text stringlengths 1 67.4k | label int64 0 1 | author stringlengths 2 25 | original_text stringlengths 6 75.8k | category stringclasses 23 values | round int64 0 8 | debate_id stringlengths 6 103 | idx int64 10 82.5k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
That is an error in enforcement, not a sufficient point in favour of proving of why banning guns is bad. If we banned them permanently no one would have the gun in the first place, only would they have this if there was error in enforcing the beautiful law (notice how there are virtually zero gun crimes in Britain and Germany?... Well guess what, it's because gun laws are SUCCESSFULLY implemented. The only reason it increases in USA afterwards is the retards in the senate LEAVE THE GHETTO GANGSTERS WITH GNS and the innocent civilians without them, OBVIOUSLY they haven't banned them permanently because people still have them! | 0 | RationalMadman |
That is an error in enforcement, not a sufficient point in favour of proving of why banning guns is bad. If we banned them permanently no one would have the gun in the first place, only would they have this if there was error in enforcing the beautiful law (notice how there are virtually zero gun crimes in Britain and Germany?... Well guess what, it's because gun laws are SUCCESSFULLY implemented. The only reason it increases in USA afterwards is the retards in the senate LEAVE THE GHETTO GANGSTERS WITH GNS and the innocent civilians without them, OBVIOUSLY they haven't banned them permanently because people still have them! | Miscellaneous | 2 | Ban-Guns-Permanently/1/ | 7,149 |
"guns do not kill people, people kill people" yes but tell me this: without cocaine, altogether, would there be dealers and suppliers in the first place? | 0 | RationalMadman |
"guns do not kill people, people kill people" yes but tell me this: without cocaine, altogether, would there be dealers and suppliers in the first place? | Miscellaneous | 3 | Ban-Guns-Permanently/1/ | 7,150 |
My analogy (that you correctly replied to) proves that without the tool, there is no crime involving it. Ban guns permanently and gun crime = zero. The ONLY, SINGLE argument is when guns are not permanently banned and end up arising again (hence non-permanently). You failed to meet your BOP due to the single, sole, argument of yours being this: people will resort to other weapons but surely those weapons would be only further bans until true civilisation is achieved if we followed my philosophy. My argument was as follows: Eliminate the weapon, no crime. No guns, no one needs them. Neither of these points was successfully refuted (the first was accepted in the round 5 debate of con). | 0 | RationalMadman |
My analogy (that you correctly replied to) proves that without the tool, there is no crime involving it. Ban guns permanently and gun crime = zero. The ONLY, SINGLE argument is when guns are not permanently banned and end up arising again (hence non-permanently). You failed to meet your BOP due to the single, sole, argument of yours being this: people will resort to other weapons but surely those weapons would be only further bans until true civilisation is achieved if we followed my philosophy. My argument was as follows: Eliminate the weapon, no crime. No guns, no one needs them. Neither of these points was successfully refuted (the first was accepted in the round 5 debate of con). | Miscellaneous | 4 | Ban-Guns-Permanently/1/ | 7,151 |
I negate the resolution: Ban all illustrated Bibles now [Topical Observations] 1) The resolution states 'ban'. Because an average constituent of society cannot put forth direct laws that directly affect others, this resolution deals with the government achieving the action [Definitions] 1) Ban: to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution 2) All: a whole amount [Value/VC] Value: Justice Value Criterion: Government Intervention Justice is inherent to the resolution because it deals with making new legislation (no laws currently do this action). Justice is giving each their due. My value of justice is upheld through government intervention. The resolution states an action that will undoubtedly affect members of society. Therefore, my opponent must prove how this governmental intervention is just. [Contentions] 1) One of the most important goals of any given government is to promote happiness to its constituents. Because the definition of ban includes the 'performance' (use) of something, in this case illustrated bibles, it also includes the government taking away illustrated bibles from members of its society, not just preventing the future sale of such items. Because Christianity is the largest religion in this world, and the bible, illustrated or not, is the most important piece of scripture for this religion, as well as the fact that the Bible has been printed over five billion times since 1815 and translated into over 2,000 different languages, all point to the fact that the bible promotes happiness. Thus, taking away something that promotes happiness would be decreasing happiness. 2) Banning illustrated bibles would have negative economic effects on a society. In order for a society to exist, it must have a strong economy. Millions of illustrated bibles are sold each year (approx. 25 million), and over 90% of Americans say that they own a bible (the average is 4 per household). This has two positive effects: creates jobs (publishers) and creates tax revenue. Therefore, banning the future distribution of illustrated bibles (which make up the majority of bibles) would hurt publishers (bibles outsell the top-seller every week 2 to 1) and it would not increase tax revenue, which can then be used to fixing everyday problems this country faces. [Rebuttal] [Value] --> he gives not value, thus mine is superior and the 'higher standard' [Value Criterion] --> once again, he does not present one. You can therefore extend my VC through the round [Contentions] My opponent does not clearly mark his arguments, but I will try my best: 'no living artist has ever seen Him so how can they know how to paint Him' I have 3 arguments --> Through digital computer processing, scientists have actually identified some features of Jesus' face from the Shroud of Turin --> nobody is making anybody buy illustrated bibles. If you feel this way, simply buy a bible with no illustrations of Jesus --> Not all illustrations in books are of Jesus. Because my opponent only argues that the illustrations of Jesus are wrong, other illustrations (which, by the way, are a majority) are okay | 0 | Igor |
I negate the resolution: Ban all illustrated Bibles now
[Topical Observations]
1) The resolution states ‘ban'. Because an average constituent of society cannot put forth direct laws that directly affect others, this resolution deals with the government achieving the action
[Definitions]
1) Ban: to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution
2) All: a whole amount
[Value/VC]
Value: Justice
Value Criterion: Government Intervention
Justice is inherent to the resolution because it deals with making new legislation (no laws currently do this action). Justice is giving each their due. My value of justice is upheld through government intervention. The resolution states an action that will undoubtedly affect members of society. Therefore, my opponent must prove how this governmental intervention is just.
[Contentions]
1) One of the most important goals of any given government is to promote happiness to its constituents. Because the definition of ban includes the ‘performance' (use) of something, in this case illustrated bibles, it also includes the government taking away illustrated bibles from members of its society, not just preventing the future sale of such items. Because Christianity is the largest religion in this world, and the bible, illustrated or not, is the most important piece of scripture for this religion, as well as the fact that the Bible has been printed over five billion times since 1815 and translated into over 2,000 different languages, all point to the fact that the bible promotes happiness. Thus, taking away something that promotes happiness would be decreasing happiness.
2) Banning illustrated bibles would have negative economic effects on a society. In order for a society to exist, it must have a strong economy. Millions of illustrated bibles are sold each year (approx. 25 million), and over 90% of Americans say that they own a bible (the average is 4 per household). This has two positive effects: creates jobs (publishers) and creates tax revenue. Therefore, banning the future distribution of illustrated bibles (which make up the majority of bibles) would hurt publishers (bibles outsell the top-seller every week 2 to 1) and it would not increase tax revenue, which can then be used to fixing everyday problems this country faces.
[Rebuttal]
[Value]
--> he gives not value, thus mine is superior and the ‘higher standard'
[Value Criterion]
--> once again, he does not present one. You can therefore extend my VC through the round
[Contentions]
My opponent does not clearly mark his arguments, but I will try my best:
‘no living artist has ever seen Him so how can they know how to paint Him'
I have 3 arguments
--> Through digital computer processing, scientists have actually identified some features of Jesus' face from the Shroud of Turin
--> nobody is making anybody buy illustrated bibles. If you feel this way, simply buy a bible with no illustrations of Jesus
--> Not all illustrations in books are of Jesus. Because my opponent only argues that the illustrations of Jesus are wrong, other illustrations (which, by the way, are a majority) are okay | Religion | 0 | Ban-all-illustrated-Bibles-now/1/ | 7,153 |
Although I do not believe what Brian_Eggleston believes on this issue, I do believe that he is a worthy opponent and, in general, a nice guy I will move on to defend my case, then attack my opponents [Value, Value Criteria, Definitions, and Observations] --> he agrees with all of them. End of story [Contentions] "I believe that this responsibility should not be limited to their lives on Earth, but should extend to their prospects of happiness in the afterlife as well" I have 2 responses --> My opponent is saying that he does not believe in separation of State and Church. Because he is arguing on the Church's behalf, and because the Church is FOR the separation of State and Church, this is hypocritical and counterproductive to what the Church wants --> We do not continue to give welfare checks to the deceased or provide social programs for them, so why should we continue to try to promote happiness to the dead? It is not the government's job to promote happiness after death. Besides, if you agree with my opponent, isn't heaven the state of pure happiness? "Destroying all illustrated bibles....would be good for the economy" I have 1 response --> Destroying all illustrated Bibles would cause thousands of people to lose their respective jobs. But, some people would regain those jobs (the people that rewrite the Bible), yet some, like the people who illustrate Bibles, would lose their jobs and would become a detriment to society. So, as you can see, this would be negative for the economy Now, I will move on to my opponents case "radio carbon dating proves this filthy remnant was created around 1355, probably as a hoax relic..." I have one response --> Pope Benedict the 16th, Jesus' successor, openly acknowledges that it is from Jesus, when he says, "An image that has not been made by human hands." "It's not the words that are dangerous; it's the pictures" I have two arguments --> Once again, these pictures are not dangerous. Because they pose no eminent threat to society or to the government itself, as well as the fact that the government should become affiliated with religious aspects of people's lives, there is no reason for this act of banning bibles --> Agreeing with my opponent restricts one right to freedom of speech. If two different illustrators have two different depictions of Jesus, and you like one better than the other, does that make the 'worse' one wrong? Of course not "An extension of the last analogy" --> Because he attacks with the same argument, I can defend with the same argument. Simply refer to my last argument [Voting Issues] --> he agrees with my value, value criteria, definitions, and observation. I attacked all of his points and defended all of mine [Conclusion] All government's should be secular, or non-religious. Because simple illustrations that aid the learning ability of the youth do not pose any eminent threat to society or the government, the government should not get entangled with the Church. Who knows, maybe a nuclear holocaust would ensue. And we do not want that to happen. Thank you | 0 | Igor |
Although I do not believe what Brian_Eggleston believes on this issue, I do believe that he is a worthy opponent and, in general, a nice guy
I will move on to defend my case, then attack my opponents
[Value, Value Criteria, Definitions, and Observations]
--> he agrees with all of them. End of story
[Contentions]
"I believe that this responsibility should not be limited to their lives on Earth, but should extend to their prospects of happiness in the afterlife as well"
I have 2 responses
--> My opponent is saying that he does not believe in separation of State and Church. Because he is arguing on the Church's behalf, and because the Church is FOR the separation of State and Church, this is hypocritical and counterproductive to what the Church wants
--> We do not continue to give welfare checks to the deceased or provide social programs for them, so why should we continue to try to promote happiness to the dead? It is not the government's job to promote happiness after death. Besides, if you agree with my opponent, isn't heaven the state of pure happiness?
"Destroying all illustrated bibles....would be good for the economy"
I have 1 response
--> Destroying all illustrated Bibles would cause thousands of people to lose their respective jobs. But, some people would regain those jobs (the people that rewrite the Bible), yet some, like the people who illustrate Bibles, would lose their jobs and would become a detriment to society. So, as you can see, this would be negative for the economy
Now, I will move on to my opponents case
"radio carbon dating proves this filthy remnant was created around 1355, probably as a hoax relic..."
I have one response
--> Pope Benedict the 16th, Jesus' successor, openly acknowledges that it is from Jesus, when he says, "An image that has not been made by human hands."
"It's not the words that are dangerous; it's the pictures"
I have two arguments
--> Once again, these pictures are not dangerous. Because they pose no eminent threat to society or to the government itself, as well as the fact that the government should become affiliated with religious aspects of people's lives, there is no reason for this act of banning bibles
--> Agreeing with my opponent restricts one right to freedom of speech. If two different illustrators have two different depictions of Jesus, and you like one better than the other, does that make the 'worse' one wrong? Of course not
"An extension of the last analogy"
--> Because he attacks with the same argument, I can defend with the same argument. Simply refer to my last argument
[Voting Issues]
--> he agrees with my value, value criteria, definitions, and observation. I attacked all of his points and defended all of mine
[Conclusion]
All government's should be secular, or non-religious. Because simple illustrations that aid the learning ability of the youth do not pose any eminent threat to society or the government, the government should not get entangled with the Church. Who knows, maybe a nuclear holocaust would ensue. And we do not want that to happen.
Thank you | Religion | 1 | Ban-all-illustrated-Bibles-now/1/ | 7,154 |
According to all the popes and archbishops and that, all the people who lived wholesome, blameless lives (and who were born since the Bible was written and who lived in countries where Christianity was practiced) were sent to Heaven. Now, please imagine one day in the afterlife where the innocents are lawfully going about their celestial business when one of them pops into a hallowed hostelry for a sacramental scotch and soda. Well, this beatified boozer has a couple. Actually, he has a few. And on his way to the consecrated crapper for sacred slash, our inebriated angel accidentally bumps into a guy with a beard, thus causing him to spill his beer. "Oi! Thee," says the bloke with the beard, "Didst thou spill my pint?" "So what if I did," replies the deceased drunkard, "Have you got a problem with that, beardy?" "Right, that's it," says Beardy, "Thou and me, outside on yonder cloud, NOW!" So, they both went outside to scrap it out. However, our half-cut hero's hirsute opponent possessed more special moves than all the Mortal Kombat characters put together and, as the sloshed seraph lay prostrate and utterly defeated, his bearded enemy decided to FINISH HIM! Oh dear, oh dear! Well, now, all that could have been avoided. You see, what our winged whisky-drinker didn't realise was that the aggrieved pub-goer he had been fighting was, in fact, none other than the Lord Jesus Christ himself. But he couldn't have known that because in his illustrated Bible, Jesus was depicted thus: <URL>... While the bloke that offered him outside (and subsequently kicked his head in) looked like this: <URL>... Well, why shouldn't he look like that? No living artist has ever seen Him so how could they know how to paint Him? It's no wonder, then, that an angel that hadn't been introduced to Him would fail to recognise Him and land himself up in a fight he could never win as a result. Therefore, in order to avoid any future angels becoming involved in alcohol-fuelled, posthumous punch-ups with The Lord, I submit that illustrations in Bibles should be banned forthwith Thank you. | 0 | brian_eggleston |
According to all the popes and archbishops and that, all the people who lived wholesome, blameless lives (and who were born since the Bible was written and who lived in countries where Christianity was practiced) were sent to Heaven.
Now, please imagine one day in the afterlife where the innocents are lawfully going about their celestial business when one of them pops into a hallowed hostelry for a sacramental scotch and soda.
Well, this beatified boozer has a couple. Actually, he has a few. And on his way to the consecrated crapper for sacred slash, our inebriated angel accidentally bumps into a guy with a beard, thus causing him to spill his beer.
"Oi! Thee," says the bloke with the beard, "Didst thou spill my pint?"
"So what if I did," replies the deceased drunkard, "Have you got a problem with that, beardy?"
"Right, that's it," says Beardy, "Thou and me, outside on yonder cloud, NOW!"
So, they both went outside to scrap it out. However, our half-cut hero's hirsute opponent possessed more special moves than all the Mortal Kombat characters put together and, as the sloshed seraph lay prostrate and utterly defeated, his bearded enemy decided to FINISH HIM!
Oh dear, oh dear! Well, now, all that could have been avoided. You see, what our winged whisky-drinker didn't realise was that the aggrieved pub-goer he had been fighting was, in fact, none other than the Lord Jesus Christ himself.
But he couldn't have known that because in his illustrated Bible, Jesus was depicted thus:
http://ce.byu.edu...
While the bloke that offered him outside (and subsequently kicked his head in) looked like this:
http://www.lycos.co.uk...
Well, why shouldn't he look like that? No living artist has ever seen Him so how could they know how to paint Him? It's no wonder, then, that an angel that hadn't been introduced to Him would fail to recognise Him and land himself up in a fight he could never win as a result.
Therefore, in order to avoid any future angels becoming involved in alcohol-fuelled, posthumous punch-ups with The Lord, I submit that illustrations in Bibles should be banned forthwith
Thank you. | Religion | 0 | Ban-all-illustrated-Bibles-now/1/ | 7,155 |
With many thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate, please take it as read that I accept his Observations, Values and Definitions. Now, to address his contentions: 1) While I am willing to accept that it is governments' duty to promote happiness amongst its citizens, I believe that this responsibility should not be limited to their lives on Earth, but should extend to their prospects of happiness in the afterlife as well. Clearly, a devout Christian who has followed the teachings of the Bible throughout his time on Earth should expect an eternity of harmony and bliss in Heaven. However, this could be ruined if he got snuffed out in a pub fight with Jesus just because his Bible led him to believe that He looked like some hippy in a dressing gown rather than, say, Russell Brand. 2) Destroying all the illustrated Bibles, which as my opponent pointed out, represent the majority of all Bibles in circulation, would, on the contrary, be good for the economy. Thousands of jobs will be created in the publishing industry to help satisfy the demand for new un-illustrated Bibles. Furthermore, the confiscated Bibles could be sold on to heathens, heretics and other non-believers for use in their bathrooms - the exceptionally thin pages would make them ideal substitutes for toilet paper. Moving on now to address his arguments. "Through digital computer processing, scientists have actually identified some features of Jesus' face from the Shroud of Turin" Radio carbon dating proves this filthy remnant was created around 1355, probably as a hoax relic, and therefore the image no more resembles Jesus than the figure portrayed in, say, Edward Munch's The Scream. <URL>... <URL>... "Nobody is making anybody buy illustrated bibles. If you feel this way, simply buy a bible with no illustrations of Jesus" That doesn't mean they should be legal. It's not the words that are dangerous; it's the pictures. For example, a novel about child abuse that goes into graphic detail would not be banned but the film version of the book, which included graphic scenes of children being raped, would be. "Not all illustrations in books are of Jesus. Because my opponent only argues that the illustrations of Jesus are wrong, other illustrations (which, by the way, are a majority) are okay" An extension of the last analogy: if the police raided the home of a middle-aged former pop-star (who had been twice accused of sexually interfering with little boys in past and who was on record as saying that sharing his bed with young boys was the most natural thing in the world) and found a German DVD which showed boys being raped on a Bavarian mountainside, should they let him off if he claims he wasn't looking at the sick perverts molesting their victims, he was only admiring the beautiful scenery in the background? In conclusion, there is no consensus of what Jesus looks like, it depends on your version of the Bible. After all, Bible are specially produced for all sorts of people: porn stars: <URL>... Cockney wide-boys <URL>... comic-book geeks: <URL>... and people with learning difficulties / people from Norfolk, England: <URL>... In each version Jesus is depicted very differently. So, in the hereafter, when it all kicks off in a blessed bar on a Saturday night on Cloud 9, and the fists start flying, a devout and pious Christian soul might condemn himself to an eternity in Hell, simply by making the innocent mistake of glassing Jesus in the face and then kicking Him in the bollocks when He was down on the ground - and all because He didn't look anything like His picture in the Bible. Therefore, for the sake of all divine debutants, I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you. | 0 | brian_eggleston |
With many thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate, please take it as read that I accept his Observations, Values and Definitions.
Now, to address his contentions:
1) While I am willing to accept that it is governments' duty to promote happiness amongst its citizens, I believe that this responsibility should not be limited to their lives on Earth, but should extend to their prospects of happiness in the afterlife as well. Clearly, a devout Christian who has followed the teachings of the Bible throughout his time on Earth should expect an eternity of harmony and bliss in Heaven. However, this could be ruined if he got snuffed out in a pub fight with Jesus just because his Bible led him to believe that He looked like some hippy in a dressing gown rather than, say, Russell Brand.
2) Destroying all the illustrated Bibles, which as my opponent pointed out, represent the majority of all Bibles in circulation, would, on the contrary, be good for the economy. Thousands of jobs will be created in the publishing industry to help satisfy the demand for new un-illustrated Bibles. Furthermore, the confiscated Bibles could be sold on to heathens, heretics and other non-believers for use in their bathrooms – the exceptionally thin pages would make them ideal substitutes for toilet paper.
Moving on now to address his arguments.
"Through digital computer processing, scientists have actually identified some features of Jesus' face from the Shroud of Turin"
Radio carbon dating proves this filthy remnant was created around 1355, probably as a hoax relic, and therefore the image no more resembles Jesus than the figure portrayed in, say, Edward Munch's The Scream.
http://www.mcri.org...
http://www.journeywithjesus.net...
"Nobody is making anybody buy illustrated bibles. If you feel this way, simply buy a bible with no illustrations of Jesus"
That doesn't mean they should be legal. It's not the words that are dangerous; it's the pictures. For example, a novel about child abuse that goes into graphic detail would not be banned but the film version of the book, which included graphic scenes of children being raped, would be.
"Not all illustrations in books are of Jesus. Because my opponent only argues that the illustrations of Jesus are wrong, other illustrations (which, by the way, are a majority) are okay"
An extension of the last analogy: if the police raided the home of a middle-aged former pop-star (who had been twice accused of sexually interfering with little boys in past and who was on record as saying that sharing his bed with young boys was the most natural thing in the world) and found a German DVD which showed boys being raped on a Bavarian mountainside, should they let him off if he claims he wasn't looking at the sick perverts molesting their victims, he was only admiring the beautiful scenery in the background?
In conclusion, there is no consensus of what Jesus looks like, it depends on your version of the Bible. After all, Bible are specially produced for all sorts of people:
porn stars:
http://fireproofnew.sellmerch.com...
Cockney wide-boys
http://www.brf.org.uk...
comic-book geeks:
http://www.theartofsiku.com...
and people with learning difficulties / people from Norfolk, England:
http://www.thebricktestament.com...
In each version Jesus is depicted very differently. So, in the hereafter, when it all kicks off in a blessed bar on a Saturday night on Cloud 9, and the fists start flying, a devout and pious Christian soul might condemn himself to an eternity in Hell, simply by making the innocent mistake of glassing Jesus in the face and then kicking Him in the bollocks when He was down on the ground – and all because He didn't look anything like His picture in the Bible.
Therefore, for the sake of all divine debutants, I urge you to vote Pro.
Thank you. | Religion | 1 | Ban-all-illustrated-Bibles-now/1/ | 7,156 |
I stongly believe there should be a ban on assualt weapons in the United States. | 0 | debatingequality |
I stongly believe there should be a ban on assualt weapons in the United States. | Politics | 0 | Ban-on-Assault-Weapons/1/ | 7,167 |
Thank you for excepting my debate. Over the last few years, we have seen a growing number of gun massacres in the United States. From <PHONE>, sixty-two gun massacres were committed. Amongst those sixty-two mass shootings, fourteen of those massacres were committed with an assault weapon. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and many other massacres caused many deaths due to assault weapons. Banning these guns would have saved many lives. For example, at the Sandy Hook shooting, a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine was utilized. This gun holds thirty rounds of ammunition, fully automatic. Adam Peter Lanza took the lives of twenty seven people with that gun. If assault weapons were banned, he wouldn"t have had the opportunity to murder twenty-seven people. Civilians in the the United States shouldn"t have access to Assault Weapons. I also have question. Why do civilians in the United States need assault weapons? <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... | 0 | debatingequality |
Thank you for excepting my debate. Over the last few years, we have seen a growing number of gun massacres in the United States. From 1982-2012, sixty-two gun massacres were committed. Amongst those sixty-two mass shootings, fourteen of those massacres were committed with an assault weapon. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and many other massacres caused many deaths due to assault weapons. Banning these guns would have saved many lives. For example, at the Sandy Hook shooting, a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine was utilized. This gun holds thirty rounds of ammunition, fully automatic. Adam Peter Lanza took the lives of twenty seven people with that gun. If assault weapons were banned, he wouldn"t have had the opportunity to murder twenty-seven people. Civilians in the the United States shouldn"t have access to Assault Weapons.
I also have question. Why do civilians in the United States need assault weapons?
http://www.motherjones.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org... | Politics | 1 | Ban-on-Assault-Weapons/1/ | 7,168 |
My opponent didn't participate in this debate. | 0 | debatingequality |
My opponent didn't participate in this debate. | Politics | 3 | Ban-on-Assault-Weapons/1/ | 7,169 |
I'm happy to accept, but I would like to slightly dispute your definitions: I wouldn't call gum unhealthy. I would narrow down school to state provided education for 3-19 year olds. A university is a place of education, but it's for adults, whom the state can't control. You could also argue that a home is a place of education for home-school educated kids, but you can't ban junk food in people's homes. As for the state school part, at least in Britain private schools and special needs schools have huge leeway about what they teach and how they teach it. (I'm assuming here that we're talking of a statewide or a nationwide ban, not a ban put in place by the schools individually, though I'd be happy to debate that as well.) Aside from that, it sounds like a really good debate, and I look forward to it. | 0 | Francie123 |
I'm happy to accept, but I would like to slightly dispute your definitions:
I wouldn't call gum unhealthy.
I would narrow down school to state provided education for 3-19 year olds. A university is a place of education, but it's for adults, whom the state can't control. You could also argue that a home is a place of education for home-school educated kids, but you can't ban junk food in people's homes. As for the state school part, at least in Britain private schools and special needs schools have huge leeway about what they teach and how they teach it. (I'm assuming here that we're talking of a statewide or a nationwide ban, not a ban put in place by the schools individually, though I'd be happy to debate that as well.)
Aside from that, it sounds like a really good debate, and I look forward to it. | Education | 0 | Banning-Junk-Food/1/ | 7,210 |
Worldwide, obesity in children has tripled over the last 20 years. In America, 18% of 6-11 year old kids are obese, and 21% of 12-19 year olds. The effects of obesity range from low self-esteem, bully and low mobility to the terrors of diabetes and heart problems. Obesity makes the childhoods of these kids a struggle and their future blighted by health problems. It is not a low-priority problem, some kind of comic jest, full of the irony of trying to slim down the 'fat kids' whilst trying to feed the third world. It is not even remotely funny. Furthermore, this is not a problem that parents, whether they are responsible or not for their children's' behaviour, have proved able to tackle. A ban on unhealthy foods in schools is only part of the solution, but it is simple and largely easy to enforce, and it shows huge potential. In Britain at least, foods with more than 5g of saturated fats, 17.5 of total fats, or 22.5g of sugars per 100g are considered to be 'red' foods. Any foods that broke these boundaries would not be permitted in schools. Since all food products in the UK must provide nutritional information per 100g, and the vast majority have clear green, yellow and red colour coding, there could be no argument about whether a food brought into school was banned or not. These foods are often ones that we take for granted, think little of, or don't realise how regularly we are eating. A mindset in which such foods are treated as everyday items is a terrible and dangerous inheritance. Banning unhealthy foods would be a process of two parts. Firstly, on school dinners, which would easy enough to force. Such a ban would vastly broaden children's horizons, showing them that you can eat mildly interesting, cheap, healthy food for every lunch and you will not collapse from a lack of sugars. It is absolutely and utterly key to long term health that children become used to eating healthy foods. Flavoured rice, chicken breast, veggies, pasta and Quorn are all healthy and realistic alternatives to pizza, pudding, cheese burgers and chips. And for anyone who has died of shock at the mention of the word 'Quorn', it has far less saturated fats than beef burgers, and as every vegetarian knows, is actually ruddy amazing. Secondly, children would not be allowed to bring unhealthy foods into school. Of course they will break this rule. Schoolchildren also roll up their skirts, swear at each other, pass notes and snog behind the sports shed. School rules aren't in place for the universal acceptance and joy of children, but to hugely reduce both the rate at which an activity is undertaken, and the implicit approval of the school and state. Ultimately, a 6 year old child isn't old enough to even evaluate the pros and cons of eating foods that could cause health problems in 20 years, whilst even 12 year olds and older lack impulse control and judgement. The area of the brain that assesses risk doesn't finish developing until the mid twenties, and children in their teens are deeply susceptible to following the social norm, rather than evaluating choices independently and sticking to them. To show children that they can have healthy snacks, but not chocolate and crisps, is essential to teaching them good norms. Our brains are programmed from the caveman days, when food was scarce and liable to become rotten exceedingly quickly. This has been recognised as the source of our problems resisting unhealthy foods for many years now, and has to be combated in an age where sugary and fatty foods abound. Studies have shown that we are more likely to eat unhealthy food when it is freely available, such as biscuits left on the counter, and less likely if it is even slightly inaccessible, such as on a high shelf. When unhealthy foods are unavailable, we crave them less and think of them less. We need to encourage our children to see unhealthy foods as treats not snacks, and additions to not staples of their diet. Banning unhealthy foods may seem harsh and radical. But the crisis we are facing of child obesity is one in which complacency is utterly unacceptable. | 0 | Francie123 |
Worldwide, obesity in children has tripled over the last 20 years. In America, 18% of 6-11 year old kids are obese, and 21% of 12-19 year olds. The effects of obesity range from low self-esteem, bully and low mobility to the terrors of diabetes and heart problems. Obesity makes the childhoods of these kids a struggle and their future blighted by health problems. It is not a low-priority problem, some kind of comic jest, full of the irony of trying to slim down the 'fat kids' whilst trying to feed the third world. It is not even remotely funny. Furthermore, this is not a problem that parents, whether they are responsible or not for their children's' behaviour, have proved able to tackle. A ban on unhealthy foods in schools is only part of the solution, but it is simple and largely easy to enforce, and it shows huge potential.
