index,arg_id,argsme_id,argument,topic,stance,topic_in_argsme
8231,arg_3_623,cfd44ad1-2019-04-19T12:46:20Z-00013-000,"Forced marriages are not supported theologically by any of the major religions. Whilst different religions may disagree on the nature of marriage and its formation, all are agreed that some level of consent is necessary. Forced marriage is no more than a barbaric tribal custom which has no place in a modern society ",We should abandon marriage,1,religion does not support forced marriage
3424,arg_5_585,d1a9b345-2019-04-18T18:44:20Z-00002-000,"
Viewers keep in mind I will first be finishing addressing my opponents round 2 rebuttal.
Defense: C.4, Jury less likely to condemn. I would like some evidence that the jury are able to choose the sentence of the criminal, because I've been searching for it but can't find it.
The DP saves only the lives of criminals being murdered, besides cases when murderers are let go with should not happen. The DP sometimes kills innocents.
Defense: C.5, Innocence. Here's a case in which a man was framed by the police. [1]
This source says that
well over eighty people in the past quarter century have been condemned but then released before execution [2]This source shows accounts of 11 innocents being executed. [3] Here is a quote from one study taken.
""
In my current research into probable innocents that have been executed, I have uncovered at least 74 cases in which wrongful executions have most likely taken place."" [2]
Let me also add what I said in the previous round. There have undoubtedly been cases in which the innocent have been executed but have not been proved innocent afterwards. After being executed there is usually not much need for someone to try too prove the innocence of someone who is already dead. So there are undoubtedly instances in the past where we have executed an innocent man but did not know so, and still do not know.
With life imprisonment there is zero chance of killing an innocent man.
Defense: C.6, Life imprisonment just as effective removing those who cause harm. The only people murderers can harm is their fellow inmates, assuming they were not sentenced to solitary confinement. This is far outweighed by the fact that
executing innocents is a much bigger a problem than murderers and rapists killing each other. Defense: C.8, Violates the right to life. 1. Not outweighed: The lives saved by the DP are the lives of rapists and murderers. The lives saved by life imprisonment are the lives on innocent people wrongly condemned.
2. ""Not comparable morally"": The murderer of course has no right to take another mans life. So what makes it right for us to take his life?
3. Murderer is guilty, but not deserved of death: What makes it right for the guilty person to be deserved of the same thing he's being executed for? Of course he's guilty, but life imprisonment is a better means of punishing the guilty.
4. DP Vengeful: My opponents analogy's are faulty. His first analogy doesn't even make sense because what he's saying is it would be absurd to kidnap someone to show that kidnapping is wrong. I agree that would be absurd, which is why killing people to show killing people is wrong is also absurd. His second analogy is completely wrong because cops don't punish those who speed by speeding.
5. Violating anothers rights does not deprive you of your own: John Stuart Mill is essentially saying the ""eye for eye tooth for tooth"" concept is right. Proving that the DP is vengeful. This concept is widely accepted as wrong.
6. I'm not sure exactly what my opponent means by personal liberty, but putting a man in prison for murder is easily justified while the DP is not.
7. The fact of whether war is justified is completely another matter.
8. ""Protecting the right to life"": Every time the DP is used the right to life is violated. As for lives saved, see my first point.
Deterrence. It is
fallacious reasoning to assume that, because murder rates were dropping at the time the DP was used that means it was because of the DP.
The only way life imprisonment causes murders to happen is by inmates killing each other. This is out weighed by the fact that innocents get executed with the DP.
Round 2 has been cleared up so now on to round 3.Escaping and murdering again:It is exceedingly rare for those confined in prison to escape. It was reported that 0.5% of inmates escaped.[4] The number of murderers who escaped would be even less as that includes all inmates. Also those statistics were from 1998, the amount would be even lower now. Experts are saying that prison escapes are becoming less common. [5]
As for my opponents last sentence I have now shown many examples in which innocents have been executed.
Deterrence:Study shows that there there is not enough evidence to support the fact that
the death penalty does not act as a deterrence. [6] [7]
Quote from source:
""When one considers all the evidence the empirical support for the proposition that the death penalty deters is at best weak and inconclusive.""""Life does not always mean life"" 1. This is mere speculation. No convincing evidence.
2. Just because there are movements for something doesn't mean we should be worried about it. In politics there are movements going on for tons of things.
""Prisoners prefer life""
I think that it all depends for different people.
Being locked in a single small room in solitary confinement for years on end is certainly not very pleasant.
Constitutionality: Although allot of people don't know it, the Bill of Rights is legally considered part of the original Constitution. [8] This is true and so my point still stands.
Cost:
1. My opponent states that it is only my personal opinion. I showed substantial evidence to support my claims so I don't know why my opponent claims this.
//I have given specific examples of killers who killed again so this does not outweigh.//
I have given many examples of innocents being executed which in turn outweighs this or at least cancels it out.
My opponent posts two examples. One of a gang raping and murdering some teens and one of an execution.
He then says;
//Are we really supposed to believe that these two actions are morally similar? Even if the DP is immoral to claim that murder and execution are the same morally is simply absurd.//
Everyone in those examples have the right to life. This is what we disagree on. It is certainly worse to rape and kill someone than to execute someone by use of injection, or some other means. But does this make it right to kill them back? The whole point is even the murderer has the right to life, and is deserved of having the rest of his life to have the chance of repenting.
//Rather than attacking my rebuttals, Con often just attacks my sources.// Not necessarily true. In the example of cost I attacked the study that was done, and showed that it is likely wrong. In other cases my opponent unintentionally didn't post the article, but only the home page of the website. In these cases I made it clear that I could not properly refute my opponent without proper sources.
//He brings up the federal government, which again is like California. Populated death row, few executions. // I'll ask my opponent to elaborate more in the next round, because I'm not sure what he means and have no idea which argument or rebuttal I even used this for.
//I admitted that the source was biased, but rather than attack the cost analysis, he again attacks the credibility. So my evidence stands.//
False. The source itself states that the studies taken say the DP is more expensive, but that the anti death penalty movement is full of lies and deceit and that is why these statistics are wrong. Evidence show the DP is more expensive. The study does not show how these statistic lie nor how the anti death penalty movement is full of lies and deceit.
I've run out of characters so will try to respond to the rest in the future.
Sources:http://beta.nodeathpenalty.org... [1]
http://www.the-slammer.org... [2]
http://www.justicedenied.org... [3]
http://www.slate.com... [4]
http://abcnews.go.com... [5]
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [6]
http://www.studentabolition.org... [7]
http://www.renewamerica.com... [8]
Excuse me? YOUR A CHRISTIAN?
Silence ends; 1 Corinthians 3:
15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. THIS is waiting for YOU the second you DIE! I would be VERY concerned over the last part though;
""
even though only as one escaping through the flames.""
That a slave of Christ would denegrate the sancity of marriage is reprehensible!
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Isaiah 5:21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!…
Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Isaiah 65:2 ""I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts,
Matthew 15:9 They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.'""
Isaiah 55:8-9 New International Version (NIV) 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,so are my ways higher than your waysand my thoughts than your thoughts.
Jeremiah 23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord.
Jeremiah 10:21For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the Lord: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.
Zechariah 11:15-17And the Lord said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.
16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
Ezekiel 13:3 Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!
You do wrong to suggest such a thing. Repent and return to your studies. You ARE Forgiven, and heaven secure in Christ our Lord. I would however caution you on future remarks of this kind! God forbid!
I ask that you not respond further, let this hideous basphamous subject die as is! I forgive you your acions as I'm sure God will as He is faithful to forgive US our transgressions. I will request FRIEND, that you may message me as you wish ... but I will speak on this matter No further. If you respond I shall not respond so either way this TOPIC IS DEAD!
Message me and we will talk or not as you wish.
That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it. That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position of being an Atheist.
It's that simple.",We should adopt atheism,1,atheism is the default position.
8971,arg_24_102,80de0b45-2019-04-18T15:23:21Z-00003-000,"
And Imabench got himself banned.
1) Women already hold just about every kind of post/job in the military and make up a substantial portion of the military
My problem with this argument is that it doesn’t actually say why the Army should allow women in the frontlines. I will summarize Imabench’s argument into the following syllogism.
P1. Women hold just about every kind of post in the Army
P2. ?????
C1. Women should be let into the frontlines.
I consider this logic flawed, and here is another syllogism to highlight why.
P1. Men hold just about every retail or waiting [Waiters] jobs.
P2. ?????
C1. Men should be allowed to be a waiter at Hooters.
The military is in no obligation to let women into the frontlines just because they hold ~95% of the Armies positions, just like why Hooters as no obligation to let men in. If you don’t like Hooters, replace it with Victoria’s Secret. I suppose you could say something along the lines of “They proved they can do it.”. If Imabench were to claim this, he would be repeating himself with his second argument.
2) They would just be given the OPPORTUNITY to serve on the front lines.
P1. Someone who meets the standard requirements can join the army.
P2. That person could be a women
C1. Women deserve the opportunity.
Fair enough, but I have an issue with both premises. I feel like that you don’t understand that you don’t simply join the Army. In [1] it explains that if you are a man and you have no testicles, you will have a hard time joining the army. The same source goes on to say if your penis is amputated, then you are also DQ’d. The Army doesn’t care about just the fitness part, they care about your health, which also reminds me that they don’t like people with a history of suicide attempts to join. P1 is off-base, as there is more things to take into consideration.
You might say women have no issue with this, but I will explain. Women, and only women, can get pregnant and women are more likely to have depression then men.[2]
The idea that women will ever be as good as soldiering as men is absurd. The logic to let women into the army should also apply to people with autism, ex-cons and people who need an inhaler every 3 days. They can lift 100 pounds. They can run 10 miles in 12 minutes. So why bar them? The reason is the same as to why I don’t want women in.
3) Women in other countries are already allowed to serve in front lines, and they haven't had any issues.
I really can’t speak for other countries, but I heard Israel had issues with women. [3]
About 1 in 5 women suffer sexual harassment in Israel’s army, and there is various small issues.
Women in combat is a recent thing, and I believe research is needed if women want to be placed in the front lines.
4) Gays
Of course, women and men have different bodies, and my reasons to bar women are why women can’t, but men can. To assume women would act like gays in some situations is naïve.
5) Gangs
We do not consciously let gang members in the army, even if we did, that doen't mean they would endanger the mission.
[1] http://www.military.com...
[2] http://www.healthline.com...
[3] Stuart A. Cohen Israel and Its Army: From Cohesion to Confusion, pg. 68
Thanks for the timely response. Now as for the definition. If we observe the medical definition of Physician Assisted Suicide we will find the following definition, ""
Somewhat of a
hybrid between passive and active euthanasia is
physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known as
voluntary passive euthanasia."" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) This means that it is voluntary Euthanasia, but just by a different name. In this debate I will be arguing that the legislation of this type of Euthanasia will lead to the legislation of other types of Euthanasia outside of Voluntary Euthanasia. Now I will warn that I will give my arguments, but may not get to all of my opponent's argument here and some of them may have to wait until the next round.Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.
I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent.
![]()
.
Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument
Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium.
Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7)
The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well.
![]()
The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition.
""""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?""
From a pre-1950 dictionary: ""Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain.""
From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): ""1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases.""
From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): ""1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease"" (http://www.all.org...)
You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. (http://www.all.org...)
Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness
Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia’s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round)
Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. (http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...)
For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. (http://www.vatican.va...)
Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, "" “it is the
greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and
wrong.” (http://www.bmj.com...)
This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.
",Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,-1,resolved: the united states federal government should legalize physician assisted suicide.
