The Instigator
Renascor
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Terrorist
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

The Future of America: Good or Bad?

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,830 times Debate No: 19346
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

Renascor

Pro

I feel that America will continue to go downhill.

I would like to debate whether or not there is evidence to show that America will continue to go downhill.
Terrorist

Con

America might be able to rebound if we reinvest in the things that made us great like science.

We helped start the industrial age which was America's greatest age, things like that just don't happen you have to look for them. We need to find the next resource to power our country, that will put us two steps ahead. Then we can research maybe moon colonization is the next logical step, no one knows, but in our lifetime a new age could possibly dawn, and if we don't start it we wont have a chance of coming back until the cycle for western dominance repeats 300 years later.
Debate Round No. 1
Renascor

Pro

Interesting points. However, do you believe that America WILL actually invest in science? I mean logically, I cant see America doing it. With the cancellation of the Mars project and the retirement of the Space Shuttle program, I find it to be very unlikely that America will continue forward in science.

It also seems that four cultural significants power a society:

1. Science; as we have already established.

2. Religion; which we see being taken out of the schools as well as modern mainstream society.

3. Philosophy; which has become negative rather than positive.

Economy; which we all know has failed.

These four areas are failing at an enormous pace. That is why I feel that America is going downhill.
Terrorist

Con

I don't remember religion being a factor in America's history, maybe it was "In the name of God", but had no religion to back it up.

I believe that America could come back from this depression, and re-invest in science if a great leader where to come along. To save us from the Great Depression, which was worse than what we are experiencing now, Franklin Roosevelt had to come along and save the US; He also won WW2 which put us back on top.

If a great leader would come along the US could rebound and get back on top. A great leader could also inspire congress and the citizens to do more for their country, and renew our successful empire.
Debate Round No. 2
Renascor

Pro

I should remind you that the entire reason America was founded was because of Religion. The Puritans (Pilgrims) came to settle America for religious freedom.

I also believe that there are no proper leaders that are willing to invest in science.

Therefore, If you are to support your claim, you must specify who this leader is and how he will win or be chosen to become the leader.
Terrorist

Con

Terrorist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
The future of America can easily be determined by the voting practises displayed on this site. Mass corruption and waste.
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Sadolite, orange boy here is taking pride in being a nuisance. He enjoys debating the void and has purpose so long as he trolls. I suggest you follow me in blocking/disregarding him.
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
@sadolite:
I have given points to the side I did not agree with or vote for simply to counteract unfair votes on the part of other members. I'm not trying to force others to adopt a little integrity; I'm just doing my part to see that things get handled somewhat fairly.

Additionally, I would suggest that winning the argument is not all that matters in a debate. Spelling and grammar are, in fact, significant, as is conduct. Sources, I'd think, would ideally be factored in with the convincing arguments points, but I didn't design the system. I'm just using it.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
I mean really, what kind of voting system is it that allows you to win the argument but still lose the debate. How lame is that.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
"If you give a reason, then, according to me, as long as it's a coherent reason, it's a legitimate vote."

Ya, tell that to the side you didn't vote for. You still vote bombed regardless of any detailed RFD. You will spend the next hour or even days sub debating your RFD. And you will still have vote bombed.
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
@sadolite:
Do notice that the usage of vote bomb that you're applying to other people's interpretations of votes is quite different from mine. If you give a reason, then, according to me, as long as it's a coherent reason, it's a legitimate vote.

@Renascor:
You appear to be mistaken on a few things.
1) You might not like my comments; however, that does not change the fact that they are actually relevant to what is being discussed.
2) Whether or not arguments were convincing to you is entirely subjective. When have I complained about this? I am only stating that it is unreasonable to abuse the system designed for various debate virtues and award points for conduct to a participant simply because you thought their argument was better. It's a lot like comparing two movies, and, upon deciding that you like plot A better than plot B, give movie A better ratings in the categories of music, acting, and directing.
3) Simply annoying a person doesn't mean I'm a troll. It must be my intent to annoy you. I assure you this is not the case; my intent is merely to correct your system-abusive behavior.
4) You do not understand what spamming means. My posts are all relevant, and I am not posting them in repetitions. They do not fit a single criterion for spamming other than the fact that they appear to annoy you.
5) Censorship has a time and a place. When the one being censored is being disruptive of communication, it is justified. However, censoring one who is legitimately trying to communicate an idea is absolutely closed-minded and indicates a very feeble foundation on which you rest your beliefs.

I, too, will refrain from discussing with you as my very existence appears to annoy you, and, as I mentioned before, that is not my intent. I sincerely wish you a good evening.
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Very true sadolite. MIO, your comments are not wanted. Just because my votes do not match up with your "opinion", does not mean that my votes are unfair or unreasonable as they are my "opinion". Furthermore, just the fact that you are annoying me testifies to the fact that you are a troll. From this point on, I will refrain from indulging in any more discussions with you as you are an organized spammer. I also have blocked you do to your misconduct and I recommend that others do too.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
And even if you do read the debate and give a reason for your vote the otherside will always whine thus you have vote bombed
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
@renascor:
"Your anger brings me joy, I bask in it :)"
This is the fundamental motivation of a troll. Congratulations: you have just admitted to being a troll.
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
@sadolite:
There is a difference between looking at a debate and deciding which side gets which points according to various factors of the debate. It is another thing entirely to award points where points are not due, such as izbo's action, which was voting against renascor out of spite, or renascor's voting on various debates, awarding conduct, S&G, and sources, but only stating that the arguments were more convincing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
RenascorTerroristTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: "renascor, I didnt read the debate which means I had a far greater understanding of what was going on when I voted here, then you did when you voted on my debate about the ontological argument." This clear evidence that Izbo10, due to his personal grudge with Renascor, decided to vote bomb him....Sad, just sad.
Vote Placed by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
RenascorTerroristTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I don't see where pro did anything to win this debate.