In Britain at least, foods with more than 5g of saturated fats, 17.5 of total fats, or 22.5g of sugars per 100g are considered to be 'red' foods. Any foods that broke these boundaries would not be permitted in schools. Since all food products in the UK must provide nutritional information per 100g, and the vast majority have clear green, yellow and red colour coding, there could be no argument about whether a food brought into school was banned or not. These foods are often ones that we take for granted, think little of, or don't realise how regularly we are eating. A mindset in which such foods are treated as everyday items is a terrible and dangerous inheritance.
Banning unhealthy foods would be a process of two parts. Firstly, on school dinners, which would easy enough to force. Such a ban would vastly broaden children's horizons, showing them that you can eat mildly interesting, cheap, healthy food for every lunch and you will not collapse from a lack of sugars. It is absolutely and utterly key to long term health that children become used to eating healthy foods. Flavoured rice, chicken breast, veggies, pasta and Quorn are all healthy and realistic alternatives to pizza, pudding, cheese burgers and chips. And for anyone who has died of shock at the mention of the word 'Quorn', it has far less saturated fats than beef burgers, and as every vegetarian knows, is actually ruddy amazing.
Secondly, children would not be allowed to bring unhealthy foods into school. Of course they will break this rule. Schoolchildren also roll up their skirts, swear at each other, pass notes and snog behind the sports shed. School rules aren't in place for the universal acceptance and joy of children, but to hugely reduce both the rate at which an activity is undertaken, and the implicit approval of the school and state. Ultimately, a 6 year old child isn't old enough to even evaluate the pros and cons of eating foods that could cause health problems in 20 years, whilst even 12 year olds and older lack impulse control and judgement. The area of the brain that assesses risk doesn't finish developing until the mid twenties, and children in their teens are deeply susceptible to following the social norm, rather than evaluating choices independently and sticking to them. To show children that they can have healthy snacks, but not chocolate and crisps, is essential to teaching them good norms.
Our brains are programmed from the caveman days, when food was scarce and liable to become rotten exceedingly quickly. This has been recognised as the source of our problems resisting unhealthy foods for many years now, and has to be combated in an age where sugary and fatty foods abound. Studies have shown that we are more likely to eat unhealthy food when it is freely available, such as biscuits left on the counter, and less likely if it is even slightly inaccessible, such as on a high shelf. When unhealthy foods are unavailable, we crave them less and think of them less. We need to encourage our children to see unhealthy foods as treats not snacks, and additions to not staples of their diet. Banning unhealthy foods may seem harsh and radical. But the crisis we are facing of child obesity is one in which complacency is utterly unacceptable. | Education | 2 | Banning-Junk-Food/1/ | 7,211 |
Sadly, Parisien's account is no longer active, so we'll just have to accept that and move on. There is one common counter argument that I would like to mention, and rebut, which is the argument of free will. Constantly brought up is the idea that parents have a right to give their children the food they want, at the cost they want, at the times they want. But on the grounds of a school, with so many other rules in place - for example, that school children may not run across the courtyard - this seems indefensible. Bans and rules are a daily part of life. This would merely be a ban instituted for the health of a generation of children. Many thanks, and please do take the time to vote. | 0 | Francie123 |
Sadly, Parisien's account is no longer active, so we'll just have to accept that and move on.
There is one common counter argument that I would like to mention, and rebut, which is the argument of free will. Constantly brought up is the idea that parents have a right to give their children the food they want, at the cost they want, at the times they want. But on the grounds of a school, with so many other rules in place - for example, that school children may not run across the courtyard - this seems indefensible. Bans and rules are a daily part of life. This would merely be a ban instituted for the health of a generation of children.
Many thanks, and please do take the time to vote. | Education | 4 | Banning-Junk-Food/1/ | 7,212 |
Short debate on if we should ban junk food in schools. 1. Accept 2. Argue 3. Rebut/ Defend Definitions 1. Junk food: Food such as gum, candy, hamburgers, anything that is unhealthy 2. School: A place of education. | 0 | Parisien |
Short debate on if we should ban junk food in schools. 1. Accept 2. Argue 3. Rebut/ Defend Definitions 1. Junk food: Food such as gum, candy, hamburgers, anything that is unhealthy 2. School: A place of education. | Education | 0 | Banning-Junk-Food/1/ | 7,213 |
This will be a four round debate. For the purposes of this debate, I would like to ask that my opponent begins with these three assumptions: 1) all persons are legitimate self-owners, 2) life begins at conception, and 3) all persons have the same rights. I would like to start by saying that I believe abortion is a tragedy and is completely immoral in all cases. In spite of this, it should not be prohibited by law. Women, as self-owners, have complete dominion over their bodies and, insofar as they do not violate the rights of anyone else, they may use their bodies as they please. That is, they have no positive obligations to anyone regarding the use of their bodies. The correct property-rights analysis is one of eviction. Just as a landlord may evict a tenant, a woman may evict her child from her property (in this case, from her body). | 0 | Morty |
This will be a four round debate.
For the purposes of this debate, I would like to ask that my opponent begins with these three assumptions: 1) all persons are legitimate self-owners, 2) life begins at conception, and 3) all persons have the same rights.
I would like to start by saying that I believe abortion is a tragedy and is completely immoral in all cases. In spite of this, it should not be prohibited by law.
Women, as self-owners, have complete dominion over their bodies and, insofar as they do not violate the rights of anyone else, they may use their bodies as they please. That is, they have no positive obligations to anyone regarding the use of their bodies.
The correct property-rights analysis is one of eviction. Just as a landlord may evict a tenant, a woman may evict her child from her property (in this case, from her body). | Politics | 0 | Banning-abortion-violates-self-ownership./1/ | 7,218 |
Do we have a "right to life"? I do not believe so. If one person has a right, that implies a responsibility for the rest of the rational beings in the universe. If I have a right to not have my cellphone stolen (that is to say, I am the legitimate owner of the cellphone), then you and everyone else have a responsibility to not steal it from me. If I have a right to exclude from my property, then you have an obligation to stay off my property unless I permit your entrance. Now what would a "right to life" imply? That would mean that everyone has a responsibility, an obligation, to make sure I stay alive. If I die, my rights have been violated by every single person, regardless of the circumstances of my death. It would imply that every starving person must be fed, every dehydrated person given a drink, every freezing person given shelter - so as to prevent death. It would imply that if we had a machine which could transfer "life force" then any time someone died, everyone would have a responsibility to transfer some of their "life force" to ensure that person lived on. A right to life is untenable and, indeed, would violate the doctrine of self-ownership which has been accepted for the purposes of this debate. Most certainly being forced to transfer life force would be a violation of self-ownership on the basest of levels, no? The fact of the matter is that a "right to life" does not exist, and cannot exist. Also, I would like to dispel the notion of "superior rights," and thus "inferior rights." There is no such thing. Rights are absolutes, or they cannot be considered "rights." Rights do not ever conflict, or again they would lack the nature of "rights." Finally, it seems the main objection my opponent has is that as a result of evicting the child from the mother's property (her body), the child dies. But what if we were to extend this theory to property owners of other kinds? Let us assume that it is a particularly cold winter. In an act of charity, a local apartment owner allows a few homeless people to seek shelter inside his building because he has a few unused rooms. Would the apartment owner not be allowed to later evict these homeless people from his apartment building, for whatever reason, if he knew they would die in the cold? Did, by his act of allowing the homeless people to have shelter, the apartment owner create an obligation he did not previously have? | 0 | Morty |
Do we have a "right to life"? I do not believe so. If one person has a right, that implies a responsibility for the rest of the rational beings in the universe. If I have a right to not have my cellphone stolen (that is to say, I am the legitimate owner of the cellphone), then you and everyone else have a responsibility to not steal it from me. If I have a right to exclude from my property, then you have an obligation to stay off my property unless I permit your entrance. Now what would a "right to life" imply? That would mean that everyone has a responsibility, an obligation, to make sure I stay alive. If I die, my rights have been violated by every single person, regardless of the circumstances of my death. It would imply that every starving person must be fed, every dehydrated person given a drink, every freezing person given shelter - so as to prevent death. It would imply that if we had a machine which could transfer "life force" then any time someone died, everyone would have a responsibility to transfer some of their "life force" to ensure that person lived on. A right to life is untenable and, indeed, would violate the doctrine of self-ownership which has been accepted for the purposes of this debate. Most certainly being forced to transfer life force would be a violation of self-ownership on the basest of levels, no?
The fact of the matter is that a "right to life" does not exist, and cannot exist.
Also, I would like to dispel the notion of "superior rights," and thus "inferior rights." There is no such thing. Rights are absolutes, or they cannot be considered "rights." Rights do not ever conflict, or again they would lack the nature of "rights."
Finally, it seems the main objection my opponent has is that as a result of evicting the child from the mother's property (her body), the child dies. But what if we were to extend this theory to property owners of other kinds? Let us assume that it is a particularly cold winter. In an act of charity, a local apartment owner allows a few homeless people to seek shelter inside his building because he has a few unused rooms. Would the apartment owner not be allowed to later evict these homeless people from his apartment building, for whatever reason, if he knew they would die in the cold? Did, by his act of allowing the homeless people to have shelter, the apartment owner create an obligation he did not previously have? | Politics | 1 | Banning-abortion-violates-self-ownership./1/ | 7,219 |
Abortion is not necessarily an act of killing any more than the example with the apartment owner. In the case that the procedure kills the child in itself and unnecessarily (as in partial birth abortion), then it should be prohibited and certainly does violate the rights of the child. But, abortions are not that way in general. We already have the ability to keep a very prematurely removed child alive. As medicine advances, a child may one day be viable outside the womb from day one. But, in any case, the mother is just as much "letting die" as the apartment owner. She is merely removing the child from her property, not killing him/her. The certainty of the child dying outside the womb is not of consequence, from a property rights perspective. Furthermore, the moment the mother no longer wants the child in her body, the child becomes a trespasser. As such, if the only way to evict is to kill, then that is still legitimate. Other methods of removal should be used, if possible and available, but if none exist, then the killing is still legitimate. Take the following example of this: Let us assume that there is a property which exists on the top of a high plateau, with cliffs which drop hundreds of feet to a valley surrounding it. There is no transportation to the bottom. Now, a plane above malfunctions and the pilot is forced to eject, landing on this property. Does not the property owner still have a right to demand that the trespasser leave his property immediately? If the pilot does not, would not the property owner be justified in physically removing him from the property by force? This is the situation at hand. Yes, it would be grossly immoral to do such a thing, but the property owner has the right to do so. Taking of life in abortion is not necessarily unjust. It is only so when viable alternatives exist and the taking of life is unnecessary for eviction. | 0 | Morty |
Abortion is not necessarily an act of killing any more than the example with the apartment owner. In the case that the procedure kills the child in itself and unnecessarily (as in partial birth abortion), then it should be prohibited and certainly does violate the rights of the child. But, abortions are not that way in general. We already have the ability to keep a very prematurely removed child alive. As medicine advances, a child may one day be viable outside the womb from day one. But, in any case, the mother is just as much "letting die" as the apartment owner. She is merely removing the child from her property, not killing him/her. The certainty of the child dying outside the womb is not of consequence, from a property rights perspective.
Furthermore, the moment the mother no longer wants the child in her body, the child becomes a trespasser. As such, if the only way to evict is to kill, then that is still legitimate. Other methods of removal should be used, if possible and available, but if none exist, then the killing is still legitimate. Take the following example of this:
Let us assume that there is a property which exists on the top of a high plateau, with cliffs which drop hundreds of feet to a valley surrounding it. There is no transportation to the bottom. Now, a plane above malfunctions and the pilot is forced to eject, landing on this property. Does not the property owner still have a right to demand that the trespasser leave his property immediately? If the pilot does not, would not the property owner be justified in physically removing him from the property by force? This is the situation at hand. Yes, it would be grossly immoral to do such a thing, but the property owner has the right to do so.
Taking of life in abortion is not necessarily unjust. It is only so when viable alternatives exist and the taking of life is unnecessary for eviction. | Politics | 2 | Banning-abortion-violates-self-ownership./1/ | 7,220 |
While I agree, all of us have property rights over our bodies. However, these rights to ourselves are abandoned when exercising them infringes on the rights of others. ie. abortion is the exercise of the property rights you mentioned, but exercising those rights violates the superior right to life of another. This holds because you concede that life begins at conception. Therefore, a mother exercising her property rights is a rights violation in and of itself. This is a fundamental constitutional principle. We don't have the right to freedom of speech if it infringes on others rights. If we are to assume that we all have equal rights, acting to violate the right to life of another in the process of exercising property rights would forfeit your own right to life. | 0 | wingnut2280 |
While I agree, all of us have property rights over our bodies. However, these rights to ourselves are abandoned when exercising them infringes on the rights of others. ie. abortion is the exercise of the property rights you mentioned, but exercising those rights violates the superior right to life of another.
This holds because you concede that life begins at conception. Therefore, a mother exercising her property rights is a rights violation in and of itself.
This is a fundamental constitutional principle. We don't have the right to freedom of speech if it infringes on others rights.
If we are to assume that we all have equal rights, acting to violate the right to life of another in the process of exercising property rights would forfeit your own right to life. | Politics | 0 | Banning-abortion-violates-self-ownership./1/ | 7,221 |
Your right to life argument ignores the distinction between killing and letting die. Surely, abortion is an instance of killing, a direct and decisive violation of the right, as the mother is choosing to terminate the life. The right to life is not the right to never die, but rather to never have our life unjustly taken from us. Abortion is a grave instance of this. The obligation to sacrifice something to save another person is certainly contentious, but that doesn't apply to this argument. The child doesn't need to be saved, he/she just needs to not be killed. There is a major distinction. My notion of superior rights was simply to imply that some rights are preconditioned on others. Certainly, have the right to self-ownership is preconditioned on being alive. Your analogy isn't analogous. Again, the difference between killing and letting die. 'Eviction' in the abortion scenario, kills the child. In the landlord scenario, the obligation isn't one of killing. | 0 | wingnut2280 |
Your right to life argument ignores the distinction between killing and letting die. Surely, abortion is an instance of killing, a direct and decisive violation of the right, as the mother is choosing to terminate the life. The right to life is not the right to never die, but rather to never have our life unjustly taken from us. Abortion is a grave instance of this.
The obligation to sacrifice something to save another person is certainly contentious, but that doesn't apply to this argument. The child doesn't need to be saved, he/she just needs to not be killed. There is a major distinction.
My notion of superior rights was simply to imply that some rights are preconditioned on others. Certainly, have the right to self-ownership is preconditioned on being alive.
Your analogy isn't analogous. Again, the difference between killing and letting die. 'Eviction' in the abortion scenario, kills the child. In the landlord scenario, the obligation isn't one of killing. | Politics | 1 | Banning-abortion-violates-self-ownership./1/ | 7,222 |
First, the killing versus letting die distinction is apparent. Abortion or the termination of the pregnancy is a direct killing of the child. This is much different than the landlord because the lives aren't directly correlated to him from a rights perspective. While he did potentially save those men from dying in the cold, the mother initiated the situation out of her own choice and in terminating it or exercising her rights is directly responsible for the death. The landowner was not initially responsible and does not face the burden of killing the impromptu tenants. Think of it in this light. The landlord sees a child drowning. He doesn't HAVE to swim out and save the child, but can if he so desires. The mother on the other hand, sees a perfectly healthy child on the bank of a river and pushes him in. This is the distinction. While the landlord faces no burden in saving the men, he can choose to 'unsave' them and exercise his rights. The mother, on the other hand, is not in this situation. She is taking an otherwise functional and existing life and ending it as a result of exercising her rights. More importantly, your argument hinges on property rights outweighing those of life. The mother is only just in taking the life (exercising her rights) if those rights trump the right to life that the child has. This is to value self-ownership over the right to be alive. This is like arguing that I can exercise free speech even if it takes someone's life. While I do agree that everyone should have the right to own themselves and have the right to exercise their rights, these rights shouldn't be accessible when they directly interfere with the rights of another, specifically and especially a more superior right, like being alive. 'Eviction' as you have presented abortion, therefore, is only justified in a scenario where an equal right of the mother is being withheld. In other words, if the child threatens the life of the mother, she has every right to 'evict' the child. Assimilating a child in the womb to a tenant-landlord relationship simply doesn't work out. While I agree that the mother should have rights over her own body, these rights cannot be exercised when they strip rights from others, as is one of our country's fundamental constitutional principles. | 0 | wingnut2280 |
First, the killing versus letting die distinction is apparent. Abortion or the termination of the pregnancy is a direct killing of the child. This is much different than the landlord because the lives aren't directly correlated to him from a rights perspective. While he did potentially save those men from dying in the cold, the mother initiated the situation out of her own choice and in terminating it or exercising her rights is directly responsible for the death. The landowner was not initially responsible and does not face the burden of killing the impromptu tenants.
Think of it in this light. The landlord sees a child drowning. He doesn't HAVE to swim out and save the child, but can if he so desires. The mother on the other hand, sees a perfectly healthy child on the bank of a river and pushes him in. This is the distinction. While the landlord faces no burden in saving the men, he can choose to 'unsave' them and exercise his rights. The mother, on the other hand, is not in this situation. She is taking an otherwise functional and existing life and ending it as a result of exercising her rights.
More importantly, your argument hinges on property rights outweighing those of life. The mother is only just in taking the life (exercising her rights) if those rights trump the right to life that the child has. This is to value self-ownership over the right to be alive. This is like arguing that I can exercise free speech even if it takes someone's life. While I do agree that everyone should have the right to own themselves and have the right to exercise their rights, these rights shouldn't be accessible when they directly interfere with the rights of another, specifically and especially a more superior right, like being alive. 'Eviction' as you have presented abortion, therefore, is only justified in a scenario where an equal right of the mother is being withheld. In other words, if the child threatens the life of the mother, she has every right to 'evict' the child.
Assimilating a child in the womb to a tenant-landlord relationship simply doesn't work out. While I agree that the mother should have rights over her own body, these rights cannot be exercised when they strip rights from others, as is one of our country's fundamental constitutional principles. | Politics | 2 | Banning-abortion-violates-self-ownership./1/ | 7,223 |
Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter | 0 | Banter4272 |
Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter | Science | 0 | Banter/1/ | 7,254 |
You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans | 0 | Banter4272 |
You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans | Science | 1 | Banter/1/ | 7,255 |
In order for that statement to be seen as true, you must have the evidence to back that up. I hope to see evidence in the up coming rounds and I can't wait to debunk them | 0 | Ozzyhead |
In order for that statement to be seen as true, you must have the evidence to back that up. I hope to see evidence in the up coming rounds and I can't wait to debunk them | Science | 0 | Banter/1/ | 7,256 |
Again, evidence is lacking | 0 | Ozzyhead |
Again, evidence is lacking | Science | 1 | Banter/1/ | 7,257 |
What a shame. I think I do recall someone actually saying they are a fan of my debates on here, so I actually know for a fact that my opponent's statement in the previous round was wrong. I also play the guitar, and I have had people listen and like what I play, as you will find on my youtube page. ( <URL>... ) Not only did my opponent lack evidence, but I have evidence in the contrary. Also, my opponent forfeited this round. | 0 | Ozzyhead |
What a shame. I think I do recall someone actually saying they are a fan of my debates on here, so I actually know for a fact that my opponent's statement in the previous round was wrong. I also play the guitar, and I have had people listen and like what I play, as you will find on my youtube page. ( https://www.youtube.com... )
Not only did my opponent lack evidence, but I have evidence in the contrary. Also, my opponent forfeited this round. | Science | 2 | Banter/1/ | 7,258 |
Right | 0 | Ozzyhead |
Right | Science | 3 | Banter/1/ | 7,259 |
OH MY GOD! They killed Kenny! | 0 | Ozzyhead |
OH MY GOD! They killed Kenny! | Science | 4 | Banter/1/ | 7,260 |
In his encounter with Nicodemus, Christ made it clear that baptism was necessary for salvation. John 3:5 'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." That tradition continued after Christ's ascension into heaven. The apostle Peter reaffirmed the need for Baptism. Acts 2:38 'Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' Just think of baptism like a ticket into a club, a club of believers. I will wait for my opponents response! | 0 | 1970vu |
In his encounter with Nicodemus, Christ made it clear that baptism was necessary for salvation.
John 3:5
'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'
Mark 16:16
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
That tradition continued after Christ's ascension into heaven. The apostle Peter reaffirmed the need for Baptism.
Acts 2:38
'Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'
Just think of baptism like a ticket into a club, a club of believers.
I will wait for my opponents response! | Religion | 0 | Baptism-is-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-decision-and-has-no-bearing-on-salvation/1/ | 7,266 |
First off, you are one of the few who are respectful. The apostle James contradicts the faith alone doctrine. James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." In fact Jesus said it himself ! Matthew 7:21 (part of the Sermon on the Mount): "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Again, Revelation 20:13: "All the dead were judged according to their deeds." And again, Matthew 28:19-20a (part of the Great Commission): "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." So Baptism is neccesary for salvation. I will wait! | 0 | 1970vu |
First off, you are one of the few who are respectful.
The apostle James contradicts the faith alone doctrine.
James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
In fact Jesus said it himself !
Matthew 7:21 (part of the Sermon on the Mount): "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Again,
Revelation 20:13: "All the dead were judged according to their deeds."
And again,
Matthew 28:19-20a (part of the Great Commission): "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
So Baptism is neccesary for salvation. I will wait! | Religion | 1 | Baptism-is-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-decision-and-has-no-bearing-on-salvation/1/ | 7,267 |
I realize that we have gotten way off track so i will try to keep it short. Does faith work with works ? | 0 | 1970vu |
I realize that we have gotten way off track so i will try to keep it short.
Does faith work with works ? | Religion | 2 | Baptism-is-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-decision-and-has-no-bearing-on-salvation/1/ | 7,268 |
Many people baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But it's wrong. After all, what is the NAME of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? The term "name" is singular, meaning one. I strongly believe that name is Jesus. Acts 10:48 states: 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (All these will be KJV. Other translations straight out say "In the name of Jesus Christ") Luke 24:45-47 say: 5 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Acts 8:5, 12, 16: "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.... They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" And I will leave one last verse which is perhaps that most famous: Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Anything is open for discussion, as long as you state your view on the name we must baptize in (Trinity, etc.) Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope this debate enlightens whoever accepts it. God bless! | 0 | Unashamed |
Many people baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But it's wrong. After all, what is the NAME of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? The term "name" is singular, meaning one. I strongly believe that name is Jesus. Acts 10:48 states: 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (All these will be KJV. Other translations straight out say "In the name of Jesus Christ") Luke 24:45-47 say:
5 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Acts 8:5, 12, 16: "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.... They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" And I will leave one last verse which is perhaps that most famous: Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Anything is open for discussion, as long as you state your view on the name we must baptize in (Trinity, etc.) Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope this debate enlightens whoever accepts it. God bless!
| Religion | 0 | Baptizing-in-Jesus-name/1/ | 7,280 |
You're right about the authority being in the name of Jesus. And like you said, the name of Jesus is the name of the LORD and of the Holy Ghost. All the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus because they knew what the name was when Jesus told the to baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Again, that name is singular. If the authority all resides in Jesus why wouldn't we baptize in the name Jesus? We pray in the His name, heal in His name, why not baptize? I agree with a lot of what you said, just not the last sentence or so. | 0 | Unashamed |
You're right about the authority being in the name of Jesus. And like you said, the name of Jesus is the name of the LORD and of the Holy Ghost. All the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus because they knew what the name was when Jesus told the to baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Again, that name is singular. If the authority all resides in Jesus why wouldn't we baptize in the name Jesus? We pray in the His name, heal in His name, why not baptize? I agree with a lot of what you said, just not the last sentence or so. | Religion | 1 | Baptizing-in-Jesus-name/1/ | 7,281 |
Then why do all the discples baptize in His name alone? They knew what the name was. It's Jesus. Acts 2:38," Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you"in the name of Jesus Christ"for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:16," "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized"in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized"in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized"in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 22:16, "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Are just a few examples, theres many places in the Bible where the power resides in the name Lord Jesus. | 0 | Unashamed |
Then why do all the discples baptize in His name alone? They knew what the name was. It's Jesus.
Acts 2:38," Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you"in the name of Jesus Christ"for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 8:16," "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized"in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized"in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized"in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 22:16, "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.
Are just a few examples, theres many places in the Bible where the power resides in the name Lord Jesus. | Religion | 2 | Baptizing-in-Jesus-name/1/ | 7,282 |
First of all, let me make something clear: I'm not pro-Obama because I necessarily think he's the best person in America for the job - but I try to be realistic about who has an actual shot at winning, and then choose from among them, because that seems like the best way to be heard. Call me a cynic, but isn't it kind of throwing a vote away to use it in favor of someone who'll never win, rather than helping the best among those who have a chance? Moving on. Yes, Obama is experienced. But I'm not convinced experience is the best attribute for a politician to have anymore. I believe much more strongly in sound principles, and even if Obama has done some things I disagree with - primarily lending any support whatsoever to the USA PATRIOT Act - I also have an appreciation for the reality that neither party can ever get anything done by itself and Obama seems to have a spirit of compromise and reconciliation that will help get things done. Much as I'd love to be able to say that We shall never bend on this issue! the simple fact is that no matter how much you believe in it, you'll never get anything accomplished that way, and isn't a compromise better than nothing? It's a step, and one that must be followed through on with further compromises pushing the issue, but with our politically system declaring "all or nothing" is really awfully ineffective. As a sidenote, I actually support Israel myself, and if someone would like to challenge me on that in a separate debate feel free - I can talk forever about the differences between Israel and the United States and why I'm okay with the one behaving in a manner that, if assumed by the other, would infuriate me. But overall, Obama seems to care - as much as any politician can care - about the individual citizens of this country and doing as much for them as he can, and that alone recommends him rather highly to me. | 0 | cherrychocolate |
First of all, let me make something clear: I'm not pro-Obama because I necessarily think he's the best person in America for the job - but I try to be realistic about who has an actual shot at winning, and then choose from among them, because that seems like the best way to be heard. Call me a cynic, but isn't it kind of throwing a vote away to use it in favor of someone who'll never win, rather than helping the best among those who have a chance?
Moving on. Yes, Obama is experienced. But I'm not convinced experience is the best attribute for a politician to have anymore. I believe much more strongly in sound principles, and even if Obama has done some things I disagree with - primarily lending any support whatsoever to the USA PATRIOT Act - I also have an appreciation for the reality that neither party can ever get anything done by itself and Obama seems to have a spirit of compromise and reconciliation that will help get things done. Much as I'd love to be able to say that We shall never bend on this issue! the simple fact is that no matter how much you believe in it, you'll never get anything accomplished that way, and isn't a compromise better than nothing? It's a step, and one that must be followed through on with further compromises pushing the issue, but with our politically system declaring "all or nothing" is really awfully ineffective.
As a sidenote, I actually support Israel myself, and if someone would like to challenge me on that in a separate debate feel free - I can talk forever about the differences between Israel and the United States and why I'm okay with the one behaving in a manner that, if assumed by the other, would infuriate me.