2494,arg_0_55,c8f72601-2019-04-18T15:27:47Z-00000-000,"
I like that. There is no need for a round 4 really.",Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,-1,assisted suicide/ euthenasia
5576,arg_9_1390,f0d93c8f-2019-04-18T15:04:47Z-00007-000,"
I assert that the statement, ""I believe that God does not exist"", is simply not an Atheistic statement.
Definition from the Oxford Dictionary:
Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Please use Round #1 for acceptance only. I shall present my argument in Round #2 and the structure of the rest of the debate shall be undefined.",We should adopt atheism,1,"""i believe god doesn't exist"" is not atheism"
2184,arg_17_390,ef3391d2-2019-04-18T16:07:52Z-00000-000,"
the UN should make a resolution that says we will reduce the number of nukes. it's more honest than saying we are going to get rid of them all, cause everyone shouldn't be expected and it wouldn't be likely that they'd get rid of them all.
i realize that i merely said it was preferable in the last post, but i did mention it.",We should fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons,-1,un should make agreement to dismantle all nuclear weapons.
1367,arg_19_62,23a351f5-2019-04-18T17:38:47Z-00003-000,"
Thanks for your rebuttal. I shall address your points one by one before adding my final substantive argument.
In response to the first point: the Opposition has been quick to cite this ""right to liberty"", and we do accept that people should be allowed to be free. However simply saying ""right to liberty"" as a response to our argument is unwarranted unless the Opposition actually justify WHY this right exists, and why it transcends what we believe to be a fundamental in society. As we've already mentioned, compulsion to obey the law seems to transcend the ""right to liberty"", so why can""t compulsion to vote?
I would disagree with my opponent on his second point of rebuttal. People aren't voting, but most people are not apathetic to politics in general, just their democratically elected assemblies. This explains the rise in numbers of people protesting (e.g. the Occupy movement) and also the rise in membership of pressure groups (e.g. the Countryside Alliance in the UK). We believe that mandatory voting, as we've already explained, would increase the accountability and representation of these assemblies and thus give people more incentive to vote for their composition. We'd also like to point out that it is fundamentally undemocratic to label people as ""irrational"" or ""rational"", as in the neutral eyes of the political system all voters are equal and saying that some people vote more rationally than others is the first step to taking away people's right to vote.
My opponent's final point of rebuttal reminded me that Winston Churchill once said that ""democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."" Can the Opposition suggest a better system? (They have the burden of proof to say that democracy is not the ideal system to live in.) We believe that it is, and we believe that the ""tyranny of the majority"" is fairer and more democratic than the ""tyranny of the minority"" delivered by other systems. Indeed, as we said in our first speech, if the majority do not vote it is easier for democracy to deliver the ""tyranny of the minority"" "" so democracy only works when people vote, otherwise you might have a non-democratic system. We believe this justifies sacrificing one small freedom for the sake of one's country.
Our last substantive of this debate is that, in our view, the introduction of this system will allow the parties campaigning for the election to focus more on the actual issues of the campaign, as opposed to having to focus on ""getting out the vote"". We have seen time and time again that elections can be decided simply by turnout and not necessarily on the true views of the public. Equally, especially towards the end of election campaigns, candidates have to spend more time on actually getting people to the voting booth than convincing them how to cast their votes there. Therefore, if we remove, or at least somewhat dampen, this issue, candidates will have more time to focus on the issues. This will have two key benefits. The electorate will be more conscious of the issues (which would lower the number of what my Opposition would call ""irrational"" voters) of the campaign and what the candidates actually stand for. This will link into our second key benefit, which is to make voting less tribal and accelerate class dealignment. People will be made (or incentivised) to vote, but when they get there they will be able to make a more balanced decision on who they want to vote for, as more campaign time will have been dedicated to this. We believe this will make people unlikely to vote ""irrationally"" - although we would like to distance ourselves from these sorts of references for the reasons we mentioned in our rebuttal.
Summarising this speech, we have issued three key areas of rebuttal against our Opposition, which we feel also pose them with some questions which they should answer in order to defend their case. We have also given yet another substantive on the issue of the effect this change will have on campaigning, and we believe the ultimate end point will be a better informed electorate and a more successful democracy.
Over to Opposition for their final substantives.",We should introduce compulsory voting,1,this house would introduce compulsory voting
4200,arg_9_14,77606270-2019-04-18T14:55:25Z-00002-000,"
Thank you! Sorry for the long wait.
1. This is based on your title, and is on semantics. ""Without God, everything is permitted"" cannot be true, as laws exist.
2. ""If no path has been deemed correct by a universal consciousness, then any ""chosen"" path can be correct, even to the point that two or more completely contrasting moral positions can exist as correct simultaneously (e.g. ""Killing can be right"" and ""Killing is always wrong"").""
What if this consciousness had varying views of an action? The popular God of the Bible does. http://www.godandscience.org...
3. Moral Absolution does not exist as a universal truth.
People naturally have opinions, and situations can always change things.
For instance, you could say writing someone a heartfelt kind letter is always 'right.' What if the letter was one of an insanely large number the writer had sent that week, without ever personally receiving an address from the person they were writing to
It at the least, the situation's 'rightness' gets questionable at that point.
If moral absolution doesn't exist, it can't be invalidated by atheism.
Thank you for the debate, I'm sorry I've been a little short on time. I've taken on a bit too many debates!",We should adopt atheism,-1,"""without god""everything is permitted"" or: atheism invalidates moral absolutism"
9107,arg_14_132,22149ea8-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00068-000,Poor judicial process can be improved; no cause to close Guantanamo.,We should close Guantanamo Bay detention camp,1,guantanamo bay detention center
2723,arg_0_284,84493d27-2019-04-18T17:16:17Z-00000-000,"1) I have stated in the definition of assisted suicide it is ""The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose.""
The reason that these people are going to assisted suicide can be for only physical health reasons. Plus, as I've stated, this will be easier for the families of the patient; this will stop people from committing suicide in a gruesome way and will have a formal way for the family saying good bye.
Only 3% of patients seeking physician assisted suicide cited pain as the sole factor for their decision. I do not presume that all suicides are gruesome as it is very easy to commit suicide without bloodshed. the fourth most common way in which individuals commit suicide is by using cyanide capsules which can be easily bought over the internet, if the person is of sound mind then a simple web search should yield sufficient results to obtain the desired results. As for the formal goodbye to their family if they plan to commit suicide with reasonable research and experience no more pain in the process then the goodbyes should be no less formal.
2)I've already instated that this is only for people that have an incurable disease in which they are suffering from. This is not for people that are emotionally depressed and want to commit suicide.
Incurable terminable diseases will unfortunately almost always result in death from that disease however If only 3% of patients are citing pain as the sole reason then the other 97% of people are citing reasons which stem from emotional stress and depression, in fact 51% of those seeking assisted suicide didn't cite pain at all. Any individual seeking assisted suicide should talk about it with their physicians and be treated for any problems that are causing these feelings either through medication, therapy or both but not assisted in dying.
3)Someone is put in a hospice when it is time for them to die. That means that the illness has took it's coarse and has most likely caused significant amounts of pain and suffering to this individual both emotionally and physically. It is not right to outlaw something that the patient wants to do.
People with special circumstances can request hospice care if they are terminally ill in order to manage their disease. I will agree that it is not right to outlaw something that the patient wants to do, however it is right to outlaw the assistance from a physician to contribute to the death of a patient regardless of circumstances
4)I'm going to be as brief as possible and say that you should watch the entire video instead of making bleak assumptions.
I now leave this to my adversary and the voters. Vote accordingly and may the best man win! I hand the stand back to my adversary.
I may watch the entire video at a later time however after watching the portion which I did I must say it failed to garner my attention and did not compel me to change my stance on the topic.",Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,-1,the legalization of assisted suicide.
3990,arg_26_162,7cdb2c0-2019-04-18T13:03:42Z-00001-000,"
Full Resolution
Is Space Exploration either a good, or bad use of taxpayer's money
Definitions
Terms, if need be, shall be defined in a reasonable manner by use of the Oxford English Dictionary, using the most common definitions that apply to the given context.
Structure
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Constructive cases
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Counter-Rebuttals and Summation
Time for each argument - 48 hours
Argument character limit - 8,000
Voting Period - 7 days
Voting Style - Open, 7-point system
Rules
1. The definitions and structure detailed above must be accepted.
2. The Burden of Proof shall be shared and equal between both sides.
3. No trolling, swearing or personal attacks.
4. Sources must be cited at the end of the round. Do not use the comments section for that.
Any violation of one or more of these rules shall merit a conduct penalty, or, in the worst case, a full forfeiture of the debate.",We should subsidize space exploration,-1,space exploration is a good use of taxpayer's money
327,arg_21_311,53ea1c8-2019-04-18T19:35:11Z-00006-000,"First of I would like to say that prostitution is somewhat legal in the U.S. (since only two states allow it, Nevada and Rhode Island). Furthermore I would like to point out that prostitution and recreational drugs are totally different. Prostitution is selling oneself for money and recreational drugs are highly addictive. The difference with prostitution is that you are not really harming anyone (unless you have an STD, but I will touch that matter later on) and recreational drugs can have a negative effect on people. I am not trying to stop prostitution or regulate it, but I would opine that it should be made into an occupation that is legal. I don't agree with prostitution, it goes against with everything I believe in, but I would rather have it legalized.
Some individuals believe that the government can make good choices for us, but was that the purpose of the creation of the Constitution? To give Government full consent? Does the government really know what is good for every individual in the U.S? I highly disagree with my opponent because if people want, they should sell their bodies without any consequences. We don not know why every prostitute prostitutes themselves but we need to be understanding to as why they have chosen to degrade themselves.
I am surprised that my opponent being a pharmacy student, has not been aware of the report (more like documentary) that the Health Department, has given to the media. Which brings me to my next point. Brothels.
Here is a following link to YouTube (http://www.youtube.com...), The name of the video is ""20/20 Prostitution in America #4"", I advise my opponent or anyone to see this informative documentary.
Brothels (using the one in Nevada as an example) are highly organized and function so: disease won't spread, and prostitutes won't be maltreated. Legalizing prostitution would also legalize brothels; brothels benefit because they of taxation and organization.
Brothels make it so that prostitutes use condoms; condoms are the best way to stop disease (In rebuttal to my opponents fourth paragraph), of course if a prostitute does not use a condom, the chances of disease would highly increase. However the prostitute has a choice of her life and well being or easy filthy money. No one can decide what people will do; if prostitutes are negligent to not use a condom then in my opinion they need to pay the consequences. Also the people who seek the sexual service should pay for not protecting themselves.
Prostitution already is costing enough money, even if prostitutes are caught, they will end up prostituting again. Face it prostitution is not new. Prostitution would benefit us because of the taxes that brothels and prostitutes (if it became an occupation) would give. I would rather have our government use the taxpayer's money on schools, and community programs than to waste so much money on catching prostitutes who will keep on prostituting.
Seriously can prostitutes really feel safe in suing a customer who has abused her? I mean if she is a prostitute she would also be committing a crime right? So where is the justice in being physically abused by a customer and then being punished under the law? Either way the prostitute ends up losing. If we legalized prostitution, prostitutes will have no fear in suing their abusers, thus incarcerating the abusers in society. I would rather have the courts fill up with cases of abuse than having courts fill up for being a prostitute who won't change their behavior.
This is all the time I have for right now, Something has come up and I might take a while to respond to your argument. I won't have computer access, but when I enter school on the 12th of November, I will make sure I comment back (hopefully it is not to late to respond).",We should legalize prostitution,1,prostitution should be legalized in nevada
1231,arg_20_298,b9ae7ef4-2019-04-18T12:52:11Z-00000-000,"
Pro argues that, ""cannabis should be allowed for every one [sic].""
