Total debates: 16
The contender will be for the resolution.
Rechallenge on three contentions of Round 1 on "Abortion Should Be Illegal."
This debate is on the topic: "The most rational response to the question of god's existence is to have faith." I will take the Con position. See the full description for more details.
This debate is on the topic: "The most rational response to the question of god's existence is to have faith." I will take the Con position. See the full description for more details.
This debate is on the topic: "Developed nations have a moral obligation to admit people fleeing oppression." I will take the Con position. See the full description for more details.
This an EDM Music throwdown, baby!
I will argue that migration is a human right. My opponent should argue that migration is not a human right. The full resolution to be debated is given in the full description.
Vote on who you think had the better flow, analogies, disses, etc. NOTE: Conduct should be taken into acct for rap is a genre with insuts. Anything goes
This debate is about whether polygamy should be legal. I am taking the Pro position on the question--that is, I am arguing that some form of polygamy should be legal. Read the full description for the complete resolution and the rules for the debate.
Pro contends that abortion is taking the life of a human being and therefore should be considered murder/a wrong, not a woman's right to choose. Con contents that abortion should be the woman's right to choose and that it is not wrong for the woman to abort that life, whether the woman chooses to do so before or after the "age of viability" of the unborn. Termination of pregnancy because of a threat to the life of the mother will be the exception to the rule (i.e., tubal pregnancy).
Virtuoso approached me about doing a live debate. We settled on the topic of compulsory national service. I will be taking the Pro position. I believe this will be DART's first-ever live format debate. Acceptance of this debate constitutes acceptance of all the rules and conditions in the full description.
This debate is, in a sense, about the age old question of environment or the economy. I will defend the position that environmental protection is more important than resource extraction when the two interests clash. Acceptance of this debate constitutes the acceptance of the rules given in the debate's long description. Thanks to whomever accepts!
Jury nullification is a fascinating phenomenon, and the significant level of controversy surrounding it makes it ripe for debate. Hence, this challenge--it should be fun. For the full debate topic, definitions, the debate's rules, consult the "full description." Acceptance of this debate constitutes acceptance of these rules and definitions.
This debate is about Universal Basic Income (UBI), a definition of which is included in the description of this debate. UBI is an idea that has recently captured my imagination and appeals deeply to my moral sensibilities. In this debate, however, I will be arguing against UBI. For the full debate topic, definitions, the debate's rules, consult the "full description." Acceptance of this debate constitutes acceptance of these rules and definitions.
John Bolton, current National Security Adviser and former UN Ambassador, famously argued that international law does not exist, insofar as the doctrines and treaties we often call "law" do not qualify as such. This question has serious implications for how nations can and should act internationally. For the full debate topic and the debate's rules, consult the "full description." Acceptance of this debate constitutes acceptance of these rules. I will argue against Bolton's position.