<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: Korashk's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=Korashk</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-05-25T03:11:38-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T03:11:38-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Classic Rock Competition</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Classic-Rock-Competition/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) --------------Classic Rock Competition--------------

Defined-

Classic Rock will be loosely defined, but shall be limited to, for the proposes of this debate, music of the &quot;Rock&quot; genre which was recorded between the years of 1960-1990.

Structure-

Rd. 1) Intro
Rd. 2-5) Classic Rock Awesomeness

Format- 

(1) Debaters will post up to five classic rock songs from Youtube, and will type the name of the song and artist in a list format.

(2) Debaters may but are not required to provide brief comments on the song(s) of their choosing.

Voting-

(1) Judges must be human beings.

(2) Judges are requested to listen to all songs, but may vote however they feel like. 

(3) Rock on.

Rules-

(1) Debaters must adhere to the aforementioned proscriptions of conduct that the debate may transpire in such a way that rocks on.

(2) No debater is to be held liable by judges if the video for the song said debater chose is removed from Youtube.

(3)</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Classic-Rock-Competition/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-02T11:24:25-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Crowbar is the best weapon to have during a Zombie Uprising.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/A-Crowbar-is-the-best-weapon-to-have-during-a-Zombie-Uprising./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) My position is simple. During the Zombie uprising, the best weapon is a crowbar. Yes you should always have a good amount of reliable weapon and shouldn't depend on just one. But the argument here is which is the best. I will let Con choose a weapon they feel is better and we shall debate the matter at hand.

Some things to keep in mind:
-You can only kill a zombie by destroying the brain.
-Real zombies (George Romero zombies) walk and shuffle. They don't run around.
-Once you're bitten you will turn into one of them.

hopefully this debate will help everyone when the zombies come.

When discussing Zombies here we are talking about George Romero's zombies. Not &quot;Left 4 Dead&quot; zombies, &quot;Dead Rising&quot; zombies. Thanks.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/A-Crowbar-is-the-best-weapon-to-have-during-a-Zombie-Uprising./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-03-03T11:09:42-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Ultimate Fight!!! Goku vs. Superman!! Goku wins!!</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Ultimate-Fight-Goku-vs.-Superman-Goku-wins/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) I have looked at countless debates of this topic, and I believe I have a fool-proof plan that is fair and reasonable! Send only your greatest debater. P.S The argument I use has worked twice so far. Rules are simple; they must remain in character, they are on the Earth, and they are going all out. Finally, please don't arrive and give liberal links, you know, that are missing a crucial point that may damage or refute your point</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Ultimate-Fight-Goku-vs.-Superman-Goku-wins/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-06-16T12:12:31-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Steroids should be banned in all pro sports</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Steroids-should-be-banned-in-all-pro-sports/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) steroids damage your body mentally and physically</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Steroids-should-be-banned-in-all-pro-sports/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-03-14T13:29:40-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Prayer in school is justified and ought to be legal.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Prayer-in-school-is-justified-and-ought-to-be-legal./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting my challenge. To equalize the number of speeches each side gets the debate will officially start in round 2. Pro will go first. The debate will be in no formal format. Each side will begin with a constructive and then move on to rebuttals for the remainder of the rounds. Thanks again.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Prayer-in-school-is-justified-and-ought-to-be-legal./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-02-26T19:09:10-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>I will not break a rule</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/I-will-not-break-a-rule/2/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) This is a copy of multiple other debates I've seen with similar rules. 

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.

1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule.

2. A forfeit results in a loss.

3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate.

4. With the exception of my first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null.

5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn.

6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round.

7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule.

8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The loser is the first p</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/I-will-not-break-a-rule/2/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-12-07T16:42:20-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Polygamy should be legalized in the West</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy-should-be-legalized-in-the-West/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Definition: Polygamy is form of marriage in which a man is simultaneously married to more than one woman. 

I firmly believe in that polygamy should be legalized in the West for the following reasons:

1. Numerical superiority of females over males:

By law of nature, males and females are born in equal proportions, meaning that for every male there is in this world, there should also be a female. However, due the fact that females are naturally more resistant against disease than males, the population of females exceed that of males. Just look at the life expectancy ratio anywhere in the world and you will see that females on average out live males by 5 years. 

If we also take into consideration all the deaths due to war, due to accidents, due to physical activity, due to suicides in which the majority of victims are males, we see that with the passing of time, the female population greatly outnumbers the male population. According to last year's glob</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy-should-be-legalized-in-the-West/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-07-25T20:36:03-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>What do you think of this quote? &quot;A womans place belongs in the kitchen.&quot;</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/What-do-you-think-of-this-quote-A-womans-place-belongs-in-the-kitchen./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) This quote is probably the most sexist quote I've ever seen. I'm not exactly sure who came up with this quote &amp; why, but I am appualled. Not only do I disagree with this quote I loathe this quote. 

