
We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
224 | 155418 |
Some of you may remember The Great Debates thread from years past. Some thought it was fun, and some thought it was just too heavy.
So I thought I'd bring things back, but with a twist! The basic idea is still the same: two users will debate on a topic. The difference is that you won't get to pick the topic or which side you'll be arguing for.
Oh, and I almost forgot - the topics are going to be somewhat ... silly But that doesn't mean your argument has to be silly. In fact, if you can defend your silly point in a serious way, you might just earn yourself a merit! So it's not about winners or losers, it's about whether you can argue for, well, just about anything!
RULES:
- I will provide three possible topics for debate. If you'd like to participate, then you can SIGN-UP HERE in the Art, Music, and Writing forum: click here
- Once 6 people (at least for now) have signed up for the current three topics, the signup thread will close and the debates will begin
- Assignments will be given on this thread (who will be debating for which topic and what side).
**NOTE** You are signing up to play. Which topic you get and what side you'll be arguing for will be decided randomly. So be prepared!
- You will only have 1 post in which to give your argument, so make it count! Keep in mind that your argument should stand on its own. So don't quote your opponent and just shoot down their arguments. But you should also anticipate potential objections and try to respond to them.
- Merit-earners will present well-reasoned and genuine arguments in favour of their position - even in the face of some pretty silly topics. What that means is that, if users on opposite sides each give great arguments, they would both earn merits!
- A loosely enforced time limit (which has yet to be officially established) will be in place. Once that time limit is reached, the next round will begin.
Good luck! And let the return of The Great Debates begin!
I'm against HahiHa? Not much I can to do to beat that reasoning...
Bananas are more valuable than carrots.
carrots are more valuable than bananas because we naturally like roots and carrots are roots.
Before I take my stance, I have a question: Are the debates strictly secular, or can I bring theology into this?
I'm against HahiHa? Not much I can to do to beat that reasoning...
We can't tell whether or not we're in a simulation.
Bananas are more valuable than carrots.
âEl unico fruto del amor/ es la banana, es la bananaâ -Ben Sa Tumba & Son Orchestre; âLa bananaâ-
Horses are better than ferrets because...
1. They are in minecraft.
2. They appear in many movies.
3. They are more cute.
So basically, I have to make an argument about how the world is not real?
If no one produces an argument against mine, do I just argue with myself?
If no one produces an argument against mine, do I just argue with myself?
Ok, so basically I argue how we don't know someone is actually controlling the world? Seems easy enough.
Well, I am late. Here is my argument about this subject - People in affluent countries are *not* morally obligated to give to charity for those in poor countries.
I do not think this is good because I am a christian and we should give to the poor whenever we have the opportunity to. But I will argue against this subject just for fun and not that i do not agree with anything that i am saying here.
People in affluent countries(such as America, Europe, Asia, ect) do not have to give charity because they may not want to. We are not morally obligated because some people are not equipped to give to the poor, and they may not want to. When one goes to church, and they receive a flier about poor people in say, Africa, who need food and clothing to survive, that person has to consider what will the consequences be. He may not have the money for this, or he may simply not want to. 'The Bible does not force us to give to the poor, so i do not have to give if i do not want to'. (Made up quote). Some people may ask us to give to charity services but we are not obligated to do so because it does not say in anywhere that we MUST give to poor people. We have free will and we may do whatever we want.(Again, I do not agree with this, I am using my brain to think of a good argument if I were someone who was like this). So in conclusion, giving to the poor is a choice that we do not have to choose if we do not want to.
Here is my argument:
Are not dogs, cats and other pets considering living, breathing creatures? Is it not considered a crime to intentionally injure a dog/cat? Then why is it that we, as humans, can get away with what is tantamount with murder, to abort infants who have done nothing wrong?
I will agree with those who say that women have a right to choose what to do with their body, but their rights will only go so far. Why do women have the right to kill babies who, in fact, have done nothing wrong?
If, on the other hand, as in the case of Lori Grimes during childbirth. She had to choose between saving herself or saving her baby, chose to save her baby. This, however, is a different situation altogether. In this case, only one of them will make it out alive. If the mother chooses to save herself at the cost of saving her baby, that is okay. But on the other hand, if she chooses to save her baby at the risk of losing her life, that is also permissible.
To conclude, abortion is not permissible except in the case in which, at childbirth, the mother is forced to choose between her life and the baby's life. She may choose to say her life or the baby's life, because of the fact the only one of them might not make it alive.
If it were me, I would choose to save my child's life, since my baby has still a chance to live a life, while I have already lived a life.
Therefore, my stance is:
Not Permissible except in Extreme Cases (e.g. Lori Grimes Situation)
Sorry for the late post!
Ferrets are better animals than ferrets because they are easier to care for, financially, socially and spatially; ferrets are also less dangerous than horses, making owning one safer than owning a horse. Horses also consuming more resources and producing more methane gas would lead to the environment being hurt due to horses, ferrets do not consume the same amount of resources nor do they produce as much waste, making them superior to horses.
Ferrets are easier to care for because owning a ferret costs less than that of owning a horse, because of the space requirements and cost of owning a horse, they are a much larger commitment and as such, need to provide more joy in order to be worth it. By costing more and consuming more resources, it makes horses inferior by comparison. Because of this, ferrets with their easier to care for nature and their playful habits, it makes them more entertaining and better pets over all.
Since neither animal serves a realistic viewpoint anymore; horses being replaced by cars and other machines; it means their only value is that of the intrinsic use of them being pets and their love and affection for us. With horses consuming more resources and producing more waste, it makes them much more difficult to care for and they also do not have the exact same abilities as that of other animals. Because of their size, it makes them naturally harder to maintain and many horse owners will tell you that owning a horse means you make a huge commitment. Whilst with a ferret, you don't have to nearly be as involved and can focus on the positives of owning them.
You must be logged in to post a reply!
We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More