrictive clauses" to be amended to the Constitution. In other words, reiterations that these powers were not granted to the United States in Art.I, and more importantly, all authority not granted to the united states is to be left to the states, irregardless of whether it was specifically enumerated in the articles of amendment. See Amndts. IX and X. So the free speech clause of the first amendment reiterates that the federal government was granted no authority to abridge the freedom of speech. I believe most of us agree on the importance of this natural right in that it protects dissent and unpopular sentiment. So the question, it seems to me, is whether burning the flag is a form of expression of dissent, protected from the authority of the United States, or an act of treason, entirely subject to the authority of the United States. I will attempt to present an analogy, please bear with me. Suppose you and your fiance had gotten into an argument. In the heat of things, she says, "you know what, I am going to my mothers". She leaves. Is she upset? Yes. Is she in disagreement with you and/or you conduct? Yes. Did she call off the wedding? No, or at least, she did not convey that message to you. Now imagine that instead, she pulled the engagement ring off her finger, threw it at you, chucked you the bird, and stormed out the door. You would probably feel much more concerned about the relationship. The point I am trying to make is that the action of burning the flag says something. Yes, it says dissent, but it goes further and suggest aggression and severance. As the action of throwing the ring says "deal off", burning the flag says "deal off". Now one might say that if the flag burners intention was to only severe ties with the U.S., that that does not amount to treason. This may be true except that, as the flying ring symbolizes more than just a need to cool down, the burning of a state's flag symbolizes more than dissent and severance. In fact, the conduct is universally understood as the desire of, or the accomplishment of, the destruction or conquering of a state. The colonist burned the king's flag as we declared our independence. Whenever a fort has been taken, the conquered flag is replaced by the new inhabitants' flag. When we were attacked, extremist muslims and socialist burned our flag in celebration of the success of their brothers. How would one suppose we distinguished between the guy who burns the flag because he wants free health care, and the guy who wants the US to cease to exist. As a side note, I would like to say that I do not want the Feds to round up any stupid kids for burning flags and charging them with treason. My reason for debating the subject is that because we withhold the right to dissent, we need to exercise it with responsibility. I am not worried about the kid who youtubed himself burning the flag, wanting to or seriously contemplating burning the White House. I am worried about the lack of understanding of the message it sends and the ills that will fall upon a free society that downplays it.

Society

Burning-the-Flag-of-the-United-States-of-America-Should-Be-Legal./1/

I would like to address the misunderstandings my opponent has of my first round arguments before addressing his more substantive argument he makes in the first part of the second round. First, I did not equate the act of tossing a ring/breaking off a marriage with treason. Nor did I confuse "treason" and "dissent". The act of throwing the ring conveys a universal message to everyone who's society embraces the use of the ring as a symbol of love and commitment. Just as burning the flag conveys a universal message to any state which uses a flag as a symbol of the state and a marker of it's territory. I did not say the two particular acts convey the same message. The second part of his argument is curious but unconvincing. My opponent suggest that even though an act may have had a certain meaning, it does not neccessarily convey the same meaning today or hold the same meaning in the future. I concede to this statement. Let me contend however, that the act in question, the burning of the flag in demonstration, still holds the same symbolism today as it had in the past. The flag is the symbol for the entity it represents. Destroying the symbol in demonstration can only convey the message of the desire to destroy, or the want of destruction of, the entity in which that flag represents. My opponent has suggested that, true as it may be of the meaning of the act in the past, to continue to hold this truth would amount to a hypothosis called genetic fallacy. This hypothesis is deeply flawed and smacks of National Socialist propaganda, which is why it truly makes no sense and can be easily dismantled. I only hope my young friend listens to his elders before determinig whether or not he knows better. After all, what if; "My parents been telling me that 1+1=2, yet my teacher, Bill, says 1+1=254"? Does the teacher posses more weight because he may be consider the "expert", regardless of the fallacy of his claim? The ring still represents "ownership" although it may be polliticaly incorrect to say. As Skep will discover when he gets older, he will eventually start looking at the ring finger of the the girls he might like to talk to in order to determine whether she "is TAKEN". Futhurmore he may be put off by the presense of a ring because the subject may have worn one to convey a message that was not true in order to be left alone. She is single, yet her message is that she is taken since it would be impossible for you to know she is actually single. I have not claimed that "everyone who burns the flag is saying 'attack America'". I am saying that if somone has a message other than the desire to see an end to an entity, then one ought not destroy the recognized symbol of that entity for it does not convey any other message. The remaining arguments made by my opponent can be juxtaposed with the first argument that I have not yet addressed. My opponent correctly states the definition of treason as defined in Art. III of the US Constitution. >>>"consist[ing] only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court"<<< I aim to prove that burning the American Flag constitutes, by this definition, treason. "adhering to our Enemies" The definitions of adhere, revelant to this discussion are: 1: to give support or maintain loyalty. 4: to bind oneself to observance. [1] To show support may indicate that you give support. An act that is used by our enemies to convey a message that is universally associated with that act would demonstrates support and loyalty to at least the message. Definition 4 is more compelling in my opinion. First the definition of obsevance. Observance: 1: to conform one's action or practice to. i.e. the rules [1] [2] 3: to celebrate or solomnize (as a ceremony or festival) after a customary or accepted form.[1] When one burns the flag, they are demonstrating observance to a practiced which is universally known to be the manner in which our enemies demonstrate their desire to see the destruction of the U.S., i.e. adhering to the enemy. The act, in the very least, can give "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies. The use of images of our citizens conveying the same message as they, can be used as a recruitment tool and bolster the moral of our enemies. Although this may be indirect, it does demonstrate the responsibilty we have when exercising our right to dissent. My opponent claims that "As long as they are not gathering people to wage war against America, or they themselves aren't committing acts of violence or espionage", it does not constitute treason. This is narrower than the definition in the Constitution, but it still does not disqualify flag burning in demonstration. Violence: 1a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. b: an instant of violent treatment or procedure. 3b: vehement feeling or expression.[1] Certainly, it is safe to say that the act "exert[s]..[a]..physical force"(fire)in order to "abuse" the symbol. And the "expression" is certainly vehement. Finally, I agree with my opponent that "it doesn't matter what people think but what they DO". This is actually my point, Skep. It is not " the people behind the burning who decide what the message is". It is the people who receive the message who must interpret what the message means, and act, based on how they interpret the message. For instance, you see a co-worker standing down the hall. You want this person to come to you. You convey the message by mooning him/her. It should not come to a surprise if the person turns away in disgust. It is illogical to claim that you only wanted the person to approach you when your action promotes an entirely different message. The burning of the American flag should not be tolerated because the act serves no other purpose than to promote the destruction of the United States; and under the definition of treason, as set forth in the Constitution, and in the court of common sense, the act is encompased. notes: [1]Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1969 [2]I added as alternitive to (rule)

lordjosh

I would like to address the misunderstandings my opponent has of my first round arguments before addressing his more substantive argument he makes in the first part of the second round. First, I did not equate the act of tossing a ring/breaking off a marriage with treason. Nor did I confuse "treason" and "dissent". The act of throwing the ring conveys a universal message to everyone who's society embraces the use of the ring as a symbol of love and commitment. Just as burning the flag conveys a universal message to any state which uses a flag as a symbol of the state and a marker of it's territory. I did not say the two particular acts convey the same message. The second part of his argument is curious but unconvincing. My opponent suggest that even though an act may have had a certain meaning, it does not neccessarily convey the same meaning today or hold the same meaning in the future. I concede to this statement. Let me contend however, that the act in question, the burning of the flag in demonstration, still holds the same symbolism today as it had in the past. The flag is the symbol for the entity it represents. Destroying the symbol in demonstration can only convey the message of the desire to destroy, or the want of destruction of, the entity in which that flag represents. My opponent has suggested that, true as it may be of the meaning of the act in the past, to continue to hold this truth would amount to a hypothosis called genetic fallacy. This hypothesis is deeply flawed and smacks of National Socialist propaganda, which is why it truly makes no sense and can be easily dismantled. I only hope my young friend listens to his elders before determinig whether or not he knows better. After all, what if; "My parents been telling me that 1+1=2, yet my teacher, Bill, says 1+1=254"? Does the teacher posses more weight because he may be consider the "expert", regardless of the fallacy of his claim? The ring still represents "ownership" although it may be polliticaly incorrect to say. As Skep will discover when he gets older, he will eventually start looking at the ring finger of the the girls he might like to talk to in order to determine whether she "is TAKEN". Futhurmore he may be put off by the presense of a ring because the subject may have worn one to convey a message that was not true in order to be left alone. She is single, yet her message is that she is taken since it would be impossible for you to know she is actually single. I have not claimed that "everyone who burns the flag is saying 'attack America'". I am saying that if somone has a message other than the desire to see an end to an entity, then one ought not destroy the recognized symbol of that entity for it does not convey any other message. The remaining arguments made by my opponent can be juxtaposed with the first argument that I have not yet addressed. My opponent correctly states the definition of treason as defined in Art. III of the US Constitution. >>>"consist[ing] only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court"<<< I aim to prove that burning the American Flag constitutes, by this definition, treason. "adhering to our Enemies" The definitions of adhere, revelant to this discussion are: 1: to give support or maintain loyalty. 4: to bind oneself to observance. [1] To show support may indicate that you give support. An act that is used by our enemies to convey a message that is universally associated with that act would demonstrates support and loyalty to at least the message. Definition 4 is more compelling in my opinion. First the definition of obsevance. Observance: 1: to conform one's action or practice to. i.e. the rules [1] [2] 3: to celebrate or solomnize (as a ceremony or festival) after a customary or accepted form.[1] When one burns the flag, they are demonstrating observance to a practiced which is universally known to be the manner in which our enemies demonstrate their desire to see the destruction of the U.S., i.e. adhering to the enemy. The act, in the very least, can give "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies. The use of images of our citizens conveying the same message as they, can be used as a recruitment tool and bolster the moral of our enemies. Although this may be indirect, it does demonstrate the responsibilty we have when exercising our right to dissent. My opponent claims that "As long as they are not gathering people to wage war against America, or they themselves aren't committing acts of violence or espionage", it does not constitute treason. This is narrower than the definition in the Constitution, but it still does not disqualify flag burning in demonstration. Violence: 1a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. b: an instant of violent treatment or procedure. 3b: vehement feeling or expression.[1] Certainly, it is safe to say that the act "exert[s]..[a]..physical force"(fire)in order to "abuse" the symbol. And the "expression" is certainly vehement. Finally, I agree with my opponent that "it doesn't matter what people think but what they DO". This is actually my point, Skep. It is not " the people behind the burning who decide what the message is". It is the people who receive the message who must interpret what the message means, and act, based on how they interpret the message. For instance, you see a co-worker standing down the hall. You want this person to come to you. You convey the message by mooning him/her. It should not come to a surprise if the person turns away in disgust. It is illogical to claim that you only wanted the person to approach you when your action promotes an entirely different message. The burning of the American flag should not be tolerated because the act serves no other purpose than to promote the destruction of the United States; and under the definition of treason, as set forth in the Constitution, and in the court of common sense, the act is encompased. notes: [1]Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1969 [2]I added as alternitive to (rule)

Society

Burning-the-Flag-of-the-United-States-of-America-Should-Be-Legal./1/

Thank you skep for my first debate on this site. I look forward to more debates with you in the future. My opponent has proclaimed that I have not proven that flag burnibg amounts to treason. I contend that my opponent could not substantively debunk my claims. Instead he makes statements while offering no support for them. Further, I have given substantive arguements debunking his baseless claims. I may not have proven to everyone that flag burning is treasonous, I have given the better arguement. My opponent never denies that the symbolic message behind the act, yet he claims other meanings without explaination on how he has come to this conclusion. "it can symbolically call for a change of the entity, in this case the United States of America." "When you bring up examples of historic examples of burning the flag, this doesn't mean anything for the symbolism of burning a flag today" "Burning the flag, nowadays, carries much more diverse meanings. People can burn flag for political, social, or maybe even religious reasons. This is usually a call for change - not universal support for waging war on America." I have given examples of why and how the symbolism of flag burning represents destroying "the entity that flag represents". My opponent has no fact to back up his statements. "The genetic fallacy states that it is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context ". Right off the bat, this statement proves foolish. For how could you possibly understand the meaning of anything if you don't understand it's origin. This is Nazi speak for,"Don't listen to your elders and burn anything that might educate someone on the truth". Furthermore, the reference my opponent cites states that; "a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise)." That statement opens the door for a good debate, eh? And for the "comical" portion of his arguement; "He plays a large definition game, and in the end it seems as if he is correct. However, if you simply look at the result it's convoluted and erroneous" After this statement he makes this declaration: "By "adhering to our Enemies", the Constitution means when one helps the enemy" Well at least I used a dictionary when I played the "definition game". Again, no support offered for his claim. "my opponent goes on to say that committing any act that is against the idea of "America" should be treason" ????????? I have no idea. "To commit treason is to actually SUPPORT or HELP the enemy cause." Maybe he will offer evidence in the next debate. "To fulfill this prerequisite my opponent attempts to argue that we can "indirectly bolster the moral of our enemies" which would thus constitute helping them thus being treason" My statements were; "The act, in the very least, can give "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies.......Although this may be indirect, it does demonstrate the responsibilty we have when exercising our right to dissent." I guess I will have to explain the main reason this is important. Your observing an, act, ritual, ceremony, festival, prayer,etc.. To 'adhere' is to "bind oneself to observance. see note [1],Con round 2. The burning of the flag is an act, ritual, ceremony, or as my opponent has suggested, a religous, observance. My opponent makes a telling statement. "agreeing with the enemies of America does NOT equal treason" If you agree with our enemies that america should cease to exist, you are a traitor. Committing an act, observed by our enemies to demonstrate their desires to se us destroyed, is treasonous. "If this is true, then social progressives, people who want to change laws currently existing in America, and anyone who isn't a conservative for the most part can be considered an enemy. What if a host on TV said America sucks? Should he be tried for treason?" Again,??????????????? "My opponent attempts to equate expressing oneself to violence by using the definition "vehement". " This is not true. I equated burning the flag with commiting violence against the US. My opponent states that if one thinks that an American citizen, burning an American flag, means that that citizen wants to see the US destroyed,"that's just their ignorance or lack of clarity for both sides then. " No, my friend. Anyone who believes that a citizen who burns the flag does not harbor grave intent towards our union or our place on the world stage is in denial or purposely evading.

lordjosh

Thank you skep for my first debate on this site. I look forward to more debates with you in the future. My opponent has proclaimed that I have not proven that flag burnibg amounts to treason. I contend that my opponent could not substantively debunk my claims. Instead he makes statements while offering no support for them. Further, I have given substantive arguements debunking his baseless claims. I may not have proven to everyone that flag burning is treasonous, I have given the better arguement. My opponent never denies that the symbolic message behind the act, yet he claims other meanings without explaination on how he has come to this conclusion. "it can symbolically call for a change of the entity, in this case the United States of America." "When you bring up examples of historic examples of burning the flag, this doesn't mean anything for the symbolism of burning a flag today" "Burning the flag, nowadays, carries much more diverse meanings. People can burn flag for political, social, or maybe even religious reasons. This is usually a call for change - not universal support for waging war on America." I have given examples of why and how the symbolism of flag burning represents destroying "the entity that flag represents". My opponent has no fact to back up his statements. "The genetic fallacy states that it is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context ". Right off the bat, this statement proves foolish. For how could you possibly understand the meaning of anything if you don't understand it's origin. This is Nazi speak for,"Don't listen to your elders and burn anything that might educate someone on the truth". Furthermore, the reference my opponent cites states that; "a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise)." That statement opens the door for a good debate, eh? And for the "comical" portion of his arguement; "He plays a large definition game, and in the end it seems as if he is correct. However, if you simply look at the result it's convoluted and erroneous" After this statement he makes this declaration: "By "adhering to our Enemies", the Constitution means when one helps the enemy" Well at least I used a dictionary when I played the "definition game". Again, no support offered for his claim. "my opponent goes on to say that committing any act that is against the idea of "America" should be treason" ????????? I have no idea. "To commit treason is to actually SUPPORT or HELP the enemy cause." Maybe he will offer evidence in the next debate. "To fulfill this prerequisite my opponent attempts to argue that we can "indirectly bolster the moral of our enemies" which would thus constitute helping them thus being treason" My statements were; "The act, in the very least, can give "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies.......Although this may be indirect, it does demonstrate the responsibilty we have when exercising our right to dissent." I guess I will have to explain the main reason this is important. Your observing an, act, ritual, ceremony, festival, prayer,etc.. To 'adhere' is to "bind oneself to observance. see note [1],Con round 2. The burning of the flag is an act, ritual, ceremony, or as my opponent has suggested, a religous, observance. My opponent makes a telling statement. "agreeing with the enemies of America does NOT equal treason" If you agree with our enemies that america should cease to exist, you are a traitor. Committing an act, observed by our enemies to demonstrate their desires to se us destroyed, is treasonous. "If this is true, then social progressives, people who want to change laws currently existing in America, and anyone who isn't a conservative for the most part can be considered an enemy. What if a host on TV said America sucks? Should he be tried for treason?" Again,??????????????? "My opponent attempts to equate expressing oneself to violence by using the definition "vehement". " This is not true. I equated burning the flag with commiting violence against the US. My opponent states that if one thinks that an American citizen, burning an American flag, means that that citizen wants to see the US destroyed,"that's just their ignorance or lack of clarity for both sides then. " No, my friend. Anyone who believes that a citizen who burns the flag does not harbor grave intent towards our union or our place on the world stage is in denial or purposely evading.

Society

Burning-the-Flag-of-the-United-States-of-America-Should-Be-Legal./1/

I think any reasonable person can agree that Bush is not the cause of all the world's ills; likewise, we can agree that not everything Bush does is wrong. We can even speculate that he has good intentions for much of what he does, if we are inclined to do so. Conversely, we can also agree that many of Bush's policies have proven ineffective, and that the controversy surrounding a lot of his programs and decisions is not pure hype. It doesn't take "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to be concerned about warrantless wiretapping, our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, or the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration. It is, in fact, perfectly possible to strongly criticize someone without resorting to hyperbole or caricaturing, even if people don't often bother to be so balanced in their criticism--on either side. "Bush Derangement Syndrome", a joke intended to poke fun at the extreme excesses of anti-Bush sentiment, obviously refers to a certain mindset or set of beliefs, not a distinct mental illness. There's nothing unique or special about people's attitudes towards Bush in this respect; prominent politicians frequently face vilification from their critics, or idealization from their supporters. What is perhaps noteworthy about "BDA" is that it risks trivializing the very real, relevant, substantive criticisms of Bush that are out there. It serves as a shortcut term for dismissing arguments without really considering or explicitly addressing them, and serves only to further polarize and antagonize debaters. In other words, its use promotes an anti-discussion environment. More productive would be simply pointing out when people are exaggerating or fabricating mistakes of Bush's, while conceding when their criticisms are valid; it may take more effort than resorting to cheap labels, but you will come across as much more reasonable and convincing for that effort, and may even change someone's mind on a certain point.

Rob

I think any reasonable person can agree that Bush is not the cause of all the world's ills; likewise, we can agree that not everything Bush does is wrong. We can even speculate that he has good intentions for much of what he does, if we are inclined to do so. Conversely, we can also agree that many of Bush's policies have proven ineffective, and that the controversy surrounding a lot of his programs and decisions is not pure hype. It doesn't take "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to be concerned about warrantless wiretapping, our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, or the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration. It is, in fact, perfectly possible to strongly criticize someone without resorting to hyperbole or caricaturing, even if people don't often bother to be so balanced in their criticism--on either side. "Bush Derangement Syndrome", a joke intended to poke fun at the extreme excesses of anti-Bush sentiment, obviously refers to a certain mindset or set of beliefs, not a distinct mental illness. There's nothing unique or special about people's attitudes towards Bush in this respect; prominent politicians frequently face vilification from their critics, or idealization from their supporters. What is perhaps noteworthy about "BDA" is that it risks trivializing the very real, relevant, substantive criticisms of Bush that are out there. It serves as a shortcut term for dismissing arguments without really considering or explicitly addressing them, and serves only to further polarize and antagonize debaters. In other words, its use promotes an anti-discussion environment. More productive would be simply pointing out when people are exaggerating or fabricating mistakes of Bush's, while conceding when their criticisms are valid; it may take more effort than resorting to cheap labels, but you will come across as much more reasonable and convincing for that effort, and may even change someone's mind on a certain point.

Politics

Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-should-be-officially-classified-in-the-DSM-for-mental-illness/1/

Solarman, I hope you are able to see the irony in criticizing people for being too extremist and absolutist in their distaste for Bush, while at the same time classifying a wide swathe of people who disagree with you as suffering from a mental illness. Responding to black-and-white absolutism with more black-and-white absolutism solves nothing. Hating a politician does not make one psychotic; surely there are some politicians whom you despise as well? Have you never indulged in hyperbole in attacking some liberal you despise? Indeed, you have engaged in such on this very page. So why is it only a "mental illness" when a conservative is the target of such attacks? Psychology is not a partisan game, Solarman. I'm not interested in getting into an in-depth point-by-point discussion of the issues with you here. If you wish to discuss them in detail, feel free to make separate debates for each of them; but it would be superfluous of me to address them here, when all I need to do is point out that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is not a mental illness, even if it is a problem. (And if it is, it is a social one, not a psychopathological one.) We both agree that Bush's actions are neither 100% good nor 100% bad; getting into the details can only obscure that point. Suffice to say that you lose any credibility in a nonpartisan arena like psychopathology when you make assertions like "0 % of republicans and about 30% of democrats fit this profile, which is insane, delusional, paranoid, and mentally ill." (I especially like how you qualified the "30% of democrats" with an "about", but not the "0% of republicans", which is apparently an absolute number.) Indeed, I am less worried by extreme opponents of Bush than I am by people who are willing to dismiss over 24 million functional American citizens as "insane". How would you go about combating such insanity? Round people who disagree with you up into camps, lock them away until they see the truth? Pathologizing a political position en masse is an early warning sign for fascism. I am not accusing you of this, but I am giving you this warning so you can take a step back, look at how you're merely responding to extremism with more extremism, and consider a more moderate approach to this issue that concerns you so. Moreover, if it is indeed delusional to exaggerate Bush to the role of pure villain, then it is equally delusional to exaggerate Bush to the role of hero and savior. Being a partisan reactionary with a weak, biased grasp on political realities doesn't make you crazy. But I'll agree with you that it's sadly prevalent today--albeit in both parties, not just one or the other. The real solution to this serious, across-party-lines (not exclusively liberal) social (not psychological) problem is to seek to calmly and unpolarizingly educate and understand the other side; incessantly stereotyping and attacking people for disagreeing with you will merely worsen the problem.

Rob

Solarman, I hope you are able to see the irony in criticizing people for being too extremist and absolutist in their distaste for Bush, while at the same time classifying a wide swathe of people who disagree with you as suffering from a mental illness. Responding to black-and-white absolutism with more black-and-white absolutism solves nothing. Hating a politician does not make one psychotic; surely there are some politicians whom you despise as well? Have you never indulged in hyperbole in attacking some liberal you despise? Indeed, you have engaged in such on this very page. So why is it only a "mental illness" when a conservative is the target of such attacks? Psychology is not a partisan game, Solarman. I'm not interested in getting into an in-depth point-by-point discussion of the issues with you here. If you wish to discuss them in detail, feel free to make separate debates for each of them; but it would be superfluous of me to address them here, when all I need to do is point out that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is not a mental illness, even if it is a problem. (And if it is, it is a social one, not a psychopathological one.) We both agree that Bush's actions are neither 100% good nor 100% bad; getting into the details can only obscure that point. Suffice to say that you lose any credibility in a nonpartisan arena like psychopathology when you make assertions like "0 % of republicans and about 30% of democrats fit this profile, which is insane, delusional, paranoid, and mentally ill." (I especially like how you qualified the "30% of democrats" with an "about", but not the "0% of republicans", which is apparently an absolute number.) Indeed, I am less worried by extreme opponents of Bush than I am by people who are willing to dismiss over 24 million functional American citizens as "insane". How would you go about combating such insanity? Round people who disagree with you up into camps, lock them away until they see the truth? Pathologizing a political position en masse is an early warning sign for fascism. I am not accusing you of this, but I am giving you this warning so you can take a step back, look at how you're merely responding to extremism with more extremism, and consider a more moderate approach to this issue that concerns you so. Moreover, if it is indeed delusional to exaggerate Bush to the role of pure villain, then it is equally delusional to exaggerate Bush to the role of hero and savior. Being a partisan reactionary with a weak, biased grasp on political realities doesn't make you crazy. But I'll agree with you that it's sadly prevalent today--albeit in both parties, not just one or the other. The real solution to this serious, across-party-lines (not exclusively liberal) social (not psychological) problem is to seek to calmly and unpolarizingly educate and understand the other side; incessantly stereotyping and attacking people for disagreeing with you will merely worsen the problem.

Politics

Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-should-be-officially-classified-in-the-DSM-for-mental-illness/1/

Solarman, your attempt at critiquing the extreme left, no matter how valid it may or may not be, is entirely undermined when you simultaneously make ridiculous statements like "I really beleive [sic] that it should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM. this is NOT a joke. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this." You just make your own arguments seem ridiculous when you engage in such hyperbole. Exaggerating your criticisms to such extremes makes you seem to observers to be "foaming at the mouth"at least as much as those you critique. If you really want to convince anyone of anything at all, you would be wise to seek the "high ground" and be reasoned, moderate, balanced, and calm in your criticism, rather than responding to hate with more hate. Let's be clear about this. Real mental illnesses are not sociologically unique. They are, at least in principle, historically and culturally universal. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is specifically about a particular 21st-century politician--George W. Bush--and that in itself, regardless of any other issue, makes it inappropriate and useless for inclusion in the DSM, regardless of the other facts of the matter. Suppose there were a lot of people in the 1st century B.C. who'd been driven to apparent "derangement" by their hatred of Julius Caesar, going to ridiculous excesses in criticizing him--would that justify including "Julius Caesar Derangement Syndrome" in the DSM? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is not just some trivia book listing every mistaken or exaggerated belief which anyone has ever subscribed to. All of your arguments thus far have been beside-the-point, factually questionable, logically unconnected, rambling, and full of hate ("clinically insane dumbocraps"? are you serious?), hero worship (why should it matter if Bush is a "very genuinely nice person"? most good people would make terrible presidents), and blatant partisanship ("the leftist agruments [sic] are by their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil"?)--and pretty much everything _except_ even a smidgen of an attempt at the level of discipline and neutrality which even the soft sciences, like psychology, make. Your conclusions simply fail to follow from any of your premises, even ignoring how dubious many of those premises ("Stalinist tactics"? really now?) are. Your digressions, ranting, and overgeneralizations destroy your own argument much more effectively than I ever could. That aside, I wish you a very merry Christmas as well, and a happy New Year! :)

Rob

Solarman, your attempt at critiquing the extreme left, no matter how valid it may or may not be, is entirely undermined when you simultaneously make ridiculous statements like "I really beleive [sic] that it should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM. this is NOT a joke. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this." You just make your own arguments seem ridiculous when you engage in such hyperbole. Exaggerating your criticisms to such extremes makes you seem to observers to be "foaming at the mouth"at least as much as those you critique. If you really want to convince anyone of anything at all, you would be wise to seek the "high ground" and be reasoned, moderate, balanced, and calm in your criticism, rather than responding to hate with more hate. Let's be clear about this. Real mental illnesses are not sociologically unique. They are, at least in principle, historically and culturally universal. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is specifically about a particular 21st-century politician--George W. Bush--and that in itself, regardless of any other issue, makes it inappropriate and useless for inclusion in the DSM, regardless of the other facts of the matter. Suppose there were a lot of people in the 1st century B.C. who'd been driven to apparent "derangement" by their hatred of Julius Caesar, going to ridiculous excesses in criticizing him--would that justify including "Julius Caesar Derangement Syndrome" in the DSM? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is not just some trivia book listing every mistaken or exaggerated belief which anyone has ever subscribed to. All of your arguments thus far have been beside-the-point, factually questionable, logically unconnected, rambling, and full of hate ("clinically insane dumbocraps"? are you serious?), hero worship (why should it matter if Bush is a "very genuinely nice person"? most good people would make terrible presidents), and blatant partisanship ("the leftist agruments [sic] are by their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil"?)--and pretty much everything _except_ even a smidgen of an attempt at the level of discipline and neutrality which even the soft sciences, like psychology, make. Your conclusions simply fail to follow from any of your premises, even ignoring how dubious many of those premises ("Stalinist tactics"? really now?) are. Your digressions, ranting, and overgeneralizations destroy your own argument much more effectively than I ever could. That aside, I wish you a very merry Christmas as well, and a happy New Year! :)

Politics

Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-should-be-officially-classified-in-the-DSM-for-mental-illness/1/

BDS is so commonplace that it should be given offical designation and treated by waterboarding the libs : )

Solarman1969

BDS is so commonplace that it should be given offical designation and treated by waterboarding the libs : )

Politics

Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-should-be-officially-classified-in-the-DSM-for-mental-illness/1/

Well lets look at your arguments here and then I will in great detail show the incredible derangement of the Bush haters, and their mental illness as such, and why I really beleive that it should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM. this is NOT a joke. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this. they are DANGEROUS YOUR POINTS (1) " I think any reasonable person can agree that Bush is not the cause of all the world's ills " Well, Gee! Thanks Rob . Thats really big of you! You dont suffer from BDS! here I can assure you that a LARGE SEGMENT of democrats and hard core leftists DO think that Bush IS the cause of all the world ills, and the US by proxy. No question about it (some Cheney Derangement disorder as well) And would this not come under the legitmate terms of mental illness REF for rest of these arguments : <URL>... DELUSIONAL DISORDER PARNOIA RAGEAHOLIC YOUR NEXT POINT( 2) : Conversely, we can also agree that many of Bush's policies have proven ineffective, and that the controversy surrounding a lot of his programs and decisions is not pure hype. It doesn't take "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to be concerned about warrantless wiretapping, our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, or the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration. Ok, Rob I am going to ask you to give me a list of these things, after I pick apart your vague examples here. a) warrantless wiretapping there has been much BS about this. The feds have an absolute right to tap communications between people in this nation and foreign hostile entities with possible terorist links WITHOUT a lengthy warrant process. period. In order to tap YOUR phone, they need a warrant. period. Do you NOT want the feds to try and monitor and catch terrorists? If you dont, you are suicidal. And furthermore, do you think the feds and police have ANY interest in monitoring regular citizens, to try to catch you doing what ? or like they have them time and resources to monitor, say , leftist agitators who genuinely hate this country, but are no real threat to commit violence? b) our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, This is simply a matter of opinion. I happen to think our foreign policy right now is GREAT, BECAUSE we have has a president with morals, who has taken firm positions of strength, who hasnt wavered a bit and wont. I will point to recent events in FRANCE, where a CONSERVATIVE was elected, Sarkozy, and the great things he just said in his state visit with our fine president. We have never been closer. Ditto for Merkel and Germany. And look at Pakistan- Musharraf smartly sided with us quickly, and bravely, in fighting the terrorists in his midst. We are providing leadership to the world in the war with Islamic terrorists. and the list goes on. so youre just wrong, but again, this is a matter of opinion. But you certianly cant say that we havent been diplomatic with the UN and in middle east and in the rest of the world, whether or not you agree. c) the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration. OK, heres where you are going to have to come up with some FACTS, bud. What scandals? the firing of 8 corrupt attorneys? Plame ? give me a break. In another debate I brought up the very many REAL scandals and violations of the law and DEATHS involved in the Clinton administrations, that SHOULD give a democrat pause, but apparently do not, such is their LUST for POWER. CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER THAT DEMOCRATS IGNORE illegal contrubutions ; indictments ; people fleeing the country ; seizing of the FBI files on opponents ; hiring of secret police to intimidate; personal attorneys showing up with a gunshot to the head; commerce secretary under indictment- ditto. ; gassing and burning of 80 innocent men and women and children ; lying under oath etc etc a link : <URL>... now on "polticization" Mr Bush has BENT OVER BACKWARDS to try and be nice to the democrats, who have done nothing but DEMONIZE HIM. He never responds in kind to the vicious partisanship, and is very presidential in this regard. NEXT POINT "Bush Derangement Syndrome", a joke intended to poke fun at the extreme excesses of anti-Bush sentiment, obviously refers to a certain mindset or set of beliefs, not a distinct mental illness. There's nothing unique or special about people's attitudes towards Bush in this respect; prominent politicians frequently face vilification from their critics, or idealization from their supporters. I disagree, BDS does have MANY MANY chracteristics of mental illness, is NOT a joke, and has had VERY detrimental effects on the politics in our country. The main types of BDS is the 9/11 conspiracy theorists #1 the 9/11 crazies - this is the main source of my argument, and I assert that these types of people clearly suffer from PARANOIA AND DELUSION. these people are truly mentally ill and are numerous. There is another debate on this thread where some idiot tries to logically argue that the Twin Towers were bombed by OUR government, and the PA crash, Flt 93, and the pentagon crash, Flt 11 DIDINT REALLY happen and were really frauds by OUR GOVERNMENT. This is sick and those that fervently beleive this suffer from BDS and are mental cases who need help. Here is an article that completely summarizes the insanity of these people <URL>... Now, Rob, you sound reasonable and that you dont have BDS, but clearly you have to admit, if youre not an over the top partisan democrat that thinking 9/11 happened because , and I quote this above article, on the basic reasoning behond the 9/11 crazies. " A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for a New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq." now, are these people a "tiny minority" not unlike what many assert is the same with Islamists. the reasoning goes " yes, these people are insane and whacked, but dont represent mainstream Democrats and Muslims " etc . I dont think so. this is a MAINSTREAM DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT that is POISONING debate, 0 % of republicans and about 30% of democrats fit this profile, which is insane, delusional, paranoid, and mentally ill. I can point to many other examples of BDS- rooted in the notion that Bush is an evil person who is singularly responsible for all the ills of the world and who is a blood thirsty war monger that only cares out his oil buddies. The point is that DEMOCRATS are trying to INFLAME these insane notions to try and get POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, and get more votes. they have succeeded to some degree, but now it is coming back to bite them, since Moveon.org and Codepink and the other far lefties are embarrassing them with their actions thats why this is an important topic- these people are DANGEROUS TO THIS NATION becuase they exert great influence on the democrat party, and are causing GREAT HARM to our NATIONAL SECURITY why do you think the democrats have had 60 votes to force defeat in Iraq? why are they against the patriot act and all other intel gathering? why do they constantly assault this president (and VP) and use increasingly vulgar terms to do so? becuase of BDS, which is a virulent mental illness, which has infected the body politic this illness needs to be properly addressed and treated.

