http://www.debate.org/debates/?order=1&sort=&category=Politics Customize this RSS feed by going to http://www.debate.org/rss/ en-us 2010-09-05T20:27:56-08:00 2010-09-05T20:27:56-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Anarchism-is-More-Humanitarian-than-State-Planning/1/ (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, http://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Anarchism-is-More-Humanitarian-than-State-Planning/1/comments/ 2010-09-04T16:01:32-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Intellectual-Property/1/ (Debating Period) My position is that Intellectual Property should be abolished. I accept the burden of proof for this debate. Definitions: Intellectual Property- Copyrights and patents. Abolished- IP should no longer be granted legal recognition. That is, no one should be able to sue for copyright or patent infringement. First round is for definitions and for each side to state their position. The next three rounds are debate. Please only accept this debate if you intend to finish every round. http://www.debate.org/debates/Intellectual-Property/1/comments/ 2010-09-04T22:04:14-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-unconstitutional-to-protest-mosques-being-built-anywhere-in-the-U.S./2/ (Voting Period) do to spam the original debate was ruined. So i am challenging it's creator. i accept the definition provided in the original debate Unconstitutional-contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution [1] Mosque- a Muslim temple, or place of public worship [2] given that pros assertion is "it is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the United States" (again from the previous attempt http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-unconstitutional-to-protest-mosques-being-built-anywhere-in-the-U.S./1/ ) my position is that it is constitutional to protest the building of a mosque. the key word here is protest, which is clearly protected by the first amendment, as freedom of speech. http://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-unconstitutional-to-protest-mosques-being-built-anywhere-in-the-U.S./2/comments/ 2010-09-05T16:10:42-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-allow-the-limited-use-of-torture./1/ (Voting Period) The limited use of torture should be permitted in the United States in order to safeguard the wellbeing of the general public. This policy should be put in place because torture can be both an effective means of acquiring information, and it can be reasonably justified in some circumstances. These circumstances may include any case where tremendous amounts of human wellbeing are placed in jeopardy. Undoubtedly, some may be worried that allowing this policy would pave the way for all sorts of unnecessary human rights violations. But ultimately, this is not the case; torture can be conducted with moral justification and in a way that can be reconciled with the pursuits of a civil society. C1: Torture can be a feasible means of gathering information. Despite what many people may believe, there is ample evidence to suggest that torture can be an effective means of gathering information. Consider, for example, the French military's use of torture in Algeria. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-allow-the-limited-use-of-torture./1/comments/ 2010-08-29T02:01:16-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/If-war-is-murder-than-it-should-be-legal-for-anyone-to-murder-anyone./1/ (Voting Period) I would like to deeply express my thanks to lovelife for excepting this debate. I hope this is both a fun and educational experience for both of us. Full resolution: Assuming war is murder, then it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone. ==================== Definitions: WAR: A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. (1) MURDER: According to this debate, the act of killing another human being and any scenario. (2) LEGAL: Permitted by the law. (3) ==================== My opponent lovelife has said in another thread that war is Murder. I replied that if war is in fact murder, than murder is necessary. She responded with: "Then it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone, not just because they live in a certain place or dressed a certain way." (4) Lovelife also agreed that she would be willing to debate this topic for me. Obviously this debat http://www.debate.org/debates/If-war-is-murder-than-it-should-be-legal-for-anyone-to-murder-anyone./1/comments/ 2010-09-01T21:11:43-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/when-in-conflict-the-us-should-prioritze-global-poverty-reduction-over-enviromental-protection./1/ (Debating Period) Our president is currently trying to find alternative energys for the earth. This is great and all but i believe that we must prioritze reducing poverty because the people who are in trouble with no food and water don't care about the enviroment because they are the ones who eat from the trash and drink from a pond. so if we get these people that are in poverty to house them and feed them maybe they will start helping out the enviroment in the long run so this debate can be leaned toward either