The complete long-term effects of cannabis use are still unknown [1], making it a highly risky drug.
I therefore counter that cannabis should not be allowed for people below the age of majority (as defined by the law), since they implicitly lack the cognitive capacity to weigh risks and make sound choices compared to the average adult.
I have no problem with legal adults using cannabis. However, if they look too young, cannabis vendors should be required to ask for ID, lest they unwittingly sell to minors.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...",We should legalize cannabis,-1,cannabis should be allowed for everyone
8406,arg_3_798,d2f4b1cd-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00111-000," Adam Kolasinksi. ""The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage."" The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: ""A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate.""
",We should abandon marriage,1,denying marriage to infertile would be too costly
6732,arg_9_2546,1794190b-2019-04-18T13:40:21Z-00000-000,"
If a claim is made such as ""there is a god"" it is the responsibility of the person who is making the calm to back that claim up with evidence before the claim should be reasonably be accepted or even taken seriously. If we did not do this than any claim no matter how false would be accepted as truth first and then have to be disproven. The burden of proof falls to the one making the claim which are believers. If a god especially any god that created the universe or is like the deity described by Judeo-Christians should have some evidence. Yes, there may not be absolute proof unless he did exist and showed himself but there should be clues. Like tracking an animal. The animal may not be in your field of vision but the animal should leave some sign of his presence there if he was there. So if there is no evidence left behind and there are scientific explanations for things usually described to god. Than the evidence points more towards there being no god. Just because we can""t know absolutely doesn""t mean that based on the evidence we can""t make an educated guess about what is most likely true.
""In short, you have faith God doesn""t exist therefore live your life as if he did not.""
I don""t have faith that he does not exist I have no reason to believe he does and there is a difference.
""The claim about God existing or not does not come from atheist. The claim is an inherent question that begs the truth, due to your very existence. Hence, you asked ""where did I come from?"" And the answer was ""God."" It is an internal and psychological question for the self. God IS ""the first cause."" And this is not a new definition proposed. It is the most fundamental and basic definition of God. Just because YOU have other imaginary notions about what God is, does not make God exist, not exist or change his existence. And if no one has ever known God or seen Him, how do you expect ANY one to define his properties for you to test?""
Now if we describe god as merely being the first cause than god becomes nothing more than another name for the big bang. He would not necessarily have any other characteristics we usually describe to the character of god and we would have evidence of his existence and we could know that he did exist. However, that is obviously not the god we usually thing of when we think of god. If god is not anything like we imagine and he is something that just existed unless he had some interaction or effect on us (which we could test) than the fact of his existence would be relevant to us. We would not interact or be affected by him and whether he was there or not is irrelevant especially since we could not prove him one way or the other. We can never know anything absolutely but we do have evidence that that can help us know what is most likely true.",We should adopt atheism,-1,atheism is a lie
7996,arg_3_388,12abc109-2019-04-18T18:50:11Z-00007-000,"
Sex before marriage I believe is a choice that people should make themselves. That's a big part of life today is making your own decisions and if going out and having sex before marriage is what someone wants to do then its a parent or friends power to try and help them be safe about the choices they make. I am a parent my son is about two years old as he grows I wont be there everyday to watch him, but if he chooses to go out and have sex before marriage its in my power to teach him yes abstinence is the better way to go. He will make his own choices if I am next to him or not, so when I teach him about having intercourse, I tell him to be safe, sex before marriage like I said is a choice people make not society make that choice for everyone who do not want to wait for marriage to make love to there spouse. Should ask oneself a question unless you actually went your whole life as a child to a teen all the way to marriage not having no sex then this is a topic to be argue.",We should abandon marriage,1,sex before marriage
8755,arg_23_145,4be4bea0-2019-04-18T18:57:53Z-00001-000,"Due to absence of titles from my opponent, I will create my own titles.
::Hate::
""In either instance, hate is the motivational force behind the burning. "" Untrue, what you did here is omit all examples when there's no hate. For the sake of being short I will simply give you 3 examples where there's no hate:
1. A homeless person is freezing to death (death being a hyperbole). He sees a flag of his country thrown on the ground or some other place and it is of bad condition. Without thinking twice the person burns it in along with trash so that he could stay alive during the cold winter.
2. A child is depressed or arrogant. He claims that the source is the country he currently lives in. The parent thinks up of a creative way(s) to teach that child a lesson - it involves flag burning.
3. ""flag burning under all circumstances (except proper disposal) ""
::Good deeds::
"" Good deeds do not solely rely on flag burning"" Yet if the person wants to do something good shouldn't he have every right to do it, in any way he pleases ? If the flag is a hindrance to the person who wants to do something good via burning the flag, isn't then the flag evil ?
Evil can be described as knowing better but doing worse. A flag could be used for good purposes but it isn't hence the flag is committing evil. Example:
A chair is strong and firm enough for a man to stand on and change the light-bulb for someone else. Due to law he can't do it conveniently, yes he can do it by other means at ease. Nevertheless, the chair is a hindrance to a good action hence its evil.
::War::
""Because my opponent has already mentioned the exception of war, I will not thoroughly discuss the intentional use of flag burning to start a war"" Indeed, this shouldn't even be mentioned. Now, if flag burning causes war unintentionally then we still have no issue since what country would attack due to a burned flag ? The Nazis in world war 2 had stronger reasons to attack Russia, which are known when one reads ""mein kampf"":
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The fact is that countries don't start wars over burned flags. War begins due to conflict of ideas or when its more profitable for another country to be taken over. Countries aren't threatened by burning flags either. Threat comes from unions, military and other important actions which aren't done by individuals or small groups.
Another question is, what country would attack when not threatened(when compared to threatened countries):
A: This country is obviously a time bomb.
B: It is already prepared to go to war and is now waiting for an excuse.
C: This overly aggressive action will be noted and be fought against.
::Terrorism::
""Intentional burning is a symbolic threat of what will happen to the other nation if it does not cave in to our demands.""
May I remind you that its not the burning of the flag but the message that is terrorism. Furthermore terrorism isn't legal so what's the point of dictating how one should be a terrorist ? Lets say you get your point across, should we ban Kentucky fried chicken because it too can be used as an instrument for terrorists ? After all what can be better than some good ol' chicken before suicide ?
::What is a flag::
""Flags are much more than pretty scraps of cloth""
Yes they are.
""they are symbols of a country's past, hardships, ideals, aspirations, and identity. ""
This is what the flag represents. People not the flag went through all this and the same people have the freedom to express themselves and fought for others freedom of expression, too.
"" Flag burning is a psychological and emotional attack (much like Koran burning or Bible burning).""
1. Disrespect is the exact same thing.
2. What's wrong with burning the Bible ? The person is just expressing himself granted I am a bit worried about the level of maturity of such person but what is wrong with it, what excuse is there for making it illegal ?
"" In order to stop this assault on the individuals of a nation, in order to stop this mental abuse, in order to stop the damage being done to people; flag burning ought to be illegal.""
Emotions: people can get offended by anything:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com...
This is all it is. Some people getting offended or hurt is not good enough unless you want to make almost everything illegal . Seeing how this basically all you said, I don't foresee a comeback.
::My Arguments::
I added these for fun:
1.Burning a flag because of hate as I implied in round 1 doesn't refer to a specific group. Yes there are terrorists who burn flags but there may be a frustrated worker who feels like burning a flag. Perhaps he has to calm down (though the method should be improved however people don't change immediately) ? Perhaps he will become grateful that he is free.
2.What is the criteria of making something illegal ?
3.Does the ""Family Guy"" score a similar score, sincerely speaking ?
4.Can a USA soldier burn the American flag after serving bravely for many years (Not for the sake of disposal) ?
Well, I leave the rest up to the readers also I urge a Pro vote,
Cheerio.",We should prohibit flag burning,1,flag burning should be allowed
2332,arg_17_538,4ad44663-2019-04-15T20:24:48Z-00023-000,"Safeguards can be put in place to ensure that power over nuclear weapons is not devolved too far. Central control of launch codes, for example, can allow dispersed deployment and tactical control, without compromising the overall strategic security of the weapons. Furthermore, in the case of Pakistan, it seems more likely that its deployment of tactical nuclear weapons will simply serve as an additional deterrent to potential Indian incursions into the country. It is Pakistan's right to defend itself by whatever means available to it, tactical nuclear weapons included.
",We should fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons,-1,"the way tactical nuclear weapons need to be deployed control of their use is devolved to field commanders, vastly increasing the probability that in the event of conflict they would be used."
1099,arg_20_166,3b4e2c83-2019-04-18T19:38:17Z-00004-000,"My opponent and I would like everybody to know that you should ignore his posted R1 and simply rely on the R1 he posted in the comments, thank you.
I would like to thank my opponent, vohne, for accepting this debate and I would also like to wish him the best of luck in his arguments.
My opponent starts off his first round with the argument that the use of cannabis will be a stepping stone to harder drugs. I challenge him to find a modern, legitimate study proving this effect. While the layman may have the idea that there is a logical connection, that logical connection is not likely casual. The layman might look at those addicted to ""hard"" drugs, such as heroin. Users of heroin have a strong chance of using pot at some time, perhaps even starting their drug history with pot. Does this mean that pot use will lead to heroin use? Logically, no. If pot use would lead to heroin use, using this line of thought, then so would other things that the drug user might have ""started out with"". For some examples, the drug Caffeine, tobacco or perhaps Alcohol. Is there really a connection between Caffeine, Alcohol, Cannabis, and heroin? The best way to examine if there really is a connection, we can look at some statistics. Research shows that at least 41.8% of people in the US have at least tried pot. This is a high number, yet the real number might be even higher given the nature of the subject. The users who have tried Alcohol, Tobacco, and Caffeine are likely higher than that. Whereas, the users of heroin (given the same statistical analysis as with pot) are much lower, only about 1.5% of the US population. Now, even given a 10, 15, 20, 30% error in accuracy, there is still no possible casual link. If it is truly a gateway drug, then why would so few people do harder drugs? Why would most of the nation not be on hard drugs? The burden is on you to prove the casual link.
Even given the logical leap that cannabis use will lead to the user of harder drugs, I would still argue that that the use of harder drugs should not be limited. While I would highly recommend against using harder drugs, for the most part it will be the users choice whether or not they should do the drug. Given this choice, they thus take responsibility for all of the physical, psychological, or other damages that it causes. Just as one takes the responsibility for poor choices in careers, in spending money, and in their sex life they should also be able make decisions, including poor ones, about what they put into their bodies. There is certainly potential for consequences, however, those are limited to the user of the drug. Given this, unless the government is to regulate any possible negative thing that might go wrong with a person, including their sex life, financial life, and their life as a whole, the government has no part in restricting the use of harder drugs, despite negative consequences for users.
The use of cannabis is a personal choice made by individuals who own their bodies. This choice should not be limited by the government for any reasons that the government might find negative. The duty of the government is to protect you from others, not yourself.",We should legalize cannabis,-1,the use of cannabis for recreational use by those over 18 should be disallowed by the usg*
1519,arg_19_214,d4ba2ee3-2019-04-18T16:22:24Z-00001-000,"
You haven't negated my claim that my thesis provides ""fairer"" results. I obviously wouldn't claim that compulsory debating will provide infallible results (or even unbiased ones), but it's simple statistical fact that more participants selected from diverse groups are correlated with a more equal and representative decision. The probability of twelve voter's apathy is much less likely then that of a single voter, and even with said apathy those that were indifferent to the debate would not all vote for the same user. It's not a guarantee at fairness, but it's the next logical step we can take and as such you must vote pro today.
