The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Political debate on this nation's most sweeping issues

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 29231
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Affirmative action: pro
Legalized pot: pro (exceptions)
Media: con
Social safety net: pro ( with exceptions )
Strict gun regulations: pro
Debt ceiling: con
Gerrymandering: con
Gay rights: pro
Intervening in middle east uprising: con
Raising taxes: pro
Cutting military spending: pro
Cutting medicare: pro


I have no idea what we are doing but I'm willing to give it a shot
I will use round one to state my positions and then round two to elaborate on them if the pro wishes.

Affirmative actions: Pro(up to a certain point)
Legalized Cannabis: Pro(with exceptions)
Media: Pro
Abortion: Pro(in some cases)
Social Safety Net: Con
Strict gun regulations: Con(depending on the gun)
Debt Ceiling: Con
Gerrymandering: Con
Gay rights: Con
Intervening in middle east uprisings: Con
Raising taxes: Con(depends on who)
Cutting military spending: pro
Cutting medicare: pro
Debate Round No. 1


Please elaborate your position s on the following: Affirmative action, Cannabis, abortion, strict gun regulations,gay rights, media and raising taxes.


Well, I will now elaborate on some positions

Affirmative Action-I do not think certain services should be required to establish a quota of a certain races, but I do think impoverished families and communities should get a step up.

Cannabis-Legalize and sell it, but put an age requirement on it.

Abortion-Only done in cases to save the mother's or child's life.

Strict gun regulations-Only on handguns

Gay rights-I'm only con cause I do not recognize marriage as a right, but I am pro Gay-marriage.

Media-The worldwide media has a positive effect on the world.

Raising taxes-It should only apply to certain groups.
Debate Round No. 2


Well we disagree the issue of Affirmative action, media, abortion, and strict handgun regulations.

Affirmative action- my opponent says some services shouldn't be required to enforce affirmative action. I'd have to disagree for the simple fact affirmative action opens opportunities across the board. For example if Colleges weren't required to reach a quota racism and bias can ensue. This fact not only applies to education but across the board

Media- In terms of media i'd agree that the WORLDWIDE media has a positive effect. As oppose to national news stations like MSNBC and FOX

abortion- My opponent says that he supports abortion only in cases of life of the mother. But what in cases of rape or incest? What about the cases in which the mother just doesn't have the to support a child? What if the mother is not responsible enough to manage another human life? It's wrong that you'd make a child come into this when the of family simply has no means to support a child

Gun regulations- My opponent supports only strict handgun regulations. Assault rifle or in that any type of gun kill people. Not just handguns.


Well now I will respond and would first like to thank the pro for giving me enough time to respond.
I will now address the points the Pro brought up.

Affirmative action-These quotas actually don't serve to eliminate bias but increase bias and serve to establish reverse racism. Quotas only serve to hurt and not encourage. Basic affirmative action programs such as beginning point systems serve to correct the problems the pro points out.

Media-We agree on the media point

Abortion-If the child has no support then obviously the child's mother and itself life is in danger due to the mother barely being able to provide for herself. BUT this is only if the mother can barely provide for herself. The key problem with the Pro's statement's is that he uses subjective terminology in sentences. Responsibility and levels of support and morals differ from person to person. I would like to label this argument as an appeal to emotions as the point detracts from the debate by trying to argue what is right or wrong according to his personal set of morals.

Gun regulations-Using the Pro's logic we should ban knifes, forks and spoons as well. The only reason I support strict handgun regulations is that a majority of gun related homicides are attributed to handguns and not assault rifles[1]. A ban on assault rifles has already occurred and has already been found to be ineffective by the U.S. Department of Justice. Also banning all guns as the pro suggest creates a black market on guns due to the expo facto stipulation.


Debate Round No. 3


Affirmative action- my opponent suggests that affirmative action, legislation that has given the opportunity to millions of Americans, serves only as a platform for reverse racism. This is just plain silly. Black's and Latino's are at proven disadvantage when it come to applying for a job. Affirmative action is here to solve this by making employers reach a quota so that not one race is hired because some bias by the employer. Also let's not forget that affirmative action not helps those of color but of gender as well.

Abortion - my previous statement is perfectly legitimate. Now am I saying that every 15 or 16 year old isn't mature, no. I'm merely saying that the majority of girls and boys of this age aren't ready to have child. Because at this age your not responsible to have a child, the same way you have to be 18 to vote, and 17 to drive in most states. Also children from disadvantaged families will statically become High-School Dropouts, Young Parents and Poor Adults. And besides nobody forcing a pregnant teenager to have a abortion. But merely to give her the option.

