<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: MasturDbtor's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=MasturDbtor</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-05-23T07:17:32-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-05-23T07:17:32-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>A Homework Ban Is A Bad Idea</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/A-Homework-Ban-Is-A-Bad-Idea/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Resolved: A Homework Ban is a bad idea

France has recently decided to ban homework. This is bad for kids. Here's why.

The kids have to be graded on something, so this means all grading will happen based on work done at school.

Some students, including some students who would ordinarily do very well academically find themselves under increased stress at school. Many students deal with bullying. Even if they don't concerns such as girlfriends, boyfriends, and even just plain trying to socialize and fit in add even more stress. This would be especially bad for students with autism or social anxiety. The amount of stress for the student walking into the classroom is thus often immense. Thoughts about relationship issues, about bullies, about personal appearance often course through a child's head in the classroom.

And then you're going to make them do ALL of their work that they get graded on inside that classroom. Some of these students because of the </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/A-Homework-Ban-Is-A-Bad-Idea/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-01-03T02:59:52-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>It Is Unconstitutional To Ban Jews &amp; Christians From Owning Slaves</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/It-Is-Unconstitutional-To-Ban-Jews-Christians-From-Owning-Slaves/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) The Bible has many passages that prescribe rules for slavery, and in the New Testament commands slaves to obey their masters and affirms even the right to beat disobedient slaves. The Bible clearly communicates God's will for Christians and Jews to own slaves. This makes prohibition against owning slaves when it is a Christian or a Jew who is owning the slave and when the pattern of ownership follows biblical law, an unconstitutional attack on freedom of religion.

The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The current law on slavery is a law that holds the standards and practices of established religions besides Judaism and Christianity to prevail when those other religions prohibit slavery. Effectivel</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/It-Is-Unconstitutional-To-Ban-Jews-Christians-From-Owning-Slaves/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-11T16:57:57-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Southern Libya Is A Nice Vacation Destination</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Southern-Libya-Is-A-Nice-Vacation-Destination/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Rules:
1. Pro has burden of proof.
2. Pro must convincingly argue that southern Libya as it is right now is a nice vacation destination.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Southern-Libya-Is-A-Nice-Vacation-Destination/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-06-13T20:02:33-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Rape Should Not Be An Exception In Abortion Policy</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Rape-Should-Not-Be-An-Exception-In-Abortion-Policy/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Perhaps abortion should be generally legal, perhaps it should be generally illegal.

But if it is illegal then rape should not be allowed to be an exception.

If abortion is illegal that is predicated on the fetus being a human person with inalienable rights.

If the fetus is a human person with inalienable rights then killing it because its father raped its mother is punishing the child for the actions of the father, and is immoral and a violation of equal protection of the law and due process.

This debate does not concern itself with whether or not abortion should be illegal in the first place just that if abortion is illegal then rape should not be an exception.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Rape-Should-Not-Be-An-Exception-In-Abortion-Policy/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-01-30T13:55:10-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ban Divorce &amp; Interracial Marriage</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ban-Divorce-Interracial-Marriage/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Rule: To be Con you must fully oppose my position, arguing that both divorce and interracial marriage should be legal.

Reason Applied to Both:

King Henry VIII embarked Britain on a bold social experiment with legalized divorce that eventually spread to her colonies and is now even embraced by most Catholics as acceptable.

This changed the definition of marriage. Traditional marriage was 1 man, 1 woman, same race for life. They changed it then to 1 man, 1 woman, same race for life unless they get a divorce.

Then, centuries down the road in the 1960s with Loving v. Virginia America embarked on a bold social experiment.

Loving changed the definition of marriage to 1 man, 1 woman of any race for life unless divorced.

People back then argued this would be a slippery slope to other deviant forms of sexuality in marriage, such as marrying your dog.

As we can see from recent political developments they're right!

