All debates

To clear things up, I am for censorship in this case-scenario. Noticed some confusion in the comments.

No description has been provided

Just a fun little history debate to give me an excuse to talk about nerdy history stuff Disclaimer: Please note the use of the word "biggest" in the title. I've learned my lesson, and I will not be using ambiguous terms like "main".

No description has been provided

if u want adjustments, dm me. (っ◔◡◔)っ 🍔

No description has been provided

I saw an interesting debate on here I did not see in time to accept, so I decided to just create the debate myself (Again, since this is not my original idea). I will be arguing Pro- Which means that I will be arguing the White privilege does exist and impacts minorities in a negative way, especially inside the US (I would argue that it affects Black people the most). Con will argue that White privilege does not exist in the US.

No description has been provided

Can both be true, or do they clash

No description has been provided

This debate will be does racism effect the US in a major way. With the major shift in arguments between political groups, I think this debate will be interesting. I am arguing the Pro, which means that I will be arguing that racism affects the US in a major way that is detrimental to minority groups. I will be looking for an opponent to argue the opposite. The response periods will be one week due to me working multiple jobs, which means my opponent will have plenty of time to respond.

I am of the opinion that white privilege is not a thing; I don’t think the American system inherently advantages whites over minorities. Con’s argument would be that white privilege does exist, and that American society does inherently advantage whites over minorities.

I will prove that Zelensky is one of the most successful presidents of Ukraine.

Use any economic indicator you want. I won't provide a metric for "negative economic effect" because I leave that up to the debater. You can choose your own metric, but you will need to defend why it is a better metric than the ones I will use. Metrics should be used up to the date when this debate is accepted. When I say "so far" I mean up to the time when someone accepts this challenge.

I am of the opinion that the whole philosophy of “when a first-world country makes itself richer, it naturally impoverishes other countries” is a stupid idea. It’s just not true. But of course, I am open to hear your side in a civilized debate…