Now, here’s how we do this bloody debate:

Every month, at least three issues will be thrown into the table. Everyone is free to argue on one or even all of those issues.

Everyone who would like to give his/her argument on an issue should previously decide his/her side before firing up the argument.

example:

CON

I extremely don’t agree with this issue because..blah..blaahh..blaahh

or

PRO

I definitely agree with this opinion because..blah..blaahh..blaahh

Always type Pro or Con on top of your argument every time you want to give your argument. This is to ease everybody to know on what side you actually stand. Not doing this will only makes the others wondering the direction of your argument (whether it is to support the issue or to oppose it). By the way, if you believe that you are a very good debater and does not afraid of any challenge, then you may try to pick a side that commonly won’t be picked by most people, see it yourself if you are able to give a killing argument on that controversial side or not.

Before you give your argument, make sure that you let us know what kind of aspect from that issue that you would like to argue. Example; if the issue is about Iraq War, then you probably would like to argue on political aspect, U.S national security aspect or humanity aspect.

The next person that would like to give his/her argument, should rebut and destroy the previous person’s argument first (not doing this will only makes the others assume that you agree with the previous person’s argument) and after that this person should also deliver his/her argument on some aspects that he/she believe related to that issue. Do not forget to always support and strengthen everyone else’s argument in the debate who have the same side as you and always attack everyone else’s argument in the debate who have the different side as you.

It is highly expected and recommended (but not a must) that the sequence of the debate could be run in a good order like:

Pro..Con…Pro...Con...(Pro always followed by Con and vise versa)

and not in a chaos order like: Pro…Pro…Pro…Con…Pro..Con…Con…Pro…

for this could surely be confusing to be followed by everyone. So example if the recent argument side is Pro but your side is also Pro, you could wait for your turn until there’s somebody else fill in the Con side argument, but if you feel that you are able and have no problem in giving (an equal killing) argument on either Pro or Con side, then you are free to change your mind to choose the opposite side.

If your argument is based on some experts’ opinion or some articles that you believe related to the issue and can strengthen your argument, then please provide the link to that site. So that the other debaters can all see whether or not your source is reliable and worthy enough to be used to strengthen your argument. So do not ever think of any possibility of surviving this debate by giving your argument recklessly without any strong backup. However if you (perhaps) want to test the strength of your argumentation ability you are welcome to give it a try.

The looser side is the side that can not reply the other side’s last argument. Or the side that hopelessly give an obviously weak argument that not even worthy fought back. Since everybody in the world is free to contribute, so yes, it going to be a long debate before the result can be seen. Or maybe it could be a very short debate, since there’s a possibility of the real expert on that issue to contribute and silence the other debaters.

Please do not use dirty words. Using that will only shows your real brain capacity to the whole world. If you want to humiliate other debater’s argument, then do it in civilized and educated way.

NOW

LET’S THE DEBATE BEGIN..!!

Is US President Obama's 2009 troop "surge" in Afghanistan a good idea?

Background and Context of Debate:

In 2007 and 2008, violence in Afghanistan steadily increased and the country became less stable, leading to calls for an increased US and NATO troop presence in the country, or a "surge".

During the 2008 presidential elections, both Barack Obama and John McCain called for a larger focus on the war in Afghanistan and some form of a troop "surge" in Afghanistan. After winning the election, Barack Obama followed through with his campaign promise, calling for 20,000 new troops to Afghanistan and authorizing the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan on February 17, 2009 and an extra 4,000 later in the year to supplement the training of Afghan security forces. The extra 20,000 troops will increase the US presence from 32,000 to 52,000, bringing the total international troop presence to roughly 60,000.

Throughout 2008 and into Barack Obama's presidency, debate was widespread surrounding the logic of a troop surge into Afghanistan.

The main question is whether more troops can help improve security, or it they are actually drawing in insurgents and increasing violence, civilian casualties, and instability in the country.

Also, players in the debate ask whether Afghanistan is the key front in the fight against terrorism and if a "surge" can help in this fight?

Can the "successful" surge in Iraq can be applied with positive effect in Afghanistan?

Does a troop surge escalate the conflict, or can it be temporary and limited?

Will a surge reduce or increase civilian casualties?

Will it improve, damage, or have no impact on the war in Iraq?

Will it increase or harm regional security? Can US forces sustain a troop surge?

Can the United States and NATO sustain the costs and opportunity costs to other domestic programs?

Where do the Afghan, American, and global publics stand?

What is the overall balance of pros and cons in this debate?

Is Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan justified?

Go head and deliver your argument in 10 major points of analysis:

Troops:

Can more troops help in the war in Afghanistan?

Terrorism:

Is the “surge” key to combating terrorism in Afghanistan?

Iraq analogy:

Would a “surge” in Afghanistan “succeed” like the surge in Iraq?

Escalation:

Is the “surge” temporary or does it escalate of conflict?

Civilian casualties:

Will “surge” help or hurt civilian casualties?

War in Iraq:

Will the “surge” help or hurt war in Iraq?

Region:

Does surge in Afghanistan help or hurt regional security?

Troop resources:

Are there sufficient troop resources for the “surge”?

Costs:

Are the cost of a “surge” reasonable?

Contractors:

Is the use of contractors in Afghanistan acceptable?

Afghan support:

Do Afghans support the “surge”

Is it acceptable to publish images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad?

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.


Danish Muslim organizations, who objected to the depictions, responded by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of Jyllands-Posten's publication. The controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries.

This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, altogether), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Muslim leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats. Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.