But overall, Obama seems to care - as much as any politician can care - about the individual citizens of this country and doing as much for them as he can, and that alone recommends him rather highly to me. | Politics | 0 | Barack-Obama-Pro-or-Con/1/ | 7,286 |
I had wanted to apologize for not having responded in time - I really ought to have the foresight to not enter a debate when I probably won't have time to participate fully. My mistake. But see, according to me, all politicians are evil. Sorry, call me a cynic, it's the only conclusion I can draw from watching our political system. So I'd rather vote for one I think might listen to me (not that the point is anything more than academic at this point - I can't exactly vote anyway.) Regarding health care...I honestly have no idea what to think there. Which is strange, not to be able to decide my own opinion, but there are so many evils out there waiting to get the less fortunate and, again, I'm too cynical to believe in a healthcare system that will not either become bureaucracized or neglect individuals who fall through the wellfare cracks. So, though it's something I care about since it affects the individuals of this nation directly, a nominee's stance on healthcare is simply not a burning issue for me, since my own mind is not so resolutely made up as it is on, say, Guantanamo Bay, or the like. Gay rights, by the way, are one of the issues I strongly believe in; and what I support is equal rights across the board as regardless of sexual orientation as of race or gender or ethnicity or anything else. It would be impossible to pass a federal law or amendment to the Constitution demanding that homosexual couples be allowed to get married - there would be an uproar from religious groups, in whose domain, after all, marriage mostly falls. What I support is an utter abolishment of the institution of marriage in connection with legal unions, and instead a civil union available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation; marriage would become up to each individual religion to determine, and would be wholly separate from civil unions. Naturally the couples joined in civil unions would enjoy the same rights as those joined in matrimony today. I don't know how much of this Obama might support, but it means that the words "civil union" don't entirely turn me off. As for the phrase "political integrity"...don't make me laugh :) Overall, I have to say that though I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, I also don't believe that any of the presidential nominees will follow through with their policies and promises; and what I like about Obama is that - and maybe this is worthless to anyone but me - a) when I listen to him it sounds like something different than what I've heard other nominees and candidates spitting out in years past, and b) I think he might actually win. It's been a pleasure debating with you. | 0 | cherrychocolate |
I had wanted to apologize for not having responded in time - I really ought to have the foresight to not enter a debate when I probably won't have time to participate fully. My mistake.
But see, according to me, all politicians are evil. Sorry, call me a cynic, it's the only conclusion I can draw from watching our political system. So I'd rather vote for one I think might listen to me (not that the point is anything more than academic at this point - I can't exactly vote anyway.)
Regarding health care...I honestly have no idea what to think there. Which is strange, not to be able to decide my own opinion, but there are so many evils out there waiting to get the less fortunate and, again, I'm too cynical to believe in a healthcare system that will not either become bureaucracized or neglect individuals who fall through the wellfare cracks. So, though it's something I care about since it affects the individuals of this nation directly, a nominee's stance on healthcare is simply not a burning issue for me, since my own mind is not so resolutely made up as it is on, say, Guantanamo Bay, or the like.
Gay rights, by the way, are one of the issues I strongly believe in; and what I support is equal rights across the board as regardless of sexual orientation as of race or gender or ethnicity or anything else. It would be impossible to pass a federal law or amendment to the Constitution demanding that homosexual couples be allowed to get married - there would be an uproar from religious groups, in whose domain, after all, marriage mostly falls. What I support is an utter abolishment of the institution of marriage in connection with legal unions, and instead a civil union available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation; marriage would become up to each individual religion to determine, and would be wholly separate from civil unions. Naturally the couples joined in civil unions would enjoy the same rights as those joined in matrimony today. I don't know how much of this Obama might support, but it means that the words "civil union" don't entirely turn me off.
As for the phrase "political integrity"...don't make me laugh :)
Overall, I have to say that though I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, I also don't believe that any of the presidential nominees will follow through with their policies and promises; and what I like about Obama is that - and maybe this is worthless to anyone but me - a) when I listen to him it sounds like something different than what I've heard other nominees and candidates spitting out in years past, and b) I think he might actually win.
It's been a pleasure debating with you. | Politics | 1 | Barack-Obama-Pro-or-Con/1/ | 7,287 |
Barack Obama is completely inexperienced and lacks the REAL political backbone needed to run this country. Barack Obama On the Issues: -Does NOT support real Universal Healthcare. -Says he stood up against the war in Iraq before it was popular (even though that was already the mainstream opinion of the Democratic Party at the time). -Voted for the USAPATRIOT Act. -Is pro-Israel. -Voted for free trade with Guam. -Voted FOR a border fence between US and Mexico. Barack Obama has shown that he really doesn't stand up when we need him to, so why should progressive, labour, or socialist constituents be supporting him? | 0 | independentprogressive |
Barack Obama is completely inexperienced and lacks the REAL political backbone needed to run this country.
Barack Obama On the Issues:
-Does NOT support real Universal Healthcare.
-Says he stood up against the war in Iraq before it was popular (even though that was already the mainstream opinion of the Democratic Party at the time).
-Voted for the USAPATRIOT Act.
-Is pro-Israel.
-Voted for free trade with Guam.
-Voted FOR a border fence between US and Mexico.
Barack Obama has shown that he really doesn't stand up when we need him to, so why should progressive, labour, or socialist constituents be supporting him? | Politics | 0 | Barack-Obama-Pro-or-Con/1/ | 7,288 |
Voting for someone based on electability in fear of "throwing your vote away" is an absolutely ridiculous concept. If we always vote for the lesser of the evils, we will never establish REAL change in this country. On compromise; if we expect politicians to compromise when they can't agree, none of them will hold firm stances for the voters to see. Barack Obama has NO experience and YES that is important. Do you honestly want the person serving the highest office in the land to not have any foreign policy experience whatsoever? Barack Obama speaks of not taking money from lobbyists (which is a lie), and supporting universal healthcare which stands up to insurance companies (which is also a lie). I don't know about you, but I don't want an inexperienced liar as president. | 0 | independentprogressive |
Voting for someone based on electability in fear of "throwing your vote away" is an absolutely ridiculous concept. If we always vote for the lesser of the evils, we will never establish REAL change in this country. On compromise; if we expect politicians to compromise when they can't agree, none of them will hold firm stances for the voters to see. Barack Obama has NO experience and YES that is important. Do you honestly want the person serving the highest office in the land to not have any foreign policy experience whatsoever? Barack Obama speaks of not taking money from lobbyists (which is a lie), and supporting universal healthcare which stands up to insurance companies (which is also a lie). I don't know about you, but I don't want an inexperienced liar as president. | Politics | 1 | Barack-Obama-Pro-or-Con/1/ | 7,289 |
I'm sorry, cherrychocolate, I really wish they allotted more time for a rebuttle. Anyways, it is not right to vote for the lesser of the evils because you are nonetheless, voting for an evil. Barack Obama has been running for president ever since he stepped his foot into the U.S. Senate. The Health Insurance Lobby money Obama takes deeply disturbs me. What is the biggest problem with healthcare today in our nation? Insurance companies. All Barack Obama's healthcare plan does is cap the price on private insurance and heavily subsidize it. I believe a single-payer system would be much more cost effective, not to mention more efficient due to decreased bureaucracy. As president, Barack would never sign H.R. 676 into law because he is too heavily indebted to private insurers. The fact that Obama does not support gay marriage bothers me a lot, also. Sure, he advocates civil unions which would provide the same benefits, but as a homosexual I can tell you; this whole civil union has equal rights to marriage belief is completely flawed. In supreme court case Brown vs. Board of Education, Brown fought for integration, against the policy at the time "Seperate, but equal." The supreme court ruled in favor of Brown because "Seperate, but equal are inevitability unequal." Not allowing gays to marry treats them as second class citizens. Both these matters raise serious questions about Barack Obama's political integrity. | 0 | independentprogressive |
I'm sorry, cherrychocolate, I really wish they allotted more time for a rebuttle.
Anyways, it is not right to vote for the lesser of the evils because you are nonetheless, voting for an evil.
Barack Obama has been running for president ever since he stepped his foot into the U.S. Senate. The Health Insurance Lobby money Obama takes deeply disturbs me. What is the biggest problem with healthcare today in our nation? Insurance companies. All Barack Obama's healthcare plan does is cap the price on private insurance and heavily subsidize it. I believe a single-payer system would be much more cost effective, not to mention more efficient due to decreased bureaucracy. As president, Barack would never sign H.R. 676 into law because he is too heavily indebted to private insurers.
The fact that Obama does not support gay marriage bothers me a lot, also. Sure, he advocates civil unions which would provide the same benefits, but as a homosexual I can tell you; this whole civil union has equal rights to marriage belief is completely flawed. In supreme court case Brown vs. Board of Education, Brown fought for integration, against the policy at the time "Seperate, but equal." The supreme court ruled in favor of Brown because "Seperate, but equal are inevitability unequal." Not allowing gays to marry treats them as second class citizens.
Both these matters raise serious questions about Barack Obama's political integrity. | Politics | 3 | Barack-Obama-Pro-or-Con/1/ | 7,290 |
Barack is the best choice for president in the upcoming year. This can be easily illustrated by looking at his economic, foreign, and social policies. First off economic. In 2007 Obama stated that he supported "merit pay" for our teachers. For those of you unfamiliar with Merit Pay it is the concept of paying people at how effective they are at there job. This would encourage teachers to help their students that are having problems, dedicate themselves to the school, and ultimatly get rid of any ineffective teachers. Obama also voted in favor fo the BioFeuls Security Act in 2007. This is a bill that calls for the cease of production of single-fuel vehicles in 2016, making our automobile market purely hybrid. Obama doesn't just support the health of our biosphere though, he's also interested in the health of the American people, fully in favor of universal health care. Obama is against favoring the rich in tax cuts too, not wanting to make these estate tax cuts permanent. He also beleives in equal pay, saying "You gotta pay your workers enough that they can actually not only shop at Wal-Mart, but ultimately send their kids to college and save for retirement." Moving on to Barack's foreign policy. Barack's first major speech on foriegn policy was delivered on April 23, 2007 to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He pointed out 5 ways that America can solve it's problems and lead again "Bringing a responsible end" to the war in Iraq and refocusing on the broader region. "Building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it." "Marshalling a global effort" to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. "Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats," including climate change. "Invest in our common humanity" through foreign aid and supporting the "pillars of a sustainable democracy - a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." During the speech Obama also said we should improve our Armed Forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. As far as immigration goes Obama supports a guest worker program. He has said "will not support any bill that does not provide [an] earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population." Finally Barack's social policies, mainly abortion and gay marriage. Obama is in support of abortion and has been highly praised with his votes towards family managment plans and contraceptives. He is also in support of civil unions for homosexuals, sayign all citizens need to have the same rights. With all these good policies and views I see no other canidate that even compares to Obama. I urge someone to convince me otherwise. | 0 | jobes2007 |
Barack is the best choice for president in the upcoming year. This can be easily illustrated by looking at his economic, foreign, and social policies.
First off economic. In 2007 Obama stated that he supported "merit pay" for our teachers. For those of you unfamiliar with Merit Pay it is the concept of paying people at how effective they are at there job. This would encourage teachers to help their students that are having problems, dedicate themselves to the school, and ultimatly get rid of any ineffective teachers.
Obama also voted in favor fo the BioFeuls Security Act in 2007. This is a bill that calls for the cease of production of single-fuel vehicles in 2016, making our automobile market purely hybrid. Obama doesn't just support the health of our biosphere though, he's also interested in the health of the American people, fully in favor of universal health care.
Obama is against favoring the rich in tax cuts too, not wanting to make these estate tax cuts permanent. He also beleives in equal pay, saying "You gotta pay your workers enough that they can actually not only shop at Wal-Mart, but ultimately send their kids to college and save for retirement."
Moving on to Barack's foreign policy. Barack's first major speech on foriegn policy was delivered on April 23, 2007 to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He pointed out 5 ways that America can solve it's problems and lead again
"Bringing a responsible end" to the war in Iraq and refocusing on the broader region.
"Building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it."
"Marshalling a global effort" to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
"Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats," including climate change.
"Invest in our common humanity" through foreign aid and supporting the "pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force."
During the speech Obama also said we should improve our Armed Forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
As far as immigration goes Obama supports a guest worker program. He has said "will not support any bill that does not provide [an] earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population."
Finally Barack's social policies, mainly abortion and gay marriage. Obama is in support of abortion and has been highly praised with his votes towards family managment plans and contraceptives. He is also in support of civil unions for homosexuals, sayign all citizens need to have the same rights.
With all these good policies and views I see no other canidate that even compares to Obama. I urge someone to convince me otherwise. | Politics | 0 | Barack-Obama-is-the-best-choice-for-08-president/1/ | 7,337 |
.... Did you really just tell me that Obama has no experience? He is on the Senate. He's involved in the Foreign Relations Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security ,Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, Veterans' Affairs comitties. He's won the following awards: Best Spoken Word Album, Grammy Award, 2006; Chairman's Award, National Association for the Advancement Colored People, 2005; 100 most influential people in the world, Time Magazine, 2005; 10 people who will change the world, New Statesman, 2005; Harold Blake Walker Award, Christopher House, 2005; Rock the Nation Award, Rock the Vote, 2005; Outstanding Legislator Award, Campaign for Better Health Care and Illinois Primary Health Care Association, 1998; Best Freshman Legislator Award, Independent Voters of Illinois, 1997; Monarch Award for Outstanding Public Service, 1994; "40 Under 40" Award, Crain's Chicago Business, 1993. He also has written the following publications: "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" (1995); "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" (2006) and "It Takes a Nation: How Strangers Became Family in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina" (2006). He's a favored Democratic candidate and has been in all the recent debates. I honestly cannot beleive you just said that. Also the purpose of this debate is to prove that there is some other candidate that would be a better president something that, no offense, you have failed to do. | 0 | jobes2007 |
.... Did you really just tell me that Obama has no experience? He is on the Senate. He's involved in the Foreign Relations Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security ,Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, Veterans' Affairs comitties. He's won the following awards:
Best Spoken Word Album, Grammy Award, 2006; Chairman's Award, National Association for the Advancement Colored People, 2005; 100 most influential people in the world, Time Magazine, 2005; 10 people who will change the world, New Statesman, 2005; Harold Blake Walker Award, Christopher House, 2005; Rock the Nation Award, Rock the Vote, 2005; Outstanding Legislator Award, Campaign for Better Health Care and Illinois Primary Health Care Association, 1998; Best Freshman Legislator Award, Independent Voters of Illinois, 1997; Monarch Award for Outstanding Public Service, 1994; "40 Under 40" Award, Crain's Chicago Business, 1993.
He also has written the following publications:
"Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" (1995); "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" (2006) and "It Takes a Nation: How Strangers Became Family in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina" (2006).
He's a favored Democratic candidate and has been in all the recent debates. I honestly cannot beleive you just said that.
Also the purpose of this debate is to prove that there is some other candidate that would be a better president something that, no offense, you have failed to do. | Politics | 1 | Barack-Obama-is-the-best-choice-for-08-president/1/ | 7,338 |
I really don't see how you think you're proving me wrong. Ok, maybe Obama does not have executive experience.... So what does that mean? You haven't presented anything for me to debate against. I don't see what to say here. | 0 | jobes2007 |
I really don't see how you think you're proving me wrong. Ok, maybe Obama does not have executive experience.... So what does that mean? You haven't presented anything for me to debate against. I don't see what to say here. | Politics | 2 | Barack-Obama-is-the-best-choice-for-08-president/1/ | 7,339 |
I predict that Barack Obama will gain more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton in tomorrow's big nationwide vote. I believe this for several good reasons: 1. All the latest national polls reveal strong trends towards Obama. The same is true of polling done in states that will be voting tomorrow. 2. Obama has spent more money than Hillary on advertising and has a much stronger ground game in many of these states. Turnout, turnout, turnout.... 3. Strong African-American support will help him carry some states in the South. | 0 | UberCryxic |
I predict that Barack Obama will gain more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton in tomorrow's big nationwide vote. I believe this for several good reasons:
1. All the latest national polls reveal strong trends towards Obama. The same is true of polling done in states that will be voting tomorrow.
2. Obama has spent more money than Hillary on advertising and has a much stronger ground game in many of these states. Turnout, turnout, turnout....
3. Strong African-American support will help him carry some states in the South. | Politics | 0 | Barack-Obama-will-win-more-delegates-than-Hillary-Clinton-on-Super-Tuesday-tomorrow-./1/ | 7,402 |
"1. All the latest national polls reveal strong trends towards Obama. The same is true of polling done in states that will be voting tomorrow. ", First national polls, don't always predict the winner. Example the New Hampshire Primary, polls going in showed Barack winning by as much as 10%. Hillary won that contest. "2. Obama has spent more money than Hillary on advertising and has a much stronger ground game in many of these states. Turnout, turnout, turnout....", So what Romney spent almost 45 million in Iowa and Huckabee won spending 500,000 dollars. Ground campaign, Hillary has the Clinton Machine, it is so feared, that Russian media is afraid of it lol. "3. Strong African-American support will help him carry some states in the South.", carry him, in southern states, all other races are tight, and others are no contest like the north eastern states, like New York and Hillary is winning California as well. "poll of polls" -- puts Clinton at 45 percent and Obama at 43 percent. Those five surveys were done by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., Gallup, Pew, ABC and CBS. Clinton is winning in the all. | 0 | bigbass3000 |
"1. All the latest national polls reveal strong trends towards Obama. The same is true of polling done in states that will be voting tomorrow. ", First national polls, don't always predict the winner. Example the New Hampshire Primary, polls going in showed Barack winning by as much as 10%. Hillary won that contest.
"2. Obama has spent more money than Hillary on advertising and has a much stronger ground game in many of these states. Turnout, turnout, turnout....", So what Romney spent almost 45 million in Iowa and Huckabee won spending 500,000 dollars. Ground campaign, Hillary has the Clinton Machine, it is so feared, that Russian media is afraid of it lol.
"3. Strong African-American support will help him carry some states in the South.", carry him, in southern states, all other races are tight, and others are no contest like the north eastern states, like New York and Hillary is winning California as well.
"poll of polls" -- puts Clinton at 45 percent and Obama at 43 percent. Those five surveys were done by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., Gallup, Pew, ABC and CBS. Clinton is winning in the all. | Politics | 0 | Barack-Obama-will-win-more-delegates-than-Hillary-Clinton-on-Super-Tuesday-tomorrow-./1/ | 7,403 |
Waiting on him????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????jwkk;kS;LDK'sdklpsldsd. Well You see I don't want to debate | 0 | bigbass3000 |
Waiting on him????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????jwkk;kS;LDK'sdklpsldsd. Well You see I don't want to debate | Politics | 1 | Barack-Obama-will-win-more-delegates-than-Hillary-Clinton-on-Super-Tuesday-tomorrow-./1/ | 7,404 |
She did win more delegates, she won about a 100 more on Tuesday. He is catcing up, but it is about Hillary Clinton. She won New York, California, New Jersey, 741(Obama)-768(Clinton). As you can see it was a close. Very close and I am rooting for Obama, but I knew Hillary would get more by a little margin, but a little more. She got 27 more, but he is closing the gap. vote for me please. | 0 | bigbass3000 |
She did win more delegates, she won about a 100 more on Tuesday. He is catcing up, but it is about Hillary Clinton. She won New York, California, New Jersey,
741(Obama)-768(Clinton). As you can see it was a close. Very close and I am rooting for Obama, but I knew Hillary would get more by a little margin, but a little more. She got 27 more, but he is closing the gap. vote for me please. | Politics | 2 | Barack-Obama-will-win-more-delegates-than-Hillary-Clinton-on-Super-Tuesday-tomorrow-./1/ | 7,405 |
First of all I think they are both closet communists and belong running in Russia not the United States of America. But for the sake of debate here we go. First of all I will start out by point out that my opponent has obviously made her entire case by copy/pasting information from google sources. This all seemed a little to professional so I pasted it in the google search engine and there it popped up word for word articles. So here are the recourses she used as her own words. Argument 1. "In an interview, Obama stated that he has the capacity that Clinton lacks to unify the country. "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running." Obama has said many of Clinton's views are wrong. He said that Clinton's foreign policy views risk continued international perceptions of U.S. arrogance. "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people." - <URL>... -Copy/Pasted word for word This Clinton tactic was on display at the Texas debate when she was slamming Obama as lacking the experience to be commander-in-chief. "I've [represented] our country in more than 80 countries to negotiate ... opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women's rights ... around the world," she said. "I've served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I have worked as one of the leaders in the Congress on behalf of Homeland Security." While this experience, if accurate, might qualify one as a senator or an ambassador, it is not exactly the job skills of a commander-in-chief. In the wake of the Bush calamity, the nation deserves a wise commander-in-chief steeped in world history, courageous and keen of judgment. While steering this lone superpower, this helmsman should be mindful of the limits of military force in the unstable age of international terror. - Copy/Pasted word for word <URL>... This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process. My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. I am not saying that Clinton isn't a good speaker because she is. But, we are debating who is better and that person is Obama. I have seen many of his speeches, heard many comments about his speeches and have only heard good things. He knows what he is talking about. Speaking skills are in important characteristic of a president because without good speaking skills you cannot communicate to your fellow Americans, you can't communicate with leaders of other countries, or communicate with anybody. - Copy/Pasted word for word <URL>... Argument 2. No one asked if America was ready to see a black man in Major League Baseball....... etc etc - Copy/Pasted word for word <URL>... "My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. America needs Obama's promise of fresh leadership and a new direction. I have a tremendous amount of admiration..........etc etc Copy/Paste word for word <URL>... "The value of past experience is diminished when dealing with economic, social, and environmental crises America has never faced before. Only Obama can credibly offer solutions predicated not on past political experience of dubious value, but on a desperately needed, forward-thinking agenda. Of the candidates of either party, only Obama--like John R Kennedy more than four decades ago--is qualified to deliver presidential leadership for a new generation of Americans hurtling faster than ever toward an increasingly complex future.....etc etc to the end of her argument. Copy/Paste word for word <URL>... So, out of all of those two lengthy arguments only a small portion is actually HER argument and since I am arguing dmarie15 I will adress her arguments Not the ones she pulled up on google. Argument 1. "Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country." - No I don't see how Obama would be better for this country. Obama is a 45 years old he has only been involved with public politics for two years of his life. How does that qualify for any position? especially president of the United States the most power seat in the world? "he can unite the country more effectively" - How so? Obama was voted the most Liberal senator this year. I don't see how he can unite the country better at all. "he would be a better commander" - Opinion you have presented no authentic evidence to support such a conclusion. I find that a a man who has been a senator for two years could not possibly make a better commander than a woman who has been a senator for 20+ years. There is no on the job training as far as the president is concerned. "and he is a better public speaker" - This has nothing to do with "Obama would make a better president" Lincoln was noted to be the most boring speaker in the presidential history but he is also remembered as one of the best if not the best. "Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate." - I urge you to not copy/paste arguments in the future it makes you look like you really don't have any idea what your arguing about. Argument 2 "My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker." - Is this the only true argument you have?...meaningless because Obama can talk the talk does not mean he can walk the walk. "If you watch some of his recent speeches you will see his well thought out ideas and how well he can communicate with the American people." - No I don't, I have watched some of his speeches and I hear a 35 minute speech about nothing. I look into the crowd and see 18 year olds girls jumping up and down with "I heart Obama" t-shirts on acting like it's a Hannah Montana concert. We are choosing a president here not the next American Idol people. | 0 | TheConservative |
First of all I think they are both closet communists and belong running in Russia not the United States of America. But for the sake of debate here we go.
First of all I will start out by point out that my opponent has obviously made her entire case by copy/pasting information from google sources. This all seemed a little to professional so I pasted it in the google search engine and there it popped up word for word articles. So here are the recourses she used as her own words.
Argument 1.
"In an interview, Obama stated that he has the capacity that Clinton lacks to unify the country. "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running." Obama has said many of Clinton's views are wrong. He said that Clinton's foreign policy views risk continued international perceptions of U.S. arrogance. "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people."
- http://www.washingtonpost.com...
-Copy/Pasted word for word
This Clinton tactic was on display at the Texas debate when she was slamming Obama as lacking the experience to be commander-in-chief. "I've [represented] our country in more than 80 countries to negotiate ... opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women's rights ... around the world," she said. "I've served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I have worked as one of the leaders in the Congress on behalf of Homeland Security." While this experience, if accurate, might qualify one as a senator or an ambassador, it is not exactly the job skills of a commander-in-chief. In the wake of the Bush calamity, the nation deserves a wise commander-in-chief steeped in world history, courageous and keen of judgment. While steering this lone superpower, this helmsman should be mindful of the limits of military force in the unstable age of international terror.
- Copy/Pasted word for word
http://www.newsday.com...
This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process.
My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. I am not saying that Clinton isn't a good speaker because she is. But, we are debating who is better and that person is Obama. I have seen many of his speeches, heard many comments about his speeches and have only heard good things. He knows what he is talking about. Speaking skills are in important characteristic of a president because without good speaking skills you cannot communicate to your fellow Americans, you can't communicate with leaders of other countries, or communicate with anybody.
- Copy/Pasted word for word
http://www.newsday.com...
Argument 2.
No one asked if America was ready to see a black man in Major League Baseball....... etc etc
- Copy/Pasted word for word
http://blogs.jsonline.com...
"My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. America needs Obama's promise of fresh leadership and a new direction. I have a tremendous amount of admiration..........etc etc
Copy/Paste word for word
http://www.blackenterprise.com...
"The value of past experience is diminished when dealing with economic, social, and environmental crises America has never faced before. Only Obama can credibly offer solutions predicated not on past political experience of dubious value, but on a desperately needed, forward-thinking agenda. Of the candidates of either party, only Obama--like John R Kennedy more than four decades ago--is qualified to deliver presidential leadership for a new generation of Americans hurtling faster than ever toward an increasingly complex future.....etc etc to the end of her argument.
Copy/Paste word for word
http://www.blackenterprise.com...
So, out of all of those two lengthy arguments only a small portion is actually HER argument and since I am arguing dmarie15 I will adress her arguments Not the ones she pulled up on google.
Argument 1.
"Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country."
- No I don't see how Obama would be better for this country. Obama is a 45 years old he has only been involved with public politics for two years of his life. How does that qualify for any position? especially president of the United States the most power seat in the world?
"he can unite the country more effectively"
- How so? Obama was voted the most Liberal senator this year. I don't see how he can unite the country better at all.
"he would be a better commander"
- Opinion you have presented no authentic evidence to support such a conclusion. I find that a a man who has been a senator for two years could not possibly make a better commander than a woman who has been a senator for 20+ years. There is no on the job training as far as the president is concerned.
"and he is a better public speaker"
- This has nothing to do with "Obama would make a better president" Lincoln was noted to be the most boring speaker in the presidential history but he is also remembered as one of the best if not the best.
"Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate."
- I urge you to not copy/paste arguments in the future it makes you look like you really don't have any idea what your arguing about.
Argument 2
"My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker."
- Is this the only true argument you have?...meaningless because Obama can talk the talk does not mean he can walk the walk.
"If you watch some of his recent speeches you will see his well thought out ideas and how well he can communicate with the American people."
- No I don't, I have watched some of his speeches and I hear a 35 minute speech about nothing. I look into the crowd and see 18 year olds girls jumping up and down with "I heart Obama" t-shirts on acting like it's a Hannah Montana concert. We are choosing a president here not the next American Idol people. | Politics | 1 | Barack-Obama-would-make-a-better-president-than-Hillary-Clinton/1/ | 7,424 |
Barack Obama has been shaking the nation with his ideas over certain issues and everyone in the country is listening to him. He clearly is beating out Clinton at the moment but does that mean he would do a better job? I believe he would. Therefore, I support the topic, Barack Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton. I have four main reasons why I believe this. First, Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Second, Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Third, Obama would be a better commander. And lastly, Obama is a better public speaker. My first point is that Barack Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwait said in financial times that Obama is better in trade. Hillary Clinton wants to pause the Doha round of trade talks. Also, Barack has better economic advisorsm including Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago. The unions that support Obama are less opposed to trade than those that support Clinton. Clinton must oppose NAFTA more strongly than Obama because her husband supported it. Also, Obama proposed the Patriot Employer Act. This will allow him to embrace the multilateral free trade that has served the American and the world interest so well. My second point is that Barack Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. In an interview, Obama stated that he has the capacity that Clinton lacks to unify the country. "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running." Obama has said many of Clinton's views are wrong. He said that Clinton's foreign policy views risk continued international perceptions of U.S. arrogance. "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people." My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. This Clinton tactic was on display at the Texas debate when she was slamming Obama as lacking the experience to be commander-in-chief. "I've [represented] our country in more than 80 countries to negotiate ... opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women's rights ... around the world," she said. "I've served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I have worked as one of the leaders in the Congress on behalf of Homeland Security." While this experience, if accurate, might qualify one as a senator or an ambassador, it is not exactly the job skills of a commander-in-chief. In the wake of the Bush calamity, the nation deserves a wise commander-in-chief steeped in world history, courageous and keen of judgment. While steering this lone superpower, this helmsman should be mindful of the limits of military force in the unstable age of international terror. This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process. My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. I am not saying that Clinton isn't a good speaker because she is. But, we are debating who is better and that person is Obama. I have seen many of his speeches, heard many comments about his speeches and have only heard good things. He knows what he is talking about. Speaking skills are in important characteristic of a president because without good speaking skills you cannot communicate to your fellow Americans, you can't communicate with leaders of other countries, or communicate with anybody. Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country. He is better in trade, he can unite the country more effectively, he would be a better commander, and he is a better public speaker. Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate. | 0 | dmarie15 |
Barack Obama has been shaking the nation with his ideas over certain issues and everyone in the country is listening to him. He clearly is beating out Clinton at the moment but does that mean he would do a better job? I believe he would. Therefore, I support the topic, Barack Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton.