Analogy 1: How do you explain all the man chefs in the world? Are men going to be considered badly because they think their place is in the kitchen? What about all the independent woman in the world who are in the business offices right at this moment, are there places at the office?</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/What-do-you-think-of-this-quote-A-womans-place-belongs-in-the-kitchen./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-03-17T11:27:39-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>In &quot;The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess&quot;...</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/In-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Twilight-Princess-.../1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Full resolution: In &quot;The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess,&quot; the Sacred Grove, Temple of Time, and all other things necessary for both the Master Sword quest and the Temple of Time quest would be better located in the Ordona Province, instead of the Faron Province.

Everything should be definable here: http://zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Zeldapedia

Contention 1+: The Temples
If one looks at a map of Hyrule in Twilight Princess, every province has its own temple, with two exceptions: the Faron Province has two temples (Forest Temple, Temple of Time), while the Ordona Province has none. Things would seem much more balanced if every province had its own temple; the map would also seem more balanced and visually appealing.

Contention 2+: The Swords
The first sword that Link obtains, the Wooden Sword, comes from the Ordona Province.
The second sword that Link obtains, the Ordon Sword, comes from the Ordona Province.
Wouldn't it make sense, then, for the third s</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/In-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Twilight-Princess-.../1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-06-28T14:07:00-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Pokemon TV Show should Follow the Exploits of Red, not Ash</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Pokemon-TV-Show-should-Follow-the-Exploits-of-Red-not-Ash/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I will attempt to affirm the resolution that the Pok&#233;mon anime should have followed the exploits of the character Red, and not those of Ash Ketchum.

For those of you that are unfamiliar with the show here is a synopsis:

Ash Ketchum is a boy who on his tenth birthday decided to be a Pok&#233;mon Trainer, one who raises and battles Pok&#233;mon. He began with a Pikachu and has gained many more since the show's beginning. He also has adventures with a myriad of other Pok&#233;mon Trainers. He does a lot of things that are impressive within the context of the show but there is little plot and he never accomplishes the goal set for him in the original American theme. It is a fairly reaction based show with little important interconnection between episodes. If one were to begin watching now you would understand the show only a few episodes later. The series has ran over 600 episodes since its conception.

Contention 1:
Red relies on himself alone to capture Pok&#233;mon. [1]
</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Pokemon-TV-Show-should-Follow-the-Exploits-of-Red-not-Ash/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-01-02T09:56:44-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Post Nuclear War Survival</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Post-Nuclear-War-Survival/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This is an assignment that I got as school yesterday that I thought would be a good subject for a debate. So here it is.

The Situation:
Three days ago, nuclear war broke out around the world with massive attacks in all heavily populated areas. For the first 24 hours, radio broadcasts reported tremendous damage and loss of life in all areas, including the total annihilation of most of the earth's population.
For the past 48 hours there have been no broadcasts. Fortunately, the people listed below were able to reach a fallout shelter in time to take cover and survived the initial devastation. You must assume that those in the shelter are the only survivors on Earth.
Here is the dilemma: there are 12 people in the fallout shelter, but there is not enough food, water, and other supplies to keep them alive until the atmosphere is safe. To survive, the people must stay inside the fallout shelter for at least three months. The problem is that if all of them stay</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Post-Nuclear-War-Survival/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-12-14T16:08:46-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: Atheism is Not a Religion</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Atheism-is-Not-a-Religion/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) My arguments will affirm the resolution that Atheism is not a religion.

Terms Defined:
Atheism:
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Atheist:
one who believes that there is no deity

Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious &lt;a nun in her 20th year of religion&gt; b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Faith:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Atheism-is-Not-a-Religion/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-11-19T15:12:43-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Macs are all-around better than Windows computers.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Macs-are-all-around-better-than-Windows-computers./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Macs ARE all around better than Windows PCs. This doesn't mean that Windows is not better at anything, for they obviously are. But when it is all summed up, the pros and cons for each counted, Macs outweigh Windows a million to three in pros. I'm here to prove my point.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Macs-are-all-around-better-than-Windows-computers./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-03-12T04:41:25-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>the Japanese should not hunt whales</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/the-Japanese-should-not-hunt-whales/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) The topic is based on the show Whale Wars

I prefer not to write a case until I have an opponent. My opponent can choose to post a case in round 1 or can simply say &quot;challenge accepted&quot; and I'll begin the argumentation in round 2.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/the-Japanese-should-not-hunt-whales/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-10-09T12:09:16-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Gay marriage</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-marriage/48/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) My position is that gays deserve the same rights as everyone else. If you are able to marry your girlfriend, why would you want a lesbian marrying her girlfriend?

Through the years gays have been fighting for equality and acceptance. The thought that civil unions are the same thing as marriage is wrong. If a heterosexual couple has a right to choose which, why should a homosexual couple not have the same right?

