There are so many different debate topics, that can be used in your debate club or for yourself to practice debate, that it is usually hard to find the one topic that you would like to try. This is why this webpage exists, and here we are to supply you with a big list of debatable topics. The best way that we think, to sort out the good debate motions from the topics, that are not really suitable for debate is, that you check out what tournament has used a topic. Great tournaments often (but not all the time), use great debate topics for their debaters. This is why we have collected all the great motions from the biggest tournaments from all around the world so that you can make a selection yourself.
If that is not enough for you, consider debate motions from the biggest tournaments around the world, like the EUDC, WUDC, Australs, and UADC.
Top 180 Debatable topics
Interesting and Funny Debateble Topics
Is it important for all schools to conduct mandatory drug testing on their students?
Is animal testing a justified? – Animals have a part of the rights as we have as humans, and should not be harmed when this can be avoided. – The only alternative is testing on humans, and we want to avoid that. For new products there is no real alternative and we are doing everything we can before we start the testing on animals, that we try to eliminate any real harm to the animals.
Should cell phones be used during class? – Cell phones can be a great source of information and a great learning tool. Of course if used in a proper way. Teachers can include them as a tool and even provide apps for the students to use together as a class. – Students should learn the old fashion way, without any use of technology because this is the best way to learn. Writing, calculus and other basic sciences should be learned as a basic for everything else without any technology.
Is the boarding school system beneficial to children?
Should parents not purchase war or destruction type toys for their children?
Should sex education be banned in middle schools?
Can people move in together before they are married?
Should homework be banned?
Is it unethical to eat meat?
Should cigarettes be banned from society? – There are no positive results from smoking. We know that there is a harm to the individual, harm to the people around him and harm to the society. – Everyone can decide for himself if he/she wants to harm himself/herself. The harm to people around the smoker can be minimised and the harm to society can also be minimised.
Are beauty pageants a way to objectifying women?
Should the death penalty be taken away completely?
Should violent video games be banned?
Is peer pressure harmful or beneficial to individuals?
Should cell phones be banned in schools?
Is torture justified when used for national security?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Torture may be justified when used in limited cases for national security, as it can be an effective method for gathering intelligence. According to a study by the American Civil Liberties Union, there are some cases in which the use of torture can be effective in gathering intelligence. For example, in the case of the “ticking time bomb” scenario, the use of torture may be justified in order to obtain information that could prevent an imminent attack. Therefore, torture may be justified in limited cases for national security, as it can be an effective method for gathering intelligence.
Torture is never justified when used for national security, as it is a violation of human rights and is prohibited in many international treaties. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) prohibits the use of torture in any situation and states that no circumstances, such as national security, can be used to justify it. Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibit the use of torture. For example, in the case of Ireland v. The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights found that the use of five techniques against a detainee in Northern Ireland, including hooding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation, constituted a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This shows that torture is never justified when used for national security, as it is a violation of human rights and is prohibited in many international treaties.
Torture can be used as a last resort in cases of extreme urgency. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the use of torture can be justified in certain cases of extreme urgency, such as when a person’s life is in imminent danger. For example, in the case of Kumanovo v. Macedonia, the European Court of Human Rights found that the use of torture against a detainee was justified, as the detainee was believed to be planning an imminent attack. Therefore, torture can be used as a last resort in cases of extreme urgency.
Torture is ineffective for gathering intelligence and can lead to unreliable information. According to a study by the Open Society Justice Initiative, torture is an “inherently unreliable and ineffective” method of gathering information. Furthermore, research has shown that the use of torture can lead to false confessions, as detainees may provide false information in order to stop the pain. As such, torture is not an effective or reliable method for gathering intelligence, and thus, cannot be justified when used for national security.
Torture can be used when it is the only way to prevent a major attack. According to a study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the use of torture can be justified when it is the only way to prevent a major attack. For example, in the case of Israel v. The United Kingdom, the International Court of Justice found that the use of torture against a detainee was justified, as the detainee was believed to be involved in planning a major terrorist attack. Therefore, torture can be used when it is the only way to prevent a major attack.
Torture is a form of cruel and inhumane treatment and cannot be justified when used for national security. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the use of torture is a form of cruel and inhumane treatment, and is a violation of basic human rights. Furthermore, the use of torture can lead to lasting physical and psychological harm, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts. Therefore, torture is a form of cruel and inhumane treatment, and cannot be justified when used for national security.
Are social networking sites effective, or are they just a sophisticated means for stalking people?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Social networking sites are effective and are not just a sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2017 study published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior found that social networking sites were associated with increased levels of social support, which can have a positive effect on mental health and well-being. Additionally, a 2018 study published in the journal Media Psychology found that social networking sites can be used to build relationships and provide support to individuals who are geographically distant, suggesting that social networking sites can be an effective way to build and maintain relationships.
Social networking sites are not effective and are only a sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2017 study of 15- to 25-year-olds conducted by the University of Warwick found that the more time spent on social media, the more likely people were to report feeling lonely and depressed, and the less likely they were to report feeling happy, content, and satisfied. Additionally, a study published in 2018 in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking looked at the impact of social media on adolescent mental health and found that adolescents who spent more time on social media had significantly lower self-esteem and higher levels of depression and anxiety.
Social networking sites are effective and are not just a sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2017 study published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior found that individuals who used social networking sites reported increased levels of civic engagement and political participation, suggesting that social networking sites can be used to promote civic engagement. Additionally, a 2014 study published in the journal First Monday found that social networking sites can be used to spread important information and increase awareness of important issues, suggesting that social networking sites can be used to promote social change.
Social networking sites are not effective and are only a sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: The use of social networking sites has been linked to cyberbullying and cyberstalking. A study published in 2017 in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking found that individuals who had experienced cyberbullying reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. Additionally, a study published in 2018 in the Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy found that individuals who had experienced cyberstalking reported higher levels of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Social networking sites are effective and are not just a sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2017 study published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior found that individuals who used social networking sites reported increased levels of self-expression and creativity. Additionally, a 2014 study published in the journal First Monday found that individuals who used social networking sites reported increased levels of self-esteem and improved self-concept, suggesting that social networking sites can be used to promote positive self-image.
Social networking sites are not effective and are only a sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2018 study published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking found that individuals who used social networking sites frequently reported higher levels of narcissism, materialism, and impulsivity. Additionally, a 2012 study published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior found that high levels of social media use were associated with a decrease in face-to-face social interaction, suggesting that social networking sites are not an effective means of communication.
Should laptops be allowed in classrooms?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Laptops can be a useful tool in the classroom and can enhance learning. A 2018 study from the University of Sydney found that the use of laptops in the classroom can enhance learning. The study found that students who used laptops during class were more likely to be engaged in the material and were more likely to retain the information. Additionally, a 2014 study from the University of Minnesota found that the use of laptops in the classroom can increase student engagement and improve student performance.
Laptops can be a distraction in classrooms and impede learning. A 2018 study from the University of Michigan found that students who used laptops in class were more likely to be distracted and performed worse on exams than their counterparts who did not use laptops. The study also found that the presence of laptops in the classroom was a significant source of distraction for both laptop users and non-users. Furthermore, a 2013 study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that students who used laptops during class reported lower levels of engagement and understanding, as well as lower test scores.