side but i choose prioritizing poverty reduction. http://www.debate.org/debates/when-in-conflict-the-us-should-prioritze-global-poverty-reduction-over-enviromental-protection./1/comments/ 2010-09-03T21:26:09-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Death-Penalty/37/ (Voting Period) This is my first debate here, so hopefully my opponent will go easy on me. ;) The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been a punishment for crime for millennia. Over the years, its use has been expanded and retracted. Perhaps the first polity to abolish the death penalty was the religion of Judaism, which, as long as 2000 years ago, created dozens of obstacles to make the punishment impossible to apply, for all intents and purposes. It was determined that only God had the right to take life away. Today, however, dozens of countries (mainly in Europe and parts of the United States) have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Other countries keep it on the books for certain crimes, usually murder, rape, drug trafficking, treason, espionage, and desertion, at a minimum. There are many arguments against the death penalty, usually revolving around whether society has the right to take away life, appropriateness of the punishment, and t http://www.debate.org/debates/Death-Penalty/37/comments/ 2010-08-28T13:32:55-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants/1/ (Voting Period) Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution on July 9th, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This has been interpreted to give "birthright citizenship" to anyone born in the United States, except for the children of diplomats and Native Americans. The main reason for dispute is due to the fact that many illegal immigrants travel to the United States and give birth. I am XStrikeX and I am arguing that the 14 amendment of birthright citizenship should be ended. Here are my arguments. 1. Birthright citizenship is offensive to legitimate immigrants. When a person desperately wants to come to America, and must wait in line, or who was born in another country a week or a month before mo http://www.debate.org/debates/Birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants/1/comments/ 2010-08-26T11:44:53-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Tobacco-smoking-should-be-banned-to-a-necessary-extent/1/ (Post Voting Period) I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It's the one topic that we aren't listed as agreeing on in our ‘Big Issues', so we thought it would be fun to debate this topic and see if we could My resolution needs a little explaining. I believe tobacco smoking should be banned to whatever extent is necessary. This would not include a person smoking in the privacy of their own home and not in the presence of children or anyone not wishing to be exposed to the smoke. Simply put, the ban I propose makes tobacco smoking illegal around children or anyone who does not wish to be smoked around. Con's argument may focus on particulars, I don't require that she argue for 100% legalization including around infants or anything. So long as, by and large, tobacco legalization is being argued for. Rules: 1. The first round will be used to agree to the rules and definitions. If there are any disagreements on either, they can be discussed in the Comments section b http://www.debate.org/debates/Tobacco-smoking-should-be-banned-to-a-necessary-extent/1/comments/ 2010-08-18T19:52:38-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/War-On-Terror/6/ (Voting Period) I would like to begin this argument by saying that I fully understand why people are against the war in the middle east. I agree that this war has been going on for far too long now and I'm am going to make this short but sweet. A lot of American's want Obama to pull out all of the troops overseas, but I don't think these people understand how far we have come since that horrible day in 2001. Bush may have made mistakes, but that's a whole other debate, but to be honest, this situation goes all the way back to Clinton, if not further. I am not a Bush fan, but I will say that he has had it rough, some he deserved, some he didn't. If I haven't made my point clear yet, let me make it more direct. We have lost way too many brave man, way too many resources, way too much many over these years that it would be a shame for it to go to waste. Obama says that "Project Iraqi Freedom" is accomplished and that troops will be being pulled out of Iraq within the next year, b http://www.debate.org/debates/War-On-Terror/6/comments/ 2010-08-26T18:47:51-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Drugs-should-be-decriminalized/1/ (Voting Period) Drugs are bad. I am very proud to say that I have never so much as tried any recreational drugs. I see no compelling reason as to why I should try any recreational drugs. I care too much about my health. Alcohol is bad. I am very proud to say that I have never dome more than take a few sips of alcohol. I see no compelling reason as to why I should drink alcohol. I care too much about my health. They tried outlawing alcohol once. It didn't work very well. People made their own