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.
Okay so this popped up in my news feed. I've been looking into it and at the time of writing everyone I have found covering it is another very conservative news station which I am not sure actually researched into what happened. My school is only a few blocks away from PSU, so I was wondering if anyone here thinks this is was faked? As in if they used actors or actual students, I can't seem to find anything but if someone else can that'd be great.
Please note, this is not asking for your personal views on it - I want to know whether you think deontological morals can be used to justify lying, or if in every circumstance they say it's wrong.
Okay so my question is more just a way that I think the site should be changed in regards to banning. The way I see it, if you ban someone and then respond to their position, they should have the option to respond back. I think that past that they could do nothing else on the debate, and that if the debate moderator DIDN'T respond to the banned debater's position, then they (the banned debater) couldn't say anything else.If you think this is a good idea, say why. If not, the same.
Okay so obviously there are a lot of religious (and non-religious) people on this site. My challenge here is not an argument, just a question that I wish you to answer. I want you to ask this same question to any other religious people you know, and have them try to answer.I want someone to provide me with one piece of evidence. Hard, testable, empirical evidence in support for the existence of a god or gods. It doesn't even need to be supporting your own god. One piece of evidence, because that is all you need to win the debate about religion. I, and every other atheist, will convert to that correct religion if you can provide us evidence.So please, make your religion proud and prove that you are right. Not with threats of hell (Saintnow), not with ad hominem "arguments" (Enlightened). One piece of proof and I will convert. If you think that this is an unreasonable challenge and you are religious maybe you should consider as to why.
Okay so obviously there are a lot of religious (and non-religious) people on this site. My challenge here is not an argument, just a question that I wish you to answer. I want you to ask this same question to any other religious people you know, and have them try to answer.I want someone to provide me with one piece of evidence. Hard, testable, empirical evidence in support for the existence of a god or gods. It doesn't even need to be supporting your own god. One piece of evidence, because that is all you need to win the debate about religion. I, and every other atheist, will convert to that correct religion if you can provide us evidence.So please, make your religion proud and prove that you are right. Not with threats of hell (Saintnow), not with ad hominem "arguments" (Enlightened). One piece of proof and I will convert. If you think that this is an unreasonable challenge and you are religious maybe you should consider as to why.
Okay so for those of you that don't read science news too often; earlier this year Chinese scientists were attacked by critics for genetically modifying human embryos. Before submitting an opinion please do some research on the subject as it is very damning right off the bat - what do you think, if any, restrictions should be placed on this kind of research? Currently the UN requires any embryos that are modified not to be allowed to grow into humans - does this defeat the purpose of the research?
Out of curiosity, how many people do debate outside of this site? In other words, are any of you high school/college debaters or at least used to be? Additionally I would like to know everybody's view on how debate is carried out on CD, and whether or not it should be improved.
There is a common argument that women cannot be sexist because of supposed societal privilege towards men. This societal privilege means that only men can be sexist because sexism is "institutional"Frankly, I think this argument is complete and utter bullshit, for multiple reasons. But I would like to see what this community believes.
This is a pretty straightforward question, GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, although if you didn't know that you probably won't have a well informed position. If you have any preferences on how GMO's should or should not be limited please put them in your argument.
*Also on the negative position: no one has privilege* (I ran out of room)For those of you that don't know, male privilege is the idea that men get societal privileges over women due to rampant sexism against women.