Solarman1969

Well lets look at your arguments here and then I will in great detail show the incredible derangement of the Bush haters, and their mental illness as such, and why I really beleive that it should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM. this is NOT a joke. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this. they are DANGEROUS YOUR POINTS (1) " I think any reasonable person can agree that Bush is not the cause of all the world's ills " Well, Gee! Thanks Rob . Thats really big of you! You dont suffer from BDS! here I can assure you that a LARGE SEGMENT of democrats and hard core leftists DO think that Bush IS the cause of all the world ills, and the US by proxy. No question about it (some Cheney Derangement disorder as well) And would this not come under the legitmate terms of mental illness REF for rest of these arguments : http://en.wikipedia.org... DELUSIONAL DISORDER PARNOIA RAGEAHOLIC YOUR NEXT POINT( 2) : Conversely, we can also agree that many of Bush's policies have proven ineffective, and that the controversy surrounding a lot of his programs and decisions is not pure hype. It doesn't take "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to be concerned about warrantless wiretapping, our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, or the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration. Ok, Rob I am going to ask you to give me a list of these things, after I pick apart your vague examples here. a) warrantless wiretapping there has been much BS about this. The feds have an absolute right to tap communications between people in this nation and foreign hostile entities with possible terorist links WITHOUT a lengthy warrant process. period. In order to tap YOUR phone, they need a warrant. period. Do you NOT want the feds to try and monitor and catch terrorists? If you dont, you are suicidal. And furthermore, do you think the feds and police have ANY interest in monitoring regular citizens, to try to catch you doing what ? or like they have them time and resources to monitor, say , leftist agitators who genuinely hate this country, but are no real threat to commit violence? b) our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, This is simply a matter of opinion. I happen to think our foreign policy right now is GREAT, BECAUSE we have has a president with morals, who has taken firm positions of strength, who hasnt wavered a bit and wont. I will point to recent events in FRANCE, where a CONSERVATIVE was elected, Sarkozy, and the great things he just said in his state visit with our fine president. We have never been closer. Ditto for Merkel and Germany. And look at Pakistan- Musharraf smartly sided with us quickly, and bravely, in fighting the terrorists in his midst. We are providing leadership to the world in the war with Islamic terrorists. and the list goes on. so youre just wrong, but again, this is a matter of opinion. But you certianly cant say that we havent been diplomatic with the UN and in middle east and in the rest of the world, whether or not you agree. c) the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration. OK, heres where you are going to have to come up with some FACTS, bud. What scandals? the firing of 8 corrupt attorneys? Plame ? give me a break. In another debate I brought up the very many REAL scandals and violations of the law and DEATHS involved in the Clinton administrations, that SHOULD give a democrat pause, but apparently do not, such is their LUST for POWER. CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER THAT DEMOCRATS IGNORE illegal contrubutions ; indictments ; people fleeing the country ; seizing of the FBI files on opponents ; hiring of secret police to intimidate; personal attorneys showing up with a gunshot to the head; commerce secretary under indictment- ditto. ; gassing and burning of 80 innocent men and women and children ; lying under oath etc etc a link : http://members.tripod.com... now on "polticization" Mr Bush has BENT OVER BACKWARDS to try and be nice to the democrats, who have done nothing but DEMONIZE HIM. He never responds in kind to the vicious partisanship, and is very presidential in this regard. NEXT POINT "Bush Derangement Syndrome", a joke intended to poke fun at the extreme excesses of anti-Bush sentiment, obviously refers to a certain mindset or set of beliefs, not a distinct mental illness. There's nothing unique or special about people's attitudes towards Bush in this respect; prominent politicians frequently face vilification from their critics, or idealization from their supporters. I disagree, BDS does have MANY MANY chracteristics of mental illness, is NOT a joke, and has had VERY detrimental effects on the politics in our country. The main types of BDS is the 9/11 conspiracy theorists #1 the 9/11 crazies - this is the main source of my argument, and I assert that these types of people clearly suffer from PARANOIA AND DELUSION. these people are truly mentally ill and are numerous. There is another debate on this thread where some idiot tries to logically argue that the Twin Towers were bombed by OUR government, and the PA crash, Flt 93, and the pentagon crash, Flt 11 DIDINT REALLY happen and were really frauds by OUR GOVERNMENT. This is sick and those that fervently beleive this suffer from BDS and are mental cases who need help. Here is an article that completely summarizes the insanity of these people http://www.alternet.org... Now, Rob, you sound reasonable and that you dont have BDS, but clearly you have to admit, if youre not an over the top partisan democrat that thinking 9/11 happened because , and I quote this above article, on the basic reasoning behond the 9/11 crazies. " A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for a New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq." now, are these people a "tiny minority" not unlike what many assert is the same with Islamists. the reasoning goes " yes, these people are insane and whacked, but dont represent mainstream Democrats and Muslims " etc . I dont think so. this is a MAINSTREAM DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT that is POISONING debate, 0 % of republicans and about 30% of democrats fit this profile, which is insane, delusional, paranoid, and mentally ill. I can point to many other examples of BDS- rooted in the notion that Bush is an evil person who is singularly responsible for all the ills of the world and who is a blood thirsty war monger that only cares out his oil buddies. The point is that DEMOCRATS are trying to INFLAME these insane notions to try and get POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, and get more votes. they have succeeded to some degree, but now it is coming back to bite them, since Moveon.org and Codepink and the other far lefties are embarrassing them with their actions thats why this is an important topic- these people are DANGEROUS TO THIS NATION becuase they exert great influence on the democrat party, and are causing GREAT HARM to our NATIONAL SECURITY why do you think the democrats have had 60 votes to force defeat in Iraq? why are they against the patriot act and all other intel gathering? why do they constantly assault this president (and VP) and use increasingly vulgar terms to do so? becuase of BDS, which is a virulent mental illness, which has infected the body politic this illness needs to be properly addressed and treated.

Politics

Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-should-be-officially-classified-in-the-DSM-for-mental-illness/1/

Seasons Greetings, Rob. Of course you wont answer any of the points I bring up or why. Altough I am a bit tongue in cheek about this argument, nonetheless, the point about the mainstream democrats descending into completely irrational foaming at the mouth rhetoric about Bush, the level of hatred for him, and the level of belief about wacky conspiracy theories re : 9/11 wiretapping and surveillance civil liberties and habeus corpus violations and so on clearly show a level of rage and paranoia that meets DSM stadards for several disorders I listed previously the saddest thing about it, which always accompanies mentally ill people, is that the actual work that needs to be done in congress is not getting done, and if a very genuinely nice person like George Walker Bush can be Stalinized (see my other debate about the democrats Stalinist tactics)it is a sad state of affairs that isnt likely to improve soon Now the question is, will the partisan democrats, who can completely over look felonies and gross viiolations of both civil liberites and the law by their own party (the Clintons) , but can try to impeach Bush over non - events like the Plame BS or firing of attorneys or the CIA doing its job Will these clinically insane dumbocraps then just switch gears and use all the same lines and accusations against Romney, Guiliani or Thompson? Becuase FOR SURE George W Bush is NOT on the ballot in 08, and there WILL BE another republican in the office in 09. the DNC will of course try to tie every republican to Bush, as they have poisioned the well agsinst him among the BDS crowd, but that wont work If they do just turn in one day from BDS to RDS or GDS, then I will have my PROOF that these people are actually insane and need treatment. And once again, you will see in my arguments with liberals, they cannot refute any of the facts, or come up with any legit arguments, but merely try to attack ME and MY MOTIVES and generalize, which is what people with no knowledge and experience do (leftists) Of course, Rob, Im sure you will win the popular vote with the teenagers who vote on this silly site. Someday there will be some actual intellectuals to debate with There are PRECIOUS FEW of them on the left,since the leftist agruments are by their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil. MERRY CHRISTMAS ! solarman

Solarman1969

Seasons Greetings, Rob. Of course you wont answer any of the points I bring up or why. Altough I am a bit tongue in cheek about this argument, nonetheless, the point about the mainstream democrats descending into completely irrational foaming at the mouth rhetoric about Bush, the level of hatred for him, and the level of belief about wacky conspiracy theories re : 9/11 wiretapping and surveillance civil liberties and habeus corpus violations and so on clearly show a level of rage and paranoia that meets DSM stadards for several disorders I listed previously the saddest thing about it, which always accompanies mentally ill people, is that the actual work that needs to be done in congress is not getting done, and if a very genuinely nice person like George Walker Bush can be Stalinized (see my other debate about the democrats Stalinist tactics)it is a sad state of affairs that isnt likely to improve soon Now the question is, will the partisan democrats, who can completely over look felonies and gross viiolations of both civil liberites and the law by their own party (the Clintons) , but can try to impeach Bush over non - events like the Plame BS or firing of attorneys or the CIA doing its job Will these clinically insane dumbocraps then just switch gears and use all the same lines and accusations against Romney, Guiliani or Thompson? Becuase FOR SURE George W Bush is NOT on the ballot in 08, and there WILL BE another republican in the office in 09. the DNC will of course try to tie every republican to Bush, as they have poisioned the well agsinst him among the BDS crowd, but that wont work If they do just turn in one day from BDS to RDS or GDS, then I will have my PROOF that these people are actually insane and need treatment. And once again, you will see in my arguments with liberals, they cannot refute any of the facts, or come up with any legit arguments, but merely try to attack ME and MY MOTIVES and generalize, which is what people with no knowledge and experience do (leftists) Of course, Rob, Im sure you will win the popular vote with the teenagers who vote on this silly site. Someday there will be some actual intellectuals to debate with There are PRECIOUS FEW of them on the left,since the leftist agruments are by their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil. MERRY CHRISTMAS ! solarman

Politics

Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-should-be-officially-classified-in-the-DSM-for-mental-illness/1/

Pro provided no definition of what criteria he used to provide his opinion of the "worst" president. In a democracy, I think the most important criteria is whether the candidate provided an accurate description of how he would govern. If the candidate provides an accurate description of his vision and that vision turns out to be a poor prescription for government then the fault lies more with the electorate than the candidate. For good or ill, the electorate should, most importantly, get what they bargained for. I grant that having a poor vision is a detriment, but it is not the primary one. President Bush scores very well on his promises. Bush promised a Medicare prescription drug entitlement and an expanding Federal role in education. Bush delivered on both promises, working with Democrats to enact the legislation. Conservatives disapproved, but the electorate got what they were promised. On the foreign policy front, no one thought for a minute that Bush would start by having an apology tour. No one confused Dick Chaney with Joe Biden. Americans got what they were promised. Moreover, Bush was re-elected, clearly reflecting the fact that they got what was promise and were not terribly displeased with it. Of course, leftists were and still are outraged. That's not Bush's fault. That is a consequence of their beliefs. President Obama is the worst president of modern times because he has governed contrary to what he promised from the day he took office. <URL>... He expressed generally leftist policy preferences, but not to worry, he assured Americans, because everything would be done on a bipartisan basis. He promised explicitly never to use the reconciliation process, because that would be contrary to the principle of bipartisanship. <URL>... Obamacare was jammed through under reconciliation. Early in the health care debate, Senate Republicans made regular requests to meet with the President to present their ideas for compromise legislation. Obama steadfastly refused to meet, and never did. There was a one-day "summit" designed as a stunt to give the appearance that the President was willing listening, but it was proved irrelevant to the legislation that was passed. Obama promised to have all the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, but did not. <URL>... The numerous payoffs like the union exemption the tax on Cadillac health care plans and the Florida exemption to the discontinuation of Medicare Advantage were negotiated in secrecy. Obama's failure to govern as promised was a matter of his choosing, and so inexcusable. He could have met with Republicans if he chose to; he could have promised to veto any legislation passed under reconciliation; and he could have made the health care negotiation transparent. His pattern is consistent. The "czar" system of governing prevents appointees from being questioned by Republicans in Congress. <URL>... Obama chooses not to make those as conventional appointments. Pro has the burden of proof in the debate. He must prove to the audience of the debate that the resolution should be affirmed. Pro has not presented a case. He presents a reading list and invites us to construct his case for him. Of Pro's 20-some references, all but three are opinion pieces on the "World Socialist Web Site, Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)." For example, they tell us about "Bush, Clinton and the crimes of US imperialism in Haiti." Shocking how that Bill Clinton committed crimes of imperialism, right? He also cites a diatribe from a Pakistani paper. Since Pro has not made a case, I have no obligation to refute it. However, let's pretend he did make a case and used the polls of historians cited in his first two references to show Bush was poorly ranked. The first, a opinion piece in the Washington Post, includes the caution, "Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken [60 yeas ago], the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated 'near great.' Today, by contrast, scholars consider ... Johnson a flat failure." Not long ago, a Chinese historian was asked what he thought of the American Revolution. He said, "It's too soon to tell." Recently the public approval ratings of George Bush edged past the approval rating of President Obama, 44% to 43%. It's difficult to assess the policy repercussions of presidents in less than a hundred years. If Iraq turns out to be a successful democracy and spurs the spread of democracy in the Middle East, overcoming terrorism in the process, then Bush will rank as on of our greatest President's. If Obama produces a lasting paradise in the United States, then he will be right up there. Right now, the odds look better for Iraq than hope-and-change, but we'll have to wait to know for sure. Since we cannot tell for sure how policies will be viewed over time, I proposed campaign honesty as the criteria. The historian's polled are all academics, and probably left-leaning. That is because confirmed sighting of right-wingers in academia are extraordinarily rare. The historian polls were before Obama had been in office, and Obama's demonstrated incompetence has soured even leftists. Even they do not appreciate his lack of bipartisanship and transparency. Neither poll is a scientific survey, and the second, the History News Network poll, is explicitly proclaimed informal and and unscientific. A scientific survey would have to include all historians, not just selected ones in leftist academia. These types of polls down rate Reagan and give high marks to Clinton and even Eisenhower. They are polls of ideology. Con concludes with a list of false charges against Bush, none supported by other than the opinions of the World Socialists. Bush was a middle-of-the-road president. He expanded social welfare programs and gave unprecedented aid to Africa. He had a tough foreign policy against despots and terrorists, which is what people wanted and still want. a. Bush's key support came from the manufacturing and industrial sector. Obama's key support is from trial lawyers and unions. Bush's favored sectors are far more in line with the best interests of the country than Obama's. b. Bush did not lie about the threat of WMDs in Iraq. It turned out that Saddam ad deliberately leaked false data to make it appear that he had WMDs. Saddam thought this would deter Iran, while thinking the US would never invade under any circumstances. c. Bush cut taxes across the board. The high bracket was cut from 39.6% to 35% while the lowest bracket was cut more dramatically, from 15% to 10%. <URL>... d. Enhanced interrogation causes no permanent injury. If lives are in immediate danger, as they were, enhanced interrogation is morally justified, and, as liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz argues, morally compelled to save innocents. <URL>... The American public approved and continues to approve. e. Bush did not ostracize all who opposed him. He worked with Ted Kennedy on education reform, and the War resolutions were overwhelmingly bipartisan. The revised system of military tribunals was broadly bipartisan, as was the drug benefit. Pro has offered his opinions, but has not made a case. On policy issues, it will be many decades before history can judge. The one thing we can judge is campaign honesty, and Obama is much worse than Bush. The resolution is negated.

RoyLatham

Pro provided no definition of what criteria he used to provide his opinion of the "worst" president. In a democracy, I think the most important criteria is whether the candidate provided an accurate description of how he would govern. If the candidate provides an accurate description of his vision and that vision turns out to be a poor prescription for government then the fault lies more with the electorate than the candidate. For good or ill, the electorate should, most importantly, get what they bargained for. I grant that having a poor vision is a detriment, but it is not the primary one. President Bush scores very well on his promises. Bush promised a Medicare prescription drug entitlement and an expanding Federal role in education. Bush delivered on both promises, working with Democrats to enact the legislation. Conservatives disapproved, but the electorate got what they were promised. On the foreign policy front, no one thought for a minute that Bush would start by having an apology tour. No one confused Dick Chaney with Joe Biden. Americans got what they were promised. Moreover, Bush was re-elected, clearly reflecting the fact that they got what was promise and were not terribly displeased with it. Of course, leftists were and still are outraged. That's not Bush's fault. That is a consequence of their beliefs. President Obama is the worst president of modern times because he has governed contrary to what he promised from the day he took office. http://www.cato.org... He expressed generally leftist policy preferences, but not to worry, he assured Americans, because everything would be done on a bipartisan basis. He promised explicitly never to use the reconciliation process, because that would be contrary to the principle of bipartisanship. http://www.washingtontimes.com... Obamacare was jammed through under reconciliation. Early in the health care debate, Senate Republicans made regular requests to meet with the President to present their ideas for compromise legislation. Obama steadfastly refused to meet, and never did. There was a one-day "summit" designed as a stunt to give the appearance that the President was willing listening, but it was proved irrelevant to the legislation that was passed. Obama promised to have all the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, but did not. http://tinyurl.com... The numerous payoffs like the union exemption the tax on Cadillac health care plans and the Florida exemption to the discontinuation of Medicare Advantage were negotiated in secrecy. Obama's failure to govern as promised was a matter of his choosing, and so inexcusable. He could have met with Republicans if he chose to; he could have promised to veto any legislation passed under reconciliation; and he could have made the health care negotiation transparent. His pattern is consistent. The "czar" system of governing prevents appointees from being questioned by Republicans in Congress. http://www.judicialwatch.org... Obama chooses not to make those as conventional appointments. Pro has the burden of proof in the debate. He must prove to the audience of the debate that the resolution should be affirmed. Pro has not presented a case. He presents a reading list and invites us to construct his case for him. Of Pro's 20-some references, all but three are opinion pieces on the "World Socialist Web Site, Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)." For example, they tell us about "Bush, Clinton and the crimes of US imperialism in Haiti." Shocking how that Bill Clinton committed crimes of imperialism, right? He also cites a diatribe from a Pakistani paper. Since Pro has not made a case, I have no obligation to refute it. However, let's pretend he did make a case and used the polls of historians cited in his first two references to show Bush was poorly ranked. The first, a opinion piece in the Washington Post, includes the caution, "Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken [60 yeas ago], the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated 'near great.' Today, by contrast, scholars consider ... Johnson a flat failure." Not long ago, a Chinese historian was asked what he thought of the American Revolution. He said, "It's too soon to tell." Recently the public approval ratings of George Bush edged past the approval rating of President Obama, 44% to 43%. It's difficult to assess the policy repercussions of presidents in less than a hundred years. If Iraq turns out to be a successful democracy and spurs the spread of democracy in the Middle East, overcoming terrorism in the process, then Bush will rank as on of our greatest President's. If Obama produces a lasting paradise in the United States, then he will be right up there. Right now, the odds look better for Iraq than hope-and-change, but we'll have to wait to know for sure. Since we cannot tell for sure how policies will be viewed over time, I proposed campaign honesty as the criteria. The historian's polled are all academics, and probably left-leaning. That is because confirmed sighting of right-wingers in academia are extraordinarily rare. The historian polls were before Obama had been in office, and Obama's demonstrated incompetence has soured even leftists. Even they do not appreciate his lack of bipartisanship and transparency. Neither poll is a scientific survey, and the second, the History News Network poll, is explicitly proclaimed informal and and unscientific. A scientific survey would have to include all historians, not just selected ones in leftist academia. These types of polls down rate Reagan and give high marks to Clinton and even Eisenhower. They are polls of ideology. Con concludes with a list of false charges against Bush, none supported by other than the opinions of the World Socialists. Bush was a middle-of-the-road president. He expanded social welfare programs and gave unprecedented aid to Africa. He had a tough foreign policy against despots and terrorists, which is what people wanted and still want. a. Bush's key support came from the manufacturing and industrial sector. Obama's key support is from trial lawyers and unions. Bush's favored sectors are far more in line with the best interests of the country than Obama's. b. Bush did not lie about the threat of WMDs in Iraq. It turned out that Saddam ad deliberately leaked false data to make it appear that he had WMDs. Saddam thought this would deter Iran, while thinking the US would never invade under any circumstances. c. Bush cut taxes across the board. The high bracket was cut from 39.6% to 35% while the lowest bracket was cut more dramatically, from 15% to 10%. http://tinyurl.com... d. Enhanced interrogation causes no permanent injury. If lives are in immediate danger, as they were, enhanced interrogation is morally justified, and, as liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz argues, morally compelled to save innocents. http://tinyurl.com... The American public approved and continues to approve. e. Bush did not ostracize all who opposed him. He worked with Ted Kennedy on education reform, and the War resolutions were overwhelmingly bipartisan. The revised system of military tribunals was broadly bipartisan, as was the drug benefit. Pro has offered his opinions, but has not made a case. On policy issues, it will be many decades before history can judge. The one thing we can judge is campaign honesty, and Obama is much worse than Bush. The resolution is negated.

Politics

Bush-was-the-worst-modern-U.S.-president./1/

I thought if I gave Pro an example of debate, he might be prompted to try it. It involves defining what you are saying, forming contentions, and then trying to prove those contentions using referenced facts and making arguments from the facts. Pro doesn't want to debate. He wants to express his feelings. Maybe his mother cares.

RoyLatham

I thought if I gave Pro an example of debate, he might be prompted to try it. It involves defining what you are saying, forming contentions, and then trying to prove those contentions using referenced facts and making arguments from the facts. Pro doesn't want to debate. He wants to express his feelings. Maybe his mother cares.

Politics

Bush-was-the-worst-modern-U.S.-president./1/

The Affordable Care Act requires businesses to provide birth control products to their employees. Many religious business owners have a problem with this, and want it to stop. I as Con want this requirement to go out of effect, Pro must want the opposite. First Round will be for acceptance. Otherwise the debate format is unstructured. Please note the 48 hour response time limit.

MyDinosaurHands

The Affordable Care Act requires businesses to provide birth control products to their employees. Many religious business owners have a problem with this, and want it to stop. I as Con want this requirement to go out of effect, Pro must want the opposite. First Round will be for acceptance. Otherwise the debate format is unstructured. Please note the 48 hour response time limit.

Politics

Businesses-Providing-Birth-Control-Products/1/

Until my opponent rebuttals my arguments, people will most likely find my arguments simple and straightforward, as I believe this matter is decided easily by a few factors. 1) Religious Freedom The right to religious freedom is found in our First Amendment[1]. It protects religious establishments from being impeded from practicing their beliefs, or suffering due to their beliefs. If Christian business owners had to purchase insurance packages that provided services and items their religion considered to be intrinsically immoral, that would be an example of Christians being impeded from practicing their religion's belief. If this mandate for insurance with contraceptives was only applied to public institutions, to government institutions, that would be a different matter. However this isn't the case, and private businesses should not be forced to act in violation of their beliefs. 2) Price of non-compliance My opponent mentioned that businesses are not required to provide these birth control services to their employees. This is true, they are required to either provide the mandated insurance packages or to pay fines, but the fines involved put businesses between a rock and a hard place. The fines would wreck just about any business. The way this is set up, it might as well be between two options: 1) Violate your beliefs, or 2) Be so heavily fined your business is likely to fail. The fine is $100 (on average) per employee not covered properly according to the mandate, per day[2]. An example of the damage this can cause to a business is found in this link. One man's business could lose over 9 millions dollars in a year if he follows his faith[2]. Refer back to those two options. Either would be an example of a violation of the First Amendment. Christian business owners will either be forced to violate their beliefs or be severely punished for staying true to their beliefs. 3) Discrimination in Hiring Consider this. If a new government mandate requires businesses to provide items and services to women that they consider to be immoral, isn't there a possibility for gender discrimination? Definitely not in all businesses, but it isn't unrealistic to suggest you would see businesses hiring men instead of women to avoid covering costs of birth control insurances. Many people may point to the laws in place to prevent hiring/workplace discrimination[3][4]. While businesses must technically follow these rules, they can come up with legally acceptable reasons for why a person who they are in reality illegally discriminating against should not be hired. Take Hooters for example. Technically they're not allowed to discriminate based on age or weight, but you haven't seen any 55 year old, 290lb waitresses there, have you? Given their uniforms, I certainly hope not. ------Conclusion------ Private businesses should be protected from these mandates of the ACA, as they violate their First Amendment Right. To comply with this mandate would be to not practice your faith, and to resist the mandate would be financially disastrous. Whichever option is taken, the First Amendment is being violated. If these requirements weren't removed, there is the possibility for an increase in gender discrimination in hiring. Sources: [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

MyDinosaurHands

Until my opponent rebuttals my arguments, people will most likely find my arguments simple and straightforward, as I believe this matter is decided easily by a few factors. 1) Religious Freedom The right to religious freedom is found in our First Amendment[1]. It protects religious establishments from being impeded from practicing their beliefs, or suffering due to their beliefs. If Christian business owners had to purchase insurance packages that provided services and items their religion considered to be intrinsically immoral, that would be an example of Christians being impeded from practicing their religion's belief. If this mandate for insurance with contraceptives was only applied to public institutions, to government institutions, that would be a different matter. However this isn't the case, and private businesses should not be forced to act in violation of their beliefs. 2) Price of non-compliance My opponent mentioned that businesses are not required to provide these birth control services to their employees. This is true, they are required to either provide the mandated insurance packages or to pay fines, but the fines involved put businesses between a rock and a hard place. The fines would wreck just about any business. The way this is set up, it might as well be between two options: 1) Violate your beliefs, or 2) Be so heavily fined your business is likely to fail. The fine is $100 (on average) per employee not covered properly according to the mandate, per day[2]. An example of the damage this can cause to a business is found in this link. One man's business could lose over 9 millions dollars in a year if he follows his faith[2]. Refer back to those two options. Either would be an example of a violation of the First Amendment. Christian business owners will either be forced to violate their beliefs or be severely punished for staying true to their beliefs. 3) Discrimination in Hiring Consider this. If a new government mandate requires businesses to provide items and services to women that they consider to be immoral, isn't there a possibility for gender discrimination? Definitely not in all businesses, but it isn't unrealistic to suggest you would see businesses hiring men instead of women to avoid covering costs of birth control insurances. Many people may point to the laws in place to prevent hiring/workplace discrimination[3][4]. While businesses must technically follow these rules, they can come up with legally acceptable reasons for why a person who they are in reality illegally discriminating against should not be hired. Take Hooters for example. Technically they're not allowed to discriminate based on age or weight, but you haven't seen any 55 year old, 290lb waitresses there, have you? Given their uniforms, I certainly hope not. ------Conclusion------ Private businesses should be protected from these mandates of the ACA, as they violate their First Amendment Right. To comply with this mandate would be to not practice your faith, and to resist the mandate would be financially disastrous. Whichever option is taken, the First Amendment is being violated. If these requirements weren't removed, there is the possibility for an increase in gender discrimination in hiring. Sources: [1] http://constitution.laws.com... [2] http://dailycaller.com... [3] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [4] http://www.eeoc.gov...

Politics

Businesses-Providing-Birth-Control-Products/1/

Rebuttal 1: 'Employees have earned their health care benefits' As long as employees have performed the tasks their job requires, then they earn their wages and health care benefits. But the employers, who set the required tasks, also get to set the rewards as they please. If potential workers don't like what's being offered, then they don't have to take the job. Rebuttal 2: 'Employers do not have the right to restrict how employees spend their salary' My opponent second point is that employers can't tell their employees how to spend their money. This is definitely true, however I don't believe this should sway anybody's opinion in favor of Pro. And it is for this reason: employers can still decide what to give their employees. They can't tell their employees what to do with what they give them, but they can control what they give them. What is given lies in the responsibility of the employers, what is done with what is given, is the responsibility of employees. The next thing I'd like to refute is a single sentence out of this argument, whose refutation I think needs a little space. "Employers cannot take away part of the employee's indirect compensation that they are legally entitled to." The part of this that needs discussion is the mention of legal entitlement. I don't think this is something that needs to be considered when deciding whether or not the situation at hand is right, because if it is wrong, and if enough people bring the argument to others and convince them, the law can be changed. In this debate, it doesn't matter what the law is, because this is over whether or not the law is right. Next my opponent makes several examples to illustrate his point, and after finishing them says, "This kind of logic does not make sense." I assume my opponent is referring to how his examples cannot be acceptable and yet the one at hand should be. If that was what my position was, then yes, it wouldn't make sense. However, I don't think his examples are showing employers acting in the wrong, or potential tax payers acting in the wrong. I see people acting according to their beliefs. Certainly, a Jehovah's witness employer can restrict access to a service he believes is immoral. And no, a pacifist should not have to help fund violence. I have more to say on this but I will save it for my closing round. Rebuttal 3, 'price of non-compliance' I return to my idea of this debate about this being about whether or not the law should be around, or whether or not it is right. To say my opponent says the democratic process should be used to change the law. Yes, I agree. I do not believe this argument changes anything within the debate. Rebuttal 4, 'Religious freedom of employees' Next my opponent gives an example of an employee whose religion mandates they get an abortion in a certain scenario. I do not believe this situation puts the argument in my opponent's favor however. The nice thing about America is that through our freedoms allowed to us, there is a host of options out there for people. Not every employer is religious, or allows their religious preferences to influence insurances services. People can review the options for insurance and choose what's best for them.

MyDinosaurHands

Rebuttal 1: 'Employees have earned their health care benefits' As long as employees have performed the tasks their job requires, then they earn their wages and health care benefits. But the employers, who set the required tasks, also get to set the rewards as they please. If potential workers don't like what's being offered, then they don't have to take the job. Rebuttal 2: 'Employers do not have the right to restrict how employees spend their salary' My opponent second point is that employers can't tell their employees how to spend their money. This is definitely true, however I don't believe this should sway anybody's opinion in favor of Pro. And it is for this reason: employers can still decide what to give their employees. They can't tell their employees what to do with what they give them, but they can control what they give them. What is given lies in the responsibility of the employers, what is done with what is given, is the responsibility of employees. The next thing I'd like to refute is a single sentence out of this argument, whose refutation I think needs a little space. "Employers cannot take away part of the employee's indirect compensation that they are legally entitled to." The part of this that needs discussion is the mention of legal entitlement. I don't think this is something that needs to be considered when deciding whether or not the situation at hand is right, because if it is wrong, and if enough people bring the argument to others and convince them, the law can be changed. In this debate, it doesn't matter what the law is, because this is over whether or not the law is right. Next my opponent makes several examples to illustrate his point, and after finishing them says, "This kind of logic does not make sense." I assume my opponent is referring to how his examples cannot be acceptable and yet the one at hand should be. If that was what my position was, then yes, it wouldn't make sense. However, I don't think his examples are showing employers acting in the wrong, or potential tax payers acting in the wrong. I see people acting according to their beliefs. Certainly, a Jehovah's witness employer can restrict access to a service he believes is immoral. And no, a pacifist should not have to help fund violence. I have more to say on this but I will save it for my closing round. Rebuttal 3, 'price of non-compliance' I return to my idea of this debate about this being about whether or not the law should be around, or whether or not it is right. To say my opponent says the democratic process should be used to change the law. Yes, I agree. I do not believe this argument changes anything within the debate. Rebuttal 4, 'Religious freedom of employees' Next my opponent gives an example of an employee whose religion mandates they get an abortion in a certain scenario. I do not believe this situation puts the argument in my opponent's favor however. The nice thing about America is that through our freedoms allowed to us, there is a host of options out there for people. Not every employer is religious, or allows their religious preferences to influence insurances services. People can review the options for insurance and choose what's best for them.

Politics

Businesses-Providing-Birth-Control-Products/1/

I will be arguing that God, defined as a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect in all logically possible worlds, must exist by definition. First round is acceptance.

Installgentoo

I will be arguing that God, defined as a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect in all logically possible worlds, must exist by definition. First round is acceptance.

Religion

By-definition-God-must-exist/1/

The argument that God as defined in the OP must exist goes like so; 1) God is a maximally great being (he has all the great-making properties possible for a being). 2) It is better for a being to be necessarily existent than to not exist C. Therefore God necessarily exists. This argument was proven by Anselm. [1] Footnotes [1] <URL>...

Installgentoo

The argument that God as defined in the OP must exist goes like so; 1) God is a maximally great being (he has all the great-making properties possible for a being). 2) It is better for a being to be necessarily existent than to not exist C. Therefore God necessarily exists. This argument was proven by Anselm. [1] Footnotes [1] https://www.youtube.com...

Religion

By-definition-God-must-exist/1/

Okay, I would like to correct my second premise as "it is greater for a being to necessarily exist than to not exist". This is shown in the YouTube video and also more generally in other works dealing with the ontological argument. Alright, now the conclusion follows.

Installgentoo

Okay, I would like to correct my second premise as "it is greater for a being to necessarily exist than to not exist". This is shown in the YouTube video and also more generally in other works dealing with the ontological argument. Alright, now the conclusion follows.

Religion

By-definition-God-must-exist/1/

I haven't been watching WWE for very long, but when I first watched it I knew that CM Punk was very macho. "He must be the most macho thing ever!" I thought to myself. That would mean that he'd be more powerful than God. Con may point out that CM Punk lost to the undertaker, but everybody knows that CM Punk let the undertaker win because otherwise he would cry. I thank you.

KingDebater

I haven't been watching WWE for very long, but when I first watched it I knew that CM Punk was very macho. "He must be the most macho thing ever!" I thought to myself. That would mean that he'd be more powerful than God. Con may point out that CM Punk lost to the undertaker, but everybody knows that CM Punk let the undertaker win because otherwise he would cry. I thank you.

Sports

CM-Punk-is-more-powerful-than-God./1/

I'd like to remind my opponent that it is not up to him to define anything, as he is the contender. God shall be defined as a being who created the universe. Who is there? Nobody really even knows if God is actually existing, and you can't be powerful at all if you don't exist. This is a major point in favour of CM Punk being more powerful than God. First, Con will have to prove that God exists. CM Punk told a lie? OMG! Not really, but recently, CM Punk stated "I am a higher power" [1]. But how do we know if he was telling the truth or not? Well, lies skyrocket when someone's self-esteem is threatened [2], but CM Punk said it confidently, so it's probably a fact. We don't really know whether God is a higher power or not, so we'll compromise and say that God is half a higher power. This means that CM Punk is more powerful than God. CM Punk doesn't drink! As it is understood, CM Punk is straight edge, meaning he doesn't smoke, drink or do drugs. All of these can make you less powerful (e.g. being drunk and breaking your limbs). Since we have no evidence for or against God being straight edge, we will compromise and say he is half straight edge. This means that it's likely that CM Punk is more powerful than God. CM Punk isn't an old geezer! There isn't any evidence for or against God ageing, so we'll say he half-ages. Scientists know that the universe is well old, so if God created it, he must be well old too. Plus, everyone knows that old people are very weak, so God must be weak too. Whereas CM Punk is something like 34. Conclusion I have given very good arguments to support my case. Sources [1] <URL>... ; [2] <URL>...

KingDebater

I'd like to remind my opponent that it is not up to him to define anything, as he is the contender. God shall be defined as a being who created the universe. Who is there? Nobody really even knows if God is actually existing, and you can't be powerful at all if you don't exist. This is a major point in favour of CM Punk being more powerful than God. First, Con will have to prove that God exists. CM Punk told a lie? OMG! Not really, but recently, CM Punk stated "I am a higher power" [1]. But how do we know if he was telling the truth or not? Well, lies skyrocket when someone's self-esteem is threatened [2], but CM Punk said it confidently, so it's probably a fact. We don't really know whether God is a higher power or not, so we'll compromise and say that God is half a higher power. This means that CM Punk is more powerful than God. CM Punk doesn't drink! As it is understood, CM Punk is straight edge, meaning he doesn't smoke, drink or do drugs. All of these can make you less powerful (e.g. being drunk and breaking your limbs). Since we have no evidence for or against God being straight edge, we will compromise and say he is half straight edge. This means that it's likely that CM Punk is more powerful than God. CM Punk isn't an old geezer! There isn't any evidence for or against God ageing, so we'll say he half-ages. Scientists know that the universe is well old, so if God created it, he must be well old too. Plus, everyone knows that old people are very weak, so God must be weak too. Whereas CM Punk is something like 34. Conclusion I have given very good arguments to support my case. Sources [1] https://www.facebook.com... ; [2] http://www.livescience.com...

Sports

CM-Punk-is-more-powerful-than-God./1/

CM punk; although he maybe a powerful human, cannot possibly be more powerful than the omnipresent, omniscient and Omnipotent God. First off you cannot perform a GTS on an omnipresent force. As you obviously have the intelligence of a 9 year old i shall explain these terms to you. Omnipresent means that he is in all places at once, meaning he is behind you, in front of you, next to you, above you and below you (yeah that's right you're floating, see how powerful this guy is?). Omniscient means all-knowing, he knows what moves you will make, how you will make them and most importantly, how to counter them. Omnipotent means all powerful, seriously even without the other two God could still beat you with this you want to try to grapple him? Pillar of salt. You want to kick him? Pillar of salt. Punching? Pillar. Moving out of turn? LIGHTNING. I bite my thumb at you sir

TheAlbatross

CM punk; although he maybe a powerful human, cannot possibly be more powerful than the omnipresent, omniscient and Omnipotent God. First off you cannot perform a GTS on an omnipresent force. As you obviously have the intelligence of a 9 year old i shall explain these terms to you. Omnipresent means that he is in all places at once, meaning he is behind you, in front of you, next to you, above you and below you (yeah that's right you're floating, see how powerful this guy is?). Omniscient means all-knowing, he knows what moves you will make, how you will make them and most importantly, how to counter them. Omnipotent means all powerful, seriously even without the other two God could still beat you with this you want to try to grapple him? Pillar of salt. You want to kick him? Pillar of salt. Punching? Pillar. Moving out of turn? LIGHTNING. I bite my thumb at you sir

Sports

CM-Punk-is-more-powerful-than-God./1/

If we define god as the being who created the universe, we see that we are not talking about anything know to man, we are talking about an ALL POWERFUL being who has the power to create universes. Proof of his existence? Does the universe exist? Therefore must then assume that its creator exists or at least existed at some point. Ok now on to the lies. Confidence does not mean truth can confidently say that i am lord master of the universe but does that that i am? no. it means that I am lying confidently. All the proof we have of CM punk's "higher power" his statement and nothing else. So he can fake punch and kick another actor? So what? The creator of the universe CREATED THE UNIVERSE. That is proof of power right there. Ok so now we shall move on to um how did you put it? how straight edge "God" is. By stating that "God" is "half straight edge" brings him down to the level of someone who is not the lord supreme creator of the universe, which "God" is Now I'd like to state my final remark. Basically as "God" created the universe and the universe created CM Punk, we can assume that God has some sort of file on CM Punk which, as creator, he can edit, which would mean that "God" has power over CM Punk, which of course means that he is more powerful than the flimsy-speedo-wearing-actor-man that is CM Punk

TheAlbatross

If we define god as the being who created the universe, we see that we are not talking about anything know to man, we are talking about an ALL POWERFUL being who has the power to create universes. Proof of his existence? Does the universe exist? Therefore must then assume that its creator exists or at least existed at some point. Ok now on to the lies. Confidence does not mean truth can confidently say that i am lord master of the universe but does that that i am? no. it means that I am lying confidently. All the proof we have of CM punk's "higher power" his statement and nothing else. So he can fake punch and kick another actor? So what? The creator of the universe CREATED THE UNIVERSE. That is proof of power right there. Ok so now we shall move on to um how did you put it? how straight edge "God" is. By stating that "God" is "half straight edge" brings him down to the level of someone who is not the lord supreme creator of the universe, which "God" is Now I'd like to state my final remark. Basically as "God" created the universe and the universe created CM Punk, we can assume that God has some sort of file on CM Punk which, as creator, he can edit, which would mean that "God" has power over CM Punk, which of course means that he is more powerful than the flimsy-speedo-wearing-actor-man that is CM Punk

Sports

CM-Punk-is-more-powerful-than-God./1/

Since I will be on the side of CoD is better than Titanfall. It is one of the largest selling shooting games. Which kind of gives it an advantage when going against Titanfall. Call of Duty has a bigger fan base so it can get more ideas and have the ability to expand its franchise which also gives it an advantage. As for Titanfall you have to wait for the game to do a 2 hour update. WHile CoD probably takes about twenty minutes to update. In Titanfall they have really lowered the selections of what weapons there are to use against the enemy. While in CoD as they get bigger they add new weapons and other things that you can use later on in there new games that come out. These are reasons why I think CoD is better than Titanfall. I hope my opponent is ready to come right back at me.

BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Since I will be on the side of CoD is better than Titanfall. It is one of the largest selling shooting games. Which kind of gives it an advantage when going against Titanfall. Call of Duty has a bigger fan base so it can get more ideas and have the ability to expand its franchise which also gives it an advantage. As for Titanfall you have to wait for the game to do a 2 hour update. WHile CoD probably takes about twenty minutes to update. In Titanfall they have really lowered the selections of what weapons there are to use against the enemy. While in CoD as they get bigger they add new weapons and other things that you can use later on in there new games that come out. These are reasons why I think CoD is better than Titanfall. I hope my opponent is ready to come right back at me.

Games

COD-vs-Titanfall/1/

Yes, but some people like dumb ai cause it is fun to mess around with them and you can get good quick scopes and amazing kills with ai. So that is another reason I say CoD is better.

BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Yes, but some people like dumb ai cause it is fun to mess around with them and you can get good quick scopes and amazing kills with ai. So that is another reason I say CoD is better.

Games

COD-vs-Titanfall/1/

Well it depends on who is playing the game. I would say I would rather play Titanfall, but I cant choose as many guns so that is a disadvantage. So in the end I wont a game that gives me more weapons is cheaper and gets better reviews.

BEASTxKNIGHTx12

Well it depends on who is playing the game. I would say I would rather play Titanfall, but I cant choose as many guns so that is a disadvantage. So in the end I wont a game that gives me more weapons is cheaper and gets better reviews.

Games

COD-vs-Titanfall/1/

Gender vs Sex When using words like he, she, him, her, man and woman, we could be referring to two different things. We could be referring to their sex or their gender. Let's examine both words Gender: "The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)" <URL>... Sex: "Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:" <URL>... When discussing Caitlyn Jenner, we must determine, whether it is more appropriate and accurate to address her as a female, or as a male. If I show that in most circumstances, calling Mrs. Jenner a her is appropriate, than we can conclusively say that referring to her as a female, is more accurate. We literally use gender pronouns all the time without a second thought. We rarely address somebody by what sex they are, because honestly we don't even know. We usually refer to them as whatever face they put on to the world. Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) has given herself a female name, female appearance, and finally called herself a "woman" after his appearance on "Vanity Fair". Three things are clear. Gender and sex are different things. We typically don't inspect people's crotch before addressing them, so referring to them by gender is more appropriate and common. Caitlyn, claims to be a woman. The debate should be over right here, but I'll continue. Here is a quote from a transgender writer on how to choose what pronoun to call an individual. "Whenever possible, ask transgender people which pronoun they would like you to use. A person who identifies as a certain gender, whether or not that person has taken hormones or had some form of surgery, should be referred to using the pronouns appropriate for that gender. If it is not possible to ask a transgender person which pronoun is preferred, use the pronoun that is consistent with the person's appearance and gender expression. For example, if a person wears a dress and uses the name Susan, feminine pronouns are usually appropriate. It is never appropriate to put quotation marks around either a transgender person's chosen name or the pronoun that reflects that person's gender identity." <URL>... Personally, I think asking them their preferred pronoun is going to far. We don't do that with random non transgendered people we meet, and we shouldn't do it with them, but the writer does give some common sense advice, you should refer to somebody, by whatever gender, they put themselves out as, unless they make it clear they would prefer a different pronoun. Let me sum this up, again. Just to make myself clear. In everyday life, we refer to people as the gender they look like or try to look like (again, doing a crotch check is rude), seeing as how, gender is the most common identifier of a person and not sex, it would be more accurate to call the person, by their gender. Gender Identity I want to dig a bit more into gender identity, since it may not be clear to some voters, that people actually do identify with a gender, that doesn't necessarily align with their sex. Some people, may think "well this is just a boy putting on a dress, not a girl", but that isn't how gender identity works. Most of the time, a person's gender identity is formed at 3 years old. (Ann M. Gallagher, James C. Kaufman (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach) Gender identity isn't something they have control over. If you haven't gone through it just imagine it for yourself. Imagine being another sex. Maybe you'll enjoy the new play things at first, but what about after that? When you settle into your sex. I'm both male in gender and sex, if I became female, I'd struggle real hard to care for my appearance as much as they do, I'd probably enjoy belching and farting a lot, I'd drink beer and hard liquor instead of wine coolers. Sure these things are okay for me to do as a guy, society isn't going to look down on me for it, but females would look like straight trash for that stuff. If a female was in a male's body, they may enjoy dressing up, painting their nails, watching soap operas, or whatever the hell chicks do. The bad thing is, they'd have to repress their gender identity, in order to fit in. They wouldn't feel completely themselves. If you can't imagine yourself in the opposite sex's body, because you can't stop thinking about the new play things, than just think about yourself if you switched bodies, with your mom or grandma. Nobody faces as much persecution as transgendered people. Nobody chooses to identify with another sex, nobody would take all that pain and suffering for "the fun of it", these people actually identify with a gender that doesn't match their sex. They make these changes, so their outside can match their insides. We should respect that, and use the pronoun that most accurately describes their gender. Before you start thinking that gender identity is just a social construct and shouldn't be taken seriously, take a look at what several doctors researching gender identity have stated on the subject; "Note that just as gender and sex are not interchangeable terms, neither are gender development and sexual development interchangeable. Physiologic sexual development progresses through distinct stages from the neonatal period through infancy, childhood, puberty and adolescence, and adulthood. Such physiologic change is distinguishable from gender-related behaviors during each of these stages. The sexual identity that emerges beyond childhood is very clearly a separate entity from gender identity. Aspects of physical sexual growth, eroticism, and eventual sexuality, although closely related to gender, should not necessarily be used to draw conclusions about a patient's gender definitions" <URL>... Conclusion Gender identity and the sex of an individual, for the most part overlaps. Sometimes the overlap just doesn't happen. We know that sex and gender identity are two separate things. We know that typically not only do people bypass "crotch tests" to refer to an individuals gender, not sex. We know that people prefer to be called by their gender. (if you don't believe me, imagine people continually referring to you as the inappropriate gender). The concept of gender, can't necessarily be as easily quantified as sex, but we know that the two are distinct entities. I ask the judges to use common sense and vote con in this debate.

Wylted

Gender vs Sex When using words like he, she, him, her, man and woman, we could be referring to two different things. We could be referring to their sex or their gender. Let's examine both words Gender: "The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Sex: "Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... When discussing Caitlyn Jenner, we must determine, whether it is more appropriate and accurate to address her as a female, or as a male. If I show that in most circumstances, calling Mrs. Jenner a her is appropriate, than we can conclusively say that referring to her as a female, is more accurate. We literally use gender pronouns all the time without a second thought. We rarely address somebody by what sex they are, because honestly we don't even know. We usually refer to them as whatever face they put on to the world. Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) has given herself a female name, female appearance, and finally called herself a "woman" after his appearance on "Vanity Fair". Three things are clear. Gender and sex are different things. We typically don't inspect people's crotch before addressing them, so referring to them by gender is more appropriate and common. Caitlyn, claims to be a woman. The debate should be over right here, but I'll continue. Here is a quote from a transgender writer on how to choose what pronoun to call an individual. "Whenever possible, ask transgender people which pronoun they would like you to use. A person who identifies as a certain gender, whether or not that person has taken hormones or had some form of surgery, should be referred to using the pronouns appropriate for that gender. If it is not possible to ask a transgender person which pronoun is preferred, use the pronoun that is consistent with the person's appearance and gender expression. For example, if a person wears a dress and uses the name Susan, feminine pronouns are usually appropriate. It is never appropriate to put quotation marks around either a transgender person's chosen name or the pronoun that reflects that person's gender identity." http://boingboing.net... Personally, I think asking them their preferred pronoun is going to far. We don't do that with random non transgendered people we meet, and we shouldn't do it with them, but the writer does give some common sense advice, you should refer to somebody, by whatever gender, they put themselves out as, unless they make it clear they would prefer a different pronoun. Let me sum this up, again. Just to make myself clear. In everyday life, we refer to people as the gender they look like or try to look like (again, doing a crotch check is rude), seeing as how, gender is the most common identifier of a person and not sex, it would be more accurate to call the person, by their gender. Gender Identity I want to dig a bit more into gender identity, since it may not be clear to some voters, that people actually do identify with a gender, that doesn't necessarily align with their sex. Some people, may think "well this is just a boy putting on a dress, not a girl", but that isn't how gender identity works. Most of the time, a person's gender identity is formed at 3 years old. (Ann M. Gallagher, James C. Kaufman (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach) Gender identity isn't something they have control over. If you haven't gone through it just imagine it for yourself. Imagine being another sex. Maybe you'll enjoy the new play things at first, but what about after that? When you settle into your sex. I'm both male in gender and sex, if I became female, I'd struggle real hard to care for my appearance as much as they do, I'd probably enjoy belching and farting a lot, I'd drink beer and hard liquor instead of wine coolers. Sure these things are okay for me to do as a guy, society isn't going to look down on me for it, but females would look like straight trash for that stuff. If a female was in a male's body, they may enjoy dressing up, painting their nails, watching soap operas, or whatever the hell chicks do. The bad thing is, they'd have to repress their gender identity, in order to fit in. They wouldn't feel completely themselves. If you can't imagine yourself in the opposite sex's body, because you can't stop thinking about the new play things, than just think about yourself if you switched bodies, with your mom or grandma. Nobody faces as much persecution as transgendered people. Nobody chooses to identify with another sex, nobody would take all that pain and suffering for "the fun of it", these people actually identify with a gender that doesn't match their sex. They make these changes, so their outside can match their insides. We should respect that, and use the pronoun that most accurately describes their gender. Before you start thinking that gender identity is just a social construct and shouldn't be taken seriously, take a look at what several doctors researching gender identity have stated on the subject; "Note that just as gender and sex are not interchangeable terms, neither are gender development and sexual development interchangeable. Physiologic sexual development progresses through distinct stages from the neonatal period through infancy, childhood, puberty and adolescence, and adulthood. Such physiologic change is distinguishable from gender-related behaviors during each of these stages. The sexual identity that emerges beyond childhood is very clearly a separate entity from gender identity. Aspects of physical sexual growth, eroticism, and eventual sexuality, although closely related to gender, should not necessarily be used to draw conclusions about a patient's gender definitions" http://emedicine.medscape.com... Conclusion Gender identity and the sex of an individual, for the most part overlaps. Sometimes the overlap just doesn't happen. We know that sex and gender identity are two separate things. We know that typically not only do people bypass "crotch tests" to refer to an individuals gender, not sex. We know that people prefer to be called by their gender. (if you don't believe me, imagine people continually referring to you as the inappropriate gender). The concept of gender, can't necessarily be as easily quantified as sex, but we know that the two are distinct entities. I ask the judges to use common sense and vote con in this debate.

People

Caitlyn-Jenner-is-a-He-or-an-It/1/

Con's first round is for acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Resolution Resolved: Caitlyn Jenner is more accurately and objectively described by the pronouns "he" or "it" than by the pronoun "she". Definitions Caitlyn Jenner: Celebrity. Olympic athlete. On the cover of the June 2015 issue of "Vanity Fair". Born William Bruce Jenner on October 28,1949, in Mount Kisco, New York, to Esther R. and William Hugh Jenner. Accurate: (of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact. Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. *This is, by nature, a semantic debate, but only in regard to the terms "he", "it", "she", and root terms used to define these terms, such as "male" and "female". Further semantics, such as discussions of the term "is", are not allowed.*

doomswatter

Con's first round is for acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Resolution Resolved: Caitlyn Jenner is more accurately and objectively described by the pronouns "he" or "it" than by the pronoun "she". Definitions Caitlyn Jenner: Celebrity. Olympic athlete. On the cover of the June 2015 issue of "Vanity Fair". Born William Bruce Jenner on October 28,1949, in Mount Kisco, New York, to Esther R. and William Hugh Jenner. Accurate: (of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact. Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. *This is, by nature, a semantic debate, but only in regard to the terms "he", "it", "she", and root terms used to define these terms, such as "male" and "female". Further semantics, such as discussions of the term "is", are not allowed.*

People

Caitlyn-Jenner-is-a-He-or-an-It/1/

I am posing the stance that one of the various Republican candidates for President has the ability to win the presidency in 2016. I have heard various assertions made in the media that present an idea of a blue wall which will make it impossible for a Republican to win the presidency in 2016, or ever by some of their views. The only restrictions that I have for this debate are that you must take the position that it is impossible for the Republicans to win in 2016, but beyond that, happy debating!

TimHawks

I am posing the stance that one of the various Republican candidates for President has the ability to win the presidency in 2016. I have heard various assertions made in the media that present an idea of a blue wall which will make it impossible for a Republican to win the presidency in 2016, or ever by some of their views. The only restrictions that I have for this debate are that you must take the position that it is impossible for the Republicans to win in 2016, but beyond that, happy debating!

Politics

Can-a-Republican-win-the-White-House-in-2016/1/

According to the Huffington Post, not exactly a conservative think-tank, right now Obama's foreign policy has a negative approval rating of 14.1%. While this statistic does not necessarily prove that Americans would be more accepting of Republican foreign policy, it does show that they are discontent with the status quo. Typically discontent within the electorate translates into a push for new leadership. While Americans could decide that Democratic foreign policy is not the problem, and that Obama is really the problem, historically after one party has controlled the White House for two consecutive terms, the people tend to vote for the other party. This has happened in all but three cases in the last 100 years. While I could not find any polls that gave a clear view of Obama's economic policy, at least none I considered current enough to be relevant to this discussion, I did find an article stating that women had suffered under Obama's economic policies. The piece, written by realclearpolitics which is also not particularly conservative, details how women across the US have suffered under Obama's economic policies. I would tend to say that even if many other groups benefited from Obama's policies, it looks bad that he has hurt one of the core Democratic constituencies. According to CNN, more Americans are against stricter gun control than are for it by a margin of 6% points. The same article that I found this information in, however, also pointed out that this is up from a 49-49 split only a few months ago. While gun control continues to be an issue on the minds of the voters, it is clearly not going to be a driving force behind this next election. If it were, we would see a constant and consistent trend in one way or the other either for or against more gun control. While conservatives may feel that they have a selling point in saying that Hillary will take your guns away, and liberals may feel they have a strong point in saying that Republicans don't care about gun violence, neither side will really benefit from using this as a point of their campaigns. To be able to use this, one side or the other would have to be able to point to a steady and constant increase in support for their point of view. To illustrate how fickle the issue of gun control is in America, a report was released by gallup only two days before the CNN report which stated that Americans support more restrictive gun control. That report included a graphic displaying the changes in how the electorate felt about gun control over the course of the last 15 years. Interestingly, there was far more support for more restrictive gun control during the entire tenure of President Bush, including when he was reelected over John Kerry, than there is today. My final thoughts on this issue are that, historically, we have seen the electorate shift usually over a course of about a decade. We have also seen, based on history, that after 8 years of the same party, the other side very often gets a chance. While my argument was never that the Republicans will definitely win the next election, my argument is that they have a shot where many analysts are stating that it is impossible. Many of them are relying on this so called blue wall to make that argument and on demographic voting. Many of them are also relying on the coalition that Obama put together to win his first election and for his reelection. Many Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan during his two elections, but they have since returned to voting for Democratic candidates. As was the case with Reagan, I do not believe that many of the typically more moderate groups who voted for Obama are going to, necessarily, continue voting for Democrats. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

TimHawks

According to the Huffington Post, not exactly a conservative think-tank, right now Obama's foreign policy has a negative approval rating of 14.1%. While this statistic does not necessarily prove that Americans would be more accepting of Republican foreign policy, it does show that they are discontent with the status quo. Typically discontent within the electorate translates into a push for new leadership. While Americans could decide that Democratic foreign policy is not the problem, and that Obama is really the problem, historically after one party has controlled the White House for two consecutive terms, the people tend to vote for the other party. This has happened in all but three cases in the last 100 years. While I could not find any polls that gave a clear view of Obama's economic policy, at least none I considered current enough to be relevant to this discussion, I did find an article stating that women had suffered under Obama's economic policies. The piece, written by realclearpolitics which is also not particularly conservative, details how women across the US have suffered under Obama's economic policies. I would tend to say that even if many other groups benefited from Obama's policies, it looks bad that he has hurt one of the core Democratic constituencies. According to CNN, more Americans are against stricter gun control than are for it by a margin of 6% points. The same article that I found this information in, however, also pointed out that this is up from a 49-49 split only a few months ago. While gun control continues to be an issue on the minds of the voters, it is clearly not going to be a driving force behind this next election. If it were, we would see a constant and consistent trend in one way or the other either for or against more gun control. While conservatives may feel that they have a selling point in saying that Hillary will take your guns away, and liberals may feel they have a strong point in saying that Republicans don't care about gun violence, neither side will really benefit from using this as a point of their campaigns. To be able to use this, one side or the other would have to be able to point to a steady and constant increase in support for their point of view. To illustrate how fickle the issue of gun control is in America, a report was released by gallup only two days before the CNN report which stated that Americans support more restrictive gun control. That report included a graphic displaying the changes in how the electorate felt about gun control over the course of the last 15 years. Interestingly, there was far more support for more restrictive gun control during the entire tenure of President Bush, including when he was reelected over John Kerry, than there is today. My final thoughts on this issue are that, historically, we have seen the electorate shift usually over a course of about a decade. We have also seen, based on history, that after 8 years of the same party, the other side very often gets a chance. While my argument was never that the Republicans will definitely win the next election, my argument is that they have a shot where many analysts are stating that it is impossible. Many of them are relying on this so called blue wall to make that argument and on demographic voting. Many of them are also relying on the coalition that Obama put together to win his first election and for his reelection. Many Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan during his two elections, but they have since returned to voting for Democratic candidates. As was the case with Reagan, I do not believe that many of the typically more moderate groups who voted for Obama are going to, necessarily, continue voting for Democrats. http://www.cnn.com... http://www.gallup.com... http://elections.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Politics

Can-a-Republican-win-the-White-House-in-2016/1/

Bad really is an opinion. What some may find to be "bad for America" others might consider to be beneficial. Nevertheless, the argument never was whether or not Republicans are bad for America nor was it whether or not I even like their opinions or agree with them. The argument was simply can they win the next election. According to Gallup, more Americans support the death penalty by a margin of 63% to 33%. While this support has fallen from its high in the 1990s, which was 80%, there are still significantly more Americans who agree with the death penalty than those who do not. The graph provided on Gallup also illustrates that, over the last decade, support for the death penalty has remained relatively static. Based on this information, I would posit that the issue of the death penalty will not harm the Republicans chances of winning the election and may, in fact, improve their chances. <URL>... According to the Wall Street Journal who was citing a Pew Research Center poll, more Americans approved of the CIA "torture" program by a margin of 51% to 29%. This means that even if your premise is correct and Republicans are more likely to torture than are Democrats, it would seem that the electorate is not particularly concerned about it. I would also question where you have gotten your information that the Republicans are pro-torture, though, as you did not cite any particular source. It seems as though this is simply your own opinion. <URL>... As a matter of war, I do not even need to cite a reference for you to be fully aware that we have just committed ground troops to Syria. If there is any sentiment among the populace that we should not be getting involved in all of these conflicts and wars, such a sentiment would surely benefit, to a much greater degree, several of the Republican candidates who have espoused an interest in non-intervention on matters of foreign conflict. One such candidate would be Rand Paul. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton who has espoused that, if anything, she would be more an interventionist than is our current president. You could make the argument that Bernie Sanders also espouses an non-interventionist policy, but it does not currently seem like Sanders is going to win the nomination. Even if Sanders does win the Democratic nomination, if Rand Paul were to be the Republican nominee this would not be a point of contention as the two agree on the idea of non-interventionism. <URL>... Of the top tier Republican candidates, those with the greatest chance of taking the nomination, many of them favor creating a flat tax that applies to all citizens. While I would, personally, agree with you that this favors the rich over the poor, it would appear that the American citizens do not look on this issue so unfavorably. 62% of Americans, according to Reason.com, would support a flat tax. To be honest, this really does not surprise me. Americans have been pining for years that changes needed to be made to our tax code which has become so cumbersome that only the wealth, with the ability to hire many lawyers to explain it to them, really have a hope of understanding it. Basically, it seems that, whether or not the citizens feel that the Republicans favor the rich over the poor, the citizens are in favor of some of their economic plans. <URL>... Finally I will finish with this last thought. It does not matter what you, or even I, think personally of one party or the other. It matters what the electorate thinks about them. Current polling may suggest certain benefits for a particular side on specific issues, but no polling shows an overall rejection of the political philosophies of either side. I do believe that the Republicans have an advantage in this next election as is always the case when the ruling party must defend the policies of the previous administration. This said, I also believe it to be incredibly important that the Republicans choose a good candidate, and it is, likewise, very important the the Democrats pick the best candidate. If either side chooses to nominate a weak candidate, that side may well pay the price in the upcoming elections. I do worry, though, personally if both sides choose to nominate their weakest candidates as the American people will be the one's paying the price.

TimHawks

Bad really is an opinion. What some may find to be "bad for America" others might consider to be beneficial. Nevertheless, the argument never was whether or not Republicans are bad for America nor was it whether or not I even like their opinions or agree with them. The argument was simply can they win the next election. According to Gallup, more Americans support the death penalty by a margin of 63% to 33%. While this support has fallen from its high in the 1990s, which was 80%, there are still significantly more Americans who agree with the death penalty than those who do not. The graph provided on Gallup also illustrates that, over the last decade, support for the death penalty has remained relatively static. Based on this information, I would posit that the issue of the death penalty will not harm the Republicans chances of winning the election and may, in fact, improve their chances. http://www.gallup.com... According to the Wall Street Journal who was citing a Pew Research Center poll, more Americans approved of the CIA "torture" program by a margin of 51% to 29%. This means that even if your premise is correct and Republicans are more likely to torture than are Democrats, it would seem that the electorate is not particularly concerned about it. I would also question where you have gotten your information that the Republicans are pro-torture, though, as you did not cite any particular source. It seems as though this is simply your own opinion. http://www.wsj.com... As a matter of war, I do not even need to cite a reference for you to be fully aware that we have just committed ground troops to Syria. If there is any sentiment among the populace that we should not be getting involved in all of these conflicts and wars, such a sentiment would surely benefit, to a much greater degree, several of the Republican candidates who have espoused an interest in non-intervention on matters of foreign conflict. One such candidate would be Rand Paul. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton who has espoused that, if anything, she would be more an interventionist than is our current president. You could make the argument that Bernie Sanders also espouses an non-interventionist policy, but it does not currently seem like Sanders is going to win the nomination. Even if Sanders does win the Democratic nomination, if Rand Paul were to be the Republican nominee this would not be a point of contention as the two agree on the idea of non-interventionism. http://www.cnn.com... Of the top tier Republican candidates, those with the greatest chance of taking the nomination, many of them favor creating a flat tax that applies to all citizens. While I would, personally, agree with you that this favors the rich over the poor, it would appear that the American citizens do not look on this issue so unfavorably. 62% of Americans, according to Reason.com, would support a flat tax. To be honest, this really does not surprise me. Americans have been pining for years that changes needed to be made to our tax code which has become so cumbersome that only the wealth, with the ability to hire many lawyers to explain it to them, really have a hope of understanding it. Basically, it seems that, whether or not the citizens feel that the Republicans favor the rich over the poor, the citizens are in favor of some of their economic plans. https://reason.com... Finally I will finish with this last thought. It does not matter what you, or even I, think personally of one party or the other. It matters what the electorate thinks about them. Current polling may suggest certain benefits for a particular side on specific issues, but no polling shows an overall rejection of the political philosophies of either side. I do believe that the Republicans have an advantage in this next election as is always the case when the ruling party must defend the policies of the previous administration. This said, I also believe it to be incredibly important that the Republicans choose a good candidate, and it is, likewise, very important the the Democrats pick the best candidate. If either side chooses to nominate a weak candidate, that side may well pay the price in the upcoming elections. I do worry, though, personally if both sides choose to nominate their weakest candidates as the American people will be the one's paying the price.

Politics

Can-a-Republican-win-the-White-House-in-2016/1/

I accept your challenge to this debate. I have no guidelines to add and will comply with the guidelines you specified. I would like to thank you for this challenge and I look forward to see where this goes. enlighten me.

esisCOA

I accept your challenge to this debate. I have no guidelines to add and will comply with the guidelines you specified. I would like to thank you for this challenge and I look forward to see where this goes. enlighten me.

Education

Can-anything-be-debated/1/

This should be the easiest win ever since you actually did all the work for me. In your opening statement you defined several words. One of them being : "Undebatable : not subject to debate : indisputable" so here is one of many undebatable topics - You will one day die. (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable) here is another - You have a birthday (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable) also - The Sun is the closest star to Planet Earth. (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable) all three of those topics are indisputable, and therfore (by the definition you gave) UNDEBATEABLE. BUT I'M NOT STOPPING THERE!!!! The very next word you defined was - "Debateable (1) : claimed by more than one country (2) : open to dispute : questionable : open to debate (3) : capable of being debated" PLEASE REFER TO DEFINITION NUMERO THREE -"(3) : capable of being debated" Now this is all I should have to say, but for some strange reason I feel this just isn't enough. Might as well stick the steak in the heart while I'm here, right? In order for a topic to be debatable, both sides MUST HAVE A EQUAL CHANCE AT WINNING THE DEBATE. The topic MUST be disputable. Otherwise one party will have NO BASIS or PLATFORM in which to run their argument, because the winning side HAS ALREADY WON BEFORE THE DEBATE STARTED. In other words IF YOUR ARGUMENT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THEN A DEBATE CANNOT EVEN BE INITIATED DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS ALREADY BACKED BY INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE. And last but not least, just to kick a dead horse for the sake of kicking a dead horse - If a boxer becomes the UNDISPUTED HEAVY WEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD that means he became the champion by not losing a single professionally sanctioned fight. Which further translates to his champion of the world status is undebatable because he has not lost a single professionally sanctioned fight. (You cant say "he isn't the champ because he lost to ?" he didn't lose to anybody, and that being undisputed makes a debate about whether he is or is not the champ impossible.

esisCOA

This should be the easiest win ever since you actually did all the work for me. In your opening statement you defined several words. One of them being : "Undebatable : not subject to debate : indisputable" so here is one of many undebatable topics - You will one day die. (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable) here is another - You have a birthday (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable) also - The Sun is the closest star to Planet Earth. (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable) all three of those topics are indisputable, and therfore (by the definition you gave) UNDEBATEABLE. BUT I'M NOT STOPPING THERE!!!! The very next word you defined was - "Debateable (1) : claimed by more than one country (2) : open to dispute : questionable : open to debate (3) : capable of being debated" PLEASE REFER TO DEFINITION NUMERO THREE -"(3) : capable of being debated" Now this is all I should have to say, but for some strange reason I feel this just isn't enough. Might as well stick the steak in the heart while I'm here, right? In order for a topic to be debatable, both sides MUST HAVE A EQUAL CHANCE AT WINNING THE DEBATE. The topic MUST be disputable. Otherwise one party will have NO BASIS or PLATFORM in which to run their argument, because the winning side HAS ALREADY WON BEFORE THE DEBATE STARTED. In other words IF YOUR ARGUMENT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THEN A DEBATE CANNOT EVEN BE INITIATED DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS ALREADY BACKED BY INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE. And last but not least, just to kick a dead horse for the sake of kicking a dead horse - If a boxer becomes the UNDISPUTED HEAVY WEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD that means he became the champion by not losing a single professionally sanctioned fight. Which further translates to his champion of the world status is undebatable because he has not lost a single professionally sanctioned fight. (You cant say "he isn't the champ because he lost to ?" he didn't lose to anybody, and that being undisputed makes a debate about whether he is or is not the champ impossible.

Education

Can-anything-be-debated/1/

I had a feeling you were gonna grab at strings and try and make everyone of my topics debatable by using variables I didn't incorporate into the topic. Its okay because I think you realized you were wrong and are now just resorting to whatever you can to try and win the debate. No problem, give this one a try =) Topic - It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist. with every word only to be defined as described by the topic creator (meaning your variables don't count) Given the inherent logical incorrectness of the statement, there are no actual arguments for the affirmative, and therefore no way to debate it. <URL>...

esisCOA

I had a feeling you were gonna grab at strings and try and make everyone of my topics debatable by using variables I didn't incorporate into the topic. Its okay because I think you realized you were wrong and are now just resorting to whatever you can to try and win the debate. No problem, give this one a try =) Topic - It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist. with every word only to be defined as described by the topic creator (meaning your variables don't count) Given the inherent logical incorrectness of the statement, there are no actual arguments for the affirmative, and therefore no way to debate it. http://www.debate.org...

Education

Can-anything-be-debated/1/

oh wait so did you think I was going to let your cheap technicality ride? especially when I knew you were going to do it so I kept my own cheap technicality to ace you with? and clearly you live in your own world, since all of your rebuttals have been some crazy made up stuff, especially your last one when I clearly defined my statement to defined specifics, and you just decided to break my topic up into 2 statements and call it your rebuttal, LOL. and you need to take up a math class little girl! 1+1 = 2, 1women + 1man = 2humans (a couple) 1ec + 1ec = 2ec (egg cartons) one dozen = 12 not 1 hahaha I didn't want to say this but you are quite possibly the dumbest person I've ever met. I will pray for you. dear voters - thanks for reading this debate, please vote however you feel you need to, just remember who said what in the beginning and who did what in the end.

esisCOA

oh wait so did you think I was going to let your cheap technicality ride? especially when I knew you were going to do it so I kept my own cheap technicality to ace you with? and clearly you live in your own world, since all of your rebuttals have been some crazy made up stuff, especially your last one when I clearly defined my statement to defined specifics, and you just decided to break my topic up into 2 statements and call it your rebuttal, LOL. and you need to take up a math class little girl! 1+1 = 2, 1women + 1man = 2humans (a couple) 1ec + 1ec = 2ec (egg cartons) one dozen = 12 not 1 hahaha I didn't want to say this but you are quite possibly the dumbest person I've ever met. I will pray for you. dear voters - thanks for reading this debate, please vote however you feel you need to, just remember who said what in the beginning and who did what in the end.

Education

Can-anything-be-debated/1/

My opponent is clearly passionate about this topic, which gives me great excitement as I look forward to an invigorating and challenging debate. I. Cost of educating terrorists The first and foremost issue I see with educating would-be terrorists would be the short and long term costs of implementing and maintaining such education efforts. Not only would the nations who are implementing such actions have a large financial burden in regards to allocating the funds, but would need to allocate such funds for things like: building the education facilities, paying educators, retirement funding for employees, insurance fees, maintenance of said facilities including water & electricity, and land fees such as property taxes. Financial burdens such as the ones listed above need to be funded one way or another. I would go so far as to say that most countries that would require such efforts to be implemented are already facing financial woes. I will allow my opponent the opportunity to list these countries and the manner in which they can fund such efforts before I extend any further on this point. As it stands, the financial burdens that I raise as an issue but be resolved by Pro for him to fulfill his own BOP of maintaining the affirmative position on this resolution. II. The UN or NATO as sources for funding If my opponent is proposing that such organizations as the United Nations or NATO fund such efforts, I again would ask that he list or expand on how such organizations would fund such efforts and more importantly why said organizations should do so instead of the nations in which such efforts would be carried out? III. Who would the educational efforts target? Another highly important question that needs to be answered by Pro is how such efforts would be carried out. Although I have already expanded on the importance of listing what nations would require such efforts as well as who should fund such efforts, Pro must explain who these educational facilities would target and under what guidelines? For instance, would they be built in nations where those who are perceived as terrorists are most active? How would the educators or recruiters pick out which children need to attend these educational facilities? Can their guidelines be justified? IV. Safety This issue will be the last that I expand on in this round due to quickly diminishing character limit. Clearly these proposed educational facilities are meant to undermine the efforts of the terrorist cells located around the various nations that my opponent will surely list in the next round. Not only would we need to figure in the cost of security for these locations where such education efforts are to be carried out, but we would also need to secure every individual life of the participants involved. Surely the terrorist cells would target any and all efforts that wish to undermine their own, especially on their own territory. I would expect my opponent to figure in these additional costs of implementing and maintaining such efforts both financially and in terms of safety. In Conclusion, I thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate, and patiently await as he provides counter-arguments and rebuttals against the contentions I have raised in this round. I now return the floor to my opponent.

Blade-of-Truth

My opponent is clearly passionate about this topic, which gives me great excitement as I look forward to an invigorating and challenging debate. I. Cost of educating terrorists The first and foremost issue I see with educating would-be terrorists would be the short and long term costs of implementing and maintaining such education efforts. Not only would the nations who are implementing such actions have a large financial burden in regards to allocating the funds, but would need to allocate such funds for things like: building the education facilities, paying educators, retirement funding for employees, insurance fees, maintenance of said facilities including water & electricity, and land fees such as property taxes. Financial burdens such as the ones listed above need to be funded one way or another. I would go so far as to say that most countries that would require such efforts to be implemented are already facing financial woes. I will allow my opponent the opportunity to list these countries and the manner in which they can fund such efforts before I extend any further on this point. As it stands, the financial burdens that I raise as an issue but be resolved by Pro for him to fulfill his own BOP of maintaining the affirmative position on this resolution. II. The UN or NATO as sources for funding If my opponent is proposing that such organizations as the United Nations or NATO fund such efforts, I again would ask that he list or expand on how such organizations would fund such efforts and more importantly why said organizations should do so instead of the nations in which such efforts would be carried out? III. Who would the educational efforts target? Another highly important question that needs to be answered by Pro is how such efforts would be carried out. Although I have already expanded on the importance of listing what nations would require such efforts as well as who should fund such efforts, Pro must explain who these educational facilities would target and under what guidelines? For instance, would they be built in nations where those who are perceived as terrorists are most active? How would the educators or recruiters pick out which children need to attend these educational facilities? Can their guidelines be justified? IV. Safety This issue will be the last that I expand on in this round due to quickly diminishing character limit. Clearly these proposed educational facilities are meant to undermine the efforts of the terrorist cells located around the various nations that my opponent will surely list in the next round. Not only would we need to figure in the cost of security for these locations where such education efforts are to be carried out, but we would also need to secure every individual life of the participants involved. Surely the terrorist cells would target any and all efforts that wish to undermine their own, especially on their own territory. I would expect my opponent to figure in these additional costs of implementing and maintaining such efforts both financially and in terms of safety. In Conclusion, I thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate, and patiently await as he provides counter-arguments and rebuttals against the contentions I have raised in this round. I now return the floor to my opponent.

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

I. "...It will be worth it in the long run." My opponent completely bases this statement on speculation. My opponent failed to provide a list of which countries such efforts would take place in, as well as failed to justify the cost of implementing such efforts. My opponent needs to show how is will be worth it in the long run. Until that is done by my opponent, such claims hold no weight in this debate. I can just as easily say that it won't be worth it in the long run, but without justification of such claims they are meaningless statements of speculation. As Pro, my opponent has the burden to justify his position. I ask now that he do so, because at this point my contention has not been met with a satisfactory rebuttal. II. " The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". Not only has my opponent failed to provide an example or means in which the nations themselves would fund such efforts, but my opponent is now attempting to say that indeed the U.N. & NATO will fund it AS WELL as the worlds billionaires. This is another statement made based on pure speculation. My opponent needs to explain how: 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. 2) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. I can just as easily say that the worlds billionaires will build me a palace and fund my lifestyle until I die, but there is no weight to such a baseless claim. How will the Billionaires be convinced that this is worth their investments? How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? These are all questions that my opponent must answer in order to provide not only reasoning but justification to such claims. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." Thank you for that response. Unfortunately, what I meant was how will they target these individuals? Even if I grant you the freedom here to say that they will only target children, which children will be chosen for these educational efforts? Will they be the children of deceased terrorists? Will they be the orphans surrounding the districts in which these educational facilities will be built? Will they be the children of the handful of wealthy residents? Once again, these are all questions that need to be answered. It is unreasonable to say that they will target children without a set standard for which children they will target. Is attendance mandatory? Is it mandatory by local law or international law? I would ask that my opponent focus on these questions as they are all obstacles which block his affirmative position. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. What police? You haven't even listed what regions these educational facilities will be built in. Are we to expect tax-payers to fund the military playing the role of security guards for anti-terrorist schools for children? How are we to get tax-payers on board for this? According to you, everyone is going to be paying for this and you've yet to justify why ANYONE should. The funding question stands just as strongly here as it does in my previous rebuttals. V. My opponent Plagiarized his entire first round. This was brought to my attention by a fellow member of the site in the comment section of this debate. It appears that my opponent plagiarized nearly his entire first round. This member kindly provided the sources in which my opponents "words" can be found from their original sources, I will share the comment made by that user here: He first takes much of his argument from NATO's page (the bold) <URL>... ... and then copy and pastes almost entirely from a NY times article ( <URL>... ... ). I may have found two sentences of his that weren't plagiarized. -JMK As the audience can clearly see now, both in the comment section and here, my opponent plagiarized. In Conclusion, It would be wise for my opponent to apologize publicly for this foul conduct and continue this debate henceforth in his own words. I will now return the floor to my opponent and eagerly await his rebuttals to each point, thank you.