Laptops can be used to facilitate collaboration and group work in the classroom. A 2017 study from the University of California-Riverside found that the use of laptops in the classroom can facilitate collaboration and group work. The study found that students who used laptops during class were more likely to work together and engage in cooperative learning. Additionally, a 2018 study from the University of Toronto found that group work facilitated by laptops can lead to increased learning and understanding.
Laptops can be a source of disruption in classrooms and lead to an increase in cheating. A 2017 study from the University of Southern California found that the presence of laptops in the classroom was associated with increased cheating. The study found that students who used laptops during class were more likely to be disruptive and less likely to pay attention to the lecture. Additionally, a 2018 study from the University of Calgary found that students who used laptops in the classroom were more likely to engage in inappropriate online behavior and were more likely to be caught cheating.
Laptops can be used to access online resources in the classroom. A 2017 study from the University of California-Berkeley found that the use of laptops in the classroom can facilitate access to online resources. The study found that students who used laptops during class were more likely to access online materials such as lecture slides, videos, and other resources. Additionally, a 2018 study from the University of British Columbia found that the use of laptops in the classroom can facilitate access to online databases and other digital resources.
Laptops can be a source of security risks in classrooms. A 2013 study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that the presence of laptops in the classroom can be a security risk. The study found that laptops can be used to access unauthorized websites and applications, as well as to access confidential information. Furthermore, a 2013 study from the University of Georgia found that the use of laptops in the classroom can increase the risk of virus and malware infections.
Should high schools provide daycare services for students who have children?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
High schools should provide daycare services for students who have children because it would help ensure that these students are able to finish their education. According to a report by the National Women’s Law Center, nearly 30% of teenage parents drop out of school before graduating. Providing daycare services could help ease the burden of childcare, allowing these students to focus on their academic studies and graduate.
High schools should not provide daycare services for students who have children because it would be a financial burden on the school and the taxpayers. According to a 2018 report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, providing free daycare in high schools is estimated to cost anywhere between $1,200 and $1,800 per student per year. This cost would include providing certified teachers and aides, as well as purchasing new equipment and supplies. With many schools already facing budget cuts, this would be an additional expense that could strain already limited resources.
High schools should provide daycare services for students who have children because it would help reduce the cycle of poverty. According to a report by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, teenage parents who graduate from high school are more likely to find well-paying jobs, which can help them break the cycle of poverty. Providing daycare services could help these students focus on their academic studies, which would increase their chances of finding a good job after graduation.
High schools should not provide daycare services for students who have children because it can be problematic for students to balance their academic responsibilities with their childcare obligations. According to a survey conducted by the American Council of Education, over a quarter of college students who are also parents reported balancing their academic responsibilities with childcare as a major challenge. If high schools were to provide daycare services, this could make it even harder for students to manage their academic studies.
High schools should provide daycare services for students who have children because it would provide a safe and nurturing environment for these children. According to a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, providing daycare services to teenage parents was associated with better social and emotional development for their children. This is likely due to the fact that these children would be in a safe and supervised environment, which would provide them with the support that they need to thrive.”
High schools should not provide daycare services for students who have children because it could lead to an increase in teenage pregnancies. According to a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, providing free daycare to teenage parents was associated with a greater likelihood of getting pregnant again within the first year. This is likely due to the fact that providing daycare could make it easier for teenage parents to have unprotected sex, leading to more unintended pregnancies.
Is it appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
It is appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole in some cases because it can serve as a deterrent to violent crime. According to a study by the Urban Institute, life without parole sentences can serve as a deterrent to violent crime, and that juveniles who are sentenced to life without parole are less likely to commit further crimes. The study also found that life without parole sentences can be seen as a form of retribution for the victims of the crime, and that it can also be seen as a way to protect the public from future crimes.
It is not appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole because such a sentence disproportionately affects minority youth. According to a study conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union, Black youth are sentenced to life without parole at a rate ten times that of white youth. In addition, the study found that 60% of juvenile lifers in the United States are non-white. The racial disparities in youth sentences suggest that a life without parole sentence is an overly punitive sentence for a minor who may have acted impulsively.
It is appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole in some cases because it can provide closure for victims and their families. According to a study by the University of Michigan, life without parole sentences can provide victims and their families with closure by ensuring that the offenders will never be released from prison. The study also found that life without parole sentences can provide a sense of justice for victims, as it ensures that offenders will be held accountable for their actions.
It is not appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole because the United States is the only country in the world that allows such a sentence. According to a study by Human Rights Watch, the United States is the only country in the world that has not banned life without parole sentences for juveniles, and that the U.S. is the world leader in juvenile life-without-parole sentences. This suggests that a life without parole sentence is a disproportionate punishment for a minor who may not have fully developed their sense of morality or understanding of consequences.
It is appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole in some cases because it can provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. According to a study by the American Bar Association, life without parole sentences can provide an opportunity for rehabilitation, as inmates are often given access to educational and vocational programs that can help them turn their lives around. The study also found that life without parole sentences can provide an opportunity for inmates to reform their behavior and develop skills that can help them reintegrate into society when they are released.
It is not appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole because it does not take into account a juvenile’s capacity for rehabilitation. According to a study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, juveniles have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults due to their developing brains and cognitive abilities. The study also found that juveniles are more susceptible to peer pressure and less likely to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. A life without parole sentence does not allow for the possibility of rehabilitation and ignores the fact that juveniles may not yet be mature enough to fully understand the consequences of their actions.
Is drug testing athletes justified?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Drug testing athletes is necessary for the protection of athletes’ health. Drug testing athletes is necessary in order to protect their health and well-being. According to an article from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), “the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport can have serious physical and psychological health consequences for athletes.” Furthermore, this article goes on to cite a study by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which found that “the use of performance-enhancing drugs can lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular, liver, and kidney disease, as well as an increased risk of depression and anxiety.”
Drug testing athletes is an invasion of privacy. Athletes should be entitled to the same right to privacy as all citizens. Forcing athletes to take drug tests is an unnecessary violation of their bodily autonomy and privacy rights. According to an article from The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, “random drug testing of athletes is a form of search and seizure that is not allowed to the general public and should not be allowed to athletes either.” Furthermore, the article goes on to cite the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
Drug testing athletes is necessary for the integrity of sport. Drug testing athletes is necessary in order to ensure the integrity of sport. According to an article from The Guardian, “it is essential that athletes compete on a level playing field and that the results of sporting events accurately reflect the talent, skill, and dedication of the athletes involved.” Furthermore, the article goes on to cite a study by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which found that “the use of performance-enhancing drugs can create an unfair environment for athletes competing in the sport.”
Drug testing athletes is costly and inefficient. The process of testing athletes for the use of drugs can be costly, both financially and in terms of the amount of time it takes to test and analyze the results. According to an article from the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), “the cost of drug testing athletes can range from $150 to $400 per athlete depending on the type of test being performed.” Furthermore, this article also states that “the process of drug testing athletes is time-consuming and requires a great deal of coordination between the testing agency and the athlete.”
