<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: studentathletechristian8's Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;member=studentathletechristian8</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-05-26T00:06:02-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-05-26T00:06:02-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Hitler was insane.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Hitler-was-insane./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Disclaimer:
I am not a racist, a Nazi, or any of the sort. However, I do not believe that Hitler was insane. I do believe that he had every one of his beliefs rationalized.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hitler- Adolf Hitler, Leader of the Third Reich, also known as Nazi Germany, an Axis Power during the Second World War.
Insane- mentally deranged http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insane
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I await my opponent's arguments and assert that he/she has burden of proof.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Hitler-was-insane./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-06-27T16:36:39-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The death Penalty should still stand.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-death-Penalty-should-still-stand./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I think that the Death Penalty should stay. I do not believe that it is right to let a murderer stay in prison living off of tax dollars for the rest of his life. I believe that the penalty should only be used on people they have hard evidence on so they can avoid executing the wrong person. If the death penalty stayed, there would be less crimes in and outside of jail. Criminals would be afraid to kill someone fearing for their lives. 
Does anyone object?</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-death-Penalty-should-still-stand./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-11-07T15:15:14-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Abortion is wrong</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-is-wrong/6/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Hello. The resolution is, &quot;Abortion is wrong.&quot; I will present the affirmative (pro), and my opponent will present the negative (con).

first, I would like to define &quot;abortion&quot;:

abortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy; any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy.

next, I would like to define &quot;wrong&quot;:

wrong- not in accordance with what is morally right or good; not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc.

both of these definitions are taken verbatim from dictionary.com

this round I have posted no argument towards my case, and I would appreciate it if my opponent does not post arguments for this round either. I just wanted to clarify the resolution. I simply would like the opponent to state that they accept the challenge and if they accept the definitions I have stated. If the opponent needs me to clarify anything, it would be sufficient to ask me about it in this round. Ver</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-is-wrong/6/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-04-05T16:59:44-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>InfraRedEd pisses me off</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/InfraRedEd-pisses-me-off/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) InfraRedEd does piss me off.

When I refer to InfraRedEd, I am strictly referring to the debater on this website.

http://www.debate.org/InfraRedEd/

The definition of piss off for this debate shall be:

piss off- to anger.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piss%20off

Reading throughout InfraRedEd's debates, I can tell he pisses me off/angers me. He tends to rant and has created ridiculous debates that piss me off; such as:

http://www.debate.org/debates/InfraRedEd-Is-The-Greatest-and-Most-Benevolent-Being-Who-Has-Ever-Existed./1/

http://www.debate.org/debates/InfraRedEd-is-the-greatest-debater-who-ever-lived./1/

Although my opponent has taken the Con side in these debates,I believe he made the debates just to fool around and either get an easy win/make himself feel even more foolish than he already is.

Conclusively, InfraRedEd certainly does piss me off.

I shall await my opponent's response.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/InfraRedEd-pisses-me-off/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-05-25T23:52:13-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&quot;If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late,&quot; is a logical expression.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/If-youre-early-youre-on-time-if-youre-on-time-youre-late-is-a-logical-expression./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I stand in firm negation to the resolution.

I would like to begin by defining several key terms:

you're- contraction of you are

early- before the usual or expected time 

on time- at the appointed time 

late- after the usual or expected time

logical- capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion 

In this debate, the phrase, &quot;If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late,&quot; refers to the expression commonly used in an attempt to influence a person to get to a certain location at a reasonable time. However, keep in mind that this debate is solely on whether or not this expression is logical or illogical.

I believe that the expression, &quot;If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late,&quot; is illogical. My contention is as follows:

a) According to the first half of the expression, if you're early, you're on time. This means that to be early is to be on time. In other words, early=on time</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/If-youre-early-youre-on-time-if-youre-on-time-youre-late-is-a-logical-expression./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-08-02T22:04:35-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Gay Marriage</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage/28/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I think that if straight people can get married, then gay people should be able to get married as well. America is about equal rights. If gays want to be as miserable as MOST straight married people are, I say we let them! Gay people are born gay. It isn't a choice. They can't help that they are attracted to the same sex.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage/28/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-04-04T14:09:07-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Obama's Spending is Ruining America</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Obamas-Spending-is-Ruining-America/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) I say that Obama and his cabinet are ruining our great country with over spending and overstepping their political boundaries. In the first two months of his administration he has put into motion bills that will spend trillions of American tax dollars. Yes trillions. To me that is unacceptable. He took responsibility for the country and he is not treating it well. In a down economy spending is the LAST thing you want to do. We need a few things from Obama.

1. Tax cuts for the middle class (actually do it don't just talk about it)
2. Decrease in government spending (trillions of $$?! Seriously?)
3. Let the economy play out on its own, no more bailouts or government help or intervention. If its going to fail let it fail and fix itself.

I think all of this spending is killing the economy. Why would we spend more money when no one has any? It makes no sense to me. I agree something has to be done but don't spend, please no more spending. 

We need Obama o</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Obamas-Spending-is-Ruining-America/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-04-04T06:57:55-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Unconditional-love-can-never-exist-on-this-earth-excluding-Gods-unconditional-love/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love. I am pretty much saying that besides God's love, no one can even ever love another person unconditionally on this earth. Two people may love each other very much, but I am certain there are conditions where that love cannot exist or last. For example, let's say Mary and John are madly in love with each other. If John goes to Mary's house and kills her whole family, I can guarantee that Mary would not love John anymore. There is always a condition that exceeds love for one another. Hence, unconditional love can never exist on earth.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Unconditional-love-can-never-exist-on-this-earth-excluding-Gods-unconditional-love/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-04-09T23:57:50-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Homosexual Marriage</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Homosexual-Marriage/4/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Hello, everyone! I am completely new to this website. I've been looking on it for weeks, and I love the way this site allows people to debate and create friendships. I welcome anyone who dares to take this debate topic. I first would like to thank the audience for reading and do hope that the voting is based on which side presents the better case. Now here is the argument:

Resolved: Homosexual Marriage. I will take con, my opponent will take pro.

My first point is that homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms. Homosexual means &quot;of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.&quot; I will refer to the word homosexual as gay throughout the debate, and it applies both to men and women unless a certain example shall be specified. Marriage means &quot;the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments or religious ceremonies.&quot; Because the term &quot;gay&quot; ref</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Homosexual-Marriage/4/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-03-31T22:56:28-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Yo mama jokes duel.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Yo-mama-jokes-duel./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This is a quick duel of a Yo mama jokes. You can give up to three jokes per round, but not required, so I ask that voters don't penalize based on less number of jokes. I do ask for no severe inappropriate jokes, thank you.

1.Yo Mama's so dumb she thought fruit punch was a gay boxer!

2.Yo mama's so stupid she took a ruler to bed to see how long she slept! 

3.Yo mama's so fat she puts on her lipstick with a paint roller! 

Best of luck, to who accepts this challenge.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Yo-mama-jokes-duel./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-12-18T15:57:43-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>You are my god</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/You-are-my-god/2/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) My opponent has the burden of proof, he must prove that he is my God. I will let the affirmative go first, but I have one simple question. Are you Manny Ramirez?</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/You-are-my-god/2/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-11-23T13:33:53-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The patriots will win the game tomorrow agianst the colt</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-patriots-will-win-the-game-tomorrow-agianst-the-colt/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I believe that the Patriots are going to win tomorrow against the colts.


PS: This debate is not really that serious, there's almost a 50% 50% of winning this.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-patriots-will-win-the-game-tomorrow-agianst-the-colt/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-11-15T10:47:05-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>ReganFan is a failure on this website.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/ReganFan-is-a-failure-on-this-website./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I affirm the resolution, &quot;ReganFan is a failure on this website.&quot;

I am creating this debate topic in response to ReganFan's debate, displayed here:
http://www.debate.org/debates/studentathletechristian8-fail/1/

Definitions:

ReganFan- the user known as ReganFan on this site.
http://www.debate.org/ReganFan/

failure- a person or thing that proves unsuccessful.

this website- www.debate.org.

ReganFan is a failure on this website. He has been in over twenty-five debates, and has failed to win any of them. On the forums, he has created uselss threads and has turned into a troll. Here are several examples:

http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/2292/
http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/2292/

That is all for the argumentation. I thank my opponent, the readers, and await a rebuttal.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/ReganFan-is-a-failure-on-this-website./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-10-28T20:35:44-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>vampires are getting so out of hand.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/vampires-are-getting-so-out-of-hand./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) since when did vampires get so popular well ill tell you when it was when the world of the free first saw twilight so what made them so popular well it had to be the sparkle because real vampires don't sparkle. so for Halloween instead of seeing children dressed up in vangs and capes were going to see children walking around in clothes they went to school with and in body glitter.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/vampires-are-getting-so-out-of-hand./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-10-10T15:45:50-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Capital Punishment</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Capital-Punishment/4/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) I would like to see my opponent try to prove points/facts on why the death penalty is NOT acceptable in America. Good luck!</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Capital-Punishment/4/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-08-02T17:58:05-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Tom-Brady-is-a-better-quarterback-than-Peyton-Manning/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Tom Brady is a better and smarter QB than Peyton Manning!
It's as simple as that!</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Tom-Brady-is-a-better-quarterback-than-Peyton-Manning/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-07-27T12:59:05-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>I will not contradict myself in this debate.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/I-will-not-contradict-myself-in-this-debate./3/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I affirm the resolution, &quot;I will not contradict myself in this debate.&quot;

contradict- to assert the contrary or opposite of 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradict

Rules:
1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.
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.
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 CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses.
6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses.
7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himse</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/I-will-not-contradict-myself-in-this-debate./3/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2009-07-23T13:03:26-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Haiku Battle</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Haiku-Battle/3/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Rules: You will post 3 haiku for each round. They will not be traditional haiku, they will be entertaining, funny, or bashing the other person. Though they will ot be traditional haiku, they will follow the 5-7-5 format. Spelling and Grammar are irrelevant seeing as you can use poetic license with haiku.

Friday nights alone
Your right arm is so tired
From playing your wii

Find me in the club
Gettin' down on the dance floor
Your mom's a cougar

I would be your dad
But the dog beat me upstairs
Is that possible</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Haiku-Battle/3/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-04-30T21:08:14-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>I am new to this site</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/I-am-new-to-this-site/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) I have just clicked on this site and decided to sign up, ergo I am new to the site.

I look forward to hearing my opponent's counter-argument</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/I-am-new-to-this-site/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-04-27T17:24:49-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mavericks will beat spurs and they will advance to the next round in the playoffs</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Mavericks-will-beat-spurs-and-they-will-advance-to-the-next-round-in-the-playoffs/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Because they had a great season and, they have a good team many players are good like: nowitzki, Shawn Marion, john terry, Erick dampier, butler and many more. Dirk nowitzki is the second best free throw shooter and he can make shots from everywhere from the court and it doesn't matter if he is tall because he can do a lot of things</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Mavericks-will-beat-spurs-and-they-will-advance-to-the-next-round-in-the-playoffs/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2010-04-24T17:20:26-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
