Where does it say that? If that's true, then why does the bible say that most will go to hell? To the Muslim, Allah is as real as God is to the Christian, or as Buddha is to the Buddhist. The bible says most people will burn in hell. There are 2 possible scenarios to how this could play out. 1) Only Christians go to heaven. If this is true, then Ben Shapiro is going to hell. Hopefully, it's not true. 2) Only devout people would go to heaven. If this is true, what counts as "devout"? If Devout Christians go to a christian heaven, if devout Muslims go to a Muslim heaven, etc, then a devout atheist is going nowhere. They aren't going to heaven, but they get to avoid hell.
I used to be pro life, but if you kill the baby, they go to heaven. If they are born, they will probably go to hell. I'd rather kill them then let them burn in hell.
I don't mean to be rude to you, but Australia is a police state. This is why they have a tyrannical government that jails people for misgendering and makes it illegal to protest 150 meters or less outside an abortion clinic.
I am saying that anyone with any STD(s), whether gay, bisexual or straight shouldn't be allowed to have sex in order to reduce STD rates across all sexualities.
If gays were less promiscuous, then AIDS rates would fall. It's not an absurd argument because they don't want gay people dying due to them having promiscuous gay sex.
I could see how it wold be inconsistent because straight people get it too, but absurd? The LGBT community needs to stop being promiscuous. I say this as someone who is bisexual. We also need laws prohibiting people with STDs from having sex otherwise, eventually every human will have every STD.
Iran commits human rights abuses. They should be punished somehow. They agreed to give up their nukes in exchange for lifting the sanctions. We should somehow get more from Iran, such as fixing the human rights abuses that are there.
A dead baby goes to heaven. A living baby will probably go to hell according to Mathew 7:13. What's better for the baby? I used to be pro life, but now, I'm pro choice.
I did not see Con make an argument. Bsh1's argument was composed of 3 reasons(The "Right to Leave", Communities Require Migration, The human community).
Conduct: Bsh1. His opponent called him "frivolous" in R4. This is poor conduct.
How would you respond to the argument that gays and bis are more likely to get HIV due to the inherent promiscuity that comes with many LGBT relationships? I support the right to be gay, but the gay and bi communities need to be monogamous or abstinent.
To address the right wing points, a kid should be dependent on their parents, not the government. If the parents don't want the kids, they can set the kid up for adoption, where in the long term, it would be adopted by a family that has the ability to take care of the child without welfare. To the best of my knowledge, conservatives don't torture people. The wars that the US fights in the middle east are to keep ISIS at bay. I support legalizing weed.
2) Colonialism helped 3rd world countries. Ethiopia resisted colonialism, and they're one of the poorest places in the world, despite being an empire pre-colonialism. The US and Australia were colonized, yet they're pretty rich. Europe made Africa more united then when it came. There were thousands of tribes in Africa, each basically being it's own nation. Europe's influence helped reduce that number to about 50 countries.
3) To the countries that receive migration, in the situation in Europe, the Muslims there are causing Europe to implement portions of Shariah law. Eventually, Europe would be a shariah continent. This is bad because I don't want radical Muslims getting access to British and French nukes because if that happens, you can expect the west to be nuked off the map since if the US strikes back, the Muslims won't care since it would be martyrdom to them. Radical Islam wants to destroy the west and if Muslims get their hands on western technology, like nukes, then the west is dead. The whole non Muslim world would probably be dead. So much for religious diversity worldwide if all the other religions get nuked.
His opponent said that the rich don't need many mansions and that the rich should help reduce poverty by giving money to the poor with the government's help. He said that this wasn't a tax even though it is. Sparrow said that capitalism reduces poverty and anytime socialism has been tried, it fails. Con drops this point.
Sources: Sparrow. He cites the daily wire and info wars. They aren't reliable, but it's better then what Wrick It Ralph cited.
Spelling and Grammer: Wrick It Ralph. In Round 2, he used all caps. This is extremely poor spelling.
Conduct: Wrick it Ralph. Sparrow called him a fascist in round 2. This is poor conduct.