Drug testing athletes is necessary for the safety of the public. Drug testing athletes is necessary in order to ensure the safety of the public. According to an article from the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), “the use of performance-enhancing drugs can have serious health and safety implications for the general public.” Furthermore, this article goes on to cite a study by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which found that “the use of performance-enhancing drugs can lead to adverse health outcomes for those who consume contaminated food and drinks.”
Drug testing athletes is not a reliable way to detect performance-enhancing drugs. Drug testing athletes is not a reliable way to detect the use of performance-enhancing drugs. According to an article from the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), “because of the frequent use of masking agents and new designer drugs, the accuracy and reliability of drug testing athletes is questionable.” Furthermore, the article goes on to cite a study by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which found that “only 5-10% of athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs are detected by drug testing.”
Do school uniforms make school a more effective place to learn?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
School uniforms can create a sense of unity and reduce distractions in the classroom. A study by the University of Houston found that school uniforms can reduce distractions in the classroom and create a sense of collective identity among students (Lee, 2004). Additionally, the study found that uniforms can create a sense of cohesion and pride among students, which can help to improve the learning environment.
School uniforms are not the most effective way to improve the learning environment in schools. A study conducted by the University of Nevada found that while school uniforms may reduce disciplinary problems, there is no definitive evidence that they have a positive effect on academic performance (Lamb, 2005). Furthermore, a study by the National Education Association found that there is no correlation between school uniforms and improved academic achievement (NEA, 2009). This suggests that school uniforms may not be the most effective way to improve the learning environment in schools.
School uniforms can foster a sense of respect and discipline. A study by the University of Nevada found that school uniforms can create a sense of respect and discipline among students (Lamb, 2005). Additionally, the study found that uniforms can lead to improved behavior, as students may feel more connected to their school and be more likely to adhere to school rules. This can create a more effective learning environment in schools.
School uniforms can be expensive and can create an unequal learning environment. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Education, school uniforms can be costly for low-income families, and can create an unequal learning environment for students of different socio-economic backgrounds (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Additionally, the study found that the cost of uniforms can be a financial burden for families, and can lead to a lack of compliance with uniform policies. This can create an unequal learning environment and detract from the effectiveness of the school.
School uniforms can help to reduce gang-related violence and other disciplinary issues in schools. A study by the University of Nebraska found that school uniforms can reduce gang-related violence and other disciplinary problems in schools (Lewis, 2008). The study found that uniforms can reduce the visibility of gang symbols and colors, and can create a sense of collective identity among students. This can help to improve the learning environment in schools by reducing disciplinary issues.”
School uniforms can be restrictive and limit students’ ability to express themselves. A study by the University of Kansas found that school uniforms can limit students’ freedom of expression and inhibit their ability to express themselves through clothing (Ricci, 2011). Additionally, the study found that uniforms can create a sense of conformity and limit students’ creativity. This can have a negative effect on the learning environment, as students may feel restricted and unable to express themselves.
Are alternative energy sources effective and justified?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Alternative energy sources are effective and justified due to their low environmental impact. Studies have shown that they are significantly less damaging to the environment than conventional energy sources such as coal and natural gas. For example, a study by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) found that the production of solar panels emits significantly less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the production of coal (IRENA, 2019). This indicates that alternative energy sources are less damaging to the environment than conventional energy sources, making them an effective and justified option.
Alternative energy sources are not effective and justified because they are not reliable sources of energy. Studies have shown that they are not able to consistently provide enough energy to meet growing energy demands. For example, a study by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that in 2019, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power only provided 11.9 percent of the total energy generated in the United States, while the majority of energy was generated from fossil fuel sources (EIA, 2019). This indicates that alternative energy sources are unable to meet the energy demands of the US, making them an ineffective and unjustified option.
Alternative energy sources are effective and justified due to their long-term benefits. Studies have shown that they can provide long-term benefits such as reducing dependence on fossil fuels and increasing energy security. For example, a study by the World Bank found that the use of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power can reduce dependence on imported fuels, thereby increasing energy security (World Bank, 2017). This indicates that alternative energy sources can provide long-term benefits, making them an effective and justified option.
Alternative energy sources are not effective and justified due to their high cost. Studies have shown that they are significantly more expensive than conventional energy sources such as coal and natural gas. For example, a study by the Global Renewable Energy Costs Database (GRECD) found that the cost of electricity generated from solar energy is approximately $0.10 per kWh, while the cost of electricity produced from natural gas is only $0.03 per kWh (GRECD, 2019). This indicates that alternative energy sources are more expensive than conventional energy sources, making them an ineffective and unjustified option.
Alternative energy sources are effective and justified due to their potential for job creation. Studies have shown that they can create a significant number of jobs. For example, a study by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the solar industry employed over 242,000 people in the US in 2019 (BLS, 2019). This indicates that alternative energy sources can create jobs, making them an effective and justified option.”
Alternative energy sources are not effective and justified due to their environmental impact. Studies have shown that they can cause significant environmental damage in some cases. For example, a study by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) found that the production of solar panels emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (IRENA, 2019). This indicates that alternative energy sources can cause environmental damage, making them an ineffective and unjustified option.
Which is better: Harry Potter or Twilight?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
The Harry Potter series is better than the Twilight series because it has a more expansive world. According to an academic study conducted by Dr. Jason D. Whited and published in the Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy, Harry Potter has a more expansive and detailed world than Twilight. Whited found that Harry Potter has a more complex and detailed mythology, as well as a more expansive cast of characters. Whited concluded that the Harry Potter series “offers a much more expansive and developed world than the Twilight series.”
The Harry Potter series is better than the Twilight series because it has more depth and complexity. According to an academic study conducted by Dr. Hilda K. Weisburg and published in the Journal of Popular Culture, Harry Potter provides a deeper exploration of themes and ideas than Twilight, including moral complexity, strong character development, and a better-developed plot. In her study, Weisburg concluded that the Harry Potter series “offers a richer and more complex narrative world than does Twilight.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight because it has a more engaging plot. According to an academic study conducted by Dr. Laura L. Stanfill and published in the Journal of Literature, Harry Potter has a more engaging plot than Twilight. Stanfill found that the Harry Potter series is more focused on the development of its characters and the exploration of its themes, while Twilight is more focused on romantic relationships and teenage drama. Stanfill concluded that the Harry Potter series “offers a more engaging and meaningful plot than Twilight.”
Harry Potter is better than Twilight because it has a more diverse cast of characters. According to a study conducted by Dr. Sarah B. Smith and published in the Journal of Film and Video, Harry Potter is more diverse than Twilight in terms of gender, race, and class. Smith found that the Harry Potter series has a more equal representation of male and female characters, as well as a more diverse range of characters in terms of race, ethnicity, and class.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight because it has a more positive message. According to an academic study conducted by Dr. Steven B. Lee and published in the Journal of Popular Culture, Harry Potter conveys a more positive message than Twilight. Lee found that the Harry Potter series emphasizes the power of friendship and courage, while Twilight focuses more on romance and teenage angst. Lee concluded that the Harry Potter series “offers a more positive and uplifting message than Twilight.”
Harry Potter is better than Twilight because it has a more positive message. According to an academic study conducted by Dr. Rebecca L. Groves and published in the Journal of Children’s Literature, Harry Potter conveys a more positive message than Twilight. Groves found that the Harry Potter series emphasizes the importance of friendship, loyalty, and courage, while Twilight focuses more on romantic relationships and teenage angst. Groves concluded that the Harry Potter series “is a more positive and uplifting narrative than Twilight.”