The debate surrounding this controversy is oriented around a number of questions. Were these 12 cartoons Xenophic, Islamophobic, or racists in intent? Were they blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith and intended to humiliate and harm a Danish minority? If so, does this make them illegal in Danish law and elsewhere in the world? Were the cartoons an appropriate exercise in free speech? Are such exercises worth it even if they are costly to trust between groups and in terms of lives? What is the value of free speech? Have these cartoons stimulated an important and valuable debate and dialogue about the relationship between Islam and the West, and particularly Muslim minorities living in the West? Has it increased understanding and tolerance, or has it decreased it? Is criticism of the cartoons based on a double standard? Are similarly denigrating cartoons made about the Christian, Jewish, and other faiths, making it unfair for Muslims to complain? Should Muslims or any group be offered distinct and unique protections under the law that help combat the specific vulnerabilities of a group.


See Wikipedia: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for more background.

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.

RoZSsA said

Contra:

Jyllands-posten bitch, Fuck you.....###

sent on: 2008 Juli 30 06:07

Should we have baby hatch?

A baby hatch is a place where mothers can bring their babies, usually newborn, and leave them anonymously in a safe place to be found and cared for. This kind of arrangement was common in mediaeval times and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the device was known as a foundling wheel. Foundling wheels were taken out of use in the late 1800s but a modern form, the baby hatch, began to be introduced again from 1952and since 2000 has come into use in many countries, notably in Germany where there are around 80 hatches and in Pakistan where there are over 300 today.

The hatches are usually in hospitals or social centres and consist of a door or flap in an outside wall which opens to reveal a soft bed, heated or at least insulated. Sensors in the bed alert carers when a baby has been put in it so that they can come and take care of the child. In Germany, babies are first cared for for eight weeks during which the mother can return and claim her child without any legal repercussions. If this does not happen, after eight weeks the child is put up for adoption.

Reasons for using baby hatches
One reason many babies were abandoned in the past was that they were born out of wedlock. Today, baby hatches are intended to be used by mothers who are unable to cope with looking after their own child and do not wish to divulge their identity. In some countries, such as Germany, it is not legal for mothers to give birth anonymously in a hospital, and the baby hatch is the only way they can safely and secretly leave their child to be cared for by others. In India and Pakistan[1], the purpose of baby hatches is mainly to provide an alternative to female foeticide, which occurs due to the high cost of dowries.

Legal aspects
Some legal problems with baby hatches are connected to children's right to know their own identity, as guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child's Article 8. Baby hatches also deprive the father of his right to find out what has happened to his child.


Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.

We shouldn't let Oscar Pistorius Join Olympic

Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius (born 22 November 1986) is a South African Paralympic runner. Known as the "Blade Runner" and "the fastest man on no legs", Pistorius is the double amputee world record holder in the 100, 200 and 400 metres events and runs with the aid of Cheetah Flex-Foot carbon fibre transtibial artificial limbs by Ossur. In 2007 Pistorius took part in his first international able-bodied competitions. However, his artificial lower legs, while enabling him to compete, generated claims that he has an unfair advantage over able-bodied runners. The same year, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) amended its competition rules to ban the use of "any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides a user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device". It claimed that the amendment was not specifically aimed at Pistorius. After monitoring his track performances and carrying out tests, scientists took the view that Pistorius enjoyed considerable advantages over athletes without prosthetic limbs. On the strength of these findings, on 14 January 2008 the IAAF ruled him ineligible for competitions conducted under its rules, including the 2008 Summer Olympics. This decision was reversed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 16 May 2008, the Court ruling that the IAAF had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Pistorius's prostheses give him an advantage over able-bodied athletes.

Although eligible to compete in the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, Pistorius did not qualify for the South African team. Despite achieving third place and a personal best time of 46.25 seconds in the 400 metres in Lucerne, Switzerland, on 16 July 2008, this was short of the Olympic qualification time of 45.55 seconds. He was also not selected by the South African Olympic Committee for the 4 x 400 metres relay team as there were four other runners who had achieved better times.

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



JoVie said
Not clear (pro or con):

keren abisss...
(translation: totally awesome...)
sent on: 2008 Juni 22 02:19


RoZSsA said
Pro:

Go...go..go..Oscar...always run...

sent on: 2008 Juli 27 21:33

IRAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran's intentions are peaceful

Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims to chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War. On ideological grounds, a public and categorical religious decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons has been issued by the leader of the Islamic Republic.

The November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged that Iran halted an active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 and that it remained halted as of mid-2007. The estimate further judged that US intelligence did not know whether Iran intended "to develop nuclear weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame" if it chose to do so. Iran states its nuclear program is peaceful. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said he has seen no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated that he has seen "maybe some studies about possible weaponization", but "no evidence" of "nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon" or "an active weaponization program" as of October 2007.

After the IAEA reported Iran's non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement, the UN Security Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities, and imposed sanctions against Iran three times when Iran refused to do so.Iran's representative to the UN argued that Iran categorically rejected the development of nuclear weapons and that the sanctions compelled Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology. The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but not the absence of undeclared activities, and has reached an agreement with Iran on the timeline for resolution of all the remaining verification issues specified in an August 2007 workplan.The Non-Aligned Movement has called on both sides to work through the IAEA for a solution.

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



Boim Lebon said
PRO:

why not, every country justifiably float this technology, with this technology note is for kindness and peace. .

sent on: 2008 Juni 8 10:01



treen said
PRO:

nuclear for peace...

sent on: 2008 Juni 23 17:36

WE SHOULD BETTER BE PREPARED FOR GLOBAL COOLING THAN GLOBAL WARMING

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.


Should we be prepared for global cooling instead for global warming?



Boim Lebon said
Not clear (pro or Con):

"WE SHOULD BETTER BE PREPARED FOR GLOBAL COOLING THAN GLOBAL WARMING" .both ot them must we are anticipation early on, because this matter concerns human life future
sent on: 2008 Juni 8 10:04