Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debates I want to see done...

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:50:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
that I don't personally want to do, but would definitely read and vote on.

"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

"We should allow the harvesting of embryonic stem cells towards possible medical and scientific advances."

"We should be looser with restrictions on human testing"

"Humans should be monogamous"

"Dolphins should be afforded equal rights and protections to humans"

"Egypt's Mursi should not have been removed from power."

"It is immoral for religious officials to give indulgences"

"Wal-Mart should change its payment practices."

That's all for the moment. This thread is here for ideas for quality topics. Any user can take any of these. Any topics from anyone else that they like and would read but don't personally want to do?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 10:59:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:50:21 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
that I don't personally want to do, but would definitely read and vote on.

"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

"We should allow the harvesting of embryonic stem cells towards possible medical and scientific advances."

"We should be looser with restrictions on human testing"

"Humans should be monogamous"

"Dolphins should be afforded equal rights and protections to humans"

"Egypt's Mursi should not have been removed from power."

"It is immoral for religious officials to give indulgences"

"Wal-Mart should change its payment practices."

That's all for the moment. This thread is here for ideas for quality topics. Any user can take any of these. Any topics from anyone else that they like and would read but don't personally want to do?

I would be interested in taking up these ones. the Morsi and stand your ground ones are also interesting but I don't like doing topics that are especially current.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:06:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 10:59:17 AM, Raisor wrote:

I would be interested in taking up these ones. the Morsi and stand your ground ones are also interesting but I don't like doing topics that are especially current.

Go for it. These are all topics that I just want to see done.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:23:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here are a few more.

"Companies should be more willing to bargain prices with consumers in first-world countries."

"If communities are content and happy with their ways, we should not take efforts to modernize them."

"TV shows on channels meant for children should have some explicit educational value."

"Superman is an ineffective literary character."

"It is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions based on generalized statistical statements."

"Pornography is immoral"

"There are traits that are inherently masculine and traits that are inherently feminine."
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:33:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, for all of the speech and debate kids on the site, I heard that Nuclear Proliferation will be a public forum topic. You guys might want to do a couple here to prepare.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:35:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 11:33:51 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Also, for all of the speech and debate kids on the site, I heard that Nuclear Proliferation will be a public forum topic. You guys might want to do a couple here to prepare.

Yep, 'tis true.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:38:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Hate speech is a human right"
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:46:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Resolved: The development and use of unmanned weapons and vehicles and war is consistent with the nature of war.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:47:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 11:46:59 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Resolved: The development and use of unmanned weapons and vehicles in war is consistent with the nature of war.

Fix'd.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:50:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 11:47:30 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 11:46:59 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Resolved: The development and use of unmanned weapons and vehicles in war is consistent with the nature of war.

Fix'd.

Wouldn't that just turn into a debate concerning what is the nature of war?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:52:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 11:50:12 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/21/2013 11:47:30 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 11:46:59 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Resolved: The development and use of unmanned weapons and vehicles in war is consistent with the nature of war.

Fix'd.

Wouldn't that just turn into a debate concerning what is the nature of war?

Of course. That's kind of the whole point of the resolution, and how most RL resolutions work anyway: framing a bigger issue to be debated within the context of a smaller issue.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:06:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Senatorial pork-barreling is immoral"
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:19:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."

It might be my old policy debater self (no longer, I'm a PFer now), but I'd question the validity of saying one "engages" in self defense. I'd argue self defense is an inherently reactionary action, and the use of the word "engage" portrays it as something it isn't: an activity that a person chooses to do, rather than a last resort of self-preservation.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:19:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."

By 'attempt' do you mean physically attempt or weigh the option. Perhaps: "The victim of an aggressor has the right to retaliate with force only when retreat is not a viable option."
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:22:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:19:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."

By 'attempt' do you mean physically attempt or weigh the option. Perhaps: "The victim of an aggressor has the right to retaliate with force only when retreat is not a viable option."

I mean, whichever you want. I'm applying for colleges soon, so I can't exactly go to controversial and argue stuff like this. This is just an idea for you to open up. You can discuss the specifics of the resolution more with your opponent.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:23:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:50:21 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
that I don't personally want to do, but would definitely read and vote on.

"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

"We should allow the harvesting of embryonic stem cells towards possible medical and scientific advances."

"We should be looser with restrictions on human testing"

"Humans should be monogamous"

"Dolphins should be afforded equal rights and protections to humans"

"Egypt's Mursi should not have been removed from power."

"It is immoral for religious officials to give indulgences"

"Wal-Mart should change its payment practices."

That's all for the moment. This thread is here for ideas for quality topics. Any user can take any of these. Any topics from anyone else that they like and would read but don't personally want to do?

Are troll versions of those debates allowed? Because if so, then im your guy
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:50:21 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
that I don't personally want to do, but would definitely read and vote on.

"A person has an obligation to retreat* before engaging in self defense."

*if possible

That would be cool.

"We should allow the harvesting of embryonic stem cells towards possible medical and scientific advances."

Not even up for debate this is so obvious.

"We should be looser with restrictions on human testing"

See above.

"Humans should be monogamous"

Why?

"Dolphins should be afforded equal rights and protections to humans"

Hell no.

"Egypt's Mursi should not have been removed from power."

Hell no.

"It is immoral for religious officials to give indulgences"

Interesting.

"Wal-Mart should change its payment practices."

Best for the company to decide that.

That's all for the moment. This thread is here for ideas for quality topics. Any user can take any of these. Any topics from anyone else that they like and would read but don't personally want to do?
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:24:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:19:09 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."

It might be my old policy debater self (no longer, I'm a PFer now), but I'd question the validity of saying one "engages" in self defense. I'd argue self defense is an inherently reactionary action, and the use of the word "engage" portrays it as something it isn't: an activity that a person chooses to do, rather than a last resort of self-preservation.

It would be self-defense to prevent an attacker by shooting them, even if they hadn't yet harmed you.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:25:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some of those sound cool. Does anybody know a good debating site?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:25:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:23:39 PM, imabench wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:50:21 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
that I don't personally want to do, but would definitely read and vote on.

"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

"We should allow the harvesting of embryonic stem cells towards possible medical and scientific advances."

"We should be looser with restrictions on human testing"

"Humans should be monogamous"

"Dolphins should be afforded equal rights and protections to humans"

"Egypt's Mursi should not have been removed from power."

"It is immoral for religious officials to give indulgences"

"Wal-Mart should change its payment practices."

That's all for the moment. This thread is here for ideas for quality topics. Any user can take any of these. Any topics from anyone else that they like and would read but don't personally want to do?

Are troll versions of those debates allowed? Because if so, then im your guy

Go for it. I just want to get some discussion going on good topics for debates and to give people ideas. You could probably even do your childbirth/no saves on pokemon debate haha.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:28:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:19:09 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."

It might be my old policy debater self (no longer, I'm a PFer now), but I'd question the validity of saying one "engages" in self defense. I'd argue self defense is an inherently reactionary action, and the use of the word "engage" portrays it as something it isn't: an activity that a person chooses to do, rather than a last resort of self-preservation.

It would be self-defense to prevent an attacker by shooting them, even if they hadn't yet harmed you.

It's still a reaction to the threat.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:31:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:19:09 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."

It might be my old policy debater self (no longer, I'm a PFer now), but I'd question the validity of saying one "engages" in self defense. I'd argue self defense is an inherently reactionary action, and the use of the word "engage" portrays it as something it isn't: an activity that a person chooses to do, rather than a last resort of self-preservation.

It would be self-defense to prevent an attacker by shooting them, even if they hadn't yet harmed you.

This could be a debate in itself, really. For instance, if you knew someone was out to murder you, would killing them in their sleep be justified if you thought it was your best chance.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:35:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:24:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2013 9:50:21 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
that I don't personally want to do, but would definitely read and vote on.

"A person has an obligation to retreat* before engaging in self defense."

*if possible

That would be cool.

"We should allow the harvesting of embryonic stem cells towards possible medical and scientific advances."

Not even up for debate this is so obvious.

If you think it's obvious, why don't you try opening up that debate and seeing if anyone would be willing to take the opposing view.

"We should be looser with restrictions on human testing"

See above.

See above

"Humans should be monogamous"

Why?

Exactly why I think this debate should be done.

"Dolphins should be afforded equal rights and protections to humans"

Hell no.

I thought of this one because now in India and three other countries, dolphins are recognized as non-human persons.

"Egypt's Mursi should not have been removed from power."

Hell no.

Debate it then.

"It is immoral for religious officials to give indulgences"

Interesting.

Sparked by the Pope offering twitter followers less time in purgatory.

"Wal-Mart should change its payment practices."

Best for the company to decide that.

That would certainly be a view you could defend in that debate.
That's all for the moment. This thread is here for ideas for quality topics. Any user can take any of these. Any topics from anyone else that they like and would read but don't personally want to do?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 12:53:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 12:28:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:19:09 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."

It might be my old policy debater self (no longer, I'm a PFer now), but I'd question the validity of saying one "engages" in self defense. I'd argue self defense is an inherently reactionary action, and the use of the word "engage" portrays it as something it isn't: an activity that a person chooses to do, rather than a last resort of self-preservation.

It would be self-defense to prevent an attacker by shooting them, even if they hadn't yet harmed you.

It's still a reaction to the threat.

At 7/21/2013 12:28:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:24:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:19:09 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:07:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/21/2013 12:05:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

This one interests me. I think it would be an obligation for someone to consider whether self-defense or retreating would be in their best interest- it's not your right to harm an aggressor by means of yourself if there's an option not to. You have the right to retaliate with force, but only insofar as you think it would prevent force against you. So basically, the victim's rights trump the aggressor's. It gets more complex when it's unclear who initiated the conflict. For instance, say person A punches person B in the face and walks away. Person B follows person A, and brandishes a knife. Person A has the obligation to retreat (or take defensive measures which wouldn't harm person B) even at the cost of himself (to a certain extent). But since both people are responsible for the final situation, neither persons' rights completely yield to the other.

We'd need to refine the resolution a little bit, but anybody want to debate this?

Perhaps a better resolution would be "A person should be required to attempt retreat before engaging in self defense."

It might be my old policy debater self (no longer, I'm a PFer now), but I'd question the validity of saying one "engages" in self defense. I'd argue self defense is an inherently reactionary action, and the use of the word "engage" portrays it as something it isn't: an activity that a person chooses to do, rather than a last resort of self-preservation.

It would be self-defense to prevent an attacker by shooting them, even if they hadn't yet harmed you.

It's still a reaction to the threat.

But a person can choose to what extent they defend themselves, and at what cost of their aggressor they achieve protection. To illustrate, say a victim subdues their attacker, but is not confident that they could call for help in complete safety. Do they have the right to kill the captive if they think it's a better option for them than risking being attacked again.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 1:20:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The governments of the world should collaborate to terraform Mars"
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Subutai
Posts: 3,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 2:07:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:50:21 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
that I don't personally want to do, but would definitely read and vote on.

"A person has an obligation to retreat before engaging in self defense."

"We should allow the harvesting of embryonic stem cells towards possible medical and scientific advances."


I'd do this as pro.
"We should be looser with restrictions on human testing"

"Humans should be monogamous"

"Dolphins should be afforded equal rights and protections to humans"

"Egypt's Mursi should not have been removed from power."

"It is immoral for religious officials to give indulgences"


I'd do this as pro.
"Wal-Mart should change its payment practices."

That's all for the moment. This thread is here for ideas for quality topics. Any user can take any of these. Any topics from anyone else that they like and would read but don't personally want to do?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 2:08:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 11:23:45 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Here are a few more.

"Companies should be more willing to bargain prices with consumers in first-world countries."

"If communities are content and happy with their ways, we should not take efforts to modernize them."

"TV shows on channels meant for children should have some explicit educational value."


I'd do this as pro.
"Superman is an ineffective literary character."

"It is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions based on generalized statistical statements."


I'd do this as pro - although I'd need to do some research on this one.
"Pornography is immoral"

"There are traits that are inherently masculine and traits that are inherently feminine."
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.