<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Debate.org: Politics Debates</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&amp;sort=&amp;category=Politics</link>
<description>Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>2013-05-19T11:27:29-08:00</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>2013-05-19T11:27:29-08:00</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>The US Should Have Better Gun Control</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-Should-Have-Better-Gun-Control/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) I believe that the lack of gun control in the Unites States is a serious danger to the public, in nations with full gun control the homicide rate, armed robbery rate, and suicide rates are much lower.

First Round is for acceptance

Second Round is for initial arguments &amp; rebuttals

Third Round is for further arguments &amp; rebuttals

Fourth Round is final rebuttals &amp; concluding statements only, no new arguments</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-Should-Have-Better-Gun-Control/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-18T23:13:42-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Resolved: North Korea and South Korea should just have sex and get it over with already</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-North-Korea-and-South-Korea-should-just-have-sex-and-get-it-over-with-already/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) The debate resolution is that North Korea and South Korea should just have sex and get it over with already. 

THIS IS A TROLL DEBATE

1st round acceptance only
4000 character limit
Can now be accepted</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-North-Korea-and-South-Korea-should-just-have-sex-and-get-it-over-with-already/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-11T17:13:27-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>9/11 Conspiracy</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/9-11-Conspiracy/1/</link>
<description>(Debating Period) I am not debating whether or not the planes hit the Two Towers because they did, but I am arguing that there is more to the story than what the 9/11 Commission 
 tells the public. 
Round 1- acceptance 
Round 2- arguments/rebuttals 
Round 3- arguments/rebuttals
Round 4- closing</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/9-11-Conspiracy/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-19T08:24:53-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-continuation-of-current-U.S.-anti-drug-policies-in-Latin-America-will-do-more-harm-than-good./1/</link>
<description>(Debating Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is for Penn's tournament.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span&gt;Resolved: The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;To clarify: I am supporting the policies, Contra is attacking them.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Due to laziness and the fact that rules aren't really neccessary, I think we can just start the debate. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Good luck to both of us; first round is acceptance. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-continuation-of-current-U.S.-anti-drug-policies-in-Latin-America-will-do-more-harm-than-good./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-18T12:12:13-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Islamic Socialism Is Superior To Atheistic Socialism</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Islamic-Socialism-Is-Superior-To-Atheistic-Socialism/1/</link>
<description>(Debating Period) &lt;div&gt;This is not a theological debate but the merits of Islamic Socialism and Atheistic Socialism in political theory and application.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1st round is for acceptance.&lt;br /&gt;Open to anyone.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Islamic-Socialism-Is-Superior-To-Atheistic-Socialism/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-17T16:49:23-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Splitting of the USA</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Splitting-of-the-USA/1/</link>
<description>(Debating Period) I believe that everything from GA to Texas should break away including Oklahoma and everything up to Kentucky. This would be called Dixie.
I believe that I should be the Commander of Dixie.
My opponent may choose which topics he would like to discuss.
(We will assume that a peace treaty between Dixie and the Yankees is in effect. War betweeen the nations is not an issue that I would like to be included.)
Any issue, but war between the nations, will be considered.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Splitting-of-the-USA/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-18T19:56:21-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Children's rights and their obligations should be respected.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Childrens-rights-and-their-obligations-should-be-respected./1/</link>
<description>(Debating Period) Hi, this is my first debate so I would probably be bad at it so please have pacience with me.
Children's rights and obligations should be respected because like the human rights say we are all equal. children should not be hit by their parents (for example) or harmed in any other way, since children are the future of our world. Children would be the future Prime Ministers, Presidents, Kings, Queens... And if children learn to treat others bad,fight and be bad leaders the world as we know it now would be completely destroyed.

Thanks.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Childrens-rights-and-their-obligations-should-be-respected./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-18T16:05:12-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Individualism is societally destructive</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Individualism-is-societally-destructive/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;I've made this impossible for anyone to accept, if anyone wants to debate this comment or PM me.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Individualism is defined by Merriam Webster as: &quot;&lt;span&gt;&lt;span&gt;a doctrine that the interests of the individual&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; are or ought to be ethically paramount&quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Destruction is synonymous with ruinous. My advocacy will essentially be that the individualism that has sweeped the world, particularly the West, since the enlightenment is responsible for many of society's current ills, along with showing sociologically the inevitable effects of such an individualistic state of mind.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;No semantics, I have no interest arguing over what societally destructive means. If my opponent tries to make this an issue, they forfeit the debate. First round is for acceptance and no new arguments in the last round. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Individualism-is-societally-destructive/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-04T14:14:09-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Negotiations for the TPP agreement should be abandoned</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Negotiations-for-the-TPP-agreement-should-be-abandoned/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Welcome one and all to the grand finals of the second ELO tournament. Special thanks to Noumena for setting things up, Raisor for suggesting an interesting subject as well as agreeing to the final motion and everybody else who competed for making things fun. Extra-special thanks to anybody that votes. Just try to remember to be fair and constructive if you can.

The TPP agreement is a little acronym for the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic &quot;Partnership&quot;, which is basically a free trade deal. A mini-version of this deal, called the P4 agreement (of which my country is a signatory, along with Chile, Singapore and Brunei) has existed since 2005, but since then loads of other countries (including the USA and most recently Japan) have tried to negotiate their way into the deal. In this debate, I will argue that this is a dumb idea. In fact, I reckon all of these agreements have been a waste of time.

I'd like to wish my opponent good luck and, after this accepta</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Negotiations-for-the-TPP-agreement-should-be-abandoned/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-15T21:16:56-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Capital Punishment Ought to be Eliminated</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Capital-Punishment-Ought-to-be-Eliminated/1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My position is that CP ought to be eliminated as a form of punishment from the judicial system.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;I shall have BoP as the US does have the death penalty, my opponent shall justify it's useage. I shall try to make a case for it's removal.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;My opponent:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Round 1) acceptance &amp;amp; arguments&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;2) arguments/rebuttals&lt;br /&gt;3) arguments/rebuttals &lt;br /&gt;4) rhetorical statement of choosing. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;Me:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Round 1) terms and conditions&lt;br /&gt;2) arguments/rebuttals&lt;br /&gt;3) arguments/rebuttals&lt;br /&gt;4) conclusion &amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;May be done through political, legal, medical, or economic arguments. &lt;br /&gt;No semantics. &amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;No plagurism (due to us having this debate before) &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Failure to adhere to the rules results in an automatic loss.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;Goodluck to my opponent! &amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Capital-Punishment-Ought-to-be-Eliminated/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-17T07:16:28-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Americans with Disabilities Act should be repealed</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-should-be-repealed/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;This debate is about the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [ADA], including changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-325). The full text of the various versions of the law are linked from the ADA's government site. [1. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm]&quot;&gt;http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm]&lt;/a&gt; Wikipedia summarizes the law:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: x-small;&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The ADA is a wide-ranging &lt;a class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;Civil rights&quot; href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights&quot;&gt;civil rights&lt;/a&gt; law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, &lt;a title=&quot;Discrimination&quot; href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination&quot;&gt;discrimination&lt;/a&gt; based on &lt;a title=&quot;Disability&quot; href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability&quot;&gt;disability&lt;/a&gt;. It affords similar protections against discrimination to &lt;a title=&quot;Americans with disabili</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-should-be-repealed/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-04-26T18:34:51-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Guns Are Needed To Defend Against Tyrannical Governments</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Guns-Are-Needed-To-Defend-Against-Tyrannical-Governments/1/</link>
<description>(Debating Period) The Defense Against Tyrannical Governments Argument is one of the most popular arguments for guns, and it's one many people is absurd. If guns are needed to defend against tyrannical governments, then debating the statistics of gun use is unnecessary, and this argument could justify civilians owning many weapons that are otherwise unnecessary and potentially justify ownership of more weapons than what civilians can currently aqcuire, including a limited ownership of explosives and RPG's. This is also the only legitimate argument against the registration of firearms.

I should also note that if it is possible to have a firearm registration and still be able to defend against tyranny, I would be most welcome to this prospect. 

One of the basic assumptions necessary for this argument is that most people can agree with is that liberty is better than tyrannical rule. For the purposes of this argument, I will assume this is true. 

Definitions of Potential Tyr</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Guns-Are-Needed-To-Defend-Against-Tyrannical-Governments/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-16T16:20:45-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ronald Reagan was the best president in the 20th Century.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ronald-Reagan-was-the-best-president-in-the-20th-Century./1/</link>
<description>(Voting Period) Ronald Reagan accomplished many things in is two terms. Domestically, he curbed Carter's enormous inflation. He also cut taxes drastically, which spurred business. In foreign policy, he brought the Russians to their knees, and fought the spread of communism. He also rebuilt America. Their military, their prestige, and most importantly, their morale. America had been humiliated by Vietnam and the hostage crisis. 

Most people would say FDR was the best president of the 20th Century. However, this is wrong. FDR hurt the recovery from the depression, not helped it. He did do a superb job during WW2, but he created the Cold War because he gave the Soviets half of Europe. Reagan had to clean up his mess 40 years later.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ronald-Reagan-was-the-best-president-in-the-20th-Century./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-16T15:28:03-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Is America the greatest country in the world?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-America-the-greatest-country-in-the-world/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Hi! I'm waiting for new members for my debate. I think, you know the rules. Who can join my debate now!</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-America-the-greatest-country-in-the-world/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-15T12:27:49-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The USFG should prohibit children from possessing rifles</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-USFG-should-prohibit-children-from-possessing-rifles/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) When the mother of a 5 year-old boy left him alone to play with his 2 year-old sister while she went outside on Tuesday this week, she must have thought &quot;They'll be fine, what could possibly go wrong?&quot; 

She must have thought her young son would be mature and responsible enough to be left alone with the 22-caliber rifle, complete with live ammunition, that she bought him for his birthday but, tragically, while she was out the little boy picked up his rifle and shot his baby sister dead. [1]

In my opinion, this woman is clearly an out-and-out, card-carrying mental case who is utterly unfit to be a parent, and the authorities should take her remaining child into care and prosecute her for the criminal negligence that resulted in her daughter's death. 