It has been a pleasure debating, con.",We should introduce compulsory voting,1,compulsory voting on debate.org would create fairer results
4803,arg_9_617,555d134f-2019-04-18T17:28:41Z-00002-000,"
Ave.
Contemporary theists such as William Lane Craig argue that BB cosmology affirms the existence of god. Dr. Craig formulates it as follows. [1]
1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2: The universe began to exist.
3: The universe has a cause of its existence.
By deductive reasoning as to what that cause would be, that cause is therefore god. I will argue in my opening statement that, even if those three statements are granted, it does not entail the existence of god. It will be my position that Big Bang cosmology supports the idea that the universe caused itself. I do not mean this in the sense that X caused X. It is logically impossible for the universe to have caused itself in that way. Rather, I am arguing that the universe caused itself in the sense that Z was caused by Y, which was caused by X, which was caused by W, ad infinitum. Allow me to state the premises of my argument, which is based on Quentin Smith and what is called 'cosmological atheology'. [2]
1: Every state of the universe is caused by another state.
2: If every state of the universe if caused by another state, then an initial state is logically impossible.
3: From 1 and 2, an initial state is logically impossible.
4: From 3, there can be no cause of the initial state.
5: According to the definition of god, god cannot exist.
1: Every state of the universe is caused by another state.![]()
s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="""" width=""700px;"" height=""348px;"" />
Assume that each of these are a state of the universe, where time equals something different in each state. T=4 is caused by T=3. T-3 is caused by T=2. T=2 is caused by T=1. T=1 is caused by T=.9, ad infinitum. If you assume that we are living in the trillionth state, or some such large number, you can perform the same exercise, but I prefer to keep this simple. The conclusion of this argument is that there is something because there is something else to cause that something, there is no initial state for god to cause, and therefore, god cannot have caused the universe.
Theists argue that the BB singularity represents a state where T is 0, so there is indeed an initial state that cannot be explained by prior states. They point to the Hawking-Penrose theorem which posits a singularity that the universe came from. However, Hawking and Penrose have withdrawn this theorem a long time ago. Why? They realized that, once you take quantum mechanics into account, there is no need for a singularity. Hawking has this to say in his book A Brief History of Time. [3]
“It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe--as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.”
Quentin Smith, professor of the philosophy of physics as West Michigan University, also says more.
“The cosmic singularity is a hypothetical time t=0 at which all the laws of nature, space and time break down. It is hypothetical or merely imaginary because if it did exist, it would be a physically impossible state, due to the breakdown of all laws, even the laws required for time to exist. This breakdown at the hypothetical t=0 implies there is no first instant t=0 of the finitely old time-series and that each instant is preceded by earlier instants. An instant is a time that is instantaneous or has zero duration. An interval is a time that is temporally extended and has a duration of a certain length, such as one hour or one minute.” [4]
Therefore, there is no T=0. There are only an infinite number of states that are less than one but not exactly zero.
One may ask how, if the universe began to exist, such an infinite regress of states is possible. I believe that this question can be satisfactorily answered. The universe began in the sense that there is no state that existed before thirteen billion years ago. There are states like 12.9, 12.99. 12.9999999, but there is no state that existed before thirteen billion years ago. That is the sense in which the universe began to exist.
2: If every state of the universe if caused by another state, then an initial state is logically impossible.
The initial state is a state of the universe. It is distinct from the other states because it is the first one. We’ve established in premise one that every state is caused by another state. It logically follows from this that there cannot be a state that exists which was not caused by another state. If an initial state existed, it would not be caused by another other state. Therefore, an initial state is logically impossible.
(This is my support for premise three as well.)
4: From three, there can be no cause of the initial state.
God is defined as the cause of the initial state of the universe. The initial state is logically impossible given the other premises. God couldn’t have caused the initial state because the initial state is a logically impossible state. In fact, there is nothing that could have caused the initial state, because it’s a logically impossible state.
5: According to the definition of god, god cannot exist.
God is defined as the cause of the initial state. From 4, no such cause can exist. Therefore, god can not exist.ConclusionBB cosmology removes the need for a singularity, or a T=0 state. This allows every state of the universe to be cauesd by another state, since there is no initial state that requires explanation. This means that it is logically impossible for god to exist, because there is no initial state for god to create. It also means that the universe is explained naturalistically. Once you have explained every part of the universe, you have explained the whole of the universe. My argument does such a thing without reference to god. Therefore, BB cosmology makes god logically impossible, and allows the universe to be explained naturalistically.Vale.References1: http://plato.stanford.edu...2: http://plato.stanford.edu...3: http://en.wikipedia.org...4: http://www.infidels.org... ",We should adopt atheism,1,big bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.
5216,arg_9_1030,4eaaaf9e-2019-04-18T13:04:58Z-00007-000,"
I think before the flood dinosaurs have always lived with man.
With the Cain and Abel story it was only talking about two brothers the bible never said that they were the only people on the earth.
In my definition a religion is a faith based philosophy based on what you think of how the universe came into existence and since atheist can't disprove God then they
must have ""faith"" that evolution is the reason for the earth's existence.
I think the people who study religion's eg Christianity is called theologians not scientists and btw what are the errors in the Bible?
I said that I will denounce my faith because I am that confident that there is no proof for evolution 1-5 and so making atheism a religion.",We should adopt atheism,1,evolution and atheism is a religion
2326,arg_17_532,be10dac5-2019-04-18T19:57:54Z-00003-000,"My Points
1. Protection of Citizens
""When people begin to give up their rights in order to be protected by the government we will have a huge problem.""
-When people give up all their rights to be protected their is a problem. But the government CANNOT protect it's citizens without power. The government ""deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed"" I assume that you accept this line because you used it to attack me :) So the government, as we both agree, gets it's power from the people. Thus people must give power to the government.
""This only says it is the governments job to make sure all of it's citizens maintain their unalienable rights""
-Yes, and one of these rights is LIFE. THE government, as you just said my friend, only guarantees rights. guarantee = Protect and Unalienable right = life. So, the government must protect our life.
""It says that when the government begin's to become oppresive and take away rights, that it is the peoples responsibility to either change the government, or overthrow it.""
I kinda agree. The government MUST fulfill its obligation in the social contract. If they don't, they will be overthrown. When teh government forcefully takes rights away that are not needed to protect the people, is when the government must be overthrown.
You mis interpret my social contract argument. What my first point dictates is that
1. Govt. gets power from people
2. Ppl overthrow Govt. that does not protect
3. Govt. must fulfill Social Contract
IF #3 is true, then it shows why we MUST do something that works. Hence, my Second argument.
2. Why hard power is effective
""Well, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, is in fact, the United States. According to this sta""
im guessing you left something out. but yes the USA is the only country SO FAR to use nukes. But Iran's prez. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that he WILL USE NUCLEAR FORCE TO DESTROY ISRAEL. Thus, teh danger of a nuclear attack is plausible by other countries.
""The United States can not afford to use hard power.""
I never said that we would use hard power on every country all at once.
You ignore that hard power is also threats, not only violence
We should means we need to start making measures to
The United States spends trillions of dollars on defense a year. the only reason Iraq is so costly is because we are using urban warfare and cannot fully use of military. If we,as my teacher has said, ""went world war II on their a**es"" the war would be over in weeks. Neither Iran nor North Korea could withstand an all-out fight with USA. besides, Israel would mainly fight Iran for us, and the UN would sponsor the enforcement of non-nuclear proliferation and help the US if we asked for it.
3. Reputation
You completely ignored the fact that we must uphold our reputation.
Thus you accept it as standard in debate
This means that the use of only soft power will result in future attacks on the USA. This is bad
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Only natural to want nuclear armament
it is natural for me to want a wide screen tv. should i steal from a store
it is natural for me to want a cookie. should i take one when im not supposed to
it is natural for me to want to drive 120mph. should i do so when its against the law
Just because they want it, does not mean they should have it. Protection, like India, is one thing. Promising violence, Iran, is another.
2. Fear small countries
The story of David and Goliath
The story of the American Revolution
Small enemies aren't always going to lose.
These countries already have nukes. we should try to be peaceful with them. Voting for hard power only affects future countries, not Russia or China. These countries that we both agree we should be nice to SUPPORT US IN STOPPING NORTH KOREA FROM GAINING NUKES",We should fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons,1,"the united states should use ""hard power"" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons."
7383,arg_11_249,2c2c999f-2019-04-18T18:49:31Z-00002-000,"First of all, I would like my opponent to clarify the following:
1) What areas of human cloning are we talking about? Are we discussing solely reproductive cloning? Therapeutic cloning? Or both?
2) Are we debating whether or not cloning should be legal? Whether it is or isn't morally correct? Please specify what exactly we are debating about in the next round?
I look forward to my opponent's response.",We should ban human cloning,-1,human cloning
7232,arg_11_98,bbf6cdc3-2019-04-18T19:18:36Z-00001-000,"But there are lots of points that I slightly disagree with my opponent:
""There is nothing inherently immoral about giving someone a present. However, when that present is a grenade with the pin pulled out, THEN it becomes immoral. The fact that it is immoral to give someone a live grenade does not invalidate the morality of performing acts of giving. There are two parts of the act: Giving, and the danger of the grenade""
_ So my opponent here believe it is ok to give thee grenade for the present, just don't pull the pin, ok here are the problems with that analogy:
1) How can you give a grenade, a dangerous present to a person whom you loved?
2)What is the purpose of that grenade anyway if you can't pull the pin?
So let me make another analogy like that one, imagine I have a son, he's addicted to drug, badly, and in his 16th birthday(or any birth day, I don't care), I give him my present, when he opens that present, it's a bag full with heroin. Now can I say:""It's ok to give my BADLY ADDICTED kid that bag of heroin, just as long as he doesn't open it.""? Giving is good, but you also must know the danger of that material that you give that person, either it had been already activated or not.(Hope you see that deeper meaning of this)
""Similarly, there is nothing inherently immoral about human cloning. Not even the cloning of a complete person. The immorality comes from what happens AFTER the person is cloned. If we treat the cloned person just like a regular person, then there is no immorality.""
_Similarly, there's immoral about human cloning a complete person, as you have given the grenade to the hand of a little kid. He will pull the pin and the percentage is high. You can't give somebody something that you already know that it is dangerous, such as the grenade.
""My opponent argued that there would be enslavement. This has NOTHING to do with human cloning. My opponent is not giving evidence for why human cloning is immoral, he is giving evidence for why SLAVERY is immoral. We have the choice not to enslave clones.""
_That's when it gone bad, back when the slavery laws of the African Americans had not be abolished my President Lincoln, do you think people still have choices to choose whether they can enslave the African American or not? That's what bad, the choice, they have the choice and I believe they will use that choice, as you state.
""My opponent argued that if we could clone children, it would be immoral to all the orphans. You know what? Maybe my opponent would like it if people who wanted to give birth to their OWN children should be jailed too. For every parent who decides to give birth to their own child, there goes another potential home for an orphan. My opponent is arguing everything *except* what he is supposed to be arguing.""
_ I agree, sorry for this part of the argument.
""My opponent argued that we would use complete human clones and mistreat and abuse them. Again, my opponent is NOT talking about the ethics of human cloning. He is talking about the ethics of mistreating and abusing people. After cloning people, we have the choice NOT to mistreat and abuse them. One thing does not immediately lead to another.""
_ Well, because we have a choice, that's what bad, because we tend to choose the wrong way, we tend to choose the unethical way and I believe once the clones are out, they will not be treated fully as a human.
