I will debate almost anything

[TeeBs]

Ok a new one. The sexual slavery thing in some parts of asia, I think the U.S.A. buy all the Sex slaves and sending them too uranius would be a horrible idea. Why do you support the slaughter of a group of people who are for the most part innocent, just born into the wrong family at the wrong time?

 

[Gilhelmi]

EDIT 3
I WILL NOT DEBATE THE PROS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. NEVER.

Perhaps this is worthy... but on the other hand, having less restrictions on sex could create a happier, well balanced society. Throughout history, the most stable, content cultures are those who have been the most liberal - particularly within the realm of sex. Arguing the pros of child porn may be a bit much, but are restrictions such as age of consent too restrictive? If a person is old enough to consent to sex, why shouldn't they be old enough to make porn? Age of consent has gradually risen as society has progressed over the last 200 years (From non-existent to 16/18 today); along with that, depression, abuse, and other mental disorders have also risen. Would more lenient rules help? Why not?

(heheh, see what I did there?)

I never said no sex or no porn discussions. That was in response to a particularity annoying troll that kept bugging me. But no age of consent debates either.

I do not think there is a need for porn in society is my stance. However, if we can agree to keep it clean, I will debate this with you.

 

[TheYak]

There is no such thing as a best game of all time, or a best movie of all time, etc. Quality is only measured through our feelings.

 

[X10J]

Batman is not wearing a mask. The mask is his real face. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

To clerify, is what you mean to say that Batman is wearing a mask, and that that mask is Bruce Wayne?

In one comic or another (I want to say Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum, though I may be wrong), someone said that it was pointless to remove the mask, because the mask WAS his real face. Namely, Batman is the real person. So, perhaps Bruce Wayne being the false identity is what I mean.

Let's see. We've got three entities here Batman, Bruce Wayne, and the personal self(the personal self being who one realy is).

Now, the current Bruce Wayne is a social self projected by the personal self as an attempt to simmulate what the personnel self would be like had the death of his mother and father never occured, and is projected as a scapegoat for the media and anyone else wondering "what's going on with Bruce Wayne?".

Batman is a social self trough which the personal self may act and live, without facing any of the punishments/judgements that his lifestyle would subject him to.

That may have gotten a bit too psychobable-y to understand, and so will try and write it more practicaly.

Its kind of like The Personal Self(the man behind all the masks) is painting two self portraits to show the world. One is Bruce Wayne, millionare playboy; the other is Batman, bad-ass ninja vigilante. The Bruce Wayne painting is a front to disguise his true self. The Batman portrait is a front to reveal his true self, while keeping it protected.

Now, with this in mind, I argue that Batman is not the true entity, because Batman is a mask used by the true entity(the Personal Self) to act safely, and not the true entity itself.

TLDR: Batman and Bruce Wayne are both masks, but Batman is a mask that looks more like the wearer.

 

[milkkart]

I think Child Pornography is bad, why do you support it?

I think this guy has a valid argument.

I also second this.

legal distribution of confiscated child pornography held as evidence to paedophiles without profit while still maintaining prosecution for its production would provide a sexual outlet for them and so discourage them from abusing children and reduce the harm to children by for its production by removing demand.

 

[Skorpyo]

You want a debate? HERE'S a debate:

?Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

 

[Firetaffer]

I think Child Pornography is bad, why do you support it?

I think this guy has a valid argument.

I also second this.

Haha, multi-quoting :O

 

[X10J]

You want a debate? HERE'S a debate:

?Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

What?

 

[DasDestroyer]

You want a debate? HERE'S a debate:

?Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

You`ve got to be kidding me. I`ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It`s just common sense.

 

[Gilhelmi]

You want a debate? HERE'S a debate:

?Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

Please use complete sentences.

Or at least ones that can be read.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

All people are inherently good at the start of their life. It is through upbringing, personal experiences, and societal 'norms' that cause many groups of people to develop ideals that can then become radical and, at times, violent.

 

[Megacherv]

(4 ? 5)² = (6 ? 5)²

4 ? 5 = 6 ? 5

That bit there

Sure the top part works fine, but the bottom doesn't because of the 2 outcomes of root-1: 1 and -1

You could say, however, that |4-5| = |6-5|

 

[Skorpyo]

You want a debate? HERE'S a debate:

?Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

You`ve got to be kidding me. I`ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It`s just common sense.