Blade-of-Truth

I. "...It will be worth it in the long run." My opponent completely bases this statement on speculation. My opponent failed to provide a list of which countries such efforts would take place in, as well as failed to justify the cost of implementing such efforts. My opponent needs to show how is will be worth it in the long run. Until that is done by my opponent, such claims hold no weight in this debate. I can just as easily say that it won't be worth it in the long run, but without justification of such claims they are meaningless statements of speculation. As Pro, my opponent has the burden to justify his position. I ask now that he do so, because at this point my contention has not been met with a satisfactory rebuttal. II. " The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". Not only has my opponent failed to provide an example or means in which the nations themselves would fund such efforts, but my opponent is now attempting to say that indeed the U.N. & NATO will fund it AS WELL as the worlds billionaires. This is another statement made based on pure speculation. My opponent needs to explain how: 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. 2) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. I can just as easily say that the worlds billionaires will build me a palace and fund my lifestyle until I die, but there is no weight to such a baseless claim. How will the Billionaires be convinced that this is worth their investments? How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? These are all questions that my opponent must answer in order to provide not only reasoning but justification to such claims. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." Thank you for that response. Unfortunately, what I meant was how will they target these individuals? Even if I grant you the freedom here to say that they will only target children, which children will be chosen for these educational efforts? Will they be the children of deceased terrorists? Will they be the orphans surrounding the districts in which these educational facilities will be built? Will they be the children of the handful of wealthy residents? Once again, these are all questions that need to be answered. It is unreasonable to say that they will target children without a set standard for which children they will target. Is attendance mandatory? Is it mandatory by local law or international law? I would ask that my opponent focus on these questions as they are all obstacles which block his affirmative position. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. What police? You haven't even listed what regions these educational facilities will be built in. Are we to expect tax-payers to fund the military playing the role of security guards for anti-terrorist schools for children? How are we to get tax-payers on board for this? According to you, everyone is going to be paying for this and you've yet to justify why ANYONE should. The funding question stands just as strongly here as it does in my previous rebuttals. V. My opponent Plagiarized his entire first round. This was brought to my attention by a fellow member of the site in the comment section of this debate. It appears that my opponent plagiarized nearly his entire first round. This member kindly provided the sources in which my opponents "words" can be found from their original sources, I will share the comment made by that user here: He first takes much of his argument from NATO's page (the bold) http://www.nato.int... ... and then copy and pastes almost entirely from a NY times article ( http://www.nytimes.com... ... ). I may have found two sentences of his that weren't plagiarized. -JMK As the audience can clearly see now, both in the comment section and here, my opponent plagiarized. In Conclusion, It would be wise for my opponent to apologize publicly for this foul conduct and continue this debate henceforth in his own words. I will now return the floor to my opponent and eagerly await his rebuttals to each point, thank you.

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

I want to thank my opponent for admitting that he plagiarised and for his apology. I do wish to say one thing though about your excuse of having Autism. I've debated people on here before who have autism and they didn't have to plagiarize. You are the first autistic person I've met who has used his mental disability as an excuse to plagiarize. I would caution against doing so - because plagiarising is a conduct offense no matter what circumstance. I. It will be worth it in the long run. My opponent states that the potential superpowers and countries ranked as "not free" will be where these education facilities will be located. Unfortunately, not many potential terrorists group up in these developed nations like America, EU, China, Russia, or Brazil. I see no point in building such facilities in these developed nations when the main terrorist activists are in other regions of the world. Furthermore, my opponent lists countries ranked as "not free" but doesn't name those countries. Which countries are to be considered "not free"? I can take a wild guess here but it would be nothing but speculation until my opponent lists specifically which nations should build these education facilities. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. "Yes, No, Maybe, I really don't know, on;y time will tell." - Pro This is an awful response. As Pro taking the affirmative stance it is your burden to provide answers to these rebuttals. Saying you don't know is unacceptable and completely fails to uphold to BOP. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. My opponent states the Buffett foundation will pay for this and then goes on in point 3 to state that they will fund such efforts because if they don't it's only a matter of time before they become targets themselves. All of this is speculation, there is no evidence whatsoever presented by Pro that this is what will occur at some point in the future. I can just as easily say that the terrorists will start killing celebrities instead of the billionaires and it would hold an equal amount of weight - both are unacceptable. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? My opponent states this will happen through donations, but provides no means in how such donations will actually be presented to the public or how the public would be incentivized to donate to such efforts. Furthermore, my opponent proposes raising the taxes on the rich while lowering the taxes on the poor, and that that will also fund the efforts. I would ask my opponent to explain how exactly these changes to the tax systems are to be carried out without causing political turmoil? III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." My opponent states that every child on the planet will be taught through every single type of school in the world. This is ludicrous, nay, impossible. Not even now do we have a system in which every child on the planet is taught in schools, how on earth can such a massive effort be undertaken now? My opponent needs to think this comment through because there is no possible way in which every child will be able to attend every school in the world. Furthermore, he states that attendance will be mandatory by local & international law if a family member is a radical. The issue with this is that we have no means of knowing who every radical is in this world, such technology does not yet exist. There is no way of guaranteeing that such efforts will actually catch every child who has a radical family member. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. My opponent states that the countries he listed in Contention 1 will act as security because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. I don't believe "we all" know what dictators do. In fact, unless you yourself list every action that every dictator has done to a terrorist, I'd go so far as to say that not even you can possible know all of that. Tax-payers will be incentivized to pay these taxes to fund such efforts because we'll ask them a fear-mongering question? How do threats of potential terrorist invasions convince anyone to pay higher taxes? We are already being told such things more or less, so are you expecting the same message that has already been over-played to inspire more motivation to pay higher taxes? This doesn't seem very reasonable. As Pro, you cannot rely on speculation to justify your arguments. In conclusion, I have provided rebuttals for each argument presented by Pro. I have explained how such a burden requires actual justification, and have accepted his apology for plagiarising with a word of caution against using Autism as an excuse based on my experience with other autistic members who do not plagiarise.

Blade-of-Truth

I want to thank my opponent for admitting that he plagiarised and for his apology. I do wish to say one thing though about your excuse of having Autism. I've debated people on here before who have autism and they didn't have to plagiarize. You are the first autistic person I've met who has used his mental disability as an excuse to plagiarize. I would caution against doing so - because plagiarising is a conduct offense no matter what circumstance. I. It will be worth it in the long run. My opponent states that the potential superpowers and countries ranked as "not free" will be where these education facilities will be located. Unfortunately, not many potential terrorists group up in these developed nations like America, EU, China, Russia, or Brazil. I see no point in building such facilities in these developed nations when the main terrorist activists are in other regions of the world. Furthermore, my opponent lists countries ranked as "not free" but doesn't name those countries. Which countries are to be considered "not free"? I can take a wild guess here but it would be nothing but speculation until my opponent lists specifically which nations should build these education facilities. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. "Yes, No, Maybe, I really don't know, on;y time will tell." - Pro This is an awful response. As Pro taking the affirmative stance it is your burden to provide answers to these rebuttals. Saying you don't know is unacceptable and completely fails to uphold to BOP. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. My opponent states the Buffett foundation will pay for this and then goes on in point 3 to state that they will fund such efforts because if they don't it's only a matter of time before they become targets themselves. All of this is speculation, there is no evidence whatsoever presented by Pro that this is what will occur at some point in the future. I can just as easily say that the terrorists will start killing celebrities instead of the billionaires and it would hold an equal amount of weight - both are unacceptable. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? My opponent states this will happen through donations, but provides no means in how such donations will actually be presented to the public or how the public would be incentivized to donate to such efforts. Furthermore, my opponent proposes raising the taxes on the rich while lowering the taxes on the poor, and that that will also fund the efforts. I would ask my opponent to explain how exactly these changes to the tax systems are to be carried out without causing political turmoil? III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." My opponent states that every child on the planet will be taught through every single type of school in the world. This is ludicrous, nay, impossible. Not even now do we have a system in which every child on the planet is taught in schools, how on earth can such a massive effort be undertaken now? My opponent needs to think this comment through because there is no possible way in which every child will be able to attend every school in the world. Furthermore, he states that attendance will be mandatory by local & international law if a family member is a radical. The issue with this is that we have no means of knowing who every radical is in this world, such technology does not yet exist. There is no way of guaranteeing that such efforts will actually catch every child who has a radical family member. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. My opponent states that the countries he listed in Contention 1 will act as security because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. I don't believe "we all" know what dictators do. In fact, unless you yourself list every action that every dictator has done to a terrorist, I'd go so far as to say that not even you can possible know all of that. Tax-payers will be incentivized to pay these taxes to fund such efforts because we'll ask them a fear-mongering question? How do threats of potential terrorist invasions convince anyone to pay higher taxes? We are already being told such things more or less, so are you expecting the same message that has already been over-played to inspire more motivation to pay higher taxes? This doesn't seem very reasonable. As Pro, you cannot rely on speculation to justify your arguments. In conclusion, I have provided rebuttals for each argument presented by Pro. I have explained how such a burden requires actual justification, and have accepted his apology for plagiarising with a word of caution against using Autism as an excuse based on my experience with other autistic members who do not plagiarise.

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run. My opponent conceded to the first half of this contention, instead of providing a rebuttal, he stated "that I have a good point". This is a concession of this point by Pro. Furthermore, I saw no list of "not free" countries on the link my opponent shared. Can you please specifically point out where in that link I will find the list of countries that are "not free"? Otherwise, that link should not count as it has no list of countries that are "not free". I also find it weird how you consider Russia & China as "not free" but then go on to call them "superpowers" in the next sentence. Those countries cannot be both "not free" and a Major Superpower. Please expand on this and clarify otherwise it is a self-defeating point. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. My opponent claims he doesn't know because this has never been presented to them in the past. He then goes on to say that if they say no, we will convince them and if that fails we will find a regional organization for funding. This, once again, is nothing more than pure speculation by my opponent. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Convincing the billionaires that there lives are in danger is no reasonable way to get funding from them. Billionaires already have private security firms which already protect both themselves and their homes. [1] [2] Betting that terrorists will attack them and cause them to desire such facilities is ludicrous due to the fact that billionaires already have more effective and immediate security forces for use. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? Asking the public a question like "would they rather have peace or a world filled with chaos" is not a question that will get them to donate. Even if they did say they wanted a world of peace, this does not mean they will give money. Stating a desire and giving money to efforts are two completely different things. The public would need a much stronger incentive to actually persuade them to pay into this or have higher taxes due to funding such efforts. Furthermore, what does government spending have to do at all with the wealthiest households paying no income tax?That entire point is incorrect due to the lack of a real connection between those two elements. I'd ask my opponent to expand or clarify this point; prove that all those millionaires aren't paying income taxes. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." Making it law to graduate from highschool would be a political effort in the differing regions, not one that can be implemented by the international community. There is no guarantee that each region will implement such requirements when their own education systems are different from the international community. My opponent then ends this statement by saying we'd have to put home-schooled children into other homes due to their parents possibly being radicals. My opponent is talking about forced removal and adoption of home-schooled kids just to guarantee they will graduate from highschool and terrorist awareness schools. This idea would cause alot of problems: Psychologically to the children, emotionally for all parties involved, and possibly physically if either the parents or children refuse to abandon their family members, etc. On balance, that is an awful idea. One that would most likely not work-out and actually cause more harm and resentment towards the international community that would hypothetically be forcing these standards on the regions that my opponent has still yet to clarify (please see Contention I.) Also, the National Intelligence agencies don't have those capabilities - my opponent must prove that they do. This is why I said earlier that those technologies don't exist. Unless my opponent can prove they do - this point fails. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. What countries are labeled as "not free"? You've still not listed them yourself nor shown where the list was on the link you shared. You still haven't shown how we will even be able to identify these supposed terrorists - so the entire point on what would happen if they fail to graduate is nothing but baseless conjecture. Furthermore, these are potential terrorists - why would we execute them if they fail to graduate when they've yet to commit any acts of terrorism? My opponent is talking about unjustified murder - this is totally unacceptable. Also, most terrorists do not fear death. [3] [3] <URL>...

Blade-of-Truth

I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run. My opponent conceded to the first half of this contention, instead of providing a rebuttal, he stated "that I have a good point". This is a concession of this point by Pro. Furthermore, I saw no list of "not free" countries on the link my opponent shared. Can you please specifically point out where in that link I will find the list of countries that are "not free"? Otherwise, that link should not count as it has no list of countries that are "not free". I also find it weird how you consider Russia & China as "not free" but then go on to call them "superpowers" in the next sentence. Those countries cannot be both "not free" and a Major Superpower. Please expand on this and clarify otherwise it is a self-defeating point. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. My opponent claims he doesn't know because this has never been presented to them in the past. He then goes on to say that if they say no, we will convince them and if that fails we will find a regional organization for funding. This, once again, is nothing more than pure speculation by my opponent. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Convincing the billionaires that there lives are in danger is no reasonable way to get funding from them. Billionaires already have private security firms which already protect both themselves and their homes. [1] [2] Betting that terrorists will attack them and cause them to desire such facilities is ludicrous due to the fact that billionaires already have more effective and immediate security forces for use. [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.torchstoneglobal.com... 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? Asking the public a question like "would they rather have peace or a world filled with chaos" is not a question that will get them to donate. Even if they did say they wanted a world of peace, this does not mean they will give money. Stating a desire and giving money to efforts are two completely different things. The public would need a much stronger incentive to actually persuade them to pay into this or have higher taxes due to funding such efforts. Furthermore, what does government spending have to do at all with the wealthiest households paying no income tax?That entire point is incorrect due to the lack of a real connection between those two elements. I'd ask my opponent to expand or clarify this point; prove that all those millionaires aren't paying income taxes. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." Making it law to graduate from highschool would be a political effort in the differing regions, not one that can be implemented by the international community. There is no guarantee that each region will implement such requirements when their own education systems are different from the international community. My opponent then ends this statement by saying we'd have to put home-schooled children into other homes due to their parents possibly being radicals. My opponent is talking about forced removal and adoption of home-schooled kids just to guarantee they will graduate from highschool and terrorist awareness schools. This idea would cause alot of problems: Psychologically to the children, emotionally for all parties involved, and possibly physically if either the parents or children refuse to abandon their family members, etc. On balance, that is an awful idea. One that would most likely not work-out and actually cause more harm and resentment towards the international community that would hypothetically be forcing these standards on the regions that my opponent has still yet to clarify (please see Contention I.) Also, the National Intelligence agencies don't have those capabilities - my opponent must prove that they do. This is why I said earlier that those technologies don't exist. Unless my opponent can prove they do - this point fails. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. What countries are labeled as "not free"? You've still not listed them yourself nor shown where the list was on the link you shared. You still haven't shown how we will even be able to identify these supposed terrorists - so the entire point on what would happen if they fail to graduate is nothing but baseless conjecture. Furthermore, these are potential terrorists - why would we execute them if they fail to graduate when they've yet to commit any acts of terrorism? My opponent is talking about unjustified murder - this is totally unacceptable. Also, most terrorists do not fear death. [3] [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

First and foremost, you did indeed plagiarize, which is never acceptable conduct in any debate setting. I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run. If you go back to Round 2, the main issue was that you have not shown how it will be worth it in the long run. All you've managed to do is finally provide the list I asked for. You still have a majority of that burden in regards to showing how , which you have now failed to do throughout this debate. Furthermore, there were 54 countries in total that were listed as not free . These are countries that aren't considered free based on the standards used by that one study. Key words - one study. My opponent is attempting to use the standards of one study so justify building educational facilities that will force children who are somehow considered potential terrorists from unverified terrorist families to attend and then graduate or face death. This is ultimately my opponents position. My opponent has failed to show how it would be worth it in the long run - ultimately failing to defeat the original contention. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding. 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. My opponent basically concedes by stating that I must have a better idea. It was your burden to show how or why the UN/Nation would fund such endeavors. My opponent has failed to do this. I do not believe they should or even could fund these endeavors based on the current economic hardships we are already facing. My opponent did not show how we could allocate or find such funding. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Again, my opponent basically concedes this point. He then attempts to save face by making a claim about terrorists always probing the system which includes private security firms. Such claims need evidence to validate them, otherwise they are nothing but baseless conjecture. This point failed to be upheld by Pro. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? My opponent completely drops my incentive arguments here by providing no reply to it. My opponent also fails to show the connection between government spending and 7,000 millionaires who didn't apparently pay income tax. This entire point fails to uphold any burden my opponent had on himself. All he did was show data that some people didn't pay their income taxes, no relevancy was established and therefore these statistics are void in this debate. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children..." My opponent concedes again by agreeing that there is no guarantee these efforts will even be carried out by the regions in question. He then, again, tries to justify it based on nothing more than conjecture. The keyword of "if" makes no difference because you've yet to fulfill the burden of showing how we could determine such things in the first place. Solutions: 1. What age does the psychological effects become damaging? Without defining such things your point falls short. Unless the child is below the age of 3-4 it is generally going to be a traumatizing event to be taken away from your family by force under the actions of international efforts. 2. You need to show how that question will be effective in getting the answer you desire. You cannot expect people to automatically side with you and then provide that speculation as an argument. It doesn't hold. 3. Now you are talking about relocating the entire family? Where will THAT money come from? And if they really ARE terrorists, wouldn't relocating them simply give them a free move and accomplish nothing more? You see, these responses you provided don't truly give us any answers. In regards to the E. Snowdan revelations of NSA capabilities/link, it still doesn't prove that the NSA actually has those capabilities - it simply shares reports that claim that they do. There is a big difference between having those technologies and one media source claiming that they have them. My opponent has not proved nor shown that the NSA can track every terrorist that these educational efforts would target. Especially not in every one of the 54 not-free nations. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. My opponent dropped the fear point by replying with more conjecture by saying they "have to fear something". Still failed to show where the extra funding would come to pay these security forces salaries, and ultimately failed to respond to my question on why we should kill potential terrorists who have yet to commit a crime. Why would it depend on which country they live in? Such statements need clarity. In conclusion, 1. Opponent plagiarized. 2. Unjustified murder. 3. No realistic funding plan. 4. Most responses were nothing more than conjecture. 5. Irrelevant statistics in regards to millionaires/income tax. 6. Unverified claims. 7. Dropped several points. Thank you.

Blade-of-Truth

First and foremost, you did indeed plagiarize, which is never acceptable conduct in any debate setting. I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run. If you go back to Round 2, the main issue was that you have not shown how it will be worth it in the long run. All you've managed to do is finally provide the list I asked for. You still have a majority of that burden in regards to showing how , which you have now failed to do throughout this debate. Furthermore, there were 54 countries in total that were listed as not free . These are countries that aren't considered free based on the standards used by that one study. Key words - one study. My opponent is attempting to use the standards of one study so justify building educational facilities that will force children who are somehow considered potential terrorists from unverified terrorist families to attend and then graduate or face death. This is ultimately my opponents position. My opponent has failed to show how it would be worth it in the long run - ultimately failing to defeat the original contention. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding. 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. My opponent basically concedes by stating that I must have a better idea. It was your burden to show how or why the UN/Nation would fund such endeavors. My opponent has failed to do this. I do not believe they should or even could fund these endeavors based on the current economic hardships we are already facing. My opponent did not show how we could allocate or find such funding. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Again, my opponent basically concedes this point. He then attempts to save face by making a claim about terrorists always probing the system which includes private security firms. Such claims need evidence to validate them, otherwise they are nothing but baseless conjecture. This point failed to be upheld by Pro. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? My opponent completely drops my incentive arguments here by providing no reply to it. My opponent also fails to show the connection between government spending and 7,000 millionaires who didn't apparently pay income tax. This entire point fails to uphold any burden my opponent had on himself. All he did was show data that some people didn't pay their income taxes, no relevancy was established and therefore these statistics are void in this debate. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children..." My opponent concedes again by agreeing that there is no guarantee these efforts will even be carried out by the regions in question. He then, again, tries to justify it based on nothing more than conjecture. The keyword of "if" makes no difference because you've yet to fulfill the burden of showing how we could determine such things in the first place. Solutions: 1. What age does the psychological effects become damaging? Without defining such things your point falls short. Unless the child is below the age of 3-4 it is generally going to be a traumatizing event to be taken away from your family by force under the actions of international efforts. 2. You need to show how that question will be effective in getting the answer you desire. You cannot expect people to automatically side with you and then provide that speculation as an argument. It doesn't hold. 3. Now you are talking about relocating the entire family? Where will THAT money come from? And if they really ARE terrorists, wouldn't relocating them simply give them a free move and accomplish nothing more? You see, these responses you provided don't truly give us any answers. In regards to the E. Snowdan revelations of NSA capabilities/link, it still doesn't prove that the NSA actually has those capabilities - it simply shares reports that claim that they do. There is a big difference between having those technologies and one media source claiming that they have them. My opponent has not proved nor shown that the NSA can track every terrorist that these educational efforts would target. Especially not in every one of the 54 not-free nations. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. My opponent dropped the fear point by replying with more conjecture by saying they "have to fear something". Still failed to show where the extra funding would come to pay these security forces salaries, and ultimately failed to respond to my question on why we should kill potential terrorists who have yet to commit a crime. Why would it depend on which country they live in? Such statements need clarity. In conclusion, 1. Opponent plagiarized. 2. Unjustified murder. 3. No realistic funding plan. 4. Most responses were nothing more than conjecture. 5. Irrelevant statistics in regards to millionaires/income tax. 6. Unverified claims. 7. Dropped several points. Thank you.

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

Terrorism poses a real and serious threat to the security and safety of the Alliance and its members. It is a global threat that knows no border, nationality or religion " a challenge that the international community must tackle together. NATO"s work on counter-terrorism focuses on improved threat awareness and preparedness, developing adequate capabilities and enhancing engagement with partner countries and other international actors. However, When Leaders Die, Terror Still Thrives, because evidence shows that killing terrorist leaders " or "decapitating" terrorist organizations, in military parlance " rarely ends violence on its own and can actually have adverse consequences. Indeed, killing prominent leaders can motivate their followers to retaliate and increase sympathy for the militants" cause among civilians. Simply focusing on the leadership of a terrorist organization rarely brings about the group"s demise. My study of approximately 300 cases of singling out the leadership of 96 terrorist organizations globally " including Al Qaeda and Hamas " between 1945 and 2004, shows that the likelihood of collapse actually declines for groups whose leaders have been arrested or killed. For established terrorist organizations that are more than 20 years old, the likelihood that eliminating leaders will destroy the organization declines significantly. In fact, it becomes counterproductive as a group becomes more established. Large groups can bounce back from the removal of leaders; this almost never cripples groups with more than 500 members. Also, religious and separatist groups are difficult to destabilize. In fact, religious groups that have lost their leaders are less likely to fall apart than those that have not. In the case of Al Qaeda, these patterns suggest that the deaths of high-ranking members may destabilize the group in the short term, but will not be effective in bringing about its decline. Al Qaeda, formed in 1988, is more than 20 years old, an age at which groups become more stable. It is also a religious organization, making it more resistant to attacks on its leadership. And finally, many observers believe that the group has more than 500 members " which puts it over the threshold at which terrorist organizations become more resilient and capable of surviving leadership attacks. This is not to say that Mr. Awlaki"s death is insignificant. Mr. Awlaki had a unique ability to motivate would-be militants in the West and was linked to the shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009, the plot to blow up a Detroit-bound flight on Dec. 25 that same year, and the 2010 attempted bombing in Times Square. But Mr. Awlaki"s killing is unlikely to weaken Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in a significant way. The organization has a leadership structure in place that should be unaffected by his loss, and his death will not hinder the group"s ability to attack targets in Yemen. Indeed, the political crisis there has provided an opportunity for the group to expand. And while it may be difficult for Al Qaeda to replace someone with Mr. Awlaki"s unique ability to attract and inspire militants in the West, it has an ideological resonance that transcends leadership. The doctrine upon which the group is based is not dependent upon leaders, like Bin Laden or Mr. Awlaki, for its reproduction. The decentralized nature of Al Qaeda"s organization " with its regional affiliates operating largely independently " further increases its ability to withstand leadership attacks. A weakened affiliate would not have long-term implications for the operational capacity of the organizational core. While Mr. Awlaki"s death was a major tactical victory, research suggests that over time, Al Qaeda will survive this and other recent attacks. Focusing on leaders alone is not enough to undermine it. It is important to follow up these attacks in ways that will weaken a group"s ability to attract new recruits. Withdrawing ground forces from Afghanistan could undermine one of the causes for which the organization has been fighting. Moreover, providing critical social services in communities where Al Qaeda and other militants operate could eliminate opportunities for them to gain further local support. Undermining the local support upon which groups depend, rather than focusing primarily on killing their leaders, should be a cornerstone of Washington"s counter-terrorism policies.

JBJB1029

Terrorism poses a real and serious threat to the security and safety of the Alliance and its members. It is a global threat that knows no border, nationality or religion " a challenge that the international community must tackle together. NATO"s work on counter-terrorism focuses on improved threat awareness and preparedness, developing adequate capabilities and enhancing engagement with partner countries and other international actors. However, When Leaders Die, Terror Still Thrives, because evidence shows that killing terrorist leaders " or "decapitating" terrorist organizations, in military parlance " rarely ends violence on its own and can actually have adverse consequences. Indeed, killing prominent leaders can motivate their followers to retaliate and increase sympathy for the militants" cause among civilians. Simply focusing on the leadership of a terrorist organization rarely brings about the group"s demise. My study of approximately 300 cases of singling out the leadership of 96 terrorist organizations globally " including Al Qaeda and Hamas " between 1945 and 2004, shows that the likelihood of collapse actually declines for groups whose leaders have been arrested or killed. For established terrorist organizations that are more than 20 years old, the likelihood that eliminating leaders will destroy the organization declines significantly. In fact, it becomes counterproductive as a group becomes more established. Large groups can bounce back from the removal of leaders; this almost never cripples groups with more than 500 members. Also, religious and separatist groups are difficult to destabilize. In fact, religious groups that have lost their leaders are less likely to fall apart than those that have not. In the case of Al Qaeda, these patterns suggest that the deaths of high-ranking members may destabilize the group in the short term, but will not be effective in bringing about its decline. Al Qaeda, formed in 1988, is more than 20 years old, an age at which groups become more stable. It is also a religious organization, making it more resistant to attacks on its leadership. And finally, many observers believe that the group has more than 500 members " which puts it over the threshold at which terrorist organizations become more resilient and capable of surviving leadership attacks. This is not to say that Mr. Awlaki"s death is insignificant. Mr. Awlaki had a unique ability to motivate would-be militants in the West and was linked to the shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009, the plot to blow up a Detroit-bound flight on Dec. 25 that same year, and the 2010 attempted bombing in Times Square. But Mr. Awlaki"s killing is unlikely to weaken Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in a significant way. The organization has a leadership structure in place that should be unaffected by his loss, and his death will not hinder the group"s ability to attack targets in Yemen. Indeed, the political crisis there has provided an opportunity for the group to expand. And while it may be difficult for Al Qaeda to replace someone with Mr. Awlaki"s unique ability to attract and inspire militants in the West, it has an ideological resonance that transcends leadership. The doctrine upon which the group is based is not dependent upon leaders, like Bin Laden or Mr. Awlaki, for its reproduction. The decentralized nature of Al Qaeda"s organization " with its regional affiliates operating largely independently " further increases its ability to withstand leadership attacks. A weakened affiliate would not have long-term implications for the operational capacity of the organizational core. While Mr. Awlaki"s death was a major tactical victory, research suggests that over time, Al Qaeda will survive this and other recent attacks. Focusing on leaders alone is not enough to undermine it. It is important to follow up these attacks in ways that will weaken a group"s ability to attract new recruits. Withdrawing ground forces from Afghanistan could undermine one of the causes for which the organization has been fighting. Moreover, providing critical social services in communities where Al Qaeda and other militants operate could eliminate opportunities for them to gain further local support. Undermining the local support upon which groups depend, rather than focusing primarily on killing their leaders, should be a cornerstone of Washington"s counter-terrorism policies.

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

I. Yes, The Cost of Educating Terrorists will be more expensive than taking them out, but it will be worth it in the long run. II. The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires) III. The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.

JBJB1029

I. Yes, The Cost of Educating Terrorists will be more expensive than taking them out, but it will be worth it in the long run. II. The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires) III. The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

It's True, I did plagiarized my entire first round, but what could I do, because of my Mental Disorder called Autism, I had trouble trying to create my own thing. Would just saying, "Can the proper education end the recruiting process of all radical organizations, in the World?," No! I had to give details of the debate, and trying to create my thing would take days, weeks, months, or maybe even years to do, time, I did not have, so I had to take a shortcut, and plagiarize my entire first round, overall, I am deeply, sorry for what I have done, and if you hate me I understand. :'( I. "...It will be worth it in the long run." How about in the Countries that are ranked as a Potential superpower ( <URL>... ), and in Countries that are Ranked "Not Free," because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. Also, we'll turn Internment camps (Example: Guantanamo Bay detention camp) into a Reeducation camps. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. Yes, No, Maybe, I really don't know, on;y time will tell. 2) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Through the Buffett Foundation (which is a charitable organization formed by Omaha, Nebraska investor and industrialist Warren Buffett as a vehicle to manage his charitable giving. It was renamed Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation in honor of his wife Susan Buffett after her death in 2004.) 3) How will the Billionaires be convinced that this is worth their investments? It's only a matter of time before a Radical Organization who want's money, decides to take action against the Forbes Billionaires. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? Through Donation Programs is how the nations will fund themselves in such efforts, and also by Increasing Taxes on The Rich, while (at the same time) decreasing Taxes on the poor. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." Every single Child on the Planet will be taught through every single type of School in the World. Attendance is mandatory by both local law and international law, if a member of your Family is a Radical. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. As I said in Number I. How about in the Countries that are ranked as a Potential superpower ( <URL>... ), and in Countries that are Ranked "Not Free," because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. Yes, we are to expect tax-payers to fund the military playing the role of security guards for anti-terrorist schools for children. We'll convince the tax-payers to board with this by asking them this, "What would you rather live in: A World filled with Peace or A World filled with Chaos and Violence?" And if that doesn't work, we'll just explain that it's only a matter of time before the War against Radical Organization comes knocking at their door, and it will be the Radicals who are doing the knocking.

JBJB1029

It's True, I did plagiarized my entire first round, but what could I do, because of my Mental Disorder called Autism, I had trouble trying to create my own thing. Would just saying, "Can the proper education end the recruiting process of all radical organizations, in the World?," No! I had to give details of the debate, and trying to create my thing would take days, weeks, months, or maybe even years to do, time, I did not have, so I had to take a shortcut, and plagiarize my entire first round, overall, I am deeply, sorry for what I have done, and if you hate me I understand. :'( I. "...It will be worth it in the long run." How about in the Countries that are ranked as a Potential superpower ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), and in Countries that are Ranked "Not Free," because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. Also, we'll turn Internment camps (Example: Guantanamo Bay detention camp) into a Reeducation camps. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. Yes, No, Maybe, I really don't know, on;y time will tell. 2) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Through the Buffett Foundation (which is a charitable organization formed by Omaha, Nebraska investor and industrialist Warren Buffett as a vehicle to manage his charitable giving. It was renamed Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation in honor of his wife Susan Buffett after her death in 2004.) 3) How will the Billionaires be convinced that this is worth their investments? It's only a matter of time before a Radical Organization who want's money, decides to take action against the Forbes Billionaires. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? Through Donation Programs is how the nations will fund themselves in such efforts, and also by Increasing Taxes on The Rich, while (at the same time) decreasing Taxes on the poor. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." Every single Child on the Planet will be taught through every single type of School in the World. Attendance is mandatory by both local law and international law, if a member of your Family is a Radical. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. As I said in Number I. How about in the Countries that are ranked as a Potential superpower ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), and in Countries that are Ranked "Not Free," because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. Yes, we are to expect tax-payers to fund the military playing the role of security guards for anti-terrorist schools for children. We'll convince the tax-payers to board with this by asking them this, "What would you rather live in: A World filled with Peace or A World filled with Chaos and Violence?" And if that doesn't work, we'll just explain that it's only a matter of time before the War against Radical Organization comes knocking at their door, and it will be the Radicals who are doing the knocking.

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run. Yes, when my opponent said, "Unfortunately, not many potential terrorists group up in these developed nations like America, EU, China, Russia, or Brazil. I see no point in building such facilities in these developed nations when the main terrorist activists are in other regions of the world." He does have a point there. Also, you can find a list of countries "Not Free," Here: ( <URL>... ) (Examples: Russia, China, and Iran. I propose that the Major Superpowers (Example: The United States, European Union, Russia, China, India, and Brazil) build these education facilities. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. Not sure, because no one has ever present this to the U.N. or NATO before, Am I right or Am I Wrong? If they say No, then we'll convince them that this strategy/tactic is the best way forward to World Peace. And if they still say No, then we'll just find another Regional Organization (RO) that will sign up to fund this so called endeavor. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Yes, you are right, there is no evidence whatsoever presented by Pro that this is what will occur at some point in the future. As you stated, "I can just as easily say that the terrorists will start killing celebrities instead of the billionaires and it would hold an equal amount of weight - both are unacceptable." However as Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "Anything is Possible." Which is why they can't let their guard down where ever they go. If they say No, then we'll convince them that it's only a matter of time before they become targets themselves. And if they still say No, then we'll wait patiently until that time comes. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? When my opponent stated, "this will happen through donations, but provides no means in how such donations will actually be presented to the public or how the public would be incentivized to donate to such efforts." Will ask them this Question, "What is would you rather live in, A World filled with Peace or A World filled with Chaos? My opponent has also stated, "Furthermore, my opponent proposes raising the taxes on the rich while lowering the taxes on the poor, and that that will also fund the efforts. I would ask my opponent to explain how exactly these changes to the tax systems are to be carried out without causing political turmoil?" Have you ever considered that since America is borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar it spends because tax revenues, it cannot keep up with government spending, so, as a result, hundreds of America's wealthiest households are paying no income tax at all! So in other words, almost 1,500 Millionaires Do Not Pay Income Tax, and if word of this gets out, the poor will think that the rich are cheating them, and will create turmoil in the streets. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." Easy, make it a requirement for students to Graduate from High School. However, some students that are being Home Schooled, and that is a concern, because there is a good chance the parents are radicals, and if that's the case, the kids will have to put with another family. Also, when you said, "Furthermore, he states that attendance will be mandatory by local & international law if a family member is a radical. The issue with this is that we have no means of knowing who every radical is in this world, such technology does not yet exist. There is no way of guaranteeing that such efforts will actually catch every child who has a radical family member." You forgetting about The National intelligence agencies, they will be to tell you how is a radical or not. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. In Countries that are labeled "Not Free" If Terrorists fail to be re educated they will be executed in the worst way possible. I think what they fear most, is a Slow and painful death than a quick and painless one, Correct? When you said, "How do threats of potential terrorist invasions convince anyone to pay higher taxes?" Think about it, If the Communist Government China was suddenly ousted from power, China's Security will be severely weakened, thus leaving China open to invasion by terrorists from Afghanistan and Pakistan, since they are right next door to China. This is just an example, by the way. Also they don't have to pay higher taxes, they can do it all through Donations, or something similar to War-Bonds. Note: In Countries that are "Not Free," they will give you a Choice, "Either you will help us, or we will perceive you as though you are trying to help the terrorists!"

JBJB1029

I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run. Yes, when my opponent said, "Unfortunately, not many potential terrorists group up in these developed nations like America, EU, China, Russia, or Brazil. I see no point in building such facilities in these developed nations when the main terrorist activists are in other regions of the world." He does have a point there. Also, you can find a list of countries "Not Free," Here: ( http://www.freedomhouse.org... ) (Examples: Russia, China, and Iran. I propose that the Major Superpowers (Example: The United States, European Union, Russia, China, India, and Brazil) build these education facilities. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. Not sure, because no one has ever present this to the U.N. or NATO before, Am I right or Am I Wrong? If they say No, then we'll convince them that this strategy/tactic is the best way forward to World Peace. And if they still say No, then we'll just find another Regional Organization (RO) that will sign up to fund this so called endeavor. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Yes, you are right, there is no evidence whatsoever presented by Pro that this is what will occur at some point in the future. As you stated, "I can just as easily say that the terrorists will start killing celebrities instead of the billionaires and it would hold an equal amount of weight - both are unacceptable." However as Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "Anything is Possible." Which is why they can't let their guard down where ever they go. If they say No, then we'll convince them that it's only a matter of time before they become targets themselves. And if they still say No, then we'll wait patiently until that time comes. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? When my opponent stated, "this will happen through donations, but provides no means in how such donations will actually be presented to the public or how the public would be incentivized to donate to such efforts." Will ask them this Question, "What is would you rather live in, A World filled with Peace or A World filled with Chaos? My opponent has also stated, "Furthermore, my opponent proposes raising the taxes on the rich while lowering the taxes on the poor, and that that will also fund the efforts. I would ask my opponent to explain how exactly these changes to the tax systems are to be carried out without causing political turmoil?" Have you ever considered that since America is borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar it spends because tax revenues, it cannot keep up with government spending, so, as a result, hundreds of America's wealthiest households are paying no income tax at all! So in other words, almost 1,500 Millionaires Do Not Pay Income Tax, and if word of this gets out, the poor will think that the rich are cheating them, and will create turmoil in the streets. III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." Easy, make it a requirement for students to Graduate from High School. However, some students that are being Home Schooled, and that is a concern, because there is a good chance the parents are radicals, and if that's the case, the kids will have to put with another family. Also, when you said, "Furthermore, he states that attendance will be mandatory by local & international law if a family member is a radical. The issue with this is that we have no means of knowing who every radical is in this world, such technology does not yet exist. There is no way of guaranteeing that such efforts will actually catch every child who has a radical family member." You forgetting about The National intelligence agencies, they will be to tell you how is a radical or not. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. In Countries that are labeled "Not Free" If Terrorists fail to be re educated they will be executed in the worst way possible. I think what they fear most, is a Slow and painful death than a quick and painless one, Correct? When you said, "How do threats of potential terrorist invasions convince anyone to pay higher taxes?" Think about it, If the Communist Government China was suddenly ousted from power, China's Security will be severely weakened, thus leaving China open to invasion by terrorists from Afghanistan and Pakistan, since they are right next door to China. This is just an example, by the way. Also they don't have to pay higher taxes, they can do it all through Donations, or something similar to War-Bonds. Note: In Countries that are "Not Free," they will give you a Choice, "Either you will help us, or we will perceive you as though you are trying to help the terrorists!"

