I've noticed that there are quite a few threads that end up being the equivalent of +1 threads and not so enjoyable to read. Even the good debates lose steam pretty quickly and answers get repetitive, so I though maybe a somewhat serious thread with some structure could be somewhat refreshing. It will/may probably get moved or deleted but you can't blame a guy for trying. Anyway how this thread hopefully will work is you start with a controversial debatable topic, the first person to respond gets to choose what side they are on, and they only argue that side (like a real debate) the next person must respond to that with the other side of the debate and with the next controversial topic (so only two people partake in any one topic) No Repeat topics.Again Read carefully, DO NOT ADD A NEW TOPIC UNLESS BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN DEBATED ie. If the post on top of your introduces a new topic you debate on that topic and do not have a new topic in your post. If people keep messing up I'd rather have this closed as a failed experiment. 1) The only people posting are people taking part 2) Your answer must be longer than 5 lines 3) No editing to make your answer look better (even for spelling mistakes unless its entirely unreadable) 4) Don't mess with the structure 5) If your not familiar with the subject matter don't try to respond. If you do break one of these rules I will punish you with the full extent of my powers (I will negative rep you LOL ) For example Topic: Capital Punishment Side: For There have been some attempts to universally abolish the death penalty as a means of punishing criminals. It is seen as the greatest deprivation of a persons rights to end their life. However, is it reasonable to pass the burden of their upkeep to the law abiding citizens? Does it make sense that a person jailed for life can pretty much do whatever they want in jail with no further fear of the law? Is it equitable that in some countries prisoners end up having higher standards of living than the average lower-middle class? I'm not saying capital punishment should be chucked at everything. I see it as being of more use as a deterrent, but there still exists a need for the death penalty for the worst offenders. Its imperfect but most definitely a necessary evil in society today. and if this was was the response it would also have Next Topic: Legalization of drugs to win the drug war Give it a try? Topic: Legalization of drugs
Against Caiptal Punishment: You can justify the killing any way you want. It doesn't matter how you look at it, another persons life is being ended. When you intentionally take someone's life, that's called murder. No ifs, ands and buts about it. Every person who supports and encourages barbaric things such as capital punishment are accomplices. If you want to have that on your conscience, then go right ahead. My conscience is clear.
Topic: Legalization of Drugs Side: Against Humans seem to be hell-bent on poisoning themselves with stuff like drugs and alcohol. The reason they do it? For the high, even if they are aware of how bad the stuff is for your body. Why do you think drugs are illegal? It's not because the government want to hoarde the drugs for themselves. It's because they're trying to protect us and keep a sane, structured community. If everyone was high the whole time, how could we have a functioning economy and infrastructure? Drugs should not be readily available to everyone, nor should it become a socially accepted part of life. It's the same with prescription drugs - they require a script for a reason: there is a great potential for harm when they aren't used correctly or for the right reasons. It just wouldn't be a good idea to let anyone choose when they want to take drugs (whether it's for medical reasons or for leisure) because people just don't know what's good for them. I think that a lot of people would just end up killing themselves if they knew they could get ellicit drugs and don't have to be worried about getting caught. And just a finishing thought... the police force would have to be cut in half because there won't be any drug busts or investigations any more. Or would the police force have to be doubled because all the people who are high on drugs are causing so much trouble? Anyone for the legalisation of drugs?
Keep in mind, people are for the legalization of drugs It's marijuana. Which has been shown is not addicting (not chemically. Just like you can get addicted to gaming/internet you can get addicted to weed). Marijuana is not unhealthy, like you said it was. For any "scientific" article proving it's unhealthy, there are even more articles proving that it is just fine. Legalizing it (or semi-legalizing it, only prosecuting people selling, not those just using) would bring in billions of dollars to the US. Also, it's been semi-legalized in Portugal, and the amount of users has stayed roughly the same.
Grrr follow format people I'll try pretty it up now Topic: Legalization of Drugs Side: For When drugs come to mind a very real fear amongst the general public is that the danger that people using the drugs irresponsibly will cause chaos to society in general. The addictive nature of drugs combined with its illegality means that some sinister people in society can get a hold on you, its similar to the way a loan shark hooks you but with drugs its far more difficult to resist. This leads to ordinary people to become desperate and as has been seen over and over again leads to crime/prostitution, perhaps even violent crime. Legalization of drugs means that these vulnerable people are not at the mercy of crime syndicates for their next fix, the closest example we have available "prohibition" and that clearly didn't work out in the long run. Controlled environments to take the drugs is more likely to prevent overdoses and having drugs mixed up with other dangerous substances, furthermore would allow active discouragement of unsafe practices such as sharing needles. (remember people in a debate what you argue does not necessary need to be what you actually believe) Next Topic: Abortions should they be illegal?
Topic: Making Abortion Illegal Side: For Abortion has been around for many years and during those years, many people have argued over it being moral or not. Personally, I think abortions should be illegal to some extent. If you get raped, I really think the women should keep the baby. It wasn't the babies fault that the problem occurred and they shouldn't be punished for it. To me, a baby is a person and has rights, regardless if it's born yet or not. Many people have argued that if it's aborted before a certain period of time, it can be killed before it actually develops into something. I think this reasoning is twisted and in reality, you're still killing something that exists and has potential. It could grow up to be extremely successful and make you proud. The only time I would think that abortion should be legal, is if it causes an issue for the mother's health. If the doctor tells the mother that she is going to die carrying the baby or giving birth, I think they should have a choice to abort it then, mainly since it's a valid reason. This contradicts my thoughts on why abortion should be made illegal, but everything has it's exceptions, just like drugs.
