<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: Clash's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=Clash</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-06-18T19:34:02-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-06-18T19:34:02-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>The KCA is ridiculous.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-KCA-is-ridiculous./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) It is, frankly it seems like a cheap way out of cosmology to me. The Logic in the argument can be used against God and makes no sense. Not trying to be offensive here but I hate this argument with a passion. (Much like the fine tuning argument)1st round is acceptance.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-KCA-is-ridiculous./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-02-04T09:20:26-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Islam does not oppress women</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Islam-does-not-oppress-women/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;If you accept this debate, you also accept that you cannot use the argument that Islam is a religion which oppress women just because some Muslims or Muslim countries oppress women. I think most people here can agree that this argument is just illogical and a failure. To see if a religion really oppress women or not, you have to look at the religion itself. So, what is going to be used in this debate is the foundations of Islam, which is the Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rounds&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1: Acceptance only&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;2: Arguments only&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;3: Rebuttal&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;4: More rebuttal and closing statements. No new arguments. Arguments shall be given only in round 2.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Islam-does-not-oppress-women/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-05-20T09:57:13-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Is Muhammad a true prophet of God ?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-Muhammad-a-true-prophet-of-God/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I am challenging any muslim out there to defend your prophet's authenticity. This debate challenge is my first one, and I am just getting familiar with the options and methods of these debates. I don't even know if there are some muslim apologists available on this website.

Perhaps I will have to make some other topic to see how the debates go here. If this the first round post of mine then take it as the notification and acceptance for the topic.

Remember that the opponent needs to defend Muhammad, Islam. I am going to disprove him on theological grounds that is, from the authority of Scriptures, - the Bible vs Islamic sources.

If you want to go first, it's your choice, in this first round you can post your case, and I will proceed in second round. If not you can just post your acceptance declaration. I have reduced the voting period to 1 month. I don't know why most here are not comfortable with long voting period.

Keep in mind, the &quot;criteria&quot; of </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-Muhammad-a-true-prophet-of-God/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-09-07T20:03:18-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Abortion should be legal.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-legal./4/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) The legality behind abortion is very clear. Our &quot;unalienable rights&quot; -- as implicitly stated in the Constitution -- ensure us &quot;life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.&quot; Without legalizing abortion, women wouldn't be granted the right to care for their own bodies and make decisions regarding their unborn child/children.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-legal./4/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-11-28T13:46:08-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Islam is not a religion of terrorism</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Islam-is-not-a-religion-of-terrorism/2/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;This debate is a challenge to Microsuck&lt;strong&gt;. &lt;/strong&gt;Microsuck and I have agreed to have a re-debate on this topic, because Microsuck was on vacation last time and could therefore not finish the whole debate. I would like to remind Microsuck that he cannot use he argument that just because some Muslims have done this and that, Islam must be a religion of terrorism. We will use the foundation of Islam in this debate, which is the Quran and sayings of prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him).&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rules&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Round 1 is acceptance only. Round 2 are arguments only. Round 3 are for rebutting the opponents arguments at round 2. Round 4 is more rebuttal and closing arguments.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definitions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Islam: &lt;em&gt;The religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a un</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Islam-is-not-a-religion-of-terrorism/2/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-14T20:23:22-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: Islam is not a religion of terrorism</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Islam-is-not-a-religion-of-terrorism/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Terrorism:
According to google ter&#183;ror&#183;ism
Noun:	
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Synonyms:	
terror


1) acceptance
2) arguments
3) arguments/rebuttals
4) rebuttals/ conclusion 

No semantics, no voting for own debate, and HAVE FUN!</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Islam-is-not-a-religion-of-terrorism/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-07-15T16:23:11-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Islam is not a religion of terrorism</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Islam-is-not-a-religion-of-terrorism/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: times new roman,times; font-size: small;&quot;&gt;This is my first debate. Because I do not find any debates which I can debate, &lt;span class=&quot;hps&quot;&gt;I thought&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;hps&quot;&gt;to just start one of&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;hps&quot;&gt;my own.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: times new roman,times; font-size: small;&quot;&gt;The foundation of Islam consists of the Quran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, so you cannot argue that Islam is a religion of terrorism just because of what some Muslims have done in the history of mankind. There is no question about the fact that many Muslims have done bad things, but these Muslims do not represent true Islam. These Muslims are basically bad Muslims. Look at the good apples not the bad ones. You will find in every religion, including Atheism, people who do bad things. Just because of that, the whole religion is bad? What about the good things done by the followers of that religion then? As th</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Islam-is-not-a-religion-of-terrorism/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-07T12:26:12-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Should people in the US wear bicycle helmets while driving a bicycle?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-people-in-the-US-wear-bicycle-helmets-while-driving-a-bicycle/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Just a little cool topic I wan't to debate. As Pro, I will argue that people in the US should wear bicycle helmets while driving a bicycle. As Con, you will argue that people in the US should not use bicycle helmets while driving a bicycle.

