http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&post=true Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2009-11-20T15:29:48-08:00 2009-11-20T15:29:48-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-While-debating-my-opponent-cannot-lose-The-Game./1/ (Post Voting Period) We will be debating this topic free style which means any system of debate from conventional to unconventional are welcome so long as each case is refuted in the manner suiting the style they have chosen. Semantics arguments are not allowed and are subject to dismissal by the judging populous. Semantics arguments include any attacks or kritiks on the resolution or any of the rules to follow. Here is my framework, which is not subject to interpretation, should be taken literally, and are not up for negotiation: 1)My opponent must know what the Internet meme "The Game" is. If my opponent is arguing on any other game (ie Clue, Monopoly, strip poker) my opponent forfeits the debate and you must vote CON. 2) If my opponent wishes to win any votes on this debate, my opponent must not mention The Game in any manner or power of suggestion (ie "I don't know what we're playing here and I have never known" is not acceptable. It is a reference to The Game.) 3) My opp http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-While-debating-my-opponent-cannot-lose-The-Game./1/comments/ 2009-10-22T20:10:51-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Cookie-Monster-is-the-bomb./1/ (Post Voting Period) Name a better Sesame Street character. RULES: These shall forever be known as 'The Radioactivepotatoman Rules" 1. No seriousness. 2. No Walls of text 3. This is NOT a serious debate. 4. You do not talk about Fight Club. 5. You do NOT talk about Fight Club. 6. There are no rules. 7. Rule number 6 is not a real rule. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Cookie-Monster-is-the-bomb./1/comments/ 2009-11-11T11:39:27-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-death-Penalty-should-still-stand./1/ (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? http://www.debate.org/debates/The-death-Penalty-should-still-stand./1/comments/ 2009-11-07T15:15:14-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Public-health-concerns-justify-compulsory-immunization/5/ (Post Voting Period) I will negate the resolution. Some things my not apply to todays debate becuase I debate this case at tournaments. LD AC, NC, AR, NR, AR2! Let's begin "Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all." Edmund Burke an English philosopher (1797) once said this. Compulsory immunizations take away the justice in society, taking this justice away is like not having it at all. Taking away justice takes away a person's individual rights. If I do not agree with the fact that the vaccine may or may not cure me, then why should I be forced to get it? This goes against the unalienable rights of any person in the world in our individual right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore I negate today's resolution Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. My value for this round is justice, moral rightfulness or lawfulness and my cri http://www.debate.org/debates/Public-health-concerns-justify-compulsory-immunization/5/comments/ 2009-11-10T16:04:10-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/TOC-Round-2-Murder-is-in-general-just./1/ (Post Voting Period) Murder - the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) In general - for the most part (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20general) Just - acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/just) I thank my opponent for coming up with this topic for debating for the Tournament of Champions. As he will have five rounds to argue while I have four, he shall have the burden of proof. Good luck! Note that I will not be arguing that breaking the law is always bad, but rather that breaking the morals behind them is bad. http://www.debate.org/debates/TOC-Round-2-Murder-is-in-general-just./1/comments/ 2009-10-07T19:57:58-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/ (Post Voting Period) Let's deal with some definitions; 'This Government' is herein defined as the United States of America, for the sake of simplicity. 'Nationalize' should be recognized as a buy-out of AT&T and Comcast, which accounts for 30% of the U.S market for internet service providers. Entrance to the market should not be restricted and no new regulations shall be put on the rest of the ISPs (internet service providers) in the market. I would suggest, though not require, that my opponent begin with a constructive argument for their case and leave the deconstruction for the next 3 rounds. ----- Friends, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The world's most vital technology is at risk. Our national dialog, our freedom of information and our children are at risk. On one side, the large internet service providers are rallying for a new system to government the internet, where an average person must pay for a subscription model to access the internet. Much in the sam http://www.debate.org/debates/Be-It-Resolved-That-The-Goverment-Should-Nationalize-the-Internet./1/comments/ 2009-10-29T08:44:32-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Public-Schools-Should-Allow-Texting-In-Classrooms/1/ (Post Voting Period) Rules: 1. Nothing to serious 2. Avoid text walls (don't type much) 3. Keep everything simple 4. Leave out a value and criterion 5. Have Fun! And now starting with my arguments: Texting can disrupt class. Therefore, I negate the resolution: RESOLVED: Public Schools Should Allow Texting in Classrooms I. Texting can distract the student -If the student is texting in class while the teacher is teaching, the student cannot comprehend what is being taught. II. Texting can distract other classmates -While texting, classmates can hear the phone vibrate, be distracted when the student pushes buttons, and finally: tune out the teacher and not accept any of the teachings. I will post more once someone accepts this debate: Thank you & Good luck! http://www.debate.org/debates/Public-Schools-Should-Allow-Texting-In-Classrooms/1/comments/ 2009-11-13T11:58:47-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Jesus-of-History-Probably-Existed-D/1/ (Post Voting Period) Introduction: I will make my case and address the most common arguments presented by the mythological Jesus camp. The Historicity of Jesus as reported by extrabiblical sources, biblical sources, and basic logic: The Case of Tacitus: 1. Tacitus was an early Roman historian who wrote early in the 2nd century. In his writings we have a reference to Jesus as the founder of Christianity and his being crucified under the thumb of Pontius Pilate. Unfortunately much of Tacitus' work has been lost, including portions from 29-32 AD – an area which would have included Jesus' trial had he recorded it (1). The Tacitus quote is as follows: "Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Jesus-of-History-Probably-Existed-D/1/comments/ 2009-10-24T19:24:54-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Only-you-can-prevent-wildfires./1/ (Post Voting Period) Ah, the infamous Smokey the Bear and his illogical and unrealistic expectations. Nary an American born citizen exists who cannot recall from memory the baritone plea, "Only you can prevent forest fires." As though this unreasonable expectation weren't enough, his current motto is now, "Only you can prevent wildfires." It's not enough that you are responsible to save the forest, but the grasslands are your sole responsibility as well. I am firmly against Smokey's motto. I disagree that only you can prevent wildfires. No, I more than disagree. I assert that it is absolutely impossible. 1. Smokey's motto is logically incoherent. only - adj. 1. Alone in kind or class; sole: an only child; the only one left. 2. Standing alone by reason of superiority or excellence. [1] you - pron. 1. Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed: I'll lend you the book. You shouldn't work so hard. See Regional Notes at you-all, you-uns. 2. Used to refer to an indefini http://www.debate.org/debates/Only-you-can-prevent-wildfires./1/comments/ 2009-09-19T11:20:11-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/South-Park-is-better-than-Family-guy/1/ (Post Voting Period) I strongly affirm that the television show, South Park is a better show than Family Guy. First Contention: south Park is has more episodes and seasons than family guy. family guy is currently showing the 8th season while southpark is showing the 13th. south park is able to use current events and turn them into a parody therefor more teenagers and adults watch the show. the seasons may not end because south park makes fun of current events. examples of this would be the episode about last night, which makes fun of the obama election, or the new episode on wrestling. that makes fun of WWE. Second Contention: there are more viewers for south park than family guy. because more people watch south park, more people talk about it. i just recently started watching south park because almost everyone in my school talks about it. third contention: south park has more games and movies than family guy. south park can be played on the iphone, xbox 360 and much mo http://www.debate.org/debates/South-Park-is-better-than-Family-guy/1/comments/ 2009-11-01T17:39:19-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Failed-nations-are-a-greater-threat-to-the-U.S.-than-stable-nations/1/ (Post Voting Period) Skip the first round by placing a single alphanumeric. We'll each get a position and 2 rebuttals. http://www.debate.org/debates/Failed-nations-are-a-greater-threat-to-the-U.S.-than-stable-nations/1/comments/ 2009-10-30T14:55:45-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Bible-contains-errors-and-contradictions-and-it-can-therefore-not-be-the-word-of-God/1/ (Post Voting Period) Many Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible according to them is perfect because it comes from God. However, many people have claimed that many verses are contradictory to each other, e.g. one giving a specific number of Solomon's stalls, other one giving another number, yet they are telling the same story. Many people have also claimed that the Bible contains scientific errors. I have spent a lot of time reading those verses in context, and I have found out that they are talking about the same things at the same time, which means that they are contradictory to each other. Many verses that contain scientific errors seem to be free of errors when reading the English translation, or the translation in many other language besides Hebrew and Greek, but when reading the translation of some words in Hebrew, it is clear that there are errors. It would be more understandable if a verse from the Old Testament was contradictory to a verse in t http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Bible-contains-errors-and-contradictions-and-it-can-therefore-not-be-the-word-of-God/1/comments/ 2009-10-17T14:13:07-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-patriots-will-win-the-game-tomorrow-agianst-the-colt/1/ (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. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-patriots-will-win-the-game-tomorrow-agianst-the-colt/1/comments/ 2009-11-15T10:47:05-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Queen-Elizabeth-II-could-out-debate-anybody-on-this-site./1/ (Post Voting Period) Greetings Tmhustler! Good luck, have fun and keep 'er clean. :D I am going to argue that Queen Elizabeth II could trounce anybody on this website very easily. She possesses a long history of politics. The Queen is old and wisened. Her life experiences outnumber those of any member here. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 on this site are not older than 25, correct? Wise is our own eyes, and perhaps possessing some ability to debate, but even so this is not even a professional debate club. Rather, one presents an argument and peers decide on which they like better. Sometimes voters are biased and vote in support of one or the other simply because they like one debater over the other or agree with the topic. However, the Queen has seen over fourty years of Parliament, observing political debates, Parliamentary gains, political jockeying etc. She's been around while some of the most famous Prime Ministers of all time have presided. She personally knew Winston Churchill, an http://www.debate.org/debates/Queen-Elizabeth-II-could-out-debate-anybody-on-this-site./1/comments/ 2009-11-03T00:21:12-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Public-health-concerns-justify-compulsory-immunizations./1/ (Post Voting Period) This is the LD topic and I would like to do an LD style debate. Before I begin I would like to offer the following definitions. According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary justify is to prove or show to be just, right or reasonable. Just is to be in conformity with what is morally upright or good. According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary compulsory is to be required; mandatory. Public health, according to medterms.com, is medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. Also according to Random House Unabridged Dictionary concern is to relate to; be connected with. My value is morality. Morality is to be in good or right conduct. The resolution is asking whether compulsory immunizations are justifiable which as stated in the definitions mean are they moral. Thus morality should be the value for this round. My criterion is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that the morality of an action is determined by how it affects uti http://www.debate.org/debates/Public-health-concerns-justify-compulsory-immunizations./1/comments/ 2009-10-15T11:29:07-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Fascism-is-on-the-Rise-in-the-United-States/1/ (Post Voting Period) I do not mean the Democrats social welfare reforms by fascism. This is an example of projection from the right, which has at its most extreme core a proto-fascism which is rising and poses real danger to liberty in the United States, and from there quite possibly our entire world. Fascism is defined by one scholar as "palingenetic ultra-nationalist populism." Palingenesis is the concept of rebirth, a synonym for Christian baptism. This is revivalist, which fits with Christian fundamentalism in the United States. To a large extent much of the American Christian right fits this description. Specifically, the movement known as Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism, with ideas that are channeled to many other people in the overall conservative, Christian, fundamentalist, evangelical movements, while for many are unaware of their full scope, only the underlying agreement they share. Historically fascist movements have been extremely militaristic, racist, viol http://www.debate.org/debates/Fascism-is-on-the-Rise-in-the-United-States/1/comments/ 2009-11-06T16:17:24-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-Reason-to-be-Good/1/ (Post Voting Period) I am arguing that there is no ultimate reason behind morality like there is behind things of science. Thus, I am also assuming that there are no moral truths, or no a priori morality, so no guideline or ideal to which we might compare ourselves. So take note, I don't mean that there IS a reason to be BAD, I just titled the debate to imply a hopeless lack of morality in our world, or reason for morality, rather. "Good"--describing action or deliberation that is compassionate or done towards the well being of another (please don't try to find loopholes in this definition and make it into a semantics argument where you can trick me into losing. Only point out a semantical issue if you deem it completely necessary to your understanding of what I'm trying to convey with this definition. Burden of Proof: The BoP lies on the one who says there IS a reason to be good, or that there IS a higher, objective morality. Sidenote: I'm not doing this because I'm s http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-Reason-to-be-Good/1/comments/ 2009-10-28T18:44:43-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-is-a-complete-fabrication-without-a-shred-of-evidence/1/ (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 http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-is-a-complete-fabrication-without-a-shred-of-evidence/1/comments/ 2009-07-07T08:59:59-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Are-there-Actually-Rules-of-War/1/ (Post Voting Period) Greetings to my opponent. :D Good luck, have fun and keep it clean. This argument regards the controversies of war. We see many atrocities occur, and the question is asked, do rules of war actually exist? In this debate, I am going to make a case that conventional soldiers and armies do generally fight according to the rules. The 'rules of war' do exist, whether or not they are actually written or merely an unspoken agreement. Though they may not be followed often, especially in the unconventional war against terrorism, they do exist. The Geneva Conventions largely regulate actions of war, as do the Hague Conventions, . http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html Stay classy http://www.debate.org/debates/Are-there-Actually-Rules-of-War/1/comments/ 2009-11-12T11:49:59-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Illegal-Aliens-are-not-helping-the-USA/1/ (Post Voting Period) I do not believe that illegal aliens are help the United States. Does anyone oppose me? http://www.debate.org/debates/Illegal-Aliens-are-not-helping-the-USA/1/comments/ 2009-11-12T09:58:30-08:00