Now I should ask my opponent and my fellow audience, what would happen us human are immortal, and can live as long as we want? Well, seems tempting but here's what will happen:
1) The increasing of population will push the earth toward an end, also all other organisms that co-exist with human will soon disappear too, the food webs get disrupted, human begin too become starved, thirst...
2)All the ways that nature preserves that God preserves to help decreasing human population(old age, sickness...) will soon negated by us human because we are immortal.
That's what will soon happen if we can clone, if we can just donor this for that, saving people's lives, people got cured, got strong again, maybe they won't be immortal, but the point is that the increasing of human will soon beyond the balance, causes the disrupt of nature and it's balance, human cloning as you say that is ""ethical"" can also create tons more of human, also add fuel to that big problem.
Thank you and I hope and pray my opponent will satisfies with this argument.",We should ban human cloning,1,cloning human is unethical and unjust.
5422,arg_9_1236,1de68eac-2019-04-18T19:17:01Z-00002-000,"I welcome my opponent, saxmastadrew, to www.debate.org and hope he finds this site as enjoyable as I do.
While I respect my opponents' freedom of opinion, I must insist that his opening round, which consists of three ""simple facts,"" are completely unsubstantiated. He offers no evidence or arguments. He simply states these as ""facts."" I will extend him the benefit of the doubt and assume he intends to corroborate these facts with logical reasoning and/or material evidence in the next round. Until then, there is nothing to refute.
Therefore, I will offer my proof of God's existence using the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence, hereafter referred to as TAG.
First, I will be arguing only for the existence of the Christian God. I do not anticipate my opponent will object since his opening round consists of Judeo-Christian references. As with all my debates on God's existence, I am not content to define god in a single sentence. God is complex and requires a complex definition. Therefore, I refer to the Westminster Confession of Faith [1]:
-----
There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
-----
The proof that the Christian God is this: that without Him, you cannot prove anything. To illustrate this, consider for a moment why we have debates. The goal of debate is to find objective truth. The process of debate usually starts with opposing beliefs, and using various reliable tools, each side justifies their belief. Such tools include logical laws, science, and morality. But what makes these tools reliable? The answer can be found using transcendental argumentation [2].
Transcendental arguments examine something known and, using logical induction, determine the necessary precondition that makes it possible. Propositionally, it looks something like this: P is the necessary precondition for Q; Q, therefore P. With that, I will argue for the necessary preconditions of logic, science, and morality.
For logic to be reliable in debate, it cannot be arbitrary or subject to change. It cannot be found in society, human brain activity, physical energy, or matter, since these things are constantly changing. The only alternative is that logical laws are abstract and absolute. Abstract entities, by necessity, are products of thought. Therefore, the necessary precondition for logic is that there is a transcendent, immutable mind behind them.
For science to be reliable in debate, the laws of the natural universe must be unchanging. Said another way, science presupposes nature is ordered. By necessity, for science to be reliable, nature must always have been ordered from the very beginning. After all, if you accept that the universe was once disordered, it would be irrational to insist that it will never be disordered again. By rational necessity, a universe that was ordered from the very beginning had an ordered mind behind it.
For morality to be reliable in debate, moral obligation must be more than mere arbitrary opinion. For instance, to argue that an all-loving, all-knowing God cannot exist given the existence of Evil, it is necessary that Evil be real and objective. Like logic, objective morality must be abstract and immutable. Thus, the necessary precondition for objective morality is a transcendent, immutable, benevolent mind.
Only Christian Theism, as a worldview, presupposes the exact mind necessary to account for all the preconditions concluded above. Atheism, as a worldview, cannot account for these preconditions, and must either abandon logic, science, and morality as reliable or borrow the presuppositions of a conflicting worldview. In short, the only way my opponent can even hope to prove--using logic, science, or morality--that theism is false is if he is wrong.
TAG is a bit more in depth than this, but this is an adequate summary to initiate dialog. I invite my opponent to show why TAG is not valid argument. I also look forward to any evidence and reason he plans to contribute towards his opening round claims.
SOURCES
1. http://www.reformed.org...
2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...",We should adopt atheism,1,theism
6762,arg_9_2576,b5344a8f-2019-04-18T19:30:41Z-00004-000,"Thanks for your arguments.
I tend not to agree with the analogy between atheism and conservatism.
""conservatism"" is defined as follows:
n. resistance to change, desire to preserve traditions
Atheism is a position that merely claims that the that the data that supports
any specific theistic belief is insufficient to cash in its claims.
This is a word that shouldn't even exist in a rational world.
just like the words a-astrologist, a-alchemist or a-witchcraftist are words that do not exist.
If you think Atheism is a conservative position you should also be arguing
the same about people that do not believe in astrology or in big foot.
As the data that supports any specific theistic belief is no better.
You argue that:
""Atheists and Deists believe that morality is derived by reason from human nature. Therefore atheism is consistent with conservatism.""
But you fail to see that Atheists (or Deists) do not necessarily share any belief about morality at all.
In fact an atheist would still be an atheist if he claimed that morality was programmed into our DNA by aliens :-)",We should adopt atheism,-1,atheism is consistent with conservatism
7761,arg_3_153,2faac626-2019-04-18T19:07:25Z-00002-000,"In between stuffing boxes, I had a very enjoyable time reviewing his post. :)
Pro Case:
On Contention 1:
1. My opponent misses the point of that entire argument, unfortunately. It isn't the license itself that encourages anything. The benefits arising from such a contract are the state's way of expressing approval for committed behavior. The license is the government's way of rewarding what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment to creating a nuclear family. As my sources and case state, nuclear families with two parents produce statistically more healthy children. Of course, there are exceptions to every statistical proof, but that doesn't inherently devalue my data. The state need only encourage what maximizes societal good.
2. I figured the divorce statistic would come up sooner or later. Not a problem, and here's why: this does nothing unique to convince us that abolishing marriage is any sort of solution. While the concept of marriage is clearly in trouble, that is, as stated before, not a valid reason to scrap marriage all together. If the goal is to encourage more deep-seeded commitment, then abolishing an institution that rewards commitment is probably a bass-akwards way of doing it. While the system of rewards may need to be revamped, or educational opportunities may need to be seized to encourage a respect for the institution of marriage, banning it won't gain any positive good or improve what that divorce rate *really* indicates: that the American people have a distorted view of commitment.
3. The warrant for marriage leading to other commitments is logical, rather than statistical. If we can both agree that relationship-based commitment begets the ability to commit to other tasks (which my opponent concedes to), and marriage is another commitment, then the proof is there. The license, again, is the state encouraging such commitments to flourish.
On Contention 2:
1. This isn't a response to my argument. While my opponent's job is to point out what's wrong with marriage, I have every right to point out what good can come of it. This is simple cost-benefit analysis. Even if my opponent, in the end, can prove that the financial aspects of marriage are unwarranted (which I don't think he can), if the institution's benefits to humanity outweigh in another capacity, you will vote Con based on net benefit. Therefore, please extend the fact that marriage helps recognize minority rights, thereby increasing protection of fundamental rights within the U.S.
Con Case:
On Contention 1:
Unequal benefits
My opponent assumes here that marriage licenses are just impossible to get. If one of these unmarried couples wants these benefits, they simply need to seek a license, and benefits shall ensue. If they are already committed at home, then why not claim one's voucher of recognition from the state? It's like claiming a dependent on taxes. Would my opponent also argue that people should be able to take dependents into account on their 1040's without proving to the state that they exist? The question we should be asking is ""why were these unmarried couples unwilling to go to a courthouse on their day off and pick up that license?"" One can only receive benefits from the state if one seeks recognition from the state. Now, if you are gay, then you probably can't get this recognition. Remember: I am the only one that can solve for these inequalities between gay and straight couples, as stated in my unrefuted 2nd contention.
Furthermore, extend all that stuff I said about equity and some benefits not being a matter of rights in this context. Do all citizens have the ""right"" to a dependent tax break if they choose not to have children (since this is a lifestyle choice, as well)? No, because it doesn't work that way. Some benefits are given as a matter of equity. Married couples will, on balance, require more income to survive . The calculus of coupling has been carefully factored into our existing tax system.
Immigration
Actually, application for citizenship is still a necessity, as well as a very rigorous INS process which requires applicants to display some sort of evidence of a pre-existing relationship prior to entering the country. My rebuttal here was to counter immigration practice as a reason to abolish marriage. I was merely asserting that this isn't actually much of a ""privilege,"" and was never intended to be.
On Contention 2:
Financial Benefits
1. The reason I assumed that my opponent was trying to avoid the financial debate is because he defined ""civil benefits"" specifically as non-financial, and then never mentions tax breaks or the finances of marriage in his case. If that's a misunderstanding, consider it cleared up now. However, it is curious that my opponent's objection to the financial benefits given to married couples was never mentioned in RD 1. He only ever mentions civil benefits, and is careful to define them as non-financial.
2. My opponent makes the assertion that ""most competent individuals don't need assistance from the government to thrive."" That desperately needs a warrant. The reason we have a system of progressive taxes is because, over the course of running the country, we've discovered that competence doesn't necessarily relate at all to ability to survive. If we have to get into a mini-debate about fiscal policy, we can do that, but I don't think we have the characters available. I maintain that the financial benefits of married couples are designed to assist them in survival as well as encourage committed coupling.
""Part Two""
""Part two"" was a cross-application, not a restatement, but that makes my job easier, as I can just forward readers to my extensive rebuttal to his on my contention 1. Extend this.
On the Conclusion:
Alternative 1: Marriage Licenses…
So, you want to keep marriage, but get rid of all the financial benefits associated with it? Would that not still violate the basic principle of your advocacy, which is to favor couples who choose to label themselves as married via the state? Furthermore, you state: ""there should be some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple."" Your 2nd contention is about how all those civil benefits can be gained in ways other than via a marriage license (i.e. we don't need marriage because you can get its benefits in other, better ways). Either you gain absolutely no offense off of your 2nd contention, or you are required to give up your solution. Otherwise, you have this huge contradiction on your hands. Finally, abolishing marriage ""as it is in the United States of America"" is abolishing marriage.
Alternative 2: Lifestyle Choice
Giving them as examples of other, voluntary lifestyle choices is a direct comparison. I was attacking your proposed alternative on the basis that, while that alternative works perfectly well for vegan-ism or nudism, it fails miserably for marriage. Your alternative fails as an alternative because, as I stated in RD 1: ""Unlike a sexual orientation that will result in the pairing of individuals who will share some portion of their entire lives with another, me choosing to not ingest meat or dairy products will most likely not lead directly to a nuclear family, a shared household, or any number of different life changes that a partnering would result in.""",We should abandon marriage,-1,no marriage
3123,arg_5_284,1ea09240-2019-04-18T18:08:23Z-00000-000,"1. There may very well be other escapes, but my opponent seeks to exaggerate the scale and scope of such occurrences, which was my original point. Additionally, my opponent does not provide any evidence that protection for any of the people involved is a major problem currently. Certainly not enough evidence to suggest the death penalty is warranted because of it.
(here it is)
http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com...2 and 3. Whether people 'deserve' something or not probably has the biggest role in answering why capital punishment is still applied. That is, people generally support capital punishment because of this argument.
When we see a person who has ended someone's life, why should we be forgiving? Someone who has raped a child, someone who has killed several people- What right does such a person have to live? They destroyed decent people, people who could have made something great of themselves. What right does the man who killed Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi or Jesus Christ have to live?
Lets ask them.
""Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.""
- Martin Luther King Jr.
