This show was originally aired September 26, 1960 on all of the major networks. I’m not sure which station this is from. If you know, please post a comment telling me.
Please take the time to rate and comment this video! I would appreciate it if you did!
Please subscribe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duration : 0:10:0
Bestselling author, scientist, and atheist Richard Dawkins puts his assertions to the test when he debates his Oxford University colleague John Lennox, who is both a scientist and a Christian theologian. Filmed before a sold-out audience in Birmingham, Alabama – the heart of the American “Bible Belt.”
Duration : 0:10:6
Check out this trailer for the Kayfabe Commentaries DVD The Great Debate 08. After you order the dvd and watch the two legends debate pro wrestling’s biggest topics, cast your vote right here on You Tube! Order the DVD at www.kayfabecommentaries.com
Duration : 0:2:29
Ok i am on the affirmative side "Should the drinking age be lowered" i have good points just need to know how to start it off to get the audience’s attention and keep it thanks.
Is this an LD Debate? If so, I recommend the LD Debate Handbook. It’s very good, and helps not only with case construction but with rebuttals as well.
http://www.lddebate.net/thirdedition.pdf
where you find this scenario being played out over and over again.
One side believes A and another side believes B. Its true today in the USA, its true in Britain, its true in Australia, and Mexico..etc, but if you go back in time you will find it was true in the year 1800, in the year 1935, the year 1970..etc…
A basic philosophy that we all work together as a community and have a place in it and enough to survive with some comfort. Today, the problem is some people don’t want to contribute, only take from the system.
Serious answrs only. I watched the Democrats’ debate on Sunday, will you be watching the Republicans tonight? I will.
Yes I will watch it (as I always do watch these things). I will also force my children to watch it (although they cooperate for the most part LOL). We need a informed public as to how our potential leaders stand on the issues. It is our civic duty and responsibility.
We order some pizzas and make a whole night of the event. We are sick sick people LOL.
In class, we are currently debating on " It is morally permissible to kill one innocent life to save the lives of more innocent people."
I am debating on the affirmative side, and I have a problem with the contentions of the negative side.
They are always upholding the value of "Natural Rights"
and they are always talking about life.
They say things like life being immeasurable and life having infinite value.
What are things that I can attack against such contentions?
I can only say this proposition is wrong, because
1) who gives the killer the right to be the person who does the killing?
2) what principle gives anyone the right to be the "chooser", the person who chooses who dies and who lives?
3) the person chosen to die would have the right to defend himself. Let’s say he didn’t know he was chosen, but someone shoots at him and misses taking his life. The chosen person pulls out his own legal fire arm and kills the person who shot him. Now one person is dead. Does that satisfy the requirement that one person dies to save others?
4)The primary question, however, is >Who gives anyone the right to choose another and kill the other?< Nothing in natural law and the rule of law provides for the creation of a person who chooses who lives and who dies.
The affirmitive (your side) maintains that allowing a human to keep the life he owns may mean the death of others.
1) HOW is this to be decided when no one has a crystal ball?
The answer to that is the answer to the ethical problem considered here. The possibility that such a situation arises only when we see someone already taking innocent lives, such as Hitler did, or as Mugabe is doing.
Who is to say that killing Hitler would not have propelled Goering to do worse things as retaliation? Who is to say that killing bin Laden would not propel his followers to begin mass murders on an unprecedented scale?
I can’t decide what club to join for my high school. Mock Trial or the Debate Team. I think if I join both it will be too much work for me, but I can’t decide which one I should take. Mock Trial is like a court case situation and the debate team is where you debate different subjects.
i think it would depend on your personality. meaning if your more of the tough, bull-headed person (not a bad thing) go for debate. but i think if your an organized person who is really good at analyzing situations then mock trial is the way to go. this is completely an opinion, not factual at all, but i still hope it helps!
Did Obama or McCain answer the first question in the presidential debate last night? i didn’t see the beginning!
thank uyou!!
Obama stuttered through the first question.
Downsizing debate once again hot topic