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

This is the Final Round, and I'm determined to Win You and the Public over in this debate. I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run. Isn't that what your supposed to do in a Debate? Click on the link ( <URL>... ) and go to page 20, there you'll find a list of "not free" countries + countries that are "Free" and "Partly Free," as a bonus. Click Here: ( <URL>... ) to see the proof that both Russia & China are Potential Superpower, Click here: ( <URL>... ) and here: ( <URL>... ) to to see the proof that both Russia & China are "Not Free" Countries. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. It's true, because I don't know the entire History of the United Nations of what they done since they founded to today. I suppose you got a better idea. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Good Point, and if you have a better idea to get the worlds billionaires to fund this efforts, then I'm all ears. However, Terrorists/Radicals are always probing the system, trying to find the weakest link, looking for a way into the Billionaires private security firms/forces which they use to protect both themselves and their homes. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? If you got a better Idea that will actually persuade them to donate, then I'm all ears. Here's the proof that all those millionaires aren't paying income taxes, click on the link: ( <URL>... ) III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." True, there is no guarantee that each region will implement such requirements when their own education systems are different from the international community. However, with Radicals on the rise, all over the World, I think they'll make an acception. You misunderstand, the keyword is, "IF" as I said, "However, some students that are being Home Schooled, and there is a good chance the parents are radicals, and IF that's the case, the kids will have to be put with another family." Solution to those problems: 1. If they are so young it probably won't affect the Children's, Psychologically 2. We'll ask them this Question, "Would you rather risk a Radical Uprising in our country?" 3. If either the parents or children refuse to abandon their family members, then relocate the family. I suppose you got a better idea. Uh, Ya they do, Case in Point: The National Security Agency (NSA), click on the link ( <URL>... ) and there will be your proof. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. Click on the link ( <URL>... ) and go to page 20, there you'll find a list of "not free" countries + countries that are "Free" and "Partly Free," as a bonus. Click Here: ( <URL>... ) to see the Seven Signs of Terrorist Activity that will help people identify supposed terrorists. Failing to be re-educated, (depeneding on what country you live) can result from relocating to death. In Countries that are "Not Free" they wouldn't care if your a potential terrorist or a full blown terrorist, they will execute you. Terrorists have to fear something. In conclusion, The World has 2 choices, they can either: 1. Re-educate the Radicals (The Bloodless Way) 2. Purge the World of Radicals, just like how The Nazis tried to Purge the World of anyone with Non-Aryan Descent (The Bloody Way)

JBJB1029

This is the Final Round, and I'm determined to Win You and the Public over in this debate. I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run. Isn't that what your supposed to do in a Debate? Click on the link ( http://bit.ly... ) and go to page 20, there you'll find a list of "not free" countries + countries that are "Free" and "Partly Free," as a bonus. Click Here: ( http://bit.ly... ) to see the proof that both Russia & China are Potential Superpower, Click here: ( http://bit.ly... ) and here: ( http://bit.ly... ) to to see the proof that both Russia & China are "Not Free" Countries. II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)". 1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors. It's true, because I don't know the entire History of the United Nations of what they done since they founded to today. I suppose you got a better idea. 2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts. Good Point, and if you have a better idea to get the worlds billionaires to fund this efforts, then I'm all ears. However, Terrorists/Radicals are always probing the system, trying to find the weakest link, looking for a way into the Billionaires private security firms/forces which they use to protect both themselves and their homes. 4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs? If you got a better Idea that will actually persuade them to donate, then I'm all ears. Here's the proof that all those millionaires aren't paying income taxes, click on the link: ( http://read.bi... ) III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults." True, there is no guarantee that each region will implement such requirements when their own education systems are different from the international community. However, with Radicals on the rise, all over the World, I think they'll make an acception. You misunderstand, the keyword is, "IF" as I said, "However, some students that are being Home Schooled, and there is a good chance the parents are radicals, and IF that's the case, the kids will have to be put with another family." Solution to those problems: 1. If they are so young it probably won't affect the Children's, Psychologically 2. We'll ask them this Question, "Would you rather risk a Radical Uprising in our country?" 3. If either the parents or children refuse to abandon their family members, then relocate the family. I suppose you got a better idea. Uh, Ya they do, Case in Point: The National Security Agency (NSA), click on the link ( http://bit.ly... ) and there will be your proof. IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety. Click on the link ( http://bit.ly... ) and go to page 20, there you'll find a list of "not free" countries + countries that are "Free" and "Partly Free," as a bonus. Click Here: ( http://bit.ly... ) to see the Seven Signs of Terrorist Activity that will help people identify supposed terrorists. Failing to be re-educated, (depeneding on what country you live) can result from relocating to death. In Countries that are "Not Free" they wouldn't care if your a potential terrorist or a full blown terrorist, they will execute you. Terrorists have to fear something. In conclusion, The World has 2 choices, they can either: 1. Re-educate the Radicals (The Bloodless Way) 2. Purge the World of Radicals, just like how The Nazis tried to Purge the World of anyone with Non-Aryan Descent (The Bloody Way)

Education

Can-the-proper-education-end-the-recruiting-process-of-all-radical-organizations-in-the-World/1/

Resolved that Cancer is good for the United states of America. I will argue the pro side. I do not want to offend anyone who knows cancer victims, or any cancer survivors. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting and would like him/her to start with arguments.

Rockylightning

Resolved that Cancer is good for the United states of America. I will argue the pro side. I do not want to offend anyone who knows cancer victims, or any cancer survivors. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting and would like him/her to start with arguments.

Health

Cancer-is-good-for-the-United-States-of-America/1/

--Definition-- Cancer: the fourth sign of the zodiac: the cardinal water sign. [1] This is not a disease (nor is it contagious). ---Refutations--- "565,650 Americans died due to cancer in the year 2008, which is around 1,550 people a day, and yearly, cancer causes one out of four deaths." (& all other points) Wrong, the 4th sign of the zodiac will not kill anyone, there is no evidence supporting that a zodiac symbol will destroy people. All your points are invalid. ---Arguments--- 1. Cancer Cancer, meaning "The Crab" is the 4th symbol in the zodiac calender. I will prove today, that this symbol benefits America. Individuals born when the Sun was in this sign are considered Cancerian individuals. Under the tropical zodiac, the Sun enters Cancer on the moment of summer solstice by definition, or roughly on June 21, leaving it around July 22. Under the sidereal zodiac, it is currently roughly from July 16 to August 15. 2. Positives People born during the time period stated above (according to the zodiac) Emotional and loving, Intuitive and imaginative, Shrewd and cautious, Protective and sympathetic. [2] These are good traits no? The more Americans born during cancer, the more good people there are in America. Thank you for accepting this debate and I await the next round. ---Sources--- <URL>... <URL>...

Rockylightning

--Definition-- Cancer: the fourth sign of the zodiac: the cardinal water sign. [1] This is not a disease (nor is it contagious). ---Refutations--- "565,650 Americans died due to cancer in the year 2008, which is around 1,550 people a day, and yearly, cancer causes one out of four deaths." (& all other points) Wrong, the 4th sign of the zodiac will not kill anyone, there is no evidence supporting that a zodiac symbol will destroy people. All your points are invalid. ---Arguments--- 1. Cancer Cancer, meaning "The Crab" is the 4th symbol in the zodiac calender. I will prove today, that this symbol benefits America. Individuals born when the Sun was in this sign are considered Cancerian individuals. Under the tropical zodiac, the Sun enters Cancer on the moment of summer solstice by definition, or roughly on June 21, leaving it around July 22. Under the sidereal zodiac, it is currently roughly from July 16 to August 15. 2. Positives People born during the time period stated above (according to the zodiac) Emotional and loving, Intuitive and imaginative, Shrewd and cautious, Protective and sympathetic. [2] These are good traits no? The more Americans born during cancer, the more good people there are in America. Thank you for accepting this debate and I await the next round. ---Sources--- http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.astrology-online.com...

Health

Cancer-is-good-for-the-United-States-of-America/1/

I will refute my opponents arguments as he numbered them. 1. I said that just in case somebody thought I was talking about the disease. 2. It is not a contradiction, I was stating [in round 1] that I did not want to offend anyone in case they thought I was talking about the disease. 3. "I provided the first definition" The first and the wrong, definition. 4. Good point, but which would you rather have, a person with good traits living for 60 years, or a mean person living for 90. --Conclusion-- My opponent thought this debate was about the disease cancer and not about the zodiac calendar, I clearly was trying not to offend anyone who had clicked onto this debate and automatically VOTEBOMB ME because of what side I took on a topic that seemed like I was promoting death. My opponent accepting this debate said "I will surely start!" clearly showing his eagerness to start a debate for an easy win on a topic that he did not consider to look into in his haste. Therefore we can conclude that haste makes waste, and pro wins.

Rockylightning

I will refute my opponents arguments as he numbered them. 1. I said that just in case somebody thought I was talking about the disease. 2. It is not a contradiction, I was stating [in round 1] that I did not want to offend anyone in case they thought I was talking about the disease. 3. "I provided the first definition" The first and the wrong, definition. 4. Good point, but which would you rather have, a person with good traits living for 60 years, or a mean person living for 90. --Conclusion-- My opponent thought this debate was about the disease cancer and not about the zodiac calendar, I clearly was trying not to offend anyone who had clicked onto this debate and automatically VOTEBOMB ME because of what side I took on a topic that seemed like I was promoting death. My opponent accepting this debate said "I will surely start!" clearly showing his eagerness to start a debate for an easy win on a topic that he did not consider to look into in his haste. Therefore we can conclude that haste makes waste, and pro wins.

Health

Cancer-is-good-for-the-United-States-of-America/1/

" What says the law? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing! " -Victor Hugo Thanks, Pro, for an opportunity to debate on an important subject. I am tempted to argue against the Death Penalty in its entirety, but in this case I think it will be more useful to stick to refuting the expansion proposed by Pro. Since Pro is new to the site, I would prefer to overlook errors as Pro requests, but this issue is an important one and Pro has, so far, based his conclusion on a wide range of erroneous assumptions. Pro has argued that the death penalty ought to be applied to all murderers and sex offenders for 3 reasons. I) RECIDIVISM- There can be no denying that execution will prevent recidivism. A dead prisoner will never commit another crime. I'll take exception to a few of pro's facts, however. A) The 26% re-offend rate pro cites is too low. Roughly 67% of released prisoners are re-arrested and 52% re-incarcerated.[1] However, recidivism rates for rapists who rape again trend significantly lower (2.5% in 3 years after 1994 release) and lower still for murder (1.2% in 3 years after 1994 release). [2] B) Pro states: " As America's population grows, so does crime rates. " This is false and demonstrates a lack of awareness of the significant decrease in crime rates in the U.S. since the early 90's. In 1980, the U.S. population was 225 million people and the crime rate for all crimes was 5,950 crimes reported per 100,000 people (6%), violent crimes 596 (.06%). In 2012, the U.S. population had increased by 40% to 314 million. The crime rate for all crimes was 3,246 crimes reported per 100,000 people (3.2%), violent crimes 387 (.04%). [3] C) Pro states: " As the economy gets worse more people are resorting to violent crime. " The economy shrank for 4 quarters in 2008, 2009 and has been slowly improving since. The economy is not getting worse and using the same data as above, crime decreased a little both in 2008 and 2009. This statement is false. 2) DETERRENCE - Pro argues " studies show murders were drastically decreased after a public execution " The U.S. is the only Western Democracy that permits the death penalty, yet has by far the highest violent crime rate of any Western Democracy, twice that of the second highest. In fact, " studies of capital punishment have consistently shown that homicide actually increases in the time period surrounding an execution. Social scientists refer to this as the "brutalization effect." Execution stimulates homicides in three ways: (1) executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will then decide to kill; (2) the state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable; and (3) executions also have an imitation effect, where people actually follow the example set by the state, after all, people feel if the government can kill its enemies, so can they (Bowers and Pierce, 1980; King, 1978, Forst. 1983)."[4] This effect can be documented by studying murder rate statistics per 100,000 for those U.S. states with a death penalty vs. U.S. states with no death penalty. <URL>... "A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder. Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that "debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems ."[5] 3) COST SAVINGS A) Pro places the cost of incarcerating a criminal at $90,000 per year. In fact, $90,000/year is the cost of maintaining a death row inmate in California. [6],where the average cost of a prisoner is $47,102.[7] The National cost per average prisoner is about $23,876 [8] B) Pro calculates that $90,000/yr for 20 years would be almost one quarter of million dollars. Bad math. 90,000x20=$1.8 million C) Pro states: " If capital punishment was fully reinstated in United States we could save taxpayers millions of dollars per year. " In fact, taxpayers typically pay more to put a prisoner to death than to incarcerate him for life. This may seem counter-intuitive at first glance, but because death penalty cases almost always maximize the appeals process and require so much specialized infrastructure, the bill for death exceeds the bill for Life without parole. The State of California estimates that if it immediately commuted the current docket of prisoners on death row (727) the State would save $170 million/year. Put another way, each Death Row inmate in California costs taxpayers an extra $233,837 per year. Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).[10] The Dept. of Justice estimates that in 2010 there were 188,200 prisoners sentenced for murder in state prisons and roughly 160,800 prisoners sentenced for sexual assault. Let's assume that California's death row costs are high and take half that to estimate the extra cost per prisoner at $117,000. Then let's multiply that number by the 349,000 prisoners Pro would like to put to death. Additional cost? $40,833,000,000. There are plenty of deeper questions to ask about Pro's plan. For example, Pro makes no distinction between first degree murder and manslaughter, between statutory rape and violent sexual assault, between child rapists and online creeps. Additionally, Pro takes all of the sentencing power out of the hands of judges. Not even all murder convictions result in jail time (96% incarceration for convicted murders). For 1 out of every 25 people convicted of murder, the judge does not include prison time in the sentence. Would Pro round up all of these people and execute them as well? What about the tens of thousands who are now on parole or probation as part of a murder sentence? Would Pro kill these populations? So far, Pro has argued for a massive expansion of the death penalty that will cost taxpayers billions per year in additional costs and may actually result in increased murder rates, if the experts are to be believed . [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... [10] <URL>...

Oromagi

" What says the law? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing! " -Victor Hugo Thanks, Pro, for an opportunity to debate on an important subject. I am tempted to argue against the Death Penalty in its entirety, but in this case I think it will be more useful to stick to refuting the expansion proposed by Pro. Since Pro is new to the site, I would prefer to overlook errors as Pro requests, but this issue is an important one and Pro has, so far, based his conclusion on a wide range of erroneous assumptions. Pro has argued that the death penalty ought to be applied to all murderers and sex offenders for 3 reasons. I) RECIDIVISM- There can be no denying that execution will prevent recidivism. A dead prisoner will never commit another crime. I'll take exception to a few of pro's facts, however. A) The 26% re-offend rate pro cites is too low. Roughly 67% of released prisoners are re-arrested and 52% re-incarcerated.[1] However, recidivism rates for rapists who rape again trend significantly lower (2.5% in 3 years after 1994 release) and lower still for murder (1.2% in 3 years after 1994 release). [2] B) Pro states: " As America's population grows, so does crime rates. " This is false and demonstrates a lack of awareness of the significant decrease in crime rates in the U.S. since the early 90's. In 1980, the U.S. population was 225 million people and the crime rate for all crimes was 5,950 crimes reported per 100,000 people (6%), violent crimes 596 (.06%). In 2012, the U.S. population had increased by 40% to 314 million. The crime rate for all crimes was 3,246 crimes reported per 100,000 people (3.2%), violent crimes 387 (.04%). [3] C) Pro states: " As the economy gets worse more people are resorting to violent crime. " The economy shrank for 4 quarters in 2008, 2009 and has been slowly improving since. The economy is not getting worse and using the same data as above, crime decreased a little both in 2008 and 2009. This statement is false. 2) DETERRENCE - Pro argues " studies show murders were drastically decreased after a public execution " The U.S. is the only Western Democracy that permits the death penalty, yet has by far the highest violent crime rate of any Western Democracy, twice that of the second highest. In fact, " studies of capital punishment have consistently shown that homicide actually increases in the time period surrounding an execution. Social scientists refer to this as the "brutalization effect." Execution stimulates homicides in three ways: (1) executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will then decide to kill; (2) the state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable; and (3) executions also have an imitation effect, where people actually follow the example set by the state, after all, people feel if the government can kill its enemies, so can they (Bowers and Pierce, 1980; King, 1978, Forst. 1983)."[4] This effect can be documented by studying murder rate statistics per 100,000 for those U.S. states with a death penalty vs. U.S. states with no death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... "A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder. Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems .”[5] 3) COST SAVINGS A) Pro places the cost of incarcerating a criminal at $90,000 per year. In fact, $90,000/year is the cost of maintaining a death row inmate in California. [6],where the average cost of a prisoner is $47,102.[7] The National cost per average prisoner is about $23,876 [8] B) Pro calculates that $90,000/yr for 20 years would be almost one quarter of million dollars. Bad math. 90,000x20=$1.8 million C) Pro states: " If capital punishment was fully reinstated in United States we could save taxpayers millions of dollars per year. " In fact, taxpayers typically pay more to put a prisoner to death than to incarcerate him for life. This may seem counter-intuitive at first glance, but because death penalty cases almost always maximize the appeals process and require so much specialized infrastructure, the bill for death exceeds the bill for Life without parole. The State of California estimates that if it immediately commuted the current docket of prisoners on death row (727) the State would save $170 million/year. Put another way, each Death Row inmate in California costs taxpayers an extra $233,837 per year. Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).[10] The Dept. of Justice estimates that in 2010 there were 188,200 prisoners sentenced for murder in state prisons and roughly 160,800 prisoners sentenced for sexual assault. Let's assume that California's death row costs are high and take half that to estimate the extra cost per prisoner at $117,000. Then let's multiply that number by the 349,000 prisoners Pro would like to put to death. Additional cost? $40,833,000,000. There are plenty of deeper questions to ask about Pro's plan. For example, Pro makes no distinction between first degree murder and manslaughter, between statutory rape and violent sexual assault, between child rapists and online creeps. Additionally, Pro takes all of the sentencing power out of the hands of judges. Not even all murder convictions result in jail time (96% incarceration for convicted murders). For 1 out of every 25 people convicted of murder, the judge does not include prison time in the sentence. Would Pro round up all of these people and execute them as well? What about the tens of thousands who are now on parole or probation as part of a murder sentence? Would Pro kill these populations? So far, Pro has argued for a massive expansion of the death penalty that will cost taxpayers billions per year in additional costs and may actually result in increased murder rates, if the experts are to be believed . [1] http://www.infoplease.com... [2] http://www.bjs.gov... [3] http://www.disastercenter.com... [4] http://www.e-archives.ky.gov... [5] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [6] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [7] http://www.lao.ca.gov... [8] http://www.pewtrusts.org... [9] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [10] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Politics

Capital-Punishment-in-USA/1/

Pro forfeits. Continue arguments from previous round.

Oromagi

Pro forfeits. Continue arguments from previous round.

Politics

Capital-Punishment-in-USA/1/

Pro forfeits. Continue argument from round 1 and VOTE CON

Oromagi

Pro forfeits. Continue argument from round 1 and VOTE CON

Politics

Capital-Punishment-in-USA/1/

I am new to this site. ---- I think that capital punishment should be totally reinstated in United States. United States is facing a financial deficit, and by executing rapists, child predators and murders can save the American taxpayers millions if not billions per year. ----------------------------- Firstly, the cost of looking after these criminals is too much; it"s a major burden to our economy. It costs around $90,000 a year to look after these people; so if an inmate is in jail for 20 years the cost is outstanding, Almost a quarter of a million dollars per person. In 2010 over 30,000 inmates were incarcerated in maximum security prisons, these prisons house the worst of the worst and yet some of the most expensive jails in the country. If capital punishment was fully reinstated in United States we could save taxpayers millions of dollars per year, this money could be put into education or infrastructure. ------------------- Secondly at least 26% of criminals re-offend, by executing prisoners that percentage can be cut drastically. As America"s population grows so does crime rates. As the economy gets worse more people are resorting to committing violent crimes. ---- Lastly multiple studies show murders were drastically decreased after a public execution; the foresight that they could be killed for their actions may prevent them from committing the crime. --- ------------------ ======================================= All of my information should be accurate, if there are any minor mistakes simply overlook them for the sake of the debate.

elijah254

I am new to this site. ---- I think that capital punishment should be totally reinstated in United States. United States is facing a financial deficit, and by executing rapists, child predators and murders can save the American taxpayers millions if not billions per year. ----------------------------- Firstly, the cost of looking after these criminals is too much; it"s a major burden to our economy. It costs around $90,000 a year to look after these people; so if an inmate is in jail for 20 years the cost is outstanding, Almost a quarter of a million dollars per person. In 2010 over 30,000 inmates were incarcerated in maximum security prisons, these prisons house the worst of the worst and yet some of the most expensive jails in the country. If capital punishment was fully reinstated in United States we could save taxpayers millions of dollars per year, this money could be put into education or infrastructure. ------------------- Secondly at least 26% of criminals re-offend, by executing prisoners that percentage can be cut drastically. As America"s population grows so does crime rates. As the economy gets worse more people are resorting to committing violent crimes. ---- Lastly multiple studies show murders were drastically decreased after a public execution; the foresight that they could be killed for their actions may prevent them from committing the crime. --- ------------------ ======================================= All of my information should be accurate, if there are any minor mistakes simply overlook them for the sake of the debate.

Politics

Capital-Punishment-in-USA/1/

Capitalism has been born out of human greed, and insecurity. As Tupac Shakur said "They have money for wars but can't feed the poor". Capitalism is basically having money but not using it for anything but to make more money. I am not for socialism or any other popular system. I simply believe that people should stop focusing on money as it is an imagined concept- its cotton or paper notes and round pieces of metal that have drove humanity to madness. As Marshall Mathers said "money is what makes a man act funny". without capitalism not only would there be less suffering, but you would probably be able to buy items for a price that they are actually worth, (when i say buy i don't necessarily mean for money, could be trade or at least a restricted amount of money or something) . I have come to this opinion through experience in my own life, and by looking at the world around me.

MCAC

Capitalism has been born out of human greed, and insecurity. As Tupac Shakur said "They have money for wars but can't feed the poor". Capitalism is basically having money but not using it for anything but to make more money. I am not for socialism or any other popular system. I simply believe that people should stop focusing on money as it is an imagined concept- its cotton or paper notes and round pieces of metal that have drove humanity to madness. As Marshall Mathers said "money is what makes a man act funny". without capitalism not only would there be less suffering, but you would probably be able to buy items for a price that they are actually worth, (when i say buy i don't necessarily mean for money, could be trade or at least a restricted amount of money or something) . I have come to this opinion through experience in my own life, and by looking at the world around me.

Society

Capitalism-is-one-of-the-main-reasons-for-suffering-in-society./1/

I understand where you're coming from, by definition capitalism does mean that, however my point is that it is based purely on money. There could be a more moral system which doesn't mean businesses can grow big enough to i.e. employ child labour and get away with it because they, maybe, bribe people to not speak of it. That's just one example. Im also not saying that money should be completely abolished, but capitalism primarily focuses on the concept, and if people stopped wanting money just to have it, or to multiply it, would instead use it to help, people would not suffer as much. This is very obvious is it not?

MCAC

I understand where you're coming from, by definition capitalism does mean that, however my point is that it is based purely on money. There could be a more moral system which doesn't mean businesses can grow big enough to i.e. employ child labour and get away with it because they, maybe, bribe people to not speak of it. That's just one example. Im also not saying that money should be completely abolished, but capitalism primarily focuses on the concept, and if people stopped wanting money just to have it, or to multiply it, would instead use it to help, people would not suffer as much. This is very obvious is it not?

Society

Capitalism-is-one-of-the-main-reasons-for-suffering-in-society./1/

Just realised ive not given enough rounds for this debate, sorry. For one, i try not to make money easily if its not really deserved. For example i do not invest in shares as thats helping companies get bigger for doing, well not something that is worth millions or billions, because i then end up making money for clicking the mouse and watching charts. I try to make money worth my work, actually help someone who needs. Surely if we used capitalism differently it would no longer be capitalism though? I just cant see how capitalism could be used without causing grief, as it is, as the dictionary states, to make profits. Profits in one place mean losses elsewhere. there we go. profits mean losses have to be made somewhere else, which lead to.. well you know what. and if there isn't, then money is being pulled from thin air, which is whats happening now, i.e. countries borrowed money, and profits to the loner have been multiplying through interest rates, which led the globe to be in a total debt of over $53,000,000,000,000 and growing. that imaginary money shouldn't be there. imagine transferring the value of this money into services to help this tragedy, we call our home. <URL>... Thanks for the debate.

MCAC

Just realised ive not given enough rounds for this debate, sorry. For one, i try not to make money easily if its not really deserved. For example i do not invest in shares as thats helping companies get bigger for doing, well not something that is worth millions or billions, because i then end up making money for clicking the mouse and watching charts. I try to make money worth my work, actually help someone who needs. Surely if we used capitalism differently it would no longer be capitalism though? I just cant see how capitalism could be used without causing grief, as it is, as the dictionary states, to make profits. Profits in one place mean losses elsewhere. there we go. profits mean losses have to be made somewhere else, which lead to.. well you know what. and if there isn't, then money is being pulled from thin air, which is whats happening now, i.e. countries borrowed money, and profits to the loner have been multiplying through interest rates, which led the globe to be in a total debt of over $53,000,000,000,000 and growing. that imaginary money shouldn't be there. imagine transferring the value of this money into services to help this tragedy, we call our home. http://www.economist.com... Thanks for the debate.

Society

Capitalism-is-one-of-the-main-reasons-for-suffering-in-society./1/

I think you're a bit confused about the definition of capitalism. noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Capitalism may not be the best system. It has its problems, but what system doesn't? You're talking about it like it's the embodiment of greed or something. " Capitalism is basically having money but not using it for anything but to make more money. " Although capitalism does, unfortunately, allow this to happen quite often, money is far more often used to simply buy food, services, tools and the various other things that serve to make a person happy. You may have to pay a bit more than they're worth, but the people who make them, sell them, and invent them need a little share of the profit too. <URL>...

Mantizah

I think you're a bit confused about the definition of capitalism. noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Capitalism may not be the best system. It has its problems, but what system doesn't? You're talking about it like it's the embodiment of greed or something. " Capitalism is basically having money but not using it for anything but to make more money. " Although capitalism does, unfortunately, allow this to happen quite often, money is far more often used to simply buy food, services, tools and the various other things that serve to make a person happy. You may have to pay a bit more than they're worth, but the people who make them, sell them, and invent them need a little share of the profit too. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Society

Capitalism-is-one-of-the-main-reasons-for-suffering-in-society./1/

Indeed, what you say is extremely clear to see. Capitalism is such a big part of our lives that it will undoubtably be connected to a hell of a lot of strife, but you can't blame your legs when you trip. We just aren't advanced enough as a species to use it properly. Indeed a better system would help A LOT, but it's far more our own fault for not using it right, is it not?

Mantizah

Indeed, what you say is extremely clear to see. Capitalism is such a big part of our lives that it will undoubtably be connected to a hell of a lot of strife, but you can't blame your legs when you trip. We just aren't advanced enough as a species to use it properly. Indeed a better system would help A LOT, but it's far more our own fault for not using it right, is it not?

Society

Capitalism-is-one-of-the-main-reasons-for-suffering-in-society./1/

i've agreed with most of the things you've said so far, but I still think you're twisting the definition a bit. Indeed if we could learn get along better, stop using money we don't have, and worry about more than our own personal gain, we could live far better than we do now., but private ownership isn't to blame. It's our imperfections. Our greed, our stupidity, our love of power... it's the fact that we're human.. And as always, thank you for the debate.

Mantizah

i've agreed with most of the things you've said so far, but I still think you're twisting the definition a bit. Indeed if we could learn get along better, stop using money we don't have, and worry about more than our own personal gain, we could live far better than we do now., but private ownership isn't to blame. It's our imperfections. Our greed, our stupidity, our love of power... it's the fact that we're human.. And as always, thank you for the debate.

Society

Capitalism-is-one-of-the-main-reasons-for-suffering-in-society./1/

Carli is NOT the most amazing person ever. I dare you tell me all the reason why she is the most amazing person ever. Every details and I will do my best to disagree with my details. Good Luck.

dweyand07

Carli is NOT the most amazing person ever. I dare you tell me all the reason why she is the most amazing person ever. Every details and I will do my best to disagree with my details. Good Luck.

Entertainment

Carli-aka-SexyCracker-is-the-most-amazing-person-ever./1/

Look like you gave me seven reasons and I'm going to do my best to disprove each of them. Quoted from your round two. "1) She accepted me for who I was on the inside. She didn't try to avoid me because of my disability. 2) She and I both think Taylor's a dumbass 3) She didn't try to avoid me when I told her how much I liked her (which I appreciate by the way Carli :P) 4) She's a very smart girl who sometimes confuses me with her vocabulary usage. 5) She totally OWNED draxxt 6) She knows all the words to the Time Warp 7) And because I love her <3" 1) You never told us your disability. Carli does not always accept people who they are on in the inside. Maybe to you, but not everybody else. 2) "Taylor" is a person, place, building name, college name? There is a Taylor University <URL> Also, there's a city name Taylor, <URL> Again, not everybody on here know who is Taylor and why he is "dumb@$$" Define of that term is: a stupid person; these words are used to express a low opinion of someone's intelligence <URL>... 3) From what I heard, a lot of people who does like her, she's just does not like the person back. If she does not like you back, that would mean she's not an amazing person because she dislike you. 4) She may be a smart girl, but she's always try to make other people confusing about everything. It's called reverse-psychology. That is not always mean the person is smart, she just plays with people words. 5) I would say she did not OWNED draxxt, as you see the other debate between both of them. SexyCracker lost and draxxt has the higher rate of won compare to lost. Define for "OWNED" - Person who has show ownership to any objects. Therefore, Carli could not owned draxxt. She may have beat draxxt, but does not mean she owned him. 6) She may know all the words to Time Warp from "Rocky Horror Picture Show" but you did not say it was from the movie. It could be scientific things called "Time Warp" which we all know it's not real thing. Also, people know the whole song by a singer but that does not mean the person is amazing just because that person know the whole lyrics of it. 7) You may love her for whatever reason, but does she really love you? Does anybody else loves her because she knows time warp lyrics, play "Reverse-Psychology" with people. I would doubt that Carli is the most amazing person.

dweyand07

Look like you gave me seven reasons and I'm going to do my best to disprove each of them. Quoted from your round two. "1) She accepted me for who I was on the inside. She didn't try to avoid me because of my disability. 2) She and I both think Taylor's a dumbass 3) She didn't try to avoid me when I told her how much I liked her (which I appreciate by the way Carli :P) 4) She's a very smart girl who sometimes confuses me with her vocabulary usage. 5) She totally OWNED draxxt 6) She knows all the words to the Time Warp 7) And because I love her <3" 1) You never told us your disability. Carli does not always accept people who they are on in the inside. Maybe to you, but not everybody else. 2) "Taylor" is a person, place, building name, college name? There is a Taylor University www.taylor.edu/ Also, there's a city name Taylor, www.cityoftaylor.com/ Again, not everybody on here know who is Taylor and why he is "dumb@$$" Define of that term is: a stupid person; these words are used to express a low opinion of someone's intelligence http://wordnet.princeton.edu... 3) From what I heard, a lot of people who does like her, she's just does not like the person back. If she does not like you back, that would mean she's not an amazing person because she dislike you. 4) She may be a smart girl, but she's always try to make other people confusing about everything. It's called reverse-psychology. That is not always mean the person is smart, she just plays with people words. 5) I would say she did not OWNED draxxt, as you see the other debate between both of them. SexyCracker lost and draxxt has the higher rate of won compare to lost. Define for "OWNED" - Person who has show ownership to any objects. Therefore, Carli could not owned draxxt. She may have beat draxxt, but does not mean she owned him. 6) She may know all the words to Time Warp from "Rocky Horror Picture Show" but you did not say it was from the movie. It could be scientific things called "Time Warp" which we all know it's not real thing. Also, people know the whole song by a singer but that does not mean the person is amazing just because that person know the whole lyrics of it. 7) You may love her for whatever reason, but does she really love you? Does anybody else loves her because she knows time warp lyrics, play "Reverse-Psychology" with people. I would doubt that Carli is the most amazing person.

Entertainment

Carli-aka-SexyCracker-is-the-most-amazing-person-ever./1/

I have different point of view about the word "amazing." Carli is just another person living on Earth. 1) I don't know her in person. 2) She doesn't seems that amazing to me. 3) She really is too cocky about herself just "owned" somebody. 4) The word "amazing" would be something that is different and really shocked me, Carli doesn't do any of those (Sorry). 5) Who in the world would memorized the whole lyrics from "Time Warp" beside herself? 6) She also tried to tell me that I got bad taste of music, but seriously, everybody got different taste of music. We all know that. Again, every person have their own opinion and point of view about everything. The topic is "Carli aka SexyCracker is the most amazing person ever" and you are the only person would have to agree with that statement beside Carli.

dweyand07

I have different point of view about the word "amazing." Carli is just another person living on Earth. 1) I don't know her in person. 2) She doesn't seems that amazing to me. 3) She really is too cocky about herself just "owned" somebody. 4) The word "amazing" would be something that is different and really shocked me, Carli doesn't do any of those (Sorry). 5) Who in the world would memorized the whole lyrics from "Time Warp" beside herself? 6) She also tried to tell me that I got bad taste of music, but seriously, everybody got different taste of music. We all know that. Again, every person have their own opinion and point of view about everything. The topic is "Carli aka SexyCracker is the most amazing person ever" and you are the only person would have to agree with that statement beside Carli.

Entertainment

Carli-aka-SexyCracker-is-the-most-amazing-person-ever./1/

I believe that cars were better back in the 70's and 80's because they had better looks, more powerful engines, and you could do more to them then you can with todays cars. Thanks to whoever accepts this debate.

bcresmer

I believe that cars were better back in the 70's and 80's because they had better looks, more powerful engines, and you could do more to them then you can with todays cars. Thanks to whoever accepts this debate.

Technology

Cars-were-better-in-the-70s-and-80s-then-they-are-today./1/

My turn. 1) They are much safer. / I concide this point. 2) As my opponent had stated they were more powerful back in the 70's and 80's and that is just not true. / This is 50/50 true. <PHONE> Dodge Charger B-body ( i was unable to get HP for the engines. sorry) 225 cu in (3.7 L) 1bbl I6 (1969-70) 318 cu in (5.2 L) 2bbl LA V8 383 cu in (6.3 L) 2bbl B V8 383 cu in (6.3 L) 4bbl B V8 426 cu in (7.0 L) Hemi 2x4bbl RB V8 440 cu in (7.2 L) 4bbl RB V8 440 cu in (7.2 L) 2x3 RB (1970) 2010 Dodge Charger 2.7 L (160 cu in) EER V6 190 hp (142 kW) 3.5 L (210 cu in) EGJ V6 250 hp (186 kW) 5.7 L (345 cu in) EZB/EZD HEMI V8 368 hp (274 kW) 6.1 L (370 cu in) ESF HEMI V8 425 hp (317 kW) 3) As seen above, they had more engine options then they do today. My turn 1) They looked better in the 70's and 80's then todays cars. 2) Almost every car back then had a V8 in it.

bcresmer

My turn. 1) They are much safer. / I concide this point. 2) As my opponent had stated they were more powerful back in the 70's and 80's and that is just not true. / This is 50/50 true. 1968-1970 Dodge Charger B-body ( i was unable to get HP for the engines. sorry) 225 cu in (3.7 L) 1bbl I6 (1969-70) 318 cu in (5.2 L) 2bbl LA V8 383 cu in (6.3 L) 2bbl B V8 383 cu in (6.3 L) 4bbl B V8 426 cu in (7.0 L) Hemi 2x4bbl RB V8 440 cu in (7.2 L) 4bbl RB V8 440 cu in (7.2 L) 2x3 RB (1970) 2010 Dodge Charger 2.7 L (160 cu in) EER V6 190 hp (142 kW) 3.5 L (210 cu in) EGJ V6 250 hp (186 kW) 5.7 L (345 cu in) EZB/EZD HEMI V8 368 hp (274 kW) 6.1 L (370 cu in) ESF HEMI V8 425 hp (317 kW) 3) As seen above, they had more engine options then they do today. My turn 1) They looked better in the 70's and 80's then todays cars. 2) Almost every car back then had a V8 in it.

