Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewThe 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.
DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"
First off, my opponent did not refute my arguments, and completely dropped my most conclusive argument (the DDO global warming opinion page samples). He copy and pasted an article from http://www.redorbit.com... Con's only commentary on this article was "So as you can see that the debate on man-made GW would be useless and the debate should be on weather or not GW exists as we currently have it." The entire article was about how man-made global warming doesn't exist, or is greatly exaggerated, but the author agrees global warming exists. I completely fail to see how this doesn't help my side, as the 'big issue' in this article is man-made global warming, NOT global warming in general. This shows Con's complete lack of understanding on this issue Con then goes on to say "It's too difficult to change things," citing examples of how hard it would be to implement the resolution. This is not a valid argument because it doesn't attempt to analyze the situation. He fails to show that the long and difficult process he described somehow means that the costs outweigh the benefits. The resolution is not trivial, because as it stands, the big issue (global warming exists) is a complete failure of a prompt. It fails to provide clear results because people are too interested in expressing their opinion that man-made global warming exists as seen by the samples in my round one. People shouldn't have to take multiple levels of thought just to 'guess' what someone's opinion on an issue is. I mean, I could vote Con to the prompt global warming exists, assuming everyone else assumes that I assume it means 'man-made global warming exists'. However, another person might assume that I'm ignorant because I don't think global warming exists, when really I do. In conclusion, Debate.org should This shows Con's complete lack of understanding on this issue Con then goes on to say "It's too difficult to change things," citing examples of how hard it would be to implement the resolution. This is not a valid argument because it doesn't attempt to analyze the situation. He fails to show that the long and difficult process he described somehow means that the costs outweigh the benefits. The resolution is not trivial, because as it stands, the big issue (global warming exists) is a complete failure of a prompt. It fails to provide clear results because people are too interested in expressing their opinion that man-made global warming exists as seen by the samples in my round one. People shouldn't have to take multiple levels of thought just to 'guess' what someone's opinion on an issue is. I mean, I could vote Con to the prompt global warming exists, assuming everyone else assumes that I assume it means 'man-made global warming exists'. However, another person might assume that I'm ignorant because I don't think global warming exists, when really I do. In conclusion, Debate.org should He fails to show that the long and difficult process he described somehow means that the costs outweigh the benefits. The resolution is not trivial, because as it stands, the big issue (global warming exists) is a complete failure of a prompt. It fails to provide clear results because people are too interested in expressing their opinion that man-made global warming exists as seen by the samples in my round one. People shouldn't have to take multiple levels of thought just to 'guess' what someone's opinion on an issue is. I mean, I could vote Con to the prompt global warming exists, assuming everyone else assumes that I assume it means 'man-made global warming exists'. However, another person might assume that I'm ignorant because I don't think global warming exists, when really I do. In conclusion, Debate.org should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists" to present a prompt that represents the opinion that the members of debate.org actually want to share, as seen by the comments on http://www.debate.org......
Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.
It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights. The Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'.[1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions. [1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).
Being black won't change policies.
That Obama is black has no bearing on his policies. It is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. It should not be raised, therefore, as something that will somehow promote racial equality by breaking historical barriers. To do so probably does more of a dis-service to racial equality than anything else.
The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.
I thank my opponent for starting this debate and will begin by addressing their definitions: 1) "I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government." This is rather ambiguous. Are you arguing on moral grounds (i.e. the public as a whole) that we should change, or upon policy grounds (i.e. the government)? 2) "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." I agree with these definitions more or less, except for the part about it taking millions of years to produce coal (1). Furthermore according to your own definition, artificial coal could be considered an alternative fuel when compared with natural coal (1). "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." This is less an inference and more your opinion, which I believe belongs in Round 2. --------------------------------------------------------------- I look forward to your attempt at proving the United States "should" progress away from the use of fossil fuels, though from your Round 1 arguments it would appear that you have your work cut out for you in terms of providing the necessary evidence. (1) - http://www.sciencedirect.com...
Sulphate solar shading will change the appearance of the sky
Sulphate solar shading will create a white, cloudy-looking sky. It will also turn sunsets into a bright red color. This may be unappealing and damaging to animals and possibly to the psychology of humans.