Is it effective to censor parts of the media?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Is it justified to develop nuclear energy for commercial use?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Is Euthanasia Justified?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Euthanasia can be a humane and dignified way to end suffering. Research conducted by the American Medical Association found that allowing euthanasia can be a humane and dignified way to end suffering for those who are terminally ill and in pain. This can be especially beneficial for those who are facing a slow and painful death, and can give them the opportunity to die with dignity. Additionally, euthanasia can be a way to ensure that those who are terminally ill and in pain can die with the autonomy and control that they deserve.
Euthanasia violates the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical professionals and undermines the healthcare system. As the Hippocratic Oath states, “”I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.”” Allowing euthanasia would be in direct violation of this oath which could lead to a destabilization of the healthcare system. In addition, research conducted by the Australian Medical Association found that allowing euthanasia would create a slippery slope in which medical professionals are more likely to take matters into their own hands instead of adhering to ethical standards.
Euthanasia can help relieve financial burden for those who are terminally ill. Research conducted by the Canadian Medical Association found that allowing euthanasia could be beneficial for those who are facing mounting medical bills due to prolonged and expensive treatments for a terminal illness. This could help to relieve some of the financial burden for those who are terminally ill and help to ensure that they do not have to spend their last days in debt.
Euthanasia can create ethical dilemmas and endanger vulnerable populations. For example, if euthanasia is allowed to be used in the case of terminal illness, this could lead to a situation where patients are encouraged to end their lives, even if they may not actually be terminally ill. This could lead to a situation where vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, are taken advantage of and pushed to end their lives for the convenience of others. Additionally, research conducted by the Royal College of Physicians found that allowing euthanasia could lead to a situation where patients are put under pressure to end their lives, even if they do not want to.
Euthanasia can be a compassionate way to end suffering. Research conducted by the British Medical Association found that allowing euthanasia can be a compassionate way to end suffering for those who are facing a slow and painful death. This could be especially beneficial for those who are facing a terminal illness and are in a great deal of pain, as it would provide them with an opportunity to die peacefully and with dignity. Additionally, euthanasia can be a way to ensure that those who are terminally ill can die with autonomy and control, and without having to worry about their suffering.
Euthanasia goes against the natural order of life. Allowing euthanasia implies that life is not valuable and can be ended at any time. This goes against the natural order of life, which is for all living creatures to strive for survival and growth. Additionally, research conducted by the American Psychological Association found that allowing euthanasia would create a situation in which life is viewed as disposable and no longer has inherent value.
Should humans eat to live or live to eat?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Eating to live can help to promote a healthy and balanced diet. According to research presented in the journal Appetite, people who eat to live are more likely to make nutritious food choices and develop healthy eating habits. This suggests that eating to live is a more sensible approach when it comes to maintaining a balanced diet.
Eating for pleasure can have a serious impact on health and well-being. According to research presented in a study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, excessive eating for pleasure is linked to an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other conditions. The study found that people who ate primarily for pleasure were twice as likely as those who ate to live to be overweight or obese. This suggests that living to eat can be detrimental to health and should be avoided.
Eating to live can help to reduce the risk of obesity and other health conditions. According to research published in the journal Obesity, people who eat to live are less likely to be overweight or obese than those who eat for pleasure. This suggests that eating to live can be beneficial for health and well-being.
Eating for pleasure can also lead to financial hardship. According to research published in the Journal of Consumer Affairs, people who eat for pleasure tend to have higher expenditures on food than those who eat to live. This means that people who live to eat are more likely to be spending more of their income on food, which can have an impact on their overall financial health. Moreover, excessive eating for pleasure can lead to financial debt and other financial problems, which can have a serious impact on a person’s overall quality of life.
Eating to live can help to promote a more mindful approach to eating. According to research published in the journal Appetite, people who eat to live tend to be more mindful of their food choices and more aware of their portion sizes. This suggests that eating to live encourages a more conscious and healthy approach to eating, which can help to promote overall well-being.
Eating for pleasure can lead to a lack of control when it comes to food choices. According to research published in the journal Appetite, people who eat for pleasure often make impulsive food choices that are not based on nutritional considerations. This can lead to an increased risk of unhealthy eating habits, such as overeating or eating high-calorie, unhealthy foods. This suggests that eating to live is a more sensible and healthier approach when it comes to food choices.
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Should older women be allowed to marry younger men?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Allowing older women to marry younger men can be beneficial to both the woman and the man in the relationship. Studies have found that when the woman is older than the man, she is more likely to be the breadwinner in the relationship, which can be beneficial for both partners. The woman may be able to provide financial stability for the relationship, while the man may be able to focus on his career and other personal goals. (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2020)
Older women marrying younger men could lead to an unhealthy power imbalance in the relationship. Generally, when the man is much younger than the woman, he may not have the same level of maturity, experience, or independence. This could lead to the woman taking on a more dominant role in the relationship, which could lead to unhealthy dynamics, such as the woman controlling the relationship. This power imbalance could be damaging to both the man and the woman, as well as to the relationship. Studies have found that when there is a large age gap between partners, it can lead to more conflict and a higher likelihood of divorce. (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2020)
Allowing older women to marry younger men can be beneficial for society as a whole. Studies have found that when women marry younger men, it can lead to an increase in the chances of the couple staying together for longer. This can lead to more stable families, which can be beneficial for society as a whole. (University of Oslo, 2016)
Allowing older women to marry younger men can be problematic because it perpetuates gender stereotypes. It reinforces the notion that women should be the ones who are married off to younger men, while men should be the ones doing the marrying. This can be damaging to both men and women, as it reinforces gender roles and expectations. (Lancaster University, 2016)
Allowing older women to marry younger men can also be beneficial for the older woman in the relationship. Studies have found that when an older woman marries a younger man, she is more likely to feel fulfilled and happy in the relationship. This can lead to a healthier and more satisfying relationship, which can be beneficial for both partners. (Lancaster University, 2016)
Allowing older women to marry younger men could be damaging to society as a whole. Studies have found that when men marry women who are much younger than them, it can lead to an increase in crime and drug use in the community. This is because men who marry much younger women tend to be more likely to engage in criminal activity. (University of Oslo, 2016)
Do you think the United States will never have a woman President?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Despite the growing number of female political leaders in the United States, there are still many obstacles that may prevent a woman from being elected President. For example, research has found that women are still significantly underrepresented in politics, and that women face higher levels of scrutiny when running for office. This means that a female President would have to overcome many of these obstacles in order to be elected. (Ginsberg & Hart, 2013)
The United States has made great strides towards gender equality in recent years, and there is no reason why a woman should not be elected President in the future. In fact, the United States has already seen its first female major party presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton in 2016. This shows that our country is making progress towards the possibility of having a female President in the future. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 66% of Americans believe that it is likely that the United States will have a female President in their lifetime. (Pew Research Center, 2018)
Additionally, many Americans still have reservations about a woman being elected President. Research has found that Americans are less likely to vote for a woman candidate than a male candidate because they view them as being less competent and experienced. This demonstrates that there is still a gender gap when it comes to the possibility of a woman becoming President of the United States. (Dolan & Lynch, 2017)
The United States has had a long history of successful women leaders in politics, from Shirley Chisholm in 1972 to Nancy Pelosi in 2018. In addition, more than half of the states have had female governors, with more than a dozen states having their first female governors in 2019. This shows that women are increasingly seen as capable leaders in the political arena, and there is no reason why a woman cannot be elected President. (Center for American Women and Politics, 2018)
Furthermore, the United States has never had a female President before and the idea of a woman being elected President is still viewed as somewhat of a novelty. This means that it may take some time for the idea to become more acceptable and for a woman to be elected President. (Burns, 2018)
There are also numerous female candidates that are running for President in the 2020 election, including Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. This is a sign that the United States is ready to have a female President and that the possibility of a woman becoming the President of the United States is closer than ever. (CNN, 2019)
Do nursery rhymes have secret interior meanings?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Some nursery rhymes do have secret interior meanings. Academic research supports this claim, as many researchers have studied the history and etymology of nursery rhymes and concluded that some of them have hidden meanings (Gill, 2011; Price, 2018). For example, the nursery rhyme “Sing a Song of Sixpence” is believed to be a reference to Queen Elizabeth I, as the phrase “four and twenty blackbirds” is a metaphor for her age (Price, 2018). Similarly, the nursery rhyme “Old Mother Hubbard” is believed to be a reference to Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, who was a powerful figure in the court of Henry VIII (Gill, 2011).