First round acceptance.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-people-in-the-US-wear-bicycle-helmets-while-driving-a-bicycle/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-06-05T01:08:34-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>It is probable that the Qur'an is from God</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-probable-that-the-Quran-is-from-God/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div style=&quot;text-align: left;&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: small;&quot;&gt;I want to begin by saying how delighted I am to be debating Clash on this very important religious issue. It's good to be able to argue with someone who is so knowledgeable about the Qur'an and about Islam. For my part of the debate, I'll be arguing that, on balance of probability, the Qur'an is not a revelation from God.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: small;&quot;&gt; &lt;br /&gt; OPENING ARGUMENTS&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;C1: THE QUR'AN IS IMPERFECT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt; By imperfect, I refer to the fact that the&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Qur'an&amp;nbsp;&lt;/em&gt;is prone to error, contains contradictions, and contains imperfections one would not expect if the Qur'an was indeed authored by God.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-probable-that-the-Quran-is-from-God/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-06-20T07:09:05-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>There is more evidence that God does not exist, than there to is prove that he does.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-more-evidence-that-God-does-not-exist-than-there-to-is-prove-that-he-does./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Quite simple, really. Although there is no definitive evidence to disprove the existence of God, there is enough to assume that it is unlikely. On the flipside, there is not even the smallest amount of tangible evidence that God does exist.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-more-evidence-that-God-does-not-exist-than-there-to-is-prove-that-he-does./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-29T15:51:41-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>I am the sexiest man alive</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/I-am-the-sexiest-man-alive/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;My mommy said I was.&lt;br /&gt;And so did that guy in the ally.&lt;br /&gt;And my that guy how lives nextdoor who always wants to babysit.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/I-am-the-sexiest-man-alive/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-12-17T14:22:29-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Smoking-should-be-banned-in-all-states-in-the-USA/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Rules :
1. No semantics
2. No trolling
3. No spamming
4. No profanities

The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that smoking should not be banned in all states in the USA, feel free to join.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Smoking-should-be-banned-in-all-states-in-the-USA/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-11-16T12:43:27-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>there should not be a death penelty</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/there-should-not-be-a-death-penelty/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) basically we're killling people that killed to show that killing is wrong. just saying</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/there-should-not-be-a-death-penelty/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-01-15T09:39:52-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-reasonable-non-religious-reason-for-abortion-to-be-illegal./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) First round for acceptance.

There is absolutely no non-religious reason for induced abortion to be illegal. I challenge whoever accepts this debate to name any reason, beyond religious morals; this medical procedure should become restricted at a federal level.

Definitions:

Abortion - noun - The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

Illegal - noun - contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

Federal - adjective - pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government	distinct from the individual governments of the separate states.

Religion - noun - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Moral - adjective - of, pertaining to,</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-reasonable-non-religious-reason-for-abortion-to-be-illegal./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-06-21T08:45:36-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>This debate will reach 1000 &quot;views&quot; before the voting starts.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/This-debate-will-reach-1000-views-before-the-voting-starts./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;The res. in the title.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Con wins with there is less then 1000 views.&lt;br /&gt;Pro wins if there is more then 1000 views.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/This-debate-will-reach-1000-views-before-the-voting-starts./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-15T15:23:19-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Death Penalty = Wrong? or Right?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Death-Penalty-Wrong-or-Right/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) First round for acceptance, however, if con wants to post first that is fine.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Death-Penalty-Wrong-or-Right/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-10-24T13:55:23-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Abortion</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion/173/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) just wanna try debating...and im all for abortion so, lets go.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion/173/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-10-13T14:07:33-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Is Jesus God?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-Jesus-God/7/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;Pboy21 wants so much to have this debate with me, so let's do this. I will argue that Jesus is not God, and Pboy21 will argue that Jesus is God.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rules&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Round 1: Acceptance only&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Round 2: Arguments only&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Round 3: Rebuttal to the opponent's arguments in round 2&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Round 4: More rebuttal and closing statements&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-Jesus-God/7/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-05-09T09:14:50-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>teen's should not have cell phones!!</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/teens-should-not-have-cell-phones/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;Being a teen boy i have a very strong opinion about sell phones .&lt;br /&gt;every day my teacher has a desk full of phones befor 12 .&lt;br /&gt;sell phones are a destraction and waist of time to a teenager .&lt;br /&gt;so i think that teens dont need cell phones.&lt;br /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/teens-should-not-have-cell-phones/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-23T13:16:11-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-marriage-should-not-be-legal-in-the-US/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;As Pro, I will affirm the resolution and argue that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US. As Con, you will negate the resolution and argue that Gay-marriage should be legal in the US. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarifications&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The debate topic is that gay-marriage should not be legal, so to say that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal (something which I'm fully aware of), is invalid. If the debate topic was however that gay-marriage is not legal in the US, then it would be valid to say that that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal. In fact, if you have said that, you would have negated the resolution (i.e., That gay-marriage is not legal in the US)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since I'm arguing that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US, that means that I'm also arguing that places in the US which already makes gay-marriage legal, should not make it legal anymore. And since Con is arguing that gay-marr</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-marriage-should-not-be-legal-in-the-US/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-07-11T17:31:05-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
