Swashbuckler's Debates: [clear]
All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Winning Position: Does America deserve to be destroyed by Russia and China?
6
Does America deserve to be destroyed by Russia and China?
Discuss.
Winning Position: Why atheists can't be libertarians
29
Why atheists can't be libertarians
If one is an atheist, and believe there is no objective right beyond the whims of individual men, or "might makes right", then they cannot be a libertarian or believe that there's anything inherently wrong with wealth redistribution or taxation.Because right and wrong have no meaning beyond what those in power decide, therefore state socialism is no more "wrong" than libertarianism and individual rights if those in power decide to make it right.
Winning Position: Yes
I don't see how an atheist can logically be a feminist, since atheists view themselves as no different from other animals, from a pure Darwinian perspective it can be evolutionarily advantages to commit rape and abuse women if it enables one to procreate more.So if an atheist objects to rape and abuse of women, then he's merely going against his own evolutionary instinct, which would imply he really isn't an atheist and realizes that there's a higher objective standard of truth than his mere rapacious animal impulses.For the record many modern notions of women's rights herald from the codes of chivalry of organizations such as the nights Templar; while on the other hand one of the most famous atheists Marquis de Sade advocated rape, torture and murder of women and children since he believed as humans were just like any other animal, they shouldn't be above their perverse impulses if it gave them pleasure.
Winning Position: Why gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt
19
Why gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt
I'd say that the state is completely justified in not allowing gay marriage or adoption for a variety of reasons:1. Legal marriage benefits are not an 'entitlement', they're intended to benefit the society by encouraging the healthy raising of children. Since gay marriages or unions don't naturally result in children then there's no state incentive to allow them.2. There is also no reason to allow same sex couples to raise or adopt children, since much evidence in psychology and social sciences shows this to be a biologically unnatural environment which could contribute negatively to the child's upbringing, therefore stable man and woman unions should always be favored over homosexual unions.3. Whether or not 'feeling homosexual desires' is a choice, it is still a choice to engage in homosexual activity or relationships. Just as "feeling hungry" isn't a choice, but going to McDonald's and buying a Big Mac is a choice. Therefore nothing is stopping anyone from marrying someone of the same sex if they want to marry.4. Likewise there is very little if any strong evidence that homosexuality is biologically hardwired or 'immutable' from birth like race is, and quite a bit of medical and scientific evidence that it is influenced by environment and may change over time.5. Homosexual unions of course tend to be more prone to spreading STDs, instability, drug addiction, and other negative tangential effects. Therefore this provides further incentive for the state not to openly encourage them. Likewise homosexual pedophiles seem to molest little boys at extremely high rates compared to straight pedophiles.6. The main motive behind the "LGBT" movement was simply to gain political influence and acceptance by getting the state to declare gay unions "official marriages". It was not about "love", or "children", or anything of that nature. Since of course homosexuals have a legal right to enter relationships, and have unofficial weddings if they wish regardless of whether or not they can legally marry 'on the books'. The gay marriage movement was primarily just politically-motivated rather than about "rights".
Winning Position: No
I would personally say it should definitely not be protected "speech" for a variety of reasons:1. The 1st Amendment was only intended to allow for free exchange of opinions and ideas, but not freedom of obscenity, which is something the states should regulate.2. Pornography, especially internet pornography which is available to the entire public has issues when it comes to consent. Since porn actors or actresses have no way of giving direct consent to strangers on the internet to view their pictures or videos, so it could be argued that it's impossible to 'consent' to being viewed in pornography unless the person is someone you've directly interacted with face-to-face.3. Internet pornography likely has negative social effects on society, as it discourages men from productive behavior and interacting with women in normal social situations, and developing an emotionally-stunted view of women as reductive "objects" (while the same could be said of men as well, most visual pornography is consumed by men).