Respectfully, I disagree with that statement. I actually believe Thanksgiving is possibly one of the least racist holidays. Although, you are entitled to your opinions. Have a good Thanksgiving!
I see your goal here, but all of your points just identify flaws inherent in the imperial system. It sort of proves Pros case for him if that makes sense.
I like this debate. I think I would be willing to accept this if we can both concede on a few things first.
1. In the status quo, no country currently has first strike capability.
2. first strike capability is possible to achieve.
Also, I would want 2 weeks for arguments. Not that I would need ALL of the two weeks, but I have a TON going on and the extra time would be helpful.
That is a valid point, but there are a couple of reasons I would disagree:
Firstly, Central Europe is relative, I would consider the Germanic peoples, the Alpine Celts, and the Yugoslav area to be included in my reference to "central Europe." (I should be more specific next debate I think.)
Secondly, the "Dorian invasion" (It was not actually Dorians, this was an etiological myth. In fact, it was more likely the Sea Peoples.) of Greece started with a naval invasion of the Peloponnese, something that Europeans with access to the Adriatic Sea would have no problem with.
That is the challenge, yes. My argument is more revolving around probability due to historical context. It should make sense once someone hopefully accepts
In my opinion, "good conduct" should be understood to mean "non-abusive." In this case, non-abusive means no ad hominem attacks (unwarranted attacks based on personhood, not topic.)
For example, saying it is "madness" to BELIEVE IN something after giving a statistic about WHY it is madness to believe that thing while still knowing that statistic is true is understood to be rhetoric for judges, not abusive. This is because it is NOT ad hominem: it is directly related to the topic, not just personhood, and it is also warranted with evidence.
Now, saying "you are utterly mad" IS abusive, because it is ad hominem and unwarranted.
I struggle to see any semblance of bad conduct from either side. A debate is meant to be a debate, not a hair-braiding session. I have great respect for Virtuoso, he beat me fair and square with this topic. Perhaps we could try another one sometime, Virt? I'm more of a PFD debater than a philosophical one, anyways.
That is one stance, but there are others that I would hope someone on Pro could take. For example, the EU is very much behind in 5G, and China is very much ahead of the US. So in a way, one could paint it as necessary to not "fall behind."
You do point out the core Con position and I would say I agree: I tend to value the security of nations and the denial of Chinese hegemony to be more important than economic profit.
I do not currently have the time to redo this debate with additional arguments unfortunately, I think I would like votes on the arguments presented for now... Perhaps a redo with no additional content other than allowing Virt to publish a defense.
Seems to me that renewables might come on their own through the free market. Renewable technology is rapidly increasing in quality and decreasing in price compared to a stagnant fossil fuels industry. As it becomes more expensive to use non-renewables, renewables will be chosen simply because of the market. So in that respect, I think we will be fine. Nuclear power is extremely promising.
One under-discussed idea is simply planting more trees. Planting a trillion trees globally is literally all it takes. If the UN got behind a project of that scale it could happen rather painlessly. Much better than adding tons of regulations on businesses.
I don't believe anyone rational would contend this... but I am always surprised. The only thing I would contend is whether or not the Democratic Party's policy ideas are the correct course of action to fix it given the current geopolitical climate.
This is pretty much a truism.
Frankly I'm not certain I've met a middle aged woman who DOESN'T get all Christmas presents on Black Friday or Cyber Monday
Respectfully, I disagree with that statement. I actually believe Thanksgiving is possibly one of the least racist holidays. Although, you are entitled to your opinions. Have a good Thanksgiving!
If you can extend argument times to 1 week I will take this.
I see your goal here, but all of your points just identify flaws inherent in the imperial system. It sort of proves Pros case for him if that makes sense.
Unfortunately I think you misunderstood the position you were debating.
In EVERY way?
Accepted. I hope this will make a good debate. I may be away from the site for a while but I'll post my argument in time, don't worry.
I agree to that amendment. I'll accept when the time is adjusted, looking forward to it!
I like this debate. I think I would be willing to accept this if we can both concede on a few things first.
1. In the status quo, no country currently has first strike capability.
2. first strike capability is possible to achieve.
Also, I would want 2 weeks for arguments. Not that I would need ALL of the two weeks, but I have a TON going on and the extra time would be helpful.
Good topic. What are current US nuclear capabilities? Does any other nation have nuclear first strike capability?
