http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&member=Demosthenes Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2013-06-19T15:11:26-08:00 2013-06-19T15:11:26-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Israel-is-justified-in-their-invasion-of-Gaza/1/ (Voting Period) Hello, my first debate here, so play nice. I believe that Israel is not justified in their recent invasion of Gaza. My definition of justified is a reasonable response for the actions taken against it. A few reasons are as follows. 1. Israel's response is massively disproportionate to the actions taken against it. I am not saying that I have the answers for the middle east conflict, although I do believe that diplomacy is the only realistic solution. This can be most clearly outlined in the death toll on both sides. 14 Israelis were killed during the conflict period and approximately 1200 Palestinians were killed in response. [1] To me, this is not a justifiable, proportionate response to the actions take against it. At the silly extreme example, a country would not be excused for killing a nations entire population in response to an attack on one of their citizens in the name of self defence. There is a reasonable response level. 2. The civilian ca http://www.debate.org/debates/Israel-is-justified-in-their-invasion-of-Gaza/1/comments/ 2009-02-11T20:07:20-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-New-Orleans-Saints-beat-the-Redskins-recently-with-heart-and-skill-not-luck/1/ (Post Voting Period) This will be my first debate, so I would like to open by inviting whoever takes up the Con position to politely correct my protocol if necessary. First, I submit the following limiting parameter for the debate: The referees called the game in a completely impartial manner. No calls were made which were blatantly incorrect, therefore the outcome of any particular reviewed play is not admissible as evidence to attempt to disprove my position. Furthermore, it is assumed that any penalties committed were called. Thus, we will avoid the pitfall of debating "what ifs", which is immaterial. It is undeniable fact that the New Orleans Saints won. I am taking the position that they won by outplaying the Redskins and not through blind luck. To support my position I submit the following key statistics from the game, available from nfl.com ( http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009120608/2009/REG13/saints@redskins/recap#tab:analyze ) : The Saints out-gained the reds http://www.debate.org/debates/The-New-Orleans-Saints-beat-the-Redskins-recently-with-heart-and-skill-not-luck/1/comments/ 2009-12-12T17:13:54-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/BORDER-FENCING/1/ (Voting Period) illegal aliens should not be allowed in this country. we need to fence the border . they come in, have welfare but dont pay taxes. they just take money. 90% of arrest warrants are for illegal aliens. people use the excuse "if we send them back,we will have no one to do the crops" all the time. that is BS. only 2% of illegal aliens work on crops. they need to fence the border http://www.debate.org/debates/BORDER-FENCING/1/comments/ 2007-12-09T20:27:33-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Radical-Christian-Evangelists-are-bad-for-America/1/ (Voting Period) There is a show that is on A&E now this is the first time watching it, it is called Jesus camp. Now this led me to do further research which led me to a website called God Hates Gays(which is not the name of the website but i am not aloud to say because it coundts as profanity).com now this is a web site that goes totally aginst the government and also stomps the flag as well as protest the arrival of dead soldiers back from the wars. Now i am an athiest and i feel that i need more education and that is what i hope to gain from this round. I have many more fellings and opinons on this but i want to here from someone who is actually a christian or even better a radical christian who either feels the same way as the people on the web site God Hates Gays.com or as attended jesus camp. Please Educate me. http://www.debate.org/debates/Radical-Christian-Evangelists-are-bad-for-America/1/comments/ 2008-01-01T15:06:05-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-has-a-right-to-stop-Iran-from-obtaining-a-nuclear-weapon./1/ (Voting Period) October 26, 2005: IRIB News files a story about a speech given to the "World Without Zionists" conference. In that speech, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad states that Israel should be "wiped off the map". Because of this, and other inflammatory statements made by the Iranian government, and giving the volatile nature of the region, I agree that the United States has a right to stop the Iranian government at all costs from obtaining a nuclear weapon. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-has-a-right-to-stop-Iran-from-obtaining-a-nuclear-weapon./1/comments/ 2007-12-10T14:32:57-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Tim-Tebow-will-be-a-starting-NFL-quarterback-in-3-years-or-less-./1/ (Post Voting Period) I would like to take Demosthenes for taking this debate. I look forward to debating about the future of Tim Tebow's career in the NFL, or perhaps lack thereof from your perspective. I am new to debates since this is my first official one so please bear with me. I would like to start off by saying that Tim Tebow will be an NFL quarterback within the next 3 years. We are not debating whether or not he will be a great qb in the nfl, but merely good enough to be a starter. I am not sure if any other ground rules need to be laid. I will let my opponent begin with his argument. Thanks. http://www.debate.org/debates/Tim-Tebow-will-be-a-starting-NFL-quarterback-in-3-years-or-less-./1/comments/ 2010-02-24T20:45:12-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Barack-Obama-will-defeat-Hillary-Clinton-for-the-Democratic-Nomination/1/ (Voting Period) As a rule, I try not to pick winners after just a few primaries. However, I can't help but notice that Barack Obama, when he wins, wins very convincingly. First, the 8% victory over Hillary Clinton in Iowa. Who'd think that a black man, even in today's age of tolerance, would defeat a southern white man whose stated goal was to fight for the middle class (Edwards), or the Clinton political machine? I certainly didn't. Then, the public beating issued by Obama to Hillary in South Carolina. A 20+% win? How often do we see that? It's not exactly common, especially in such a close race as the 2008 Democratic one. This fills me with hope, that finally we may have a candidate that has a chance to break the stranglehold that image-creators and media consultants have on American politics. The Clinton machine, that has done nothing but rip off Obama and Edwards, that has resorted, in a time of desperation, to racial attacks and claims that an Obama win is a fa http://www.debate.org/debates/Barack-Obama-will-defeat-Hillary-Clinton-for-the-Democratic-Nomination/1/comments/ 2008-02-02T14:01:03-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Private-entities-ought-to-be-able-to-discriminate-based-on-race-color-religion-sex-etc./1/ (Post Voting Period) Private entities ought to be able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin without hassle from government or law enforcement. I am not interested in a semantics debate. If any confusion regarding the resolution exists please ask about it in the comments section and I will clarify. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In recent times and times past people have taken private entities to court over various forms of discrimination. In many cases the defendants were required to pay out large sums of money to the alleged victims. Nikolai Grushevski filed a gender-discrimination lawsuit after Hooters denied him a job as a server at the chain restaurant. [1] In 1997 a similar case resulted in Hooters paying out a $3.75 million settlement to reconcile the matter. [2] If a private company on private property can not be run how the owner se http://www.debate.org/debates/Private-entities-ought-to-be-able-to-discriminate-based-on-race-color-religion-sex-etc./1/comments/ 2009-02-21T14:45:19-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/President-George-W.-Bush-is-a-good-president./1/ (Voting Period) "President George W. Bush is the worst president in all of history."-The New Yorker. President George W. Bush has done so much in harm of the United States that many citizens believe he is Anti-American. For example, he started a war against Iraq to "help" their country out of their former state of chaos several years ago. Currently, what do we see? We see Iraq as never before. We see that without a leader, no matter how tyrannous, helps a country. Really, President Bush, how's your oil industry going? Cheating the Iraqis out of even their own natural resources. http://www.debate.org/debates/President-George-W.-Bush-is-a-good-president./1/comments/ 2007-12-25T14:00:19-08:00