<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: royalpaladin's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=royalpaladin</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-05-23T04:03:49-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-05-23T04:03:49-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/DDO-OT-Final-US-hegemony-is-desirable./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Thanks to my opponent for accepting. 

To clear up a few general facts before the debate starts. My opponent agrees to these things when she accepts: 

-Hegemony in this debate means over all dominance economically, militarily, and culturally. It does not mean that the US has ultimate power or can do whatever it wants, but rather that the extent of its power is of a far greater scope than other nations.

-In the status quo, the US has hegemony. 

-Desirable entails a real world application--that is, to affirm or negate we need explanatory analysis of how the change in the status quo (US hegemony) would effect the world. 


Standard rules apply. No silly semantics, shared burden of proof, no new arguments in the last round. My opponent can refute my case in her opening round if she wishes, but does so at her own risk given the shared burden of proof.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/DDO-OT-Final-US-hegemony-is-desirable./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-02-02T14:13:59-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>DDO OT Semifinals: Jury Nullification</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/DDO-OT-Semifinals-Jury-Nullification/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government. Imabench is the pro for this debate, which is part of the DDO Official Tournament. Imabench must present his case in the first round, but may not present any arguments in the final round in order to maintain round balance. Imabench also must present definitions in the first round, but I reserve the right to challenge them in my first speech, which will be presented in the second round. 

Rules
1. No semantics
2. No trolling
3. No exploiting the character limit
4. Dropped arguments are concessions.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/DDO-OT-Semifinals-Jury-Nullification/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-01-13T13:46:26-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-We-should-name-our-daughter-Ariadne/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;Background: Thett and I just got married, and we are having the ultimate debate baby. So, we decided to have a debate about the baby's name. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First round is acceptance only. &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-We-should-name-our-daughter-Ariadne/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-15T19:45:36-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>is drug selling is legal or illegal</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/is-drug-selling-is-legal-or-illegal/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Illegal drugs are drugs which are controlled by the government and are illegal in certain situations (a person is not allowed to have them). A drug is any chemical designed to affect the human body. A psychoactive drug is a drug that affects the brain. Some controlled drugs are allowed if you have permission (called a &quot;prescription&quot;) from a doctor. Other drugs are illegal - meaning you are never allowed to have them. Alcohol, caffeine (coffee), nicotine (tobacco), aspirin and acetaminophen/paracetamol (Tylenol) are all drugs.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/is-drug-selling-is-legal-or-illegal/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-10-16T19:36:49-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>ODT2: All triangles are isosceles</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/ODT2-All-triangles-are-isosceles/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This debate is part of Official Debate Tournament 2 (ODT2).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I will present a proof that triangles are isosceles. Clearly all triangles are not isosceles. There must be a flaw in my proof. The task of my opponent is to spot the flaw.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;== Structure of Debate ==&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;R1 is for acceptance. In R2 I will present my proof. My esteemed opponent can explain the flaw in R2, R3 or R4. If she manages to spot the flaw, she wins the debate. In case she fails in her task, I will explain the flaw in R5 and claim victory. Pro need not do anything in R2, R3 and R4. Con does not have to do anything in R5.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Con has promised to work on the problem alone. More specifically, she has agreed to not to search internet or to ask friends for help.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Voters will not vote based on truth of resolution (it is false). Voters will vote Pro if my opponent fails to spot the mistake in my proof. Otherwise they will vote Con.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/ODT2-All-triangles-are-isosceles/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-11-22T06:12:50-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Google Chrome is more useful than Mozilla Firefox</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Google-Chrome-is-more-useful-than-Mozilla-Firefox/2/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;I will be arguing that Google Chrome is more useful than Mozilla Firefox, and my opponent must argue that Mozilla Firefox is more useful than Google Chrome.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rules&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;Round 1: Acceptance, definitons, and clarification.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;Round 2: Arguments/Rebuttals&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;Round 3: Rebuttals&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;Round 4: Rebuttals, Closing arguments&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definitons&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;Google Chrome&amp;nbsp;is a&amp;nbsp;&lt;a title=&quot;Web browser&quot; href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser&quot;&gt;web browser&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;developed by&amp;nbsp;&lt;a title=&quot;Google&quot; href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google&quot;&gt;Google&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;that uses the&amp;nbsp;&lt;a title=&quot;WebKit&quot; href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit&quot;&gt;WebKit&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;a class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; tit</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Google-Chrome-is-more-useful-than-Mozilla-Firefox/2/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-12-17T14:13:42-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Couple Consisting of Thett3 and RoyalPaladin is Cuter than that of LDF and TUF</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Couple-Consisting-of-Thett3-and-RoyalPaladin-is-Cuter-than-that-of-LDF-and-TUF/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) First round is acceptance only. Dropped arguments count as concessions. No new arguments in the last round.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Couple-Consisting-of-Thett3-and-RoyalPaladin-is-Cuter-than-that-of-LDF-and-TUF/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-20T13:06:29-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: Caucasians are not more intelligent than African Americans.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Caucasians-are-not-more-intelligent-than-African-Americans./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) First round is acceptance only. Since jimtimmy so ardently believes that he is genetically superior to African Americans, I am sure that he will accept this debate.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Caucasians-are-not-more-intelligent-than-African-Americans./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2011-12-11T01:10:01-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Infidel tournament: Resolved, welfare should be abolished</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Infidel-tournament-Resolved-welfare-should-be-abolished/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) 1st round acceptance 

