What Would You do As President? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





What Would You do As President?

Debate Information

I'd personally do a lot of change to our government.
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @Debater123
    1: Lower voting age
    2: Lower drinking age
    3: Lower Driving age
    4: Ban on companies restricting products on account of age.
    5: Stricter parenting laws
    6: Total freedom to keep and bear arms
    7: A total reform of the education system
    8: A ban on factory farming
    9: Put programs in place to phaseout the pet trade
    10: Total legal recognition of animal sentience
    11: Legal prostitution
    12: Ban humans from keeping cats from going outside.
    Debater123PlaffelvohfenTreeManGeorge_Horse
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 Why do you want to recognize animal sentience and end the existence of pets?
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    Because animal sentience is proven by science, and I see the pet trade as unstable and inhumane.
  • I am a President of United State, being President of a united state is literally a basic legal constitutional right every man who can vote has in America. It is a self-evident truth that can be held by a man to create all men as equal by their creator, legal prejudice. Just as women can be held to testify under oath as a Presasera before the court or congress as a witness on account of legal grievance which holds all women as a united state before domestic state and international courts.

    What would I do as an Exsecutive officer and President of the United States of America, stay at the White House, give states of the constitutional union to congress, delegate my Presidental duties while taking on some Exsecutive Officer duties. Pardon my mom raising me may have proved itself not to be always legal.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @John_C_87
    We all want to put our parents in prison for something.
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 Define sentience.

    Also, why is the pet trade inhumane?
  • TreeManTreeMan 329 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: Lower voting age
    2: Lower drinking age
    3: Lower Driving age
    4: Ban on companies restricting products on account of age.
    5: Stricter parenting laws
    6: Total freedom to keep and bear arms
    7: A total reform of the education system
    8: A ban on factory farming
    9: Put programs in place to phaseout the pet trade
    10: Total legal recognition of animal sentience
    11: Legal prostitution
    12: That's all I can think of right now but I have a ton of other things so I will come back later to add them.
    why would you want to lower drinking and driving age?
    wouldn't it just create more deaths because of unsafe consumption of alcohol and bad driving?
    furthermore, guns would also create more easily avoidable deaths
    i don't really care about firing ranges and sustainable hunting, but i would feel unsafe knowing that anyone i meet could potentially have a gun to shoot me with
    Guns were originally created to kill people rapidly, and that's what it will do in the wrong hands
    Personally, i would attempt to phase out the sale of birds as pets, as they get cramped cages to live in
    I would then ban the sale of pets to anyone who has not done a test to see if they know how to care for the animal they are getting as a pet
    i understand voting age, it must be really annoying for teens that strongly support a president, having researched everything, but is not allowed to vote.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -  
    Presidential powers in all countries I am familiar with are strongly limited by systems of checks and balances, so getting something done is not just a matter of the president wanting it, but actually managing to convince the other branches of power of going along with it.

    In any country I could be elected as president, I would try to enact massive deregulation of everything, drastic reduction of government spending, and invoking new restrictions in the Constitution on what the government can do - which obviously would trigger a strong push back from the other branches of power. So I do not know how much of it would actually come to live. But I would not be a president nearly as interested in actual results as in promoting certain values. Policies and reforms can be reversed by future administrations; it is the ideas that survive the test of time, and I would do everything in my power to instill the ideas of individualism, self-reliance and liberty in the minds of the people, so my successors are pushed to continue my work.
    piloteer
  • @MayCaesar

    Presidential powers in all countries I am familiar with are strongly limited by systems of checks and balances, 
    Presidential powers as a united state in America are only limited by principles of constitution. As the legal precedent had been set and perjury and witness tampering are considered criminal acts by most people. The powers of the Exsecutive Officer are much more regulated as they are not achieved by the abilities a male witness may display when alienated in the republic. One man asked a series of the question while under oath as a matter of fack with legal importance and consequence. Things many people overlook, take for granted, or exploit when addressing democracies in general terms.