alcohol and it caused huge amounts of crime. In fact, prohibition was so unsuccessful and counterproductive that it was repealed just 13 years later. Prohibition was clearly a mistake. That's fine. Mistakes help us move forward. Or do they? We've now been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades. People still do drugs. As of 2004, nearly 20% of American prisoners are in prison on drug charges [1]. This tells us a few things, which include the fact that the war on drugs has hardly bee http://www.debate.org/debates/Drugs-should-be-decriminalized/1/comments/ 2010-08-04T08:51:00-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-States-ought-not-possess-nuclear-weapons./1/ (Voting Period) This is the debate topic for September/October. I thank my opponent ahead of time for what I know will be a fun and challenging debate. :-) I'd like to start off by defining some words and phrases. "States", as defined by Merriam Webster, is a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially one that is sovereign. According to Patricia Greenspan, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maryland, "ought not" means a moral obligation to not do something. Saying "ought not" implies a specific reason not to do something. Weapons of mass destruction that are powered by nuclear reaction. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com defines "nuclear weapons" as types of nuclear weapons that include atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, fission bombs, and fusion bombs. The core value I uphold is that of Peace. Benjamin Franklin, a well-known political theorist, said about peace, "There was never a good war, or a bad peace." I http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-States-ought-not-possess-nuclear-weapons./1/comments/ 2010-08-25T01:20:54-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Hitler-was-NOT-an-Atheist-and-Favored-Christian-Ideolgy./1/ (Post Voting Period) The proposition on offer is that Hitler was not and atheist and favored Christian ideologies. This debate stems from a discussion in the forums where Fatihah has made several claims that Hitler was an atheist, such as: >> "Hitler, who's ideology is identical to yours, atheism, brought massive homicides to the people." >> "Even many atheists agree that Hitler was an atheist." >> "Hitler was an atheist. Deal with it." >> "You present the words of Hitler himself and claim it to be proof thar Hitler is a christian. That's ridiculous. You suggest that a man who lied and manipulated people to get into power, then once in power, commences to bring one of the worst genocides in human history is a truthful person." >> "The fool is the one who suggests that a mass murderer is a truthteller. The fool is the one who says that a man who lied and manipulated the people to get into power is a truthteller. Your logic is foolish and any reasonable person can see http://www.debate.org/debates/Hitler-was-NOT-an-Atheist-and-Favored-Christian-Ideolgy./1/comments/ 2010-07-26T06:39:00-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Women-on-US-submarines/1/ (Voting Period) I will preface this debate with two facts: this is my first debate on this site, and I am a former submarine officer, having served for 3 years on a submarine stationed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. I think the Navy is making a mistake in allowing women to serve on submarines, but perhaps someone can change my mind http://www.debate.org/debates/Women-on-US-submarines/1/comments/ 2010-06-15T08:32:35-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Sweatshops-are-ethical/1/ (Post Voting Period) I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate. Contention 1: It improves lives Sweatshops don't cause harm. They provide better job options than the average job in these third-world countries [1]. They are also voluntary contracts between the employer and the employee. Nobody is forcing them to take these jobs. Now, the source mentions a possiblity of the Chinese government forcing people to work in sweatshops. If this is true, then these are not the core idea of sweatshops, and that would have more to do with communism. Any sweatshops that involve physical force to get people to work are to be ignored by this debate. I believe that this is all I need for now. [1] http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369 http://www.debate.org/debates/Sweatshops-are-ethical/1/comments/ 2010-07-07T22:26:21-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Minimum-wage-laws-are-inherently-self-defeating-and-should-be-eliminated-immediately/1/ (Voting Period) This debate will focus on the social and economic ramifications of minimum wage laws. My position is essentially that it (a) is self-defeating, (b) causes social deterioration, and (c) makes all of society poorer. Additionally, empirical studies have shown mixed results: Neumark and Wascher's study concluded that minimum wage laws yield negative results, while and Card and Krueger's study concluded that minimum wage laws actually elevate employment. The mixed results are to be expected considering the inherent difficulty in statistically measuring and analyzing economic phenomena (cannot hold the ceteris paribus condition). Thus, the question must be approached from a purely logical point of view, that is, if you accept deductive reasoning as a reliable method towards the acquisition of truth. 