No one is going to take a debate over such an indefensible topic. I recommend you change it to something debatable, such as "Should the US allow illegal immigrants to become naturalized citizens?"
As interesting a counterargument that would be, I think I'd have a hard time justifying murder. However, I do think I have a very good argument for why abortion is not murder.
I disagree - not only did I prove that the Bible has no explicit (or sufficient implicit) evidence to prove that Christmas shouldn't be celebrated, I also established that your definition of "Bible believer" is liable to goalpost-moving.
Yea, I did some research on that after accepting this topic. As long as I can prove that there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly condemns the practice of Christmas, I win the debate.
I experimented with adding some bold text for emphasis - I'm just going to claim that in the preview, it looked better than this black-and-white chequered mess.
IMO I think this debate falls under public policy, so if I make a convincing case that my opponent's plan is impractical, it is a valid argument. I will, of course, also argue why fundamentally it's wrong to ban flag desecration. Thanks for the feedback.
Allowed: Showing that the death penalty does deter crime, which happens to rebut one of my arguments.
Probably not allowed (unless you can convince the voters): Refuting my arguments point-by-point in the first round.
I'm somewhat confused by your vote - did you mix up PRO and CON somewhere?
No one is going to take a debate over such an indefensible topic. I recommend you change it to something debatable, such as "Should the US allow illegal immigrants to become naturalized citizens?"
Yes, I've heard of that - it's one of the things that inspired my argument, along with oromagi vs vici a few months ago.
Bump, it's literally a full forfeit, free vote for yall's stats
What is the debate even about? Your title is a subject, not a resolution.
Oh dear... what happened while I was at school?
Sorry for the slightly delayed argument - will have it up by tmrw morning hopefully
I arrived a bit late for this, but would you be willing to do a debate on the same topic with me?
This is a pretty interesting debate, would you be willing to debate the same topic with me later?
Bump, FF by opp - pls vote
As interesting a counterargument that would be, I think I'd have a hard time justifying murder. However, I do think I have a very good argument for why abortion is not murder.
bump, any votes?
Thanks!
Non-sequitur and strawman - but the debate is over anyway, so I'll drop it.
Come debate me then :3
I disagree - not only did I prove that the Bible has no explicit (or sufficient implicit) evidence to prove that Christmas shouldn't be celebrated, I also established that your definition of "Bible believer" is liable to goalpost-moving.
Oke, I'll check that out - ty for the help.
Yea, I did some research on that after accepting this topic. As long as I can prove that there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly condemns the practice of Christmas, I win the debate.
I experimented with adding some bold text for emphasis - I'm just going to claim that in the preview, it looked better than this black-and-white chequered mess.
IMO I think this debate falls under public policy, so if I make a convincing case that my opponent's plan is impractical, it is a valid argument. I will, of course, also argue why fundamentally it's wrong to ban flag desecration. Thanks for the feedback.
I am a bit busy tonight and won't be able to respond until tmrw - apologies for the delay.
This is a perfect example of why having definitions in the description is important - very impressed by your strategy.
For example:
Allowed: Showing that the death penalty does deter crime, which happens to rebut one of my arguments.
Probably not allowed (unless you can convince the voters): Refuting my arguments point-by-point in the first round.
The resolution, as it's currently worded, is extremely vague - few people will take a debate that's going to be 90% arguing about definitions.
Yes, I apologize for not clarifying the "no rebuttals in R1" rule. Rebuttals are allowed so long as they are mainly a constructive argument.