Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Best Agree Content

  • Is Trump right that Obama didn't do enough to stop Russia election interference?

    Obama should have done more, but he couldn't.  It would have highlighted how vulnerable systems are to foreign states, which would have brought even more attention to the illegal home server Hillary was using to conduct official business.  Since the DNC had preordained Hillary to be the next POTUS candidate, Obama couldn't risk A ) hurting her chances in the election and B ) more importantly, undermining her legitimacy once she took office (exactly as they're trying to do to Trump).  Remember, all the polls at the time said Hillary was going to win in a landslide. 
  • Third-Wave Feminism VS. Fourth-Wave Feminism

    I still consider ourselves in the third wave of feminism.

    The previous waves were defined by changes in what Feminism was actually fighting for. 'Fourth-wave' feminism merely seems to be a continuation of the goals of Third-wave feminism but it's now also being done through social media. That kind of stylistic change without any change to the core content of the message doesn't really warrant it being called a third wave IMO.
  • Buying bitcoin is now easy, but is that a smart investment?


    That's kind of the point someone on the other side of it would make.

    It was $1500 and is now $2700 - so if you bought bitcoins when they were $1500 you could now turn them around for an 80% profit by selling at $2700. Something that's volatile, even something that is part of an overpriced bubble that will pop, can be a good investment (for you personally, not necessarily the economy as a whole) if you put your money in and withdraw it at the right times.

    The question is what bitcoin will do in the future. If it will continue to rise and might be $4000 in a few years, making some medium-term investments now would be a smart move. Of course the currency could collapse the day after your invest and you could lose everything. That's what's up for debate.
  • Evolution?

    @m_abusteit @AlwaysCorrect

    "Lucy" and "Taung chuld fossil"

    Since it's initial discovery, numerous “Australopithecine” skeletons have been found. many leading evolutionists agree that Lucy is simply an extinct type of ape, similar to modern pygmy chimpanzees and nothing more. They may have walked slightly more upright than most apes, but were not bipedal or erect, could not talk, spent most time in trees, and walked on all fours. Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard did 15 years of research on Australopithecines along with a team of five specialists coming to the conclusion that all the various specimens of Australopithecus they examined were only an ordinary ape genus and definitely not bipedal.  The French Science and Life magazine ran the cover story in May 1999 “Goodbye Lucy” writing about how “Lucy” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus was not the root of the human race and needs to be removed from our supposed family tree. There should be thousands of transitional fossils. Not one of them is valid. Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard did 15 years of research on Australopithecines&f=false
  • Evolution?


    Got to disagree. Manslaughter is a type of killing but is legally distinct from murder. That's before we even get into types of killings which are completely legal like self defence, killing an enemy in a war, states executing condemned criminals or killing animals for food.

    Murder refers to a specific subset of killings. All murders involve killing, not all killings are murders.

    Agree in general with the rest.
  • Cannabis

    Legalizing it will resolve a lot of society cost and unnecessary criminal activity.  
  • Should Land belong to Palestine or Israel?

    I like your approach to debates! I don't have time to form rebuttals at the moment but I'll clarify soon.
  • Should Land belong to Palestine or Israel?

    @melanielust ;

    Quite a lot of issues to pick here I'm afraid. My general advice to readers is to be wary of someone who is completely uncritical of either side in the debate. Here I'll mostly be picking holes in Melanielist's endorsement of Israel, but that's only because there is little to respond to in regards to bringing down Palestinian ideologues a peg or two.

    That land has been Israeli for thousands of years. It has always been the Jewish homeland

    The state of Israel formed only 70 years ago and before then the land was owned by a series of Arab nations for millennia. There was a biblical kingdom thousands of years before, but that isn't a recognised basis for taking a country.

    and was formally recognized as such by the US and UN in the 1940s-50s thanks to President Truman.

    The UN did try to establish a Jewish homeland in the 40s but this was only going to be on a portion of the Palestinian Mandate with the other half forming a Palestinian state. It is also quite contentious as it seems to go against the right to self determination and a bit of a last dying gasp over the old Colonial mindset.

