Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewBehavioral change is the key to environmental sustainability
I rest my case, seeing as the Con has failed to respond to any of my arguments and foreited every round, I can only see a Pro vote
it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate
they say it is wrong to vote for them, unless a "proportionate reason" exists to vote for them. do you contest this fact? i can find the quote from the former pope ratzinger that says this but i wouldn't assume i'd need to i thought it was common enough knowledge. you haven't said why what you describe would necessarily be proportionate reasons one way or the other.
The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.
The creation of a post of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) marks an important change in the decision making process at the EU level with regards to foreign policy. Agreement on the post showed a clear commitment to the pursuit of a common EU foreign policy and to developing a unique cooperative model for foreign and defense policy decision making that goes beyond the nation state. Member states should now deliver on that commitment by seeking as much common ground as possible to ensure that the High Representative’s role is truly significant. The goal of a common foreign and security policy should thus be supported not only as a mechanism to streamline EU’s position and role in world politics, but also to reinforce notions of cooperation and consultation essential for maintaining a stable international system, in line with the stated goals of the EU. (The 12 stars in a circle is meant to symbolize the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe)1. 1 Europa.eu, 'Symbols',accessed 1/8/11
Socialism poorly adapts to change.
Well, life is unpredictable. Socialism promises predictability - or what else is there to imagine under this "right to live"? But there is nobody who can tell what tomorrow will bring, nobody and nothing that can guarantee well being. The basic premise of socialism is therefore as realizable as perpetuum mobile. Sometimes, the crops may be bad, natural disasters can strike, new technologies can emerge so your knowledge or skill is no longer valuable. Capitalists usually quietly and peacefully (though, of course, not necessarily lightheartedly and easily) accept these changes or losses as a thing that life brings, and learns how to adapt to the new circumstances. Socialists, on the other hand, usually begin a fruitless and absurd search of whom to blame for (not predicting) these abrupt changes, with the "outcome" of this "search" usually being "the capitalist behaviour" of some individual or a group of people, against whom the aggressive anger of the "common people" is subsequently senselessly turned.
Cimate change is real and caused by humans
Just curious as to see what your argument will be! Looking forward to it. But just to clarify, I'm talking about the rising of global temperatures caused by increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to the greenhouse effect. Good luck!
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
Okay fine, America doesn't beat Norway in everything. But it still scores better than I'd say 7/8 of the categories, so I'd say it is still way superior. Any other countries you want me to totally dismantle? Canada?
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
Happy 4th of July!!!
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
Norway is pretty good, but not better. Taxes: Norway imposes a 1% wealth tax every year on all your assets over $144k (including money in your bank account, the house you live in, stocks you own, etc.). The government takes a nice monthly premium for its 'free' health care out of your monthly paycheck. 25% Norwegian sales tax (VAT) is way above the highest US state sales tax (9.45%) Cars can be taxed double normal retail (if you want a higher end car like a Volvo you can expect to pay more than $100k in Norway and about $45k in the US) Miscellaneous death-of-a-thousand-cuts taxes like the $450 annual TV license just to have a TV in your house. High Prices: $8-$11/gallon for gas, the most expensive in the world. High rents. Getting charged over $4 each time you drive into Oslo and other cities A modest combo meal from McDonalds costs over $14 (not that I'm a big fan of McDonalds, but we all know the Big Mac Index) A bag or two of essentials at the grocery store can easily run $75-$100 (milk is $8/gallon, chicken breasts cost $7/lb, etc.). America is also better as it is much freer. Norway doesn"t guarantee you freedom of speech, and doesn"t protect your right to bear arms. Also it"s pretty unfair to compare the US to 🇳🇴 as our population is SEVENTY times as big as Norway. 1. Sure, Norwegians live longer but not HEALTHIER. Having a lower GDP doesn"t necessarily we are worse than Norway. Our inflation rates are both 1.9 for 2018. How does having a lower population make you superior to the US? How does having Winter year round make it superior? The Us has a 0.5 higher growth rate than Norway. With more people and politicians comes more corruption. Norway"s unemployment rate is 0.1 more than the US. Less people = safer country. A perfect example of this is Vermont. How is having a much higher cost of living a good thing? Look, I"m sorry I totally anhilated your argument. Just admit it, America is the best. Most of your so called "facts" were either completely wrong, or were true because of the super tiny population Norway has. So... Good luck.
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
Your clearly doing word play here, but okay. I meant superior to every other country on Earth.
The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.
Here I will argue for the presumption that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government. Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years. From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less. The presumption is that the United States uses fossil fuels more than alternative fuels such as fuels made from yellow grease, a used frying oil from deep fryers. The formation of fossil fuels was done within a process of millions of years as the plant and animal organic material was covered by layers of sand and silt and forced to decompose under such pressure and heat. Today we are using such natural resources faster than it can be reproduced. The real debate will start in round 2, once there is an understanding as to whether the opponent agrees or disagrees with the above definitions and presumption.
