Well, what I mean by "past", and relating this back to abortion, is that all humans have a past, good or bad, big or small. They have contributed to the human race by being a human. Babies on the other had have been a human for exactly 0 hours. They have not contributed to our race in any way shape or form, if that makes any sense.
So I'm less worried about "what you did in your past", but rather "did you have a past?"
Well, what I meant by a "contribution to society" was a person's past. I'm sure you have a past, whether it be small or big, or good or bad. It is a past none the less. However, babies do not have a past...
1. I feel like both of you should have stayed with brief points in the first round, and expanded them in the second and third rounds (or, whatever round comes next).
For you, maybe try explaining what those three topics are in your own words, and explain (again, in your own words) how they support your side. And in rounds two and three, then provide the quotes backing up this claim.
2. Do you mean C3 specifically? Or how it ties into the whole debate?
There are a few ways, but like I said in the pretext, are based on theory.
1) Resources mined in space stay in space
2) Resources mined are directly and solely used for space related projects
3) For a while, the actual cost of the metals will not greatly exceed the cost of extracting the metals
4) https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/32933/how-will-asteroid-mining-impact-the-economy
True. Inflation would be a big problem. However there are ways to solve it, but unfortunately I would like to present those ways in the actual debate itself.
And yes, gold and platinum are the metals I'm most focused about, not iron or copper.
Actually Earth doesn't. Some asteroids are comprised of precious metals, and they can be worth trillions of trillions of dollars. And that's ONE asteroid! We have an entire asteroid belt!
So I felt like both sides used sources that directly supported a statement, rather than an idea. I feel like this is unnecessary and leads to overuse of sources (Trent xD). If something takes like 5 seconds to google, then a source doesn't need to be provided.
However, Pro's sources were arguments themselves, while Con had to manually tie its sources back to the topic. In this case, Pro used sources more efficiently and effectively.
In addition, upon further investigation of Con's sources, the websites were very biased, and based their information off little to no scientific evidence at all.
Ah.. I see. Cool
I am so confused...
1. What is that link?
2. Why is that link?
3. Why not write your reason here?
4. How is that link?
Is it like an online platform for storing snapshots of the internet? How does it work?
Oh yeah, good debate!
However, I don't really fell like making a bigger one. You could make one and debate someone else if you want to
I'm just seeing how this would play out first. If I think that this could be an actual debate, then yes, I would expand the word limit.
Sure I guess
Oh, and also, why did you define America? It's not like AKmath will start pulling up statistics from Zimbabwe or something...
oof
Good point
Good debate!
Well, what I mean by "past", and relating this back to abortion, is that all humans have a past, good or bad, big or small. They have contributed to the human race by being a human. Babies on the other had have been a human for exactly 0 hours. They have not contributed to our race in any way shape or form, if that makes any sense.
So I'm less worried about "what you did in your past", but rather "did you have a past?"
Well, I just think that if you have a past, then you are valuable.
By your logic, are elders than more important than youth?
Well, what I meant by a "contribution to society" was a person's past. I'm sure you have a past, whether it be small or big, or good or bad. It is a past none the less. However, babies do not have a past...
Also yes, I agree.
Why do we care about things?
1. Relatability
2. Contribution to Society
Babies aren't relatable. Nor did they contribute to the society.
I can elaborate on this if anyone likes...
Good debate! Oh, and thanks for keeping your last round short. Sorry that I forfeited. Completely forgot about this over the holidays.
Oh, just as a quick clarification, what do you expect the BoPs for either side?
So you're saying that it won't cause inflation, but just render the price useless?
Sure man! Just challenge me whenever you're ready
Oh, I knew that
Oh no no no. I still think it's a tie. It's just wanted to include more reasoning to my decision. Sorry if you misinterpreted that.
K, give me a while to change my vote
Oh... so you want me to directly compare your arguments, against Con's arguments?
No? Why would I do that?
I just don't seem to understand your question. Do you want me to rate how good your C3 argument was or something like that?
Agreed.
Do you prefer a topic with a more supportable base? Like something that uses facts to back it up?
C3 was viewed like 1 and 2. I considered them as three separate arguments.
1. I feel like both of you should have stayed with brief points in the first round, and expanded them in the second and third rounds (or, whatever round comes next).
For you, maybe try explaining what those three topics are in your own words, and explain (again, in your own words) how they support your side. And in rounds two and three, then provide the quotes backing up this claim.
2. Do you mean C3 specifically? Or how it ties into the whole debate?
There are a few ways, but like I said in the pretext, are based on theory.
1) Resources mined in space stay in space
2) Resources mined are directly and solely used for space related projects
3) For a while, the actual cost of the metals will not greatly exceed the cost of extracting the metals
4) https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/32933/how-will-asteroid-mining-impact-the-economy
This is certainly a unique style of debate. Well done guys!
lol!
Eh, green peppers and mushrooms aren't for me
Good debate!
Of course I put pineapple on my pasta!
Kidding, I don't.
But would you rather eat this:
https://i.redd.it/jrt92igp8vf01.jpg
or
https://i.cbc.ca/1.3993184.1501161170!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/84904861.jpg
True. Inflation would be a big problem. However there are ways to solve it, but unfortunately I would like to present those ways in the actual debate itself.
And yes, gold and platinum are the metals I'm most focused about, not iron or copper.
Actually Earth doesn't. Some asteroids are comprised of precious metals, and they can be worth trillions of trillions of dollars. And that's ONE asteroid! We have an entire asteroid belt!
Eat pineapple on the side? No!
Pineapple proves a contrast to the pizza sauce's taste!
And not only in flavor, but colour too!
Fix it. Hopefully that's better this time
No no no! You're doing it all wrong. The pineapple is supposed to be fresh!
Oh yeah, no worries man!
Bonjour. That's all I know
Bro... wut?
Dude, pineapple is like a cooling refresh taste on the soft and savory pizza. Taste contrast. It's good.
Good debate!
True, true.
Good point.
In this case, "should" means with a economic, social, and political benefit.
Got it
Ah, okay.
So be more specific?
Oh yes, I understand your point. But this debate is about ideas, not reality. I should of worded this topic better, my bad.
Should doctors be giving the right to make ruling medical decisions about children over their own parents?
And thanks guys for your votes
Most asteroids are worth billions if not trillions of dollars, and can be realistically mined within the nest few decades. <-- Main context
Also, asteroid basically provide an unlimited amount of precious metals. Earth will run out of precious metals in the future.
Got it man. Thanks for your detailed vote!
Sure, no problem!
So I felt like both sides used sources that directly supported a statement, rather than an idea. I feel like this is unnecessary and leads to overuse of sources (Trent xD). If something takes like 5 seconds to google, then a source doesn't need to be provided.
However, Pro's sources were arguments themselves, while Con had to manually tie its sources back to the topic. In this case, Pro used sources more efficiently and effectively.
In addition, upon further investigation of Con's sources, the websites were very biased, and based their information off little to no scientific evidence at all.
So that's why I feel like Pro won the sources.
Sure, no problem. Give me a sec
Oh I get it now! So Con wants to change things, but Pro want the Status Quo! Okay, got it.
However I think the topic should of been worded like this:
PE in schools should not be optional
And both sides switch sides. I get confused when Con starts a debate...