<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: PARADIGM_L0ST's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=PARADIGM%5FL0ST</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-06-20T05:45:50-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-06-20T05:45:50-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Waterboarding is An Acceptable Means of Intelligence Gathering</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Waterboarding-is-An-Acceptable-Means-of-Intelligence-Gathering/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I would like to propose a debate on the idea that the practice of waterboarding, while distasteful, is an acceptable and sometimes necessary practice during interrogations. I will be arguing in favor of its use.

First round is for acceptance. Thank you.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Waterboarding-is-An-Acceptable-Means-of-Intelligence-Gathering/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-07-18T18:08:52-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hitler was NOT an Atheist and Favored Christian Ideolgy.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Hitler-was-NOT-an-Atheist-and-Favored-Christian-Ideolgy./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) The proposition on offer is that Hitler was not and atheist and favored Christian ideologies. This debate stems from a discussion in the forums where Fatihah has made several claims that Hitler was an atheist, such as:

&gt;&gt; &quot;Hitler, who's ideology is identical to yours, atheism, brought massive homicides to the people.&quot;

&gt;&gt; &quot;Even many atheists agree that Hitler was an atheist.&quot;

&gt;&gt; &quot;Hitler was an atheist. Deal with it.&quot;

&gt;&gt; &quot;You present the words of Hitler himself and claim it to be proof thar Hitler is a christian. That's ridiculous. You suggest that a man who lied and manipulated people to get into power, then once in power, commences to bring one of the worst genocides in human history is a truthful person.&quot;

&gt;&gt; &quot;The fool is the one who suggests that a mass murderer is a truthteller. The fool is the one who says that a man who lied and manipulated the people to get into power is a truthteller. Your logic is foolish and any reasonable person can see </description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Hitler-was-NOT-an-Atheist-and-Favored-Christian-Ideolgy./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-07-26T06:39:00-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution on July 9th, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: &quot;All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.&quot; This has been interpreted to give &quot;birthright citizenship&quot; to anyone born in the United States, except for the children of diplomats and Native Americans. The main reason for dispute is due to the fact that many illegal immigrants travel to the United States and give birth. 

I am XStrikeX and I am arguing that the 14 amendment of birthright citizenship should be ended. Here are my arguments.

1. Birthright citizenship is offensive to legitimate immigrants. When a person desperately wants to come to America, and must wait in line, or who was born in another country a week or a month before mo</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-08-26T11:44:53-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>America is now, and has historically been, imperialist.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/America-is-now-and-has-historically-been-imperialist./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) RESOLUTION
America is now, and has historically been, imperialist.

RULES
Acceptance of rules/definitions and any relevant clarifications will be offered in Round 1. Arguments will continue from there. Excessive use of semantics is forfeiture, I'll let the readers decide what is excessive.

CLARIFICATIONS
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialist
Imperialism is &quot;the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence&quot;

America refers to the United States of America from the beginnings of the American Revolution to the present day. It refers to the nation as a whole, including culture, government, and/or people. By historically I mean how the U.S. has been during this time.

I look forward to the debate.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/America-is-now-and-has-historically-been-imperialist./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-08-08T08:17:29-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Eugenics</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Eugenics/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Humans are not perfect. There are many of flaws. One of the biggest flaws is our DNA. Out of the entire genetic code, we only use about 10 percent. Our muscles are inefficient at delivering oxygen to the cells and energy conservation is scarcely there. Our joints creak and break under pressure and our blood vessels get clogged with organic sludge. Our brain is infected with vile emotions such as greed, lust and hate. Eugenics is the key to fixing our problems. Keep in mind this is not the eugenics of the 1940's where Hitler purged the world of a race he thought inferior. This eugenics is the genetic manipulation of human evolution to the point of perfection. The flaws are few and the possibilities are endless and exponentially successful in later generations. I believe Eugenics research should be conducted for the enormous increase in human potential stemming from the increase in physical health, mental health, and other bodily imperfections.
Many religious an</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Eugenics/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-01-25T09:31:06-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Abolishing currency (money) will ameliorate or eliminate greed and crime</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abolishing-currency-money-will-ameliorate-or-eliminate-greed-and-crime/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) === ABSTRACT === 

A proposition inferred by several members of DDO is that abolishing current forms of currency will either ameliorate or eliminate greed and crime. I disagree that money is the root cause of human greed, and believe that eliminating currency will not stop human greed. Concurrent to this position, I feel that such a proposition attempts to naively and artificially remove an internal struggle (greed of the human heart) through external means. 