    By insisting that it is a vote of the democracy and not an ability which creates a President of the United state it is the public that is creating the sexual discrimination, for they as witnesses do not understand how all men are created equal by the display and upholding the right ability. That in itself is a strong statement of fact when addressing the collection of information that makes up evidence to support principles and the ideas built around them.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    Sentience is the consciousness ability to feel.
    The pet trade is a disgraceful thing, really what they're doing is taking a person, and sterilizing them, and claiming you own them while keeping them in your house as a ornament!
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 Define the ability to feel.

    Also, animals are not people, they are inherently inferior.
    TreeMan
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @Debater123
    1: If you can feel pain then you can feel, I would consider this on of the basics of feeling
    2: By what logic do you conclude that animals are inherently inferior?
    Thor
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    By feel pain I mean the ability to suffer.
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @anarchist100

    1: So then, if you argue that all animals have sentience, it is wrong to kill them, correct?

    2: The logic which led me to conclude that animals are inferior is because they are animals, we are humans, we are at the top of the food chain and should act like it, furthermore, I am compelled to believe in this way in the interest of preservation of me and my species, if we saw animals as equals and should be treated as such, we would've died out long ago...
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: Yes I do believe that it is wrong to kill animals
    2:In an evolutionary sense there is really no big divide between humans and non-human animals, please explain why you believe that we must treat animals as lesser for the survival of our species, also we are not the top of the food chain, many animals still hunt and eat humans. The only thing that makes us close to the top is the invention of farming, and farming is an un-natural thing.
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    1: As wrong as killing a human?

    2: If we treat them as equals we aren't putting ourselves ahead and are therefore self-sacrificing, which isn't good for humanity as we are sacrificing ourselves and what we can achieve with other species. We are at the top of the food chain, we are at the top of the food chain, the only animals that actively hunt us are polar bears, but that is probably because they haven't developed a fear sense towards us unlike other animals since we've been hunting and killing them and sometimes making them extinct, we are at the top of the food chain, species are at our mercy and we face no real threats in the wild, there is not a single animal that is above us.
  • Starlord616Starlord616 382 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    By feel pain I mean the ability to suffer.
    a nerve cell can feel pain but is not inherently conscious or sentient.
    @anarchist100
    Debater123Happy_Killbot
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @Starlord616
    By pain I meant the ability to actually suffer, not just to feel physical pain.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @Debater123
    1: Yes I do believe that it is as wrong as killing a human
    2: So because we can we should place our own good over that of others? Aren't you pro-life, and isn't the whole point of that (according to pro-life folk) advocating for people who can't stand up for themselves?
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    1: So a fly is worth just as much of a human, correct?

    2: Keep in mind I'm talking about human-animal contact, not human-human ones.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    I'm not making fun of you or anything, but are you a creationist?
    Debater123
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: Yes I don't believe there is any difference between human and animal suffering
    2: So? Why does it matter?
    Thor
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 Why do you ask?
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 1: So then, if I step on a fly, I should be charged with murder.

    2: Again, animals are inferior and different, so it does matter.

    Thor
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @Debater123
    By evolutionary standards there is no defining line between humans and animals since we are really just different results of evolution and all part of the same world, your logic seems similar to that of a person who believes that God created man sperate from the animals.
    Debater123
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    I see you think what I posted is irrelevant, It's not your logic sounds creationist.
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 It can sound like whatever it can sound like, however, it is still irrelevant to our discussion.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: I don't suppose so because the fly is not a citizen of the country or bound by the law
    2: We are all part of the same natural world, human superiority is a human concept. This is why I ask if you are a creationist, and please stop saying what I post is irrelevant, I'm not saying anything particularly irrelevant.
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    1: But SHOULD it be legal?

    2: Human superiority is a human concept, but it is also a biological one, as humans are driven for them to succeed along with their species.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: It shouldn't be counted in the law
    2: Humans just have a higher intelligence, that we got over time evolving from other apes, we are still part of the natural world, as some animals are smarter than others we just happen to be one of the smartest.
    Thor
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    1: So then, animals and humans, are not equal.