Congratulations.

You win +5 Internets.

 

[DasDestroyer]

You want a debate? HERE'S a debate:

?Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

You`ve got to be kidding me. I`ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It`s just common sense.

Congratulations.

You win +5 Internets.

And where do I go to claim said Internets?

 

[FirstPersonWinner]

snip

snip
c) Western society is doomed to failure as was the late roman empire?
snip

I invite others to join in as well as I'm not a particularly good debater myself.

Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed above may not be those of the author.

sinp

C) Well most likely all countries will eventually come to an end. If this will happen within our lifetime? Probably not. There may be minor changes but it is unlikely that all major Western Powers will just suddenly be destroyed. It's not like they can sack Rome.

snip

I disagree, You can sack modern western cities. All you need is multiple terms of poor leadership causing weakened economy, this leads to civil unrest that diverts military and police assets away from strategic points. This can lead to a collapse of an economy.

Look at the looting from most riots, the damage done to most infrastructure greatly outweighs the lose of the items stolen. Any invading army will have better equipment to loot with and will be encouraged to do so to gather supplies like food and other necessities. The US even did it to some extent in WW2, although mostly when we liberated concentration camps or POW camps and had many more mouths to feed.

I see your point but you must also consider that most major powers that have the supplied military structure to do this would not be willing to war with a major nuclear power especially if it would lead to a situation where said nuclear power becomes cornered and out of options.

Also which non-western power would have the supplied military force and cause to actually invade us?

China, Their military will blindly follow orders without thinking about it too much, they believe the propaganda. Also, the Chinese may come to the conclusion that the US would not us Nukes on our home soil, I think they are right. The US would avoid firing its missiles at China, because lets face it, no matter where it hits it will kill civilians. Then the UN will cry foul and may (I stress may) attack the US. So I do not know how likely it is that strategic (ie: affect large area, like a H-Bomb) weapons will come into play. We would probably use tactical (ie: affects smaller areas; like tanks, guided missles, small less-than kiloton nukes, ect). So mostly a world war could happen and be almost fully conventional weapons.

2) The US is flipping crazy. You think US citizens (the crazy ones not the others) would allow a full invasion or annexation of the US? I understand that countries like France just get used to being invaded but this is "Merica!" we are talking about. Even if fighting the enemy is irrational, futile, stupid, or crazy, we will do it. Heck Glenn Beck and people will lead the charge, they have been waiting for an actual threat to America to fight against (Now Mr. Beck just makes up threats to get by).

You make an excellent point. I am one of those crazies with an AR-15 and a 1911 by my side. and yes the UN is pretty useless.

However, I think you underestimate China just a bit. I mean they have a standing population of 1,300,000,000 or as I say in understatement "a lot of people". Assuming half are men (this is a big assumption because girls are less desirable in their culture) then that is still 650,000,000 people or as I say "TWICE THE US POPULATION" (Google both of them. I just did to make sure my facts were strait. I was 100,000,000 short on china and 200,000,000 over on the US.) Point is China might just start a war to solve their population crises. At first, I was going to make a joke but after looking up those stats I think I will be serious on that.

Yes, we could mount a successful resistance, and yes it would give Glenn Beck something to do (I partly agree with him but he is so bloody annoying I feel bad for agreeing)

Note: I am just amazed one-point-three BILLION people verses three-hundred million. I mean we are not that different is size.

Yes China has a lot of people, and if they drafted all their males at age to war they would have a huge standing force, but they would find themselves unable to supply all of them without a MASSIVE arms build up. It will be like the Russians in WW2, and before you say they won, the only reason for this was that the country they were fighting was fighting several other countries at the same time.

A smaller more well armed force has throughout history been known to maim/beat a less well trained or equipped force. Along with this guerrilla warfare, especially with being defenders of a home nation, America would be all set up to fight the heck out of that battle. Also China being overseas would have it harder to equip their soldiers and keep up morale. (Remember this is China not north Korea. While they are under a scary totalitarian leadership they only follow by force and not by zealous mind control.)