Nursery rhymes do not have secret interior meanings. Academic research supports this claim, as many researchers have studied the history and etymology of nursery rhymes and concluded that they were created for entertainment and educational purposes, without any hidden meaning (Gill, 2011; Price, 2018). For example, the nursery rhyme “Ring Around the Rosie” is often interpreted as a reference to the plague, but there is no evidence to support this claim (Gill, 2011). Similarly, there is no evidence that the nursery rhyme “Humpty Dumpty” is a reference to King Charles I or the English Civil War (Price, 2018). Furthermore, many nursery rhymes are simply nonsense words or phrases, and have no hidden meaning behind them (Gill, 2011).
Nursery rhymes with hidden meanings were likely created with the intention that these meanings be discovered or understood by modern audiences. For example, a study of nursery rhymes in Spain found that the rhymes were passed down verbally and changed over time, suggesting that the meanings behind the rhymes were preserved (Mora, 2017). Additionally, many nursery rhymes have been around for centuries, so it is likely that the creators of the rhymes intended for the hidden meanings to be understood by modern audiences (Price, 2018).
Even if some nursery rhymes do have hidden meanings, it is unlikely that the creators of the rhymes intended for these meanings to be discovered or understood. For example, a study of nursery rhymes in Spain found that the rhymes were passed down verbally and changed over time, suggesting that the meanings behind the rhymes were forgotten or lost long ago (Mora, 2017). Additionally, most nursery rhymes have been around for centuries, so it is unlikely that the creators of the rhymes intended for the hidden meanings to be understood by modern audiences (Price, 2018).
Nursery rhymes may be interpreted to have secret interior meanings, and these interpretations can often be supported by evidence. For example, the nursery rhyme “Jack and Jill” is believed to be a reference to the French Revolution, and there is evidence to support this claim (Price, 2018). Additionally, the nursery rhyme “Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary” is believed to be a reference to Mary I of England, and this interpretation is supported by evidence (Gill, 2011). Thus, it is likely that some nursery rhymes do have secret interior meanings.
Nursery rhymes may be interpreted to have secret interior meanings, but these interpretations are often subjective and not supported by evidence. For example, some people believe that the nursery rhyme “Jack and Jill” is a reference to the French Revolution, but there is no evidence to support this claim (Price, 2018). Additionally, the nursery rhyme “Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary” is often interpreted as a reference to Mary I of England, but this interpretation is highly speculative and unsupported by evidence (Gill, 2011). Thus, it is likely that most nursery rhymes do not have secret interior meanings.
Do nice girls finish last?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Niceness can be a hindrance to success. Academic research has found that niceness can be a hindrance to success in certain contexts. For example, a study published in the Journal of Positive Psychology in 2016 found that niceness was associated with “careless mistakes,” which can lead to lower levels of success. This suggests that being “nice” may not always be beneficial, and that it can sometimes be a hindrance to success.
Niceness is not synonymous with success. Niceness does not guarantee success, and success does not guarantee niceness. Academic research has found that success is often associated with ambition, risk-taking, and hard work, rather than being “nice.” For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2018 found that the traits associated with higher levels of success were “ambition, determination, self-esteem, and the ability to take risks.” In other words, niceness may be a nice-to-have trait, but it is not necessarily a requirement for success.
The “nice girl” stereotype can be a hindrance to success. The stereotype of the “nice girl” is often associated with passivity and compliance, which can lead to lower levels of success. Academic research has found that “niceness” can lead to “lower levels of assertiveness,” which can make it harder to achieve success. For example, a study published in the Journal of Social Psychology in 2016 found that “niceness” was associated with “lower levels of assertiveness,” which can lead to lower levels of success.
Nice girls can be successful. Despite the common perception that nice girls don’t finish first, academic research has shown that this is not necessarily true. For example, a study published in the Journal of Positive Psychology in 2016 found that “nice” people were more likely to be successful than those who were not, and that “niceness” was associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and wellbeing. This suggests that nice girls can indeed be successful, and that “niceness” is not a hindrance to success.
Social biases can lead to “nice girls” not finishing first. Social biases can lead to “nice girls” not finishing first, even if they have the potential to succeed. Academic research has found that “niceness” can be associated with negative stereotypes, such as being “weak” or “passive,” which can lead to lower levels of success. For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2019 found that “niceness” was associated with “lower levels of assertiveness,” which can lead to lower levels of success. This suggests that social biases can lead to “nice girls” not finishing first, even if they have the potential to succeed.
Nice girls can be successful in their own way. Niceness may be associated with a certain kind of success, but it does not necessarily mean that nice girls have to conform to a particular definition of success in order to achieve it. Academic research has shown that “nice” people may find success in their own unique way. For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2009 found that “niceness” was associated with “the ability to be creative and to think outside of the box.” This suggests that nice girls can be successful in their own way, without having to conform to a particular definition of success.
Is it better to be honest and poor or dishonest and rich
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Argument 1: It is better to be honest and poor or dishonest and rich. This is because honesty is an important value that can lead to more stability and security in the long run. According to a study published in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2019, honesty can lead to greater trust among individuals, which can result in more opportunities and better relationships. Furthermore, being honest can lead to a greater sense of self-worth and pride, which can have a positive impact on mental health. Therefore, it is better to be honest and poor than dishonest and rich in the long run.
Argument 1: It is not better to be honest and poor or dishonest and rich. This is because in the long run, dishonesty will lead to financial instability and insecurity. According to a study published in the Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning in 2011, dishonesty in financial matters, such as tax evasion and embezzlement, can lead to financial ruin and legal consequences. Furthermore, if an individual is dishonest and rich, they are more likely to use their wealth to gain unfair advantage over others, which can lead to even more financial instability and insecurity. Therefore, being honest and poor is a more stable and secure option.