Divorce lead to interracial marri</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ban-Divorce-Interracial-Marriage/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-12-31T16:27:58-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Legalize Bestiality</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Legalize-Bestiality/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) It may be &quot;icky&quot; but that is not any good reason to have laws against it.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Legalize-Bestiality/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-07-17T14:11:17-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Catholic Clergy Under Vows of Chastity Should Be Required By the Church to Become Eunuchs</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Catholic-Clergy-Under-Vows-of-Chastity-Should-Be-Required-By-the-Church-to-Become-Eunuchs/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;Definitions:&lt;br /&gt;Eunuch-A man who has had his testicles and in some cases his penis removed.&lt;br /&gt;Chastity-The requirement to abstain from sexual activity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rule:&lt;br /&gt;Con must not argue from the stance that the &quot;chastity&quot; requirement should be revoked.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First round is for acceptance.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Catholic-Clergy-Under-Vows-of-Chastity-Should-Be-Required-By-the-Church-to-Become-Eunuchs/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-10-08T17:06:11-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Holocaust Happened</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Holocaust-Happened/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;The information proving the Holocaust as a historical event happened is conclusive.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Holocaust-Happened/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-10-03T20:31:59-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Nearly-All-Welfare-Should-Be-Replaced-With-Public-Works/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Sometimes it can be hard to find a job, and it certainly is wrong for the government to abandon people in need. Furthermore when people are desperate crime rises. Doing nothing about the problem of poverty is not an option.

However, the economy would be in much better shape and we would have less problems with national debt if people government aid were provided in exchange for work rather than just handed over to people for free.

Furthermore, just giving people free money encourages a lifestyle of laziness. They get used to not having to work and just stay on welfare. If they are working in public works then they will be in the habit of working for a living and even if they remain in public works for life they'd still be giving back to the community and society that they live in.

There should be only 2 exceptions:
1. People attending college who have significant financial need and do not have enough time for both class and work.
2. Disabled persons.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Nearly-All-Welfare-Should-Be-Replaced-With-Public-Works/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-06-13T22:26:52-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Health Insurance Should Be Abolished &amp; Health Care Covered For Only Those Who Need It</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Health-Insurance-Should-Be-Abolished-Health-Care-Covered-For-Only-Those-Who-Need-It/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Insurance is effectively gambling. Imagine if there was a casino on every street corner. The effects on society would be disastrous. Health insurance is even worse because they are betting on people's health. It is pure exploitation. The &quot;service&quot; of &quot;health insurance&quot; is only necessary, because the industry exists and puts people into a social scenario where health care prices are too high to afford services without it.

1. The system of health insurance drives up health care prices.
When more people have health insurance people are more likely to turn to their doctor about anything, even when there is no real problem. This has lead to problems such as over-prescription of antibiotics. It is also easier for hospitals to charge higher prices for services when big insurance companies rather than individuals are paying the bill. The effect is to drive up prices for health care services as a whole higher than what there would be with no health insurance.
2. So</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Health-Insurance-Should-Be-Abolished-Health-Care-Covered-For-Only-Those-Who-Need-It/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-01T14:53:50-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Government By Casino Lottery</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Government-By-Casino-Lottery/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) We should have a government by casino lottery.

It should be an assembly of whoever shows up to play the lottery at the National Casino. There people will propose policies, and then people will take bets on them. A &quot;wheel of destiny&quot; will then be spun to determine whether or not it passes.

If we do this it will eliminate bias from politics, because the outcome of political decision-making will be random, and people will naturally bet for what they think will be more likely to pass. Since there is no bias as people are not actually choosing policies based on politics but rather in an attempt to make money people will have a bias towards betting towards policies that will be helpful more so than not, since there is no bias to shift people towards bad policies.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Government-By-Casino-Lottery/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-01-19T21:13:51-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Vegetarianism-is-a-bad-excuse-to-not-eat-meat/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This is a fun-ish debate, but if we start to get into it, then let the gloves come off!

=Positions=
-Pro: must say that, people who say &quot;I am a vegetarian&quot; is a bad excuse to not eat meat
Con: must say that, people who say &quot;I am a vegetarian&quot; is a good excuse to not eat meat

=Round Rules=
1. agreement and questions or concerns about the topic
2. case construction, no attacking, yet
3. case attack (no attacking the attacking, and no defending)
4. defending and final remarks

I would thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and good luck.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Vegetarianism-is-a-bad-excuse-to-not-eat-meat/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-05-24T23:06:19-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>As Long As Abortion Is Legal We Should Feed Aborted Fetuses to the World's Poor</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/As-Long-As-Abortion-Is-Legal-We-Should-Feed-Aborted-Fetuses-to-the-Worlds-Poor/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) As long as abortion is allowed we should not let the dead fetuses go to waste.