And again I say: "Mericans be crazy." Just think of the things that crazy random Americans would do to defend their country? Think about it and say to yourself: "Would I not be freaked out fighting those people?"

Just telling you, it's not going to be easy when you have people riding around with no shirt and cargo pant with an American flag and a cape in a truck throwing molotovs and bottles of urine at your troops while randomly discharging automatic fire at them as their radio sub-woofer plays some kind of insane patriotic song like "America, F*** Yeah!" loud enough that the base shakes the area for about 100 yds. And we just call that Sunday Night Football.

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip

snip
c) Western society is doomed to failure as was the late roman empire?
snip

I invite others to join in as well as I'm not a particularly good debater myself.

Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed above may not be those of the author.

sinp

C) Well most likely all countries will eventually come to an end. If this will happen within our lifetime? Probably not. There may be minor changes but it is unlikely that all major Western Powers will just suddenly be destroyed. It's not like they can sack Rome.

snip

I disagree, You can sack modern western cities. All you need is multiple terms of poor leadership causing weakened economy, this leads to civil unrest that diverts military and police assets away from strategic points. This can lead to a collapse of an economy.

Look at the looting from most riots, the damage done to most infrastructure greatly outweighs the lose of the items stolen. Any invading army will have better equipment to loot with and will be encouraged to do so to gather supplies like food and other necessities. The US even did it to some extent in WW2, although mostly when we liberated concentration camps or POW camps and had many more mouths to feed.

I see your point but you must also consider that most major powers that have the supplied military structure to do this would not be willing to war with a major nuclear power especially if it would lead to a situation where said nuclear power becomes cornered and out of options.

Also which non-western power would have the supplied military force and cause to actually invade us?

China, Their military will blindly follow orders without thinking about it too much, they believe the propaganda. Also, the Chinese may come to the conclusion that the US would not us Nukes on our home soil, I think they are right. The US would avoid firing its missiles at China, because lets face it, no matter where it hits it will kill civilians. Then the UN will cry foul and may (I stress may) attack the US. So I do not know how likely it is that strategic (ie: affect large area, like a H-Bomb) weapons will come into play. We would probably use tactical (ie: affects smaller areas; like tanks, guided missles, small less-than kiloton nukes, ect). So mostly a world war could happen and be almost fully conventional weapons.

2) The US is flipping crazy. You think US citizens (the crazy ones not the others) would allow a full invasion or annexation of the US? I understand that countries like France just get used to being invaded but this is "Merica!" we are talking about. Even if fighting the enemy is irrational, futile, stupid, or crazy, we will do it. Heck Glenn Beck and people will lead the charge, they have been waiting for an actual threat to America to fight against (Now Mr. Beck just makes up threats to get by).

You make an excellent point. I am one of those crazies with an AR-15 and a 1911 by my side. and yes the UN is pretty useless.

However, I think you underestimate China just a bit. I mean they have a standing population of 1,300,000,000 or as I say in understatement "a lot of people". Assuming half are men (this is a big assumption because girls are less desirable in their culture) then that is still 650,000,000 people or as I say "TWICE THE US POPULATION" (Google both of them. I just did to make sure my facts were strait. I was 100,000,000 short on china and 200,000,000 over on the US.) Point is China might just start a war to solve their population crises. At first, I was going to make a joke but after looking up those stats I think I will be serious on that.

Yes, we could mount a successful resistance, and yes it would give Glenn Beck something to do (I partly agree with him but he is so bloody annoying I feel bad for agreeing)

Note: I am just amazed one-point-three BILLION people verses three-hundred million. I mean we are not that different is size.

Yes China has a lot of people, and if they drafted all their males at age to war they would have a huge standing force, but they would find themselves unable to supply all of them without a MASSIVE arms build up. It will be like the Russians in WW2, and before you say they won, the only reason for this was that the country they were fighting was fighting several other countries at the same time.

A smaller more well armed force has throughout history been known to maim/beat a less well trained or equipped force. Along with this guerrilla warfare, especially with being defenders of a home nation, America would be all set up to fight the heck out of that battle. Also China being overseas would have it harder to equip their soldiers and keep up morale. (Remember this is China not north Korea. While they are under a scary totalitarian leadership they only follow by force and not by zealous mind control.)