I have four main reasons why I believe this. First, Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Second, Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Third, Obama would be a better commander. And lastly, Obama is a better public speaker.
My first point is that Barack Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwait said in financial times that Obama is better in trade. Hillary Clinton wants to pause the Doha round of trade talks. Also, Barack has better economic advisorsm including Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago. The unions that support Obama are less opposed to trade than those that support Clinton. Clinton must oppose NAFTA more strongly than Obama because her husband supported it. Also, Obama proposed the Patriot Employer Act. This will allow him to embrace the multilateral free trade that has served the American and the world interest so well.
My second point is that Barack Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. In an interview, Obama stated that he has the capacity that Clinton lacks to unify the country. "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running." Obama has said many of Clinton's views are wrong. He said that Clinton's foreign policy views risk continued international perceptions of U.S. arrogance. "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people."
My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. This Clinton tactic was on display at the Texas debate when she was slamming Obama as lacking the experience to be commander-in-chief. "I've [represented] our country in more than 80 countries to negotiate ... opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women's rights ... around the world," she said. "I've served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I have worked as one of the leaders in the Congress on behalf of Homeland Security." While this experience, if accurate, might qualify one as a senator or an ambassador, it is not exactly the job skills of a commander-in-chief. In the wake of the Bush calamity, the nation deserves a wise commander-in-chief steeped in world history, courageous and keen of judgment. While steering this lone superpower, this helmsman should be mindful of the limits of military force in the unstable age of international terror.
This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process.
My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. I am not saying that Clinton isn't a good speaker because she is. But, we are debating who is better and that person is Obama. I have seen many of his speeches, heard many comments about his speeches and have only heard good things. He knows what he is talking about. Speaking skills are in important characteristic of a president because without good speaking skills you cannot communicate to your fellow Americans, you can't communicate with leaders of other countries, or communicate with anybody.
Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country. He is better in trade, he can unite the country more effectively, he would be a better commander, and he is a better public speaker. Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate. | Politics | 0 | Barack-Obama-would-make-a-better-president-than-Hillary-Clinton/1/ | 7,425 |
No one asked if America was ready to see a black man in Major League Baseball. It wasn't--until the right man, Jackie Robinson, accepted the challenge and made the most of it, and in the process changed our nation forever and for the good. Nor did anyone ask if America was ready for the first black CEOs of multinational corporations such as American Express, TimeWarner, or Aetna. When the best candidates for those positions happened to be black, the way was cleared for Kenneth Chenault, Bichard Parsons, and Ron Williams. Similarily, Barack Obama is the right person, in the right place, and at the right time to be our next president. I will review and discuss my four main points in further detail. First, Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Second, Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Third, Obama would be a better commander. And lastly, Obama is a better public speaker. My first point is that Barack Obama is better than Clinton on trade. If you go to tradediversion.com you will find an in-depth idea on how Obama and Clinton look at trade. His 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, described his ideas well. He goes on to explain his WELL THOUGHT OUT PLANS on programs such as NAFTA and CAFTA. He told the president that he believes in the benefits of trade. Obama said, "But I said that resistance to CAFTA had less to do with the specifics of the agreement and more to do with the growing insecurities the American worker. Unless we found strategies to allay those fears, and sent a strong signal to American workers that the federal government was on their side, protectionist sentiment would only grow..." He voted against CAFTA, which we all know is a smart idea, but that is a different debate. My second point is that Barack Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Obama has stated that he feels Clinton cannot bring the country together because so many Americans view her negatively. My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. America needs Obama's promise of fresh leadership and a new direction. I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for the political achievements of both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. However, I do not put much stock in the value of their experience. Claims to an edge over Obama in this area are exaggerated (Edwards and Clinton never held a national elected office prior to 1999 and 2000, respectively). As far as I'm concerned, their experience only underscores the fact that they are products of the very political status quo they are now pledging to change. Case in point: Of the leading presidential contenders of both major parties, including Clinton and Edwards, only Obama opposed the 2002 invasion of Iraq from the beginning and remains opposed today. The value of past experience is diminished when dealing with economic, social, and environmental crises America has never faced before. Only Obama can credibly offer solutions predicated not on past political experience of dubious value, but on a desperately needed, forward-thinking agenda. Of the candidates of either party, only Obama--like John R Kennedy more than four decades ago--is qualified to deliver presidential leadership for a new generation of Americans hurtling faster than ever toward an increasingly complex future. This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process. My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. If you watch some of his recent speeches you will see his well thought out ideas and how well he can communicate with the American people. Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country. He is better in trade, he can unite the country more effectively, he would be a better commander, and he is a better public speaker. Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate. | 0 | dmarie15 |
No one asked if America was ready to see a black man in Major League Baseball. It wasn't--until the right man, Jackie Robinson, accepted the challenge and made the most of it, and in the process changed our nation forever and for the good. Nor did anyone ask if America was ready for the first black CEOs of multinational corporations such as American Express, TimeWarner, or Aetna. When the best candidates for those positions happened to be black, the way was cleared for Kenneth Chenault, Bichard Parsons, and Ron Williams. Similarily, Barack Obama is the right person, in the right place, and at the right time to be our next president.
I will review and discuss my four main points in further detail. First, Obama is better than Clinton on trade. Second, Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Third, Obama would be a better commander. And lastly, Obama is a better public speaker.
My first point is that Barack Obama is better than Clinton on trade. If you go to tradediversion.com you will find an in-depth idea on how Obama and Clinton look at trade. His 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, described his ideas well. He goes on to explain his WELL THOUGHT OUT PLANS on programs such as NAFTA and CAFTA. He told the president that he believes in the benefits of trade. Obama said, "But I said that resistance to CAFTA had less to do with the specifics of the agreement and more to do with the growing insecurities the American worker. Unless we found strategies to allay those fears, and sent a strong signal to American workers that the federal government was on their side, protectionist sentiment would only grow..." He voted against CAFTA, which we all know is a smart idea, but that is a different debate.
My second point is that Barack Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Obama has stated that he feels Clinton cannot bring the country together because so many Americans view her negatively.
My third point is that Barack Obama would be a better commander. America needs Obama's promise of fresh leadership and a new direction. I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for the political achievements of both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. However, I do not put much stock in the value of their experience. Claims to an edge over Obama in this area are exaggerated (Edwards and Clinton never held a national elected office prior to 1999 and 2000, respectively). As far as I'm concerned, their experience only underscores the fact that they are products of the very political status quo they are now pledging to change. Case in point: Of the leading presidential contenders of both major parties, including Clinton and Edwards, only Obama opposed the 2002 invasion of Iraq from the beginning and remains opposed today. The value of past experience is diminished when dealing with economic, social, and environmental crises America has never faced before. Only Obama can credibly offer solutions predicated not on past political experience of dubious value, but on a desperately needed, forward-thinking agenda. Of the candidates of either party, only Obama--like John R Kennedy more than four decades ago--is qualified to deliver presidential leadership for a new generation of Americans hurtling faster than ever toward an increasingly complex future. This is not to decorate Obama as an model commander-in-chief, but rather to measure him against Clinton, who supported the war, and McCain, who should know better. In a desperate grasp for power, 71-year-old McCain has thrown himself on the mercy of the Bush White House. He now supports every jot and tittle of current Bush policy, including tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Voters wish not to prolong these crippling mistakes. Among Obama's other gifts, he seems blessed so far with opponents frightfully out of step with the Democratic process.
My fourth point is that Obama is a better public speaker. If you watch some of his recent speeches you will see his well thought out ideas and how well he can communicate with the American people.
Therefore, you can obviously see how much better Mr. Obama would be for the country. He is better in trade, he can unite the country more effectively, he would be a better commander, and he is a better public speaker. Therefore, I urge you to vote pro in this debate. | Politics | 1 | Barack-Obama-would-make-a-better-president-than-Hillary-Clinton/1/ | 7,426 |
First of all, coming through seeing different types of debate, I can agree with you and disagree at the same time. First of all, in policy debate we use info (cards) from articles in our speeches...so....we use that in debate..it's helping with my case. Note: I didn't just copy and paste information. I know what I'm talking about and I actually considered and went through everything. Second of all, I don't think you should decide who wins a debate on the method of debate we chose to use. Um..well, we aren't debating how to debate so enough on that subject. To continue on. Point 1: Using sources that are GOOD sources like I used, means that the information is correct and not just an opinion, only proving my point more. Point 2: The Major League baseball thing..I used that as an intro..not as information. It was creative. I don't feel I should be knocked over for that. Point 3: All of these are my arguments? Are you just scared to answer them? or what's up? Point 4: You said Obama is 45 years old..ok that's nice...What's your point there? I believe I provided information. I can exaggerate on that (in my own words) saying how I felt that this didn't mean Clinton had any more experience. Clinton stated that she represented our country in 80 or so countries to negotiate helping women's rights. That's nice. But how does that create experience to be a president? Maybe she needs to stay in the senator ambassador field. That's where her experience belongs. So I would like to see your arguement on that. Point 5: You say he was voted the most liberal or something like that. Ok, so people voted that as a matter of opinion. How they feel...but Obama has stated that he can bring the country together. He wants to bring the country together. Also, how can Clinton bring the country together when millions of Americans view her so negatively. I feel that even if Obama may not be the greatest at bringing the country together, Hillary is even worse. Point 6: Ok this goes back to Clinton helping out with countries with women's rights. That has nothing to do with being a commander. Ok, so now you want evidence. Isn't that what I was providing all along and you were saying I wasn't supposed to be doing that? Nevermind. Obama would be a great commander. He was the only one who opposed the war from the beginning. Clinton, along with Edwards and others, were for the war at first. Obama knew that it wouldn't be a smart idea. Ok, this may be opinion but I, like many Americans, want to get out and who better to do it then the one who was against it in the first place. Point 7: I believe that you can be a great president without being a good speaker but you can be an even better president if you are a good speaker. The point of the debate is to say who is better. I'm NOT saying Clinton would make a bad president. However, Obama would be better. One of my reasons for this is being a better public speaker. Like I stated before, being a public speaker is extremely important because it helps you communicate with other countries, the American people, and the people you work with. It is an EXTREMELY important skill to have. By the way, wasn't Lincoln famous for his Gettysburg Address SPEECH. Point 8: What do you mean is this the real only arguement I have? Point 9: I watched that 35 minute speech and didn't find it complete nonsense. My cousin, who is a die hard Obama hater found that his speech was well done and informative. And just because girls went all "Hannah Montana" crazy at his speeches, doesn't make them not serious. I'm sure there are people like this at all politican speeches. Point 10: To review some of my points, I will explain why I feel that I am winning on each one. My first point was on how Obama is better at trade. Obama knows a lot about the current programs that we have in the country such as NAFTA and CAFTA. I'm sure you know what those are and how they have cost the American people jobs (both programs) and have hurt countries such as Mexico. Obama voted against CAFTA and Clinton was for NAFTA..hmmmm... My second point was on how Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Clinton is viewed by the American people negatively. I don't know if you watch Saturday Night Live but they recently did a skit and focused on the point of how Clinton is "annoying" (I know, bad word to use but) and how Americans don't really like her. Obama may not be the greatest but he is better than Clinton and that is the point of the debate. My third point was on how Obama would be a better commander. I really don't have anything else to say on this point as I did earlier in this arguement. My fourth point was on how Obama is a better public speaker and I explained why and how this is important earlier in this arguement. Ok, so my opponent basically spent his entire arguement talking about how my arguements were 'copied and pasted' and didn't spend time attacking my points. All he did was ask questions, which I answered. Also, where are his points showing me how Clinton is any better? I have shown Obama's strengths and shown Clinton's weaknesses so I feel that I won the round. Also, Clinton's mocking towards Obama and creating lies about him isn't helping either. It makes her look like a little kid trying to win. I feel I have won because I have shown numerous amounts of information showing you how Obama can be the better president. I may not be old enough to vote but I am in debate so I have looked up my information. In the future I would like you see you attack my points more, creating points of your own, and maybe spend more time debating then fixing my arguements even though I appreciate your opinion. For these reasons, I feel I have won the round and I urge you to vote Pro in this debate. Thank you. | 0 | dmarie15 |
First of all, coming through seeing different types of debate, I can agree with you and disagree at the same time. First of all, in policy debate we use info (cards) from articles in our speeches...so....we use that in debate..it's helping with my case. Note: I didn't just copy and paste information. I know what I'm talking about and I actually considered and went through everything. Second of all, I don't think you should decide who wins a debate on the method of debate we chose to use. Um..well, we aren't debating how to debate so enough on that subject. To continue on.
Point 1: Using sources that are GOOD sources like I used, means that the information is correct and not just an opinion, only proving my point more.
Point 2: The Major League baseball thing..I used that as an intro..not as information. It was creative. I don't feel I should be knocked over for that.
Point 3: All of these are my arguments? Are you just scared to answer them? or what's up?
Point 4: You said Obama is 45 years old..ok that's nice...What's your point there? I believe I provided information. I can exaggerate on that (in my own words) saying how I felt that this didn't mean Clinton had any more experience. Clinton stated that she represented our country in 80 or so countries to negotiate helping women's rights. That's nice. But how does that create experience to be a president? Maybe she needs to stay in the senator ambassador field. That's where her experience belongs. So I would like to see your arguement on that.
Point 5: You say he was voted the most liberal or something like that. Ok, so people voted that as a matter of opinion. How they feel...but Obama has stated that he can bring the country together. He wants to bring the country together. Also, how can Clinton bring the country together when millions of Americans view her so negatively. I feel that even if Obama may not be the greatest at bringing the country together, Hillary is even worse.
Point 6: Ok this goes back to Clinton helping out with countries with women's rights. That has nothing to do with being a commander. Ok, so now you want evidence. Isn't that what I was providing all along and you were saying I wasn't supposed to be doing that? Nevermind. Obama would be a great commander. He was the only one who opposed the war from the beginning. Clinton, along with Edwards and others, were for the war at first. Obama knew that it wouldn't be a smart idea. Ok, this may be opinion but I, like many Americans, want to get out and who better to do it then the one who was against it in the first place.
Point 7: I believe that you can be a great president without being a good speaker but you can be an even better president if you are a good speaker. The point of the debate is to say who is better. I'm NOT saying Clinton would make a bad president. However, Obama would be better. One of my reasons for this is being a better public speaker. Like I stated before, being a public speaker is extremely important because it helps you communicate with other countries, the American people, and the people you work with. It is an EXTREMELY important skill to have. By the way, wasn't Lincoln famous for his Gettysburg Address SPEECH.
Point 8: What do you mean is this the real only arguement I have?
Point 9: I watched that 35 minute speech and didn't find it complete nonsense. My cousin, who is a die hard Obama hater found that his speech was well done and informative. And just because girls went all "Hannah Montana" crazy at his speeches, doesn't make them not serious. I'm sure there are people like this at all politican speeches.
Point 10: To review some of my points, I will explain why I feel that I am winning on each one.
My first point was on how Obama is better at trade. Obama knows a lot about the current programs that we have in the country such as NAFTA and CAFTA. I'm sure you know what those are and how they have cost the American people jobs (both programs) and have hurt countries such as Mexico. Obama voted against CAFTA and Clinton was for NAFTA..hmmmm...
My second point was on how Obama can unite the U.S. more effectively. Clinton is viewed by the American people negatively. I don't know if you watch Saturday Night Live but they recently did a skit and focused on the point of how Clinton is "annoying" (I know, bad word to use but) and how Americans don't really like her. Obama may not be the greatest but he is better than Clinton and that is the point of the debate.
My third point was on how Obama would be a better commander. I really don't have anything else to say on this point as I did earlier in this arguement.
My fourth point was on how Obama is a better public speaker and I explained why and how this is important earlier in this arguement.
Ok, so my opponent basically spent his entire arguement talking about how my arguements were 'copied and pasted' and didn't spend time attacking my points. All he did was ask questions, which I answered. Also, where are his points showing me how Clinton is any better? I have shown Obama's strengths and shown Clinton's weaknesses so I feel that I won the round. Also, Clinton's mocking towards Obama and creating lies about him isn't helping either. It makes her look like a little kid trying to win.
I feel I have won because I have shown numerous amounts of information showing you how Obama can be the better president. I may not be old enough to vote but I am in debate so I have looked up my information.
In the future I would like you see you attack my points more, creating points of your own, and maybe spend more time debating then fixing my arguements even though I appreciate your opinion.
For these reasons, I feel I have won the round and I urge you to vote Pro in this debate.
Thank you. | Politics | 2 | Barack-Obama-would-make-a-better-president-than-Hillary-Clinton/1/ | 7,427 |
I thank my opponent for starting this debate albeit is quite an egregious misunderstanding of political systems. Also, I wanna clarify with the audience in case they have qualms over the spelling: I'm quite positive that by "Barrack Obama" my opponent means "Barack Obama" so there will be no semantics in this debate. This is evident not only from the single addition of a letter, but also that my opponent refers to our "current President" (as of February 2009). =====Counterarguments===== >>>I am proposing that our currunt president Barrack Obama is a socialist... <<< The funny thing is that this all started with an old 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama that caught the eye of the conservatives and soon popped up in the blogosphere. If you listen to the entire thing, the aforementioned humorous aspect is that what Barack Obama is supporting is actually CONSERVATIVE[1]. He was advocating limiting judicial activism. His usage of "redistribution" in fact does not pertain to economics, but instead of rights. He was discussing about positive such as right to a lawyer, etc. >>>...and is leading America down the wrong path as far as the economy, morals, and lifestyle.<<< This is irrelevant to the topic at hand - if whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist. However, I do challenge you to prove these claims: 1. How is the stimulus package the "wrong path" for the economy? 2. How is Barack Obama leading us on the "wrong path" for our morals? 3. How is our lifestyle possibly being affected, least of all being led down the ominous "wrong path"?. =====Conclusion===== I do understand that my opponent's argument may stem not from the interview but rather from another source or reason. However, since he has yet to put an argument, I do not know from which "angle", if you will, he will come at. So I have refuted the most common example of Barack Obana's supposed socialist ties, and will await my opponent for a more clear round. ---References--- 1. <URL>... | 0 | TheSkeptic |
I thank my opponent for starting this debate albeit is quite an egregious misunderstanding of political systems. Also, I wanna clarify with the audience in case they have qualms over the spelling: I'm quite positive that by "Barrack Obama" my opponent means "Barack Obama" so there will be no semantics in this debate. This is evident not only from the single addition of a letter, but also that my opponent refers to our "current President" (as of February 2009).
=====Counterarguments=====
>>>I am proposing that our currunt president Barrack Obama is a socialist... <<<
The funny thing is that this all started with an old 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama that caught the eye of the conservatives and soon popped up in the blogosphere. If you listen to the entire thing, the aforementioned humorous aspect is that what Barack Obama is supporting is actually CONSERVATIVE[1]. He was advocating limiting judicial activism.
His usage of "redistribution" in fact does not pertain to economics, but instead of rights. He was discussing about positive such as right to a lawyer, etc.
>>>...and is leading America down the wrong path as far as the economy, morals, and lifestyle.<<<
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand - if whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist. However, I do challenge you to prove these claims:
1. How is the stimulus package the "wrong path" for the economy?
2. How is Barack Obama leading us on the "wrong path" for our morals?
3. How is our lifestyle possibly being affected, least of all being led down the ominous "wrong path"?.
=====Conclusion=====
I do understand that my opponent's argument may stem not from the interview but rather from another source or reason. However, since he has yet to put an argument, I do not know from which "angle", if you will, he will come at. So I have refuted the most common example of Barack Obana's supposed socialist ties, and will await my opponent for a more clear round.
---References---
1. http://www.truthfightsback.com... | Politics | 0 | Barrack-Obama-is-a-socialist/1/ | 7,448 |
I thank my opponent for responding to this debate so fast - it's a pleasure when I don't have to wait. =====Counterarguments===== >>>Mr. Skeptic, I did spell Barack Obama incorrectly<<< Dude. Look at the freaking resolution... >>>But seeing as this is not a debate on grammar, I will now procede.<<< ----> You didn't make a lot of spelling & grammar errors, but in the future it can cost you. If you notice in the voting systems, spelling & grammar is one of the points. 1. Obama's economic plan Ah, I understand now. My opponent was referring to the "welfare state" idea Barack Obama is instating. The incredibly false assumptions my opponent makes is that if it isn't laissez faire, then it must be socialism! No. Socialism entails that business and industries should be nationalized by the government. Basically, there will be no private property and the workers will take over since they are considered vitally important in the tenets of Socialism. Barack Obama simply supports capitalism that is regulated - a lesser form of laissez faire which advocates total freedom. He wants to regulate the economy to prevent recessions, failures, etc. This is a COMMON political route used by many presidents before. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. or require businesses to meet quotas for production. He is not advocating socialism, but a tried and true method of regulating the economy. 2. The "other 3" topics A. I've explained the economy - socialism aspect of this debate. B. ----> I believe a fetus is a human when it becomes self-aware and self-conscious. This is when it has become defined as a human. I don't want to debate this in this topic - too little space - and in the last sentence you say that if we disagree then we can't debate this. Then don't bring this point; it's irrelevant to the main topic and resolution. C. Your plight seems tough, but as I have shown it has nothing to do with Barack Obama's "socialism". =====Conclusion===== I don't want this debate to stray from the main point - about socialism. However, if my opponent intends to get sidetracked into abortion, then so be it. However, my original argument of how Obama ISN'T a socialist stands. This is simply knowing your definitions of what socialist or not. It's quite pathetic when conservatives throw the word "socialist" or "Marxist" around, just like when liberals throw the word "fascist" around. Both sides need to pick up an encyclopedia once in a while. | 0 | TheSkeptic |
I thank my opponent for responding to this debate so fast - it's a pleasure when I don't have to wait.
=====Counterarguments=====
>>>Mr. Skeptic, I did spell Barack Obama incorrectly<<<
Dude. Look at the freaking resolution...
>>>But seeing as this is not a debate on grammar, I will now procede.<<<
----> You didn't make a lot of spelling & grammar errors, but in the future it can cost you. If you notice in the voting systems, spelling & grammar is one of the points.
1. Obama's economic plan
Ah, I understand now. My opponent was referring to the "welfare state" idea Barack Obama is instating. The incredibly false assumptions my opponent makes is that if it isn't laissez faire, then it must be socialism! No.
Socialism entails that business and industries should be nationalized by the government. Basically, there will be no private property and the workers will take over since they are considered vitally important in the tenets of Socialism. Barack Obama simply supports capitalism that is regulated - a lesser form of laissez faire which advocates total freedom. He wants to regulate the economy to prevent recessions, failures, etc. This is a COMMON political route used by many presidents before.
Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. or require businesses to meet quotas for production. He is not advocating socialism, but a tried and true method of regulating the economy.
2. The "other 3" topics
A. I've explained the economy - socialism aspect of this debate.
B.
----> I believe a fetus is a human when it becomes self-aware and self-conscious. This is when it has become defined as a human. I don't want to debate this in this topic - too little space - and in the last sentence you say that if we disagree then we can't debate this. Then don't bring this point; it's irrelevant to the main topic and resolution.
C. Your plight seems tough, but as I have shown it has nothing to do with Barack Obama's "socialism".
=====Conclusion=====
I don't want this debate to stray from the main point - about socialism. However, if my opponent intends to get sidetracked into abortion, then so be it. However, my original argument of how Obama ISN'T a socialist stands. This is simply knowing your definitions of what socialist or not. It's quite pathetic when conservatives throw the word "socialist" or "Marxist" around, just like when liberals throw the word "fascist" around. Both sides need to pick up an encyclopedia once in a while. | Politics | 1 | Barrack-Obama-is-a-socialist/1/ | 7,449 |
I thank my opponent for his quick and polite responses - however, I have to sadly say that his arguments have been less than fruitful. =====Counterarguments===== 1. Socialism - Economy - Barack Obama My opponent accuses me of defining communism instead of socialism and "not respond[ing] to the statement that Mr. Obama said about 'spreading the wealth.'" It seems as if my opponent hasn't read my previous argument. One of the main tenets of socialism is to have public or state ownership of industries[1]. This also includes the economy, which will be taken under control by the state. Barack Obama is NOT doing this he is simply regulating the economy. He is not implementing a system where there is equal opportunity and egalitarian compensation for all. Just because he doesn't advocate for total freedom of the market doesn't mean he's a socialist. There's MANY people who believe in regulating the economy - whether that is the right thing or not is not the point. The obvious issue is that Barack Obama is NOT a socialist. To say so would be a great and naive error of understanding of political ideologies. 2. Abortion I have stated that this isn't part of the debate, but notwithstanding I have ALSO offered my rebuttal. That abortion is not murder if the fetus is not a person so Obama isn't "destroying our morals". Since you obviously haven't even bothered to refute this argument, I have nothing left to say on this topic. =====Conclusion===== I have refuted my opponent's sole accusation of Obama's supposed socialist beliefs and have answered/refuted his three other irrelevant points. He doesn't even bring up or defend the first and third point and his second point about abortion has been refuted - without any resistance. Vote for CON. ---References--- 1. <URL>... | 0 | TheSkeptic |
I thank my opponent for his quick and polite responses - however, I have to sadly say that his arguments have been less than fruitful.
=====Counterarguments=====
1. Socialism - Economy - Barack Obama
My opponent accuses me of defining communism instead of socialism and "not respond[ing] to the statement that Mr. Obama said about 'spreading the wealth.'" It seems as if my opponent hasn't read my previous argument.
One of the main tenets of socialism is to have public or state ownership of industries[1]. This also includes the economy, which will be taken under control by the state. Barack Obama is NOT doing this he is simply regulating the economy. He is not implementing a system where there is equal opportunity and egalitarian compensation for all. Just because he doesn't advocate for total freedom of the market doesn't mean he's a socialist. There's MANY people who believe in regulating the economy - whether that is the right thing or not is not the point. The obvious issue is that Barack Obama is NOT a socialist. To say so would be a great and naive error of understanding of political ideologies.
2. Abortion
I have stated that this isn't part of the debate, but notwithstanding I have ALSO offered my rebuttal. That abortion is not murder if the fetus is not a person so Obama isn't "destroying our morals". Since you obviously haven't even bothered to refute this argument, I have nothing left to say on this topic.
=====Conclusion=====
I have refuted my opponent's sole accusation of Obama's supposed socialist beliefs and have answered/refuted his three other irrelevant points. He doesn't even bring up or defend the first and third point and his second point about abortion has been refuted - without any resistance. Vote for CON.
---References---
1. http://www.worldsocialism.org... | Politics | 2 | Barrack-Obama-is-a-socialist/1/ | 7,450 |
This is quite simple. Two friends created their own special account on a website. One used "Barry" as their user name and the other used "Parry." If you had to choose either, or? Which name would you have chosen. 010011101010START101101010010ARGUMENT0101100011101011 | 0 | Amaru87 |
This is quite simple. Two friends created their own special account on a website. One used "Barry" as their user name and the other used "Parry." If you had to choose either, or? Which name would you have chosen.
010011101010START101101010010ARGUMENT0101100011101011 | Entertainment | 0 | Barry-or-Parry/1/ | 7,456 |
I would choose Parry. Here is my reasoning: 1. Barry is a more popular name than Parry; I'm sure the username of "Barry" already exists somewhere on that website 2. Assuming that the username "Barry" does not currently exist on the website (yet), it is reasonable to assume that there as at least one member there with the name Barry who... might get confused? Hey - ya never know! 3. The definition of parry is to ward off... which is what my original intention of accepting this debate was: to ward it off! In conclusion, vote CON if you think this was a pointless "debate" and that the instigator is a total tool for making a mockery of this site and himself. Oh, and that I did better than him with my "arguments" and yada yada yada. | 1 | Danielle |
I would choose Parry.
Here is my reasoning:
1. Barry is a more popular name than Parry; I'm sure the username of "Barry" already exists somewhere on that website
2. Assuming that the username "Barry" does not currently exist on the website (yet), it is reasonable to assume that there as at least one member there with the name Barry who... might get confused? Hey - ya never know!
3. The definition of parry is to ward off... which is what my original intention of accepting this debate was: to ward it off!
In conclusion, vote CON if you think this was a pointless "debate" and that the instigator is a total tool for making a mockery of this site and himself. Oh, and that I did better than him with my "arguments" and yada yada yada. | Entertainment | 0 | Barry-or-Parry/1/ | 7,457 |
I think baseball is better because it was originated in U.S.A, and people around the world are starting to play and get better at baseball. | 0 | kellyqui000 |
I think baseball is better because it was originated in U.S.A, and people around the world are starting to play and get better at baseball. | Sports | 0 | Baseball-is-better-than-Soccer/1/ | 7,461 |
[Heads up, I'll be calling Soccer "Football."] You cannot argue that a sport is better than another because it originates in the USA. In fact, baseball was derived from many games, including cricket and stoolball, both mainly known to originate in England. Now to your second point, football is played throughout the world with every nation (outside of some newly formed nations) having at least one international team. Meanwhile, the international play of baseball is small outside of annual championships., with baseball being voted out of the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics. | 0 | piefav |
[Heads up, I'll be calling Soccer "Football."]
You cannot argue that a sport is better than another because it originates in the USA. In fact, baseball was derived from many games, including cricket and stoolball, both mainly known to originate in England. Now to your second point, football is played throughout the world with every nation (outside of some newly formed nations) having at least one international team. Meanwhile, the international play of baseball is small outside of annual championships., with baseball being voted out of the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics. | Sports | 0 | Baseball-is-better-than-Soccer/1/ | 7,462 |
ok i have a three part setup 1) Sandman from spider man could destroy batman 2-reason) the Sandman almost beat spiderman this is relevent because in comics/cartoons the hero ALWAYS wins so if the antaganist can't destroy the protaganist their is a problem for anybody else and batman has no superpowers all he has is toys that help him fight crime this also ties into my first reasion if someone that has superpowers can't beat him then somebody with absolutly no powers has no chance 3-conclusion) theirfore sence the origional comic's hero could not destroy the viline and batman has no superpowers just toys | 0 | shouldofbeenacowboy |
ok i have a three part setup
1) Sandman from spider man could destroy batman
2-reason) the Sandman almost beat spiderman this is relevent because in comics/cartoons the hero ALWAYS wins so if the antaganist can't destroy the protaganist their is a problem for anybody else and batman has no superpowers all he has is toys that help him fight crime this also ties into my first reasion if someone that has superpowers can't beat him then somebody with absolutly no powers has no chance
3-conclusion) theirfore sence the origional comic's hero could not destroy the viline and batman has no superpowers just toys | Entertainment | 0 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,512 |
ok the only reason batman could beat clayface is because he left mud everywhere he went (i could find him) and sandman could hide in a crack on the wall so again because batman has no superpowers he is useless and clayface was more of a liquid all he had to do is freeze him and bam no more clay face sandman on the other hand is made of different solid particles not so easy to freeze | 0 | shouldofbeenacowboy |
ok the only reason batman could beat clayface is because he left mud everywhere he went (i could find him) and sandman could hide in a crack on the wall so again because batman has no superpowers he is useless and clayface was more of a liquid all he had to do is freeze him and bam no more clay face sandman on the other hand is made of different solid particles not so easy to freeze | Entertainment | 1 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,513 |
ok i will give on sandman to appease the commenter what about mcgiver this dude could make an airplane out of a paperclip rubber band a bottle of water all he would have to do is make something and bam no more batdude | 0 | shouldofbeenacowboy |
ok i will give on sandman to appease the commenter what about mcgiver this dude could make an airplane out of a paperclip rubber band a bottle of water all he would have to do is make something and bam no more batdude | Entertainment | 2 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,514 |
"He can make a nuclear reactor out a piece of string" my point exactly are you kidding me martial arts screw that all he would have to do is build a paper airplane with the nuke attached to it and kaboom no batman again | 0 | shouldofbeenacowboy |
"He can make a nuclear reactor out a piece of string" my point exactly are you kidding me martial arts screw that all he would have to do is build a paper airplane with the nuke attached to it and kaboom no batman again | Entertainment | 3 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,515 |
"given enough time and resources" sense batman takes 5 month to find one guy mac can build a nuke in like three seconds "resources" batman has is money so i believe i have one this debate on the grounds that the perimeters of the debate state anyone and you have failed to disprove mac just that batman is fast so i ask the jury to look at mac only takes three second to build anything and i mean anything | 0 | shouldofbeenacowboy |
"given enough time and resources" sense batman takes 5 month to find one guy mac can build a nuke in like three seconds "resources" batman has is money so i believe i have one this debate on the grounds that the perimeters of the debate state anyone and you have failed to disprove mac just that batman is fast so i ask the jury to look at mac only takes three second to build anything and i mean anything | Entertainment | 4 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,516 |
Batman is the best superhero ever. He could take on any other superhero. Just give me the situation, and I'll tell you how Batman gets out of it. | 0 | topher |
Batman is the best superhero ever.
He could take on any other superhero.
Just give me the situation, and I'll tell you how Batman gets out of it. | Entertainment | 0 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,517 |
Con ~ ok i have a three part setup 1) Sandman from spider man could destroy batman 2-reason) the Sandman almost beat spiderman this is relevent because in comics/cartoons the hero ALWAYS wins so if the antaganist can't destroy the protaganist their is a problem for anybody else and batman has no superpowers all he has is toys that help him fight crime this also ties into my first reasion if someone that has superpowers can't beat him then somebody with absolutly no powers has no chance 3-conclusion) theirfore sence the origional comic's hero could not destroy the viline and batman has no superpowers just toys Sandman? C'mon, Sandman? Ok, fine.... Batman has a villain named Clayface, who is a lot like Sandman only less lame, who he regularly trounces. Clayface has the same shape-shifting powers, and is decidedly nastier than the Sandman (who isn't too evil, just "misguided"). So if Batman can take Clayface, he can TOTALLY take Sandman. Gimme a harder one! Superman? Thor? Darkseid? | 0 | topher |
Con ~ ok i have a three part setup
1) Sandman from spider man could destroy batman
2-reason) the Sandman almost beat spiderman this is relevent because in comics/cartoons the hero ALWAYS wins so if the antaganist can't destroy the protaganist their is a problem for anybody else and batman has no superpowers all he has is toys that help him fight crime this also ties into my first reasion if someone that has superpowers can't beat him then somebody with absolutly no powers has no chance
3-conclusion) theirfore sence the origional comic's hero could not destroy the viline and batman has no superpowers just toys
Sandman? C'mon, Sandman?
Ok, fine....
Batman has a villain named Clayface, who is a lot like Sandman only less lame, who he regularly trounces. Clayface has the same shape-shifting powers, and is decidedly nastier than the Sandman (who isn't too evil, just "misguided").
So if Batman can take Clayface, he can TOTALLY take Sandman.
Gimme a harder one! Superman? Thor? Darkseid? | Entertainment | 1 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,518 |
After a quick look-up on Wikipedia, I have discovered that Sandman has a weakness against cement. Ergo... Batman + cement mixer = a very heavy Sandman being carted off to Arkham And for those who are interested, Batman DOES beat the tar out of Superman in The Dark Knight Strikes Again by Frank Miller. Check it out. | 0 | topher |
After a quick look-up on Wikipedia, I have discovered that Sandman has a weakness against cement. Ergo...
Batman + cement mixer = a very heavy Sandman being carted off to Arkham
And for those who are interested, Batman DOES beat the tar out of Superman in The Dark Knight Strikes Again by Frank Miller. Check it out. | Entertainment | 2 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,519 |
MacGyver? Please. He can make a nuclear reactor out a piece of string, yes. But Batman has studied every single type of martial art there is. MacGyver is the type of guy who Batman would look at and say, I can incapacitate this guy in 17 different ways from where I'm standing. Can MacGyver even fight? And for the commentators, on Superman: Supes has many weakness that can be exploited. For one, there's kryptonite, which even without his ring Batman could have synthesized. Batman could also simulate a red sun, taking away Superman's powers. ALSO, Superman is vulnerable to magic, and although Batman's not partial to magic, he's the type of guy who'd do anything to take some one down. He's not above fighting dirty. | 0 | topher |
MacGyver? Please. He can make a nuclear reactor out a piece of string, yes. But Batman has studied every single type of martial art there is. MacGyver is the type of guy who Batman would look at and say, I can incapacitate this guy in 17 different ways from where I'm standing. Can MacGyver even fight?
And for the commentators, on Superman: Supes has many weakness that can be exploited. For one, there's kryptonite, which even without his ring Batman could have synthesized. Batman could also simulate a red sun, taking away Superman's powers. ALSO, Superman is vulnerable to magic, and although Batman's not partial to magic, he's the type of guy who'd do anything to take some one down. He's not above fighting dirty. | Entertainment | 3 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,520 |
Unless Mac can make nuclear bombs at the speed of light, all Batman has to do is disarm him of the piece of string - piece of cake for Batman. Overall I am disappointed with the challengers you've presented me with. I say Batman could defeat ANYONE and you give me b-list Spider-man villains and guys with mullets that aren't Chuck Norris. Is that all you had? Since this is my closing argument, I'd better sum up. The reason Batman can take on any foe and win is because of his determination. Ever since his childhood trauma, he's made a solemn vow to rid Gotham City (and the world) of criminals. He has no superpowers but he has an incredible will. If he perceives someone as a threat, he will FIND A WAY to eliminate them. Given enough time and resources (of which he has more than enough), Batman will find a way to subdue any adversary in his midst. | 0 | topher |
Unless Mac can make nuclear bombs at the speed of light, all Batman has to do is disarm him of the piece of string - piece of cake for Batman.
Overall I am disappointed with the challengers you've presented me with. I say Batman could defeat ANYONE and you give me b-list Spider-man villains and guys with mullets that aren't Chuck Norris. Is that all you had?
Since this is my closing argument, I'd better sum up. The reason Batman can take on any foe and win is because of his determination. Ever since his childhood trauma, he's made a solemn vow to rid Gotham City (and the world) of criminals. He has no superpowers but he has an incredible will. If he perceives someone as a threat, he will FIND A WAY to eliminate them. Given enough time and resources (of which he has more than enough), Batman will find a way to subdue any adversary in his midst. | Entertainment | 4 | Batman-Could-Beat-the-Crud-Out-of-Anyone/1/ | 7,521 |
White people don't go dressing up in black and fighting crime just because. He is doing this because he believes that black people commit more crimes than white people. | 0 | Koseph_Jony |
White people don't go dressing up in black and fighting crime just because. He is doing this because he believes that black people commit more crimes than white people. | Society | 0 | Batman-is-a-rampant-racist-because-he-dresses-in-black/1/ | 7,542 |
Yea well Gotham doesn't deserve or need you so yea. You're worthless | 0 | Koseph_Jony |
Yea well Gotham doesn't deserve or need you so yea. You're worthless | Society | 1 | Batman-is-a-rampant-racist-because-he-dresses-in-black/1/ | 7,543 |
And your main nemesis is Bane. He's basically just a roided out jock with a gas mask, and he straight up broke your back! | 0 | Koseph_Jony |
And your main nemesis is Bane. He's basically just a roided out jock with a gas mask, and he straight up broke your back! | Society | 2 | Batman-is-a-rampant-racist-because-he-dresses-in-black/1/ | 7,544 |
That's not true. I wear black because I am a silent guardian. A watchful protector. I am hero that gotham deserves. I am the dark knight. I think darkness is my ally. | 0 | LordGordonius |
That's not true. I wear black because I am a silent guardian. A watchful protector. I am hero that gotham deserves. I am the dark knight. I think darkness is my ally. | Society | 0 | Batman-is-a-rampant-racist-because-he-dresses-in-black/1/ | 7,545 |
But I'm Batman. | 0 | LordGordonius |
But I'm Batman. | Society | 1 | Batman-is-a-rampant-racist-because-he-dresses-in-black/1/ | 7,546 |
Rather than discussing which character is stronger, my opponent wishes to base superiority on the motivations and decisions of these two fictional heroes. Sounds good to me! Let's begin. Affirmative Case 1.What they're fighting for As we all know, Superman is one of, if not the, most powerful character in any comic franchise. Yet, rather than plotting world domination and spearheading human slavery, he spends his time defending truth, justice, and the American way. That's because Clark Kent was raised by down-to Earth farmers of modest means who taught him that the key to a respectable life is helping your fellow man. Clark learned to realize that the more a man has, the more he should give. When you grow up to be a super man, then, it is only ethical to give everything you have for the well-being of your world. Batman's rise to heroism could not be more different. A child of privilege largely segregated from the truths of the world, Bruce Wayne's childhood came to a sickening halt when he watched his parents be gunned down in front of him. From then on, Bruce's world was consumed with thoughts of only vengeance, hate, and fear. He modeled his life on the concept of paying evil back in kind, and he does so every day through his use of psychological warfare, unmitigated violence, and manipulation of both criminals and the law. Both men have done great good and saved countless lives. However, while Superman's motivation to do so stems from a sense of fairness and a wish to protect the innocent, Batman is driven only by revenge and a deep desire to punish the guilty. In terms of which hero can be considered the better person, there is no contest. Batman's heroism is based on the worst qualities within us, whereas Superman represents ideals mankind strives to achieve. 2.Stranger in a strange land Even if we assume that those with the ability to do good have an obligation to help their own kind, Superman still doesn't have to help anyone. Remember, Superman is an alien from a far off planet, not a human. He also has the powers and resources necessary to relocate anywhere else in the galaxy at any time. The fact that he chooses to stay and help genetic strangers in need is a far more impressive moral feat than Batman simply helping his own people. 3. Do no harm Batman is a criminal. He's a criminal who fights other bad guys, but he's a criminal nonetheless. Because he chooses to work outside the law rather than within it or alongside it, he commits more crimes every day than those he's sworn to capture. Just a few examples include: Trespassing Assault and battery Kidnapping Destruction of property Illegal surveillance Evading and resisting arrest Child endangerment Murder and attempted murder [1] Superman, who works with law enforcement and has actually been sent on missions by the white house, does not need to resort to such criminality and lawlessness. [2, see: Battle for Metropolis] Rebuttals 1. To be bad, or not to be bad Pro's entire case is essentially two statements. First, Superman doing good is not impressive because anyone with powers will eventually become a hero or a villain. Second, Batman being a hero is impressive because nobody rich ever chooses to be a hero. Now it may not seem like it, but combined, these claims present a strong point in my favor. Intrigued? I thought you might be. Pro argues that no normal person would purposefully do the right thing if given the opportunity to do otherwise. For Batman, that means struggling with the choice to either fight crime or sit on a beach somewhere. For Superman, though, that means struggling between fighting crime and doing literally anything he wants! Superman is the most powerful being on the planet and knows that if he wanted, he could very easily rule the world and every living thing on it. According to Pro's own logic, the urge for him to do this should be extreme. The fact that he doesn't become this great evil and instead sacrifices his time, life, and well-being to be a hero represents a will to do good that Batman could never achieve. I've got some additional arguments I'm toying around with but we've got three rounds. References 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... | 0 | Maikuru |
Rather than discussing which character is stronger, my opponent wishes to base superiority on the motivations and decisions of these two fictional heroes. Sounds good to me! Let’s begin. Affirmative Case 1.What they’re fighting for As we all know, Superman is one of, if not the, most powerful character in any comic franchise. Yet, rather than plotting world domination and spearheading human slavery, he spends his time defending truth, justice, and the American way. That’s because Clark Kent was raised by down-to Earth farmers of modest means who taught him that the key to a respectable life is helping your fellow man. Clark learned to realize that the more a man has, the more he should give. When you grow up to be a super man, then, it is only ethical to give everything you have for the well-being of your world. Batman’s rise to heroism could not be more different. A child of privilege largely segregated from the truths of the world, Bruce Wayne’s childhood came to a sickening halt when he watched his parents be gunned down in front of him. From then on, Bruce’s world was consumed with thoughts of only vengeance, hate, and fear. He modeled his life on the concept of paying evil back in kind, and he does so every day through his use of psychological warfare, unmitigated violence, and manipulation of both criminals and the law. Both men have done great good and saved countless lives. However, while Superman’s motivation to do so stems from a sense of fairness and a wish to protect the innocent, Batman is driven only by revenge and a deep desire to punish the guilty. In terms of which hero can be considered the better person, there is no contest. Batman’s heroism is based on the worst qualities within us, whereas Superman represents ideals mankind strives to achieve. 2.Stranger in a strange land Even if we assume that those with the ability to do good have an obligation to help their own kind, Superman still doesn’t have to help anyone. Remember, Superman is an alien from a far off planet, not a human. He also has the powers and resources necessary to relocate anywhere else in the galaxy at any time. The fact that he chooses to stay and help genetic strangers in need is a far more impressive moral feat than Batman simply helping his own people. 3. Do no harm Batman is a criminal. He’s a criminal who fights other bad guys, but he’s a criminal nonetheless. Because he chooses to work outside the law rather than within it or alongside it, he commits more crimes every day than those he’s sworn to capture. Just a few examples include:
Trespassing
Assault and battery
Kidnapping
Destruction of property
Illegal surveillance
Evading and resisting arrest
Child endangerment
Murder and attempted murder [1]
Superman, who works with law enforcement and has actually been sent on missions by the white house, does not need to resort to such criminality and lawlessness. [2, see: Battle for Metropolis]
Rebuttals 1. To be bad, or not to be bad Pro’s entire case is essentially two statements. First, Superman doing good is not impressive because anyone with powers will eventually become a hero or a villain. Second, Batman being a hero is impressive because nobody rich ever chooses to be a hero. Now it may not seem like it, but combined, these claims present a strong point in my favor. Intrigued? I thought you might be. Pro argues that no normal person would purposefully do the right thing if given the opportunity to do otherwise. For Batman, that means struggling with the choice to either fight crime or sit on a beach somewhere. For Superman, though, that means struggling between fighting crime and doing literally anything he wants! Superman is the most powerful being on the planet and knows that if he wanted, he could very easily rule the world and every living thing on it. According to Pro’s own logic, the urge for him to do this should be extreme. The fact that he doesn’t become this great evil and instead sacrifices his time, life, and well-being to be a hero represents a will to do good that Batman could never achieve. I’ve got some additional arguments I’m toying around with but we’ve got three rounds. References 1. http://www.cracked.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... | Miscellaneous | 0 | Batman-is-better-than-Superman/2/ | 7,547 |
I thank Pro for his response. Having read his case and reviewed his arguments in detail, I remain unconvinced. I must continue to negate the resolution that Batman is better than Superman. Affirmative Case 1. What they're fighting for In response to my argument that Superman's motivation for doing good is more impressive than Batman's, Pro says that we cannot know what their motivations even are. Let's clear that up right now: "Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul, I swear... until my dream of a world where dignity, honor and justice becomes the reality we all share -- I'll never stop fighting." - Superman [1] "Criminals are a terror. Hearts of the night. I must disguise my terror...My disguise must strike terror. I must be black. Terrible. I must be a creature of the night. Mommy's dead. Daddy's dead. Brucie's dead. I shall become a bat." - Batman [2] Pro seems to agree with these quotes, as he spends his next three paragraphs saying essentially the same thing. According to my opponent, Superman fights because he was raised to "hope for a better life," whereas Batman fights because his parents were murdered. This is literally exactly what I wrote in Round 1. My point is that Superman's decision to fight for truth, justice, and peace is far more moral than Batman's quest to hurt those who hurt him. Pro has not addressed this. Remember, the whole purpose of this debate is to determine which character - Superman or Batman - has the better claim to being a hero. We aren't arguing about who would win in a fight, who has saved more lives, or who looks better in tights. It's about, to use Pro's words, who is "morally" and "ethically" the better person. When Pro says that motivations don't matter, he is arguing against his own resolution. The fact that I've shown Batman's motivations to be based on vengeance, hate, and the worst qualities within us doesn't mean Pro can suddenly change the debate. He either needs to show that Batman's decision to fight crime is more admirable than Superman's or concede his case. 2. Stranger in a strange land I argued that Superman's decision to help mankind is more telling than that of Batman because Superman is an alien and has no inherent allegiance to Earth or its people. Pro responds by saying that Batman is equally disinclined to help because humans killed his parents. Similarly, humans try to kill Superman every day. Lex Luthor, The Toyman, Metallo...humanity and its villains harm Superman and his loved ones constantly, yet he remains Earth's mightiest and truest hero. So, while both men have been hurt by humanity, only Superman chooses to defend it for no reason other than the desire to do good. 3. Do no harm Pro concedes that Batman is a criminal and Superman is not. This is HUGE. My opponent cannot claim Batman as the morally superior hero and simultaneously dismiss his own criminality. He argues that Batman breaks little laws to stop others from breaking big ones, but ignores the magnitude of the charges against him, including child endangerment, murder, attempted murder, and fighting against the same law enforcement he is supposed to assist. The fact that both heroes save lives but only one needs to resort to such wrongdoing immediately and permanently gives Superman the moral high ground. Rebuttals 1. To be bad, or not to be bad Pro drops his argument entirely. Again, this is a big deal. According to Pro's Round 1 case, the fact that Superman has the opportunity and motive to do great wrong, far more wrong than Batman ever could, without any repercussions whatsoever should be reason enough for him to do so. Of course, he chooses to do the exact opposite and sacrifice his well-being time and time again for others. Superman overcoming his capacity for evil is a far more impressive feat than Batman overcoming human laziness. 2. Anyone can be Batman Pro's new argument is that Batman is more relatable than Superman. First of all, that's debatable. People may not have special powers, but they also cannot do all the feats Batman does on a daily basis. If they could, we'd obviously see men in capes roaming the rooftops by now. Secondly, Superman's message is no more foreign than Batman's. They both are essentially fighting bad guys, but one does it to help the innocent and the other does it to punish the guilty. If Pro wishes to support a hero that real life people can look up to, he'd be better off backing the man who is loved, admired, and fights in the sunlight over the guy who is feared, alone, and lurks in the shadows. 3. Pro's sources Pro provides two links: one about Batman being richer than Superman and the other showing a poll where people voted for their favorite hero. Until my opponent explains their presence, his links are irrelevant. References 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... | 0 | Maikuru |
I thank Pro for his response. Having read his case and reviewed his arguments in detail, I remain unconvinced. I must continue to negate the resolution that Batman is better than Superman. Affirmative Case 1. What they’re fighting for In response to my argument that Superman’s motivation for doing good is more impressive than Batman’s, Pro says that we cannot know what their motivations even are. Let’s clear that up right now: “Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul, I swear… until my dream of a world where dignity, honor and justice becomes the reality we all share — I’ll never stop fighting.” - Superman [1] “Criminals are a terror. Hearts of the night. I must disguise my terror...My disguise must strike terror. I must be black. Terrible. I must be a creature of the night. Mommy's dead. Daddy's dead. Brucie's dead. I shall become a bat.” - Batman [2] Pro seems to agree with these quotes, as he spends his next three paragraphs saying essentially the same thing. According to my opponent, Superman fights because he was raised to “hope for a better life,” whereas Batman fights because his parents were murdered. This is literally exactly what I wrote in Round 1. My point is that Superman’s decision to fight for truth, justice, and peace is far more moral than Batman’s quest to hurt those who hurt him. Pro has not addressed this. Remember, the whole purpose of this debate is to determine which character - Superman or Batman - has the better claim to being a hero. We aren’t arguing about who would win in a fight, who has saved more lives, or who looks better in tights. It’s about, to use Pro’s words, who is “morally” and “ethically” the better person. When Pro says that motivations don’t matter, he is arguing against his own resolution. The fact that I’ve shown Batman’s motivations to be based on vengeance, hate, and the worst qualities within us doesn’t mean Pro can suddenly change the debate. He either needs to show that Batman’s decision to fight crime is more admirable than Superman’s or concede his case. 2. Stranger in a strange land I argued that Superman’s decision to help mankind is more telling than that of Batman because Superman is an alien and has no inherent allegiance to Earth or its people. Pro responds by saying that Batman is equally disinclined to help because humans killed his parents. Similarly, humans try to kill Superman every day. Lex Luthor, The Toyman, Metallo...humanity and its villains harm Superman and his loved ones constantly, yet he remains Earth’s mightiest and truest hero. So, while both men have been hurt by humanity, only Superman chooses to defend it for no reason other than the desire to do good. 3. Do no harm Pro concedes that Batman is a criminal and Superman is not. This is HUGE. My opponent cannot claim Batman as the morally superior hero and simultaneously dismiss his own criminality. He argues that Batman breaks little laws to stop others from breaking big ones, but ignores the magnitude of the charges against him, including child endangerment, murder, attempted murder, and fighting against the same law enforcement he is supposed to assist. The fact that both heroes save lives but only one needs to resort to such wrongdoing immediately and permanently gives Superman the moral high ground. Rebuttals 1. To be bad, or not to be bad Pro drops his argument entirely. Again, this is a big deal. According to Pro’s Round 1 case, the fact that Superman has the opportunity and motive to do great wrong, far more wrong than Batman ever could, without any repercussions whatsoever should be reason enough for him to do so. Of course, he chooses to do the exact opposite and sacrifice his well-being time and time again for others. Superman overcoming his capacity for evil is a far more impressive feat than Batman overcoming human laziness. 2. Anyone can be Batman Pro’s new argument is that Batman is more relatable than Superman. First of all, that’s debatable. People may not have special powers, but they also cannot do all the feats Batman does on a daily basis. If they could, we’d obviously see men in capes roaming the rooftops by now. Secondly, Superman’s message is no more foreign than Batman’s. They both are essentially fighting bad guys, but one does it to help the innocent and the other does it to punish the guilty. If Pro wishes to support a hero that real life people can look up to, he’d be better off backing the man who is loved, admired, and fights in the sunlight over the guy who is feared, alone, and lurks in the shadows. 3. Pro’s sources Pro provides two links: one about Batman being richer than Superman and the other showing a poll where people voted for their favorite hero. Until my opponent explains their presence, his links are irrelevant. References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... | Miscellaneous | 1 | Batman-is-better-than-Superman/2/ | 7,548 |
This is how my 40th debate ends: Not with a bang, but with a forfeit. There isn't much left to say. I spent last round dismantling my opponent's arguments and those that he did not already concede now stand conceded via forfeit. All else being equal, the fact that Batman commits crimes while in costume and acts for selfish, violent reasons makes him morally inferior to Superman, who is guilty of no such criminality and fights selflessly for his adopted world. With that, please enjoy these How I Met Your Mother bloopers. If you've stuck around this long, lord knows you deserve them. Thanks for reading! ; | 0 | Maikuru |
This is how my 40th debate ends: Not with a bang, but with a forfeit. There isn't much left to say. I spent last round dismantling my opponent's arguments and those that he did not already concede now stand conceded via forfeit. All else being equal, the fact that Batman commits crimes while in costume and acts for selfish, violent reasons makes him morally inferior to Superman, who is guilty of no such criminality and fights selflessly for his adopted world. With that, please enjoy these How I Met Your Mother bloopers. If you've stuck around this long, lord knows you deserve them. Thanks for reading! ; | Miscellaneous | 2 | Batman-is-better-than-Superman/2/ | 7,549 |
Batman is a better superhero than Superman. Although, if the two did fight, Superman would win, Batman is by far a better person and superhero. Superman was born with superpowers, meaning when he came to Earth, one of his obligations was to fight crime. Everybody knows that if they woke up with superpowers one morning, they would have to be a superhero or supervillian. Batman, on the other hand, is a multi-billionaire. Bruce Wayne is one of the richest men in the world and can do anything with the money that he has. Although he can do anything with all of the money that he has, he chooses to fight crime for the good of the people. If you ask anybody in the world what they would do if they won the lottery and won millions of dollars, their answer would not be, "to go out and risk my life to fight crime." This is why Batman is morally, ethically, and all around the best superhero, and better than the best known superhero, Superman. | 0 | byrdmanryan |
Batman is a better superhero than Superman. Although, if the two did fight, Superman would win, Batman is by far a better person and superhero.
Superman was born with superpowers, meaning when he came to Earth, one of his obligations was to fight crime. Everybody knows that if they woke up with superpowers one morning, they would have to be a superhero or supervillian.
Batman, on the other hand, is a multi-billionaire. Bruce Wayne is one of the richest men in the world and can do anything with the money that he has. Although he can do anything with all of the money that he has, he chooses to fight crime for the good of the people. If you ask anybody in the world what they would do if they won the lottery and won millions of dollars, their answer would not be, "to go out and risk my life to fight crime."
This is why Batman is morally, ethically, and all around the best superhero, and better than the best known superhero, Superman. | Miscellaneous | 0 | Batman-is-better-than-Superman/2/ | 7,550 |
Thank you for accepting my debate and good luck! Rebuttals 1. Motivations It cannot be said which ulterior motives are brought into each superhero's thought process during their decisions. Superman was a product of him being raised by good American people. Superman was sent off to a distant planet by his parents with hope for a better life. Superman has grown and changed by the influence of the society around him. Superman works alongside the government and rules and uses his powers to enforce the law. Now, we all know that even though certain things are encouraged and said to be right by society, they are not correct. Now, as you say that what each superhero is fighting for matters, this cannot matter less. A prime example in American History to show that this is false is the story of one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln. Not many people know that Lincoln was a racist individual. But despite of this, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves for political and moral reasons, and this turned out to be one of the great changes in our country's history. Batman does have feelings of vengeance and anger because of his childhood, but helps Gotham despite all of this. Furthermore, Batman has every motivation against good, to do evil, but goes against this, and fights crime, not because he is fighting against evil, but because he is fighting for good. Also, as said above, Clark Kent was raised by two farmers of modest means and becomes a good person, whereas, Bruce Wayne became a good person without any parental guidance. 2. Stranger As said, Superman has no obligation to help the people of earth, which is true, and he also has no reason to go against the people of earth. On the other hand, Batman has no obligation to help his people, but has every reason to go against them, because they betrayed him in the past. The fact that Batman spends his fortune fighting for the people of Gotham who betrayed him is far greater than someone who has no pull toward either side. 3. Harm being done It is said that Batman breaks the law and is a criminal, which is true. Batman goes outside the law to do the right thing and to ultimately do good things for people. Instead of letting things happen, Batman does break less punishable laws, to stop dangerous criminals from breaking serious laws. Batman fights the crime that the law cannot, and ultimately makes things better in society. Batman is not only a superhero, but he is also a relatable human being. As said in The Dark Knight Rises, "A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders, and telling him the world hadn't ended." The idea is that anybody can do the right thing in life, no matter how extreme or how hard it might be. Whereas the dream of being Superman is out of reach, the dream of being Batman, somebody who does the right thing and helps people, is real for anyone who believes in it. References (these explain things pretty well) 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... | 0 | byrdmanryan |
Thank you for accepting my debate and good luck!
Rebuttals
1. Motivations
It cannot be said which ulterior motives are brought into each superhero's thought process during their decisions. Superman was a product of him being raised by good American people. Superman was sent off to a distant planet by his parents with hope for a better life. Superman has grown and changed by the influence of the society around him. Superman works alongside the government and rules and uses his powers to enforce the law. Now, we all know that even though certain things are encouraged and said to be right by society, they are not correct.
Now, as you say that what each superhero is fighting for matters, this cannot matter less. A prime example in American History to show that this is false is the story of one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln. Not many people know that Lincoln was a racist individual. But despite of this, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves for political and moral reasons, and this turned out to be one of the great changes in our country's history.
Batman does have feelings of vengeance and anger because of his childhood, but helps Gotham despite all of this. Furthermore, Batman has every motivation against good, to do evil, but goes against this, and fights crime, not because he is fighting against evil, but because he is fighting for good. Also, as said above, Clark Kent was raised by two farmers of modest means and becomes a good person, whereas, Bruce Wayne became a good person without any parental guidance.
2. Stranger
As said, Superman has no obligation to help the people of earth, which is true, and he also has no reason to go against the people of earth. On the other hand, Batman has no obligation to help his people, but has every reason to go against them, because they betrayed him in the past. The fact that Batman spends his fortune fighting for the people of Gotham who betrayed him is far greater than someone who has no pull toward either side.
3. Harm being done
It is said that Batman breaks the law and is a criminal, which is true. Batman goes outside the law to do the right thing and to ultimately do good things for people. Instead of letting things happen, Batman does break less punishable laws, to stop dangerous criminals from breaking serious laws. Batman fights the crime that the law cannot, and ultimately makes things better in society.
Batman is not only a superhero, but he is also a relatable human being. As said in The Dark Knight Rises, "A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders, and telling him the world hadn't ended." The idea is that anybody can do the right thing in life, no matter how extreme or how hard it might be. Whereas the dream of being Superman is out of reach, the dream of being Batman, somebody who does the right thing and helps people, is real for anyone who believes in it.
References (these explain things pretty well)
1. http://popwatch.ew.com...
2. http://www.cracked.com... | Miscellaneous | 1 | Batman-is-better-than-Superman/2/ | 7,551 |
I believe that Batman is the best hero from DC comics. This debate has been on my mind for a while now but now it's actually real. First round: Acceptance. My first argument will be in round II. As usually, no profanity is allowed . Nor any rude behavior or insults | 0 | PatriotPerson |
I believe that Batman is the best hero from DC comics. This debate has been on my mind for a while now but now it's actually real. First round: Acceptance. My first argument will be in round II. As usually, no profanity is allowed . Nor any rude behavior or insults | Entertainment | 0 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,559 |
ORIGIN. Batman has a more in-depth story than most DC heroes do. His parents were killed when he was a young boy, so he swears to avenge them by training in martial arts with some of the best martial artists in the world. TOOLS. Batman has enough tools to do practically anything. Let's look at the contents of his utility belt: Batarangs: A useful tool in combat and for long-distance damage. Grapple gun: This allows him to get to higher distances and further distances. Cryptographic Sequencer: This allows him to hack into any computer. Bolas: When thrown at the feet of an oppenent, they get wrapped up in an unbreakable cord. Handcuffs: It's quite obvious what they do. Tracers: These can track any enemy's location, meaning that no criminal is safe. Smoke Pellets: When thrown, the room becomes shrouded in smoke. Gas Pellets: Similar to the smoke ones, but release gas with special effects. Line Launcher: Provides a tightrope like line to get Batman across large gaps. Tranquilizer Gun: Shoots darts capable of knocking victims unconscious. Goo Globules: When thrown, they encase the victim in a sticky substance. Lock Pick: A pick that allows Batman to get through nearly any locked door or system. Rebreather: Allows Batman to breathe underwater or in a vaccuum. Laser: A small minituarized laser used as a cutting tool. Rotary saw: Used to cut through objects. Plastic Explosive Grenades: Used to knock down walls via strong explosions. Mines: These can blast down concrete walls. Kryptonite: Used to defend off a raging Superman. As you can see from the above things, Batman can do pretty much anything. Source: <URL>... 's_utility_belt SKILLS. Batman's intellinge is a lot higher than an average adult male, and his fighting skills are among the highest in the whole DC universe. He even once beat Superman: and that was without even using any Kryptonite. MORE NEXT ROUND!!! | 0 | PatriotPerson |
ORIGIN. Batman has a more in-depth story than most DC heroes do. His parents were killed when he was a young boy, so he swears to avenge them by training in martial arts with some of the best martial artists in the world. TOOLS. Batman has enough tools to do practically anything. Let's look at the contents of his utility belt: Batarangs: A useful tool in combat and for long-distance damage. Grapple gun: This allows him to get to higher distances and further distances. Cryptographic Sequencer: This allows him to hack into any computer. Bolas: When thrown at the feet of an oppenent, they get wrapped up in an unbreakable cord. Handcuffs: It's quite obvious what they do. Tracers: These can track any enemy's location, meaning that no criminal is safe. Smoke Pellets: When thrown, the room becomes shrouded in smoke. Gas Pellets: Similar to the smoke ones, but release gas with special effects. Line Launcher: Provides a tightrope like line to get Batman across large gaps. Tranquilizer Gun: Shoots darts capable of knocking victims unconscious. Goo Globules: When thrown, they encase the victim in a sticky substance. Lock Pick: A pick that allows Batman to get through nearly any locked door or system. Rebreather: Allows Batman to breathe underwater or in a vaccuum. Laser: A small minituarized laser used as a cutting tool. Rotary saw: Used to cut through objects. Plastic Explosive Grenades: Used to knock down walls via strong explosions. Mines: These can blast down concrete walls. Kryptonite: Used to defend off a raging Superman. As you can see from the above things, Batman can do pretty much anything. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 's_utility_belt SKILLS. Batman's intellinge is a lot higher than an average adult male, and his fighting skills are among the highest in the whole DC universe. He even once beat Superman: and that was without even using any Kryptonite. MORE NEXT ROUND!!! | Entertainment | 1 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,560 |
I thank Con for his response. In this rebuttal, I will be mentioning Con's said abilities of Superman and counter them with something of Batman or just a plain counter against it. Superhuman Strength: This power is not one that is needed amongst heroes. From DC, many other heroes have done perfectly fine with normal strength. These heroes include Batman, Flash, All the Batgirls, Green Arrow, Nightwing, Catwoman, and many more. Invulnerability: Another ability that heroes don't need. You say that Superman has ability to resist Darkseid's Omega Beams, and that is true, however, Batman once defeated Darkseid by himself, and that image will be provided below. Batman also flipped Hulk over and sparta-kicked him in the chest in the DC vs. Marvel miniseries. That image will also be shown below. Healing: Batman's healing does not come naturally, but he has been both shot and stabbed numerous times and still recovered like a pro. Batman's butler, Alfred, is highly trained in the medical field and fixes up Bruce every time he is injured. Even sometimes, Batman can fix himself up with his own medical skills and tools. Flying: Batman cannot LITERALLY fly, but his bat-wing-like cape allows him to glide long distances. His grapple gun can reach so far away that it is like he is flying. Superhuman Speed: This is also not a necessary power for a hero. For Batman has been very successful with only normal human speed. Plus, the Flash, the most well-known super speedster, is afraid of Batman. That image will also be provided. Sorry for the image overload. Lol. X-Ray vision: It does not matter how "cool" it is. What matters is how good it is in combat and how good its uses are. And last time I checked, seeing your opponent as a skeleton with no clothes on isn't all that useful. Superhuman Intelligence: I don't remember seeing any instance of Superman showing higher intelligence than Bats. You say that in sunlight his brain can work faster than a supercomputer. Batman HAS supercomputers. Perfect Memory: I don't remember this being displayed for Superman either. However, Batman indeed has a great memory. Refer to his memories of the night his parents were murdered. Plus, his memory doesn't matter if he forgets something. If he does, he can just find the enemy or the location with his Supercomputers or his Tracers. Heat Vision: This is not necessary, either. Batman has grenades and explosives that can work just as well, if not better, than Superman's heat vision. Superhuman Breath: These same abilities can be used by Batman's Rebreather and his Ice-Arangs or whatever they're called. Superhuman Hearing: Excellent hearing does not matter for Batman. He has the computers and tracers to track every movement a target makes. Superhuman Vision: This also doesn't matter. Again, Batman has the computers that can be used to find the weaknesses in nearly any enemy. Master Combatant: Are you kidding me? Batman beat Darkseid by himself and freaking flipped the Hulk over. As you can see the Dark Knight's abilities are equal, if not greater to Superman's. Batman pwns Darkseid. Batman pwns The Hulk Flash is afraid of Batman. | 0 | PatriotPerson |
I thank Con for his response. In this rebuttal, I will be mentioning Con's said abilities of Superman and counter them with something of Batman or just a plain counter against it. Superhuman Strength: This power is not one that is needed amongst heroes. From DC, many other heroes have done perfectly fine with normal strength. These heroes include Batman, Flash, All the Batgirls, Green Arrow, Nightwing, Catwoman, and many more. Invulnerability: Another ability that heroes don't need. You say that Superman has ability to resist Darkseid's Omega Beams, and that is true, however, Batman once defeated Darkseid by himself, and that image will be provided below. Batman also flipped Hulk over and sparta-kicked him in the chest in the DC vs. Marvel miniseries. That image will also be shown below. Healing: Batman's healing does not come naturally, but he has been both shot and stabbed numerous times and still recovered like a pro. Batman's butler, Alfred, is highly trained in the medical field and fixes up Bruce every time he is injured. Even sometimes, Batman can fix himself up with his own medical skills and tools. Flying: Batman cannot LITERALLY fly, but his bat-wing-like cape allows him to glide long distances. His grapple gun can reach so far away that it is like he is flying. Superhuman Speed: This is also not a necessary power for a hero. For Batman has been very successful with only normal human speed. Plus, the Flash, the most well-known super speedster, is afraid of Batman. That image will also be provided. Sorry for the image overload. Lol. X-Ray vision: It does not matter how "cool" it is. What matters is how good it is in combat and how good its uses are. And last time I checked, seeing your opponent as a skeleton with no clothes on isn't all that useful. Superhuman Intelligence: I don't remember seeing any instance of Superman showing higher intelligence than Bats. You say that in sunlight his brain can work faster than a supercomputer. Batman HAS supercomputers. Perfect Memory: I don't remember this being displayed for Superman either. However, Batman indeed has a great memory. Refer to his memories of the night his parents were murdered. Plus, his memory doesn't matter if he forgets something. If he does, he can just find the enemy or the location with his Supercomputers or his Tracers. Heat Vision: This is not necessary, either. Batman has grenades and explosives that can work just as well, if not better, than Superman's heat vision. Superhuman Breath: These same abilities can be used by Batman's Rebreather and his Ice-Arangs or whatever they're called. Superhuman Hearing: Excellent hearing does not matter for Batman. He has the computers and tracers to track every movement a target makes. Superhuman Vision: This also doesn't matter. Again, Batman has the computers that can be used to find the weaknesses in nearly any enemy. Master Combatant: Are you kidding me? Batman beat Darkseid by himself and freaking flipped the Hulk over. As you can see the Dark Knight's abilities are equal, if not greater to Superman's. Batman pwns Darkseid. Batman pwns The Hulk Flash is afraid of Batman. | Entertainment | 2 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,561 |
For the sake of this debate, I will only counter some of your arguments, then I will provide more reasons why Batman is the best. First of all, your arguments seem to be only trying to prove Superman's superiority in only the category of strength and abilities. These attributes are not the only ones needed to become the best hero. VILLAINS: Batman's villains are more realistic than most other DC Villains. These villains are also the most popular, and are very famous for their horror-like base. The Joker is perhaps the most insane evil-minded person in the DC Universe. Refer to the miniseries The Dark Knight Returns, where The Joker runs through a carnival, killing absolutely EVERYONE he can. FAMILY: Batman has a rather large bat-family, consisting of well-known allies such as Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Oracle, Huntress, Red Robin, Batwoman, Red Hood, Black Bat, and more. Batman can call these allies for help almost all the time, thus giving Batman more strength with all the allies he has. But with Superman, there isn't really a Super-Family. All there is is Superman, Superboy, and Supergirl. POPULARITY: Superman is arguably more well-known than Batman, but Batman has a bigger fanbase. Superman has had the following movies: Superman, Superman II, Superman III, Superman IV, Superman Returns, and Man of Steel. Batman has had the following movies: Batman: The Movie, Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises. As you can see, I am only counting movies that were released in theaters and were in color. Superman did have a movie called Superman & The Mole Men, however this doesn't count because it wasn't modern enough to be in color. Also, Batman's movies have much better overall ratings than Superman's movies do. Let's compare the Dark Knight Rises to Man of Steel: TDKR: 8.6/10. Man of Steel: 7.7/10. It is obvious from this tha people liked TDKR more. Now, we shall compare The Dark Knight to Superman Returns: The Dark Knight: 9.0/10, Superman Returns: 6.2/10. These ratings were taken from IMDB, and as you can see, Batman's two most recent movies have done far better than Superman's two most recent movies. | 0 | PatriotPerson |
For the sake of this debate, I will only counter some of your arguments, then I will provide more reasons why Batman is the best. First of all, your arguments seem to be only trying to prove Superman's superiority in only the category of strength and abilities. These attributes are not the only ones needed to become the best hero. VILLAINS: Batman's villains are more realistic than most other DC Villains. These villains are also the most popular, and are very famous for their horror-like base. The Joker is perhaps the most insane evil-minded person in the DC Universe. Refer to the miniseries The Dark Knight Returns, where The Joker runs through a carnival, killing absolutely EVERYONE he can. FAMILY: Batman has a rather large bat-family, consisting of well-known allies such as Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Oracle, Huntress, Red Robin, Batwoman, Red Hood, Black Bat, and more. Batman can call these allies for help almost all the time, thus giving Batman more strength with all the allies he has. But with Superman, there isn't really a Super-Family. All there is is Superman, Superboy, and Supergirl. POPULARITY: Superman is arguably more well-known than Batman, but Batman has a bigger fanbase. Superman has had the following movies: Superman, Superman II, Superman III, Superman IV, Superman Returns, and Man of Steel. Batman has had the following movies: Batman: The Movie, Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises. As you can see, I am only counting movies that were released in theaters and were in color. Superman did have a movie called Superman & The Mole Men, however this doesn't count because it wasn't modern enough to be in color. Also, Batman's movies have much better overall ratings than Superman's movies do. Let's compare the Dark Knight Rises to Man of Steel: TDKR: 8.6/10. Man of Steel: 7.7/10. It is obvious from this tha people liked TDKR more. Now, we shall compare The Dark Knight to Superman Returns: The Dark Knight: 9.0/10, Superman Returns: 6.2/10. These ratings were taken from IMDB, and as you can see, Batman's two most recent movies have done far better than Superman's two most recent movies. | Entertainment | 3 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,562 |
According to the Superhero Database (DB), Joker and Lex's intelligence are equal. Their strength and speed are also exactly equal. However, Joker is superior in durability, power, and combat. I assume these stats for Lex are taken by his abilities without his power suit. And if you are going to argue that this will show that it takes uneccessary power-points away from Lex, let me just remind you: Joker also has power-suits. Most villains have times when they are absolutely right, or they think that they are doing the right thing. Take Marvel's Magneto for example. I can't argue against your only-Gotham thing. But I can argue against your tragic-thing. I don't know much about Lex's origin, but Joker's is very tragic. He was a comedian that told jokes that no one would laugh at. His pregnant wife, carrying a child, dies. Then the Joker (Jack Napier, perhaps?), decides to do just one crime, to get his anger out. However, during said crime, Joker is confronted by the then-new vigilante Batman. Batman accidentally pushes Joker (as Red Hood I) into a vat of acid. This particular acid permanently stains his skin white, his hair green, and his lips red. The acid also drives him to complete insanity. If that origin isn't tragic, I don't know what is. Batgirl and Oracle are not the same person. Batgirl is currently Stephanie Brown. Oracle is Barbara Gordon. This is obviously not misleading, because your statement was false. You argue that Lois Lane is part of Superman's family. She is, but not in the way I mean. By family I mean a supporting group of other heroes that are in a not-related "Family". The Bat-Family is credited to be a real team in comics, and the Super-Team isn't. I don't believe that movie ratings can prove a characters popularity either. I was just showing that more people like Batman's movies over Superman's. This is not just about movies either. With video games, Superman hasn't had a big-console game for quite a while. Whereas Batman has had a lot and has a VERY popular series that is still running. These games are Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. But let's not forget the forthcoming games, Arkham Origins and Arkham Origins: Blackgate. No I can't find any comic book ratings. The following image has profanity in it, so I apologize. But here it is: | 0 | PatriotPerson |
According to the Superhero Database (DB), Joker and Lex's intelligence are equal. Their strength and speed are also exactly equal. However, Joker is superior in durability, power, and combat. I assume these stats for Lex are taken by his abilities without his power suit. And if you are going to argue that this will show that it takes uneccessary power-points away from Lex, let me just remind you: Joker also has power-suits. Most villains have times when they are absolutely right, or they think that they are doing the right thing. Take Marvel's Magneto for example. I can't argue against your only-Gotham thing. But I can argue against your tragic-thing. I don't know much about Lex's origin, but Joker's is very tragic. He was a comedian that told jokes that no one would laugh at. His pregnant wife, carrying a child, dies. Then the Joker (Jack Napier, perhaps?), decides to do just one crime, to get his anger out. However, during said crime, Joker is confronted by the then-new vigilante Batman. Batman accidentally pushes Joker (as Red Hood I) into a vat of acid. This particular acid permanently stains his skin white, his hair green, and his lips red. The acid also drives him to complete insanity. If that origin isn't tragic, I don't know what is. Batgirl and Oracle are not the same person. Batgirl is currently Stephanie Brown. Oracle is Barbara Gordon. This is obviously not misleading, because your statement was false. You argue that Lois Lane is part of Superman's family. She is, but not in the way I mean. By family I mean a supporting group of other heroes that are in a not-related "Family". The Bat-Family is credited to be a real team in comics, and the Super-Team isn't. I don't believe that movie ratings can prove a characters popularity either. I was just showing that more people like Batman's movies over Superman's. This is not just about movies either. With video games, Superman hasn't had a big-console game for quite a while. Whereas Batman has had a lot and has a VERY popular series that is still running. These games are Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. But let's not forget the forthcoming games, Arkham Origins and Arkham Origins: Blackgate. No I can't find any comic book ratings. The following image has profanity in it, so I apologize. But here it is: | Entertainment | 4 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,563 |
Okay I accept. | 0 | Shadowguynick |
Okay I accept. | Entertainment | 0 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,564 |
I thank you for your response, and I will begin my own. Origin: I think we should start with Superman. Batman lost his parents, but Superman also lost his parents, AND his entire home planet. He then is found by Martha and Johnathan Kent. They name him Clark Kent, he eventually discovers his powers, and he decides to use them for good. Now let's look at his powers and abilities: Superhuman strength: He can lift virtually anything, has been shown to move planets, and if I remember correctly he was able to punch a hole through the time dimension to travel into the future. It is generally accepted that he is the strongest being the the DC universe when he has been fueled by the sun. Invulnerability: Superman is able to withstand extreme temperatures (as in he entered the freaking sun and wasn't harmed) and also withstood Darkseid's omega beams. He also has an extremely slow aging process, which can be slowed down even more by used the sun's energy. Healing: Superman has been shown to be able to heal himself when it comes to most things. His healing power is increased in the sun. Flying: He has the ability to defy Earth's gravity and fly. The explanation for this is that he has anti-gravity organs. Superhuman speed: He can run, fly, and react faster than a speeding bullet. His running speed has been shown to be on par with Flash, and has been able to move through space faster than light. This would make him the fastest superhero. X-ray vision: I don't believe I need to explain how cool this is. Superhuman intelligence: Superman has beyond genius levels of intelligence, which may in fact make him smarter than Batman. In sunlight his brain can work faster than a supercomputer. Perfect memory: Simply he can just remember everything. Heat vision: He is able to disintegrate a person by using said heat vision, as it produces a high energy beam that superman can control very well. He is also able to use it as Clark Kent, since it is invisible. Superhuman breath: He is able to inhale and exhale extreme amounts of air. In one story Superman couldn't touch the ground, as doing so would cause explosive orbs would come from the ground endangering everyone around him. His solution was to constantly exhale from his nose so he could be millimeters off the ground at all times. This same breath can also be used to freeze enemies, as it can be cooled down very much. Superhuman hearing: He can hear more frequencies, and can hear at far greater distances. Superhuman vision: He can see wavelengths humans can't see, he can see much farther than humans. Master Combatant: This one is somewhat debatable, as he doesn't have combat prowess in every comic. However he has been shown to have it in certain comics. Even Batman admits that if Superman didn't go easy on them, he could destroy them all. Here is a source of all his superpowers: <URL>... And his origin story: <URL>... As you can see Superman's abilities are far greater than the Dark Knight. | 0 | Shadowguynick |
I thank you for your response, and I will begin my own.
Origin: I think we should start with Superman. Batman lost his parents, but Superman also lost his parents, AND his entire home planet. He then is found by Martha and Johnathan Kent. They name him Clark Kent, he eventually discovers his powers, and he decides to use them for good.
Now let's look at his powers and abilities:
Superhuman strength: He can lift virtually anything, has been shown to move planets, and if I remember correctly he was able to punch a hole through the time dimension to travel into the future. It is generally accepted that he is the strongest being the the DC universe when he has been fueled by the sun.
Invulnerability: Superman is able to withstand extreme temperatures (as in he entered the freaking sun and wasn't harmed) and also withstood Darkseid's omega beams. He also has an extremely slow aging process, which can be slowed down even more by used the sun's energy.
Healing: Superman has been shown to be able to heal himself when it comes to most things. His healing power is increased in the sun.
Flying: He has the ability to defy Earth's gravity and fly. The explanation for this is that he has anti-gravity organs.
Superhuman speed: He can run, fly, and react faster than a speeding bullet. His running speed has been shown to be on par with Flash, and has been able to move through space faster than light. This would make him the fastest superhero.
X-ray vision: I don't believe I need to explain how cool this is.
Superhuman intelligence: Superman has beyond genius levels of intelligence, which may in fact make him smarter than Batman. In sunlight his brain can work faster than a supercomputer.
Perfect memory: Simply he can just remember everything.
Heat vision: He is able to disintegrate a person by using said heat vision, as it produces a high energy beam that superman can control very well. He is also able to use it as Clark Kent, since it is invisible.
Superhuman breath: He is able to inhale and exhale extreme amounts of air. In one story Superman couldn't touch the ground, as doing so would cause explosive orbs would come from the ground endangering everyone around him. His solution was to constantly exhale from his nose so he could be millimeters off the ground at all times. This same breath can also be used to freeze enemies, as it can be cooled down very much.
Superhuman hearing: He can hear more frequencies, and can hear at far greater distances.
Superhuman vision: He can see wavelengths humans can't see, he can see much farther than humans.
Master Combatant: This one is somewhat debatable, as he doesn't have combat prowess in every comic. However he has been shown to have it in certain comics.
Even Batman admits that if Superman didn't go easy on them, he could destroy them all.
Here is a source of all his superpowers: http://en.wikipedia.org...
And his origin story:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
As you can see Superman's abilities are far greater than the Dark Knight. | Entertainment | 1 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,565 |
Thank you for your rebuttals. I will counter some of your counter arguments though. Superhuman Strength: You say heroes don't need it and that is true. Heroes don't need. But it definitely makes a hero better. Let's say we have two completely equal heroes, except one has superhuman strength and the other doesn't Obviously the one with Superhuman Strength will be the better hero because he will be better adapted to more situations he gets into. Invulnerability: Same argument as above, but I will admit that Batman did defeat darkseid without a resistance to his beams. However a resistance would definitely be helpful in defeating him, making Superman better adapted. Healing: Alfred's great doctoral skills wouldn't be useful in the middle of a firefight. However I concede that Batman is perfectly capable of bandaging himself up. But superman doesn't need to stop and do it. Flying: Batman does glide. Just not nearly as fast as superman can fly. Superman has been shown to fly as fast, and faster, than the speed of light. I'm pretty sure Batman can't glide that fast. Superhuman speed: See Superhuman strength argument. And Flash being afraid of Batman is logical, as Batman is better than Flash in multiple ways. But Flash isn't Superman. X-ray vision- Actually it could come in handy. It serves a tactical purpose as you could easy see through buildings, and locate enemies. And by locating enemies you can make a better plan on how to beat them. Superhuman Intelligence: This one is a bit shaky I admit, because after the Silver Age of Comics they made Superman a bit dumber. But even now he is still a kryptonian, and kryptonians have an intelligence that is better than humans. Perfect Memory: Superman did indeed have perfect memory. It is part of why he is able to learn new technologies very fast (that and he comes from a alien race with very advanced technology. Heat Vision: See Superhuman strength argument. And grenades and explosions work well, but it affects a larger area (therefore putting innocents in danger) and is easily noticeable. Superman's heat vision can be invisible (except at much higher energy levels) and is very precise. It is in fact precise to the molecule, as Superman is able to work on objects at the molecular level with his heat vision. A grenade certainly won't do that. Superhuman Breath: They are equal with this ability. Superhuman Hearing: Equal here as well Superhuman Vision: Equal again. Master Combatant: Batman is also a master combatant, and I will agree that Batman knows his a way around a fight more than superman. However that is not to say Superman isn't a very skilled fighter. My inclusion of this follows this logic: Say we have two fighters, and there are two variables that will determine the fight. Fighter 1 is strong in one, weak in the other. Fighter 2 is average in both. As you can see it averages out to both of them equal. However let's say that second variable is combat prowess. Just because Batman may be strong does not mean that Superman is weak. Superman would then be average. Batman can perform many abilities that Superman can. Just not as good. Therefore Superman is the superior superhero. | 0 | Shadowguynick |
Thank you for your rebuttals. I will counter some of your counter arguments though.
Superhuman Strength: You say heroes don't need it and that is true. Heroes don't need. But it definitely makes a hero better. Let's say we have two completely equal heroes, except one has superhuman strength and the other doesn't Obviously the one with Superhuman Strength will be the better hero because he will be better adapted to more situations he gets into.