Gay marriage does not affect anyone not wanting to be a part of it, so basically if you don't want to marry another guy, you don't have to. The fight is for equality, and choice, banning their marriage is wrong because it is close minded and hinders other peoples rights.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-marriage/48/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-08-01T19:35:54-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>No Marriage</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/No-Marriage/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Full Resolution: &quot;Marriage as it is in the United States of America should be Abolished.&quot;

Terms clarified:
Marriage - the legal definition
Civil Marriage - a term that I use to illustrate the concept of a type of marriage that does not include financial factors.
Civil benefits - refers to all of the non-financial benefits of marriage except for the immigration fast-lane

~~~~~~~~
Argument
~~~~~~~~

Contention 1:
Marriage violates the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The 14th amendment guarantees all citizens of the United States equal protection under the law [1]. Citizens that are married are granted rights that are not afforded to those that are not married. In fact the number of individual rights granted to those who are married outnumbers those granted to individuals not married by over 1000 [2]. Some specific examples of unjust freedoms gained through marriage is that it allows any non-resident of America </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/No-Marriage/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-05-06T11:39:58-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Rural people should be banned from using the London Underground during peak hours</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Rural-people-should-be-banned-from-using-the-London-Underground-during-peak-hours/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Turnip-munching farmers and other inbred clod-hoppers often whinge when city-dwellers visit the countryside and they say things like &quot;'em blasted townies dun't understand the ways of the cuntrysoide&quot; and &quot;get orf moy laand afore oy blows yer blinkin' &#8216;ead orf.&quot;

However, during the months of November and December, many wealthy farmers and aristocratic country landowners visit London to spend some of the billions of Pounds in agricultural subsidies they rake in from the taxpayer every year, buying expensive Christmas presents from upmarket stores such as Harrods, Harvey Nicholls and Fortnum &amp; Mason's. Now, those well-heeled hicks that do not clog the already crowded city streets with their brand new Range Rovers travel to London by overland train and then attempt to use the Underground. 

However, these bungling bumpkins don't understand how to use the ticket machines because you don't get touch-screen devices in ploughed fields and they are also unable to g</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Rural-people-should-be-banned-from-using-the-London-Underground-during-peak-hours/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-11-27T13:45:21-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Marvel character Sentinel should be removed from Marvel Vs Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Marvel-character-Sentinel-should-be-removed-from-Marvel-Vs-Capcom-3-Fate-of-Two-Worlds/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) First round is for acceptance, the real fight will start in round 2. If the topic isn't clear enough feel free to tell me in the comment section. Otherwise have a blast.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Marvel-character-Sentinel-should-be-removed-from-Marvel-Vs-Capcom-3-Fate-of-Two-Worlds/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-05-04T19:53:38-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Using a time machine to go back to the past and kill halter is a bad idea</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Using-a-time-machine-to-go-back-to-the-past-and-kill-halter-is-a-bad-idea/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) I thank my opponent for the chance to debate. My opponent may not argue from semantics, as it is clear what the resolution states, although an exception may be made if he/she comes up with a particularly interesting objection to the resolution.

Firstly, an argument against the viability of time travel itself;

-- The Classic Paradox --

First, imagine time travel were made possible, and somebody travels back in time in order to meet their grandfather, whom they never knew. Now, say that due to an unfortunate series of circumstances, he ended up killing his grandfather before he got the chance to meet his grandmother. In this case, the time traveller would never come to exist in the first place. But this is logically contradictory, because if he didn't exist, he could not have killed his own grandfather and thus prevent his own existence. It seems that the only way to solve this contradiction is to conclude that the traveller could never have travelled in</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Using-a-time-machine-to-go-back-to-the-past-and-kill-halter-is-a-bad-idea/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-06-27T10:34:25-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Sonic will not lose to Mario.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Sonic-will-not-lose-to-Mario./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) This is my first debate so forgive me if I'd like to do an overdone topic. It is popular and thanks to the contribution of Brawl and the Olympic series, fans cannot help but stand their ground when it comes to the competition of these two well known mascots.

I plan to use two Internet sources and the many Sonic games I have played. Concept Mobius is a Sonic fansite. The link below will lead you to Sonic's &quot;Real Bio&quot; stating his weaknesses and strengths. I may not fully agree with the website, but should I not, I will back my disagreements with proof.
http://concept-mobius.technoguild.com/content/view/64/44/

youtube.com

There's nothing more truthful than youtube. Except for the fan videos, but I'm pretty sure a person differentiate between official and fan-made.

To start off my argument, I will state the obvious. Sonic has the better speed, the stronger capabilities, and even the ability to outjump Mario.

1) Speed
Most evident in recent games, i</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Sonic-will-not-lose-to-Mario./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-06-07T21:23:50-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