Money is essentially an abstraction that we have arbitrarily assigned a universal, or near universal, monetary value to. By eliminating currency, I believe that humans will intrinsically resort to other forms of currencies in the absence of currently accepted forms of money. For instance, many native American tribes used goods as currency in which to trade. Natural items, such as seashells, the hides of animals, and/or ornately crafted objects were often used as a form of currency. By eliminating an u</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abolishing-currency-money-will-ameliorate-or-eliminate-greed-and-crime/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-08-14T12:38:04-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Government Foreign Aid</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Government-Foreign-Aid/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;strong&gt;RESOLUTION&lt;/strong&gt;: Foreign Aid provided from a government, while well-intentioned, has more negative consequences than it does produce positive ones. 

&lt;strong&gt;=== CLARIFICATION ===&lt;/strong&gt;

Because I am taking the CON position, I am declaring myself to be against government foreign aid in a general and broad sense -- that is, I am against my government giving foreign aid to any other nation, regardless if they are an ally or considered a friendly nation. Foreign aid is inclusive to money, supplies, subsistence, arms and weaponry, etc. 

Or has Thomas Jefferson elucidated, &quot;... peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.&quot;

That is not to say that I have any objections towards private entities who, of their own accord, feel compelled to give charitable donations to those they deem worthy of the assistance. Private entities can do what they wish with their money.

I am against government giving aid</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Government-Foreign-Aid/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-07-26T21:11:12-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>April PFD Topic</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/April-PFD-Topic/4/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) The resolution is, &quot;Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation.&quot;

The rules are standard NFL PFD rules, and can be read in the [1]link below for any-one unfamiliar with the rules.

The format is obviously adapted to this site's layout.
Round 1 is for acceptance and clarification
Round 2 is for constructive speeches, and constructive speeches alone. (No attacks made here)
Round 3 is for attacking your opponent's case. Nothing else.
Round 4 is for refutation of attacks made, and extensions
Round 5 is for voters.

That said, here's to a fun debate!

[1] http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/cr103pf_instr.pdf</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/April-PFD-Topic/4/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-04-17T08:15:36-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Latter-day Saints are not racist.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Latter-day-Saints-are-not-racist./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I will be arguing that Latter-day saints aren't racist.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Latter-day-Saints-are-not-racist./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-01-26T13:30:26-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Should human beings be allowed to use other animals as objects of sport and entertainment?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-human-beings-be-allowed-to-use-other-animals-as-objects-of-sport-and-entertainment/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This Debate will go as followed:
Round One: Intro
Round Two: main round
Round three: CX
Round four: rebuttal
Round four: conclusion</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-human-beings-be-allowed-to-use-other-animals-as-objects-of-sport-and-entertainment/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-08-05T08:11:58-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Does God, as portrayed in the Bible, condone immoral acts?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Does-God-as-portrayed-in-the-Bible-condone-immoral-acts/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;PADADIGM and I have been engaged in an argument in regards to the morality of the Christian God, and the scriptures he believes are undeniable evidence of not only contradiction, but explicit immorality, by God very own standards.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;In this Debate I(&lt;strong&gt;Paradox&lt;/strong&gt;) will be taking the position of &lt;strong&gt;Con&lt;/strong&gt; and defending the god of Bibles actions, as not only &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;Just&lt;/span&gt; and &lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;Absolutely Moral&lt;/span&gt; - but that any and all passages brought forth as evidence against God and his Omnibenevolence, can only be understood as such, with assumption and manipulation of context.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PARADIGM&lt;/strong&gt;, should he choose to accept, will be &lt;strong&gt;Pro&lt;/strong&gt;, and asserting his position, that the God of the bible is not completely moral,</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Does-God-as-portrayed-in-the-Bible-condone-immoral-acts/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-24T10:39:44-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>should the death penalty be brought to Canada</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/should-the-death-penalty-be-brought-to-Canada/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) I believe that if that if there were more harsh punishments in Canada for certain crimes, overtime, criminals would rethink committing such crimes due to the fact they would be put to death</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/should-the-death-penalty-be-brought-to-Canada/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-07-26T12:44:39-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