But no, this incident happened in a place called Kentucky, which is in America, and the investigating police there just shrugged their shoulders and concluded that &quot;It's just one of those nightmares - a quic</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-USFG-should-prohibit-children-from-possessing-rifles/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-10T07:27:06-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Epic Rap Battles of History. Andrew Johnson VS. Lyndon Johnson.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Epic-Rap-Battles-of-History.-Andrew-Johnson-VS.-Lyndon-Johnson./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Greetings sir, you must be Lyndon. My name is Andrew, I am prepared to battle you. I will not be using my vicious rhyme in this description but I will against you. Whoever you are, I must ask you--please change your profile image to that of Lyndon Johnson's. No vulgarity is allowed, no curses, cusses or swears. Nothing that would pull me by my hairs. You can use your best to be mean, but you obviously can't be the best I've ever seen.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Epic-Rap-Battles-of-History.-Andrew-Johnson-VS.-Lyndon-Johnson./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-05T17:59:18-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Should marijuana be legalized?</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-marijuana-be-legalized/15/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) This debate topic will be on whether or not cannabis for consenting adults should be made legal.

I will be arguing the pro side while my opponent will be arguing against it.

===ARGUMENTS===

1.

Cannabis use is not unhealthy:

Not one university or or medical facility has ever recorded a single death directly attributed to marijuana. Tobacco on the other hand has an average of 443,000 deaths a year, and alcohol has an average of 80,000 deaths a year. Both drugs however are legal.

In order to get a lethal dose of delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, you would have to smoke around 15,000 joints in 20 minutes.

Marijuana does not kill brain cells. In fact recent studies show that marijuana actually stimulate brain cell growth.

Smoking can be harmful because of the properties of smoke, not as a result of anything in the cannabis plant. However it does not need to be smoked, it can be inhaled through a vaporizer.

2.

Marijuana is not addictive.

</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-marijuana-be-legalized/15/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-04-25T12:05:11-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>President Obama is mostly at fault for the 17 trillion dollar debt.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/President-Obama-is-mostly-at-fault-for-the-17-trillion-dollar-debt./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) Although Barack Obama has not been president while a majority of the debt was compiled, he has had four years to lower it, and he has not. He also added about seven trillion to the debt. Whether you think that we should raise taxes, cut spending, or a combination of the two, you should realize that the president had a super majority for his first two years in office. He could have done anything his heart desired, and he refused to lower the debt. He is not totally at fault, but he is mostly to blame.</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/President-Obama-is-mostly-at-fault-for-the-17-trillion-dollar-debt./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-04T14:37:36-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The government department named &quot;The Department of Defense&quot; is misleading and wrongly named.</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-government-department-named-The-Department-of-Defense-is-misleading-and-wrongly-named./1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) The Department of Defense, to a logical person, means that one is defending themselves from an attacker. It does not mean you are fighting war, attacking, or trying to make peace. It means you are defending yourself from invaders. Our troops are in nearly 150 countries (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.military.troops/)!

We have invaded many countries since the name change, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan... (and who knows how many secret operations went on). 

Take Iraq or Afghanistan for example, we invaded their lands, killed their civilians, and brought their &quot;criminals&quot; to justice. How is that a defensive maneuver? That is an act of aggression! No wonder why so many people over there hate us; its cause we are ATTACKING THEM!

Now I know you are going to say, &quot;well they attacked us first.&quot; &quot;So this is just us defending ourselves.&quot;
-Cool, maybe they did. But we aren't defending ourselves when we fly our troops halfway around th</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/The-government-department-named-The-Department-of-Defense-is-misleading-and-wrongly-named./1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-05-09T18:10:14-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama</title>
<link>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ronald-Reagan-was-a-Better-President-than-Barack-Obama/1/</link>
<description>(Post Voting Period) &lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;Debate&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;I am arguing that President Ronald Wilson&amp;nbsp;Reagan was a better president than the current president, Barack Hussein Obama. My opponent must argue that President Obama has been a better president than President Reagan was.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;text-decoration: underline;&quot;&gt;Rules&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;Round 1 for introduction.&lt;br /&gt;No trolling and no semantics.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<comments>http://www.debate.org/debates/Ronald-Reagan-was-a-Better-President-than-Barack-Obama/1/comments/</comments>
<pubDate>2013-03-26T22:52:34-08:00</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