And again I say: "Mericans be crazy." Just think of the things that crazy random Americans would do to defend their country? Think about it and say to yourself: "Would I not be freaked out fighting those people?"

Just telling you, it's not going to be easy when you have people riding around with no shirt and cargo pant with an American flag and a cape in a truck throwing molotovs and bottles of urine at your troops while randomly discharging automatic fire at them as their radio sub-woofer plays some kind of insane patriotic song like "America, F*** Yeah!" loud enough that the base shakes the area for about 100 yds. And we just call that Sunday Night Football.

OK I admit this. If China invaded, I would fit the description of your last two paragraphs. I, for fun, have thought of many way to defend against an invading army. You are right China would have a near impossible time of winning.

That was fun, Thank you

 

[milkkart]

Spoiler: snip

snip

snip
c) Western society is doomed to failure as was the late roman empire?
snip

I invite others to join in as well as I'm not a particularly good debater myself.

Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed above may not be those of the author.

sinp

C) Well most likely all countries will eventually come to an end. If this will happen within our lifetime? Probably not. There may be minor changes but it is unlikely that all major Western Powers will just suddenly be destroyed. It's not like they can sack Rome.

snip

I disagree, You can sack modern western cities. All you need is multiple terms of poor leadership causing weakened economy, this leads to civil unrest that diverts military and police assets away from strategic points. This can lead to a collapse of an economy.

Look at the looting from most riots, the damage done to most infrastructure greatly outweighs the lose of the items stolen. Any invading army will have better equipment to loot with and will be encouraged to do so to gather supplies like food and other necessities. The US even did it to some extent in WW2, although mostly when we liberated concentration camps or POW camps and had many more mouths to feed.

I see your point but you must also consider that most major powers that have the supplied military structure to do this would not be willing to war with a major nuclear power especially if it would lead to a situation where said nuclear power becomes cornered and out of options.

Also which non-western power would have the supplied military force and cause to actually invade us?

China, Their military will blindly follow orders without thinking about it too much, they believe the propaganda. Also, the Chinese may come to the conclusion that the US would not us Nukes on our home soil, I think they are right. The US would avoid firing its missiles at China, because lets face it, no matter where it hits it will kill civilians. Then the UN will cry foul and may (I stress may) attack the US. So I do not know how likely it is that strategic (ie: affect large area, like a H-Bomb) weapons will come into play. We would probably use tactical (ie: affects smaller areas; like tanks, guided missles, small less-than kiloton nukes, ect). So mostly a world war could happen and be almost fully conventional weapons.

2) The US is flipping crazy. You think US citizens (the crazy ones not the others) would allow a full invasion or annexation of the US? I understand that countries like France just get used to being invaded but this is "Merica!" we are talking about. Even if fighting the enemy is irrational, futile, stupid, or crazy, we will do it. Heck Glenn Beck and people will lead the charge, they have been waiting for an actual threat to America to fight against (Now Mr. Beck just makes up threats to get by).

You make an excellent point. I am one of those crazies with an AR-15 and a 1911 by my side. and yes the UN is pretty useless.

However, I think you underestimate China just a bit. I mean they have a standing population of 1,300,000,000 or as I say in understatement "a lot of people". Assuming half are men (this is a big assumption because girls are less desirable in their culture) then that is still 650,000,000 people or as I say "TWICE THE US POPULATION" (Google both of them. I just did to make sure my facts were strait. I was 100,000,000 short on china and 200,000,000 over on the US.) Point is China might just start a war to solve their population crises. At first, I was going to make a joke but after looking up those stats I think I will be serious on that.

Yes, we could mount a successful resistance, and yes it would give Glenn Beck something to do (I partly agree with him but he is so bloody annoying I feel bad for agreeing)

Note: I am just amazed one-point-three BILLION people verses three-hundred million. I mean we are not that different is size.

Yes China has a lot of people, and if they drafted all their males at age to war they would have a huge standing force, but they would find themselves unable to supply all of them without a MASSIVE arms build up. It will be like the Russians in WW2, and before you say they won, the only reason for this was that the country they were fighting was fighting several other countries at the same time.

