http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&member=Brik Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2013-05-24T07:25:51-08:00 2013-05-24T07:25:51-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Military-Conscription-is-Unjust./3/ (Voting Period) Here is the final "draft" of my first argument... INTRODUCTION In 1979, President Ronald Reagan wrote that military conscription "rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state – not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers – to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea." Because the Nazis were wrong, I espouse the conviction of Mr. Reagan, and the resolution, which states: RESOLVED: MILITARY CONSCRIPTION IS UNJUST But before we get started, DEFINITIONS: MILITARY CONSCRIPTION: compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft (www.Wikipedia.org) UNJUST: marked by a lack of justice. Since justice is "righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness" according to www.Dictionary.com, injustice (the state of http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Military-Conscription-is-Unjust./3/comments/ 2008-09-19T13:12:55-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/In-the-United-States-true-intent-ought-to-have-a-higher-weight-in-court-than-ends./1/ (Voting Period) Opera singer Andrea Bocelli once quipped, "All that counts in life is intention." Because I believe this statement holds true in the United States courtroom, I espouse Bocelli's quote and the PRO side of this resolution, which states: RESOLVED: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: TRUE: real; genuine; authentic INTENT: purpose; design; intention OUGHT: (used to express duty or obligation) WEIGHT: importance COURT: a place where justice is administered ENDS: a result; an outcome (all defined from http://www.Dictionary.com) Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: 1. The resolution pertains to a United States court; thus we must view this round through a judicial perspective. A United States Court is concerned with determining whether someone is innocent or guilty and wheth http://www.debate.org/debates/In-the-United-States-true-intent-ought-to-have-a-higher-weight-in-court-than-ends./1/comments/ 2008-04-07T15:23:37-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/ (Voting Period) Congratulations, TheLwerd, on making it this far in the tournament undefeated. Thank you, judges, for your analysis, and spectators, if there are any, for your interest. Now, without further ado, let's boogie: *** "I am for those means which will give the greatest good to the greatest number." Because I agree with these words of 16th American President Abraham Lincoln, I espouse it and the PRO side of the resoltuion, which states: IT IS MORALLY PERMISSABLE TO KILL ONE INNOCENT PERSON TO SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: MORALLY: from a moral point of view MORAL: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical PERMISSABLE: that can be permitted; allowable INNOCENT: free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless MANY: constituting or forming a large number All defined by http://www.d http://www.debate.org/debates/19.-It-is-morally-permissable-to-kill-one-innocent-person-to-save-the-lives-of-many-innocent-people./1/comments/ 2008-07-15T08:28:27-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Public-health-concerns-justify-government-violation-of-pharmaceutical-patents./3/ (Voting Period) Welcome BRIK, welcome judges, welcome spectators to Round 5 of our debate tournament. I would like to welcome my opponent to the debate by offering him an objective and logical debate. May the most reasonable argument prevail. _________________ For my opening statement, I will lay out our argument. Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. A public health concern that could justify violation will be argued. For the purposes of this argument, we will be discussing the United States. patent: A legal document issued by a federal government that grants exclusive rights for the production, sale and profit from the invention of a product or process for a specific period of time. Patents also grant the right to prevent others from copying the invention. (merriam-webster) pharmaceutical: a medicinal drug (merriam-webster) _____________ Governments should have the right to violate patents that have http://www.debate.org/debates/Public-health-concerns-justify-government-violation-of-pharmaceutical-patents./3/comments/ 2008-07-03T22:24:45-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Limiting-economic-inequality-should-be-a-more-important-social-goal-than-maximizing-cont./1/ (Voting Period) Round 3: FIGHT! The definition I have for this debate are as follows: Justice: Giving an individual his or her fair due (Black's Law) Observation 1: The title is not the actual topic The title spot did not allow for the whole topic to fit. The topic that we will debate is "Limiting economic inequality should be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom" Observation 2: What is best for the society should be the more important goal. This follows simple logic. What most beneficial must be held as a more important goal. Thus, I just need to prove that limiting economic inequality is better for the society than maximizing economic freedom. Observation 3: The society that must debated is the United States SA- We must narrow the field of debate to one society/nation. Otherwise, this would be abusive to Pro as Con could simply spend the whole debate bringing up societies (including those without economies) and challenging Pr http://www.debate.org/debates/Limiting-economic-inequality-should-be-a-more-important-social-goal-than-maximizing-cont./1/comments/ 2008-05-14T19:46:55-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/39.-Legal-age-for-adulthood-should-be-reduced-in-the-United-States./1/ (Voting Period) "A child becomes an adult when he realizes he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong." Because I agree with these words of Hungarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, and because I figured that out before I was 18, I support the resolution, which states: RESOLVED: Legal age for adulthood should be reduced in the United States. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: LEGAL AGE: the age at which a person acquires full legal rights and responsibilities ADULTHOOD: the state (and responsibilities) of a person who has attained maturity SHOULD: must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency) REDUCED: brought down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc. (all defined from http://www.Dictionary.com) Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: 1. The "legal age" is the age at which a person in the U.S. receives full legal rights. However, in http://www.debate.org/debates/39.-Legal-age-for-adulthood-should-be-reduced-in-the-United-States./1/comments/ 2008-04-23T10:35:49-08:00