<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: Mimshot's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=Mimshot</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-05-24T12:27:50-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-05-24T12:27:50-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Flag Burning Should Be Illegal</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Flag-Burning-Should-Be-Illegal/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The burning of the American Flag by citizens of the United States of America should be illegal.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I will be arguing Pro.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First Round acceptance only.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Flag-Burning-Should-Be-Illegal/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-11T17:15:23-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>should students be allowed to choose to attend school or not?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/should-students-be-allowed-to-choose-to-attend-school-or-not/2/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Hello, Mr/Mrs/ ms/ madam speaker and the honorable judges, today we are going to debate on the motion students should be allowed to choose whether to attend school or not. I on the government side, have three reasons : first, the government can spend less taxes on education, second, students don't have to get bullied and lastly, you can study your job skills more.

By this, the government can spend less taxes on education. Everyone knows that the tax you or your parents pay goes to social facilities, education, and whatever that is useful in our daily lives. So, the more there are students, the more taxes you or your parents have to pay. In the other hand, less students, you pay less taxes.
If you are allowed to choose whether to attend school or not, not everyone will attend school and as a result, the number of students will decrease, making the government be allowed to use more taxes in other useful stuff.

http://stwwm.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/should-s</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/should-students-be-allowed-to-choose-to-attend-school-or-not/2/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-25T15:25:29-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Iran are tryng too making nuclear weapons</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Iran-are-tryng-too-making-nuclear-weapons/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) first round acceptance. Our arguments will be: Pro- they are attempting to make nuclear weapons, con- they are not attempting to make nuclear weapons.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Iran-are-tryng-too-making-nuclear-weapons/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-18T16:00:28-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Social Security is a Ponzi scheme</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Social-Security-is-a-Ponzi-scheme/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;I am issuing this challenge in regards to my (hopefully) opponent's here: &lt;a href=&quot;../forums/politics/topic/18307/&quot;&gt;http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/18307/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I will be arguing against the proposition that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. My opponent may just accept and let me go first, or he may lay out his argument here and proceed in the normal (pro first) order and skip round 4. Final round for rebuttal only.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Social-Security-is-a-Ponzi-scheme/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-19T19:34:25-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Two-Wrongs-Dont-Make-A-Right/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This one just had to be done.

I will be arguing against this common social perspective/English phrase and will show that two wrongs can in fact equal a right. 

First round for acceptance, and for my opponent to post his/her argument if he/she so chooses. 

Let's make this a good debate, no equivicating, or silly semantic tactics.

I look forward to debating this :).</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Two-Wrongs-Dont-Make-A-Right/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-24T19:22:11-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Best London Underground Line</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Best-London-Underground-Line/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This debate is about which Tube line is the best. I consider any of the following a &quot;Tube line&quot;: Bakerloo, Central, Hammersmith &amp; City, Jubilee, Metropolitan, Circle, District, Piccadilly, Northern, Victoria. In general, I do not consider the Waterloo &amp; City or the Docklands Light Railway a choice for this debate, but if the person accepting this debate feels very passionately about one of those and wishes to argue in favour of it, I will not object.

Rules:

1. I request that both sides refrain from arguing over the meaning of every word, as this is to be a serious debate in which quibbling over semantics will detract from the ability of both sides to make thought-provoking points.

2. Unless specifically otherwise defined, assume that a word is defined with the first or second meaning from the Oxford English Dictionary as appropriate. If there is reasonable cause to claim that a word was misinterpreted in context, that claim may be submitted but it is u</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Best-London-Underground-Line/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-07T08:34:57-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Left should have supported the Libyan intervention</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Left-should-have-supported-the-Libyan-intervention/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Throughout the Western world the political Left was split over the Libyan intervention. It is my position that those on the Left who supported the intervention were right and those on the Left who opposed it were wrong. I'm expecting an opponent who will argue against the war from the Left.

RULES:
1) No semantics
2) A forfeited round = an automatic loss of the debate
3) PRO will argue why those on the political Left should have supported the Libyan Intervention.
4) CON will argue why those on the left that opposed the intervention were right to do so.

I hope this debate will be a good one. I await your challenge.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Left-should-have-supported-the-Libyan-intervention/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-23T00:01:12-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hitler was a genius.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Hitler-was-a-genius./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I find that the leader of the German Nazi army before an during world wars to was perhaps one of the smartest men alive at his time perhaps even ever. in re guards to his leadership skills. Adolf Hitler was and should still be reverie as a great man.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Hitler-was-a-genius./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-08T12:48:46-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The deficit presents no solvency risk to the United States</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-deficit-presents-no-solvency-risk-to-the-United-States/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;Topic is: &lt;strong&gt;The current federal budget deficit presents no solvency risk to the United States. &lt;/strong&gt;I will argue pro.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;First round is for acceptance.&amp;nbsp; No new arguments in final round.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;From MW:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: courier new,courier;&quot;&gt;Definition of &lt;em&gt;SOLVENCY&lt;/em&gt;&lt;!--INFOLINKS_ON--&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;KonaBody&quot; style=&quot;margin: 0px; padding: 0px;&quot;&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;sense-block-one&quot;&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;scnt&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;ssens&quot; style=&quot;font-family: courier new,courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; the quality or state of being solvent&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: courier new,courier;&quot;&gt;Definition of &lt;em&gt;SOLVENT&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!--INFOLINKS_ON--&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;KonaBody&quot; style=&quot;margin: 0px; padding: 0px;&quot;&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;sblk&quot;&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;snum&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;ssens&quot; style=&quot;font-family: courier new,courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; able to pay </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-deficit-presents-no-solvency-risk-to-the-United-States/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-29T19:27:54-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Constitution gives congress the the power of social welfare</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Constitution-gives-congress-the-the-power-of-social-welfare/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Resolved: The Constitution gives congress the right to social welfare

Rules;
1.) No Supreme Court refrences 
2.) first round acceptance only
3.) you must cite where in the constitution it grants congress the power of social welfare, and be able to argue that point without relying on an appeal to authority

Definitions;
social welfare: a governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need; in other words redistribution of wealth. Such policies would include bail outs, federal unemployment benefits, and federal subsidization</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Constitution-gives-congress-the-the-power-of-social-welfare/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-27T10:00:30-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>5 point economic plan for New Zealand</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/5-point-economic-plan-for-New-Zealand/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Structure:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;Round 1: Acceptance&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;Round 2: Each debater outlines a 5-point plan for the New Zealand economy &lt;em&gt;(no rebuttals)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;Round 3: Rebuttals&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;Round 4: Summarising&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Good luck!&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/5-point-economic-plan-for-New-Zealand/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-16T03:05:42-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ron Paul's Economic Policies are Superior to Barack Obama's</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ron-Pauls-Economic-Policies-are-Superior-to-Barack-Obamas/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I saw a debate like this earlier, and I want to be in one. The first round is for acceptance.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ron-Pauls-Economic-Policies-are-Superior-to-Barack-Obamas/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-18T22:38:43-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>A small but positive rate of inflation can be good for an economy</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/A-small-but-positive-rate-of-inflation-can-be-good-for-an-economy/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;The resolution is&lt;strong&gt; &quot;A small but positive rate of inflation can be good for an economy.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For my first debate on this site as pro, I will be arguing that some inflation can be a good thing.&amp;nbsp; In the debate inflation has the meaning from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inflation&quot;&gt;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inflation&lt;/a&gt; #2&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: courier new,courier;&quot;&gt;: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;ssens&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: courier new,courier;&quot;&gt;a continuing rise in the general price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;First round acceptance only.&amp;nbsp; No new arguments in final round.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/A-small-but-positive-rate-of-inflation-can-be-good-for-an-economy/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-22T11:01:16-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Polygamy Should Be Legalized In All Fifty United States.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy-Should-Be-Legalized-In-All-Fifty-United-States./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &quot;Polygamy&quot; - A marriage that includes more than two people and that contains any mixture of genders (three wives and one husband, six husbands and no wives etc).

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/polygamy?q=Polygamy

&quot;All Fifty United States&quot; - As it says...every member state in America should have Polygamy legislated. Either Federally or at the state level with no federal conflicts (for example, medical marijuana in California is legal on a state level but illegal in Federal law).

I thought this would be a fun debate because I have heard the old chestnut &quot;legalizing gay marriage would open the door to polygamy&quot; so many times recently.

Just so you are aware, I am not from the United States but chose to debate America's Polygamy laws because most of the members of this website are American (or at least live there and know how the country works). I will be arguing why Polygamy should be legal in all fifty of the United States (either o</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy-Should-Be-Legalized-In-All-Fifty-United-States./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-02T18:48:23-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Abortion is murder</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-is-murder/5/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) It is incredible to think that someone would say that abortion is not murder. I would like to here there reasoning for this statement and prove to me why abortion is therefore not murder.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-is-murder/5/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-05T23:27:32-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Targeted killings are a morally permissable foreign policy tool</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Targeted-killings-are-a-morally-permissable-foreign-policy-tool/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) i say its all good man. kill 'em before they kill us.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Targeted-killings-are-a-morally-permissable-foreign-policy-tool/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-19T23:33:48-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