2nd arguments (prefer no rebbutal for organization purposes)

3rd rebbutal+add on arguments 

4th rebbutal + defense of arguments 

Good luck:) 

Definitions:
Abolish
To end The observance or effect of.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/abolish

(on phone links may look odd) ^ Merriam Webster 

Welfare:

Aid in the form of money to the needy. (goverment giving)
http://i.word.com/idictionary/welfare</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Infidel-tournament-Resolved-welfare-should-be-abolished/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-03T19:02:59-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>RoyalPaladin is Awesome</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/RoyalPaladin-is-Awesome/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;Accept, coward ;).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is the third time :)&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/RoyalPaladin-is-Awesome/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-04-30T01:46:28-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>There is at Least One Person on the Earth Who Believes that Parts of the Bible Are Despicable</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-at-Least-One-Person-on-the-Earth-Who-Believes-that-Parts-of-the-Bible-Are-Despicable/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;First round is acceptance only. In order to win, Pro must explain why that one person believes that the Bible is despicable. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For the sake of debate, despicability must be considered universal. This is because, if it were not, there would be no point in having the&amp;nbsp;discussion because you would automatically presume&amp;nbsp;negative.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-at-Least-One-Person-on-the-Earth-Who-Believes-that-Parts-of-the-Bible-Are-Despicable/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-28T18:34:18-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: Sentience is of ethical relevance to the treatment of living things.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Sentience-is-of-ethical-relevance-to-the-treatment-of-living-things./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;span&gt;First round for rules/definitions.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;Rules:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;1. There are no restrictions on argumentative strategy.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;2. Burden of proof is shared.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;3. This debate concerns the resolution:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline; font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;RESOLVED: Sentience is of ethical relevance to the treatment of living things.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Rules and Definitions in R1 are binding. Substantively violating the R1 agreements will result in loss of both argument and conduct.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;6. &lt;strong&gt;Spelling/Grammer and Conduct will NOT be voted on&lt;/strong&gt; unless: a) explicitly argued for in the debate round AND b) voting occurs on the grounds argued for in the debate.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;7. Sources must be posted or linke</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Sentience-is-of-ethical-relevance-to-the-treatment-of-living-things./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-01-15T18:28:00-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: Blackmail Should Be Legalized</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Blackmail-Should-Be-Legalized/2/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This first round is for acceptance only. Please do not use semantics in this debate. Drops count as concessions.

Definitions will be provided in-case. Please do not troll this debate or attempt to define key terms in Round 1. The first round is strictly for acceptance.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Blackmail-Should-Be-Legalized/2/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-05-06T20:46:24-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Two feet are better than one.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Two-feet-are-better-than-one./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;We all know that the more feet to go around, the happier the person. Deny this fact and you will be smote with the perils of 1,000,000,000 baby killers.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Two-feet-are-better-than-one./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-31T23:17:03-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Harry Potter is mainly a static character</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Harry-Potter-is-mainly-a-static-character/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Static Character- A character who remains the same throughout a narrative. Static characters do not develop or change beyond the way in which they are first presented.
http://library.thinkquest.org/23846/library/terms/

In this debate, I will be debating that Harry Potter (the character from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series) for the most part, does not change throughout the books. Con will be arguing that he is a dynamic character, he does change. Do not accept this debate if you do not know who Harry Potter is! Only accept if you have read the books!