Technology

Cars-were-better-in-the-70s-and-80s-then-they-are-today./1/

(I would also like to point out the fact that my opponent used one car for his example. On average the newer model cars come with a hemi engine and are faster.) They may have a hemi option, but they are nothing compared to the older versions (counter point 2. most modern re-issues of cars come with a hemi option) Only the Charger and Challenger have the optional hemi. You can never match the sound of the old muscle cars starting up and revving. The newer cars you can barely even hear Vote Pro

bcresmer

(I would also like to point out the fact that my opponent used one car for his example. On average the newer model cars come with a hemi engine and are faster.) They may have a hemi option, but they are nothing compared to the older versions (counter point 2. most modern re-issues of cars come with a hemi option) Only the Charger and Challenger have the optional hemi. You can never match the sound of the old muscle cars starting up and revving. The newer cars you can barely even hear Vote Pro

Technology

Cars-were-better-in-the-70s-and-80s-then-they-are-today./1/

Since you are one of the best debators so far on here how about you prove it, and lets see what you got, lets see if your athesim knowledge helps you out on this topic.

LegendKiller

Since you are one of the best debators so far on here how about you prove it, and lets see what you got, lets see if your athesim knowledge helps you out on this topic.

Religion

Catholicism-proves-evolution-wrong/1/

Evolution The theory of evolution was posited by Charles Darwin and was published in 1859. "Evolution is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years"(What Is The" n.d.). Darwin's general theory presumes the" development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)"(Darwin's Theory Of" n.d.). Rebuttal Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, things must already be the case. For example: "there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety"("Can Evolution Explain" n.d). The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.

LegendKiller

Evolution The theory of evolution was posited by Charles Darwin and was published in 1859. "Evolution is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years"(What Is The" n.d.). Darwin's general theory presumes the" development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)"(Darwin's Theory Of" n.d.). Rebuttal Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, things must already be the case. For example: "there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety"("Can Evolution Explain" n.d). The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.

Religion

Catholicism-proves-evolution-wrong/1/

I don't need luck ,it just gets in my way. I can conclude that abiogenesis is also wrong too just by your explanition. The reason is because natural selection is a key concept in this study. Natural selection too tends to fail in the evolution theory. Charles Darwin said "that natural selections acts can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." He also said an organism can never be an "irreducibly complex system, if this was to happen without any slight modifications, his theory would be wrong" Origin of Species, 1859, p. 158). Humans seem to be irreducibly complex; the reason is because humans have lungs, heart, and a brain. A human being that lacks any of these won't just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won't have any survival value at all. We therefore can't have immediately acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn't evolution. Evolution is a gradual process. Organs. The human brain is one of the most complex things known to man. The brain stores an amazingly huge amount of information. The brain takes in all the colors and objects people see, the temperature around people, the pressure of someone's feet against the floor, the sounds around, the dryness of the mouth, even the texture of the keyboard. The brain holds and processes all natural emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time the brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of the body like for example breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. The brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows people to focus and operate effectively in the world. The brain functions differently than other organs "(Adamson n.d).There is intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. God created the human brain, because something as complex and intelligent can only be created by someone as complex and super intelligent like God. The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. "It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter" (Adamson n.d). The only answer is God. As Catholics we believe that God created everything and he has no begining.Evolution on the other hand, has a begininng. Tell me what came before bacteria and before that and etc.. Science has not found the answer to that yet. Even einstein himself believes theres a God and he is classfily as one of the most respected scientist of all time.(Not saying hes Catholic). If someone as smart as him, who has dedicated his whole life to science believes that only God has created everything what does that say of science itself. He himself knows that theres somethings science can't prove. Science can not prove everything. On the other hand Catholcism proves everything, because the only explanition to everything is God. Motion. One reason why God prove evolution wroong is the argument of motion posited by Thomas Aquinas Catholic Phlisopher). His first proof was that "some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there cant' be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover" (Aquinas n.d). Thus, if Aquinas' argument is correct, "the degree of the truth of the conclusion would be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.Also, note that the concept of motion involves dependency, not necessarily temporal succession. In other words, the argument from motion relies on the concepts of potentiality and actuality rather than that of causal sequence."("The argument of" 2012). Evident to our senses in motion--the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. An example would be an actual oak tree is what produces the potentiality of an acorn. Unless there is a first mover , there can be no motion, taking away the actual is to take away the potential. In these terms, which came first the chicken or the egg? Another example would be "the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert"( " The Argument of" 2012). Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such; the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series. A First. Thomas Aquinas' third proof is "Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing"(Aquinas n.d). What the argument means "since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time. Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number .If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing--there is no creation) for individual existent objects. But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe. Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists ( "The argument of", 2012). One way to think about Thomas' argument is to consider "a straight line extending without bound representing time. If one takes a finite number of line segments of a specific length representing the time of existence of objects in the world and places them on that line, then most of the unbounded time-line would be unoccupied. That is, very little of the time would objects exist. Thus, there must be something necessary upon which these existent objects depend since at the present time it would so improbable that objects should exist" ("The argument of", 2012). Sources <URL>... <URL>... <URL> Notice how none of my sources are from wikipedia, because wikipedia pages are made by people, which contains opinions. Even I know this, your one of the best and you still use wikipedia. They classifly anybody as good these days. Good luck, your goning to need it.

LegendKiller

I don't need luck ,it just gets in my way. I can conclude that abiogenesis is also wrong too just by your explanition. The reason is because natural selection is a key concept in this study. Natural selection too tends to fail in the evolution theory. Charles Darwin said "that natural selections acts can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." He also said an organism can never be an "irreducibly complex system, if this was to happen without any slight modifications, his theory would be wrong" Origin of Species, 1859, p. 158). Humans seem to be irreducibly complex; the reason is because humans have lungs, heart, and a brain. A human being that lacks any of these won't just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won't have any survival value at all. We therefore can't have immediately acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn't evolution. Evolution is a gradual process. Organs. The human brain is one of the most complex things known to man. The brain stores an amazingly huge amount of information. The brain takes in all the colors and objects people see, the temperature around people, the pressure of someone's feet against the floor, the sounds around, the dryness of the mouth, even the texture of the keyboard. The brain holds and processes all natural emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time the brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of the body like for example breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. The brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows people to focus and operate effectively in the world. The brain functions differently than other organs "(Adamson n.d).There is intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. God created the human brain, because something as complex and intelligent can only be created by someone as complex and super intelligent like God. The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. "It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter" (Adamson n.d). The only answer is God. As Catholics we believe that God created everything and he has no begining.Evolution on the other hand, has a begininng. Tell me what came before bacteria and before that and etc.. Science has not found the answer to that yet. Even einstein himself believes theres a God and he is classfily as one of the most respected scientist of all time.(Not saying hes Catholic). If someone as smart as him, who has dedicated his whole life to science believes that only God has created everything what does that say of science itself. He himself knows that theres somethings science can't prove. Science can not prove everything. On the other hand Catholcism proves everything, because the only explanition to everything is God. Motion. One reason why God prove evolution wroong is the argument of motion posited by Thomas Aquinas Catholic Phlisopher). His first proof was that "some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there cant' be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover" (Aquinas n.d). Thus, if Aquinas' argument is correct, "the degree of the truth of the conclusion would be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.Also, note that the concept of motion involves dependency, not necessarily temporal succession. In other words, the argument from motion relies on the concepts of potentiality and actuality rather than that of causal sequence."("The argument of" 2012). Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. An example would be an actual oak tree is what produces the potentiality of an acorn. Unless there is a first mover , there can be no motion, taking away the actual is to take away the potential. In these terms, which came first the chicken or the egg? Another example would be "the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert"( " The Argument of" 2012). Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such; the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series. A First. Thomas Aquinas' third proof is "Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing"(Aquinas n.d). What the argument means "since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time. Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number .If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation) for individual existent objects. But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe. Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists ( "The argument of", 2012). One way to think about Thomas' argument is to consider "a straight line extending without bound representing time. If one takes a finite number of line segments of a specific length representing the time of existence of objects in the world and places them on that line, then most of the unbounded time-line would be unoccupied. That is, very little of the time would objects exist. Thus, there must be something necessary upon which these existent objects depend since at the present time it would so improbable that objects should exist" ("The argument of", 2012). Sources http://www.existence-of-god.com... http://philosophy.lander.edu... www.newadvent.com Notice how none of my sources are from wikipedia, because wikipedia pages are made by people, which contains opinions. Even I know this, your one of the best and you still use wikipedia. They classifly anybody as good these days. Good luck, your goning to need it.

Religion

Catholicism-proves-evolution-wrong/1/

I am very aware of this topic and I dislike that kids get to have cellphones, now I know there are some people who are all for kids having cellphones so I hope this topic will get some great feedback. I shall be pointing out why they shouldn't have them until their 7th grade year and why I feel they aren't responsible enough for it. I shall also be pointing out why a child has no reason to even have one.

SquadSix

I am very aware of this topic and I dislike that kids get to have cellphones, now I know there are some people who are all for kids having cellphones so I hope this topic will get some great feedback. I shall be pointing out why they shouldn't have them until their 7th grade year and why I feel they aren't responsible enough for it. I shall also be pointing out why a child has no reason to even have one.

Technology

Cellphones-for-Kids-4-11-year-olds/1/

I also agree with your statement that if you prove a single 11 year old is allowed to use a cell phone you should win so lets commence round two. I attended preschool so I can see where you are going here but there are a few variants I would like to share. In a school usually every teacher would have a phone in there office if I am correct so in class emergency's could be handled by that situation but if it is after school at a practice or something another variant occurs, if the front office is open or not. In my school the front office is usually opened for practices but my school isn't every school in the nation but that is where friends come in. Their friends can help you get home or even if you have an older brother or sister who works out or practices on JV or Varsity to help them get home. Your statement about what I believe is day-care, is easily avoidable with the day-care workers. There is always help available there and adults with land-line phones and cell phones. Now if they let the child use the cell phone for that instance I wouldn't consider that to be having one but using so don't think of that as a loophole. When you talked about dancing there may or may not be chaperones and if not there may be a teacher there. At my school there was usually a dance that was for high school only and middle school which included 5th grade also. Since there are 7th and 8th graders they could help in the calling. Now if a 6th grader going into 7th grade is getting a cell phone they could talk to a sibling or a friend going into 8th grade or higher in how to properly use one. The main problem I have with kids using cell phones is texting. They will start using texts at a young age if they get it at a young age. They will start writing in text language. An example would be, "U r my frnd." I have no idea how to write in text talk since I have written everyday in my life(exaggeration). I can see your point on outside of school emergency's as well such as your example, but why are they alone anyways. I mean a 5th or 6th grader and maybe a 4th grader but for a preschooler to a 3rd grader should not be alone outside. They should be with an older sibling or an adult at all times so not to be kidnapped or injured on accident. Until the parents know they are not allowed to talk to strangers they should not be alone outside. I leave the floor to you.

SquadSix

I also agree with your statement that if you prove a single 11 year old is allowed to use a cell phone you should win so lets commence round two. I attended preschool so I can see where you are going here but there are a few variants I would like to share. In a school usually every teacher would have a phone in there office if I am correct so in class emergency's could be handled by that situation but if it is after school at a practice or something another variant occurs, if the front office is open or not. In my school the front office is usually opened for practices but my school isn't every school in the nation but that is where friends come in. Their friends can help you get home or even if you have an older brother or sister who works out or practices on JV or Varsity to help them get home. Your statement about what I believe is day-care, is easily avoidable with the day-care workers. There is always help available there and adults with land-line phones and cell phones. Now if they let the child use the cell phone for that instance I wouldn't consider that to be having one but using so don't think of that as a loophole. When you talked about dancing there may or may not be chaperones and if not there may be a teacher there. At my school there was usually a dance that was for high school only and middle school which included 5th grade also. Since there are 7th and 8th graders they could help in the calling. Now if a 6th grader going into 7th grade is getting a cell phone they could talk to a sibling or a friend going into 8th grade or higher in how to properly use one. The main problem I have with kids using cell phones is texting. They will start using texts at a young age if they get it at a young age. They will start writing in text language. An example would be, "U r my frnd." I have no idea how to write in text talk since I have written everyday in my life(exaggeration). I can see your point on outside of school emergency's as well such as your example, but why are they alone anyways. I mean a 5th or 6th grader and maybe a 4th grader but for a preschooler to a 3rd grader should not be alone outside. They should be with an older sibling or an adult at all times so not to be kidnapped or injured on accident. Until the parents know they are not allowed to talk to strangers they should not be alone outside. I leave the floor to you.

Technology

Cellphones-for-Kids-4-11-year-olds/1/

Yeah I can see your point about the office and for real emergency's like getting another set of pants for you. That happened to me, I had to go the entire day but I never told anyone(luckily I was wearing dark pants). No one noticed so I was saved from ridicule but I already had my share so I could deal with it but if it has never happened I can see where you are coming from. In our school our office usually lets us use the phone system but like I said in the last part we aren't every school. Now with the fact that it is not memorized that is where a probably underused part of school is set in, the planner. I don't know if every school uses them and if they do if every student uses them they can put the phone number in the planner and then they won't have to memorize the number so even if they aren't able to ask a friend or older sibling that might help. Now friendship with older age groups is not common but is also active if you can get one good friend in an older age group. For me I got one friend and then as I started hanging around him I got more friends whether it be through after school hours sports or just going to their house. Now I can see where you are going for with 6th grade maturity but then again not everyone is mature. I use 7th grade because it is where school is actually starting to get more important. It is where your record will start to have an effect and where you will go in life. In 6th grade you can start thinking about things but you still got time but from 7th grade and on you will have to start worrying about credits so you will need to learn more and more responsibility. I say 7th grade because of my school. We have kindergarten to 6th grade on the same side while 7th to 12th on the high school side. After 6th grade we have about 7 teachers every day dependent on your classes, but some places have 6th through 8th together so that may prove to be a challenge. To talk about that I will have to say it is like your life. You start off new and don't need anything and as you go on you will be able to grow in maturity and responsibility. 7th grade would be the half point and you will be ready for it. Again another part of this go to what I have gone through. In 6th grade you are still on the elementary sports(which is in the morning for us) and 7th grade is the start of JV. I also would like to say I am one of those people who take the time to type out whatever I say on a text, but then again got a cell phone when I was in 8th grade. Our school also has a great English program but some of the kids at our school actually write in text language for some assignments that I have corrected. I have asked the teacher and he told me to mark them wrong and then he gave a speech about not using text language and not it is only used in our Biology classes and math on those word problems. It isn't fully taken out but in English class it is. I read the article about that 11 year old boy and thought that was just stupid of the older brother and I was almost going to completely agree with you but when I kept reading it I saw that it said other kids were waiting for another bus and that the mom had to have been able to get into the school since she talked to the assistant principle. The boy could have waited inside or with the other kids and not have almost died. It would have just took some common sense for him not to have any problems. I read the next article, and if I am correct the mother almost smothered her daughter by sleeping on her. If I am wrong I am sorry for misinterpreting but if I am correct it seems that the daughter had no training and the parent must have let her play with it for a little bit each day but for the mother to fall asleep on the daughter is unacceptable. It is a very good point in your favor but then again how many times will that situation come up for a 2 year old to save her 8 month old. I like your point but it seems that the parent could have prevented it. As I read the childenhospital.org site page it seemed that all their kids got one around the ages of 14 give or take a year. It seemed the child was just trying to get a cell phone to talk to her friends but was using it as an excuse since she started to pout about every kid having one. Now listening to a child whine about one isn't my thing. I would probably think about it and go with it since it would be my child but it would all depend on what they said. If it was because everyone had one I would tell them that I had to wait. I also don't fuss about material things but if it is something I like I will defend it until I collapse whether it be about a game or a book, but a cell phone? I can deal without it, but then again it is because where I live. I live where everyone know everyone. About the article of isolation, I have felt isolation from my kindergarten to 5th grade year with, well lets just say I had well over my share of name calling. Public isolation is easily avoidable if you just talk to them face to face. I have no idea how they feel public isolation. Also about negative-feelings, I have had to go over many obstacles in my life but these things just happen. Life sends us challenges but with every challenge we come out stronger. All right now to place something else on the table. Years from now when cell phones become more advanced what would happen? Touch phones will get more advanced and maybe be talk and it will type for you, such as Dragon for the computer for those who don' t like to type. That might actually be acceptable but then they will only be talking so texting will be obsolete. Also touch phones can give people some anger. My sister in general gets mad when she can't move the unlock button or get to her texts after calling. Now to continue on this what would happen if kids got cell phones then they will only be wanting to get them earlier and earlier and soon every pre-school kid will have a cell phone if we give the kids what they want. As parents we should teach them it is all right to have some item at certain ages. Like a car, you must be 16 or possibly 15 if you got your drivers ed a 14 to get a drivers license and to vote is 18. They don't let 12 year old kids drive because it isn't safe or let 17 year old teens vote, that I never understood but it is probably because they don't believe they aren't mature enough even if their birthday is a day after the voting they still can't because it is against the law. It is up to the parent to chose the final verdict but I still think that 12 year old are the right place, unless you got one of those genius children who are in college at 16, they may get one at a younger age since they might be in high school at age 10 or may just skip it since they are so smart(unlikely scenario but just throwing it out there.) To conclude I say you have very good points and were a great challenge. I hope to go against you in the future. You have been a great opponent, I still agree that you should win if an 11 year old should get one you should win.

SquadSix

Yeah I can see your point about the office and for real emergency's like getting another set of pants for you. That happened to me, I had to go the entire day but I never told anyone(luckily I was wearing dark pants). No one noticed so I was saved from ridicule but I already had my share so I could deal with it but if it has never happened I can see where you are coming from. In our school our office usually lets us use the phone system but like I said in the last part we aren't every school. Now with the fact that it is not memorized that is where a probably underused part of school is set in, the planner. I don't know if every school uses them and if they do if every student uses them they can put the phone number in the planner and then they won't have to memorize the number so even if they aren't able to ask a friend or older sibling that might help. Now friendship with older age groups is not common but is also active if you can get one good friend in an older age group. For me I got one friend and then as I started hanging around him I got more friends whether it be through after school hours sports or just going to their house. Now I can see where you are going for with 6th grade maturity but then again not everyone is mature. I use 7th grade because it is where school is actually starting to get more important. It is where your record will start to have an effect and where you will go in life. In 6th grade you can start thinking about things but you still got time but from 7th grade and on you will have to start worrying about credits so you will need to learn more and more responsibility. I say 7th grade because of my school. We have kindergarten to 6th grade on the same side while 7th to 12th on the high school side. After 6th grade we have about 7 teachers every day dependent on your classes, but some places have 6th through 8th together so that may prove to be a challenge. To talk about that I will have to say it is like your life. You start off new and don't need anything and as you go on you will be able to grow in maturity and responsibility. 7th grade would be the half point and you will be ready for it. Again another part of this go to what I have gone through. In 6th grade you are still on the elementary sports(which is in the morning for us) and 7th grade is the start of JV. I also would like to say I am one of those people who take the time to type out whatever I say on a text, but then again got a cell phone when I was in 8th grade. Our school also has a great English program but some of the kids at our school actually write in text language for some assignments that I have corrected. I have asked the teacher and he told me to mark them wrong and then he gave a speech about not using text language and not it is only used in our Biology classes and math on those word problems. It isn't fully taken out but in English class it is. I read the article about that 11 year old boy and thought that was just stupid of the older brother and I was almost going to completely agree with you but when I kept reading it I saw that it said other kids were waiting for another bus and that the mom had to have been able to get into the school since she talked to the assistant principle. The boy could have waited inside or with the other kids and not have almost died. It would have just took some common sense for him not to have any problems. I read the next article, and if I am correct the mother almost smothered her daughter by sleeping on her. If I am wrong I am sorry for misinterpreting but if I am correct it seems that the daughter had no training and the parent must have let her play with it for a little bit each day but for the mother to fall asleep on the daughter is unacceptable. It is a very good point in your favor but then again how many times will that situation come up for a 2 year old to save her 8 month old. I like your point but it seems that the parent could have prevented it. As I read the childenhospital.org site page it seemed that all their kids got one around the ages of 14 give or take a year. It seemed the child was just trying to get a cell phone to talk to her friends but was using it as an excuse since she started to pout about every kid having one. Now listening to a child whine about one isn't my thing. I would probably think about it and go with it since it would be my child but it would all depend on what they said. If it was because everyone had one I would tell them that I had to wait. I also don't fuss about material things but if it is something I like I will defend it until I collapse whether it be about a game or a book, but a cell phone? I can deal without it, but then again it is because where I live. I live where everyone know everyone. About the article of isolation, I have felt isolation from my kindergarten to 5th grade year with, well lets just say I had well over my share of name calling. Public isolation is easily avoidable if you just talk to them face to face. I have no idea how they feel public isolation. Also about negative-feelings, I have had to go over many obstacles in my life but these things just happen. Life sends us challenges but with every challenge we come out stronger. All right now to place something else on the table. Years from now when cell phones become more advanced what would happen? Touch phones will get more advanced and maybe be talk and it will type for you, such as Dragon for the computer for those who don' t like to type. That might actually be acceptable but then they will only be talking so texting will be obsolete. Also touch phones can give people some anger. My sister in general gets mad when she can't move the unlock button or get to her texts after calling. Now to continue on this what would happen if kids got cell phones then they will only be wanting to get them earlier and earlier and soon every pre-school kid will have a cell phone if we give the kids what they want. As parents we should teach them it is all right to have some item at certain ages. Like a car, you must be 16 or possibly 15 if you got your drivers ed a 14 to get a drivers license and to vote is 18. They don't let 12 year old kids drive because it isn't safe or let 17 year old teens vote, that I never understood but it is probably because they don't believe they aren't mature enough even if their birthday is a day after the voting they still can't because it is against the law. It is up to the parent to chose the final verdict but I still think that 12 year old are the right place, unless you got one of those genius children who are in college at 16, they may get one at a younger age since they might be in high school at age 10 or may just skip it since they are so smart(unlikely scenario but just throwing it out there.) To conclude I say you have very good points and were a great challenge. I hope to go against you in the future. You have been a great opponent, I still agree that you should win if an 11 year old should get one you should win.

Technology

Cellphones-for-Kids-4-11-year-olds/1/

What I must do To win this debate I must prove that some form of censorship is not irrational. Although censorship of cusswords is silly, I will argue some nudity censorship makes sense. I needn't even rebut my opponent's case but merely provide an argument that some pornography should be prohibited. My opponent's arguments against this are that children already know what sex organs look like and that it doesn't make sense to prohibit people from seeing human nature. Note that censorship does not necessarily entail a ban, but a restriction. All I have to do is prove that some type of pornography is wrong and should be partially censored--to children, or in general (e.g. have to call your ISP to get porn. UK did this). C1) Child pornography should be censored Child pornography is nude content--exactly what we are debating. I am arguing that censorship should remain in place for child porn and is not irrational. a) Children cannot consent This is pretty self-explanatory. Even if you think a 13, 14, 15, 15, or 17 year old can consent--can an 8 year old? Honestly it seems odd to assume a 13 or 14 year old can rationally consent for sexual activity. Pornography like this, although censored, still exists--and for good reason. There is, at some point, an age where a child cannot consent. Children who are young should not be exploited. b) Child porn = likelihood of rape Unless my opponent wishes to contest this, child porn in and of itself often includes molestation or rape. But people who watch child porn may become desensitized to the idea and eventually act upon those urges. Child porn should be censored if nothing else to reduce child rape-rates. It is pretty obvious that child nudity should be censored--thus, censorship is not irrational. C2) Pornography should be censored a) Pornography increases the rape rate and abuse rate A meta-analysis of all of the studies finds that pornography consumption increases violence rates. "[T]he current results showed an overall significant positive association between pornography use and attitudes supporting violence against women in nonexperimental studies. In addition, such attitudes were found to correlate significantly higher with the use of sexually violent pornography than with the use of nonviolent pornography, although the latter relationship was also found to be significant." [1. <URL>... ] Another study found that women of women has found that violence against women is higher in the group which indulges pornography compared to those who do not. "[T]he partners of the battered women read or viewed significantly greater amounts of pornographic materials than did the partners of the comparison group. In addition, 39% of the battered women (in contrast to 3% of the comparison group) responded in the affirmative to the question, "Has your partner ever upset you by trying to get you to do what he'd seen in pornographic pictures, movies, or books?" It was also found that battered women experienced significantly more sexual aggression at the hands of their partners than did the women in the comparison group." [2. <URL>... ] b) Pornography harms the actors Although more porn actors are not victims of human trafficking many of those who are trafficked are forced to do pornographic scenes. "Many traffickers are found with filming equipment and cameras to create and sell pornography." [3. <URL>... ] Of 200 prostitutes surveyed, a quarter of them say abuse they have encountered has been related to pornography through accounts of the man making references to pornography. Other studies expand upon this conclusion, "a number of studies using representative samples of men have found a link between pornography consumption and higher levels of sexual aggression on the part of men. ... after viewing pornographic images, men looked at women more as objects than as humans." [3] c) Pornography harms the viewers "[A] number of the men whom he treated in the mid- to late- 1990s had become so dependent upon pornographic images to become sexually aroused that they were no longer attracted enough to their wives to have intercourse with them. Moreover, research suggests that exposure to pornography decreases sexual satisfaction with one's partner for both men and women. ... chronic pornography use is associated with depression and unhappiness. ... internet pornography is increasingly a feature of divorce cases." [3] Thus, I conclude that some censorship is not irrational. Although pornography arguable should not be prohibited, it definitely should be controlled and, especially child pornography, should be censored no matter what.

16kadams

What I must do To win this debate I must prove that some form of censorship is not irrational. Although censorship of cusswords is silly, I will argue some nudity censorship makes sense. I needn’t even rebut my opponent’s case but merely provide an argument that some pornography should be prohibited. My opponent’s arguments against this are that children already know what sex organs look like and that it doesn’t make sense to prohibit people from seeing human nature. Note that censorship does not necessarily entail a ban, but a restriction. All I have to do is prove that some type of pornography is wrong and should be partially censored—to children, or in general (e.g. have to call your ISP to get porn. UK did this). C1) Child pornography should be censored Child pornography is nude content—exactly what we are debating. I am arguing that censorship should remain in place for child porn and is not irrational. a) Children cannot consent This is pretty self-explanatory. Even if you think a 13, 14, 15, 15, or 17 year old can consent—can an 8 year old? Honestly it seems odd to assume a 13 or 14 year old can rationally consent for sexual activity. Pornography like this, although censored, still exists—and for good reason. There is, at some point, an age where a child cannot consent. Children who are young should not be exploited. b) Child porn = likelihood of rape Unless my opponent wishes to contest this, child porn in and of itself often includes molestation or rape. But people who watch child porn may become desensitized to the idea and eventually act upon those urges. Child porn should be censored if nothing else to reduce child rape-rates. It is pretty obvious that child nudity should be censored—thus, censorship is not irrational. C2) Pornography should be censored a) Pornography increases the rape rate and abuse rate A meta-analysis of all of the studies finds that pornography consumption increases violence rates. “[T]he current results showed an overall significant positive association between pornography use and attitudes supporting violence against women in nonexperimental studies. In addition, such attitudes were found to correlate significantly higher with the use of sexually violent pornography than with the use of nonviolent pornography, although the latter relationship was also found to be significant.” [1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ] Another study found that women of women has found that violence against women is higher in the group which indulges pornography compared to those who do not. “[T]he partners of the battered women read or viewed significantly greater amounts of pornographic materials than did the partners of the comparison group. In addition, 39% of the battered women (in contrast to 3% of the comparison group) responded in the affirmative to the question, "Has your partner ever upset you by trying to get you to do what he'd seen in pornographic pictures, movies, or books?" It was also found that battered women experienced significantly more sexual aggression at the hands of their partners than did the women in the comparison group.” [2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ] b) Pornography harms the actors Although more porn actors are not victims of human trafficking many of those who are trafficked are forced to do pornographic scenes. “Many traffickers are found with filming equipment and cameras to create and sell pornography.” [3. http://www.internetsafety101.org... ] Of 200 prostitutes surveyed, a quarter of them say abuse they have encountered has been related to pornography through accounts of the man making references to pornography. Other studies expand upon this conclusion, “a number of studies using representative samples of men have found a link between pornography consumption and higher levels of sexual aggression on the part of men. … after viewing pornographic images, men looked at women more as objects than as humans.” [3] c) Pornography harms the viewers “[A] number of the men whom he treated in the mid- to late- 1990s had become so dependent upon pornographic images to become sexually aroused that they were no longer attracted enough to their wives to have intercourse with them. Moreover, research suggests that exposure to pornography decreases sexual satisfaction with one’s partner for both men and women. … chronic pornography use is associated with depression and unhappiness. … internet pornography is increasingly a feature of divorce cases.” [3] Thus, I conclude that some censorship is not irrational. Although pornography arguable should not be prohibited, it definitely should be controlled and, especially child pornography, should be censored no matter what.

Society

Censorship-is-irrational/1/

I thank my opponent's response. It is a fact that I only need to rebut either (1) nudity or (2) language. There is no reason to refute both because of the way the resolution is crafted. My opponent's R1 explains how censorship *is* rational in regards to *both* metrics. If I can debunk only one I win the debate because the entire resolution is not upheld. "[E]ven then Con only addressed the point partially" - Indeed, that is all I must do to win. You listed two criteria where censorship is irrational. If one is debunked you lose the debate. "I also make note of the fact that my opponent accepted the debate knowing that he harbor no interest whatsoever over half of its explicitly stated contents." - So what? If all I need to do is refute one thing, why spend energy refuting the whole thing? All I have to do is prove that censorship sometimes is rational and I win the debate. And really what I am doing is not abusive since there is some burden put upon me--to prove either child porn or normal pornography is worthy of *some* censorship. I accept that the BOP is shared--I never said that it wasn't. I must prove that there is some censorship which is rational and you must prove the opposite. If I provide one--just one--case of rational censorship, I win. If anything, I have increased my burden, not decreased it. All of the examples my opponent cites really do nothing to harm my case. If we were debating minimum wages, you are for them being bad. All I would have to do is prove that some minimum wages--even low ones--are good (or at least do no harm). I have done exactly done that tactic showing that there is a point where censorship is rational under a set parameter (nudity), just as I could argue for a $1 minimum wage in the other debate. For global warming I could actually argue for lower climate sensitivity, which means parts of the world will benefit and others will be harmed, weigh it, and still win. The examples prove nothing against my case except that my tactics are sufficient for a vote to go either direction based upon who wins my contentions. C1) Child Pornography My opponent claims, since a parent owns a child, he/she can post videos of her child doing anything. This logic is extremely weak when you realize the fact that child abuse does exist and that a child is not allowed to abuse their child physically, verbally, or sexually [1]. So we actually can rationally limit what a parent does to their child rationally based upon a utilitarian perspective: that it harms the child more than it harms for adult, or from one based upon rights: it infringes upon the rights of the child to do such things. Just as it may be rational for a parent to do this for profit it would also be rational to prohibit that behavior based upon the moral (and physical) harms it inflicts upon the child. Say I was a hitman. It would be rational for me to murder for profit, but it would also be rational to prohibit that behavior because it is destructive. My opponent's rebuttal fails to prove that child pornography censorship is irrational--it is very rational, and the resolution is negated because of it. My opponent seems to argue if we allow child porn it may cause people to be repulsed by the idea and cause its consumption to decline, so we need no censorship because it will fall out of favor naturally. This doesn't even make sense. There will always be a segment of the population who indulges child porn, and legalization will increase its consumption amongst those groups. It would be like saying we do not need to ban slavery because it will fall out of favor overtime--which obviously didn't happen because it existed 11,000 years ago and continued to be legal in the US until 1865 [2]. And I mean sure, it was banned because people saw the harms, but it took ten thousand years for it to be banned. Censoring child porn naturally (through disgust) is an inefficient way to prohibit material which harms anyone--and at least for slavery, it led to a war. Also note something being prohibited is censorship. Hitler banned books, which is a form of censorship. Censorship is merely the "suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions." [3] Banning child porn is exactly that: banning information seen as harmful as determined by different authorities. Unless my opponent is willing to argue for child porn legalization, he admits that censorship of lewd material is rational--meaning censorship can be rational, and is not fully irrational (as is entails that everything is bad, nowhere in R1 or the resolution does he say 'on balance'). C2) Normal Pornography My opponent here seems to want me to argue for a ban--although child porn should be banned, normal porn should be censored. We could censor it merely by making you call your ISP to give you access, making it harder to access sites while you are under 18, etc. Those would not really harm legitimate porn actors. But we should prohibit illegal porn--which can be done. We continue fighting against traffickers to reduce production--which is censorship, just as attacking newspapers for publishing would be censorship--and we find videos post-production and remove them if trafficking is suspected. All of this is rational as it prevents harming those who are trafficked. Further, my opponent's line of logic that censorship mostly harms porn actors and not underground people is absurd. Drug bans may harm 'normal' drug users but they also reduce supply by increasing prices and preventing hard drugs from being consumed [4]. Let's also take this from a utilitarian perspective, which my opponent seems to take: censorship would reduce consumption, thus reducing revenue, of trafficked porno. This means less production and bam, less abuse. Does the life-long abuse, rape, and humiliation reduced outweigh a few porn actors losing a job? I would argue that it does. My opponent's argument benefits mine! It proves that censorship of violent pornography is a good thing because it leads to less rape and violence. This means some censorship of nudity is rational, and he just rebutted his whole case! The fact that the study argues " violent pornography resulted in significantly greater increase in attitudes supporting aggression " proves my point--that you cannot issue blanket statements saying censorship is irrational because there are cases where it is not only rational, but preferable. The study does say some of this is because aggressive men watch aggressive porn, but also that the aggressive porn increases and reinforces their previous dispositions. My opponent thus lessens the impact I originally argued, but accepts the fact that some pornography leads to violence--thus some censorship is rational. Also note I do not even need to prove that censorship is preferable, but that there are rational reasons (e.g. reducing violence) which means holding such beliefs are not wholly irrational as the resolution states. Another analysis confirms both of the evidence my opponent and I presented, reviewing 161 studies and concluding pornography is linked to more sexual aggression, especially among men predisposed to violence [5]. So, with this we have (1) evidence that porn in general causes aggression, (2) STRONG evidence that violent pornography causes violence, and (3) violent men should not be watching porn. So we should either (1) censor all porn, (2) censor some porn, or (3) prevent certain segments of the population from watching porn--all forms of censorship, all rational courses of action. It doesn't make sense that pornography wouldn't cause a reduction in sexual pleasure. Pornography causes orgasms, which causes dopamine, which causes addiction, which causes desensitization. Same things happen with drugs: you like it, you start to need more of it. So people's sexual needs become greater and more extreme content is consumed. Porn consumption actually does cause desensitization [6]. I mean, if you are needing violent porn to get off, you are not gonna have an easy time getting off in bed. Plus, my opponent's study uses a small sample size (N = 280) whereas studies using larger sample sizes (N = 531) have found happily married couples are less likely to view porn, and one of the strongest symptoms of using porn stems from a weak relationship [7]. Back to you. I have proven both C1 and C2, which refutes the blanket statement that censorship is irrational. I do not need to--though I have been--arguing that we should censor anything, only that it can be rational to do so. I have proven both that we should and that is rational, which is enough to negate the resolution that both censoring nudity and profanities are irrational. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL> 6. <URL>... 7. <URL>...