""God alone can take life because he alone gives it.""- Mahatma Gandhi
""Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.""- Jesus Christ
When we are in rage against those who have wronged us, we forget who we are. We forget that when we kill others, we hurt ourselves. We pay for the hangman's noose and the electric chair. We have killed children, the mentally retarded, and we may very well pay for the killing of innocent lives.
We must remember what justice is. Justice is not killing people to make ourselves feel at ease. Justice is not an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth until we are all blind and toothless. These 3 men were men of Justice. They showed us how to make peace with our fellow man. They showed us how to live. They showed us how to love.
""But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"" - Jesus Christ
I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate! It was plenty of fun! I look forward to some great feedback from the voters.
",We should abolish capital punishment,1,capital punishment should be abolished in the united states
7061,arg_9_2875,c417ee27-2019-04-18T19:26:18Z-00002-000,"My opponent has chosen to change the tide of his argument to make unfounded accusations about my responses and to introduce his own definition of the resolution. As this is already round 4, I need not state that these new definitions are unacceptable, and I contest his definition below. In addition, my opponent says that I will not debate on his points. First, allow me to state that as he is the instigator and I the contender, the burden of proof rests on *him* to prove that atheism is directly linked to all atrocities that occurred in the last century.
Now, I point the audience to my opponent's sudden statement of his strange definition of ""atrocity"" in which he states that in order for something to be an atrocity, it must involve the targeting of racial groups and violation of human rights. Please see these two entries for the definitions of atrocity and atrocious from Merriam Webster:
atroc�i�ty
1 : the quality or state of being atrocious
2 : an atrocious act, object, or situation
atro�cious
1: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : barbaric
2: appalling, horrifying
3 a: utterly revolting : abominable b: of very poor quality
Please note that in both of these entries, reference was made to warfare, not specifically violations of human rights, targeting of racial groups, etc. This is my opponent's deliberate attempt to distort the definition of a word in order to favor his own argument. WWI by these definitions, most definitely counts as an atrocity, and by my opponent's own admission, is but a war between nations for power. No Atheism involved. As such, I believe I have made the necessary point in proving my opponent wrong. Unless my opponent wants to change the definition of ""atrocity"", then the resolution is negated.
My opponent also states that I do not believe that esoteric cults influenced nazi ideology. This is wrong and my opponent is twisting my words. I admit that these esoteric cults influenced nazi ideology, but I also argue that my opponent is making a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that Nazism has some atheistic components and some other components does not mean that all actions from nazi ideology stem from the atheistic ideas. Thus, my opponent's argument fails at the very start.
In addition, my opponent is trying to mislead the audience by creating a false connection. Please take note of his manipulative and deceptive language. My opponent's entire argument is a giant fallacy known as ""the association fallacy"" which is a long chain of non sequitors, so on top of failing at the very top of the chain, it also fails along the chain as well.
1. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist
2. Social Darwinism stems from Atheism
3. Hitler used social darwinism to commit atrocities
4. Therefore, Atheism is responsible for atrocities.
If my opponent sells me a gun, and I sell the gun to my brother, and my brother sells it to his friend, and my brother's friend decides to shoot this entire audience dead, does this mean that my opponent should then be jailed for mass murder? Unless my opponent can provide an argument that *DIRECTLY* relates atheism to the atrocity of Hitler, without all the garbage in between such as connection one ideology to another ideology to another ideology, his case makes no logical sense whatsoever. We are not playing ""Six degrees of separation"" and Hitler is not Kevin Bacon.
The chain of responsibility that my opponent is suggesting is, at best, completely absurd. Social Darwinism is one of many interpretations of Atheist concepts and does not naturally progress from Atheism. Any ideology that requires additional premises other than what directly follows from the parent ideology is simple a branch, not a natural outgrowth. There are atheistic concepts that are not in favor of social darwinism, therefore, my opponent is wrong on that count.
Next, social darwinism is one thing. The deprivation of rights is another. Hitler had flawed notions about what made a human dominant and the elements by which natural selection took place. This flaw in his thinking negates the responsibility of Atheism. My opponent is wrong on this count as well.
So, when my opponent's argument is logically fallacious in several locations, top to bottom, how can we still judge his proposition as valid? It is plain to see that my opponent is simply biased and at a lack of information, and must resort to semantics and distortion of logic and fact in order to manipulate an argument.
It is more reasonable to say that the atrocities that Hitler committed are not due to Atheism, but to his psychotic nature and distorted ideologies.
Just to recap:
1. My opponent is the instigator and I am the contender. The burden of proof rests on him to connect Atheism with all the atrocities. If he wishes to discuss them, then he should not wait for me to address them. If he does not address them, he has not fulfilled his burden and his argument fails.
2. My opponent cannot adequately rule out WWI as a great atrocity of the 20th century. Unless he can show how Atheism is responsible for it, his argument fails.
3. I have debunked my opponent's argument claiming that Atheism was responsible for Hitler's atrocities against mankind on the basis that it is logically fallacious in several areas. Unless my opponent can counter this, his argument fails.
I urge the audience to see through my opponent's carefully crafted and deliberately deceptive arguments. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.",We should adopt atheism,1,atheism
8681,arg_23_71,a6797ee2-2019-04-15T20:22:16Z-00020-000,"Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.
",We should prohibit flag burning,-1,"banning flag burning effectively bans questioning of what it represents, and thus bans questioning of the widely held values of the united states"
2028,arg_17_234,d98e8ed9-2019-04-18T19:01:11Z-00002-000,"Thank you. I agree with the definitions.
1. Rebuttals
1.1 Einstein quote
As can clearly be read, Einstein did not say that WWIII will be fought with nuclear weapons, whereas WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones due to usage of nuclear weapons in WWIII. He rather predicted new military technology, and nothing particular. It would indeed be illogical to say that only nuclear weapons are capable of destroying the whole world, and I doubt that Einstein referred to them. I will elaborate.
1.2 Contention 1
My opponent argued against nuclear weapons being immortal from the perspective of utilitarianism. He moved on to say that nuclear weapons are extremely deadly. I disagree with the first part, but agree with the second. The problem with my opponent's argument is that it completely singles out nuclear weapons as deadly weapons, as if they were the only ""extremely deadly"" weapons. We have very powerful and deadly weapons which are, in fact, non-nuclear. A good example is a weapon which holds the nickname ""The Mother of All Bombs"" (MOAB).[1] The effect can be seen on YouTube --> watch?v=f_gk49n5djw.
Disregarding that fact, we also have another weapon which is - according to Russian sources - four times more powerful than MOAB. It is called ""The Father of All Bombs"" (FOAB).[2] The effect can be seen on YouTube --> watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM. I ask, do we really get ourselves rid of extremely deadly weapons if we abolish all the nuclear weapons? No, we do not. In fact, we have such a high amount of powerful weapons that if WWIII took place even without nuclear weapons, we could guarantee that most of the world would be put into ruins. Let us analyze some powerful military mights in the world.
1. North Korea:
Tanks: 3,500-4,500
Artilleries: 15,000+ (with mortars)
2. Russia
Tanks: 22,800
Artilleries: 13,000+
3. China
Tanks: 8,200
Artilleries: 14,000
See sources #3, #4, and #5. These military powers have both enormous amounts of tanks and artilleries. North Korea might even have the largest artillery force in the world. The North Korean artillery pieces are placed near the border between their nation and South Korea. If those two countries went to war, North Korea would be able to turn Seoul, the capital of South Korea, into mere dust and ruins, unless there is a great resistance. I ask, what is there to prevent such a war from occurring? Both nations have very powerful weapons (and having the largest artillery force in the world is indeed a mighty thing), but what is one of the main deterrents of a possible war? Nuclear weapons. The United States is an ally of South Korea, and it would never allow North Korea to invade it. However, out of all weapons, the ones that North Korea fears the most are nuclear weapons. Should they be the aggressors, should they be about to annihilate South Korea, nothing would prevent USA from launching nuclear strikes against North Korea and eliminating it entirely.
1.2 Contention 2
It is not true that ""nuclear weapons only deter nuclear weapons."" Do you know why we have not had a major world war since the WWII? Due to nuclear weapons. The Warsaw Pact would have waged war against NATO had a military fight been with tanks and artilleries. But no, a necessary fight would turn out to be with usage of nuclear weapons, and which side would dare using them? Neither. What did this lead to? It lead to a world without a major world war for decades, and today we are all witnesses to that. The reason why nations fear using nuclear weapons against each other is because there is no hope for victory on the attacking side; using 100 nuclear weapons can lead to brutal consequences for the rest of the world. Using most nuclear weapons would turn this world into a planet without homo sapiens. However, with usage of decent military weapons, such as tanks, the military powers at least have hopes of beating the enemy without destroying themselves. That is why all other weapons besides nuclear weapons are pretty weak when it comes to major war deterrence.
1.3 Contention 3
The nations with most nuclear weapons are Russia and the United States of America. For any of these two nations to successfully eliminate one another, they would have to use so many nuclear weapons that the mushroom clouds (smoke) would cover the atmosphere and block sunlight access, which would lead to fatal consequences for the entirely world, hereby also the attacking nation. Therefore, I say that people are very mistaken when it comes to Mutually Assured Destruction. A major nuclear strike will both be suicidal for the victimized nation, but also the attacking nation. Even if USA bombs Russia entirely, and Russia does not use its nuclear weapons, then USA will still suffer from a form of MAD: one caused by itself.
Of course my opponent might argue that nuclear weapons cost too much, but it is important to notice that further development of them is not allowed, neither is USA spending trillions of dollars producing them like they did in the 20th century. Right now, they are to be preserved in order to guarantee world peace. Also, I want to tell my opponent that he cannot argue for an absolute abolishment of military as a defense of his case, since the resolution specifically speaks about abolishment of nuclear weapons.
-- References --
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
[5] http://www.globalfirepower.com...",We should fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons,-1,states ought not possess nuclear weapons
7852,arg_3_244,f1a76b5e-2019-04-18T17:57:56Z-00000-000,"How on Earth do ""Alpha males outnumber less dominant males""? ... Clearly the alphas are rare, since they dominate the others.
Where did you get the idea I was saying that less dominant men were forcing women who would be 'happier' with alpha males to marry them? Instead, I was saying that they would be happier with the less dominant male but out of fear of the alpha male beating him up for her, thus leaving the father of her children helpless to defend them, she would end up feeling forced to mate with the alpha male.
Marriage acts as a legal bind to say ""piss off you physically dominant males to allow males dominant in other ways to mate!"" In essence our species increase sin variation so people of MANY talents (not just fighting) get to pass their genes on and create a very diverse (thus dangerous) gene pool to ensure our species' dominance upon the planet.
The fact that lower testosterone is associated with being a less attentive father [
http://www.nytimes.com...] only assists my point in that we must allow these men to have the opportunity to raise kids and give them a fair chance.
""In past times, marriage was an device to protect mothers, help raise children, and to help men identify their own offspring. It is no longer the best means of addressing those aims, and should be replaced."" This claim is entirely false. From where did you find this? You must cite your source. Marriage was, and always has been, a binding force to make it clear that two people are to be bonded and that one partner (usually the husband) is responsible to supply to the needs of the other while the other raises their children but even infertile people can marry and adopt because that is the beauty of our species and why I support socialism, we are designed to SHARE AND CARE to make overall wealth increase, not to leave us as primitive, starving individuals brutally fighting for survival (after all if marriage wasn't superior to casual sex relationships then why did we invent it to begin with).