First round acceptance.
No sematics.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Harry-Potter-is-mainly-a-static-character/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-03-19T21:25:55-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Club Penguin is better than Poptropica.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Club-Penguin-is-better-than-Poptropica./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;This is a fun debate, about whether Club Penguin or Poptropica is better.&lt;br /&gt;When I say &quot;better&quot;, I mean a more fun, stimulating combination of gaming and social networking for kids.&lt;br /&gt;Rules:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1. Arguments which do not take into account the other side of the argument are invalid. For example, &quot;Club Penguin is always growing and expanding&quot; is an invalid comment, as Poptropica expands too. A valid argument would be &quot;Club Penguin grows and expands &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; than Poptropica does&quot;. (In this case evidence should be given)&lt;br /&gt;2. Make sure you source any facts. For example, &quot;Poptropica has more users per annum than Club Penguin&quot; would be invalid unless a source stating this statistic was given.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First round is acceptance, no arguing.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Club-Penguin-is-better-than-Poptropica./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-25T19:18:16-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The UIL should adopt PFD as a sponsored event</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-UIL-should-adopt-PFD-as-a-sponsored-event/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Hey guys! It's been a while since we've been able to hang out, so I wanted to pop in and say hey. 

As usual, and as will likely be the norm until I graduate I'm completely devoid of time (figuratively speaking of course) and have about a million things to do. So being the masochist that I am, I've decided it would be an absolutely fantastic idea to have a quick debate on here. I mean it's just been so long.

So before beginning there are some clarifications I'd like to offer-

1. I may forfeit a round of this debate via time-out. If it comes to that please forgive me and the the win with grace.

2. the UIL will be understood as the Texas academic/athletics association for elementary through high school students known as the &quot;[1]University Interscholastic League&quot;

3. PFD will be understood as &quot;Public Forum Debate&quot; as is practiced and sanctioned by the [2]National Forensics League

4. This debate is meant to be light hearted, but by no means a joke d</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-UIL-should-adopt-PFD-as-a-sponsored-event/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-02-01T14:09:26-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: in the forum game mafia, it is justified to bus an unwilling mafia teammate</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-in-the-forum-game-mafia-it-is-justified-to-bus-an-unwilling-mafia-teammate/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;First round is acceptance only. This debate is part of lannan's round-robin debate tournament.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Definitions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1. Mafia: a forum game in which an uninformed majority is pitted against an informed minority. The majority must weed out and eliminate the minority from the game, while the minority must attempt to gain equal numbers as the minority.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;2. justified (Merriam Webster Unabridged): to prove to be right or just&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;3. bus: A mafia tactic in which a member of the informed minority initiates and pushes for a lynch of a teammate in order to be confirmed as a member of the town.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two quick observations/parameters&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1. In this debate, philosophy can and should be used.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;2. My opponent and I are most familiar with DDO Mafia, so we should argue this debate in the context of the DDO mafia community.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbs</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-in-the-forum-game-mafia-it-is-justified-to-bus-an-unwilling-mafia-teammate/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-01-31T09:48:22-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Free Immigration</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-Immigration/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;If you wish to accept this debate, &lt;strong&gt;please ensure that your ELO ranking is higher than mine when you accept this debate&lt;/strong&gt;.&amp;nbsp; If your ELO is lower than mine and you still accept, then it will be considered a full foreit on your part.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This debate is on whether or not the United States should adopt a free immigration policy, meaning that there are no restrictions on who may be allowed into the United States (unless of course they are criminals or terrorists).&amp;nbsp; Specifically, only a census and basic background check will be made on those attempting to immigrate to the United States.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Definitions:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Free Immigration - unchecked immigration&lt;br /&gt;Immigration - permanently leaving ones country of residence to live in another country permanently (not including vacations etc.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;R1 is for acceptance&lt;br /&gt;R2 - 3 is for arguments and rebuttals&lt;br /&gt;R4 - is for conclusions, no new arguments may be broug</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-Immigration/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-02-10T18:07:55-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>God is required to explain the beginning of the universe</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/God-is-required-to-explain-the-beginning-of-the-universe/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: medium; font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;&quot;&gt;My opponent will be assuming the burden of proof, by showing that God is the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; rational explanation for the beginning of the universe. I will assume that using God as an explanation, does not lead one to an infnite regression. &lt;span&gt;However, I must actually argue for the notion that my explanation does not infer an infinite regress.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;Just to make it clear, my opponent must argue that only a sentient being could have been responsible for the beginning of the universe. I will be arguing, that there are other rational explanations for the beginning of the universe, besides the sentient being explanation, that do not lead to an infinite regression.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline; font-size: medium; font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;&quot;&gt;Rules:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: medium; font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;&quot;&gt;G</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/God-is-required-to-explain-the-beginning-of-the-universe/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2012-08-22T16:10:09-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
