Total debates: 35
For any changes to the parameters. Queries about definition. Or additional terms in the description, please consult the comments section.
For any changes to the parameters. Queries about definition. Or additional terms in the description, please consult the comments section.
For any changes to the parameters. Queries about definition. Or additional terms in the description, please consult the comments section.
No description has been provided
No description has been provided
I0_0I = Pro life Opponent = Pro Choice
No description has been provided
No description has been provided
No description has been provided
Exodus is not a myth, but a real historical event.
Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con
No description has been provided
I will be arguing as pro for this debate, that guns are anti-social, and the US need to amend and tighten gun laws, with existing British gun laws being the best model to base the amendments upon.
No description has been provided
I am pro for this argument, that William De Brus, son of Robert De Brus, "is" on the Falkirk rolls
Jesus completely fully died and rose (gaining life) again from the dead.
I will be arguing that lie detector tests are unreliable
I will be arguing as pro for this argument, and that ancient aliens, is bunk
I will be arguing that Pele is truly the GOAT (serious contenders only/no time wasters)
I argue as pro, for this debate, and that calling David Icke a lunatic is not derogatory. He needs our support. And making him realise what a Lunatic and dangerous man he is, might be the only way to help stop his mad ramblings.
I will be defending my client, Pele, against modern criticism from Maradonites, Messiaens and Ronaldoists.
I will be arguing for Taoism, and my opponent will be arguing for Confucianism. Both will be arguing which school of thought is more beneficial to humanity in general.
I will be arguing that my personal non-theistic stance can also reject Atheism.
I am going to argue that "most" contemporary mainstream scientists believe personhood begins at the point of fertilization
No description has been provided
No description has been provided
I will be arguing as Pro. Please make sure and read my new and evolving terms and conditions (advisories) before accepting the debate. I am no longer accepting what i consider "dishonest debate, or narrow scoped and one sdied debate".
I will be arguing that there "are" negatives to take in to consideration regards to vaccinations. My opponent needs to be opposed to this view
stop me if you've heard this one before...
My opponent, whether he be a chemtrailer, or a contrailer, is going to argue in favour of the contemporary understanding of his/her belief
My opponent is going to argue against this conspiracy theory. Though i am going to argue, not only is it not a conspiracy theory, but also for what it says on the tin.
It is my opponents job to prove to the voters that Saddam Hussein was guilty. My opponent can use any argument he wishes.
The Genesis creation text of the Bible co-cooperates with Darwin’s evolution theory, as documented in "On the Origin of Species," by natural selection.
Quick Historical Debate