There are many starving, hungry people in the world. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute 126,000 abortions are performed daily.
http://www.abortionno.org/world.html

16,000 people die every day from starvation. Not only are 126,000 fetuses good enough to save everyone from world hunger, but also to keep people adequately fed.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_starve_to_death_in_the_world_every_day

Just like with other meats fetuses can be sent to factories, ground up, and inspected for quality control before being shipped out.

Unlike other meats I do not propose turning this into a commercial enterprise, but instead having the government run this as a charity program to end world hunger. Although since there are only 16,000 people who die of starvation a day the extra fetuses can be sold in stores in order to pay off the program's expenses so taxes do not </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/As-Long-As-Abortion-Is-Legal-We-Should-Feed-Aborted-Fetuses-to-the-Worlds-Poor/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-12-24T18:29:03-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Is intellect more important than emotion?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-intellect-more-important-than-emotion/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This would be my first debate. I'm not familiar with any formal rules, if you had any you would prefer. I don't mind if sources are given, though I would appreciate any that you would use... I don't suppose the topic would require much research though...

I had noticed your post on the opinions section and I found it an interesting topic, I also posted my own stand on the subject, if you wanted to read it. I hope you will accept and what not!</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-intellect-more-important-than-emotion/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-11-05T22:26:53-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Keep Gay Marriage Illegal</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Keep-Gay-Marriage-Illegal/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;p&gt;Some people claim homosexuality is against evolution because the genes will not pass on. Yet it is precisely because it passes on in genes in a new way that could alter the dynamics of human genetic evolution that gay marriage&amp;nbsp;is a&amp;nbsp;bad idea.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; Homosexuality in genetics&amp;nbsp;passes on through carriers, which is fine because that has been going on throughout our history.&lt;br /&gt;But IVF is new. The genes of homosexuals are different, and now more will pass on to the next generation. This alters the dynamics of genetic inheritance within the human species, and we don't even have an inkling of an idea what the effects of this will be. Since genes that relate to homosexuality show influences on sex hormones this could have a real impact on the future development of new men and women being born.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The natural function of homosexuality in animals and in&amp;nbsp;the history of human evolutionary development is to provide support for their n</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Keep-Gay-Marriage-Illegal/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-02T21:32:53-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Conceal-Carry-Laws-reduce-violent-crime/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) We all understand what the resolution means, no semantics on the &quot;a law cannot physically do anything&quot;. No semantics period, actually. Any semantics with anything results in an auto FF. Asking for what and argument means (if you dont understand it) in the comments is ok. 

=Definitions/clarifications= 

Conceal carry - The Conceal carry law we will debate in this debate is shall issue or nondiscriminatory laws (same thing). The reason I chose this is because this is the only data I found studies on both sides. A shall issue law is one where if the person meets the well specified criteria (no criminal record, not crazy, 21 years of age etc) they are now eligible for a permit. Now here is where it diverges from &quot;may issue&quot;. After you fit these criteria no discretion is involved in handing the permit to you -- it must be issued. 

Violent crime - No one cares about auto theft as that is not life threatening, so I narrowed the debate to the violent crime spec</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Conceal-Carry-Laws-reduce-violent-crime/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-06-05T04:02:12-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Sentence &quot;Attempted&quot; Crimes The Same As Successful Ones</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Sentence-Attempted-Crimes-The-Same-As-Successful-Ones/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definitions:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Attempted-Crime was intended by the perpetrator but did not fall through, such as &quot;attempted murder&quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This debate concerns sentencing in the criminal law system not the civil law system.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Saying to &quot;sentence&quot; them the same means that when the required or recommended sentence for a given crime is stated in law it should be stated the same for the &quot;attempted&quot; version of the crime.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I do NOT mean &quot;same&quot; between individual cases. This proposal still allows judges to make what ever considerations&amp;nbsp;in individual cases that they could before. However, as part of sentencing being the &quot;same&quot; any considerations that would be allowed to be made in sentencing for a crime would be allowed in both &quot;attempted&quot; and &quot;successful&quot; cases of it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Initial Argument&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Currently crimes are treated differently based on whether the perpetrator succeeds.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ye</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Sentence-Attempted-Crimes-The-Same-As-Successful-Ones/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-06-09T12:57:38-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Schwangerschaftsabbruch soll illegal sein</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Schwangerschaftsabbruch-soll-illegal-sein/1/</link>
<description>(Debating Period) Es ist eine Regel, dass diese Debatte in der deutschen Sprache gemacht werden muss. Auch ist diese Debatte ueber Schwangerschaftsabbruch in Deutschland.