Now to re-iterate my contentions:
- No matter how common divorce has become (thanks to women now having a voice in the world to abusive husbands compared with back then) it still is a legal binding that will make a guy think much harder ""Oh I shouldn't cheat on her"" or the woman to think ""Yes I really have him all to myself"" and have a happy monogamous community where people distribute partners equally. (imagine as he pulls out his penis or she pulls your her tits that they suddenly see that ring on their finger and it sends a flood of guilt through them)
- In polygamy a very unfair 'status' system will form where only the offspring of the alpha male of the previous generation will be able to compete for the next because all women will think ""OOH! THEY ARE THE BIG MAN'S SONS!"" and any offspring of other men will seem inherently inferior with the family of offspring forming a brotherhood/sisterhood/mafia of some sort. MARRIAGE STOPS THIS by making it clear that there is a huge peer pressure not to touch another man's WIFE (being a far more significant social pressure than that on another man's GIRLFRIEND)
- Marriage forces monogamy because it is extreme social pressure not to create an unfair dynamic in who can get laid and raise their own children allowing less 'dominant' geniuses to pass their genes on to the next generation.
Thanks for the debate. Hope you one day marry the love of your life (or get a civil partnership). :)
Carl Sagan. [1]
[1] http://www.goodreads.com...",We should legalize cannabis,1,cannabis should be legalised.
292,arg_21_276,be3c3d9e-2019-04-18T19:00:02Z-00001-000,"But still, if you are truly careful about the people you have sex with and make sure they are tested the chances of AIDS are very low.
Also, even though many would not become a prostitute some would. And we do not need to waste money by putting people who are not a danger in jail. I like to keep my taxes low and let people make their own choices in manners such as these.
""It's all about the money, boys""",We should legalize prostitution,1,prostitution should be legalized
329,arg_21_313,53ea1c8-2019-04-18T19:35:11Z-00008-000,"Even though I disagree with Prostitution, and find it very immoral. It should be legalized. Our state government shouldn't have a say on how people treat their bodies. Furthermore, legalizing prostitution would be a benefit to our state. If anyone disagrees feel free to debate, I have debated this issue over and over again (Law Class)
and won each time. I need more challenges.",We should legalize prostitution,1,prostitution should be legalized in nevada
7957,arg_3_349,ec4f6b63-2019-04-18T18:27:06Z-00000-000,"
As I stated in my arguments, in the case of same-sex marriage, I do not believe the majority has the right to vote on the freedoms of the minority. I believe it would be a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority. To be tyrannical is to be oppressive. I am not for the Federal Government pushing forth oppressive legislature that places limitations on what an individual is able to do. I am also not for the public voting in oppressive laws that places limitations on a minority for no other reason than it’s their supposed “right”. If the Federal Government were to legalize same-sex marriage they would not be oppressing anyone. They would simply be giving more couples a choice and access to the same rights, benefits and protections that straight couples have access to.
Indeed, same-sex marriage affects only those who desire to have one, are in one, or have parents that are in one. And it does not negatively affect any of them. It also does not put limitations on the freedoms of straight couples. It does not force straight couples into gay marriages. It does not strip straight couples of their ability to be married. It just simply does not affect them.
Freedoms are important. But people should not have the freedom to limit another person’s freedom unless there is good reason for doing so. If no one’s quality of life is being threatened, then there is no good reason. I feel this much should be obvious.
",We should abandon marriage,-1,marriage rights should be determined by the states
7687,arg_3_79,187281bc-2019-04-18T18:25:58Z-00002-000," if not fulfilling one's desire is civilisation then i think there is no gain living in this kind of civilisation. we all love our desire and all our efforts are directed towards fulfillment of our desire. we must device a way to fulfill our desire and that cannot be uncivilised anyway.i don't know the nature of woman. as a man i know only the nature of man. i can show you men who are attracted to multiple women. can you show me a woman who is attracted to multiple men?
no, it is not a personal choice. if you get married and still have relation with another woman, that relation will be called either adultery(if woman married) or extra marital affair. both these things are illegal and cause of many social problems.
you don't understand my point on bigamy. bigamy is legally punishable but it originates from man's nature. punishing bigamy means punishing man's nature. this practice is itself in human and barbaric. it reminds us of dark christian era.
i told you earlier that marriage has its own limitation both legal and social. it is like a cage and not free air.
",We should abandon marriage,-1,marriage or free mixing
1484,arg_19_179,84367271-2019-04-18T17:08:01Z-00002-000,"The order will be AC, NC.
PRO/AC:
I Value Democracy on strength of link. When referencing democracy, we must not only value those systems that make a nation democratic, but also the ability of those systems to provide for the general welfare, as that is the core goal of just government.
I offer the Criterion of Reducing Polarization. Dr. Philip Keefer and Prof. Stephen Knack note, ""Increasing polarization reduces the stability of government decisions, and in particular increases the possibility of future extreme deviations from current government policies.""
Contention One: Polarization is a threat to democracy.
Sub-point A: Polarization hinders government""s ability to act.
Keefer and Knack Two observes, ""One problem identi@257;ed by researchers is the contribution of polarization to government delay in responding to crisis""two groups must agree to policy change; their preferences over the policy differ. Each group has imperfect knowledge about the cost that the other group bears in the event that a particular policy change is delayed, or about the likelihood that the other group will behave cooperatively. The greater the differences between the two groups""the larger are the gains to stubbornness""polarization impedes the formation of consensus to change policy.""
Sub-point B: Extreme Wings threaten the economy, jeopardizing democratic stability.
Keefer and Knack Three states: ""economic actors react to this uncertainty by reducing the scope of their activities, arranging their businesses so they are less exposed to risk...polarization slows growth because it makes the policy environment less secure. We test this claim by reexamining the impact of inequality--one type of polarization--on growth. Several recent cross-country empirical studies have found that inequality reduces economic growth""inequality reduces access to credit markets; reduces opportunities to achieve economics of scale; increases redistribution through government budgets; and increases political violence. Each of these reduces growth.""
Sub-point C: Factionalism leads to violence. Compulsory voting will fix this.
Jason Marisam of Harvard asserts, ""high turnout...helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression""[citizens] are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest."" Prof. Sarah Birch, concludes, ""our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives""as the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action"".Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalized social groups is a key means of incentivizing political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilizing forms of social unrest.""
Contention Two: Compulsory voting will address the problems posed by polarization.
Sub-point A: Compulsory voting will make the campaign process fairer and more inclusive.
The Harvard Law Review writes, ""In addition to the direct effect of compulsory voting on turnout, there are also several indirect benefits. First, compulsory voting would reduce the role of money in politics""get-out-the-vote money could be shifted to other forms of campaign spending""With this implicit limit on spending, politicians and parties might focus somewhat less on fundraising and be less beholden to donors""Compulsory voting would bring a new population into play, and would force political actors to make changes in their campaign methods in order to take these new voters into account.""
Sub-point B: Compulsory voting boosts turnout.
MP Scott Bennett claims, ""Compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used""Australia is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world""an average of 94.5 percent"""" The Harvard Law Review asserts, ""Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout.""
CON/NC:
I agree with Con's definitions bar one. Ought connotes ""desirability"" (Encarta.) For example, if I say ""you ought not be late,"" I am saying that it's desirable that you not be late, but that is not an obligation--it's a courtesy.
V: The resolution is about democracy, but Con's value is only a small subset of this idea. The value of Democracy better balances the wide array of rights and concerns within a society. Also, if we pursued Con's value to its logical conclusion, there would be no restrictions on speech. I could shout ""fire"" in any theatre, crowded or not.
C: Con's criterion has several problems. (1) It's circular logic. Con is protecting the right of freedom of speech by protecting rights. More simply, she's protecting rights by protecting rights. What Con's criterion should be doing is explaining HOW we should protect her value, not just that we SHOULD protect her value. (2) The right to free speech is not an absolute. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that there are valid restrictions on speech. Therefore, the debate should be less about ""protecting rights,"" but more so about ""determining legitimate restrictions."" This requires a cost-benefit analysis. (3) Rights also entail responsibilities. If I vote, but you don't, and we both get the same rights, you are unfairly free riding on the democratic system. You have a ""duty"" to respect the system and me and vote.
C1: There is no right not to vote.
Prof. Sarah Birch claims, ""Not all positive rights imply negative rights; we have a right to educate our children, but this does not mean that we have a right not to educate our children. We are required by the state to do many other things as well: to pay taxes, and to serve on juries, and to have our names included on the electoral roll."" Additionally, your evidence is a U.S. court case, but this resolution pertains to ""democracies"" in general, and is not limited to the U.S.
C2: CV is beneficial as my case shows.
Her Aussie example fails too. Prof. Lisa Hill, ""Australia, donkey votes account for only around 1 per cent of total votes cast. More importantly, this figure is actually lower than in many systems where voting is voluntary. It is also worth noting that""there tend to be about as many deliberately spoiled and blank ballots as there are donkey votes; therefore at least half of random votes are deliberately nullified by their authors. This renders them incapable of distorting outcomes""the vast majority cast""or sincerely attempt to cast""valid votes. Given that compulsory voting can increase turnout""one percentage point of intentionally invalid votes and no discernible increase in donkey votes seems to be a tolerable cost of enfranchising the disadvantaged."" Finally, idiots can still vote in a voluntary system.
SOURCES:
1. Bennett: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...
2. Birch: 2009, University of Essex, Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting, p. 42
3. Harvard: 2007, ""The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States,"" 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 592
4. Hill: 2001, University of Adelaide, ""Increasing Turnout Using Compulsory Voting,"" Politics, Vol. 31(1), p. 31
5. Marisam: 2009, Research Fellow-Harvard Law, ""Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation,"" St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 192-3
6. K&K: http://download.springer.com...",We should introduce compulsory voting,1,"in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory"
1603,arg_10_33,ac10e57a-2019-04-18T19:53:57Z-00000-000,"I suppose this is what it comes down to:
We are not a nation of individuals. We are a community whether you like it or not. It is far more of an injustice to not give the needy a helping hand, than to take six million dollars from a billionaire who can afford it anyway. Taxes suck. But being poor sucks more. And it's not like if poor people just put in a little more effort, they would become successful. The world doesn't work like that. You said that a good manufacturing job nets you 10 dollars an hour. But here's the catch. Not everyone has a manufacturing job in their town. Sometimes you have to work at McDonalds. I admit, I made an error in saying $7.25 a week. I meant $7.25 an hour. But that still comes out to $10,080 a week. That's barely livable in today's society. That is an injustice.
Libertarianism is flawed because the free market is flawed. I am not espousing communism as you seem to suggest. I am advocating rational, moderate government regulation of the economy. I am not suggesting price controls. I am suggesting taking the cream off of the top of the upper class's salary and giving a little bit of it to the poor, to give them a stepstool to success. I am not suggesting a welfare state. I am suggesting a temporary helping hand. Libertarianism does not provide for that. Libertarianism stands by and watches disaster happen. That's why it's flawed.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a communist. I'm a liberal. Big difference there.",We should adopt libertarianism,1,libertarianism is a flawed philosophy
1621,arg_10_51,8811ad8e-2019-04-18T19:01:40Z-00003-000,"What I see as the basic ethical argument of modern times. Is the sacrifice of one member of society, in order to benefit the whole justified? Or as I see it, is the only fair world one in which people are allowed to own themselves, thus their labor, time and money?
I see this as being the underlying differing of philosophies in modern issues, including redistribution of wealth through government programs.",We should adopt libertarianism,1,libertarianism is better than utilitarianism
8804,arg_23_194,5d3baa59-2019-04-18T19:48:24Z-00004-000,"Hi there. I've never debated anyone on this before but we'll see how it goes.
1. ""It doesn't hurt anyone and can be an effective method of protest.""