I am mixed on immigration. I don't want deportations, that tends to break families apart. But I support the wall, and even want it made of cupertino wire to prevent people from climbing on it. Hyper assimilation should be mandatory in order to prevent separatist movements as history has confirmed. If here illegally, they should get a pathway to citizenship that they pay for. Hopefully, the left and the right can agree on it. Donald Trump offered DACA for the wall, but the democrats rejected that idea.
Lets say that an immigrant is hard working, doesn't know English, is willing to learn, and can get a job as a laborer. They have heard about America and are more ideologically aligned with America then their home country. They should come to this country legally. They should assimilate in order to prevent separatist movements and they should accept American values. American values can be found in the following link: https://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/USValues.html. Are you advocating for open borders with the whole world?
You think my fears about unassiliminated immigration is absurd, but it's confirmed by history.
During the time of a shooting, the doors will be locked, so the cops won't go in unless there is a shooter in there. The cops would be searching the halls for the shooter. The armed teachers in the meantime would be prepared to shoot if they hear gunshots at their classroom. Using your logic, we could make the guns the teachers have bright red. That's fine. The only teachers that would be armed are teachers that are fine with being armed. Many of these teachers probably train to shoot in at least some of their free time, so they probably could at least do some damage to a school shooter.
If the shooter aims to have their shooting during class time and there is a lockdown once a shooter is discovered, then it gives teachers time to arm themselves for protection. If the shooting is during transition times, then arming teachers won't work, but guards I guess could work for protection in the hallways. Guards are in the hallways and would be in a uniform to distinguish themselves from a shooter.
How would a GPS system shut down guns? a 12 year old probably can't get his father's gun because it is stored in a safe that is locked either with a combination or a lock and key. If they stole the safe, they couldn't access the gun.
A good way to prevent gun violence is to encourage good people who don't want to do harm to others to arm themselves. What I'm worried about with tracking guns is if the government knows who has guns and who doesn't, then the government could act tyrannical towards those who didn't arm themselves. Banning AK 47s and AK 15s are not a good idea because those guns defend against multiple criminals and a potentially tyrannical government.
You call my immigration plan biased, but we both have bias. Bias ideally does not affect one's ability to persuade.
If you want to immigrate to a country, you should do it legally, otherwise with open borders, a bunch of pro-big government immigrants would eliminate the freedom that America means. They would turn America into a left wing 3rd world country that they left. If they don't assimilate, they lead to separatist movements, as history has confirmed.
"it would lead to a cascading sequence of nations shirking their duties."
I don't know what shrinking their duties means.
"I would like to see open borders be established in the next couple of centuries."
So you advocate for open borders? It's fine, I know someone who wants open borders, I wouldn't call it a "straw man" position since there are arguments for it.
Are you advocating for open borders? Lets say you were Mexican and you wanted to come to the USA. You don't know any English, you are unwilling to learn, you are willing to work but can't since you don't know English and you merely see the USA as a place for you to receive welfare checks. You don't accept American values. Should you be allowed in the US? No. You would be a burden to society. If there were tens of millions like you in the country (there are) then it could be the grounds for a separatist movement in the near future.
Now lets say you were an asylum seeker from Mexico, everything else above is true about you. You were fleeing for your life. This still isn't an excuse to be in the US because there are other countries that you can go to. You can go to Spain for example. They have a crime rate that is lower then the US and if you are coming for a better life, that has to be earned by going through the legal process.
Out of curiosity, are you advocating for open borders?
As you can probably tell with my profile picture, I'm going to be biased.
To address the cons, I think the cop can tell the difference between a person with a machine gun using it to mow down kids that is probably in the hallway or close to that and a person who has a pistol/rifle, far away from the hallway, shooting on sight because during a real life lockdown for lack of better terms, the only one who would enter is the shooter.
Since the teacher is trained with a gun, I don't think they would miss with a rifle. Rifles are very accurate due to their spot. Teachers wishing to arm themselves probably could buy something to keep the rifle steady so they are even more accurate with it.
I don't think arming guards/police is the best way to reduce shootings because they are expensive and ineffective, although it's safer then having gun free zones. If there is a guard at one end of the school and there is a shooting at the other end of the school, by the time the guard gets there, some people would have already died. One thing good about arming teachers is the teacher is right there when the shooting happens. The guard has to get to where the shooter is and by the time he gets there, people are already dead.
I don't know why you want the guns to be red, but I don't care what they color they are as long as they do their job.
You advocate for special guns for teachers(ones with perks like fingerprinting, the police get called upon reloading the gun, and the gun is basically a taser). This would require the NRA to manufacture guns with similar features for teachers. I'm fine with this, but in order to satisfy the NRA for their hard work of manufacturing and inventing modified tasers, the government would have to promise the NRA a lot of money for these modified guns.
If you ban guns in schools, then shooters won't face retaliating gunshots when they are committing a mass shooting. As a result, school shootings become more common and more die in them if you ban guns in schools then if you arm teachers.
Both the left and the right want to prevent mass shootings and to save lives. The left wants to ban AK 47s and AK 15s. The right wants to arm teachers.
How would 5 innocent people die? I don't think innocents die from self defense. Also, lets say that thieves are threatening to rob your house. They all have pistols. If you have the bigger gun, they'll be too scared to rob your house out of fear of getting shot and killed. At the sight of your AK 47, they run away from the house. No one gets shot. No injuries. Just a prevented robbery thanks to the unshot AK 47.
AK 47s defend against multiple people. Its much harder to do that with a pistol. Criminals have incentive to work in packs since they are more likely to achieve their desired result which is to steal stuff.
Where does it say that? If that's true, then why does the bible say that most will go to hell? To the Muslim, Allah is as real as God is to the Christian, or as Buddha is to the Buddhist. The bible says most people will burn in hell. There are 2 possible scenarios to how this could play out. 1) Only Christians go to heaven. If this is true, then Ben Shapiro is going to hell. Hopefully, it's not true. 2) Only devout people would go to heaven. If this is true, what counts as "devout"? If Devout Christians go to a christian heaven, if devout Muslims go to a Muslim heaven, etc, then a devout atheist is going nowhere. They aren't going to heaven, but they get to avoid hell.
Can you prove how sex is beneficial to the individual with a reliable source?
Hope you get a 5 on both.
I used to be pro life, but if you kill the baby, they go to heaven. If they are born, they will probably go to hell. I'd rather kill them then let them burn in hell.
I know that feeling. What AP test?
Of course RM accepts it.
I don't know the difference.
The BoP rests solely on you for this debate. I don't think the Chaos God is prevalent here if he even exists.
I want to accept, but it's not worth it to my rating if I lose. I think you have points I'm unaware of.
I don't mean to be rude to you, but Australia is a police state. This is why they have a tyrannical government that jails people for misgendering and makes it illegal to protest 150 meters or less outside an abortion clinic.
Did Australia ban the items you mentioned?
If heterosexuals have an STD, they shouldn't be allowed to have sex.
Protection is not prevention; it doesn't always work.
I am saying that anyone with any STD(s), whether gay, bisexual or straight shouldn't be allowed to have sex in order to reduce STD rates across all sexualities.
If gays were less promiscuous, then AIDS rates would fall. It's not an absurd argument because they don't want gay people dying due to them having promiscuous gay sex.
I sent you a friend request. We're both right of center.
I could see how it wold be inconsistent because straight people get it too, but absurd? The LGBT community needs to stop being promiscuous. I say this as someone who is bisexual. We also need laws prohibiting people with STDs from having sex otherwise, eventually every human will have every STD.
Iran commits human rights abuses. They should be punished somehow. They agreed to give up their nukes in exchange for lifting the sanctions. We should somehow get more from Iran, such as fixing the human rights abuses that are there.
DART=Debate Art.
By mentioning rape, your basically conceding all abortions where the women doesn't get raped.
What country are you from if English isn't your 1st language?
A dead baby goes to heaven. A living baby will probably go to hell according to Mathew 7:13. What's better for the baby? I used to be pro life, but now, I'm pro choice.
I think Bsh1 won the debate.
Arguments: Bsh1
I did not see Con make an argument. Bsh1's argument was composed of 3 reasons(The "Right to Leave", Communities Require Migration, The human community).
Conduct: Bsh1. His opponent called him "frivolous" in R4. This is poor conduct.
Is this a good RFD?
How would you respond to the argument that gays and bis are more likely to get HIV due to the inherent promiscuity that comes with many LGBT relationships? I support the right to be gay, but the gay and bi communities need to be monogamous or abstinent.
To address the right wing points, a kid should be dependent on their parents, not the government. If the parents don't want the kids, they can set the kid up for adoption, where in the long term, it would be adopted by a family that has the ability to take care of the child without welfare. To the best of my knowledge, conservatives don't torture people. The wars that the US fights in the middle east are to keep ISIS at bay. I support legalizing weed.
The far left has the young turks and buzzfeed. All the alt right has is Steve Bannon and Richard Spencer and they're not influential.
The left has. I'm not sure about the right.
2) Colonialism helped 3rd world countries. Ethiopia resisted colonialism, and they're one of the poorest places in the world, despite being an empire pre-colonialism. The US and Australia were colonized, yet they're pretty rich. Europe made Africa more united then when it came. There were thousands of tribes in Africa, each basically being it's own nation. Europe's influence helped reduce that number to about 50 countries.
3) To the countries that receive migration, in the situation in Europe, the Muslims there are causing Europe to implement portions of Shariah law. Eventually, Europe would be a shariah continent. This is bad because I don't want radical Muslims getting access to British and French nukes because if that happens, you can expect the west to be nuked off the map since if the US strikes back, the Muslims won't care since it would be martyrdom to them. Radical Islam wants to destroy the west and if Muslims get their hands on western technology, like nukes, then the west is dead. The whole non Muslim world would probably be dead. So much for religious diversity worldwide if all the other religions get nuked.
I don't think Sparrow is type1's account. Wylted and I have different accounts and he once plagiarized my argument on a topic.
1st RFD:
Arguments: Sparrow
His opponent said that the rich don't need many mansions and that the rich should help reduce poverty by giving money to the poor with the government's help. He said that this wasn't a tax even though it is. Sparrow said that capitalism reduces poverty and anytime socialism has been tried, it fails. Con drops this point.
Sources: Sparrow. He cites the daily wire and info wars. They aren't reliable, but it's better then what Wrick It Ralph cited.
Spelling and Grammer: Wrick It Ralph. In Round 2, he used all caps. This is extremely poor spelling.
Conduct: Wrick it Ralph. Sparrow called him a fascist in round 2. This is poor conduct.
Is it good?
What tenant?
"I will be arguing that atheism is a beneficial religion"
Atheism is not a religion. It's a belief system.
This is the 900th debate on DART.
I am mixed on immigration. I don't want deportations, that tends to break families apart. But I support the wall, and even want it made of cupertino wire to prevent people from climbing on it. Hyper assimilation should be mandatory in order to prevent separatist movements as history has confirmed. If here illegally, they should get a pathway to citizenship that they pay for. Hopefully, the left and the right can agree on it. Donald Trump offered DACA for the wall, but the democrats rejected that idea.
Lets say that an immigrant is hard working, doesn't know English, is willing to learn, and can get a job as a laborer. They have heard about America and are more ideologically aligned with America then their home country. They should come to this country legally. They should assimilate in order to prevent separatist movements and they should accept American values. American values can be found in the following link: https://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/USValues.html. Are you advocating for open borders with the whole world?
You think my fears about unassiliminated immigration is absurd, but it's confirmed by history.
Define, "alt".
What does Imao mean?
During the time of a shooting, the doors will be locked, so the cops won't go in unless there is a shooter in there. The cops would be searching the halls for the shooter. The armed teachers in the meantime would be prepared to shoot if they hear gunshots at their classroom. Using your logic, we could make the guns the teachers have bright red. That's fine. The only teachers that would be armed are teachers that are fine with being armed. Many of these teachers probably train to shoot in at least some of their free time, so they probably could at least do some damage to a school shooter.
If the shooter aims to have their shooting during class time and there is a lockdown once a shooter is discovered, then it gives teachers time to arm themselves for protection. If the shooting is during transition times, then arming teachers won't work, but guards I guess could work for protection in the hallways. Guards are in the hallways and would be in a uniform to distinguish themselves from a shooter.
How would a GPS system shut down guns? a 12 year old probably can't get his father's gun because it is stored in a safe that is locked either with a combination or a lock and key. If they stole the safe, they couldn't access the gun.