Schwangerschaftsabbruch soll illegal sein. Er toetet Millionen von unschuldigen ungeborenen Babys pro Jahr. Sie sind Menschenleben. Schwangerschaftsabbruch kann fuer Frauen psychologischen Folgen bringen. Sie fuehlt sich schuldig ueber ein Schwangerschaftsabbruch. Legaler Schwangerschaftsabbruch bringt auch Argumente, die impliziert das Leben einige geborener Menschen wertlos sein. Sie sagen einige Kinder missbraucht oder vernachlaessigt werden koennten. Sie sagen einige Kinder in Pflegefamilien werden koennten. Sie sagen einige Kindermit einer Behinderung geboren koennten. Die Argumente verbilligen den Wert des Lebens. Sie implizieren jemand, dass die Dinge keinen Wert konfrontiert hat, keinen Wert haben. Dieser koennte zu einer Eugenik aehnlich zu Adolf Hitler fuehren.

Da ist auch das Problem der demogr</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Schwangerschaftsabbruch-soll-illegal-sein/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-21T17:09:05-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&quot;Born That Way&quot; Is A Poor Argument In Favor of Gay Rights Compared to Personal Liberty Arguments</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Born-That-Way-Is-A-Poor-Argument-In-Favor-of-Gay-Rights-Compared-to-Personal-Liberty-Arguments/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) It's very easy for religious types who look at the science about homosexuality and actually accept it to then think &quot;well, those poor dears can't help how they feel, but they can choose how to behave&quot;. Sometimes they liken the homosexuality to alcoholism. http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_alcoholism

They will just claim that just like alcoholism there are genetic factors to homosexuality, but that that's not an excuse to act on it.

Even if it were true it would be irrelevant.
Imagine if pedophilia was found to be just as genetic. Would we then conclude that it must be OK to act on pedophilia? No, we would require them to refuse their desires for the good of society.

The relevant point for validating gay rights isn't &quot;born that way&quot; it is &quot;it harms none&quot;. Consenting homosexuality adults are not violating anybody's rights. When we try to argue from the standpoint of &quot;it's not a choice&quot; the whole argument will just go around in circles with </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Born-That-Way-Is-A-Poor-Argument-In-Favor-of-Gay-Rights-Compared-to-Personal-Liberty-Arguments/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-11-15T15:54:14-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Society As A Whole Would Be Better Off Speaking Ebonics Rather Than Proper English</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Society-As-A-Whole-Would-Be-Better-Off-Speaking-Ebonics-Rather-Than-Proper-English/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rule&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;Con must argue the opposite, that &quot;Society As A Whole Is Better Off Because Proper English Is The Way It Is Instead of Being Ebonics&quot;. Con may not argue from the standpoint that the resolution is invalid because of them being &quot;equal&quot;.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;People are often criticized when speaking ebonics for not speaking &quot;proper English&quot; but proper English itself must stand upon its own merits.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conjugation&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;One thing ebonics does that is innovative is it eliminates conjugation of verbs other than indicating the infinitive with &quot;to&quot;. Instead of &quot;I am&quot;, &quot;You are&quot;, &quot;they are&quot;, &quot;he/she/it is&quot; it's just all &quot;I/you/they/he/she/it be&quot;. That's way simpler. If you think about it there is no practical functionality of verb conjugation in the English language. It's not like Spanish where dropping the Subject from the sentence is popular and so you need the conjugated verb to tel</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Society-As-A-Whole-Would-Be-Better-Off-Speaking-Ebonics-Rather-Than-Proper-English/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-10-20T06:42:54-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