16kadams

I thank my opponent’s response. It is a fact that I only need to rebut either (1) nudity or (2) language. There is no reason to refute both because of the way the resolution is crafted. My opponent’s R1 explains how censorship *is* rational in regards to *both* metrics. If I can debunk only one I win the debate because the entire resolution is not upheld. “[E]ven then Con only addressed the point partially” – Indeed, that is all I must do to win. You listed two criteria where censorship is irrational. If one is debunked you lose the debate. “I also make note of the fact that my opponent accepted the debate knowing that he harbor no interest whatsoever over half of its explicitly stated contents.” – So what? If all I need to do is refute one thing, why spend energy refuting the whole thing? All I have to do is prove that censorship sometimes is rational and I win the debate. And really what I am doing is not abusive since there is some burden put upon me—to prove either child porn or normal pornography is worthy of *some* censorship. I accept that the BOP is shared—I never said that it wasn’t. I must prove that there is some censorship which is rational and you must prove the opposite. If I provide one—just one—case of rational censorship, I win. If anything, I have increased my burden, not decreased it. All of the examples my opponent cites really do nothing to harm my case. If we were debating minimum wages, you are for them being bad. All I would have to do is prove that some minimum wages—even low ones—are good (or at least do no harm). I have done exactly done that tactic showing that there is a point where censorship is rational under a set parameter (nudity), just as I could argue for a $1 minimum wage in the other debate. For global warming I could actually argue for lower climate sensitivity, which means parts of the world will benefit and others will be harmed, weigh it, and still win. The examples prove nothing against my case except that my tactics are sufficient for a vote to go either direction based upon who wins my contentions. C1) Child Pornography My opponent claims, since a parent owns a child, he/she can post videos of her child doing anything. This logic is extremely weak when you realize the fact that child abuse does exist and that a child is not allowed to abuse their child physically, verbally, or sexually [1]. So we actually can rationally limit what a parent does to their child rationally based upon a utilitarian perspective: that it harms the child more than it harms for adult, or from one based upon rights: it infringes upon the rights of the child to do such things. Just as it may be rational for a parent to do this for profit it would also be rational to prohibit that behavior based upon the moral (and physical) harms it inflicts upon the child. Say I was a hitman. It would be rational for me to murder for profit, but it would also be rational to prohibit that behavior because it is destructive. My opponent’s rebuttal fails to prove that child pornography censorship is irrational—it is very rational, and the resolution is negated because of it. My opponent seems to argue if we allow child porn it may cause people to be repulsed by the idea and cause its consumption to decline, so we need no censorship because it will fall out of favor naturally. This doesn’t even make sense. There will always be a segment of the population who indulges child porn, and legalization will increase its consumption amongst those groups. It would be like saying we do not need to ban slavery because it will fall out of favor overtime—which obviously didn’t happen because it existed 11,000 years ago and continued to be legal in the US until 1865 [2]. And I mean sure, it was banned because people saw the harms, but it took ten thousand years for it to be banned. Censoring child porn naturally (through disgust) is an inefficient way to prohibit material which harms anyone—and at least for slavery, it led to a war. Also note something being prohibited is censorship. Hitler banned books, which is a form of censorship. Censorship is merely the “suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.” [3] Banning child porn is exactly that: banning information seen as harmful as determined by different authorities. Unless my opponent is willing to argue for child porn legalization, he admits that censorship of lewd material is rational—meaning censorship can be rational, and is not fully irrational (as is entails that everything is bad, nowhere in R1 or the resolution does he say ‘on balance’). C2) Normal Pornography My opponent here seems to want me to argue for a ban—although child porn should be banned, normal porn should be censored. We could censor it merely by making you call your ISP to give you access, making it harder to access sites while you are under 18, etc. Those would not really harm legitimate porn actors. But we should prohibit illegal porn—which can be done. We continue fighting against traffickers to reduce production—which is censorship, just as attacking newspapers for publishing would be censorship—and we find videos post-production and remove them if trafficking is suspected. All of this is rational as it prevents harming those who are trafficked. Further, my opponent’s line of logic that censorship mostly harms porn actors and not underground people is absurd. Drug bans may harm ‘normal’ drug users but they also reduce supply by increasing prices and preventing hard drugs from being consumed [4]. Let’s also take this from a utilitarian perspective, which my opponent seems to take: censorship would reduce consumption, thus reducing revenue, of trafficked porno. This means less production and bam, less abuse. Does the life-long abuse, rape, and humiliation reduced outweigh a few porn actors losing a job? I would argue that it does. My opponent’s argument benefits mine! It proves that censorship of violent pornography is a good thing because it leads to less rape and violence. This means some censorship of nudity is rational, and he just rebutted his whole case! The fact that the study argues “ violent pornography resulted in significantly greater increase in attitudes supporting aggression ” proves my point—that you cannot issue blanket statements saying censorship is irrational because there are cases where it is not only rational, but preferable. The study does say some of this is because aggressive men watch aggressive porn, but also that the aggressive porn increases and reinforces their previous dispositions. My opponent thus lessens the impact I originally argued, but accepts the fact that some pornography leads to violence—thus some censorship is rational. Also note I do not even need to prove that censorship is preferable, but that there are rational reasons (e.g. reducing violence) which means holding such beliefs are not wholly irrational as the resolution states. Another analysis confirms both of the evidence my opponent and I presented, reviewing 161 studies and concluding pornography is linked to more sexual aggression, especially among men predisposed to violence [5]. So, with this we have (1) evidence that porn in general causes aggression, (2) STRONG evidence that violent pornography causes violence, and (3) violent men should not be watching porn. So we should either (1) censor all porn, (2) censor some porn, or (3) prevent certain segments of the population from watching porn—all forms of censorship, all rational courses of action. It doesn’t make sense that pornography wouldn’t cause a reduction in sexual pleasure. Pornography causes orgasms, which causes dopamine, which causes addiction, which causes desensitization. Same things happen with drugs: you like it, you start to need more of it. So people’s sexual needs become greater and more extreme content is consumed. Porn consumption actually does cause desensitization [6]. I mean, if you are needing violent porn to get off, you are not gonna have an easy time getting off in bed. Plus, my opponent’s study uses a small sample size (N = 280) whereas studies using larger sample sizes (N = 531) have found happily married couples are less likely to view porn, and one of the strongest symptoms of using porn stems from a weak relationship [7]. Back to you. I have proven both C1 and C2, which refutes the blanket statement that censorship is irrational. I do not need to—though I have been—arguing that we should censor anything, only that it can be rational to do so. I have proven both that we should and that is rational, which is enough to negate the resolution that both censoring nudity and profanities are irrational. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.rand.org... 5. http://217.35.77.12/Cb/england/research/pdfs/2007/280907.pdf 6. http://www.yourbrainonporn.com... 7. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Society

Censorship-is-irrational/1/

I thank my opponent for his concession. Vote Con.

16kadams

I thank my opponent for his concession. Vote Con.

Society

Censorship-is-irrational/1/

Clarification: The censorship referred to here is not about government censorship of citizens speech, a popular topic recently, nor an other types of opinionated information filtering. This is not a debate about the freedom of speech. I apologize if the title misled. Rules: 1) First round for acceptance. 2) Format being introduction, rebuttal and conclusion (no new points). 3) Profession maintained at all times (no trolling, carelessly crude spelling/grammar, etc.) Violation of rules results in 7-point victory for the other side. The character limit is set at max but debater is advised to keep points concise. BoP is shared. The debate is about the act of censoring, verbally or visually, of "inappropriate content". By inappropriate content I mean two main categories of such "content" - sexual and rude. I will not go into the other potential definitions of inappropriate content by others such as comments of racism and feminism, since that is going into another debate entirely. By sexual content I refer to videos and pictures of people with exposed private parts. By rude content I refer to words such as f**k, b***h, c**p or s**t being either written or said. I look forward to the debate with my opponent.

Will22

Clarification: The censorship referred to here is not about government censorship of citizens speech, a popular topic recently, nor an other types of opinionated information filtering. This is not a debate about the freedom of speech. I apologize if the title misled. Rules: 1) First round for acceptance. 2) Format being introduction, rebuttal and conclusion (no new points). 3) Profession maintained at all times (no trolling, carelessly crude spelling/grammar, etc.) Violation of rules results in 7-point victory for the other side. The character limit is set at max but debater is advised to keep points concise. BoP is shared. The debate is about the act of censoring, verbally or visually, of "inappropriate content". By inappropriate content I mean two main categories of such "content" - sexual and rude. I will not go into the other potential definitions of inappropriate content by others such as comments of racism and feminism, since that is going into another debate entirely. By sexual content I refer to videos and pictures of people with exposed private parts. By rude content I refer to words such as f**k, b***h, c**p or s**t being either written or said. I look forward to the debate with my opponent.

Society

Censorship-is-irrational/1/

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. Since I separated the topic into two categories, I will give separate arguments for each one. I would also like to further clarify on the rules of the debate. The two different topics, rude language and nudity, are chosen together because of their tendency to get censored in the same manner which Pro is arguing against, and of their interrelatedness - many profanity includes references to private parts, and the two actions are often grouped together by society as behaviors exhibited by vulgar people and assumed that one often implies the other. Since BoP is shared, victory is immediately achieved if Pro or Con is considered to have won the debate for both points. In the case that each side is seen as having won one point, then the voter may have the options to simply not vote, put in a neutral vote or vote based on conduct and other factors as they see fit. Rude Language Censoring I will first argue that the concept of profanities itself is irrational. Swearing is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary to be "to use profane or obscene language" [1], profanity itself being defined by the same source as "offensive language" [2]. However, the concept of "offensive" is very subjective - no two people contain the exact same standards. So why is it that "dumba**" is considered a swear word while "moron" and "imbecile" is not? Why is it that "bulls**t" is considered a swear word while "nonsense" and "rubbish" is not? Why is it that "ni**er" is considered a swear word while "white trash" is not? Indeed, most profanities do not even mean anything offensive originally. A** meant donkey in the beginning, and has evolved to also carry the meaning of one"s posterior, but neither are offensive. So are words like f**k and s**t. Indeed, profanities has became a mere medium of expressing extreme anger/insult, or a means of showing exclamation, neither with any regards to the actual meaning of the word. This also shows the immaturity of our society - the majority, if not all of the profanities refer to private body parts, the act of sexual intercourse, or excretes, all subjects that mature individuals will not react upon but of which a group of elementary students will readily react with repulsion or amusement (to understand better, visualize a group of surgeons discussing a patient"s injuries to his posterior area, and all that are present immediately shy away, become embarrassed, offended, or burst in laughter). Thus the act of censoring profanities is rather irrational. Blocking out the word in question does not achieve anything, as the mere beep/moment of silence or asterisks (depending on the method of censoring) will indicate that the person has intended insult (with certain asterisk censoring such as the type I am using it is even possible to determine the actual word), and if that is not enough the specific meaning can be gathered through context. This makes the censorship of those words rather obsolete. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, profanities also carry the function of showing exclamation, in which case it makes even less sense to censor them. Being words spoken in surprise or frustration, their meaning are little more than other words such as "oh", "ouch", "hey", or "agh". There is no reason to censor words that carry the equal meaning of a verbal exclamation mark and directed at no one. (unless it is words such as "Jesus!" or "Hell!" in which case it would still be offensive to certain religious people, but that reaches into the realm of another debate concerning whether discriminating or offensive comments against groups such as females, blacks, and religious communities should be censored which we will not go into) An alternative, less desirable but still acceptable rational action is to simply censor all words carrying similar offensive meanings, regardless of whether they are "idiot" or "d**khead". This shows equality of treatment between "swear words" and "non-swear words" over meaning rather than spelling. Language is devised so that we can convey meanings to one another. One does not need any tools to form an idea, only to communicate it, and language is that tool. If that is so, then, why are words with the same meaning being treated differently? Are we still using language (or at least, the English language) to communicate effectively? Or, maybe, we have become instead limited by the constraints language puts on us. I thus conclude that the censoring of profanities is irrational. Nudity Censoring I will first argue that the concept of shame or inappropriateness for private body parts is irrational. Private parts is defined by the same Merriam-Webster dictionary as above to be "the external genital and excretory organs" [3]. The concept of profanities and nudity both have religious background as being religiously offensive, but swear words have since evolved beyond being merely religious (and the religiously offensive portions of it has been deemed for another debate - but let it be known that if it is considered, it would be regarded as equally having no need for censorship based on the same arguments above), and I see no point in hiding private parts behind clothing beyond religious contexts. There is no practical reason for hiding nudity - several possible reasons is that it is for protecting children, it is for preventing sexual offense/behavior becoming more common, and offensiveness (I trust that Con will provide more points like such, but as my main justification for censoring nudity being irrational is that there is no reason to do so, I shall refute some possible arguments that I can fathom first). Yet none of those "reasons" are justified. They will be prebutted in turn. Children already understood one half of the world"s existing sexual organs, and do not know enough to commit sexual behavior intentionally (this is not suggesting that every children should go outside nude - if only to prevent children accidentally committing sex, or for warmth which are valid reasons for clothing but not incessant censoring). Teenagers will have already learned of private body parts of both sexes and have enough responsibility/knowledge to make their own decisions regardless of nudity. No matter the nudity status, sexual offenses are unacceptable and punishable, thus there should be no cause for its increase if nudity is allowed. Furthermore it is understood that lust is a part of human nature, however little or abounding depending on the individual, and those who decide on nudity will need to understand and accept the consequences. Nudity will only offend certain people. Mostly being religious people due to the origin of shame for nudity, and since it is not directed at them, there is no reason to justify it being offensive enough to prompt worldwide hiding/censoring for certain groups. As an example, Hindus consider cows to be holy and do not eat beef, yet that does not mean the world will need to stop eating beef in order to avoid offending them. Nudity is also considered offensive simply because they are repulsing organs. The penis and vagina is for sexual intercourse purposes, and the posterior is for excretion purposes, which may be considered repulsing. Yet again this shows immature behavior as stated above - sex is a natural process and a sexual intercourse occurred for every living human being, many instances of rape and sexual abuse happen but the hand is not similarly repulsed just because it is the body part used to commit other types of physical abuse; the eye, the nose and the ear also similarly excrete body waste but aren"t treated with the same disgust; and the female breasts do not even contain any cause for repulsion at all (again showing the immaturity of our society - the only "widely accepted must-hide" part of the breast is the nipple, and it does not carry any offensive, suggestive, or embarrassing function, only to nourish the children that the mother bears - by the same logic, should belly buttons/uteruses be censored as well, since that"s the place mothers give babies nourishment from their body before they are born?) Having argued that the concept of shame or inappropriateness for private body parts is irrational, it is a natural corollary that the censoring of them are irrational as well. I thus conclude that the censoring of private body parts is irrational. Thank Con again for accepting. I look forward to his rebuttal, and to learn from a senior member of DDO. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>...

Will22

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. Since I separated the topic into two categories, I will give separate arguments for each one. I would also like to further clarify on the rules of the debate. The two different topics, rude language and nudity, are chosen together because of their tendency to get censored in the same manner which Pro is arguing against, and of their interrelatedness - many profanity includes references to private parts, and the two actions are often grouped together by society as behaviors exhibited by vulgar people and assumed that one often implies the other. Since BoP is shared, victory is immediately achieved if Pro or Con is considered to have won the debate for both points. In the case that each side is seen as having won one point, then the voter may have the options to simply not vote, put in a neutral vote or vote based on conduct and other factors as they see fit. Rude Language Censoring I will first argue that the concept of profanities itself is irrational. Swearing is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary to be "to use profane or obscene language" [1], profanity itself being defined by the same source as "offensive language" [2]. However, the concept of "offensive" is very subjective - no two people contain the exact same standards. So why is it that "dumba**" is considered a swear word while "moron" and "imbecile" is not? Why is it that "bulls**t" is considered a swear word while "nonsense" and "rubbish" is not? Why is it that "ni**er" is considered a swear word while "white trash" is not? Indeed, most profanities do not even mean anything offensive originally. A** meant donkey in the beginning, and has evolved to also carry the meaning of one"s posterior, but neither are offensive. So are words like f**k and s**t. Indeed, profanities has became a mere medium of expressing extreme anger/insult, or a means of showing exclamation, neither with any regards to the actual meaning of the word. This also shows the immaturity of our society - the majority, if not all of the profanities refer to private body parts, the act of sexual intercourse, or excretes, all subjects that mature individuals will not react upon but of which a group of elementary students will readily react with repulsion or amusement (to understand better, visualize a group of surgeons discussing a patient"s injuries to his posterior area, and all that are present immediately shy away, become embarrassed, offended, or burst in laughter). Thus the act of censoring profanities is rather irrational. Blocking out the word in question does not achieve anything, as the mere beep/moment of silence or asterisks (depending on the method of censoring) will indicate that the person has intended insult (with certain asterisk censoring such as the type I am using it is even possible to determine the actual word), and if that is not enough the specific meaning can be gathered through context. This makes the censorship of those words rather obsolete. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, profanities also carry the function of showing exclamation, in which case it makes even less sense to censor them. Being words spoken in surprise or frustration, their meaning are little more than other words such as "oh", "ouch", "hey", or "agh". There is no reason to censor words that carry the equal meaning of a verbal exclamation mark and directed at no one. (unless it is words such as "Jesus!" or "Hell!" in which case it would still be offensive to certain religious people, but that reaches into the realm of another debate concerning whether discriminating or offensive comments against groups such as females, blacks, and religious communities should be censored which we will not go into) An alternative, less desirable but still acceptable rational action is to simply censor all words carrying similar offensive meanings, regardless of whether they are "idiot" or "d**khead". This shows equality of treatment between "swear words" and "non-swear words" over meaning rather than spelling. Language is devised so that we can convey meanings to one another. One does not need any tools to form an idea, only to communicate it, and language is that tool. If that is so, then, why are words with the same meaning being treated differently? Are we still using language (or at least, the English language) to communicate effectively? Or, maybe, we have become instead limited by the constraints language puts on us. I thus conclude that the censoring of profanities is irrational. Nudity Censoring I will first argue that the concept of shame or inappropriateness for private body parts is irrational. Private parts is defined by the same Merriam-Webster dictionary as above to be "the external genital and excretory organs" [3]. The concept of profanities and nudity both have religious background as being religiously offensive, but swear words have since evolved beyond being merely religious (and the religiously offensive portions of it has been deemed for another debate - but let it be known that if it is considered, it would be regarded as equally having no need for censorship based on the same arguments above), and I see no point in hiding private parts behind clothing beyond religious contexts. There is no practical reason for hiding nudity - several possible reasons is that it is for protecting children, it is for preventing sexual offense/behavior becoming more common, and offensiveness (I trust that Con will provide more points like such, but as my main justification for censoring nudity being irrational is that there is no reason to do so, I shall refute some possible arguments that I can fathom first). Yet none of those "reasons" are justified. They will be prebutted in turn. Children already understood one half of the world"s existing sexual organs, and do not know enough to commit sexual behavior intentionally (this is not suggesting that every children should go outside nude - if only to prevent children accidentally committing sex, or for warmth which are valid reasons for clothing but not incessant censoring). Teenagers will have already learned of private body parts of both sexes and have enough responsibility/knowledge to make their own decisions regardless of nudity. No matter the nudity status, sexual offenses are unacceptable and punishable, thus there should be no cause for its increase if nudity is allowed. Furthermore it is understood that lust is a part of human nature, however little or abounding depending on the individual, and those who decide on nudity will need to understand and accept the consequences. Nudity will only offend certain people. Mostly being religious people due to the origin of shame for nudity, and since it is not directed at them, there is no reason to justify it being offensive enough to prompt worldwide hiding/censoring for certain groups. As an example, Hindus consider cows to be holy and do not eat beef, yet that does not mean the world will need to stop eating beef in order to avoid offending them. Nudity is also considered offensive simply because they are repulsing organs. The penis and vagina is for sexual intercourse purposes, and the posterior is for excretion purposes, which may be considered repulsing. Yet again this shows immature behavior as stated above - sex is a natural process and a sexual intercourse occurred for every living human being, many instances of rape and sexual abuse happen but the hand is not similarly repulsed just because it is the body part used to commit other types of physical abuse; the eye, the nose and the ear also similarly excrete body waste but aren"t treated with the same disgust; and the female breasts do not even contain any cause for repulsion at all (again showing the immaturity of our society - the only "widely accepted must-hide" part of the breast is the nipple, and it does not carry any offensive, suggestive, or embarrassing function, only to nourish the children that the mother bears - by the same logic, should belly buttons/uteruses be censored as well, since that"s the place mothers give babies nourishment from their body before they are born?) Having argued that the concept of shame or inappropriateness for private body parts is irrational, it is a natural corollary that the censoring of them are irrational as well. I thus conclude that the censoring of private body parts is irrational. Thank Con again for accepting. I look forward to his rebuttal, and to learn from a senior member of DDO. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Society

Censorship-is-irrational/1/

My opponent had made the statement that "To win this debate I must prove that some form of censorship is not irrational. ", "I needn"t even rebut my opponent"s case but merely provide an argument that some pornography should be prohibited." This is untrue. In round two I have clearly stated with my clarification of the rules that "In the case that each side is seen as having won one point, then the voter may have the options to simply not vote, put in a neutral vote or vote based on conduct and other factors as they see fit.". Which, since my opponent have already forfeited his rebuttal for my argument pertaining to profanities, means that Con cannot achieve any "win" status concerning his arguments for the debate, while I can achieve either a win or a tie for arguments depending on whether I successfully rebut my opponent"s points on the nudity portion of the debate, and even then Con only addressed the point partially. Any final win for Con will have to be the result of conduct, grammar or source votes. I also make note of the fact that my opponent accepted the debate knowing that he harbor no interest whatsoever over half of its explicitly stated contents. Even disregarding my clarification and looking only at my introduction in round one, I have stated that Burden of Proof is shared. In the "New members read me" posts in the Debate.org forums (which acts as a tutorial/rules section of sorts) it states under its "TUTORIAL - Introduction to writing a debate resolution and setting up a debate" section that "In some situations, both opponents have an equal burden of proof. What this means is that PRO must prove that the resolution is true, and CON must prove that the resolution is false. For example if PRO states "The minimum wage should be abolished" it might be CON's burden to also explain why the minimum wage should remain." [1] Notice that the given stand for Con is not "the minimum wage should remain on some counts" or that "some forms of the minimum wage should remain." With a shared BoP, Con has to argue for an opposing position, and not merely a conflicting one. For instance, in a debate with shared BoP where the Pro instigator makes the claim "God Exists", Con does not win the debate by claiming that some gods from certain religions does not exist. The debate is won by Con when they prove that no god can exist. Consider other examples of shared BoP debate topics such as "The American court is ineffective" (the American court is effective on some counts) or "Global Warming is damaging Earth" (Global Warming is not damaging some parts of Earth) - they demonstrate that partial disproof is unacceptable. This is the essence of debates, to achieve a resolution where there is a clear result over whether Pro or Con's position is correct - since if the burden of the Con side is as my opponent claims, then a large number of debates will end in Con partially proving Pro's statement wrong, resulting in no definitive end as Pro also have partial arguments that stand (and especially in this case, child pornography isn't just a partial, but a small portion of overall pornography). Thus Con will have to prove that ALL pornography should be censored, and even then only achieving a tie status. Last, note that throughout his arguments Con has opted to address less and less of the debate's content and my standing, from forfeiting rebuttal on the irrational censorship of profanities, to arguing over partial instead of full censorship, to focusing arguments on child pornography. I will now provide rebuttals to my opponent"s points. Child Pornography -Consent There is more to videos of children than porn. A child also cannot consent if their parents posted an embarrassing video of them online, such as their first stumble, bath, et cetera. Children belong to their parents and so before the consent age parents have authority over which videos of their children they post. If the poster is not the child's parent, then they violate the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which as stated later below goes into problems of legality and prohibition. Note this is not to say child pornography isn't morally wrong, This is only to say that it is not rationally wrong. -Molestation/Rape Our society is full of such material that "may" desensitize people. Scenes of war in movies (violence) and depiction of black slaves/women in books (racism), for a start. We trust ourselves and others to contact those things to achieve further understanding of our society and not be influenced by them - though there certainly are others who break that trust. Regardless, we do not censor those things solely because a part of our population misuses it. The intent of child pornography is pleasure, but like the examples listed above may not have that effect. It may even have the opposite effect - prompting repulsion to child porn for those who are watching the videos with the actions involved. As this problem is not solely in child pornography, everything is based on speculation, and from speculation results both positive and negative are possible, this point is null. Finally, child pornography is illegal [2], and as such is not merely censored, it is prohibited entirely, steering the topic into one of legality rather than rationality and censorship. Actor Harm/Human Trafficking As my opponent has said, "Although more porn actors are not victims of human trafficking many of those who are trafficked are forced to do pornographic scenes." That statement can be framed differently by being expressed in the inverse - although many of those who are trafficked are forced to do pornographic scenes, more porn actors are not victims of human trafficking. As such pornography actually benefits some of its participants by allowing them to make a living when they have little or no other talents (though I acknowledge the risk of STD in that industry, the actors participate knowing the risks), and censoring porn will benefit some while harm others. Furthermore, many porn (including and especially child porn) are distributed underground, and as such censoring porn will have more of a negative effect on the legitimate actors than on the porn traffickers. Rape/Abuse Rate Another meta-analysis in 2000 has found the opposite result [3]. It suggests that violence from pornography depends significantly on the type of pornography watched "... Here it was found that violent pornography resulted in significantly greater increase in attitudes supporting aggression than did nonviolent pornography ...", and violent pornography is a portion of overall pornography and more of a statement on all violent depictions (films, video games, books) than on pornography. It also suggests that we do not have a complete understanding of the effects of pornography as in some studies "... Exposure to nudity alone (9 studies) was found to reduce aggression ...". Last it concludes by "... The current findings do suggest that for the majority of American men, pornography exposure (even at the highest levels assessed here) is not associated with high levels of sexual aggression ..." and gives a hypothesis for what has been observed: "Associations between pornography consumption and aggressiveness toward women could be explained by a circular relationship between high coercive tendencies and interest in certain content in pornography, whereby aggressive men are drawn to the images in pornography that reinforce and thereby increase the likelihood of their controlling, impersonal, and hostile orientation to sexuality ... " Decreased Sexual Desire/Attraction A study in 2015 has, again, found the opposite result - that viewing porn may actually prompt higher sexual desire for both partner and individual sexual actions [4] - "Those who viewed VSS (visual sexual stimuli) more also reported higher desire for both partnered sexual behaviors and solo sexual behaviors." At most, this study shows that porn, contrary to popular belief and past research, contain positive effects and should definitely not be censored. At the very least, it shows that the effects of porn is not fully explored, and that it can be a double-edged sword - which does not provide sufficient reason for censoring. I extend my arguments for the irrational censorship of profanities from the previous round, thank my opponent for an increasingly interesting debate, and eagerly await his rebuttals next round. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...

Will22

My opponent had made the statement that "To win this debate I must prove that some form of censorship is not irrational. ", "I needn"t even rebut my opponent"s case but merely provide an argument that some pornography should be prohibited." This is untrue. In round two I have clearly stated with my clarification of the rules that "In the case that each side is seen as having won one point, then the voter may have the options to simply not vote, put in a neutral vote or vote based on conduct and other factors as they see fit.". Which, since my opponent have already forfeited his rebuttal for my argument pertaining to profanities, means that Con cannot achieve any "win" status concerning his arguments for the debate, while I can achieve either a win or a tie for arguments depending on whether I successfully rebut my opponent"s points on the nudity portion of the debate, and even then Con only addressed the point partially. Any final win for Con will have to be the result of conduct, grammar or source votes. I also make note of the fact that my opponent accepted the debate knowing that he harbor no interest whatsoever over half of its explicitly stated contents. Even disregarding my clarification and looking only at my introduction in round one, I have stated that Burden of Proof is shared. In the "New members read me" posts in the Debate.org forums (which acts as a tutorial/rules section of sorts) it states under its "TUTORIAL - Introduction to writing a debate resolution and setting up a debate" section that "In some situations, both opponents have an equal burden of proof. What this means is that PRO must prove that the resolution is true, and CON must prove that the resolution is false. For example if PRO states "The minimum wage should be abolished" it might be CON's burden to also explain why the minimum wage should remain." [1] Notice that the given stand for Con is not "the minimum wage should remain on some counts" or that "some forms of the minimum wage should remain." With a shared BoP, Con has to argue for an opposing position, and not merely a conflicting one. For instance, in a debate with shared BoP where the Pro instigator makes the claim "God Exists", Con does not win the debate by claiming that some gods from certain religions does not exist. The debate is won by Con when they prove that no god can exist. Consider other examples of shared BoP debate topics such as "The American court is ineffective" (the American court is effective on some counts) or "Global Warming is damaging Earth" (Global Warming is not damaging some parts of Earth) - they demonstrate that partial disproof is unacceptable. This is the essence of debates, to achieve a resolution where there is a clear result over whether Pro or Con's position is correct - since if the burden of the Con side is as my opponent claims, then a large number of debates will end in Con partially proving Pro's statement wrong, resulting in no definitive end as Pro also have partial arguments that stand (and especially in this case, child pornography isn't just a partial, but a small portion of overall pornography). Thus Con will have to prove that ALL pornography should be censored, and even then only achieving a tie status. Last, note that throughout his arguments Con has opted to address less and less of the debate's content and my standing, from forfeiting rebuttal on the irrational censorship of profanities, to arguing over partial instead of full censorship, to focusing arguments on child pornography. I will now provide rebuttals to my opponent"s points. Child Pornography -Consent There is more to videos of children than porn. A child also cannot consent if their parents posted an embarrassing video of them online, such as their first stumble, bath, et cetera. Children belong to their parents and so before the consent age parents have authority over which videos of their children they post. If the poster is not the child's parent, then they violate the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which as stated later below goes into problems of legality and prohibition. Note this is not to say child pornography isn't morally wrong, This is only to say that it is not rationally wrong. -Molestation/Rape Our society is full of such material that "may" desensitize people. Scenes of war in movies (violence) and depiction of black slaves/women in books (racism), for a start. We trust ourselves and others to contact those things to achieve further understanding of our society and not be influenced by them - though there certainly are others who break that trust. Regardless, we do not censor those things solely because a part of our population misuses it. The intent of child pornography is pleasure, but like the examples listed above may not have that effect. It may even have the opposite effect - prompting repulsion to child porn for those who are watching the videos with the actions involved. As this problem is not solely in child pornography, everything is based on speculation, and from speculation results both positive and negative are possible, this point is null. Finally, child pornography is illegal [2], and as such is not merely censored, it is prohibited entirely, steering the topic into one of legality rather than rationality and censorship. Actor Harm/Human Trafficking As my opponent has said, "Although more porn actors are not victims of human trafficking many of those who are trafficked are forced to do pornographic scenes." That statement can be framed differently by being expressed in the inverse - although many of those who are trafficked are forced to do pornographic scenes, more porn actors are not victims of human trafficking. As such pornography actually benefits some of its participants by allowing them to make a living when they have little or no other talents (though I acknowledge the risk of STD in that industry, the actors participate knowing the risks), and censoring porn will benefit some while harm others. Furthermore, many porn (including and especially child porn) are distributed underground, and as such censoring porn will have more of a negative effect on the legitimate actors than on the porn traffickers. Rape/Abuse Rate Another meta-analysis in 2000 has found the opposite result [3]. It suggests that violence from pornography depends significantly on the type of pornography watched "... Here it was found that violent pornography resulted in significantly greater increase in attitudes supporting aggression than did nonviolent pornography ...", and violent pornography is a portion of overall pornography and more of a statement on all violent depictions (films, video games, books) than on pornography. It also suggests that we do not have a complete understanding of the effects of pornography as in some studies "... Exposure to nudity alone (9 studies) was found to reduce aggression ...". Last it concludes by "... The current findings do suggest that for the majority of American men, pornography exposure (even at the highest levels assessed here) is not associated with high levels of sexual aggression ..." and gives a hypothesis for what has been observed: "Associations between pornography consumption and aggressiveness toward women could be explained by a circular relationship between high coercive tendencies and interest in certain content in pornography, whereby aggressive men are drawn to the images in pornography that reinforce and thereby increase the likelihood of their controlling, impersonal, and hostile orientation to sexuality ... " Decreased Sexual Desire/Attraction A study in 2015 has, again, found the opposite result - that viewing porn may actually prompt higher sexual desire for both partner and individual sexual actions [4] - "Those who viewed VSS (visual sexual stimuli) more also reported higher desire for both partnered sexual behaviors and solo sexual behaviors." At most, this study shows that porn, contrary to popular belief and past research, contain positive effects and should definitely not be censored. At the very least, it shows that the effects of porn is not fully explored, and that it can be a double-edged sword - which does not provide sufficient reason for censoring. I extend my arguments for the irrational censorship of profanities from the previous round, thank my opponent for an increasingly interesting debate, and eagerly await his rebuttals next round. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.justice.gov... [3] http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu... [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Society

Censorship-is-irrational/1/

I believe my opponent has sufficiently rebutted my points, and I have no further rebuttals against child pornography or violent porn which are enough to disprove the resolution. I have not taken care in setting the topic and did not understand the burden of Pro sufficiently, leading to me arguing on a rather weak stand. I thank 16kadams for an invigorating and educational debate. Win goes to Con.

Will22

I believe my opponent has sufficiently rebutted my points, and I have no further rebuttals against child pornography or violent porn which are enough to disprove the resolution. I have not taken care in setting the topic and did not understand the burden of Pro sufficiently, leading to me arguing on a rather weak stand. I thank 16kadams for an invigorating and educational debate. Win goes to Con.

Society

Censorship-is-irrational/1/

The fact of the matter is that certain elitist have been working towards a world government. This is not a conspiracy! Its a simple factual statement. "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."-David Rockefeller from his memoirs "Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws." -Meyer Nathaniel Rothschild "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt "Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure." -Joseph Kennedy(father of JFK and RFK) Some quotes that simply prove my prior statement. So lets begin with the Bilderberg Group who's first meeting was held at Hotel De bilderberg between the 29th and 31st of May in 1954. It was at first designed to bring together high officials on concerns about the growth of anti-Americanism in western Europe. It was proposed as an international meeting in which leaders from European countries and The United States would be brought together with the goal to promote understanding of each others cultures. Each year the list of invites is different, but their are certain members who attend each and every year. They would include: central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, Royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America. Donald Rumsfeld attends nearly every year, Peter Sutherland from Ireland, who formally was a European Union Commissioner, chairmen of Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum also is an active Bilderberg attendee. The bilderberg group is extremely secret, and information on what and who they talk about is rarely leaked. Due to that fact, their are people who believe they are tied to the 'New World Order'(NWO), who ultimently wish to decrease the human population size to two billion and have one world government and religion. Now I don't know if I believe this yet, but I certainly see it as possible. In Yugoslavia, leading Serbs have blamed Bilderberg for triggering the war which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic. The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance. The BBC uncovered incredible archived Bilderburg documents which confirm that both the EU(European Union) and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg. ~ <URL>... ......... I would like to bring up the Trilateral Commission founded in July of 1973, created at the initiative of David Rockefeller who at the time was the chairman of The Council on Foreign Relations. The formation of the Trilateral Commission came together with Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few other people, including individuals from the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Ford foundation. At first, he(Rockefeller) convened simple meetings, but over a short amount of time, the Trilateral Commission was born. Two other key founders of the commission were Alan Greenspan and Paul volcker, both eventually heads of the Federal Reserve. Membership is divided into numbers proportionate to each of its three regional areas. These members include corporate CEOs, politicians of all major parties, distinguished academics, university presidents, labor union leaders and not-for-profits involved in overseas philanthropy. Members who gain a position in their respective country's government must resign from the Commission. Currently their are three chairman: Tom Foley-North America (former Democratic Congressman, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and ambassador to Japan), Peter Sutherland -Europe (Irish businessman and former politician associated with the Fine Gael party; former Attorney General of Ireland and European Commissioner in the first Delors Commission; former director general of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the precursor to the World Trade Organization; Chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International), and Yotaro Kobayashi-Pacific Asia (chairman of the Fuji Xerox company). Here is a list of some current or formal members: ~David Rockefeller: Founder of the Commission; Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank board from 1969 to 1981; Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1970 to 1985, now honorary Chairman; a life member of the Bilderberg Group. ~Henry Kissinger: U.S. diplomat, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations; former Chairman of the International Advisory Committee of JP Morgan Chase. ~George H.W. Bush: Former President of the U.S. ~Jimmy Carter: Former President of the U.S. ~Bill Clinton: Former President of the U.S. ~Francis Maude: MP for Horsham, the only British MP currently a member of the Trilateral Commission, former Conservative Party Chairman, son of the late Sir Angus Maude MP ~Walter Mondale: former vice-president of the U.S.(under Carter) ~Dick Cheney: Current vice-president of the U.S. ~Robert Taft Jr.: US Senator ~Alexander Haig: former Secretary of State (under Reagan) ~Ted Sorensen: special adviser to President Kennedy ~Warren Christopher: former Secretary of State (under Clinton) and deputy Secretary of State (under Carter) ~Robert Rubin: Treasury Secretary under Clinton ~Bruce Babbitt: Interior Secretary under Clinton ~Henry Cisneros: HUD Secretary under Clinton ~Lee Raymond: Former CEO and Chairman, ExxonMobil, vice chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Enterprise Institute, director of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., director and member of the Executive Committee and Policy Committee of the American Petroleum Institute. ~Zbigniew Brzezinski: U.S. National Security Advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 ~Paul Volcker: Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty. ~Alan Greenspan: Former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve ~Paul Wolfowitz: Former President of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and a prominent member of the neo-conservatives in Washington. ~Robert Zoellick: Nominated President of the World Bank, Former Deputy Secretary of State, former U.S. Trade Representative ~Mary Robinson: President of Ireland from 1990 to 1997 as a candidate for the Labour Party; United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002. ~Sergei Karaganov: Presidential adviser to Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin; member of the International Advisory Board of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1995 to 2005. ~Bill Graham: former Canadian Minister of National defense and Minister of Foreign Affairs under Paul Martin; since 2006, interim parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party ~Mugur Isarescu: Governor of the National Bank of Romania since 1990 and prime minister from December 1999 to November 2000; he worked for the Minister of Foreign Affairs then for the Romanian Embassy in the U.S. after the 1989 Romanian revolution My question is if their not plotting anything against U.S. sovereignty, why are they so secret?

inrainbows

The fact of the matter is that certain elitist have been working towards a world government. This is not a conspiracy! Its a simple factual statement. "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."-David Rockefeller from his memoirs "Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws." -Meyer Nathaniel Rothschild "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt "Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure." -Joseph Kennedy(father of JFK and RFK) Some quotes that simply prove my prior statement. So lets begin with the Bilderberg Group who's first meeting was held at Hotel De bilderberg between the 29th and 31st of May in 1954. It was at first designed to bring together high officials on concerns about the growth of anti-Americanism in western Europe. It was proposed as an international meeting in which leaders from European countries and The United States would be brought together with the goal to promote understanding of each others cultures. Each year the list of invites is different, but their are certain members who attend each and every year. They would include: central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, Royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America. Donald Rumsfeld attends nearly every year, Peter Sutherland from Ireland, who formally was a European Union Commissioner, chairmen of Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum also is an active Bilderberg attendee. The bilderberg group is extremely secret, and information on what and who they talk about is rarely leaked. Due to that fact, their are people who believe they are tied to the 'New World Order'(NWO), who ultimently wish to decrease the human population size to two billion and have one world government and religion. Now I don't know if I believe this yet, but I certainly see it as possible. In Yugoslavia, leading Serbs have blamed Bilderberg for triggering the war which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic. The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance. The BBC uncovered incredible archived Bilderburg documents which confirm that both the EU(European Union) and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg. ~ http://www.propagandamatrix.com... ......... I would like to bring up the Trilateral Commission founded in July of 1973, created at the initiative of David Rockefeller who at the time was the chairman of The Council on Foreign Relations. The formation of the Trilateral Commission came together with Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few other people, including individuals from the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Ford foundation. At first, he(Rockefeller) convened simple meetings, but over a short amount of time, the Trilateral Commission was born. Two other key founders of the commission were Alan Greenspan and Paul volcker, both eventually heads of the Federal Reserve. Membership is divided into numbers proportionate to each of its three regional areas. These members include corporate CEOs, politicians of all major parties, distinguished academics, university presidents, labor union leaders and not-for-profits involved in overseas philanthropy. Members who gain a position in their respective country's government must resign from the Commission. Currently their are three chairman: Tom Foley-North America (former Democratic Congressman, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and ambassador to Japan), Peter Sutherland -Europe (Irish businessman and former politician associated with the Fine Gael party; former Attorney General of Ireland and European Commissioner in the first Delors Commission; former director general of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the precursor to the World Trade Organization; Chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International), and Yotaro Kobayashi-Pacific Asia (chairman of the Fuji Xerox company). Here is a list of some current or formal members: ~David Rockefeller: Founder of the Commission; Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank board from 1969 to 1981; Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1970 to 1985, now honorary Chairman; a life member of the Bilderberg Group. ~Henry Kissinger: U.S. diplomat, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations; former Chairman of the International Advisory Committee of JP Morgan Chase. ~George H.W. Bush: Former President of the U.S. ~Jimmy Carter: Former President of the U.S. ~Bill Clinton: Former President of the U.S. ~Francis Maude: MP for Horsham, the only British MP currently a member of the Trilateral Commission, former Conservative Party Chairman, son of the late Sir Angus Maude MP ~Walter Mondale: former vice-president of the U.S.(under Carter) ~Dick Cheney: Current vice-president of the U.S. ~Robert Taft Jr.: US Senator ~Alexander Haig: former Secretary of State (under Reagan) ~Ted Sorensen: special adviser to President Kennedy ~Warren Christopher: former Secretary of State (under Clinton) and deputy Secretary of State (under Carter) ~Robert Rubin: Treasury Secretary under Clinton ~Bruce Babbitt: Interior Secretary under Clinton ~Henry Cisneros: HUD Secretary under Clinton ~Lee Raymond: Former CEO and Chairman, ExxonMobil, vice chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Enterprise Institute, director of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., director and member of the Executive Committee and Policy Committee of the American Petroleum Institute. ~Zbigniew Brzezinski: U.S. National Security Advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 ~Paul Volcker: Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty. ~Alan Greenspan: Former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve ~Paul Wolfowitz: Former President of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and a prominent member of the neo-conservatives in Washington. ~Robert Zoellick: Nominated President of the World Bank, Former Deputy Secretary of State, former U.S. Trade Representative ~Mary Robinson: President of Ireland from 1990 to 1997 as a candidate for the Labour Party; United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002. ~Sergei Karaganov: Presidential adviser to Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin; member of the International Advisory Board of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1995 to 2005. ~Bill Graham: former Canadian Minister of National defense and Minister of Foreign Affairs under Paul Martin; since 2006, interim parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party ~Mugur Isarescu: Governor of the National Bank of Romania since 1990 and prime minister from December 1999 to November 2000; he worked for the Minister of Foreign Affairs then for the Romanian Embassy in the U.S. after the 1989 Romanian revolution My question is if their not plotting anything against U.S. sovereignty, why are they so secret?

Politics

Certain-power-groups-with-major-influences-are-attempting-to-make-a-world-government./1/

-Everyone loves to make money, but money doesn't seem like it be a big issue for them. They can't just rule the world over night, it takes time and stealth to carefully orchestrate events and for them to pass certain bills in congress. Of course these men have secret ways to make money or maybe they just like the privacy, or maybe they're all gay and they want time alone in private.> -How can you say theirs no way that they can make a world government? I just don't see your logic in that statement. Please tell me how David Rockefeller admitting to working towards a world government for more then a century is broad? These men have plenty of money, they don't have to secretly make more. "The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."-Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets Tell me how this is to broad? And this "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991. "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992. -Your claim that this is some conspiracy and that my quotes are broad in no way make sense. Again, what do these quotes say sir? Its time to look outside the box and open your mind. The government is not here to take care of you, its here to control you and a world government is the easiest way. It surprises me because you support Clinton who will only push the agenda for a NWO, much like Obama and McCain will as well. -They don't need to take over the nation that is as you say so crazy for patriotism because they already have all the control they need. These power groups are the real policy makers of The United States. The Council on foreign Relations, Bilderberg, and The Trilateral Commission. "The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952 And theirs no need to call each other names, you don't see me calling you a Clinton sheeple do you? Lets be respectful and have a good debate.

inrainbows

-Everyone loves to make money, but money doesn't seem like it be a big issue for them. They can't just rule the world over night, it takes time and stealth to carefully orchestrate events and for them to pass certain bills in congress. Of course these men have secret ways to make money or maybe they just like the privacy, or maybe they're all gay and they want time alone in private.> -How can you say theirs no way that they can make a world government? I just don't see your logic in that statement. Please tell me how David Rockefeller admitting to working towards a world government for more then a century is broad? These men have plenty of money, they don't have to secretly make more. "The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."-Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets Tell me how this is to broad? And this "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991. "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992. -Your claim that this is some conspiracy and that my quotes are broad in no way make sense. Again, what do these quotes say sir? Its time to look outside the box and open your mind. The government is not here to take care of you, its here to control you and a world government is the easiest way. It surprises me because you support Clinton who will only push the agenda for a NWO, much like Obama and McCain will as well. -They don't need to take over the nation that is as you say so crazy for patriotism because they already have all the control they need. These power groups are the real policy makers of The United States. The Council on foreign Relations, Bilderberg, and The Trilateral Commission. "The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952 And theirs no need to call each other names, you don't see me calling you a Clinton sheeple do you? Lets be respectful and have a good debate.

Politics

Certain-power-groups-with-major-influences-are-attempting-to-make-a-world-government./1/

Sir, you are dodging all my points. This is a debate. Lets actually debate instead of you hiding from everything I say and calling me a conspirator. You have shown nothing to support your claims. And you call me bias. Wow... I was hoping we could have a real debate but obviously your afraid to take on such a topic that differers with your political views. I guess I challenged the wrong person. Another thing, how is my topic sentence bias? I mean most topic sentences are going to be bias towards the poster, but how does this differ then any other topic, say 'why Clinton is bad for this country?'? If you didn't want to debate then why did you except the challenge?

inrainbows

Sir, you are dodging all my points. This is a debate. Lets actually debate instead of you hiding from everything I say and calling me a conspirator. You have shown nothing to support your claims. And you call me bias. Wow... I was hoping we could have a real debate but obviously your afraid to take on such a topic that differers with your political views. I guess I challenged the wrong person. Another thing, how is my topic sentence bias? I mean most topic sentences are going to be bias towards the poster, but how does this differ then any other topic, say 'why Clinton is bad for this country?'? If you didn't want to debate then why did you except the challenge?

Politics

Certain-power-groups-with-major-influences-are-attempting-to-make-a-world-government./1/

Since you did not clarify what happy was I will take the honor in stating that happy includes any/all of these definitions <URL>... I will use a series of scenarios which will prove that one can be happy without change. 1- A person with a form of amnesia in which they think they do not remember anything before a certain traumatic event, and believe that they are living the date of the event every day could be "impulsively or obsessively quick to use or do something", which is one of the exact definitions of happy. They could also be "enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment" another exact definition simply by enjoying the same things every day, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing them over and over for a long period of time, and since you said they would do the same things every day there is no way that they could figure out that they were doing the same things over and over once they got into their rut. 2- Someone whose lifestyle consists of meeting new people and traveling isn't "changing" their lifestyle, just changing minor details in their life, and could easily be happy with this lifestyle, therefore being happy with your lifestyle without changing your lifestyle.

repete21

Since you did not clarify what happy was I will take the honor in stating that happy includes any/all of these definitions http://www.merriam-webster.com... I will use a series of scenarios which will prove that one can be happy without change. 1- A person with a form of amnesia in which they think they do not remember anything before a certain traumatic event, and believe that they are living the date of the event every day could be "impulsively or obsessively quick to use or do something", which is one of the exact definitions of happy. They could also be "enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment" another exact definition simply by enjoying the same things every day, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing them over and over for a long period of time, and since you said they would do the same things every day there is no way that they could figure out that they were doing the same things over and over once they got into their rut. 2- Someone whose lifestyle consists of meeting new people and traveling isn't "changing" their lifestyle, just changing minor details in their life, and could easily be happy with this lifestyle, therefore being happy with your lifestyle without changing your lifestyle.

Society

Change-is-necessary-to-maintain-a-happy-lifestyle/1/

In response to point 1A, no knowledge of the outside world is required to be happy, I know several people who are completely clueless to what is going on until someone tells them, it is completely possible, though unlikely, that someone have no knowledge of the world outside their life. The fact that it isn't viable argument though because the debate isn't about what is likely too happen, the scenarios only need to be possible. In response to point 1B, I agree that someone with amnesia probably doesn't have the best of luck, but they don't have to meet ALL definitions of the word happy, only one, which I have shown to be possible. In response to point 1C again the same logic used for 1A works for 1C, the person could have planned a full days events which never required them to leave the house, ie. cleaning, doing laundry, etc., it is easy to fill a day with things like this, and they can be repeated every day, there are also other things you could fill your day with which wouldn't require change, many people plan their days in such detail that if they have the same thing written down twice, they do it twice, and someone with amnesia could be completely oblivious to this.

repete21

In response to point 1A, no knowledge of the outside world is required to be happy, I know several people who are completely clueless to what is going on until someone tells them, it is completely possible, though unlikely, that someone have no knowledge of the world outside their life. The fact that it isn't viable argument though because the debate isn't about what is likely too happen, the scenarios only need to be possible. In response to point 1B, I agree that someone with amnesia probably doesn't have the best of luck, but they don't have to meet ALL definitions of the word happy, only one, which I have shown to be possible. In response to point 1C again the same logic used for 1A works for 1C, the person could have planned a full days events which never required them to leave the house, ie. cleaning, doing laundry, etc., it is easy to fill a day with things like this, and they can be repeated every day, there are also other things you could fill your day with which wouldn't require change, many people plan their days in such detail that if they have the same thing written down twice, they do it twice, and someone with amnesia could be completely oblivious to this.

Society

Change-is-necessary-to-maintain-a-happy-lifestyle/1/

You have failed to negate my scenario due to your lack of an argument, I believe that I have won this debate on those grounds.

repete21

You have failed to negate my scenario due to your lack of an argument, I believe that I have won this debate on those grounds.

Society

Change-is-necessary-to-maintain-a-happy-lifestyle/1/

I accept. I want this to focus on that the efficiency of a player matters more than their love for the game.

RationalMadman

I accept. I want this to focus on that the efficiency of a player matters more than their love for the game.

Entertainment

Chess-Full-resolution-in-first-round/1/

Here's the brutal truth: if Michael Jordan hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Want to know why? Michael Jordan isn't particularly gifted at basketball in particular, he is (even in his famous quotes) merely a man of hard work for success. He could have succeeded at anything had he worked just as hard and stayed focused. A chess player needn't have an ounce of love for the game of chess and a chess coach has no duty whatsoever to instill this. A quote that's relevant here is as follows: "Better to be the best and hate the game than be the worst and love it" - Me As for the example of the Kasparov 'wild move' you showed, a player trained vigorously to see any and all victory strategies in the blink of an eye would have been able to think that move through (I don't mean to show off but even I would have realised that move). Think of it this way: No matter how much a student loves a subject the ones who get A*'s were always the ones who trained to be at their full efficiency for the exam, not the ones who spent their time fulfilling their love for examinations.

RationalMadman

Here's the brutal truth: if Michael Jordan hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Want to know why? Michael Jordan isn't particularly gifted at basketball in particular, he is (even in his famous quotes) merely a man of hard work for success. He could have succeeded at anything had he worked just as hard and stayed focused. A chess player needn't have an ounce of love for the game of chess and a chess coach has no duty whatsoever to instill this. A quote that's relevant here is as follows: "Better to be the best and hate the game than be the worst and love it" - Me As for the example of the Kasparov 'wild move' you showed, a player trained vigorously to see any and all victory strategies in the blink of an eye would have been able to think that move through (I don't mean to show off but even I would have realised that move). Think of it this way: No matter how much a student loves a subject the ones who get A*'s were always the ones who trained to be at their full efficiency for the exam, not the ones who spent their time fulfilling their love for examinations.

Entertainment

Chess-Full-resolution-in-first-round/1/

My opponent's entire resolution seems have fallen one one, purely opinion-based, concept that "If you don't love something, there's no point in mastering it." Now, I am going to tear her cute little adorable baby of an argument and then shall reinstate everything that I said (which will be awfully easy considering her single comeback to absolutely all that I said was "If you don't love something, there is no point mastering it." The concept my opponent proposes is this: First love something, then you will have reason to master it. The concept I propose is this: Love only begins after full understanding is achieved. Thus, making a student love chess is inferior to making them master it intellectually. Now I shall tear my opponent's proposal apart. Tell me something you love to do. Do you like to masturbate? Do you like to run? Do you like to kiss? Do you like to play chess?... If you have something in mind, I now would like you to subjectively, and objectively, observe and understand the mechanism of firstly yours, and later everyone's, love. The mechanism of love is something my opponent has erroneously interpreted. No baby loves to masturbate, run, kiss nor play chess. In fact most of baby-life is spent pooping and crying. Then child-life is spent in fantasy land, adolescence is that moody phase (like the phase of a rookie chess player desperately trying to get amazing at the game while constantly losing to masters) and then comes adulthood, the phase where we finally fully grasp what life has granted us great talent at, and thus fall in love with it. Sure we can love football and be an obese father cheering at the sidelines with his family but ultimately that does not better one's ability at the game whatsoever, no more than playing COD makes one an SAS Cadet in the slightest. What love for something originates from, even a person, is when we delve into it without loving at all, when circumstances force us to master it (whether it be running because that's the only thing you seem to have the money to pay good coaching for, whether it's masturbating because that's the you could sufficiently teach yourself to master or chess because you had one of the harshest coaches of all time who made you a god at it. In fact let me abuse DDO itself and ask why RoyLatham and Danielle love debating so much, because their hard work and discipline have made them virtual GODS at the art/activity. People automatically will love whatever they have worked their A$$ off to achieve. you think Usain bolt loved sprinting his whole life? Of course not. It hurts like hell and rips your thigh and upper leg muscles. Sprinting is pure pain and agony intensified to the maximum level and reached at the highest rate possible AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN until you can go at that rate for a little LONGER before that pain kicks in. The drug isn't in sprinting itself, I even would go as far as to say that Usain Bolt still doesn't love to sprint, what he loves is seeing his hard work pay off plain and simple. Whether he was the Michael Jordan of basketball, the Muhammad Ali of boxing, the Stephen Hawking of physics, the Bruce Lee of martial arts, the Christopher Nolan of movie directing or the Michael Zuckerberg of social networking is really irrelevant. The love came after the blood sweat and tears which came without any love or mercy at all. To make a beast at chess, a coach needn't give two sh*ts about their student's love for the game. They must raise the number one chess player, not the number one chess fan. Coaching isn't a fairy-tale and only a few of the human race qualify to be professional coaches at anything BECAUSE it requires brutal harshness. Here is another quote by me: "A coach that is loved should do their job." Plain and simple, you need that motto for life.

RationalMadman

My opponent's entire resolution seems have fallen one one, purely opinion-based, concept that "If you don't love something, there's no point in mastering it." Now, I am going to tear her cute little adorable baby of an argument and then shall reinstate everything that I said (which will be awfully easy considering her single comeback to absolutely all that I said was "If you don't love something, there is no point mastering it." The concept my opponent proposes is this: First love something, then you will have reason to master it. The concept I propose is this: Love only begins after full understanding is achieved. Thus, making a student love chess is inferior to making them master it intellectually. Now I shall tear my opponent's proposal apart. Tell me something you love to do. Do you like to masturbate? Do you like to run? Do you like to kiss? Do you like to play chess?... If you have something in mind, I now would like you to subjectively, and objectively, observe and understand the mechanism of firstly yours, and later everyone's, love. The mechanism of love is something my opponent has erroneously interpreted. No baby loves to masturbate, run, kiss nor play chess. In fact most of baby-life is spent pooping and crying. Then child-life is spent in fantasy land, adolescence is that moody phase (like the phase of a rookie chess player desperately trying to get amazing at the game while constantly losing to masters) and then comes adulthood, the phase where we finally fully grasp what life has granted us great talent at, and thus fall in love with it. Sure we can love football and be an obese father cheering at the sidelines with his family but ultimately that does not better one's ability at the game whatsoever, no more than playing COD makes one an SAS Cadet in the slightest. What love for something originates from, even a person, is when we delve into it without loving at all, when circumstances force us to master it (whether it be running because that's the only thing you seem to have the money to pay good coaching for, whether it's masturbating because that's the you could sufficiently teach yourself to master or chess because you had one of the harshest coaches of all time who made you a god at it. In fact let me abuse DDO itself and ask why RoyLatham and Danielle love debating so much, because their hard work and discipline have made them virtual GODS at the art/activity. People automatically will love whatever they have worked their A$$ off to achieve. you think Usain bolt loved sprinting his whole life? Of course not. It hurts like hell and rips your thigh and upper leg muscles. Sprinting is pure pain and agony intensified to the maximum level and reached at the highest rate possible AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN until you can go at that rate for a little LONGER before that pain kicks in. The drug isn't in sprinting itself, I even would go as far as to say that Usain Bolt still doesn't love to sprint, what he loves is seeing his hard work pay off plain and simple. Whether he was the Michael Jordan of basketball, the Muhammad Ali of boxing, the Stephen Hawking of physics, the Bruce Lee of martial arts, the Christopher Nolan of movie directing or the Michael Zuckerberg of social networking is really irrelevant. The love came after the blood sweat and tears which came without any love or mercy at all. To make a beast at chess, a coach needn't give two sh*ts about their student's love for the game. They must raise the number one chess player, not the number one chess fan. Coaching isn't a fairy-tale and only a few of the human race qualify to be professional coaches at anything BECAUSE it requires brutal harshness. Here is another quote by me: "A coach that is loved should do their job." Plain and simple, you need that motto for life.

Entertainment

Chess-Full-resolution-in-first-round/1/

Comes down to this: IS love reason to do it or do you love what you're the best at? I love what I'm the best at, and that's doing your mother. Thanks and bye.

RationalMadman

Comes down to this: IS love reason to do it or do you love what you're the best at? I love what I'm the best at, and that's doing your mother. Thanks and bye.

Entertainment

Chess-Full-resolution-in-first-round/1/

Full Resolution : As a chess coach, you should not teach your student to become a chess player, but to teach them to appreciate the game. I am PRO, therefore arguing to that given resolution. My opponent (CON) will be arguing against that resolution. BOP is shared . Rules of this debate: First round is ACCEPTANCE ONLY No new arguments in last round. Last round for final rebuttals, defence and summarisation. Definitions: Chess player: A person who plays chess tournaments for money, fame, sponsorships etc. Chess coach: A person who teaches an adult or a child to improve their ability to play the game of chess. Appreciate: To be grateful, to recognise the beauty of etc. (definition should be clear in the context of this debate). Other definitions should be common sense. And of course, no semantics and trolling. I hope both my opponent and I will gain something from this debate after it is finished. Good Luck!

famer

Full Resolution : As a chess coach, you should not teach your student to become a chess player, but to teach them to appreciate the game. I am PRO, therefore arguing to that given resolution. My opponent (CON) will be arguing against that resolution. BOP is shared . Rules of this debate: First round is ACCEPTANCE ONLY No new arguments in last round. Last round for final rebuttals, defence and summarisation. Definitions: Chess player: A person who plays chess tournaments for money, fame, sponsorships etc. Chess coach: A person who teaches an adult or a child to improve their ability to play the game of chess. Appreciate: To be grateful, to recognise the beauty of etc. (definition should be clear in the context of this debate). Other definitions should be common sense. And of course, no semantics and trolling. I hope both my opponent and I will gain something from this debate after it is finished. Good Luck!

Entertainment

Chess-Full-resolution-in-first-round/1/

I thank RationalMadman for accepting my challenge to this debate. Unfortunately, it appears that my opponent has made a slight misunderstanding of the topic resolution. His goal is to convince that as a coach, your main purpose is to produce a chess master out of your student. Efficiency is not accurate enough, as it is difficult to appreciate games and/or aspects of chess without a decent level of competence in the game. As the resolution states, I am proving why you should NOT teach your student to become a chess player, but to appreciate the game. It should then be clear why I am making arguments regarding the disadvantages of being a chess player along with the advantages of being a person who is simply appreciating the game. Without further ado, I will now begin with my arguments. "Chess is mental torture" - Garry Kasparov [1] "Chess is a war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent's mind" Bobby Fischer [2] "Chess is life" Bobby Fischer [2] "I learnt an enormous amount, but there came a point where I found there was too much stress. It was no fun anymore. Outside of the chessboard I avoid conflict, so I thought this wasn't worth it. (On training sessions with Kasparov)" - Magnus Carlsen [3] These quotes came from the mouths of the best of the best chess players that have ever existed, which gives a good introduction to my arguments. As you can witness, the life of a professional chess player (not necessarily those as competitive as them) is incredibly difficult. Argument 1: Downsides of becoming a chess player Sub - Argument 1: Stress in the lives of competitive chess players The level of stress experienced by those of competitive chess players are considerably higher than those of an average person out there in the workforce. For example [1], the following player, who identifies himself to be a competitive player, but isn't a full-time chess player manages to feel quite a lot of stress. Psychological stress is also a major factor in all chess players and a difficult barrier for many to overcome. As outlined by WGM Natalia Pogonina [4] within the high-class chess players, a simple loss or draw against a player, you could "end up in trouble again and waste a lot of nervous energy along the way". It distracts you from your future games, makes you hate your opponent, wastes a lot of your energy. For example, an interesting documentary on Garry Kasparov's [5] loss against Deep Blue (A chess engine) during the peak of his chess abilities tells us how after his first loss to the machine, "it wasn't simply a loss of the game. It was a loss of the entire match" says Garry Kasparov. After his first loss (details too complicated to explain here. Watch entire documentary for the full idea), he was psychologically destroyed. The "cognitive" psychology within chess has been studied through by Dr Fernand Gobet [6] and as his information shows, not all players are suitable to become great chess players. Quoting for that article: " It took an average of 11, 000 hours to reach 2200. One player needed around 3, 000 hours to reach 2200, while another player spent more than 23, 000 hours to achieve the same level." Another interesting factor that I would like to take note of is, with a high level of stress would usually result in high blood pressure. High blood pressure usually leads to higher chances of heart attacks. A good look at the deaths of famous chess players may be of interest. [7] Referring back to the resolution, IF you were a chess coach, would you want to subject your student to such things? Allowing them to suffer intense levels of psychological distress from their failures? (Unless you can expect them to become perfect chess players). Sub - Argument 2: Violence amongst different players The pressure to improve your own game as a competitive chess player appears to be too difficult for some to cope with. As shown here, chess players have been murdered or have been involved with violent activities during the peak of their playing career. On this page [8], a well-detailed page describes the many cases of violence that has occurred during the lives of chess players (not all of these are competent players!). For example, the famous Garry Kasparov: On April 15, 2005, former world chess champion Garry Kasparov was attacked by a man posing as a chess fan who wanted his wooden chess board signed. Instead, he hit Kasparov in the head very hard with the chess board. To something as serious as this: In February 2009, a man killed a friend with a sword after a chess game in Alameda, California. An argument broke out during their game, and the two started wrestling. Joseph Groom retreated to his bedroom and returned with a sword, which he used to stab Kelly Kjersem once. Kjersem later died. Majority of chess players become too emotional after a loss in very important tournaments and end up holding grudges against the victor. Argument 2: Benefits of appreciating the game of chess Sub - Argument 1: Chess is an art Many of you may be wondering, how do you "appreciate" a game of chess? To put simply, chess games or moves can be witnessed like a movie or a good book. A geek with books is able to tell what makes a book good or bad, and a movie critic understands to a great deal what movies are categorised as good for the market. Chess is very much the same. A person educated in chess is able to witness great games of chess. Next question, what is chess? To the beginner, it is merely a board game with random pieces that run around on the board with the aim to capture the king. However, to professionals, it is much more than that. Some regard chess to be a type of science, war, psychological warfare, and lastly, a lot of people regard chess to be art. In the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer", Bruce (the chess coach), mentions how Fischer regards chess to be art. "Bobby Fischer got underneath it, like no one before him and found at its centre, art". There are many things in chess that makes it art. There are many types of games that are beautiful to witness and certainly many different beautiful moves that have been played out. For example, in the following position, it first appears that white is completely lost, yet, a move as crazy as that (shown in green arrow), secures a win. I will briefly outline how this move wins for the white pieces. After the rook moves to that destined square, if the pawn captures the rook, the white pawn moves on square forward to secure a win (with checkmate) and if the black bishop moves, the rook simply captures the black pawn with a win (Checkmate). The move was very unexpected, yet is so powerful, which makes the game of chess so beautiful. There have been many chess games that have caught great attention to chess critics to spend hours on end providing a concise yet thorough analysis of a well-played game. Some of the most famous game ever played have been given the following titles: - The "Immortal" Game (Between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky) - The "Evergreen" Game (Between Adolf Anderssen and Jean Dufresne) - Bobby Fischer's Game of the Century (Bobby Fischer and Donald Byrne) Conclusion: I have spent most of this round arguing why it is not a good idea to coach a student to become a chess player while touching on why it is more beneficial to coach them to appreciate the game. I will spend most of R3 elaborating on why you should teach them to appreciate the game. References: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. ;(Video is shown on top) 6. <URL>... 7. <URL>... 8. <URL>... And, to you, RationalMadman...

famer

I thank RationalMadman for accepting my challenge to this debate. Unfortunately, it appears that my opponent has made a slight misunderstanding of the topic resolution. His goal is to convince that as a coach, your main purpose is to produce a chess master out of your student. Efficiency is not accurate enough, as it is difficult to appreciate games and/or aspects of chess without a decent level of competence in the game. As the resolution states, I am proving why you should NOT teach your student to become a chess player, but to appreciate the game. It should then be clear why I am making arguments regarding the disadvantages of being a chess player along with the advantages of being a person who is simply appreciating the game. Without further ado, I will now begin with my arguments. “Chess is mental torture” – Garry Kasparov [1] “Chess is a war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent’s mind” Bobby Fischer [2] “Chess is life” Bobby Fischer [2] “I learnt an enormous amount, but there came a point where I found there was too much stress. It was no fun anymore. Outside of the chessboard I avoid conflict, so I thought this wasn’t worth it. (On training sessions with Kasparov)” – Magnus Carlsen [3] These quotes came from the mouths of the best of the best chess players that have ever existed, which gives a good introduction to my arguments. As you can witness, the life of a professional chess player (not necessarily those as competitive as them) is incredibly difficult. Argument 1: Downsides of becoming a chess player Sub – Argument 1: Stress in the lives of competitive chess players The level of stress experienced by those of competitive chess players are considerably higher than those of an average person out there in the workforce. For example [1], the following player, who identifies himself to be a competitive player, but isn’t a full-time chess player manages to feel quite a lot of stress. Psychological stress is also a major factor in all chess players and a difficult barrier for many to overcome. As outlined by WGM Natalia Pogonina [4] within the high-class chess players, a simple loss or draw against a player, you could “end up in trouble again and waste a lot of nervous energy along the way”. It distracts you from your future games, makes you hate your opponent, wastes a lot of your energy. For example, an interesting documentary on Garry Kasparov’s [5] loss against Deep Blue (A chess engine) during the peak of his chess abilities tells us how after his first loss to the machine, “it wasn’t simply a loss of the game. It was a loss of the entire match” says Garry Kasparov. After his first loss (details too complicated to explain here. Watch entire documentary for the full idea), he was psychologically destroyed. The “cognitive” psychology within chess has been studied through by Dr Fernand Gobet [6] and as his information shows, not all players are suitable to become great chess players. Quoting for that article: “ It took an average of 11, 000 hours to reach 2200. One player needed around 3, 000 hours to reach 2200, while another player spent more than 23, 000 hours to achieve the same level.” Another interesting factor that I would like to take note of is, with a high level of stress would usually result in high blood pressure. High blood pressure usually leads to higher chances of heart attacks. A good look at the deaths of famous chess players may be of interest. [7] Referring back to the resolution, IF you were a chess coach, would you want to subject your student to such things? Allowing them to suffer intense levels of psychological distress from their failures? (Unless you can expect them to become perfect chess players). Sub – Argument 2: Violence amongst different players The pressure to improve your own game as a competitive chess player appears to be too difficult for some to cope with. As shown here, chess players have been murdered or have been involved with violent activities during the peak of their playing career. On this page [8], a well-detailed page describes the many cases of violence that has occurred during the lives of chess players (not all of these are competent players!). For example, the famous Garry Kasparov: On April 15, 2005, former world chess champion Garry Kasparov was attacked by a man posing as a chess fan who wanted his wooden chess board signed. Instead, he hit Kasparov in the head very hard with the chess board. To something as serious as this: In February 2009, a man killed a friend with a sword after a chess game in Alameda, California. An argument broke out during their game, and the two started wrestling. Joseph Groom retreated to his bedroom and returned with a sword, which he used to stab Kelly Kjersem once. Kjersem later died. Majority of chess players become too emotional after a loss in very important tournaments and end up holding grudges against the victor. Argument 2: Benefits of appreciating the game of chess Sub – Argument 1: Chess is an art Many of you may be wondering, how do you “appreciate” a game of chess? To put simply, chess games or moves can be witnessed like a movie or a good book. A geek with books is able to tell what makes a book good or bad, and a movie critic understands to a great deal what movies are categorised as good for the market. Chess is very much the same. A person educated in chess is able to witness great games of chess. Next question, what is chess? To the beginner, it is merely a board game with random pieces that run around on the board with the aim to capture the king. However, to professionals, it is much more than that. Some regard chess to be a type of science, war, psychological warfare, and lastly, a lot of people regard chess to be art. In the movie “Searching for Bobby Fischer”, Bruce (the chess coach), mentions how Fischer regards chess to be art. “Bobby Fischer got underneath it, like no one before him and found at its centre, art”. There are many things in chess that makes it art. There are many types of games that are beautiful to witness and certainly many different beautiful moves that have been played out. For example, in the following position, it first appears that white is completely lost, yet, a move as crazy as that (shown in green arrow), secures a win. I will briefly outline how this move wins for the white pieces. After the rook moves to that destined square, if the pawn captures the rook, the white pawn moves on square forward to secure a win (with checkmate) and if the black bishop moves, the rook simply captures the black pawn with a win (Checkmate). The move was very unexpected, yet is so powerful, which makes the game of chess so beautiful. There have been many chess games that have caught great attention to chess critics to spend hours on end providing a concise yet thorough analysis of a well-played game. Some of the most famous game ever played have been given the following titles: - The “Immortal” Game (Between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky) - The “Evergreen“ Game (Between Adolf Anderssen and Jean Dufresne) - Bobby Fischer’s Game of the Century (Bobby Fischer and Donald Byrne) Conclusion: I have spent most of this round arguing why it is not a good idea to coach a student to become a chess player while touching on why it is more beneficial to coach them to appreciate the game. I will spend most of R3 elaborating on why you should teach them to appreciate the game. References: 1. http://www.chessquotes.com... 2. http://www.chessquotes.com... 3. http://www.chessquotes.com... 4. http://www.chess.com... 5. ;(Video is shown on top) 6. http://www.chess.com... 7. http://www.chess.com... 8. http://blog.chess.com... And, to you, RationalMadman…

Entertainment

Chess-Full-resolution-in-first-round/1/

It appears rather evident from CON's response that he hasn't even read my arguments properly. Nonetheless, I will begin by responding to his arguments. " Here's the brutal truth: if Michael Jordan hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Want to know why? Michael Jordan isn't particularly gifted at basketball in particular, he is (even in his famous quotes) merely a man of hard work for success. He could have succeeded at anything had he worked just as hard and stayed focused. " CON argues that "IF" Michael Jordan (although I find it barely related to the topic itself) hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Looking at it from a wider angle, common sense would tell you that if a man actually hated something, he would be rather stupid to try and aim for it. " A chess player needn't have an ounce of love for the game of chess and a chess coach has no duty whatsoever to instill this. " This point is more or less a copy of his previous. Therefore I would have the same responses. If you hated something, makes no sense why you would do it. " Better to be the best and hate the game than be the worst and love it" - Me " Just your opinion. Doesn't make it right. " As for the example of the Kasparov 'wild move' you showed, a player trained vigorously to see any and all victory strategies in the blink of an eye would have been able to think that move through (I don't mean to show off but even I would have realised that move) " My opponent has clearly not read my arguments properly. Allow me to briefly go over the documentary as it is clear that CON has not understood the full extent of that argument. Garry Kasparov, a Russian chess GM (Grandmaster) was challenged to a match against the strongest chess machine during that time (Named Deep Blue). The first time he smashed the computer gaining victory. He was later on rematched to a "New and improved" Deep Blue. During the match, he smashed the computer in the first game, like he did during the first match. However, in the second game, he believed there was human intervention during the game, so his "anti-computer" strategy costed him the entire game. It was also not part of the rules that a human can intervene with the game, so he believed it was cheating. His opponents were not able to compromise. With this in mind, he was always thinking of his loss (where he believed human intervention was invovled). That costed him the entire match. There was no such thing as a "wild" move, as outlined by CON. " Think of it this way: No matter how much a student loves a subject the ones who get A*'s were always the ones who trained to be at their full efficiency for the exam, not the ones who spent their time fulfilling their love for examinations. " Although this point may hold some substance, it is not directly related to the topic. Another point, CON has not responded to most of arguments. Most importantly, he has not responded to my points on why it is more beneficial to appreciate the game over being a chess player. He has not responded to my points about pyschological stress and violence that chess players are obliged to deal with. Over to CON...

famer

It appears rather evident from CON's response that he hasn't even read my arguments properly. Nonetheless, I will begin by responding to his arguments. " Here's the brutal truth: if Michael Jordan hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Want to know why? Michael Jordan isn't particularly gifted at basketball in particular, he is (even in his famous quotes) merely a man of hard work for success. He could have succeeded at anything had he worked just as hard and stayed focused. " CON argues that "IF" Michael Jordan (although I find it barely related to the topic itself) hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Looking at it from a wider angle, common sense would tell you that if a man actually hated something, he would be rather stupid to try and aim for it. " A chess player needn't have an ounce of love for the game of chess and a chess coach has no duty whatsoever to instill this. " This point is more or less a copy of his previous. Therefore I would have the same responses. If you hated something, makes no sense why you would do it. " Better to be the best and hate the game than be the worst and love it" - Me " Just your opinion. Doesn't make it right. " As for the example of the Kasparov 'wild move' you showed, a player trained vigorously to see any and all victory strategies in the blink of an eye would have been able to think that move through (I don't mean to show off but even I would have realised that move) " My opponent has clearly not read my arguments properly. Allow me to briefly go over the documentary as it is clear that CON has not understood the full extent of that argument. Garry Kasparov, a Russian chess GM (Grandmaster) was challenged to a match against the strongest chess machine during that time (Named Deep Blue). The first time he smashed the computer gaining victory. He was later on rematched to a "New and improved" Deep Blue. During the match, he smashed the computer in the first game, like he did during the first match. However, in the second game, he believed there was human intervention during the game, so his "anti-computer" strategy costed him the entire game. It was also not part of the rules that a human can intervene with the game, so he believed it was cheating. His opponents were not able to compromise. With this in mind, he was always thinking of his loss (where he believed human intervention was invovled). That costed him the entire match. There was no such thing as a "wild" move, as outlined by CON. " Think of it this way: No matter how much a student loves a subject the ones who get A*'s were always the ones who trained to be at their full efficiency for the exam, not the ones who spent their time fulfilling their love for examinations. " Although this point may hold some substance, it is not directly related to the topic. Another point, CON has not responded to most of arguments. Most importantly, he has not responded to my points on why it is more beneficial to appreciate the game over being a chess player. He has not responded to my points about pyschological stress and violence that chess players are obliged to deal with. Over to CON...

Entertainment

Chess-Full-resolution-in-first-round/1/