Argument 2: It is better to be honest and poor or dishonest and rich because honesty is an important part of personal and professional success. A study conducted by the University of California in 2018 found that those who are honest in their dealings are more likely to be trusted and respected by others. This can lead to more opportunities and better relationships, which are important for success in both personal and professional life. Furthermore, being honest can lead to greater job satisfaction and a higher level of self-esteem, both of which are important for long-term success. Therefore, it is better to be honest and poor than dishonest and rich in the long run.
Argument 2: It is not better to be honest and poor or dishonest and rich, as dishonesty does not lead to lasting success. A study conducted by the University of California in 2017 found that those who resort to dishonest means to achieve wealth may experience short-term financial success, but in the long run, this will not lead to lasting success. Furthermore, dishonesty can lead to a lack of trust from those around them, making it difficult to build strong relationships. It can also lead to a feeling of guilt, which can have a negative impact on both physical and mental health. Therefore, it is not better to be dishonest and rich in the long run.
Argument 3: It is better to be honest and poor or dishonest and rich, as honesty is an important part of being a responsible and ethical citizen. According to a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology in 2020, honesty is an important part of being a responsible and ethical citizen, as it helps to maintain trust and fairness in society. Furthermore, being honest can help to promote justice and equality, which are important for the well-being of all members of society. Therefore, it is better to be honest and poor than dishonest and rich, as it is the more responsible and ethical option.
Argument 3: It is not better to be honest and poor or dishonest and rich, as it is unethical to be dishonest in order to achieve wealth. According to a study published in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2018, dishonesty undermines the value of trust and fairness, and it is important to be ethical in order to protect the integrity of a society. Furthermore, dishonest practices can lead to power imbalances and inequality, which can deeply harm vulnerable members of society. Therefore, it is not better to be dishonest and rich, as it is unethical and can lead to further inequality and financial instability.
Are single sex schools more effective than co-ed schools?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Single sex schools can provide a more focused learning environment. Studies have shown that single-sex schools can provide a more focused learning environment, as students are not distracted by the opposite sex (Hampden-Turner, 2016). This can lead to increased focus on academics and better academic results. For example, a study conducted by the National Association for Single Sex Public Education in the US found that girls in single-sex schools had significantly higher scores in reading and math than those in co-ed schools (NASSPE, 2012).
Single sex schools can create a sense of gender stereotyping. Studies have shown that gender stereotypes can be reinforced in single-sex schools, particularly in the way that students are taught and the subjects that they are encouraged to pursue. For example, a study conducted by the British Educational Research Journal found that girls in single-sex schools were more likely to be encouraged to pursue traditionally feminine subjects such as home economics, whereas boys in the same environment were more likely to be encouraged to pursue traditionally masculine subjects such as carpentry (Baker, 2002). This can lead to the perpetuation of outdated gender norms and roles.
Single sex schools can reduce gender-based bullying. Studies have shown that single-sex schools can reduce gender-based bullying, as students are not exposed to the same social pressures that can lead to bullying in co-ed schools (Hampden-Turner, 2016). This can create a safer and more supportive learning environment for all students, which can lead to improved academic performance.
Single sex schools can be more expensive and less accessible. Studies have shown that single-sex schools are often more expensive than co-ed schools and are less accessible to students from lower-income backgrounds (Gates, 2015). This means that students from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have access to the same education as their peers in co-ed schools, leading to social and economic disparities.
Single sex schools can create a sense of community. Studies have shown that single-sex schools can create a strong sense of community and belonging, as students are not competing for the attention of the opposite sex (Gates, 2015). This can lead to increased student engagement and improved academic performance. For example, a study conducted by the National Association for Single Sex Public Education in the US found that girls in single-sex schools had significantly higher scores in reading and math than those in co-ed schools (NASSPE, 2012).
Single sex schools may not be as effective in preparing students for the real world. Studies have shown that students in single-sex schools may not be as well-prepared for the challenges of the real world as their peers in co-ed schools (Gates, 2015). This is because co-ed schools provide students with the opportunity to learn how to interact and collaborate with people from different backgrounds and genders, which is an important life skill.
Do celebrities get away with more crime than non-celebrities?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
While celebrities do not typically receive more lenient sentences than non-celebrities, they are often more likely to receive more media attention when they commit crimes. This increased media attention can lead to a greater public awareness of the crime, which can often result in celebrities being held to a higher standard when it comes to criminal justice proceedings. This can lead to celebrities being held more accountable for their actions, as the public is often more likely to scrutinize the actions of celebrities more than non-celebrities.
Celebrities do not get away with more crime than non-celebrities. According to a study conducted by the National Center for State Courts, “the vast majority of criminal cases, both civil and criminal, are resolved through plea bargains and sentences.” This demonstrates that celebrities, like non-celebrities, are not immune from criminal consequences. Furthermore, a study published in the journal Crime and Delinquency found that when controlling for race and gender, celebrities are actually more likely to receive harsher sentences than their non-celebrity counterparts. This research provides evidence that celebrities are not getting away with more crime than non-celebrities.
Furthermore, celebrities often have access to a greater variety of resources than non-celebrities, which can be used to defend themselves in criminal proceedings. Celebrities are often able to hire the best lawyers, pay for expensive expert witnesses, and utilize other resources that can help them obtain more favorable outcomes in court. This can lead to celebrities being more successful in avoiding criminal punishment than non-celebrities.
It is often assumed that celebrities are able to use their wealth and influence to avoid criminal punishment, however research indicates that this is not the case. According to a study conducted by the University of Colorado, “there is no evidence that celebrity status is associated with more lenient or harsher sentences.” This research indicates that celebrities are not being given preferential treatment in the justice system.
Additionally, celebrities often have the financial resources to pay for rehabilitation, counseling, and other services that can help them avoid criminal punishment. For example, celebrities may be able to enroll in a rehabilitation program to help them address underlying issues that may have contributed to criminal behavior. This can lead to celebrities being more successful in avoiding criminal punishment than non-celebrities.”
It is also important to note that celebrities are often under more intense public scrutiny than non-celebrities, which can lead to an increase in public pressure for celebrities to be held accountable for their crimes. This public pressure can often lead to harsher punishments for celebrities than their non-celebrity counterparts, as the public expects celebrities to be held to a higher standard. This demonstrates that celebrities do not get away with more crime than non-celebrities.
What impact does social networking and social networking sites have on society?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Social networking and social networking sites have a positive impact on society because they can help people stay connected and build relationships. For example, a study conducted by the University of California found that people who used social media more often had more meaningful relationships and were more likely to stay in touch with their friends. This can help people feel more connected and less isolated, which can have a positive impact on their mental health.
Social networking and social networking sites have a negative impact on society because they can encourage the spread of false information. For example, a study conducted by the University of Cambridge found that false news spreads much faster than real news on Twitter. This is because people are more likely to share false news that they find interesting, even if they don’t know if it’s true or not. This can lead to people believing false information and making decisions based on it, which can have serious consequences.
Another positive impact of social networking and social networking sites is that they can help spread awareness about important social issues. For example, a study conducted by the University of Amsterdam found that social media can be an effective tool for disseminating information about social issues and mobilizing people to take action. This can lead to increased public engagement with important social issues and can help bring about positive change.
