Debate.org: Popular Debates

Favourite/Best Villain

2012-04-28T07:54:18-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Hi! This is not actually a debate per se, it's more of pro making his argument of who his best villain is and why? (Comics, TV-Shows, Films, Video-Games, Anime etc.). It's for a school project, I'm going to make a list of favorite villains (I choose subject myself) and I'm just wondering what someone who knows a thing or two about this on this site thinks. You can also tell about more than one villain... Well it's only one round so just tell me who you think... I'm new at this site so please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong, and excuse my english, It's not my native language, hope you get the whole picture anyways. You don't have to vote, because I'm not going to debate against pro at all. Thanks :)

Transgender: right or wrong?

2012-02-27T01:20:36-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

I am Pro, supporting the right to transgender

If you except this challenge then you will be Con: arguing that transgender is wrong.

good luck, CON

You just trumped.

2013-02-26T18:33:02-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Ewww did you just trump?

Definitions:
Trump - To fart
Fart - To expel intestinal gas through the anus; break wind. [1]

Sources:
[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fart

Resolved: I hate you.

2012-03-30T20:09:53-08:00

(Post Voting Period) "You" in this instance is whoever accepts the debate. I look forward to being persuaded into hating you, whoever you may be. I hope you find the fact that I made it a "Resolved:" as funny as I do. First round is acceptance.

Obama did in fact say that the 2007 national championship for most beef consumed is

2013-05-16T11:00:32-08:00

(Post Voting Period) ... one of the best tournaments ever. Obama said that he will join this tournament again in the future. However, I have been debated on this subject before. Not a lot of people agree with me that Obama does in fact say that this is the best tournament ever.

Zionist-Jewish Networks Should Be Considered as Some of the Most Probable Perpetrators of 9/11

2013-05-09T07:20:33-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center, the beneficiaries of 9/11, and other issues surrounding this event have demonstrated, clearly, the overwhelming flaws contained within the "official narrative". A much more plausible theory is that Zionist and Zionist-Jewish networks, who were directly involved in the companies and institutions surrounding nearly every major aspect of 9/11, were probably involved in the attacks in order to bring US troops into war against Israel's enemies in the Middle East. Some very significant elements of this theory are addressed in the following list: http://instablogg.com/AqeJcvb My opponent must demonstrate that it is, at least, highly unlikely for Israel and subordinate Zionist networks to have had any major role in the attacks. Rules: - Standard debate conventions apply.

Iron Man 3 is the best Iron Man movie ever

2013-05-08T08:46:46-08:00

(Post Voting Period) I have seen Iron Man 3 and it is the best I have seen so far

Evolution is a fact

2013-04-22T14:04:08-08:00

(Post Voting Period) No adding new arguments in later rounds No word games. No playing with semantics. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean.

from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

2013-04-15T23:34:24-08:00

(Post Voting Period) n this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's

the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

2013-04-14T04:29:43-08:00

The Ontological Argument proves that God exists!

2013-03-30T13:35:06-08:00

(Post Voting Period) My opponent takes the position that the Ontological Argument is proof for the existence of God and assumes the burden of proof. I will assume the Con position. Rounds will work as follows: R1. Acceptance and state Ontological Argument. R2. Arguments and rebuttals. R3. Arguments and rebuttals. R4. Rebuttals and conclusion.

Dose God Exist

2013-03-23T14:51:23-08:00

(Post Voting Period) I have broken down my argument into three parts. One Improbability, two Stupid design, three the problome of evil. Number one improbability: There is no evidience for God, one could give you alot of semi evidence such as the cosmogical argument but there is no physical evidence. Not only is there no evidence for God but it is highly improbable that such a being exists. Think about it someone that is so complex that he can hear all of our prayres at once and read our thoughts ect, has to be much more complex than us therefor making his existence very improbable. Complex beings only come from evolution, complex beings do not simply always exist. Number two Stupid Design: Most spots in the universe would kill life instintly, pepole say well the forces of nature are just right for life thats just stupid go look at the volume of the universe where you can't live. Most planet orbits are unstable, the star formation is inefficent, we are on a one way expanding

Radiometric Dating is not reliable

2013-03-03T22:09:55-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

In this debate, pro should provide evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable, while I try to refute them. BOP is on pro.

Pro should start on the first round and only post a conclusion in the last round.

The "conclusion" for this debate is how you would vote if you were a reader.

Definitions:

"Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates"- Wikipedia[1]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

The Okoboji debate team, has a mean coach amd mean debators

2013-01-21T19:33:06-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Many debtors on their team are rude and arrogant, and their coach was a jerk when his team lost in octos against Heelan.

I will not contradict myself

2012-12-27T10:14:21-08:00

(Post Voting Period) I will not contradict myself on matters of politics, accepting this the Con accepts only political contradictions qualify, as such no semantics can be played such as interchangeably using Libertarian and libertarian, however claiming to be one and then contradicting that by claim very un-libertarianistic claims(such as supporting drug war AND nationalized healthcare)

does science make babies gay?

2012-11-05T09:09:50-08:00

(Post Voting Period) yes science is an anti religious act there for it makes babies gay

This statement is false: Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chi

2012-10-03T00:59:25-08:00

(Post Voting Period) I will be attempting to show that the statement, "Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures."", contained in medic0506's forum signature is factually incorrect. As he has refused to admit to this in the forums. Well either he can refuse this debate, admiting that he keeps that there knowing it is not the truth, or he can debate me on it. Well medic? I'v been on this site for a couple weeks now, after spending a bit of time in the forum I'v seen alot of people say you won't defend most of what you say. Is it true or will you defend your claims?

Is abortion morally justified and should it be legal?

2012-09-17T13:28:55-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Rules

1. No semantics.
2. Nothing about religion or God will be discussed
3. Pro in Round 1 will just say they're accepting the debate and rules.
4. Arguments will start in round 2.

Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!

2012-09-07T23:37:26-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

My opponent can define anything except neutral agnosticism.

If you disagree with my definition. do not try to debate it in comments. Do not try to ppose it in round 1. Just do not accept the debate.

Neutral agnosticism: The theory that no degree of certainty, especially regarding God, can be achieved without physical evidence.

Thank you to my opponent. You shall debate all beliefs other than neutral agnosticism. That is end of it all. Do the hulahoop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man Can't Know Theistic Truths

2012-08-25T00:12:13-08:00

(Post Voting Period) My first debate will be a quick one since it's more of a question. My only argument is this, 1) If God is all knowing, then only he can know of himself 2) Mankind are not all knowing 3) Therefore, Man can't know theistic truths Support for 1: In order to know anything about a being which knows all, we must be within that very same epistemic position, but if no other being shares such a position with God, then ultimately God is unknowable. Support for 2: Humans stand in very limited epistemic positions, we barely know calculus on a given day! So why think we would comprehend a being which calculates the most minuscule things? Thanks to anyone who can help me out with this argument, I'd like to formulate it better but this is the mere beginning.