Guns- My opponents first sentence doesn't make any sense, because you can't kill 20 people in under a minute with a knife, spoon, fork,or what have you. I would like to state it's not just handguns or assault weapons that kill, but all guns. My opponent says that he's opposed to an assault rifles ban because assault rifles just don't account for enough deaths in country to be restricted. This is just sad because one death is too much. Also I would like it to be known that never mentioned a assault weapons ban.


I would like to thank the pro for the immediate response.

Affirmative action-

A-The quota itself is detrimental to a business like outlook. Instead of choosing a person that would best help the business, the business is forced to hired someone who will cause their quality of business to drop dramatically thus lowering profits. This in turn leads to the person being fired. Now this is a key problem with the Pro's view of Affirmative action due to it wasting resources from the private sector.

B-The pro has not managed to prove how Black's and Latino's are actually at a proven disadvantage. He merely says they are. He also ignores that some White Americans are at a disadvantage as well. Which leads to the next point

C-The Pro's view on affirmative action effectively rules out those who are White and at a economic disadvantage. Now if the pro would like to state that since White are the majority of the population that it is impossible for them to be discriminated against. This is found false due to evidence saying it is harder for Asian Americans(A small minority) to get into college than Blacks, Latinos and even athletes.[1]

D-The gender point can still lead to reverse discrimination. Just swap the words Black/Latino with Woman and White with Man

E-The pro dropped the argument on starting point affirmative action.

F-In closing with my rebuttal to the Affirmative Action point, I offer this question to the audience/judges and even for the pro to answer if they would like. A Black woman's great grandparents were robbed but her family has managed to secure the wealth back over many generations and have become an affluent family who can easily afford college. A White man's was born into an impoverished family and barely has enough money to pay for college. Both are applying to the same college and and the white man has the higher GPA, SAT and ACT. Ignoring other factors, who should be picked?


A-This statement is still not legitimate due to pro still appealing to emotions and arguing from a self made moral standpoint. He uses the word responsible but this can only come from what he thinks is responsible

B-The pro is basing what he thinks is ready on his own standards.

Gun regulations

A-That example was going by the pro's flawed logic in that "If it kills it is bad"

B-The pro ignores my point about the black market being established if assault weapons. This is important because the entire reason I was against an assault weapon ban was due to a black market being established. Now you can see that the ban would be counter productive since it would put the supposed most dangerous tools into the criminal sector easier.

C-Since I am for Handgun restrictions we must talk about assault weapons or all weapons not of handgun caliber when we discuss bans. These were at the pro and con clashed on as we both agree handguns should be limited more than they are being limited now.

D-Again the pro uses an appeal to emotions rather than the factual points and date I used in my previous round.

Note-I honestly have no idea where that source is supposed to go. I read it and it talked about Canadian families at an economic disadvantage. I could find no place in this debate where that was relevant.


Debate Round No. 4


chrisjohnson forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments and please vote Con.
Thank you
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Cobo 3 years ago
Reported for spam/advertising...
Posted by RLBaty 3 years ago
Speaking to the tax issue, in one small part:

There's been a lot of big, national, news stories lately involving the White House response to various petitions promulgated through the White House website. You only need to get 25,000 signatures in 30 days in order to obligate the Obama administration to address the issue.

One of the more substantive petitions is failing to move toward to successfully garner the 25,000 signatures by the deadline. I've tried what I can think of to promote the petition, and appreciate all the support; currently approaching 2,000, but with only 8 days left to reach 25,000.

So, I thought I would put in a plug for the petition here in hopes that some here might be the spark we need to boost the signatures up to the minimum 25,000 by January 24, 2013.

Here's the direct link to the petition and its text:

> We petition the Obama administration to:
>> propose that Congress act to repeal Internal
>> Revenue Code Section 107 that allows "ministers"
>> income tax free income.
> Internal Revenue Code section 107 allows ONLY "ministers" to
> receive unlimited amounts of income tax free income as long
> as it is spent on housing. The IRS has extended the benefits
> to employees of many private, non-church organizations such
> as the basketball coach at Pepperdine University. Many tax
> and legal scholars have written and spoken on the issue of its
> obvious UNconstitutionality, but there has been no political will
> to repeal the law or modify it to curb abuses and make it
> constitutional. Only in recent years has judicial effort been
> made to have the law ruled UNconstitutional, but that litigation
> could take many more years when Congress and the President
> could resolve the issue quickly. The President should take a
> leadership role in proposing that the law be repealed.

Please give serious consideration to signing up and getting others to do so as well.
Posted by Cobo 3 years ago
I might have to forfeit the next round due to these time constraints...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit