 |
mongeese's Debates
  |
pie = 8.54 (approximately)
**This is meant to be funny and not serious and to get to go off on as many tangents as possible, I actually want to see how far from the original topic we can get without making complete leaps (have a path that others can follow)** I submit that pie = 8.54 (approximately) there is another mathematical possibility but I'm not saying. Xp...
Shove the Fatman, or, Huzzah for Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism!
Shove the Fatman I am asserting that in the Train Problem (as described below), pushing the Fatman based on a Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism (SERC) ethic is more justifiable than any other combination of action and justification the negative will propose. Please read the resolution carefully, because this specifies a debate of comparative advantages, not merely assertion and negation. In the Train Problem one of two equivalent scenarios are given. In the first case, y...
"A cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefit." - Nancy Pelosi
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/22/pelosi_health_care_reform_has_cap_on_costs_no_cap_on_benefits.html Resolved: A limit on the costs of health care does not result in a limit on the benefits of health care. Limit - amount that may not be exceeded by law Costs of health care - what a person pays their health insurance company, as determined by contract Benefits of health care - what the health insurance company does for a person after that person needs the benefits, as determ...
Pick your own debate... Regarding history!
Good luck, have fun and keep the topic and debate clean. : ) To be specific, I am willing to debate upon any historical topic, issue, controversial battle etc, so long as it occurred before 1950 and after 100 AD (I am well versed in this era, but I haven't any wish to debate a Biblical/Ancient/Greek controversy, at this time). I ask that the topic be debatable, and not entirely one-sided. And, as I've stated before, a clean topic. I don't want to discuss some sort of war crime specifical...
Ultimate Team War - Gateway Planet 2
This is Ultimate Team War - Gateway Planet. Each debater must assemble a team of three characters, and the teams will then fight to the death(ish). Since we cannot have an actual real-life battle, each debater will explain why their team is superior during this debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYzCW0CwG2E&feature=player_embedded DEFINITIONS Team leader: One of the debaters here, i.e. me or my opponent. Team member: One of the three chosen warriors. Team Pro: My team. Team Con: My opp...
Chuck Norris Facts
I have seen all these you mama joke debates going around and thought I might try one on Chuck Norris facts the rules are simple each round you post 3 Chuck Norris Facts at the end whoever the voter thought had better jokes gives all points to that person 1.Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door 2.Chuck Norris can strangle you with a cordless phone 3.Once there was a blind man the blind man accidentally bumped into Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris said "do you know who i am" "no i don't" said...
According to the Bible, the value of pi is only known to one digit.
The Bible is the Christian holy text. Pi is the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. By "only known to one digit," I mean that the Bible shows that the Christian author evidently only knew pi to one digit, 3. My opponent will have the burden of proof to explain where the evidence exists to affirm the resolution, and how it does so. Good luck to my future opponent....
Pick your own debate!
1. Submit at least 4 resolutions of at least 3 different categories (see the forum for categories). Include your position for each resolution. 2. In R2, I will respond with my choice. If I am PRO, I will respond with only my choice. My opponent will then use his R2 to acknowledge my choice and invite me to begin. Debating will begin with me in R3 and end with my opponent in R5. If I am CON, I will respond with only my choice and invite my opponent to begin. Debating will begin with my...
The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.
Full resolution: Because of the scenario introduced by the paradox of the stone, the God discussed in the Christian Bible (Yahweh) absolutely cannot exist in reality. The paradox of the stone is outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox My opponent will explain why this paradox disproves the existence of the Christian God. Naturally, PRO will have the burden of proof. Good luck to my opponent....
The following arguments against the existence of God are legitimate.
First, by accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the following statements: For this debate, "God" is taken to mean the Christian God as described by the Bible. For an argument to be "legitimate" for this debate, all premises must be sourced from an accurate source (the Bible included, being the ultimate authority on the Christian God), and it must be impossible to deny any conclusions without denying any premises leading up to said conclusion, with the ultimate conclusion being, "God doe...