Invulnerability: Same argument as above, but I will admit that Batman did defeat darkseid without a resistance to his beams. However a resistance would definitely be helpful in defeating him, making Superman better adapted.
Healing: Alfred's great doctoral skills wouldn't be useful in the middle of a firefight. However I concede that Batman is perfectly capable of bandaging himself up. But superman doesn't need to stop and do it.
Flying: Batman does glide. Just not nearly as fast as superman can fly. Superman has been shown to fly as fast, and faster, than the speed of light. I'm pretty sure Batman can't glide that fast.
Superhuman speed: See Superhuman strength argument. And Flash being afraid of Batman is logical, as Batman is better than Flash in multiple ways. But Flash isn't Superman.
X-ray vision- Actually it could come in handy. It serves a tactical purpose as you could easy see through buildings, and locate enemies. And by locating enemies you can make a better plan on how to beat them.
Superhuman Intelligence: This one is a bit shaky I admit, because after the Silver Age of Comics they made Superman a bit dumber. But even now he is still a kryptonian, and kryptonians have an intelligence that is better than humans.
Perfect Memory: Superman did indeed have perfect memory. It is part of why he is able to learn new technologies very fast (that and he comes from a alien race with very advanced technology.
Heat Vision: See Superhuman strength argument. And grenades and explosions work well, but it affects a larger area (therefore putting innocents in danger) and is easily noticeable. Superman's heat vision can be invisible (except at much higher energy levels) and is very precise. It is in fact precise to the molecule, as Superman is able to work on objects at the molecular level with his heat vision. A grenade certainly won't do that.
Superhuman Breath: They are equal with this ability.
Superhuman Hearing: Equal here as well
Superhuman Vision: Equal again.
Master Combatant: Batman is also a master combatant, and I will agree that Batman knows his a way around a fight more than superman. However that is not to say Superman isn't a very skilled fighter. My inclusion of this follows this logic:
Say we have two fighters, and there are two variables that will determine the fight.
Fighter 1 is strong in one, weak in the other.
Fighter 2 is average in both.
As you can see it averages out to both of them equal. However let's say that second variable is combat prowess. Just because Batman may be strong does not mean that Superman is weak. Superman would then be average.
Batman can perform many abilities that Superman can. Just not as good. Therefore Superman is the superior superhero. | Entertainment | 2 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,566 |
My arguments have been trying to prove Superman's superiority in strength and abilities, because he IS superior in strength and abilities. But you are right, it's not all you need to be the best hero. You bring up the subject of villains first. And while there is no denying that Batman's adversaries are horrific, and gruesome. But Superman's arch nemesis, Lex Luthor, is the better villain in my opinion. Lex Luthor has better resources, is much smarter, and is very hard to distinguish as a villain at times. The Joker is obviously a villain, and it's hard to ever portray him as good. But Lex Luthor has moments where he is absolutely right. He wants to stop superman, because superman he believes will lead humans to self-reliance and they will become dumb. He sees himself as a hero, and so does most of the world. He has a much more global impact on the world than joker does, as joker really only affects Gotham, where batman takes care of him. Lex Luthor can influence the entire world. He was even elected president. Lex will do anything to take down superman, no matter what the cost. And it is tragic because of all the good he can be doing, as he is shown to be quite a genius. I give joker credit with being the more chaotic of the two. But Lex is just a more influential, multidimensional, and more tragic of a villain. You go on to talk about family, and allies of batman. Before I go on with my examples I would like to point out that Batgirl and Oracle are the same person. They are both Barbara Gordon, therefore it is somewhat misleading to lead them as two different people. Supergirl and Superboy are Superman's most prominent allies. However there is also the superman squad, which is a team of heroes set out to follow superman's example. There is also Steel, a former weapons manufacturer turned good after he finds his weapons in use by a terrorist cell. We could Lois Lane could be part of this family, as she does become superman's wife. You then argue popularity. However this is hard to distinguish. You admit Superman is a more iconic superhero, and that is true. Superman is the superhero. But then you go on to list movie ratings as evidence that Batman is the more popular of the two characters. I do not believe that movies can justify a character's popularity, as some movies are much better made than others. I will admit that currently Batman seems to be the more popular of the two heroes. But overall Superman has been more popular. Superman is a cultural icon, the image of a superhero. However to make this argument better I ask you if you know the sales of both comic books. I cannot seem to find it, and if you happen to know that would be greatly appreciated. I would like to base this popularity debate not only on recent movies, but the popularity of its comic books over the years. | 0 | Shadowguynick |
My arguments have been trying to prove Superman's superiority in strength and abilities, because he IS superior in strength and abilities. But you are right, it's not all you need to be the best hero. You bring up the subject of villains first. And while there is no denying that Batman's adversaries are horrific, and gruesome. But Superman's arch nemesis, Lex Luthor, is the better villain in my opinion. Lex Luthor has better resources, is much smarter, and is very hard to distinguish as a villain at times. The Joker is obviously a villain, and it's hard to ever portray him as good. But Lex Luthor has moments where he is absolutely right. He wants to stop superman, because superman he believes will lead humans to self-reliance and they will become dumb. He sees himself as a hero, and so does most of the world. He has a much more global impact on the world than joker does, as joker really only affects Gotham, where batman takes care of him. Lex Luthor can influence the entire world. He was even elected president. Lex will do anything to take down superman, no matter what the cost. And it is tragic because of all the good he can be doing, as he is shown to be quite a genius. I give joker credit with being the more chaotic of the two. But Lex is just a more influential, multidimensional, and more tragic of a villain. You go on to talk about family, and allies of batman. Before I go on with my examples I would like to point out that Batgirl and Oracle are the same person. They are both Barbara Gordon, therefore it is somewhat misleading to lead them as two different people. Supergirl and Superboy are Superman's most prominent allies. However there is also the superman squad, which is a team of heroes set out to follow superman's example. There is also Steel, a former weapons manufacturer turned good after he finds his weapons in use by a terrorist cell. We could Lois Lane could be part of this family, as she does become superman's wife. You then argue popularity. However this is hard to distinguish. You admit Superman is a more iconic superhero, and that is true. Superman is the superhero. But then you go on to list movie ratings as evidence that Batman is the more popular of the two characters. I do not believe that movies can justify a character's popularity, as some movies are much better made than others. I will admit that currently Batman seems to be the more popular of the two heroes. But overall Superman has been more popular. Superman is a cultural icon, the image of a superhero. However to make this argument better I ask you if you know the sales of both comic books. I cannot seem to find it, and if you happen to know that would be greatly appreciated. I would like to base this popularity debate not only on recent movies, but the popularity of its comic books over the years. | Entertainment | 3 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,567 |
Don't watch the video until you finish reading the whole thing so you understand why it's there. In stats the Joker would be better, but don't forget that Lex Luthor has massive resources, and isn't on the run from the police. This allows him much greater freedom in what he is able to do. Also I would like to point out that the same website points out that Superman would destroy Batman. Batman only beats Superman in combat, and only by 16 points. They share the same intelligence. But then Superman far outmatches him in every other stat. And yes some villains believe they are the hero, and sometimes they believe they are absolutely right. But my point with L.L. is that he is fighting for a cause that is somewhat hard to argue with. Joker kills people, and that's bad. He likes to kill people. Lex wants to protect the world, because he percieves Superman as a threat. Most villains see the hero in their way, but Lex Luthor sees Superman in the world's way, and believes he is saving them. That is why his story is tragic, as he is the only (self-percieved) hero that never wins. Joker does have a more tragic origin though. I'm sorry, as I recalled the stories Oracle was batgirl until a fatal injury forced her to stop. However I looked it up and I see this has changed. However you assert there is no Superman Squad. There is indeed such a squad. Here are two sites that seem to agree with me. <URL>... <URL>... Since you were not able to find any comic book ratings either I will concede this to you. Batman seems to have grown more popular in recent years. However I still maintain that Superman was more popular for the longest time before that, and he is still more iconic of a superhero. Here is my conclusion based on all the points brought up in this debate. 1. Origin- Batman's parents are killed, which leads to him being orphaned and bent of stopping crime. Superman's entire home planet, including his parents, blows up, which orphans him. He grows up learning of his superpowers and decides to use his powers for good. 2. Powers/abilities- Batman has many tools and gadgets which do many things (refer to pro's list in R2) and superman has a plethora of powers and abilities (see my own list in R2). I believe I have proved that superman's equal, and exceed Batman's own abilities and tools. 3. Batman's villains are horrific, and are easily defined as evil. The Joker has a very tragic background. Superman's arch nemesis Lex Luthor is a colorful character with a good side to his evil, and views himself as a hero to the world, and it is believable. He also is extremely smart, and is one of the most powerful people in the world, at one time he managed to achieve presidency. I believe this shows that Lex Luthor is a more dynamic character than Joker, who's only goal is chaotic destruction. 4. Batman has a very large family, with well-known allies. However so does Superman, as he has Supergirl, Superboy, and the Superman Squad. 5. Batman is much more popular right now, due maybe to the recent Batman movies, and a perhaps changes in opinion. However Superman is more iconic of a superhero, and was much more popular in years past. I would say this makes Superman more popular, but this is one point that I believe is opinionated. Overall therefore Superman is a better superhero than Batman. I thought your picture was pretty hilarious. I also found this video hilarious: It's essentially what would happen if Superman was to come help Batman with Gotham problems. But it is a joke video, just for laughs. | 0 | Shadowguynick |
Don't watch the video until you finish reading the whole thing so you understand why it's there. In stats the Joker would be better, but don't forget that Lex Luthor has massive resources, and isn't on the run from the police. This allows him much greater freedom in what he is able to do. Also I would like to point out that the same website points out that Superman would destroy Batman. Batman only beats Superman in combat, and only by 16 points. They share the same intelligence. But then Superman far outmatches him in every other stat. And yes some villains believe they are the hero, and sometimes they believe they are absolutely right. But my point with L.L. is that he is fighting for a cause that is somewhat hard to argue with. Joker kills people, and that's bad. He likes to kill people. Lex wants to protect the world, because he percieves Superman as a threat. Most villains see the hero in their way, but Lex Luthor sees Superman in the world's way, and believes he is saving them. That is why his story is tragic, as he is the only (self-percieved) hero that never wins. Joker does have a more tragic origin though. I'm sorry, as I recalled the stories Oracle was batgirl until a fatal injury forced her to stop. However I looked it up and I see this has changed. However you assert there is no Superman Squad. There is indeed such a squad. Here are two sites that seem to agree with me. http://www.comicvine.com... http://superman.wikia.com... Since you were not able to find any comic book ratings either I will concede this to you. Batman seems to have grown more popular in recent years. However I still maintain that Superman was more popular for the longest time before that, and he is still more iconic of a superhero. Here is my conclusion based on all the points brought up in this debate. 1. Origin- Batman's parents are killed, which leads to him being orphaned and bent of stopping crime. Superman's entire home planet, including his parents, blows up, which orphans him. He grows up learning of his superpowers and decides to use his powers for good. 2. Powers/abilities- Batman has many tools and gadgets which do many things (refer to pro's list in R2) and superman has a plethora of powers and abilities (see my own list in R2). I believe I have proved that superman's equal, and exceed Batman's own abilities and tools. 3. Batman's villains are horrific, and are easily defined as evil. The Joker has a very tragic background. Superman's arch nemesis Lex Luthor is a colorful character with a good side to his evil, and views himself as a hero to the world, and it is believable. He also is extremely smart, and is one of the most powerful people in the world, at one time he managed to achieve presidency. I believe this shows that Lex Luthor is a more dynamic character than Joker, who's only goal is chaotic destruction. 4. Batman has a very large family, with well-known allies. However so does Superman, as he has Supergirl, Superboy, and the Superman Squad. 5. Batman is much more popular right now, due maybe to the recent Batman movies, and a perhaps changes in opinion. However Superman is more iconic of a superhero, and was much more popular in years past. I would say this makes Superman more popular, but this is one point that I believe is opinionated. Overall therefore Superman is a better superhero than Batman. I thought your picture was pretty hilarious. I also found this video hilarious: It's essentially what would happen if Superman was to come help Batman with Gotham problems. But it is a joke video, just for laughs. | Entertainment | 4 | Batman-is-the-best-DC-comics-hero/1/ | 7,568 |
I accept. I will be against Batman defeating Bruce Lee in this scenario. Good luck Pro. | 0 | AlexanderOc |
I accept. I will be against Batman defeating Bruce Lee in this scenario. Good luck Pro. | Miscellaneous | 0 | Batman-with-no-armor-gadgets-or-weapons-could-defeat-Bruce-Lee-in-a-fist-fight./1/ | 7,575 |
All the above information is pretty much irrelevant. After all, Batman wouldn't even be able to fight. Without being able to fight Bruce Lee, he coudn't win a fist fight with him. Definition of weapon: Anything/object used against an opponent in a fight, war, etc. I'm quite sure we can all agree that you can qualify the human body as an object/thing, or at least individual parts of it. Therefore, a fist would qualify as a weapon. Remember, my opponent stated in the resolution that batman would be unable to use weapons. So, P1. A weapon is anything used in a fight P2. A fist is used in a fistfight C1. A fist is a weapon P3. Batman cannot use weapons C2. Batman cannot use his fists C3. Batman cannot fight in a fistfight And with that, Batman would be forced to take hits from Bruce Lee until he loses as he would be unable to use weapons/retaliate. Back to Pro | 0 | AlexanderOc |
All the above information is pretty much irrelevant. After all, Batman wouldn't even be able to fight. Without being able to fight Bruce Lee, he coudn't win a fist fight with him. Definition of weapon: Anything/object used against an opponent in a fight, war, etc. I'm quite sure we can all agree that you can qualify the human body as an object/thing, or at least individual parts of it. Therefore, a fist would qualify as a weapon. Remember, my opponent stated in the resolution that batman would be unable to use weapons. So, P1. A weapon is anything used in a fight P2. A fist is used in a fistfight C1. A fist is a weapon P3. Batman cannot use weapons C2. Batman cannot use his fists C3. Batman cannot fight in a fistfight And with that, Batman would be forced to take hits from Bruce Lee until he loses as he would be unable to use weapons/retaliate. Back to Pro | Miscellaneous | 1 | Batman-with-no-armor-gadgets-or-weapons-could-defeat-Bruce-Lee-in-a-fist-fight./1/ | 7,576 |
My opponent is trying to dismiss my argument. He claims that I knew the true meaning of te question. He has failed to prove this or how this is relevant. He also provides another unsourced definition. Here is my source. <URL>... My opponent is being hypocritcal by using a definition that supports his case while saying I can't do the same. My opponent has not sourced his definition. Until he discredits my source, the definition stands. | 0 | AlexanderOc |
My opponent is trying to dismiss my argument. He claims that I knew the true meaning of te question. He has failed to prove this or how this is relevant. He also provides another unsourced definition. Here is my source. http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent is being hypocritcal by using a definition that supports his case while saying I can't do the same. My opponent has not sourced his definition. Until he discredits my source, the definition stands. | Miscellaneous | 2 | Batman-with-no-armor-gadgets-or-weapons-could-defeat-Bruce-Lee-in-a-fist-fight./1/ | 7,577 |
So it seems that my opponent and I have contradicting definitions. There is no correct or incorrect definition. Only an interpreted one. I interpreted the definition as it was defined in my source. Seeing as my opponent did not provide a definition in the begining it was completely within my power to do so. My opponent said that round 4 was conclusion so it was unfair of him to provide a new argument ( him sourcing his definition) Seeing as he broke is own rules, that would mean that he forfeits the debate over. Had fun. Vote Con. | 0 | AlexanderOc |
So it seems that my opponent and I have contradicting definitions. There is no correct or incorrect definition. Only an interpreted one. I interpreted the definition as it was defined in my source. Seeing as my opponent did not provide a definition in the begining it was completely within my power to do so. My opponent said that round 4 was conclusion so it was unfair of him to provide a new argument ( him sourcing his definition) Seeing as he broke is own rules, that would mean that he forfeits the debate over. Had fun. Vote Con. | Miscellaneous | 3 | Batman-with-no-armor-gadgets-or-weapons-could-defeat-Bruce-Lee-in-a-fist-fight./1/ | 7,578 |
Call Of Duty, has just way too many people hurting the gaming community, whether it be hackers or overzealous 5 year olds, the game is a cesspool of horrible gamers. The Battlefield community is a peace of art, it makes the players work together for a common objective. Whether that objective be to blow up the enemy base or to capture an objective, it all requires teamwork. Unlike COD (Call Of Duty), you can actually drive/fly vehicle in Battlefield. Also, there are more Easter eggs in Battlefield than in COD by nearly twice as much. The gaming community in Battlefield is a great place to make friends. In my Clan, the Night Stalkers, I have made some of the best friends of my life. | 0 | DYER_B_13 |
Call Of Duty, has just way too many people hurting the gaming community, whether it be hackers or overzealous 5 year olds, the game is a cesspool of horrible gamers. The Battlefield community is a peace of art, it makes the players work together for a common objective. Whether that objective be to blow up the enemy base or to capture an objective, it all requires teamwork. Unlike COD (Call Of Duty), you can actually drive/fly vehicle in Battlefield. Also, there are more Easter eggs in Battlefield than in COD by nearly twice as much. The gaming community in Battlefield is a great place to make friends. In my Clan, the Night Stalkers, I have made some of the best friends of my life. | Games | 0 | Battlefield-is-Better-than-Call-Of-Duty/6/ | 7,608 |
Call of duty has been around longer for the gaming industry, ever since call of duty first came out, it revolutionized the industry, with more players then battlefield, and more intense action, it is the best first person shooter of all time. screw all the battlefield fanboys | 0 | killerkane1818 |
Call of duty has been around longer for the gaming industry, ever since call of duty first came out, it revolutionized the industry, with more players then battlefield, and more intense action, it is the best first person shooter of all time. screw all the battlefield fanboys | Games | 0 | Battlefield-is-Better-than-Call-Of-Duty/6/ | 7,609 |
I believe that in the game series Battlefield with the developers by DICE is a more delevoped and better constructed with all of the factors included game, than of the game series of Call of Duty with the developers like Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Studios . The games I will be using in my debate will be dated back to the first game on Pc and Mac Battlefield 1942 to the newest instalment Battlefield 4. You can do the same with the first Call of Duty game to the newest, Ghosts . This debate will be 4 rounds long so my opponent must be up to the challange. My opposer may start first. My debate will be split up into 3 topics. Con may have the same plan if wished. #1.Realism #2.Combat/Wepons #3.Terrane and vehicles P.S : Retaliation is adviced and may the best debator win. | 0 | TheSupremeDebater |
I believe that in the game series Battlefield with the developers by DICE is a more delevoped and better constructed with all of the factors included game, than of the game series of Call of Duty with the developers like Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Studios . The games I will be using in my debate will be dated back to the first game on Pc and Mac Battlefield 1942 to the newest instalment Battlefield 4. You can do the same with the first Call of Duty game to the newest, Ghosts . This debate will be 4 rounds long so my opponent must be up to the challange. My opposer may start first. My debate will be split up into 3 topics. Con may have the same plan if wished. #1.Realism #2.Combat/Wepons #3.Terrane and vehicles P.S : Retaliation is adviced and may the best debator win. | Entertainment | 0 | Battlefield-is-a-better-game-series-than-Call-of-Duty/1/ | 7,610 |
I would also like to thank mrsatan for participating in the debate I made and good luck to your 4 rounds. Both of these series are very sophisticated in many ways throughout quality, campaign and multiplayer . Firstly, I would like to say that both games are basically same type first-person shooter and I do know that they are changing it up with thier newer games in my opinion neither are really any better in the actual game play. I would also like to say that I have personally played most of the Call of Duty games out there instead of the newer installments. Even though Call of Duty is coming out with content in thier games I mostly think they are just changing the names of guns and adding stuff thats already used in the past and putting it into thier to the mutiplaplayer because it is more futuristic. Thats why I like battlefield it just stay classic. The only thing that believe is really changing is the campaign because of thier new games like Call of Duty Ghosts and Black Ops 2. But think about this, I do know that Call of Duty and Battlefield achieve thier goal by entertaining thier fans based on thier preference. I basically have the same opinion as you I'm just saying that Battlefield have a way more vast content in thier games than Call of Duty and in my opinon makes it better in many ways. Anyways there would be no point in this debate if our own personal opinions weren't talked about these topics. So I would 1st like to talk about it's realism: Now this is an opnion of a army squad leader on Battlefield's present game BF3 . "Having been a squad leader in the Army, I know first hand about the look, feel and sound of battle. I recently had the opportunity to preview Battlefield 3 and let me tell you that what I saw and heard sent shivers down my spine. The sound alone is almost dead on. I say almost in that BF3 in its current form doesn't quite have the realistic timing of the sound nailed quite yet, but it's very close. You see in most games a grenade goes off near by and you instantly hear the explosion sound effect. Same with gun fire. The sound is usually instantly triggered after the gun is fired. However in reality, sound takes a moment to travel to you. You'll hear the crack of a bullet and almost a moment later the effect of the bullet hitting it's target. It seems minor but it would amp up the realism for any soldier who's ever held a weapon." "Graphically, BF3 is absolutely mind blowing. D.I.C.E is using a newly created engine called Frostbite 2.0. This allows for incredible visual fidelity unlike anything we've ever seen before. Soft shadows, realistic lighting, day and night cycles and god rays are all prevalent through out. What will truly set Battlefield 3 apart from its competitors is the destructable environments." By: William Countiss I would also like to add that since thier first instalments Call of duty and Battlefield featured vehicles, wepons, campaign, mutiplayer and gameplay to the same extent but I believe that from the start Battlefield had mostly added destructable environments which makes it more real same with it's different mutiplayer objectives like CTF which generally has a more co-operative focus than previous games of this nature, as it is not only important to kill the opposition but to also hold certain "control points" around the map. Capturing control points allows the team to reinforce itself by enabling players and vehicles to spawn in a given area. Which is almost like you being in the army yourself. To thier newer games with a much better graphic engine (Frostbite 2.0) that is better developed then the one for the Call of Duty franchise. I mean just look at the graphics of thier new game Plus they have always had a more advanced weapon system and how they actually have a health meter then just recharging thier health out of nowhere. Also in thier newest game you can have fully destructable building in multiplayer. My last example would be the factions of enemys or allies in the Battlefield series more recently are more present and more believable like it could actually happen at any moment compared to the militia's and groups that haven't even been introduced into society yet made by Call of Duty. Referances: <URL>... <URL>... (series) <URL>... | 0 | TheSupremeDebater |
I would also like to thank mrsatan for participating in the debate I made and good luck to your 4 rounds. Both of these series are very sophisticated in many ways throughout quality, campaign and multiplayer . Firstly, I would like to say that both games are basically same type first-person shooter and I do know that they are changing it up with thier newer games in my opinion neither are really any better in the actual game play. I would also like to say that I have personally played most of the Call of Duty games out there instead of the newer installments. Even though Call of Duty is coming out with content in thier games I mostly think they are just changing the names of guns and adding stuff thats already used in the past and putting it into thier to the mutiplaplayer because it is more futuristic. Thats why I like battlefield it just stay classic. The only thing that believe is really changing is the campaign because of thier new games like Call of Duty Ghosts and Black Ops 2. But think about this, I do know that Call of Duty and Battlefield achieve thier goal by entertaining thier fans based on thier preference. I basically have the same opinion as you I'm just saying that Battlefield have a way more vast content in thier games than Call of Duty and in my opinon makes it better in many ways. Anyways there would be no point in this debate if our own personal opinions weren't talked about these topics. So I would 1st like to talk about it's realism: Now this is an opnion of a army squad leader on Battlefield's present game BF3 .