A smaller more well armed force has throughout history been known to maim/beat a less well trained or equipped force. Along with this guerrilla warfare, especially with being defenders of a home nation, America would be all set up to fight the heck out of that battle. Also China being overseas would have it harder to equip their soldiers and keep up morale. (Remember this is China not north Korea. While they are under a scary totalitarian leadership they only follow by force and not by zealous mind control.)

And again I say: "Mericans be crazy." Just think of the things that crazy random Americans would do to defend their country? Think about it and say to yourself: "Would I not be freaked out fighting those people?"

Just telling you, it's not going to be easy when you have people riding around with no shirt and cargo pant with an American flag and a cape in a truck throwing molotovs and bottles of urine at your troops while randomly discharging automatic fire at them as their radio sub-woofer plays some kind of insane patriotic song like "America, F*** Yeah!" loud enough that the base shakes the area for about 100 yds. And we just call that Sunday Night Football.

OK I admit this. If China invaded, I would fit the description of your last two paragraphs. I, for fun, have thought of many way to defend against an invading army. You are right China would have a near impossible time of winning.

That was fun, Thank you

theres something else you didn't seem to consider, how the hell would china get those millions of troops to america? especially without getting shot out of the sky/sea on the way there.

 

[Engarde]

I have a one.

All crimes deserve equal punishment, here meaning the death penalty.
I'll argue negative, you argue positive.

Well it would reduce the population which is starting to get overcrowded.

Also, it will give very good incentive to not commit crimes. I will assume accidental crimes like occasional speeding and the like are only ticketable offenses (unless you are a repeat offender). As long as the justice system is fair we will have no problems.

Disclaimer: no I do not really think this

Ah, but is it justified to have such a system with the current 'trial by media attitude? Since as we all know, humans are not perfect, is it truly fair to say the system could work?

Not to mention, will the poor who may have had to steal to survive deserve execution, thus also most likely dooming their family?

Anyway, was just a bit of fun, we can let it drop there if you wish. I am thouroughly amused.

The most I could see is non-violent crime not being punishable by death.

But even those Hobos are hurting our utopia by being poor. Now if we make poverty punishable by death that should motivate them to get jobs or start a business.
Disclaimer: no I do not really think this

OK; this was a fun and silly one

I loved how we turned that to 'being poor is punishable by death.' Thank you for brightening my day!

 

[Gilhelmi]

I have a one.

All crimes deserve equal punishment, here meaning the death penalty.
I'll argue negative, you argue positive.

Well it would reduce the population which is starting to get overcrowded.

Also, it will give very good incentive to not commit crimes. I will assume accidental crimes like occasional speeding and the like are only ticketable offenses (unless you are a repeat offender). As long as the justice system is fair we will have no problems.

Disclaimer: no I do not really think this

Ah, but is it justified to have such a system with the current 'trial by media attitude? Since as we all know, humans are not perfect, is it truly fair to say the system could work?

Not to mention, will the poor who may have had to steal to survive deserve execution, thus also most likely dooming their family?

Anyway, was just a bit of fun, we can let it drop there if you wish. I am thouroughly amused.

The most I could see is non-violent crime not being punishable by death.

But even those Hobos are hurting our utopia by being poor. Now if we make poverty punishable by death that should motivate them to get jobs or start a business.
Disclaimer: no I do not really think this

OK; this was a fun and silly one

I loved how we turned that to 'being poor is punishable by death.' Thank you for brightening my day!

You are welcome. I am surprised by that as well.

 

[skeliton112]

O.K. here's a tough one. I actually had to do this in school once. It's about Guantanamo Bay. I was chosen to argue for it and tell fo it's fantastic advantages and why it really shouldn't be shut down.

Go and do that for me. I failed, so will you. Take all the time you want, btw.

I want to take a shot at it.

Guantanimo bay is a testement to the power and brutality of the current world superpower, the United States of America. Its methods, while being unortodox and "inhumane", have show those who would destroy this land of plenty how powerful its wrath can be. It has also shown those liveing in the land of the free herself how safe they are in the arms of their elected officials, safe due to the three arms of government. /arguement