Debate.org: happy-bread's Debates

Is christianity's idea of creation flawed?

2012-01-18T22:25:22-08:00

(Post Voting Period) In this debate, I will attack my opponents christian beliefs about how the earth and humans were made. My opponent will accept the debate by answering the following question(s). (Elaborate on/defend your responses.) Do you believe in a literal 6 day period where God created the earth and its creatures, or do you believe that God intervened in evolution and the creation of earth over billions of years in order to eventually create humans? If you believe in the intervention theory, do you think that it was chronological? Example: The heavens and earth were made first, then God created night and day, then he created the sky etc... (Also, please do not accept this if you don't legitimately believe in the position that you are defending.)

Baptism is essential for salvation

2012-08-18T15:17:51-08:00

(Post Voting Period) First round is for acceptance second round is for arguments and counter third round is for counter and conclusion The deabte is geared toward people who already believe in christianity so that is who should accept the debate as well since arguments will be geared toward scripture. Thanks!

Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections.

2011-11-02T20:07:54-08:00

(Post Voting Period) This will be a PF style debate. Round 1: Pro begins debate by presenting its case. Round 2: Con presents own case and attacks opponents' case. Pro defends his case and attacks Con's case. Round 3: CX. Con questions. Pro's responses and questions. Round 4: Con's responses. Pro's "final focus" (telling why they think they won) Round 5: Con's "final focus". Pro does no arguing or rebutting (pro started the debate so Con should finish it to keep the debate as fair as possible). Also, I would like to ask the voters to only vote on who made the more convincing arguments and who used more reliable resources. (a forfeit in any of the rounds will result in an automatic loss)

Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

2012-01-24T22:23:48-08:00

(Post Voting Period) It seems interesting....I've done one in the past yet I was the question asker. I'd like to try it the opposite way. Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, CON wins. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevan

I won't conradict myself

2012-02-01T23:13:02-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

I've recently seen a couple of these debates, and quite frankly, I'm interested.

==Rules==

1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers.
2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No.
3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-5, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5.
4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken.
5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins.
6. If I am not found

New member debate: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

2011-11-02T20:08:31-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Pro must show the bomb was just. One must PROVE it was the right thing to do.

Direct Popular Vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

2011-11-18T21:30:43-08:00

(Post Voting Period) The first round is just for accepting the challenge. This will kind of be like a PF style debate. Second round is our cases and then the third round is rebuttal/clarifications and the last round is the summary/final focus.

Resolved: U.S. Birthright Citizenship should be abolished

2012-02-09T14:10:45-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Should U.S. citizenship be banned till age 18
I'll be saying that we shouldn't get rid of U.S. citizenship
1st acceptance
2-4 world war 5
5. why in the world did you think you won
No prophanity
No racisism
If any of these rules are violated than all 7 points go to the other person.

Resolved: In the United States, steroid usage should be permitted for all sports.

2011-12-16T13:20:00-08:00

(Post Voting Period) In this debate, as the Con I will be arguing that steroids should not be allowed in sports. I would primarily like to point out that according to the wording of the resolution, in order for the Con to win, I need only prove that steroids should not be allowed in one sport. This said, I will not only prove why steroids should not be allowed in several sports, but I will also show steroids in general should not be allowed. Contention 1: Athletes who choose not to use steroids will be disadvantaged. Due to the fact that steroids can have serious side effects such as kdney failure, liver failure, heart risks, depression, risk for infections and many others, the athletes that choose not to use steroids will be disadvantaged which means that athletes will be pressured into using steroids which means they will have a few good years of performance but after that severe health problems will greatly lowers life expectancy. (1) Contention 2: Athletes should be rol

Resolved: george bush was a terrible president

2011-11-27T19:22:44-08:00

(Post Voting Period) first round is for acceptance

Faith is Dangerous

2012-03-18T12:00:45-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Faith, which is the firm belief in person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary, needs to be challenged because that faith can be very dangerous for the individual or the society which shares the same faith-based idea set. Once faith is adopted, the individual or groups of individuals faithfully believing in the proposed idea or concept (regardless of how ridiculous or absurd their faith is) are more apt to commit atrocities in the name of their faith. That point has been proven over and over again when an individual decides to carry out the ultimate act of faith (dying in the name of their faith). Please understand that when I am speaking of faith, I am speaking of religious faith and not faith in your doctor, faith in your pilot, etc. Other usages, such as faith in your doctor, or faith in the police, have quite different explanations and are not relevant here. Please refer to definition 2: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

In the U.S. current income disparities threaten democratic ideals

2011-12-23T19:14:43-08:00

(Post Voting Period) I will be arguing that income disparites don't threaten democratic ideals. 1st round: acceptance 3rd round: crossfire