The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TrustmeImlying
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Globalism, giving equal rights to head choppers.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TrustmeImlying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 60853
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Max.Wallace

Con

The beheaders of Americans, savages they be, are empowered by the regimes policies.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

The most broad understanding of globalism:

An ideological concept of international integration between cultures and nations brought on by globalization.

Everything including laws, ethics, societal expectations, economics and much more have the potential be altered by this integration.

I will be PRO in the argument that globalism, and by extension globalization, would bring equal rights to "head choppers" as globalization spreads the likelihood and enforcement of universally accepted rights.

I give the floor to CON and await the first argument of this debate.

Thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Con

I stand by my statements, you are the attacker, comtapilist.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

CON suggests that globalism DOESN'T give equal rights to "head choppers".

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(This declaration became international law in 1976)

Article 6:
"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."

Article 11:
"Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."

http://www.un.org...

In the United States we use the term "innocent until proven guilty" coined by Sir William Garrow.

This comes from the Latin phrase
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat"
(The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies)

Now that I have provided such evidence for my argument, this burden falls squarely upon CON.

CON should now provide evidence or concede.

I now give the floor back to CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Con

By your own admission you support the "universal declaration of human rights", correct? That, in my opinion would mean one of 2 things, you have traveled the universe and agree with the aliens, or you believe that humans are capable of deciding what rights all beings in the universe deserve. What is crystal clear is that you are an ideologue of your education. You have taught me nothing.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

CON claims that globalism does not give rights to "head choppers".

I have provided ample evidence that those who support and extend the ideology of globalism desire equal rights for every man, woman, and child.

Even criminals are protected under the concept in the sense that they are innocent until proven guilty, and are thus given equal rights under international law.

CON hasn't provided evidence for his claim, nor has he made a defense against mine.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
Max.Wallace

Con

You have not addressed a single on of my statements, only groveled before the judges like a worm declaring himself victorious for his capitulance to the status quo of debatesmanship. Stop begging for votes and you will gain creedo. I care not if you win.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

CON claims that globalism does not give rights to "head choppers".

I have provided ample evidence that those who support and extend the ideology of globalism desire equal rights for every man, woman, and child.

Even criminals are protected under the concept in the sense that they are innocent until proven guilty, and are thus given equal rights under international law.

CON hasn't provided evidence for his claim, nor has he made a defense against mine.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
Max.Wallace

Con

In retrospect, I should have been the pro on this. Thanks for the reveal. Well done.
TrustmeImlying

Pro

CON concedes, thanks for reading.

Please vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
I do not wish to capitulate to the PC, as obviously do ye. Could if I wished to, but that would make me you, another heathen of tyranny.
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
I'm a voter. I may not be a legal judge but humans judge each other all the time. After seeing a lot of your debates I conclude either you're trolling or you don't understand how to debate.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
I may be a troll or just a goat on the road, are you the judge?
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
Max do you understand what a debate is? Or are all of your debates troll debates?
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Those are completely irrelevant in comparison but thanks for the compliment, I guess.
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
I support just laws. A criteria of sorts for what a just law is can be read in MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail.

If "the ten" laws you subscribe to is a reference to the ten commandments then you don't give yourself enough credit. I'm sure you abide by traffic laws, tax laws and constitutional law.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
The only laws I subscribe to are the ten. I probably get a C- on them, but that is average, and it make it easy to judge oneself. Which laws do you support whoever you are?
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
Max who are you to decide who deserves what rights?
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Equal rights make you more then equal, if they are given beyond the ones you deserve. Hooray for you!
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Oh yeah, equal rights are so trivial these days. Minor stuff, really.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Max.WallaceTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.