Topic: Making Abortion Illegal Side: Against. Any woman has the right to her own body, and the right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a baby in her stomach for 9 months, and then if she wants to keep it. Why should any woman go through the stress and potential health risks of an unwanted pregnancy? You say that if someone is raped they should keep the baby, but could you imagine having a living breathing reminder of what had happened to you every day of your life? I believe this would just lead to resentment of the child and the lack of an essential part of any childs life, connection between child and mother. Another key point to think about is if it is illegal does that mean people will not be doing it? I assure you it doesn't. People will still be getting abortions through unsanitary and unsafe measures. Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions, it will just lower the health and safety standards of these abortions. Next Topic: Womens rights. How far have they really come?
Topic: Womens rights. How far have they really come? Side: Are there two sides to this? :S This topic is quite a difficult one for me to give a reasonable answer to as I'm not a woman, so I don't know the direct and indirect effects of being a woman. However, I think that due to laws being changed in regards to employment (Sex Discrimination Act) women have been given an equal, if not greater, chance of getting well paid jobs. This brings me to the point where I think it's got to the time where it's hard to find work as a white male as apposed to finding work if you're from a racial minority or a woman, as companies don't want to look like they are being racist, sexist etc etc. If a woman, a coloured person, and a white man went for the same job the chances are, even if the man is equally qualified with equal experience, he will not get the job. The Sex Discrimination Act, along with the many others such as the Race Relations Act and Disability Discrimination Act are a sham and were put in place because of pressure. They should scrap the laws completely and have an Ethical law instead of a "you must have this many women and this many coloured people working for you" law (which, if I remember, used to be part of one of the laws). Sorry that kinda veered from the womans rights, but it did cover it Next topic: Smoking in public places; abolish the smoking ban or keep it? (for reference to this law: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6258034.stm)
please follow format and allow next debater to decide topic so we can hear both sides of the argument (though I understand the phrasing for the topic was strange) Pretty common knowledge lets stick to the topics plz? Topic: Womens rights. How far have they really come? Side: For (ie. not far enough) Women's rights have taken big steps towards equality but in most places there is still significant disparity in most countries particularly in relation to the glass ceiling (ie. difficulty in getting into the top highest paid roles). An example of this is in Law firms where to make partner and make it to the top for a woman not having a family or at least children has practically become a prerequisite. There is no such 'requirement' for men in the industry but fears over absences during maternity leave mean that Law firms are leaving female lawyers out in the cold. This is only considering what is practically the best possible scenario in well developed countries, in third world countries the situation is far worse. While in many respects such as education and general employment, the situation has improved in the long-run the existence of a glass ceiling can only hurt the furthering of equality between men and women. Next topic: Smoking in public places; abolish the smoking ban or keep it? (for reference to this law: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/Yarrr/uk/6258034.stm)
Topic: Smoking in public places; abolish the smoking ban or keep it? (for reference to this law: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/Yarrr/uk/6258034.stm) Side: For I like the idea of having a smoking ban, I mean I like to go to a resturante and be able to sit down and have a nice meal and not be breathing in second hand smoke. It's not a matter of restricting people's rights as it is keeping everyone else healthy. If you choose to smoke then that's your choice to kill yourself, but you have no right to kill everyone else around you, after all second hand smoke is worse than just flat out smoking. Now if a resturant chooses to have a smoking section that's completly different than the none smoking section then I'm ok with that, or if it was to have extreamly good ventilation to where it keeps smoke form me then by all means go ahead, but what I'm not ok with is smelling smoke while I'm eating my food. And that's my opinion. Next topic: Gay Merriage: Should it be legal?
Read the first post, getting tired of fixing up the same mistakes again and again. If another mistake occurs I'll probably give up. Topic:Smoking in public places Side: Abolishing the smoking ban It is generally considered that if a similar product to cigarettes were introduced in society today it would never make it to the marketplace. Smoking has been linked to numerous healthy risk, even being a health risk to people who are simply around smokers through second-hand smoke. Nevertheless it is not equitable to prejudice against a person who has operated within the boundaries of laws, just because society has recognized what is likely to be one of its mistakes. It is the equivalent of a child attempting to hide a broken vase by stuffing it under a rug. Society has rightly or wrongly allowed people to start and continue smoking and needs to face that reality, not make the issue less conspicuous. The smoking ban in public places is quite obviously a diplomatic, political non-answer. This is not good enough, if a government truly strongly believes smoking is harming the people of its nation it should admit its mistakes of the past and ban smoking outright. By forcing smokers into their homes/private places the government seems to be saying what you are doing is bad but if all you are doing is hurting yourself at home that's fine. Few issues are black and white but in this case there is no real halfway measure, its all or nothing. Next topic: Gay Marriage: Should it be legal?
Topic: Gay Marriage: Should it be legal? Side: Affirmative Here in Massachusetts, it is recognized by the majority of the population that it is right and necessary for gay marriage to be legal. There is no reason why two people, any two people who love each other, should be forbidden to marry. It is wrong and discriminatory for anyone to suggest that gays should have inferior rights to those of straight citizens. Marriage is a special union between individuals which should not be denied to gays for any reason. Massachusetts is only the first state to recognize gay marriage, and thankfully, it won't be the last.