1) The market attempts to establish equilibrium or market clearing prices, that is, prices which allocate resources towards their most urgent uses and maximize social http://www.debate.org/debates/Minimum-wage-laws-are-inherently-self-defeating-and-should-be-eliminated-immediately/1/comments/ 2010-08-23T16:02:09-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Tax-cuts-are-based-on-a-politically-unsound-philosophy-which-has-never-worked-in-history./1/ (Post Voting Period) Disclaimer: While I don't necessarily agree with outrageous spending, I must state that I agree with cutting taxes even less. There are two approaches to government spending that dominate modern policy: cutting taxes and tax-and-spend. They seem to accomplish the same goal in theory; that is, a balanced budget is the end result. However, in practice, there is one fatal flaw in the former approach. That flaw is the subject of the essay. Ideally, a conservative approach to government couples low taxation and low spending. The idea is that, by lowering the burden on small businesses and corporations, those companies will be able to hire more people whom also pay taxes, meaning that the government gets more money anyway. This differs from a liberal approach, whereby high taxation gives the federal government more money to help those whom cannot help themselves. Here is an example to illustrate both approaches: A lawyer makes $300,000 a year. At a 30% incom http://www.debate.org/debates/Tax-cuts-are-based-on-a-politically-unsound-philosophy-which-has-never-worked-in-history./1/comments/ 2010-07-18T10:24:37-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/America-is-now-and-has-historically-been-imperialist./1/ (Post Voting Period) RESOLUTION America is now, and has historically been, imperialist. RULES Acceptance of rules/definitions and any relevant clarifications will be offered in Round 1. Arguments will continue from there. Excessive use of semantics is forfeiture, I'll let the readers decide what is excessive. CLARIFICATIONS http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialist Imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" America refers to the United States of America from the beginnings of the American Revolution to the present day. It refers to the nation as a whole, including culture, government, and/or people. By historically I mean how the U.S. has been during this time. I look forward to the debate. http://www.debate.org/debates/America-is-now-and-has-historically-been-imperialist./1/comments/ 2010-08-08T08:17:29-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Obama-Care-bill-should-NOT-have-been-passed/1/ (Post Voting Period) I would like to say a few words here before starting my opening argument. I respectfully request that only an American Citizen please join this debate on the 'con' side. I have nothing against view points from other countries on health care, but with a bill where American tax dollars are being used, I find it to be a more honest debate between two citizens directly effected. If I could have, I would have voted No to this bill and look forward to debating with someone who would have voted yes. (http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Health-care-bill-HR-3200-read-it-online-now) Thank you. On to the topic: My contention is that the health care system in America is and has been broken for quite some time now. It is an important topic but not more important than our economy, jobs, etc. This bill was very politically motivated and rushed though without getting all the facts ahead of time. It is a simple case of throwing money after http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Obama-Care-bill-should-NOT-have-been-passed/1/comments/ 2010-04-27T13:21:38-08:00 http://www.debate.org/debates/Children-need-to-be-protected-from-the-gays-and-their-homosexual-agenda./1/ (Voting Period) The Actual Resolution: Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children since this is a policy that would be in the best interests of children, families, and society as a whole. Further, arbitrarily denying certain couples the ability to adopt children because of their sexual orientation is simply unacceptably detrimental to the aims of a civil society, and it is a position that is perpetuated by nothing other than flagrant discrimination. Of course, people's ignorance plays a large role in this matter. Some people have come to believe – almost invariably on bad evidence – that there is something fundamentally wrong with the minds of gay people. It's likely that many factors play into this sort of thinking, however, the point remains; many of the views people have about gays are simply not based on science, reason or empirical data. While some scientists may disagree about particular aspects of certain t http://www.debate.org/debates/Children-need-to-be-protected-from-the-gays-and-their-homosexual-agenda./1/comments/ 2010-05-25T12:08:57-08:00