"Having been a squad leader in the Army, I know first hand about the look, feel and sound of battle. I recently had the opportunity to preview Battlefield 3 and let me tell you that what I saw and heard sent shivers down my spine. The sound alone is almost dead on. I say almost in that BF3 in its current form doesn’t quite have the realistic timing of the sound nailed quite yet, but it’s very close. You see in most games a grenade goes off near by and you instantly hear the explosion sound effect. Same with gun fire. The sound is usually instantly triggered after the gun is fired. However in reality, sound takes a moment to travel to you. You’ll hear the crack of a bullet and almost a moment later the effect of the bullet hitting it’s target. It seems minor but it would amp up the realism for any soldier who’s ever held a weapon." "Graphically, BF3 is absolutely mind blowing. D.I.C.E is using a newly created engine called Frostbite 2.0. This allows for incredible visual fidelity unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. Soft shadows, realistic lighting, day and night cycles and god rays are all prevalent through out. What will truly set Battlefield 3 apart from its competitors is the destructable environments." By: William Countiss I would also like to add that since thier first instalments Call of duty and Battlefield featured vehicles, wepons, campaign, mutiplayer and gameplay to the same extent but I believe that from the start Battlefield had mostly added destructable environments which makes it more real same with it's different mutiplayer objectives like CTF which generally has a more co-operative focus than previous games of this nature, as it is not only important to kill the opposition but to also hold certain "control points" around the map. Capturing control points allows the team to reinforce itself by enabling players and vehicles to spawn in a given area. Which is almost like you being in the army yourself. To thier newer games with a much better graphic engine (Frostbite 2.0) that is better developed then the one for the Call of Duty franchise. I mean just look at the graphics of thier new game Plus they have always had a more advanced weapon system and how they actually have a health meter then just recharging thier health out of nowhere. Also in thier newest game you can have fully destructable building in multiplayer. My last example would be the factions of enemys or allies in the Battlefield series more recently are more present and more believable like it could actually happen at any moment compared to the militia's and groups that haven't even been introduced into society yet made by Call of Duty. Referances: http://www.eyeballistic.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... (series) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
| Entertainment | 1 | Battlefield-is-a-better-game-series-than-Call-of-Duty/1/ | 7,611 |
Retaliation: Campaign - Yes, I do realize that you may not have a preference for any campaign in either two game series, but out of the two I believe that Call Of Duty take a more direct focus at the characters point of view like it were a story in a book. In Battlefield I know that it takes it story and puts a lot of emotion into what you do, like the characters in Battlefield Bad-Company 1&2 tells a story between a special team of soilders protecting the world from nuclear destruction, and in the newer games feature stuff that you can't do in multiplayer or co-op it makes you get that sense of feeling that you're in a full out war, and I'm not saying that the Call of Duty franchise (which I do like equally) does it in a poorer way. Realism - In some gamers view's I think one of the big points is a games graphics atleast a lot of critic's focus on that as one of the topics. So personally I think it's one of the factors that should be included into Battlefield's "realism". Drawback #1: If you would rather have a first person game as just a whole bunch of players shooting guns on a small map I don't think that would be the definition of a war like both games are suppost to be. Battlefield however has bigger maps that have vehicles to counter-act that feature like you said. But you can't con that fact that Battlefield's vision is to create a euphoria of action based common warfare. The spawning on teamates might create problems if you spawn right as you teamate is being shot down hence you dying but it is better than responding at the base plus it puts you usually right where the action is so there isn't any lollygaging, so I also don't view it a big issue concerning the multiplayer. Drawback #2: In Battlefield, with the scenario that you had thought up in your mind you could do everything that you stated plus use special wepons or vehicles to give you way more options on how you want to take down those enemys in a more realistic way. Theres no way that Call of Duty gives you more tactical advantages or equal to Battlefield's multiplayer. Not all players just blow up buildings for the hell of it, it's either because they're trolls or experiance junkie. Most expert player don't play dirty and anyways it takes 17000 score for unlock. Gameplay - Even though Battlefield 3 only has 5 multiplayer modes including conquest assault, team deathmatch, squad deathmatch, rush, and co-op it expands on each one to make it's gameplay superior to Call of Duty and including the other games has way more modes almost equaling Call of Duty's list. Graphics - I do realize that graphics come in second when it comes to gameplay, but Battlefield 3's graphics are better than any of Call of Duty's games execpt Ghosts because I haven't seen it. I agree screenshots do no justice so here is some gameplay from Battlefield 4: Second topic combat and weapons . Assault Rifles AEK-971 AK-74M AN-94 F2000 G3A3 KH2002 M16A3 M16A4 M416 Back to Karkand FAMAS L85A2 Close Quarters AUG A3 SCAR-L] Carbines A-91 AKS-74u G36C M4A1 SCAR H SG553 Back to Karkand G53 QBZ-95B Close Quarters ACW-R MTAR-21 Hand Guns .44 Magnum 93R G17C G18 M9 M1911 MP412 REX MP443 Light Machine Guns M27 IAR M240B M249 M60E4 PKP Pecheneg RPK-74M Type 88 LMG Back to Karkand MG36 QBB-95 Close Quarters L86A2 LSAT Personal Defense Weapons AS VAL MP7 P90 PDW-R PP-2000 UMP-45 Back to Karkand PP-19 Close Quarters M5K Rocket Launchers FIM-92 Stinger RPG-7V2 SA-18 IGLA SMAW FGM-148 JAVELIN Shotguns 870MCS DAO-12 M1014 SAIGA-12K USAS-12 Back to Karkand MK3A1 Close Quarters SPAS-12 Sniper / Battle / Marksman Rifles AS VAL M39 EMR M40A5 M82A3 M98B MK11 MOD 0 SKS SVD SV98 Back to Karkand L96 QBU-88 Close Quarters JNG-90 M417 Including the gadgets you unlock throughout score. I believe the mass ammounts of that Battlefield holds makes the game a better wargame plus the combat with the wepons and how it takes in player opinion into the game to make it the ultimate war. Referances: <URL>... <URL>... ; <URL>... | 0 | TheSupremeDebater |
Retaliation: Campaign - Yes, I do realize that you may not have a preference for any campaign in either two game series, but out of the two I believe that Call Of Duty take a more direct focus at the characters point of view like it were a story in a book. In Battlefield I know that it takes it story and puts a lot of emotion into what you do, like the characters in Battlefield Bad-Company 1&2 tells a story between a special team of soilders protecting the world from nuclear destruction, and in the newer games feature stuff that you can't do in multiplayer or co-op it makes you get that sense of feeling that you're in a full out war, and I'm not saying that the Call of Duty franchise (which I do like equally) does it in a poorer way. Realism - In some gamers view's I think one of the big points is a games graphics atleast a lot of critic's focus on that as one of the topics. So personally I think it's one of the factors that should be included into Battlefield's "realism". Drawback #1: If you would rather have a first person game as just a whole bunch of players shooting guns on a small map I don't think that would be the definition of a war like both games are suppost to be. Battlefield however has bigger maps that have vehicles to counter-act that feature like you said. But you can't con that fact that Battlefield's vision is to create a euphoria of action based common warfare. The spawning on teamates might create problems if you spawn right as you teamate is being shot down hence you dying but it is better than responding at the base plus it puts you usually right where the action is so there isn't any lollygaging, so I also don't view it a big issue concerning the multiplayer. Drawback #2: In Battlefield, with the scenario that you had thought up in your mind you could do everything that you stated plus use special wepons or vehicles to give you way more options on how you want to take down those enemys in a more realistic way. Theres no way that Call of Duty gives you more tactical advantages or equal to Battlefield's multiplayer. Not all players just blow up buildings for the hell of it, it's either because they're trolls or experiance junkie. Most expert player don't play dirty and anyways it takes 17000 score for unlock. Gameplay - Even though Battlefield 3 only has 5 multiplayer modes including conquest assault, team deathmatch, squad deathmatch, rush, and co-op it expands on each one to make it's gameplay superior to Call of Duty and including the other games has way more modes almost equaling Call of Duty's list. Graphics - I do realize that graphics come in second when it comes to gameplay, but Battlefield 3's graphics are better than any of Call of Duty's games execpt Ghosts because I haven't seen it. I agree screenshots do no justice so here is some gameplay from Battlefield 4: Second topic combat and weapons . Assault Rifles
AEK-971
AK-74M
AN-94
F2000
G3A3
KH2002
M16A3
M16A4
M416
Back to Karkand
FAMAS
L85A2
Close Quarters
AUG A3
SCAR-L]
Carbines
A-91
AKS-74u
G36C
M4A1
SCAR H
SG553
Back to Karkand
G53
QBZ-95B
Close Quarters
ACW-R
MTAR-21
Hand Guns
.44 Magnum
93R
G17C
G18
M9
M1911
MP412 REX
MP443
Light Machine Guns
M27 IAR
M240B
M249
M60E4
PKP Pecheneg
RPK-74M
Type 88 LMG
Back to Karkand
MG36
QBB-95
Close Quarters
L86A2
LSAT
Personal Defense Weapons
AS VAL
MP7
P90
PDW-R
PP-2000
UMP-45
Back to Karkand
PP-19
Close Quarters
M5K
Rocket Launchers
FIM-92 Stinger
RPG-7V2
SA-18 IGLA
SMAW
FGM-148 JAVELIN
Shotguns
870MCS
DAO-12
M1014
SAIGA-12K
USAS-12
Back to Karkand
MK3A1
Close Quarters
SPAS-12
Sniper / Battle / Marksman Rifles
AS VAL
M39 EMR
M40A5
M82A3
M98B
MK11 MOD 0
SKS
SVD
SV98
Back to Karkand
L96
QBU-88
Close Quarters
JNG-90
M417
Including the gadgets you unlock throughout score. I believe the mass ammounts of that Battlefield holds makes the game a better wargame plus the combat with the wepons and how it takes in player opinion into the game to make it the ultimate war. Referances: http://ca.ign.com... http://www.gamefaqs.com... ; http://bf3blog.com...
| Entertainment | 2 | Battlefield-is-a-better-game-series-than-Call-of-Duty/1/ | 7,612 |
I would like to thank TheSupremeDebator for issuing this challenge, as both games are of excellent quality, and I wish him luck in debating his side. First off, I'll say that I am a fan of the Call of Duty series, and consider those games more enjoyable than the ones I have played in the Battlefield series. Despite that, I do not feel either game can truly be considered better than the other, at least not beyond personal preference. Consider this: - For any product to be considered better than an alternative product, it must achieve its goal to a higher degree. - The goal of any game is to provide entertainment. - Whether or not a person finds a game to be entertaining is based on their individual opinion. - To determine the degree to which a game entertains, one would have to know all of these opinions. - Without polling the entire gaming community, one could not know the degree a game entertains. - I am part of the gaming community and have not had my opinion included in such a poll, for any game. - No one knows the degree to which any game entertains. - No game can truly be considered better than any other game. - Therefore, Battlefield games cannot be considered better than Call of Duty games. | 0 | mrsatan |
I would like to thank TheSupremeDebator for issuing this challenge, as both games are of excellent quality, and I wish him luck in debating his side.
First off, I'll say that I am a fan of the Call of Duty series, and consider those games more enjoyable than the ones I have played in the Battlefield series. Despite that, I do not feel either game can truly be considered better than the other, at least not beyond personal preference.
Consider this:
- For any product to be considered better than an alternative product, it must achieve its goal to a higher degree.
- The goal of any game is to provide entertainment.
- Whether or not a person finds a game to be entertaining is based on their individual opinion.
- To determine the degree to which a game entertains, one would have to know all of these opinions.
- Without polling the entire gaming community, one could not know the degree a game entertains.
- I am part of the gaming community and have not had my opinion included in such a poll, for any game.
- No one knows the degree to which any game entertains.
- No game can truly be considered better than any other game.
- Therefore, Battlefield games cannot be considered better than Call of Duty games. | Entertainment | 0 | Battlefield-is-a-better-game-series-than-Call-of-Duty/1/ | 7,613 |
Well, I'd be happy to share the reasons I prefer Call of Duty, but first I suppose I should clarify which games in each series I've actually played. Call of Duty: I've played five of the nine games currently available. I started with World at War (the fifth release), and each of the four released after that. I've completed all of the single player campaigns, excluding Black Ops 2, the most recent release. Battlefield: I've only played Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3. I didn't complete either single player campaign, though I did play through some of each. I didn't find the campaigns in Battlefield to be very engaging, and wasn't able to get sucked into them at all. I didn't much care for the campaigns in Call of Duty, either. There were only two reasons I even played through them entirely. One was putting the difficulty on veteran to hone my skills. The other was for achievements. Because of this, I will focus my attention on the multiplayer aspect, as that's the only place I find any real enjoyment in either. Both games have pros and cons to the multiplayer, and the gameplay in each is vastly different, but I'll get to that a little bit further on. Realism For now, I'll turn my attention to the realism aspect. I won't argue against Battlefield being more realistic. I agree completely that it is, but I don't agree that it really matters. Yes, the games are both set in the real world, but that doesn't mean they have to be completely real, or that having more realistic integrity makes them better. I have no doubt that realism is important to many people. I also have no doubt that to many people, such as myself, that realism is highly unimportant. That said, there are many contributing factors to why it's more realistic, but since the destructible environment is probably the biggest of those factors, I'll concentrate on that. It is most certainly an amazing feature that, as far as I know, isn't in any other game. That's not to say it doesn't have drawbacks to it, though: Drawback #1: To incorporate such a feature, the maps have to be much larger than they otherwise would. This makes for a slower paced game, as it takes longer to get to the action if you're killed. Well, the multiplayer in Battlefield has vehicles, and this naturally counters that problem, at least somewhat. It is further countered by allowing players to spawn at a teammates location, or in a vehicle with them. At this point, you might be asking yourself, "Well, what's the problem then?" The problem with it, for me at least, is that one of the reasons I prefer Call of Duty is because it doesn't have player controlled vehicles in it's multiplayer. It originally did, but they've since been phased out of it completely. World at War had some maps with a few tanks on them, and the games after that had nothing. Battlefield has a plethora of vehicles on the majority of its maps, ranging from ATV's and jet skis, to helicopters and jets. This makes it less of a first person shooter, and more of a full-on war game. While this may be a good thing to some people, it's not what I'm looking for. The spawning on teammates also brings problems, as sometimes players will spawn behind nearby enemies. It makes it hard to keep a sense of any sort of a frontline, and essentially impossible to use tactics to cover your teams flanks. For me, this is an even bigger problem than the vehicles. Drawback #2: In Call of Duty, if you have a couple snipers on a roof, and a couple guys guys in the building protecting them, you have three choices. You can try and out-snipe the snipers, you can do a tactical sweep on the protectors, and come at the snipers close range, or you can risk spreading your team thin and try both at once. In any case, it requires you to have more skill than the other player. If I die because the other player has more skill, I can accept that. In Battlefield, however, you have that fourth option, you can just blow up the building. But blowing up buildings doesn't take skill. You just need some explosives. Take out a few sections of the base walls, and the whole thing comes crashing down. For me, this hurts the game more than helping it. Again, I can only speak for myself, and this may not hold true for other players. Gameplay As I said earlier, I find the gameplay between the two series to be vastly different. BOTH games have game modes such as Capture the Flag. Considering Pro has played both, I'm not sure why he thinks it's only in Battlefield. I'll leave it to Pro to include the different modes included in Battlefield, as he's played them more than I have. These require varying levels teamwork to be successful, but all of them benefit from it (excluding Free-For-All, for obvious reasons). The modes that are consistently in Call of Duty [1] are as follows: - Team Deathmatch - Mercenary Team Deathmatch - Free-For-All - Capture the Flag - Domination - Headquarters - Ground War - Search and Destroy Many of these are available in hardcore (limited HUD, no health regeneration, no mini-map) as well as core. I prefer to play either Team Deathmatch, Domination, Ground War, or Search and Destroy so I'll talk about those for a moment. - Team Deathmatch is simple. You just kill people. First team to get 75 kills wins. - Domination is a little more complicated, and the more coordinated and tactical tam will generally win. There are three domination areas, and a team gets a point a second for each area it has control of. You need to work as a team in this in order to keep the control of captured areas, while simultaneously capturing the areas controlled by the opposing team. First team to 200 points wins. - Ground War is just a mixed playlist of the Domination and Team Deathmatch modes, but with teams of 9 instead of teams of 6. - Search and Destroy is the most tactically demanding game mode there is, no holds bar. It's teams of up to 6, and consists of up to 7 rounds, with each player getting one life per round. One team tries to plant a bomb at one of two targets within a certain time limit. Each team gets three rounds to attack, and three rounds to defend, with the tie breaking round being random. Attackers win a round when the bomb is planted and detonated, or the defenders are all killed. Defenders win a round when time runs out, or the attackers are all killed. With only one life per round, players have to be very tactical. Winning consistently in this does not happen without strong tactics and teamwork. First team to win 4 rounds wins the game. Besides the standard game modes, Treyarchs games (World at War, Black Ops 1 & 2) also include the Zombies game mode [2]. This mode can be played both single player, and co-operatively with up to 4 players. The objective is to survive round after round of attack by the zombie horde. With each round, zombies become harder to kill, and more zombies attack. This mode, whether you're playing with a few friends, or trying to survive on your own, can be extremely fun and challenging. Graphics And, of course, the graphics. Better graphics most definitely enhance a games quality. But, they also come second to good gameplay, always. While I agree that Battlefield 4 looks amazing, so does every other next gen game I've seen footage for, including Call of Duty: Ghosts. Since screenshots can never do a games graphics justice, here is a link to gameplay footage for Call of Duty: Ghosts <URL>... [1] Call of Duty, Game Mode Details - <URL>... [2] Zombies Game Mode Details - <URL>... (mode) [3] General Call of Duty Information - <URL>... (series) [4] General Battlefield Information - <URL>... (series) | 0 | mrsatan |
Well, I'd be happy to share the reasons I prefer Call of Duty, but first I suppose I should clarify which games in each series I've actually played. Call of Duty: I've played five of the nine games currently available. I started with World at War (the fifth release), and each of the four released after that. I've completed all of the single player campaigns, excluding Black Ops 2, the most recent release. Battlefield: I've only played Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3. I didn't complete either single player campaign, though I did play through some of each. I didn't find the campaigns in Battlefield to be very engaging, and wasn't able to get sucked into them at all. I didn't much care for the campaigns in Call of Duty, either. There were only two reasons I even played through them entirely. One was putting the difficulty on veteran to hone my skills. The other was for achievements. Because of this, I will focus my attention on the multiplayer aspect, as that's the only place I find any real enjoyment in either. Both games have pros and cons to the multiplayer, and the gameplay in each is vastly different, but I'll get to that a little bit further on. Realism For now, I'll turn my attention to the realism aspect. I won't argue against Battlefield being more realistic. I agree completely that it is, but I don't agree that it really matters. Yes, the games are both set in the real world, but that doesn't mean they have to be completely real, or that having more realistic integrity makes them better. I have no doubt that realism is important to many people. I also have no doubt that to many people, such as myself, that realism is highly unimportant. That said, there are many contributing factors to why it's more realistic, but since the destructible environment is probably the biggest of those factors, I'll concentrate on that. It is most certainly an amazing feature that, as far as I know, isn't in any other game. That's not to say it doesn't have drawbacks to it, though: Drawback #1: To incorporate such a feature, the maps have to be much larger than they otherwise would. This makes for a slower paced game, as it takes longer to get to the action if you're killed. Well, the multiplayer in Battlefield has vehicles, and this naturally counters that problem, at least somewhat. It is further countered by allowing players to spawn at a teammates location, or in a vehicle with them. At this point, you might be asking yourself, "Well, what's the problem then?" The problem with it, for me at least, is that one of the reasons I prefer Call of Duty is because it doesn't have player controlled vehicles in it's multiplayer. It originally did, but they've since been phased out of it completely. World at War had some maps with a few tanks on them, and the games after that had nothing. Battlefield has a plethora of vehicles on the majority of its maps, ranging from ATV's and jet skis, to helicopters and jets. This makes it less of a first person shooter, and more of a full-on war game. While this may be a good thing to some people, it's not what I'm looking for. The spawning on teammates also brings problems, as sometimes players will spawn behind nearby enemies. It makes it hard to keep a sense of any sort of a frontline, and essentially impossible to use tactics to cover your teams flanks. For me, this is an even bigger problem than the vehicles. Drawback #2: In Call of Duty, if you have a couple snipers on a roof, and a couple guys guys in the building protecting them, you have three choices. You can try and out-snipe the snipers, you can do a tactical sweep on the protectors, and come at the snipers close range, or you can risk spreading your team thin and try both at once. In any case, it requires you to have more skill than the other player. If I die because the other player has more skill, I can accept that. In Battlefield, however, you have that fourth option, you can just blow up the building. But blowing up buildings doesn't take skill. You just need some explosives. Take out a few sections of the base walls, and the whole thing comes crashing down. For me, this hurts the game more than helping it. Again, I can only speak for myself, and this may not hold true for other players. Gameplay As I said earlier, I find the gameplay between the two series to be vastly different. BOTH games have game modes such as Capture the Flag. Considering Pro has played both, I'm not sure why he thinks it's only in Battlefield. I'll leave it to Pro to include the different modes included in Battlefield, as he's played them more than I have. These require varying levels teamwork to be successful, but all of them benefit from it (excluding Free-For-All, for obvious reasons). The modes that are consistently in Call of Duty [1] are as follows: - Team Deathmatch - Mercenary Team Deathmatch - Free-For-All - Capture the Flag - Domination - Headquarters - Ground War - Search and Destroy Many of these are available in hardcore (limited HUD, no health regeneration, no mini-map) as well as core. I prefer to play either Team Deathmatch, Domination, Ground War, or Search and Destroy so I'll talk about those for a moment. - Team Deathmatch is simple. You just kill people. First team to get 75 kills wins. - Domination is a little more complicated, and the more coordinated and tactical tam will generally win. There are three domination areas, and a team gets a point a second for each area it has control of. You need to work as a team in this in order to keep the control of captured areas, while simultaneously capturing the areas controlled by the opposing team. First team to 200 points wins. - Ground War is just a mixed playlist of the Domination and Team Deathmatch modes, but with teams of 9 instead of teams of 6. - Search and Destroy is the most tactically demanding game mode there is, no holds bar. It's teams of up to 6, and consists of up to 7 rounds, with each player getting one life per round. One team tries to plant a bomb at one of two targets within a certain time limit. Each team gets three rounds to attack, and three rounds to defend, with the tie breaking round being random. Attackers win a round when the bomb is planted and detonated, or the defenders are all killed. Defenders win a round when time runs out, or the attackers are all killed. With only one life per round, players have to be very tactical. Winning consistently in this does not happen without strong tactics and teamwork. First team to win 4 rounds wins the game. Besides the standard game modes, Treyarchs games (World at War, Black Ops 1 & 2) also include the Zombies game mode [2]. This mode can be played both single player, and co-operatively with up to 4 players. The objective is to survive round after round of attack by the zombie horde. With each round, zombies become harder to kill, and more zombies attack. This mode, whether you're playing with a few friends, or trying to survive on your own, can be extremely fun and challenging. Graphics And, of course, the graphics. Better graphics most definitely enhance a games quality. But, they also come second to good gameplay, always. While I agree that Battlefield 4 looks amazing, so does every other next gen game I've seen footage for, including Call of Duty: Ghosts. Since screenshots can never do a games graphics justice, here is a link to gameplay footage for Call of Duty: Ghosts http://www.callofduty.com... [1] Call of Duty, Game Mode Details - http://callofduty.wikia.com... [2] Zombies Game Mode Details - http://callofduty.wikia.com... (mode) [3] General Call of Duty Information - http://en.wikipedia.org... (series) [4] General Battlefield Information - http://en.wikipedia.org... (series) | Entertainment | 1 | Battlefield-is-a-better-game-series-than-Call-of-Duty/1/ | 7,614 |
Graphics: I'm not sure I agree that Battlefield has better graphics. If they are, it's certainly not by much. I would, however, like to better explain why graphics hold little weight to me personally. The first video game console I ever used was the original NES, and then the Super NES when it was released. Some of the most well-crafted games I have ever played were on those systems. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past may very well be my favorite game of all time. While it was excellent for its time, compared to the graphics of todays games, the 16 bits that it bolstered are nothing. Even so, I still love playing it (gotta love emulators), and other games from that era as well. Don't get me wrong, though. I, of course, love the graphical improvements games have made over the years. In my eyes, they basically rank in as a bonus, rather than a necessity. For instance, I love Minecraft. Graphics are no where near a strong point in it, but the gameplay, along with the nostalgia of playing with legos as a kid, more than makes up for it. Drawback #1: For the map sizes and gameplay, I honestly don't care what the game are supposed to be . All that matters is what they actually are . As I said before, I do like that players have to rely on there skill with a gun to achieve victory, rather than firing explosives from a tank, or firing missiles from a jet. And besides that, Call of Duty does still have the other elements of war through the killstreak/scorestreak systems. AC-130's, assault drones, helicopters, and UAVs/Counter UAVs to name a few. The biggest difference between CoD and Battlefield here is that in CoD, you're rewarded for skillful play with these powerhouse weapons or tactical support. In Battlefield, you can jump in a jet right when you spawn, attack with it until you die, and then wait at the spawnpoint until another one appears. It requires no skill, and I simply don't like that. (Yes, I know, not everybody does this, but I've seen plenty of people do it) As for the spawning, it seems you misunderstood me. I didn't mean dying because you picked a bad time to spawn on a teammate. The problem I had (it's very possible this has since been patched) is that when someone spawns on a teammate, they sometimes spawn behind the players they are trying to kill, rather than right next to the teammate. Enemies magically appearing behind you and killing you gets extremely annoying, quickly. I admit, this MIGHT happen in CoD, but if it does, it's generally because you're team isn't working together, and you're all spread out over the map. Drawback #2: I never said CoD gives you more tactical advantages. Neither game gives you ANY tactical advantages, as no matter which game you're playing, anything your team can do, the enemy team can also do. Of course, not all players blow things up as a primary tactic, but there are still plenty more than I'd like who do, as expert players are certainly not the majority. Gameplay: I wasn't saying CoD has superior gameplay because of those modes. I was simply saying that Battlefield isn't the only one of the two that has multiple modes, and fosters co-operative play. I just prefer the faster paced combat that, in my experience, CoD provides better than Battlefield. Weapons: I'm not sure if your list of weapons is all from one specific battlefield game, or multiple ones. If it's from a single game, while variety is great, 70-some guns seems a little excessive. If it's from multiple games, then I'm not sure why you think that's so much better than CoD. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has 38 guns in total between primaries and sidearms. They are plenty varied, and that's not including the wide array of attachments you can put on the guns, lethal/tactical equipment, or the many different perks you can use to make custom classes that play the way you want them to. Black Ops 2 also takes the class customization to a whole new level with it's pick 10 system. Basically, you have ten points to use, and any guns, attachments, perks, and equipment you want to use each take a point. For example, you can run two primary guns, each with 3 attachments, and take no perks or equipment if you want. Or, you can take six perks and hatchet, and nothing else, and use whatever weapons you find on people you take out. In my opinion, it's an amazing system that takes player preferences into account to an impressive degree. | 0 | mrsatan |
Graphics: I'm not sure I agree that Battlefield has better graphics. If they are, it's certainly not by much. I would, however, like to better explain why graphics hold little weight to me personally. The first video game console I ever used was the original NES, and then the Super NES when it was released. Some of the most well-crafted games I have ever played were on those systems. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past may very well be my favorite game of all time. While it was excellent for its time, compared to the graphics of todays games, the 16 bits that it bolstered are nothing. Even so, I still love playing it (gotta love emulators), and other games from that era as well. Don't get me wrong, though. I, of course, love the graphical improvements games have made over the years. In my eyes, they basically rank in as a bonus, rather than a necessity. For instance, I love Minecraft. Graphics are no where near a strong point in it, but the gameplay, along with the nostalgia of playing with legos as a kid, more than makes up for it. Drawback #1: For the map sizes and gameplay, I honestly don't care what the game are supposed to be . All that matters is what they actually are . As I said before, I do like that players have to rely on there skill with a gun to achieve victory, rather than firing explosives from a tank, or firing missiles from a jet. And besides that, Call of Duty does still have the other elements of war through the killstreak/scorestreak systems. AC-130's, assault drones, helicopters, and UAVs/Counter UAVs to name a few. The biggest difference between CoD and Battlefield here is that in CoD, you're rewarded for skillful play with these powerhouse weapons or tactical support. In Battlefield, you can jump in a jet right when you spawn, attack with it until you die, and then wait at the spawnpoint until another one appears. It requires no skill, and I simply don't like that. (Yes, I know, not everybody does this, but I've seen plenty of people do it) As for the spawning, it seems you misunderstood me. I didn't mean dying because you picked a bad time to spawn on a teammate. The problem I had (it's very possible this has since been patched) is that when someone spawns on a teammate, they sometimes spawn behind the players they are trying to kill, rather than right next to the teammate. Enemies magically appearing behind you and killing you gets extremely annoying, quickly. I admit, this MIGHT happen in CoD, but if it does, it's generally because you're team isn't working together, and you're all spread out over the map. Drawback #2: I never said CoD gives you more tactical advantages. Neither game gives you ANY tactical advantages, as no matter which game you're playing, anything your team can do, the enemy team can also do. Of course, not all players blow things up as a primary tactic, but there are still plenty more than I'd like who do, as expert players are certainly not the majority. Gameplay: I wasn't saying CoD has superior gameplay because of those modes. I was simply saying that Battlefield isn't the only one of the two that has multiple modes, and fosters co-operative play. I just prefer the faster paced combat that, in my experience, CoD provides better than Battlefield. Weapons: I'm not sure if your list of weapons is all from one specific battlefield game, or multiple ones. If it's from a single game, while variety is great, 70-some guns seems a little excessive. If it's from multiple games, then I'm not sure why you think that's so much better than CoD. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has 38 guns in total between primaries and sidearms. They are plenty varied, and that's not including the wide array of attachments you can put on the guns, lethal/tactical equipment, or the many different perks you can use to make custom classes that play the way you want them to. Black Ops 2 also takes the class customization to a whole new level with it's pick 10 system. Basically, you have ten points to use, and any guns, attachments, perks, and equipment you want to use each take a point. For example, you can run two primary guns, each with 3 attachments, and take no perks or equipment if you want. Or, you can take six perks and hatchet, and nothing else, and use whatever weapons you find on people you take out. In my opinion, it's an amazing system that takes player preferences into account to an impressive degree. | Entertainment | 2 | Battlefield-is-a-better-game-series-than-Call-of-Duty/1/ | 7,615 |
In conclusion, while both games have pros and cons, our personal opinions on these two games do not really matter beyond us. As Pro didn't refute my original argument, and in fact agreed with it, the resolution has been negated. I would again like to thank TheSupremeDebater for issuing this challenge, and to thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate. I hope it was enjoyable for everyone. | 0 | mrsatan |
In conclusion, while both games have pros and cons, our personal opinions on these two games do not really matter beyond us. As Pro didn't refute my original argument, and in fact agreed with it, the resolution has been negated.
I would again like to thank TheSupremeDebater for issuing this challenge, and to thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate. I hope it was enjoyable for everyone. | Entertainment | 3 | Battlefield-is-a-better-game-series-than-Call-of-Duty/1/ | 7,616 |
Battlefield and COD might be two different things and you cannot compare it, but you really can. They are two really great FPS games that are strangely hated and argued against. BUT I want to see what you think. Battlefield, IMO, always dominates in arguments. EVERYONE votes for it. (Note: If you just cry or insult the other game, you will be ignored). I have more experience playing with COD as it was my first FPS, and what game you really play first tends to always be your favorite. Rarely anyone switches games when they had a blast of it at the start and LOVED it. So, I vote for COD, even though it has '10 year old, annoying, swearing kids' you can just TOGGLE MUTE them and keep on playing. Hackers? Join a new server. The problems are pretty easy to fix. I bought Battlefield 4, and I say its a great FPS. The campaign never ticked me off as much as the Modern Warfare Trilogy (My FAVORITE Cod) or GHOSTS, but the multiplayer was slightly better, though I think I enjoy more fast-paced gaming, BF4 team deathmatch doesn't feel like C.O.D though. It feels the same as 'Conquest'. So- what do you think? | 0 | IceEreFlyX |
Battlefield and COD might be two different things and you cannot compare it, but you really can. They are two really great FPS games that are strangely hated and argued against. BUT I want to see what you think. Battlefield, IMO, always dominates in arguments. EVERYONE votes for it. (Note: If you just cry or insult the other game, you will be ignored). I have more experience playing with COD as it was my first FPS, and what game you really play first tends to always be your favorite. Rarely anyone switches games when they had a blast of it at the start and LOVED it.
So, I vote for COD, even though it has '10 year old, annoying, swearing kids' you can just TOGGLE MUTE them and keep on playing. Hackers? Join a new server. The problems are pretty easy to fix. I bought Battlefield 4, and I say its a great FPS. The campaign never ticked me off as much as the Modern Warfare Trilogy (My FAVORITE Cod) or GHOSTS, but the multiplayer was slightly better, though I think I enjoy more fast-paced gaming, BF4 team deathmatch doesn't feel like C.O.D though. It feels the same as 'Conquest'.
So- what do you think? | Technology | 0 | Battlefield-v.s-Call-of-Duty/1/ | 7,640 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.