    2: You kinda avoided what I said...
    Thor
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: No they are, but I believe that you should be able to choose whether you are a citizen of a government or not, if someone lives off the land and has no help from the government then they are not bound to be a citizen of the government.
    2:I'm not sure what it was you said, are you saying that humans are driven to succeed together along with there comrades?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    I would say that the difference is that humans can make conscious choices, while, say, bears cannot and operate purely on instincts. This means that humans are able to understand the concepts of law, rights, etc. and, thus, respect the law and rights of others, while animals cannot. And I do not think that a creature that is fundamentally unable to understand rights of others and act with respect to them should itself have rights. Rights are mutual: either both involved creatures respect each other's rights, or the rights of both from each other's perspective are void.

    I can respect the rights of a grizzly bear in the wilderness all I want, but it will not prevent it from eating me for breakfast. With creatures that are not able to understand your rights, I believe, the self-defense status is automatically assumed, and I can shoot the grizzly before it did anything aggressive towards me.

    It would be different for a sentient alien, who would have the same rights as me. Same for a highly developed AI.
    Thor
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @MayCaesar
    Many animals including gorillas can make decisions based on morels and concern for fellow gorillas.
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    1: You have just contradicted your previous statements, they are equal, but shouldn't be seen like that in the guise of the law, that is contradictory.

    2: Kinda, I think you should try to reread what I said, sorry if I didn't make sense.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @Debater123
    1: Many animals are brought into society involuntarily, just leave them alone and they're not part of society. If you have a pet or a farmed animal they are involuntary citizens.
    2: All animals want there species to succeed.
    Thor
  • Starlord616Starlord616 382 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616
    By pain I meant the ability to actually suffer, not just to feel physical pain.
    how to you quantify this. does suffering mean that they dislike pain, understand its source or something else entirely 
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    1: Animals are not part of our society and are not our citizens.

    2: Exactly, why should mankind be different?
  • ThorThor 278 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    Again, animals are inferior and different...

    How are they inferior?
    Peace 
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @Thor Read my posts above.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616
    I'd say its the ability to consciously experience unpleasant experiences.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @Debater123
    1: If we bring them into society as pets or farmed animals the are involuntary members of society and should be treated as such.
    2: We don't need to treat animals poorly to succeed, also it's human nature to want your race to succeed does this justify Hitler? Plus this is only from our point of view, there really is nothing that makes us fundamentally superior.
    Thor
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    1: That is what they should be treated as.

    2: Define treating poorly.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: Animals should be treated as a member of society protected by the law as an involuntary member of society
    2: Treating anyone in a way that you would not like to be treated is treating someone poorly.
    George_HorseThor
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    1: What benefit will that bring to mankind?

    2: By that definition, we need to treat them poorly.
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: Lower voting age
    2: Lower drinking age
    3: Lower Driving age
    4: Ban on companies restricting products on account of age.
    5: Stricter parenting laws
    6: Total freedom to keep and bear arms
    7: A total reform of the education system
    8: A ban on factory farming
    9: Put programs in place to phaseout the pet trade
    10: Total legal recognition of animal sentience
    11: Legal prostitution
    12: Ban humans from keeping cats from going outside.
    Although I would not agree with a certain number of your policies, and maybe some of your views, I think I would support your campaign wholeheartedly regardless. 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  • ThorThor 278 Pts   -   edited January 2021
    @Debater123

    1: What benefit will that bring to mankind?
    So earth is meant for mankind only, right?

    2: By that definition, we need to treat them poorly
    I respect your opinion,which says we need to treat them poorly,now my opinion is to keep you in cage :),  I too assume keeping you in zoo for lifetime, treating you poorly.The only difference between you and animals is, that you are human and they are not.Don't consider that earth is yours, it is of animals too, because they too equally deserve to live in their habitat without any restrictions, and keeping them into their habitat which is 5 star hotel for them and it is our responsibility to do so as the most intelligent species.
    Peace 
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: It's not all about us, other people matter
    2: Why?
  • Debater123Debater123 591 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    1: Other people do matter, I agree.

    2: If we treated them equally our resources would be so strained we would be living in poverty.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    1: By other people I mean all God's creatures
    2: What evidence do you have of this?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch