<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: Nik's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=Nik</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-05-19T02:58:38-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-05-19T02:58:38-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Ecstasy should be downgraded to a class B drug</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ecstasy-should-be-downgraded-to-a-class-B-drug/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Professor David Nutt recently recommended that Ecstasy should be downgraded from a class A to a class B drug. I am FOR this. And I shall allow my opponent to start the argument. I am not arguing that ecstasy should be legalised and that its not harmful.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ecstasy-should-be-downgraded-to-a-class-B-drug/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-03-04T18:04:35-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Olympic Spirit is Dead</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Olympic-Spirit-is-Dead/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I pose the argument that the olympic spirit is dead, I am for this. The definition of the olympic spirt can be broadly interpreted, so ill use this website as a baseline for what I interpret the olympic spirit to be.

http://www.olympicspirit.org/mission.php

eg. unifying the world through competetive athletecisim, in which the athletes observe the ideals of fairplay and sportsmanship.


I think that modern day olympics has evolved to become an event which wears these ideals as a badge while having alterior motives behind, therefore the olympic spirit has died.

Ill let my oponent start, best of luck.

And appologies for the typos but the spellchecker is not working for me, and im too tired right now to go back and spellcheck myself.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Olympic-Spirit-is-Dead/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-06-12T23:57:00-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Smoking Packet Pictures</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Smoking-Packet-Pictures/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Perhaps my fellow countrymen and women (UK) if you by chance are a smoker like myself or if you by chance stumble across a new pack of Cigs in your travels, you will see that the government has decided oh so wisely to pass another law against us, and put pictures on the back of packs to remind us of the hellish trouble we will get in if we continue smoking, as if we didn't know already, and are passing another law that cigarettes must be served under the counter to stop i quote &quot;impulsive&quot; buying. Can someone please, in the name of god, please tell me why the government is doing this? Its so damned pathetic, it drives me up the wall, that they think this will do anything, I dont buy cigs because i had an impulsive urge to do so, I did it because ive had a bad day and ive walked 15 minutes down the bl**dy street in the rain to go look for some. And the pictures, wow, the picture of a man having open heart surgery is suddenly making me want to stop smoking, No se</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Smoking-Packet-Pictures/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2008-12-25T18:49:33-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Religion should not be imposed on children, to allow them to choose for themselves</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Religion-should-not-be-imposed-on-children-to-allow-them-to-choose-for-themselves/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) I am not saying religion should be banned!!, but that children should not be indoctrinated from a young age to believe and accept the religion their parents choose them to. Surely it is in everyones interest that we give our children the right to choose their beliefs for themselves?</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Religion-should-not-be-imposed-on-children-to-allow-them-to-choose-for-themselves/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2008-08-19T07:55:56-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>London is the best capital city in the world.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/London-is-the-best-capital-city-in-the-world./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) By best city in the world, I do not mean, most economically important. I view london the best city in the world from a cultural standpoint. If you live in london you begin to realise that what ever you want, london has to offer. The blend of victorian housing and ultra modern sky scrapers and office towers, means London has an image that is unique. The cultural diversity, though not liked by all londoners, creates a charm, that I think is also unique to this fantastic city! Please challenge my ideas, I want the person who challenges me to be equally passionate of their CAPITAL city. I naturaly expand on my argument when somebody challenges me!</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/London-is-the-best-capital-city-in-the-world./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2008-08-18T15:26:02-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>abortion</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/abortion/22/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) I believe that abortion should not be legal one bit I don't believe that murder is right at all, but if abortion is legal why don't they legalize killing people. God has a plan for everyone and when you have a abortion you are going against God......... You think you can prove me wrong try</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/abortion/22/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-03-12T18:46:55-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Overall Parliament gained power at the expense of the monarchy during the Tudor era.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Overall-Parliament-gained-power-at-the-expense-of-the-monarchy-during-the-Tudor-era./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Apologies for the long topic title, and to clear things up, This Is exactly what I would like to debate.

I pose that, during the reigns of Henry IIIV and Elizabeth I, parliament did not gain power at the expense of the monarchy. And that while parliament did gain power, the crowns power rose in in equal measure during this period (The Tudor period).

My opponent may argue for any alternative to this, such as parliament gained power at the expense of the monarchy or vise versa.

Anyone Is welcome to take up this debate, but someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge concerning history would be preferred!

Cheers and good luck!</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Overall-Parliament-gained-power-at-the-expense-of-the-monarchy-during-the-Tudor-era./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-05-13T15:48:17-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Smoking ban</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Smoking-ban/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Basically, quite a hot topic in Europe, the (sort of) recently imposed indoor smoking ban (in England anyway) In my opinion is completely ridiculous, and should be changed. Let me outline a few reasons why:

1.It should be up to the establishment to decide on whether or not to allow smoking inside their premises, so that they can decide for themselves whether or not a smoking ban within their premises would be appropriate, for example allot of restaurants would probably choose to impose a smoking ban inside to allow all of their guests to enjoy their food and their stay as much as possible, where as a night club would be more inclined to allow smoking so that people can stay inside and enjoy the music.

2.Some traditional establishments such as shisha bars, have had to close down because of the ban, as no one realy wants to smoke shisha outside. And the traditional English character of a smokey local pub with the stained yellow walls has been replaced by th</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Smoking-ban/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2008-12-09T19:15:18-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
