Debate.orgThe Estonian Summary
In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.
The Estonian Summary
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO Party leaders and front-runners are far more than...
In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.
Party leaders and front-runners are far more than candidates
-
PRO Rules: 1) No semantics 2) No posting arguments in the...
DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"
I will be arguing Pro in this debate. DDO= debate.org (this website) Please note that this is referring to the list of 'big issues' found on everyone's profile page. Rules: 1) No semantics 2) No posting arguments in the first round (this round) 3) No arguing objective reality or nihilism in any way. More specifically, do not argue that no one 'should' do anything, in regards to the title. I realize that this is a legitimate debate, but I want this debate to be free of that as to keep the debate focused. Accepting this debate means you accept these terms. Breaking any of these rules = loss for my opponent.
-
PRO They are solely interested in maintaingin their power and...
CMV: The GOP will get away with everything, as they always have and things won't change for the better if we rely on the political system alone
After the second acquittal of the 45th president of the United States of America, it should be clear as day to everyone, that the GOP isn't interersted in doing what's best for the country, best for the populace or best for the world. They are solely interested in maintaingin their power and stoking the fanaticsm of their most fervent supporters, using their expanded media-empire and their stranglehold over many educational systems Ever since Nixon was pardonned, the Republicans have by and large been emboldened to do whatever the fuck they want, since they know that they'll never have to face real consequences, even if the democrats should come into power, since democrats are also more interested in keeping the "balance" of the two party system, especially since all the shit the republicans do benefits many rich democrats directly. The democrats are closer to republicans than to their own electorate and many of them (looking at you, Tulsi), won't go directly against the GOP because of personal gain. ​ CMV: The GOP is on a one way trip to becoming anti-democratic, because even if they are caught they have nothing to lose, since the democrats won't ever truly hold them accountable
-
PRO Carbon based fuels currently account for more than two...
We believe that the export of nuclear reactor technology results in an imbalanced economic and political dependence that is both harmful for the importer country and the global political climate
Carbon based fuels currently account for more than two thirds of the total electricity generation world wide. However, the worsening ecological situation of the world means that countries are being forced to turn to other methods of power generation to meet rising demand. Nuclear power offers the most suitable alternative to fossil fuels. However, only 3-4 countries in the world posses the ability to completely process and produce enriched uranium fuel used in nuclear power stations. Even if countries were willing and able to develop uranium enrichment facilities strict IAEA regulations mean that they would not be allowed develop such technology. Thus, we have an arrangement where countries import nuclear technology, and rely on the USA, Russia or one of the other supplier countries for the nuclear fuel rods used in the reactor. For countries that rely extensively on nuclear power for their electricity generation needs but import the fuel necessary for the functioning of these plants, an arrangement being proposed by the EU for Iran, this means that well being of their economy is completely dependant upon their supplier country, this gives the supplier country significant political and economic clout with the importer country ,and we as a responsible government believe that such a situation is harmful for the global political situation Although this situation is similar to the current status quo whereby oil exporting countries enjoy a similar amount of clout, incase of nuclear technlogy this dependancy would be much more acute and irreversable since the initial cost of a nuclear plant is mich higher and nuclear plants unlike those using fossil fuels cannot be converted to use other forms of energy
-
PRO At it’s most basic level there are two questions that...
Aggressive policies retard gradual social change: why the case for pluralism won [Opposition Summary]
At it’s most basic level there are two questions that define this debate: 1) To whom is the insitution of marriage valuable, and how valuable is it to those different groups of people? 2) If we are concerned with the rights of homosexuals, how do we most effectively generate substantive equality? When the debate is painted thus it becomes clear that much of proposition’s substantive case was, broadly speaking, tangential to do the debate. Proposition expended a huge amount of energy discussing the Mary Coughlan ammendment, transgender individuals, and the fact that all homosexuals have a bachelors pad and a variety of STD’s. On team opposition we decided to focus the debate on the two central questions at stake: Why is marriage important, and what will the consequences be if we legalize same-sex marriages? 1) In terms of the first issue it was never quite clear what proposition’s case was. They mentioned, albeit fleetingly, that marriage brings to the couple a number of legal rights that are otherwise unattainable. They then tracked back, after we showed that civil unions are in most cases legally comparable/equal (and that there is no inherent reason why they cannot be), and instead argued that marriage was an important ‘social symbol’ (this was never justified, as we said – why do homosexuals have a right to a particular religious or cultural blessing?). If this is all the substantive value that proposition could show, it seems that their case is already on shaky ground. In response to proposition we argued that marriage has tremendous socio-cultural and religious value to a large portion of most populations. This is evidenced by the fact that in most countries there is a strong majority that rejects the very notion of same-sex marriage. At the same time, we showed that only a tiny number of homosexuals are actually interested in same-sex marriage, evidenced by substantial quantitative research on the UK, the USA and other European countries. We then added extra meat to the discussion by considering the role of the state and the role of public opinion. We argued that we must remain agnostic on the ‘morality’ of homosexuality, and that it is the business of the citizenry to legislate for itself on such issues. Proposition’s glib response to this was that ‘majorities don’t get their way when it harms minority groups’, a sentiment that was (a) normatively unjustified, and (b) falsified in our rebuttal. This is an inadequate challenge of opposition’s clash, centred around the acceptability of moral and legal pluralism in respect of same-sex marriage. The first issue, then, clearly falls to team opposition. 2) Proposition’s case never really managed to leave behind the notion of formal equality (nominally equal rights) for a focus on substantive equality (equal treatment). On team opposition we articulated, from the very start, that it is substantive equality that really matters. We showed that imposing on the cultural and religious interests and values of the majority (of which marriage is a central and important one) can have very dangerous backlashes on the liberal rights movement (invoking the effectively un-rebutted example of South Africa’s legalization of same-sex marriage). It was only in response to this substantive attack that proposition finally suggested some link from formal rights to substantive rights – the idea that the state should be a ‘pathfinder’ for the citizenry. This argument, which was justified by analogy only (and no actual analysis of the example of marriage), was dismantled rather thoroughly by team opposition. We showed that the analogies presented by proposition were in fact entirely and absolutely disanalagous, and that in a vast number of cases the state has not acted as a pathfinder at all. We even showed that, when the state makes decisions that reject the interests and values of the majority (which team proposition’s policy clearly does), it often leads to dangerous consequences. The only other argument made by proposition, that suggested something similar, was their analysis of stereotyping. Here they failed, rather profoundly, to explain why it was that the issue of *marriage* was so crucial in the construction of stereotypes. This failure is symptomatic of the grand failure of their case – to show why it is that legalizing same-sex marriage is of particular importance. On team opposition we produced a number of refutations to this point, showing that the proposition’s assumptions about stereotypes were both misguided and not linked to marriage. It is clear, then that the second question was also answered, most convincingly, by team opposition. By establishing the right of self-governance as the cornerstone of liberal society, by showing that proposition’s case presents benefits that are tangential at best, and by showing that a secular state’s imposition on marriage, a religious and cultural institution, will have serious negative consequences in the fight for substantive equality for the gay community itself, we on team opposition beg that the motion fall.
