 |
LR4N6FTW4EVA's Debates
  |
A debate on a Supreme Court Case
The case is DC v. Heller. I contend that Heller had the constitution on his side. The Second Amendment can be interpreted as thus "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re-phrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be...
It is morally permissible...
The resolution is: "It is morally permissible to use this site to non-satirically advocate that the killing of innocents is both acceptable and unacceptable in the same context." The following is agreed to by every debater on this site: " Will not use the Service in any way to provide material support or resources (or to conceal or disguise the source, location, nature, or ownership of material support or resources) to any organization designated by the U.S. government as a foreign terrori...
More fun
Okay, R1, I give this intro. My opponent gives me a list of several topics, pertaining to a variety of subjects. In R2, I pick the topic. My opponent picks his or her side. If they pick Pro, they go in their R2, and forfeit in R5, if they pick Con, they don't do anything else in R2. R3 and on are normal....
Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!
This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate. There will be 5 rounds of this debate. 1A: This introductory post 1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot overlap in terms of topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics, 2 cannot be about Music, 2 cannot be about Science), the topics c...
A debate on a plan
Okay, so what will happen is I will post a plan, that is a solution to a modern problem. My opponent will attack the plan, and try to disprove it. Here's my plan to eliminate poverty. Step One: Education Education is the most important tool to escape poverty. Obviously we must provide a higher quality education for impoverished children. UNICEF ranked the United States' educational system 22nd out of 30 developed nations. That is clearly failure. The school system is choked by bureaucracy an...
One of the issues in your profile.
Okay, so what you'll do is look at my profile, and find an issue we disagree on. You will state that issue. If you are PRO, you will also post your argument. If you are CON, you will only post the issue....
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent p
I negate: "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people." For clarity, I pose the following definitions. 1. Morally permissible: conforming to a normative standard of right and wrong. 2. Innocent: free from the action or intention of moral or legal crimes. For analysis of the resolution, I pose the following observations. 1. According to the resolution, it is asking if an action is moral. Morality is normative. Normative is defined as abs...
Debate Regarding a few listed subjects.
1. Substance Dualism isn't as crazy as it sounds. 2. One should not believe tales of miracles that contradict of prior experience. 3. Utilitarianism is fundamentally superior to Kantianism. 4. Kantianism is fundamentally superior to Utilitarianism. 5. Pragmatism is a superior life view. 6. Humans are not truly individuals. 7. Causality is not provable. 8. Kierkegaard is wrong, ethics and morality cannot be suspended, even for a higher goal. 9. Assuming that God exists, Abraham was wrong...
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.
Although, I have seen some people forfeit every round of a debate and still manage to succeed in winning these cases are rare and far between. Usually the debate topic is really bad, the person is despised, or the arguments in favor are actually weak enough that no reply is nearly a tie. None of those apply. - I'm not hated. - The topic isn't so offensive as to illicit anti-votes. - My arguments are not tissue thin and worthless. There are two likely outcomes: -- My opponent will reply...