    The territory that Israel now tries to claim includes land that not only goes beyond the borders raised in the partition plan of the 40's, but includes land the UN has specifically said does not belong to Israel and that Israel but withdraw from. The UN did not recognise that the land that constitutes Israel has always been the Jewish homeland and the plan was never implemented.

    But the land they gained was never respected by any of the surrounding countries, including Palestine.
    The Palestinian Authority has made offers which would recognise Israel and its borders in peace negotiations, as Israel has made offers to Palestine too. There is even the outstanding Arab Peace Initiative which Israel has not accepted, but which has been endorsed by the Arab league and states the "Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace". Unfortunately so far the various sides have still not reconciled the difference in their positions.

    Palestine will stop at nothing to completely get rid of a Jewish state, no matter how legal it is
    This is a very dangerous and obviously incorrect statement. There is no single "Palestine". There are the Palestinian people, the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a geographic location and various bodies which in different ways claim to represent aspects of the Palestinian people (Such as the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas). There is however no singular ruling government in the same way you would have in a nation-state. Part of this whole struggle is Palestinian wanting to be able to do that.

    The Palestinian people represent a wide variety of people with a wide variety of views. Only a tiny minority engage in violence, there are many that are supportive of the peace process and other that engage in wholly non-violent protest. To speak of Palestine as a whole as being murderous is to paint an entire race as inherently murderous one dimensional caricatures.

    Also the Israeli occupation is widely accepted as illegal and guilty of war crimes under international law by the UN, the International court of Justice and a host of humanitarian organisations ranging from Amnesty International to Israeli based organisations like B'Tselem. These same organisations will point out when Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and PIJ commit war crimes, so they are unbiased. It's isn't a case of any one 'side' being the white-hatted good guys.

    Israel has been constantly battered by Egypt and other middle eastern nations,

    As for being constantly battered by Middle Eastern nations like Egypt, that's a bizarre claim. Egypt and Israel have been on friendly terms for years. They signed a peace deal decades ago and especially in the last few years they have worked together to stymie Hamas.

    In terms of battering each other, that's well in the past but even then it was moreso Israel attacking Egypt than vice-versa.

    Putting aside tit-for-tat border skirmishes and focusing only on wars:

    - In '48 there's enough blame for everyone as Egypt attacked Israel but only after Israel started ethnically cleansing the Palestinian which itself happened after decades of mutual fighting and suspicion between Jews and Muslims in the Mandate.

    - Suez War was Israel attacking Egypt to try and take their land.

    - Six Day War was Israel attacking Egypt and others neighbours to try and take their land and actually succeeding this time.

    - The Yom Kippor actually was Egypt attacking Israel, but only to reclaim it's own land that Israel was occupying since the 6 Day War. Even then they didn't actually defeat Israel because for decades Israel has been the regional superpower, but they put on a good enough show that Israel agreed to peace on the same terms that Egypt had been offering before the war started.

    the way they have defended themselves successfully every time shows their resilience and why they deserve that land.

    Lastly being powerful enough to take and hold land is not a good reason for having land. That would legitimise the actions of the worst dictators in the world and the entire reason following WW2 that we instituted international laws to stop such actions is because we realised how horrifying the results could be. We've specifically instituted international laws, military and otherwise, that define the nature of how nations and organisations must conduct themselves specifically because we know the idea of the strong ruling over the weak and what results from that is abominable to our basic conceptions of morality.
  • Why does it matter what marriage is called?

    I think it's ridiculously stupid to call marriage between two of the same sex anything other than just marriage. Love is love. That's all that matters. If I was gay and going to get married, why would I call it a Civil Union? Put yourself in someone else's shoes.
  • Women wearing hijab: sexist or freedom of choice?

    Literally everybody here is mixed and we come from all over the world. I myself am half Venezuelan and half American and a bunch of percentages of other stuff all over the world.
    Guess who else creates their own communities, Christians, LGBT+, Blacks, Whites, even then there are still some Native American groups. They don't ultimately hate our way of life. If they did, they would've done something about it. @love2debate@passedbill
    Why would a Muslim woman hide a weapon in her hijab? You have to understand that not all Muslims are terrorists. 

Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch