Debate.org: Popular Debates

Homosexual Acts are Immoral

2012-05-06T01:04:07-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

TERMS

Resolved: Homosexual Acts Are Immoral

Rounds:

1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash

Definitions: By "homosexual acts" I refer to sexual acts between members of the same sex. Specifically, I refer to homosexual sodomy. This is not a debate about homosexual orientation. I will have the burden of proof. No semantics.

The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.

THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL; Resolved: Izbo10 should be permanently banned

2011-12-13T08:03:46-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Full resolution: By way of undue harm to the site and the community as a whole, Izbo10 should be permanently banned from DDO. Rules: There will be 5 Rounds. R1: Opening statement R2: Additional charges/rebuttals R3: Rebuttals R4: Cross Examination/Additional Rebuttals R5: Closing Arguments Izbo10 also stipulates by accepting that if he uses this debate as a forum for additional abuses and TOS violations that he will be instantly banned. Welcome ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We all want a quick trial, so let's proceed immediately to the charges against izbo10. 1) He has sent harassing private messages to users. Izbo10 shows open contempt towards a large number of DDO users and has initiated personal vendettas against many of them (both vote bombing those users and harassing them). Throughout this debate, I will not have enough character space to present ALL the evidence against Izbo10 (you could probably fill a book with his insults

The CWO "vote bombed" no one.

2008-09-27T19:06:03-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Hello and good day to you all! Good luck to you scissor. I will expect this debate to be fact-based, and I would like for the voters to vote with this expectation in mind. "The CWO" will be defined as a group of people. Fact-Based will be defined as staying away from statements such as "The CWO vote bombed ____" the debater must use his facts to make that statement for him, he can however use the statement in his summery after the facts were presented. My opponent has made accusations against a group who call themselves the CWO. Their has been much resistance on this site about this group. My opponent stated this before the debate in a message that is entitled CWO, much of the site is getting this message now. He said, "If you wanted i suppose you could term this as an informal debate? However you would be very hard-pressed indeed.", It is obvious that he feels that the majority of this site will vote for him simply because he is now against the CWO (as th

Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed.

2009-01-30T18:21:32-08:00

(Voting Period) Gays should be allowed to marry partners of their choice just as heterosexual couples do. It is ignorant in today's world to deny such a basic right to an individual because of something that is innate. Yes, sexuality is not a choice, it is innate. For my first point, let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage. Most civil unions don't have the same rights as a legal marriage has. Even if we made all civil unions exactly equal to legal marriage but called it something else, it wouldn't be enough. The concept of "separate but equal" has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this. Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying? Religion isn't an answer. Religion is the excuse. Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish. In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you. How woul

Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

2011-07-09T18:18:42-08:00

(Voting Period)

I want to begin by saying how delighted I am to be debating Contradiction on this very important social issue. It's good to be able to argue with someone who is so philosophically inclined. For my part of the debate, I'll be arguing that same-sex marriage should be legal in the United States.

Accordingly, in this debate I'm going to defend two basic contentions. First, there are no legally tenable reasons to ban same-sex marriage. And secondly, there are good reasons to think that same-sex marriage should be legal. I'll leave it up to my opponent to make the case against same-sex marriage. So then let us turn to my second contention that there are good reasons to think that same-sex marriage should be legal. Let me briefly outline some of these reasons.

C1: The right to marriage is a fundamental right.

As far as the United States Supreme Court is concerned, the right to marriage is a fundamental right. Theodore Olson, a

Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

2011-07-05T00:19:26-08:00

(Voting Period) Thank you for accepting this important debate. The law debated here could alter the way people think about abortion. This debate will test a newly revealed natural scientific law that partially governs the impact that abortion has on society. If this law is valid, then the generally accepted conclusions of the pro life movement will need revision or become invalid. Natural laws are self evident once brought to light and backed up with theory. Natural laws are not invented, they are revealed. This debate will be about one revealed natural scientific law and the theories that surrounds the law. (1) There are obvious natural laws that govern the issues surrounding abortion. These laws are like other natural scientific law in that they are simple and obvious yet these abortion related laws have profound impact on the way society should judge the abortion issue. The first law: "If a woman is forced to carry to term one fetus, then she cannot normally be

Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

2009-07-07T08:59:59-08:00

(Post Voting Period) I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and the audience for their time and participation. This debate is a challenge to the member DATCMOTO who asserted in this thread: http://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/1796/5/ That "Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence". I would assume that DATCMOTO is a man of his word and means what he says. If this is the case, then I would like to challenge this assertion. I personally believe that this assertion is unjustified and the result of a lack of scientific understanding, and that DATCMOTO does not understand evolution enough in order to make such a bold statement. However, I assume that DATCMOTO has his own reasons for making such a huge leap of faith, so I shall let him explain to me why it is that evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence. The parameters of this debate are simple: Evolution shall refer to the standard scientifi

Grammar makes little difference to a phrase's meaning and clarity

2012-08-30T15:41:39-08:00

(Post Voting Period) I will be arguing pro, that correct grammar and spelling make little difference to a phrase's coherency. I will take the burden of proof in this debate. Definitions: 1) Little - Small in size, amount, or degree (often used to convey an appealing diminutiveness or express an affectionate or condescending attitude). <--- in this case its definition will be that of its degree usage. 2) Meaning - What is meant by something. 3) Clarity - The quality of being clear, in particular. The quality of coherence and intelligibility. Standard format: 1st - introductions 2nd - Pro=opening arguments / Con= opening arguments and rebuttal 3rd - Pro=rebuttal/closing arguments / Con = closing arguments ONLY Good luck to my opponent! Do you accept my terms?

The user known as Danielle used dishonest tactics in her same-sex parenting debate.

2012-12-17T16:56:57-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Many people on this site know about me and Danielle's same-sex parenting debate, in which she won by a large margin and I accused her of using dishonest arguments (lawyering, strawmen, etc) in order to gain victory.

In case you haven't, here's the link: [http://debate.org/debates/Homosexual-couples-can-raise-children-just-as-well-as-heterosexual-couples./1/]

I accuse her of avoiding the resolution, misinterpreting my arguments, lying about my burden of proof, repeating arguments that had no bearing on the debate, and assigning absurd burdens of proof on things that should require none. Think of this as an unofficial trial of sorts, albeit one where only honor is at stake.

She has just agreed debate me so that this can be answered once and for all. Obviously there will be no law

It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

2011-06-26T18:39:37-08:00

(Voting Period)

You start the debate: You can not add anything in the last round. The rule is simple you must defend this being a valid argument for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I will say it is not. Since you agreed with this fo god, you should have no problem with this for the invisible pink unicorn.

My opponent declares that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink Unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is irrational and fallacious. I intend to show that, quite to the contrary, reasoning from faith is far from special pleading. First, I will present some definitions

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.¹

Reasoning: 1. Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments. 2. Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentatio

The existence of God

2008-12-07T17:13:37-08:00

(Voting Period) I affirm that God exists. "The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."(1) The Earth...its size is perfect. The size of the Earth and its corresponding gravity holds an atmosphere of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending to about 50 miles of Earth's surface. "It is at a perfect distance from the Sun; not too hot, not too cold."(2) It has the perfect gravity without the difficulty of heavy gravity and low gravity where humans cannot exist without advanced sophisticated technology. Therefore, the Earth is made specifically for life. "Earth is the only planet in our solar system capable of supporting life. It is the only planet that we can survive on with ease. Earth is perfect for us. It should be, for we came from it." (1) If we were to accept the fact the Earth supports life, now we have to explain how the Earth was created. "The universe, our galaxy, our Solar

Woman's Choice to "House" her Unborn.

2010-02-15T15:33:50-08:00

(Voting Period) A woman's body is her own. Yes, there are times that her body has and can be used as a means to an end, but it should be her ultimate choice to decide whether or not that "means to an end" be the use of her body to produce a child. In China, for example, with the population rates soaring, the One Child Policy enforced laws that prevented women from having more than one child per family. Women that were expectant with their second child were forced into abortions or in some instances made to pay large fines. The One Child Policy also has created a preference towards boys because boys could take care and provide for their parents in old age, more so than the girls. This is the normal attitude especially throughout the rural areas, where boys are needed to work in the fields. Thousands of first born girls were killed by their parents so that they could get another chance to have a boy. Thousands of women were forced into assisted abortions. Thousands of other chil

That the voting age should be lowered to 15

2013-02-08T16:15:18-08:00

(Post Voting Period) My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, giv

The Problem of Evil (PoE) is sound

2012-12-30T02:16:25-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Definitions

God - By God, I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, personal being who created the universe, and is (to a greater or lesser extent) active within the universe.

Evil - Anything which in and of itself, rational creatures would universally seek to avoid, ceteris paribus. Examples of such things include suffering, pain, disability and death.

The argument will try to show that at least some of these evils are gratuitous (not logically necessary for an adequately compensatory good), and this will be (I suspect) the main contention in the debate.

Introduction

First off, I would like to thank Con for agreeing to debate this very important topic with me. I’ll try not to take it too personally that my favoured version of the a

Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

2011-06-29T23:28:08-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

In his forum, "Christian Intellectual Dishonesty", Izbo10 commented, six days ago,"Sorry [,] grammar police, but if you don't like those words [,] don't believe in [C]hristianity. They are just saying the sy thing in a different way to show how stupid the belief really is. Sorry [if] it offends you, but I am not the one defending a zombie savior" [1]. Please note that the grammatical corrections, insertions of words, and punctation, are all absent from the original link, which can be found below.

I assume that, since the word "savior" is a "person who saves someone or something (esp. a country or cause) from danger, and who is regarded with the veneration of a religious figure" [2], that Izbo10 was obviously referring to Jesus Christ. Christ was born in the tribe of Judah, the son of Mary, a

Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than African Americans

2012-01-29T23:52:10-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

In accepting the debate, Pro agrees to the following parameters and definitions.

Inherently: Occurring from birth; within the very genetics of the group.

Round 1: Introduction of the Affirmative Case (by Pro)
Round 2: Rebuttals and arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments on either side)

No semantics.

My opponent insists on receiving the final word, so contrary to the common debate structure, Pro will begin his argument in Round 1 and I will refute it in the following round and so on and so forth.

Without further ado, I await an honest, good willed, and challenging debate and wish my opponent good luck.

On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

2010-09-04T16:01:32-08:00

(Voting Period) Every broad argument will be tagged with a letter/number. Elucidation: D1) On balance: Keep the framework reasonable. Ignore the possibility that aliens could invade and destroy every society beginning with consonants. Employ ceteris parabis assumptions. D2) Anarchism: The lack of aggressive monopoly. In this conversation, aggression is distinct from coercion according to the Libertarian ethic. The forceful defense of self ownership and peaceful homesteading is "coercion", not "aggression". Attacking innocent people with the intent to manipulate them into a social arrangement moves the affected group out of anarchism. D3) More: The pro/con may secure different elements of humanitarianism. It is up to them to show their share is more important. D4) Humanitarian: Take your pick. Better productivity, respect for rights, quality of life, social stability. D5) State Planning: Any non-anarchical arrangement. Familiar examples include democracy,

It is probable god exists

2011-08-24T15:01:12-08:00

(Voting Period) My opponent must show that it is probable that their is a god. It is his burden of proof as he is making a positive claim. All I have to do as con is show that his evidence is false. The Pro will not respond in the last round. Any shifting the burden of proof fallacies by pro and he will forfeit the debate. All seven points will go to con.

God Exists

2013-03-16T02:35:46-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Resolution: God Exists I will be negating this and defending the position that God probably doesn't exist. BOP is shared Rules: No Forfeits No Fallacies No Insults 72 Hours to Post 8000 Characters Max 1 Week Voting Period Start your arguments in round 1 Follow the debate structure Structure: Round 1: Pre-debate info and Con's arguments Round 2: My arguments + rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusion, no new arguments or rebuttals. Keep under 1000 characters.

Are the presents of Hell not worth dodging this life for everlasting life?

2009-01-10T07:46:12-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Thank you, read this carefully It may change you? Hell! Through out history it has been thought of as the most foolish and regretful place to end up out of the whole existence of everything. If I was confronted with a slight possibility of a place like this where you end up after your "first death" I would consider to think about the wording of "what if and "if only". Although there is no proof in the physical world that such a please existence. It would be wise to try and understand the strange spiritual world. By finding out if God does actually exist or not by close (not skeptical) examination of God's ever lasting love. By saying "I know what love feels like, so why do I need God's love?" I will answer.... "All love is from God even from other people as it hell there is no love, and all the love you feel now is spiritual love." As science can not excitement with love emotions. It could be possible to decrease or increase the amount of love you feel. B