A good way to prevent gun violence is to encourage good people who don't want to do harm to others to arm themselves. What I'm worried about with tracking guns is if the government knows who has guns and who doesn't, then the government could act tyrannical towards those who didn't arm themselves. Banning AK 47s and AK 15s are not a good idea because those guns defend against multiple criminals and a potentially tyrannical government.
You call my immigration plan biased, but we both have bias. Bias ideally does not affect one's ability to persuade.
If you want to immigrate to a country, you should do it legally, otherwise with open borders, a bunch of pro-big government immigrants would eliminate the freedom that America means. They would turn America into a left wing 3rd world country that they left. If they don't assimilate, they lead to separatist movements, as history has confirmed.
"it would lead to a cascading sequence of nations shirking their duties."
I don't know what shrinking their duties means.
"I would like to see open borders be established in the next couple of centuries."
So you advocate for open borders? It's fine, I know someone who wants open borders, I wouldn't call it a "straw man" position since there are arguments for it.
Are you advocating for open borders? Lets say you were Mexican and you wanted to come to the USA. You don't know any English, you are unwilling to learn, you are willing to work but can't since you don't know English and you merely see the USA as a place for you to receive welfare checks. You don't accept American values. Should you be allowed in the US? No. You would be a burden to society. If there were tens of millions like you in the country (there are) then it could be the grounds for a separatist movement in the near future.
Now lets say you were an asylum seeker from Mexico, everything else above is true about you. You were fleeing for your life. This still isn't an excuse to be in the US because there are other countries that you can go to. You can go to Spain for example. They have a crime rate that is lower then the US and if you are coming for a better life, that has to be earned by going through the legal process.
Out of curiosity, are you advocating for open borders?
As you can probably tell with my profile picture, I'm going to be biased.
To address the cons, I think the cop can tell the difference between a person with a machine gun using it to mow down kids that is probably in the hallway or close to that and a person who has a pistol/rifle, far away from the hallway, shooting on sight because during a real life lockdown for lack of better terms, the only one who would enter is the shooter.
Since the teacher is trained with a gun, I don't think they would miss with a rifle. Rifles are very accurate due to their spot. Teachers wishing to arm themselves probably could buy something to keep the rifle steady so they are even more accurate with it.
I don't think arming guards/police is the best way to reduce shootings because they are expensive and ineffective, although it's safer then having gun free zones. If there is a guard at one end of the school and there is a shooting at the other end of the school, by the time the guard gets there, some people would have already died. One thing good about arming teachers is the teacher is right there when the shooting happens. The guard has to get to where the shooter is and by the time he gets there, people are already dead.
I don't know why you want the guns to be red, but I don't care what they color they are as long as they do their job.
You advocate for special guns for teachers(ones with perks like fingerprinting, the police get called upon reloading the gun, and the gun is basically a taser). This would require the NRA to manufacture guns with similar features for teachers. I'm fine with this, but in order to satisfy the NRA for their hard work of manufacturing and inventing modified tasers, the government would have to promise the NRA a lot of money for these modified guns.
How do you know that much about him? I thought you lived in New England since you once called Tom Brady the GOAT.
"Your pretty sexy."
Are you gay?
If you ban guns in schools, then shooters won't face retaliating gunshots when they are committing a mass shooting. As a result, school shootings become more common and more die in them if you ban guns in schools then if you arm teachers.
Both the left and the right want to prevent mass shootings and to save lives. The left wants to ban AK 47s and AK 15s. The right wants to arm teachers.
As of the time of this comment, curlyhair kid has some time. Over 48 hours of it in fact.
How would 5 innocent people die? I don't think innocents die from self defense. Also, lets say that thieves are threatening to rob your house. They all have pistols. If you have the bigger gun, they'll be too scared to rob your house out of fear of getting shot and killed. At the sight of your AK 47, they run away from the house. No one gets shot. No injuries. Just a prevented robbery thanks to the unshot AK 47.
Can you cite that?
AK 47s defend against multiple people. Its much harder to do that with a pistol. Criminals have incentive to work in packs since they are more likely to achieve their desired result which is to steal stuff.
Do you think autistic people should be allowed to get a gun?
How do you know the author advocates for a 15 hour work week? If he did, how could a mainstream organization allow him to preach?