First of all, it hurts the morale of the American people. Although no one is physically hurt from this, psychologically, it may have tolls on the conscience of people. Secondly, for what kind of protest would it be effective on? Anti-America? If you don't like this country and our ways, then get out and this won't be a problem. You can burn the flag all you want. If you're Anti-Bush, that's fine, but he's still the leader of our country and we must support him. Any protest you want, flag burning isn't a reasonable means of solving anything.
2. ""Banning flag-burning violates the first [amendment].""
There are limits to any rights we may have. For example, if I were to say ""I'm going to kill the President,"" I would have broken the law because, although I'm guaranteed freedom of speech, saying that is just wrong. That's why we have laws against libel and slander, it violate both freedom of speech and press, but if it's untrue, then it shouldn't be said. If a victim is seen, then yes, it is a crime.
3. ""Although burning the flag can be considered disrespectful, that does not mean it should be illegal.""
Flag burning is extremely disrespectful, but, as with all laws, if there is a victim, there should be a crime. In a perfect world, nobody would be a victim, therefore, we should be striving towards the ultimate goal of a better society. Thus, I stand that flag burning should be banned, should be illegal.
I await your rebuttal. Thank you",We should prohibit flag burning,1,flag burning should be banned.
5347,arg_9_1161,e216031d-2019-04-18T14:23:30Z-00003-000,"The Christian Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are not applicable to modern day reality. What happened several hundred years ago is not the reality of Christianity today. These very ""Christians"" fought an archaic war between Catholics and Protestants as well. This was not a war caused by any modern Christian concept that is accepted by any notable amount of Christians if hardly any at all. These ancient wars were based on the views of the time and the monotheistic leadership roles of the time. Much of the knowledge we have today was not known at the time of these battles. Can you remember any time this century where the ""Christian army"" stood against the ""Islamic army""? Or the Catholics and Protestants went head to head in a battle royale? The answer is no. The midevil war and religious concepts are archaic and have no bareing on modern Christianity. In that day, democracy as we know it today was not very vast. To not fight on behalf of your king's will was heracy, and you would be killed and considered a disgrace. Superstitions of the time were much more widespread and powerful than today. Lightning and thunder was God's anger. Meteors burning through the atmosphere were signs and wonders. Floods were God. Nothing of this matter was nature based or science based. Everything must have been God somehow. This concluded with humans beings afraid of the nature of physics and scientifically explained phenomenon. The Bible depicts humanity becoming more intelligent and having knowledge in the end of days. We have much more knowledge today, which wasn't hard to predict, but the truth remains. We are not so superstitious today because we know ""why"" on so many more things that used to have no answer. We also live in a world where individuals in the modern world have much more individual rights and education abilities. It is also more accepted now to stand against leadership or go against the grain as an individual.
Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church and Mao was raised as a Buddhist. These facts prove nothing as many people reject their religious upbringing, as these three men did. From an early age, historian Allan Bullock writes, Hitler ""had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics.""
www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/was-hitler-a-christian.html
Claiming that Hitler's rhetoric makes him a Christian is the same as confusing political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.
Hitler originally wanted to call his forthcoming book Viereinhalb Jahre (des Kampfes) gegen L""ge, Dummheit und Feigheit, or Four and a Half Years (of Struggle) Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
In Mein Kampf (page 278)Hitler speaks of the evolution of organic things and says ""the strong will rule"", a reference to the concept of ""survival of the fittest"". It's typically nontypical for a Christian to ascribe to the Theory of Evolution and was much more so in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's. Christians today, who are a less religious and more laidback version of Christianity than in the 1920's-1940's, and are much more scientifically educated, do not often accept Evolution as a fact, but Hitler did, and not of 2015 ideology but the ideology of the 1920's-1940's ideology. If I seem wrong, go ask your grandparents if they are available.
I note that Hitler was chewing on the notion of using the word ""stupidity"" in the title of his book according to this source. It is hard for me to believe Hitler was a Christian because his actions say he was not. I personally do not ever use the word ""stupid"" towards someone, and it is because of my Christian beliefs. A look over of all of my posts on this forum is welcome if deemed neccessary. I have never used the word as a reference to anyone I was in disagreement with on this forum. Why? Because I reverence and respect God and His commands based on the Christian Bible and its commands.
New International Version
(1 John 4:8)
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
So what is love?
1 Corinthians 13:4-5
New International Version
4""Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5""It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Did Hitler fear these words or even care based on his actions? I think it is more than fair to say no.",We should adopt atheism,1,christianity is no more dangerous than atheism
1023,arg_20_90,964e5876-2019-04-18T16:53:07Z-00003-000,"Cannabis has been celebrated for thousands of years and is a gift from God. Only within the last century has it been demonized by man, probably beginning in America. With new research and revelations becoming available to us (and rather painstakingly), can we now realize this. I will offer evidence and sources that study this issue. I'd like to keep this debate based on facts rather than opinions. So please offer your research that contradicts this statement.
",We should legalize cannabis,1,cannabis has been celebrated for thousands of years and is a gift from god.
4333,arg_9_147,df011769-2019-04-18T16:22:36Z-00001-000,"
My worthy opponent claims, ""Lack of belief entails the knowledge to lack belief."".
That has to be the most ridiculous logic I have ever come across.
Do non-golf players have to know what golf is, in order to be non-golf players? Of course not!
If you have never heard of the game and don't know what it is, you are a non-golf player. You don't have to learn golf, study it, know the rules and own clubs to be a non-golf player!
Do non-Chinese speakers have to know Chinese, in order not to speak Chinese? Of course not! If you have never heard of Chinese, you are a non-Chinese speaker. You don't have to learn Chinese, study it, know the words and grammar in order to be a non-Chinese speaker.
Do atheists have to know what god is in order to not believe in god? Of course not! You don't have to learn what god is and study the Bible in order to not believe in god.
When you ""lack"" something, you don't need to know the thing you lack in order to lack it.
If I have never heard of the Chakablaka tribe in Africa, it would be impossible for me to believe in them. I don't have to be told about them and study them in order to not believe in them.
If you lack knowledge of something, you automatically lack belief in it.
My opponent wants to turn the logic around and claim that you must have knowledge in something in order to lack belief in it. It's true that you need knowledge of something in order to believe in it, but you don't need knowledge of something in order to lack belief in it!
An atheists lacks belief in ALL gods, even though it would be impossible to find out and study every god that ever existed. It's not the atheists' job to disprove gods. The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim for a god's existence. The only time an atheist leaves the default position of atheism, is when he or she is not only told about a specific god, but also given demonstrable, convincing evidence that such a god exists. Without the knowledge of the definition of what a specific god is and without demonstrable, convincing evidence to prove the god exists, an atheist stays in the default position of not believing (lacking the belief) in a god.
#t=426
5:45-7:05
Since this is my last chance to say something about the topic, because my opponent will get the last word, I would like to point out that adding another (different) augment in the last round without me able to comment on it, would not be fair.
I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope it was as enjoyable and educational for him as it was for me.
",We should adopt atheism,1,atheism is the default position.
3137,arg_5_298,79e58287-2019-04-18T19:14:49Z-00002-000,"As far as the inefficiency notes are concerned, we both agree that they are essentially irrelevant; as such, they will play no part in the debate.
One thing before we begin: notice my opponent's slimy tactic here. ""Now that someone has indeed accepted the debate, I can reveal the statistical support for my arguments"". My opponent has clearly adopted a strategy based in deception and omission. Conduct point to Con.
Now then, on to the good stuff! (And I appreciate my opponent's conformity to my numbering/lettering format)
1. Morality
a. The assertion underlying my opponent is making is that murdering another man is a forfeiture of the right to life on the spot; if this were the case, then any law abiding citizen would have the authority to take the murderer's life, as he would have forfeited that right. Remember that, according to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be deprived of life (among other rights) without due process first; this means that a man doesn't automatically ""forfeit"" his rights. On top of that, my opponent still fails to prove the legitimacy of the status quo; a court may decide on the death penalty, but that is hardly adequate justification. Responding to murder with a second murder is hardly moral; again, two wrongs do not make a right, regardless of the legality.
b. On my analogy, Pro argues that I shouldn't compare human life to material things. A couple of arguments here:
i) First of all, I'd like to direct you to Pro's 4th argument, *WHICH HE DROPS*: he argues here that the death penalty is justified because it is saving money that would otherwise be used for life imprisonment; if anyone is trying to put a dollar value on human life, it would be Pro.
ii) Pro also mistakes my intentions here. I am simply saying that, while ""proportional"", so to speak, murdering a murderer makes as much sense as stealing a thief's possessions. Proportionality =/= Justification.
c. Pro's response validates my point completely. Both Pro and our ""justice"" system would condemn these men to death without providing a chance for contrition, repentance, or redemption. Pro is making an entirely unwarranted generalization about murderers which presupposes a mental capacity inadequate for rehabilitation. The cynical mindset of the justice system is what needs to be put to death.
2. Retribution
a. Pro ignores the main argument that I'm making here. The purpose of the justice system is, ideally, to make an impartial decision - not to satisfy the lust for vengeance possessed by the victim's loved ones. The ""bonus"" of satisfying the family is hardly adequate reason to support the death penalty.
b. Pull through the Bazemore evidence, discussing how the victim (or the family) is peripheral in the process, so a retributive system of justice can't advocate something based on the level of satisfaction enjoyed by the family.
3. Deterrence
a. Sure, I'll grant my opponent that there's a correlation; however, we all know that correlation doesn't imply causation, especially considering the maelstrom of recent evidence that I provided in Round 1 suggesting the opposite of Pro's claims. My opponent's graph might just come down to this: the decrease in violent crimes in NON-death penalty states could simply outweigh the increase in murder rate in PRO-death penalty states. That would support the data from both of our sources (as executions rise in death penalty states, violent crime rates fall in non-death penalty states), but the argument overall would still go Con.
b. After reading through Pro's evidence, I came upon a most interesting quote regarding these so-called ""findings"": ""'We just don't have enough data to say anything,' said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were 'flimsy' and appeared in 'second-tier journals.'"" Look at the evidence I've provided here. 88% of expert criminologists concur that the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime, despite what these ""flimsy"" studies might suggest.
c. Pro's response here has nothing to do with my argument, which was that, when faced with the death penalty, would-be murderers often adopt this ""go-for-broke"" mentality, since they have nothing left to lose, and no opportunities to look for once the death sentence is given. As far as the response he makes, I've already given a situation above that satisfies both his evidence and mine, showing that this argument goes Con. My multiple pieces of long term evidence show us that states with high murder rates didn't just recently ""revert"" to the death penalty. The trend is clear, and it supports the Con position.
4. Cost
Again, I would just like to point out that Pro has dropped this entire argument. Don't allow him to come and ""pick it back up"" in later rounds. To briefly recap:
a. Ethical justifications are not based upon economic gains (especially noting my opponent's earlier argument that human life cannot be compared to material goods).
b. Even law enforcement admits that the death penalty is ""the least efficient use of taxpayers' money"".
c. Refer to all of the statistics I posted in Round 1, all showing that the use of the death penalty is actually far more expensive than the maintenance of a LIP inmate.
5. One Other Thing
a. Once again, we notice that my opponent's logic is flawed, and he draws huge non sequiturs from his misrepresentations of findings concerning the death penalty (findings which, may I remind you, were conveniently and deceptively omitted from his Round 1 arguments). If you want reliability in evidence and reason, you'll vote Con here, too.
In conclusion, Con clearly has the conduct, argument, and source points (Spelling and Grammar hasn't been an issue thus far). You might not think so, Pro, but I would contend that this debate has already been decided. In spite of that, good luck in Round 3. :)",We should abolish capital punishment,-1,capital punishment is justice best served swiftly