To all potential voters: PaulVerliane is harassing valid voters on his debate, and thus should lose his conduct point.
He is an undercover agent
That is a valid point, but there are a couple of reasons I would disagree:
Firstly, Central Europe is relative, I would consider the Germanic peoples, the Alpine Celts, and the Yugoslav area to be included in my reference to "central Europe." (I should be more specific next debate I think.)
Secondly, the "Dorian invasion" (It was not actually Dorians, this was an etiological myth. In fact, it was more likely the Sea Peoples.) of Greece started with a naval invasion of the Peloponnese, something that Europeans with access to the Adriatic Sea would have no problem with.
A classic saying, from Poor Richard's Almanac
Well....sh*t...
We will have to see.
Anyways, glad to see this debate getting accepted. I'll get to work on a constructive.
Hence the title, "most likely"
Welcome to the website!
That is the challenge, yes. My argument is more revolving around probability due to historical context. It should make sense once someone hopefully accepts
It will be an interesting one for certain. My problem is getting an opponent in time
Me as well, I wanted to switch things up a bit!
Yes, I think that is fair. If we were to award conduct based on rhetorical statements debate would be much more difficult.
In my opinion, "good conduct" should be understood to mean "non-abusive." In this case, non-abusive means no ad hominem attacks (unwarranted attacks based on personhood, not topic.)
For example, saying it is "madness" to BELIEVE IN something after giving a statistic about WHY it is madness to believe that thing while still knowing that statistic is true is understood to be rhetoric for judges, not abusive. This is because it is NOT ad hominem: it is directly related to the topic, not just personhood, and it is also warranted with evidence.
Now, saying "you are utterly mad" IS abusive, because it is ad hominem and unwarranted.
That was quick. I would've liked a bit more time but this works.
It's a week-long argument, so there is plenty of time if you decide to accept.
Submit that comment into the debate section, voters may not see it here.
So you value mannerisms/personality and effectiveness equally?
Out of curiosity, what is your definition of "good?" Or rather, which do you value more? Presidential in mannerisms, or effective in policy?
I struggle to see any semblance of bad conduct from either side. A debate is meant to be a debate, not a hair-braiding session. I have great respect for Virtuoso, he beat me fair and square with this topic. Perhaps we could try another one sometime, Virt? I'm more of a PFD debater than a philosophical one, anyways.
Frankly, I think you're better at this topic than I am. It's regrettable you could not get your last speech in.
I appreciate the votes
I agree we need new votes, these votes have no substance.
I shall submit this weekend
Bump. Need a couple votes
*slow claps*
Fair, I may take Pro next time to make the debate more attractive
If no one accepts the Pro position on this, I may make another debate and be Pro to make the debate more attractive.
That is one stance, but there are others that I would hope someone on Pro could take. For example, the EU is very much behind in 5G, and China is very much ahead of the US. So in a way, one could paint it as necessary to not "fall behind."
You do point out the core Con position and I would say I agree: I tend to value the security of nations and the denial of Chinese hegemony to be more important than economic profit.
Fair point. I'd hoped that some people would look at an article or two and accept. (Pretty much all the research you need for this.)
Bump. No takers on this one?
Yes, you will need to read the site's COC and complete 2 debates/100 forum posts in order to vote. Also, your vote must be constructive and in-depth.
I do not currently have the time to redo this debate with additional arguments unfortunately, I think I would like votes on the arguments presented for now... Perhaps a redo with no additional content other than allowing Virt to publish a defense.
Interesting, if you could vote that would be appreciated
Seems to me that renewables might come on their own through the free market. Renewable technology is rapidly increasing in quality and decreasing in price compared to a stagnant fossil fuels industry. As it becomes more expensive to use non-renewables, renewables will be chosen simply because of the market. So in that respect, I think we will be fine. Nuclear power is extremely promising.
One under-discussed idea is simply planting more trees. Planting a trillion trees globally is literally all it takes. If the UN got behind a project of that scale it could happen rather painlessly. Much better than adding tons of regulations on businesses.
I don't believe anyone rational would contend this... but I am always surprised. The only thing I would contend is whether or not the Democratic Party's policy ideas are the correct course of action to fix it given the current geopolitical climate.
One of my favorite quotes: "just reuse an old rope and hang'em, no cost!"
Funny, but I haven’t had time to write my rebuttal or defense. So stay tuned