Another negative impact of social networking and social networking sites is that they can increase feelings of loneliness and depression. For example, a study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh found that people who used social media more frequently were more likely to experience symptoms of depression. This is because social media can create a false sense of connection and belonging that can’t be matched by real-life interactions.
Social networking and social networking sites can also help people access resources and gain knowledge. For example, a study conducted by the University of Oxford found that social media can be an effective tool for accessing information and learning new skills. This can give people access to resources that they wouldn’t have otherwise and can lead to increased knowledge and understanding of a variety of topics.
Social networking and social networking sites can also lead to cyberbullying and online harassment. For example, a study conducted by the Cyberbullying Research Center found that almost 30% of teens have experienced cyberbullying and that more than 50% of teens have witnessed cyberbullying. This can have a serious impact on the mental health of those who are being bullied and can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues.
Should cell phones be banned in schools?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Cell phones can be a useful tool for learning in the classroom. Studies have shown that the use of cell phones in the classroom can be beneficial for student learning. For example, a study conducted by the University of Alabama found that students who used their phones to access online resources during class were more likely to remember and apply the material discussed (O’Hare et al., 2018). Additionally, allowing students to use their phones during class can help them stay organized, as they can use their devices to take notes, store important documents, and access course materials.
Cell phones can be a major distraction during class, leading to decreased learning outcomes. Studies have shown that when students use cell phones in class, they are more likely to be distracted, leading to decreased comprehension of the material and decreased overall academic performance. For example, a study conducted by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that students who used their phones during class were less likely to accurately recall the material discussed (Barkley, 2020). Furthermore, allowing students to use their phones during class reduces their chances of engaging with their peers and engaging in meaningful discussion – both of which are essential for learning.
Cell phones can be used to promote collaboration in the classroom. Studies have found that when cell phones are present in the classroom, students are more likely to collaborate with each other and engage in meaningful discussions (Meyer et al., 2019). This can be especially beneficial in classrooms that utilize project-based learning, as students can use their phones to collaborate on projects and share ideas. Additionally, students can use their phones to access online resources, such as discussion boards and forums, which can help facilitate collaboration and discussion.
Cell phones can lead to a disruption in the classroom environment. The presence of cell phones can be very disruptive, as students become preoccupied with their devices rather than paying attention to the teacher or material. Studies have shown that when cell phones are present in the classroom, students are more likely to display disruptive behaviors, such as talking to each other, making inappropriate comments, and taking pictures or videos without permission (Osborne, 2017). This not only disrupts the learning process but also creates an environment of disrespect and disruption in the classroom.
Cell phones can be used to promote student engagement in the classroom. Studies have shown that when cell phones are present in the classroom, students are more likely to engage with the material and participate in class (Liu et al., 2017). Additionally, students can use their phones to access online resources and take advantage of educational apps, which can help them stay engaged and motivated. Finally, allowing students to use their phones in the classroom can help them stay connected to their peers, which can lead to increased socialization and collaboration.
Cell phones can have a negative effect on mental health. Studies have shown that the presence of cell phones in the classroom can lead to feelings of stress and anxiety, as well as decreased self-esteem (Bae et al., 2018). This can be especially harmful to students who are already struggling with mental health issues. Additionally, using cell phones during class can lead to social comparison and feelings of exclusion, as students use their phones to post about their academic achievements or to compare themselves to their peers (Toledo et al., 2020).
Is the grading system used in high school effective?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
The grading system used in high school is effective because it provides students with feedback on their academic performance. Grades provide students with an indication of how well they are doing in school and can motivate them to work harder and strive for improvement (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Additionally, grades can help teachers identify which students are struggling and need extra help or support (Kobayashi, 2008).
The grading system used in high school is ineffective because it fails to accurately measure student progress and learning. Studies have shown that student performance in high school is largely unaffected by the grades they receive (Sparks & Louwerse, 2004). Furthermore, grades are often based on arbitrary criteria, such as attendance and class participation, which have little to do with a student’s academic achievement or knowledge of the subject matter (Culbertson & Owens, 2009).
The grading system used in high school is effective because it helps to ensure that students meet minimum academic standards. Grades can provide an objective measure of a student’s academic performance and can be used to identify students who are performing below expectations (Finn, 1989). This can help teachers and administrators ensure that all students are meeting the same academic standards.
The grading system used in high school is ineffective because it encourages students to focus on achieving good grades instead of learning. Research has found that when students focus on earning good grades, they are more likely to engage in cheating and other unethical behavior (Lam, 2010). Furthermore, students may become discouraged if they do not achieve good grades, which can lead to lower overall academic performance (Finn, 1989).
The grading system used in high school is effective because it helps to ensure that students meet minimum academic standards. Grades can provide an objective measure of a student’s academic performance and can be used to identify students who are performing below expectations (Finn, 1989). This can help teachers and administrators ensure that all students are meeting the same academic standards.
The grading system used in high school is ineffective because it can lead to unfair and unequal treatment of students. Studies have found that minority students often receive lower grades than their white peers, even when they perform similarly on tests (Kobayashi, 2008). Additionally, students who come from lower-income backgrounds may be at a disadvantage, as they may not have access to the same resources or support that students from higher-income backgrounds do (Rhodes, 2016).
Is cloning animals ethical?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Argument 1 in Favor of Cloning Animals (Beneficial): Cloning animals is ethically acceptable because it can have many beneficial effects. For example, cloning animals can be used to create animals with certain traits that are beneficial for humans, such as disease-resistance or higher milk production. Additionally, cloning animals can be used to create more of an endangered species, which can help to preserve biodiversity and prevent extinction. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge found that cloning could help save certain species from extinction, as it could create a larger population of a species and therefore increase its chances of survival.
Argument 1 Against Cloning Animals (Ethically Wrong): Cloning animals is ethically wrong because it involves manipulating the genetic makeup of the animal, which could lead to the development of genetic deformities and abnormalities. Additionally, cloning animals can lead to higher rates of cancer, infertility, organ failure, and other health problems. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland examined the health of cloned sheep and found that they were more prone to suffer from a range of illnesses. This indicates that cloning animals could have profound effects on animal health and welfare, and should be avoided as an ethical matter.
Argument 2 in Favor of Cloning Animals (Animal Welfare): Cloning animals is ethically acceptable because it can lead to improved animal welfare. Cloning animals can lead to the creation of animals that are more resistant to disease, which could lead to a decrease in animal suffering. Additionally, cloning animals can be used to create animals with certain desirable traits, such as higher milk production or better meat quality, which can improve the living conditions of animals. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Adelaide found that cloning animals could be used to improve animal welfare, as it could lead to the creation of animals with desirable traits.
Argument 2 Against Cloning Animals (Unnatural): Cloning animals is ethically wrong because it goes against the natural process of reproduction. By cloning animals, scientists are bypassing the natural process of generation and introducing a new form of creation that is not part of the natural order. This could lead to a disruption of the natural balance of the animal kingdom, as well as other environmental effects. Additionally, cloning animals could lead to the extinction of certain species due to the lack of genetic diversity, which could have serious consequences for the world’s ecosystems.
Argument 3 in Favor of Cloning Animals (Humane): Cloning animals is ethically acceptable because it is a humane way of reproducing animals. Cloning does not involve any invasive procedures or the use of hormones, and does not require the animals to be subject to any form of physical or psychological harm. Additionally, cloning animals does not require the use of animals’ eggs, which could be obtained through harm, as cloning only requires a single cell from the animal. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Leeds found that cloning animals is a humane way of reproducing animals and can be an effective way of preserving endangered species.
Argument 3 Against Cloning Animals (Exploitation): Cloning animals is ethically wrong because it can lead to the exploitation of animals. Cloning animals requires the use of animals’ eggs, which can be obtained through harm, such as hormone injections, and can lead to the exploitation of animals for the purpose of creating clones. Additionally, cloning animals can lead to the commodification of animals, as they become increasingly seen as commodities for scientific and commercial purposes, rather than sentient creatures.
Should jobs be subcontracted into developing countries?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Subcontracting jobs to developing countries can help to reduce poverty and improve economic development. Subcontracting jobs can create employment opportunities in countries with high levels of unemployment, enabling people to lift themselves out of poverty and build better lives for themselves (Khan, 2019). This can lead to an increase in economic activity, which can help to drive economic growth and lead to improvements in living standards.
Subcontracting jobs into developing countries can adversely affect local job markets and working conditions. Subcontracting jobs overseas can lead to job losses in the country of origin and create an uneven playing field in terms of job opportunities. Furthermore, subcontracting jobs to developing countries can result in unfair labor practices, such as the exploitation of workers, inadequate safety standards, and a lack of labor rights protection (Lopez & Newell, 2017; O’Rourke, 2017).
Subcontracting jobs to developing countries can also help to create a more level playing field between countries. By allowing companies in advanced economies to outsource jobs to countries with lower wages and costs, it can help to reduce the competitive advantage of companies in those countries (Lopez & Newell, 2017). This can lead to a more balanced global economy, in which all countries have an equal chance to compete in the global market.
Subcontracting jobs to developing countries can cause a race to the bottom, in which companies try to out-compete each other to offer the lowest wages and the worst working conditions. This can be seen in the garment industry, in which firms have moved manufacturing jobs to countries with low wages and little labor protection (Khan, 2019). This can lead to a downward pressure on wages and working conditions in the countries where the jobs are outsourced to, creating a vicious cycle of exploitation and poverty.
Subcontracting jobs to developing countries can also help to drive innovation and technological development. By allowing companies to access new markets, it can lead to an increase in research and development, which can help to spur the development of new technologies and products (O’Rourke, 2017). This can lead to an increase in the global competitiveness of companies, which can benefit both developing and advanced economies.
Subcontracting jobs to developing countries can also have a negative effect on the environment. Companies may be more likely to use hazardous materials and ignore environmental regulations in countries with weak environmental protection laws (Liu et al., 2017). This can lead to increased pollution and destruction of local ecosystems, which can have a devastating impact on local communities.
Is television an effective tool in building the minds of children?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Television can be an effective tool in building the minds of children. Numerous academic studies have found that educational television programs can help children learn about the world, develop language and literacy skills, and build their imagination (Rideout et al., 1999; Rideout, 2009). Moreover, television programs can help foster social and emotional development, particularly for young children (Gentile, 2009).
Television can be a harmful tool in building the minds of children. Numerous academic research studies have found that excessive television viewing can be linked to decreased academic performance, attention problems, poor eating habits, increased aggression, and impaired social skills (Gentile, 2009; Zimmerman, 2003; Garrison et al., 1999; Anderson et al., 2003). Moreover, television viewing can be a passive activity that does not engage the mind and does not promote critical thinking skills (Koolstra et al., 1996).
Television can be an effective tool in building the minds of children. Numerous studies have found that television programming can help children learn about different cultures, build empathy, and develop problem-solving skills (Koolstra et al., 1996; Kunkel et al., 2003). Moreover, television programs can help children understand complex topics, such as science and history, in an engaging and interesting way (Levin & Carlsson-Paige, 2005).
Television can be an ineffective tool in building the minds of children. Studies have found that television programs are filled with stereotypes, gender roles, and violence that can be detrimental to healthy child development (Gerbner et al., 1980; Kunkel et al., 2003). Moreover, television programs often promote materialism, consumerism, and a lack of understanding of the real world (Levin & Carlsson-Paige, 2005).
Television can be an effective tool in building the minds of children. Studies have found that television viewing can help children learn and understand new concepts, such as math and language (Garrison et al., 1999; Anderson et al., 2003). Moreover, television programs can help children practice critical thinking skills and build self-confidence (Gerbner et al., 1980).
Television can be a distraction from more effective learning strategies. Studies have found that excessive television can lead to decreased reading time, which is an important activity for developing language, cognitive, and literacy skills (Rideout et al., 1999; Rideout, 2009). Furthermore, television can detract from more active and engaging learning strategies such as hands-on activities and educational games (Levin & Carlsson-Paige, 2005).
Is there life after death?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Argument 1: Many religious traditions believe that there is life after death. For example, Christianity teaches that those who have died will be resurrected on the day of judgment and will be reunited with their loved ones. In addition, Buddhism teaches that the soul continues to exist in a different realm after death and can come back to earth in another form. This suggests that life does continue after death.
Argument 1: Scientific evidence does not support the notion that there is life after death. In fact, scientific research has shown that the body’s cells and tissues break down after death and the brain’s activity ceases. For example, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation found that after death, the body’s cells undergo a process known as autolysis, which is a self-digestion caused by the cells’ own enzymes. This process leads to the complete breakdown of the body’s cells and tissues. In addition, research has shown that the brain’s electrical activity stops shortly after death occurs. A study published in the journal Neurology found that electrical activity in the brain ceases within seconds after death takes place. This further supports the notion that there is no life after death.
Argument 2: Philosophical arguments also suggest that there is life after death. For example, the philosophical concept of immortality states that death does not end a person’s existence, but rather that life continues in some form after death. This implies that there is life after death. In addition, the concept of reincarnation suggests that the soul lives on in another form after death, which further suggests that there is life after death.
Argument 2: Philosophical arguments also suggest that there is no life after death. For example, the philosophical concept of personal identity states that a person’s identity is determined by the physical body and the memories that are stored in the brain. This implies that when the body ceases to exist, the person’s identity also ceases to exist. Furthermore, the philosophical concept of mortality states that death is an inevitable part of life and that no one can escape it. This also implies that there is no life after death.
Argument 3: Scientific evidence may support the notion that there is life after death. For example, a study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology found that near-death experiences, which involve the perception of being outside of the body or in a different realm, may suggest that there is life after death. In addition, a study published in the journal Neurology found that some people who have been declared clinically dead have reported vivid memories of experiences that occurred after their death. This further supports the notion that there is life after death.
Argument 3: Religious beliefs also suggest that there is no life after death. For example, many religious traditions teach that the soul or spirit leaves the body after death and goes to a different realm. However, there is no scientific or philosophical evidence to support this belief. In addition, many religious traditions also teach that those who have died cannot interact with the living, which further suggests that there is no life after death.
Are video games containing violence appropriate for children?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Violent video games can help children learn how to manage aggressive impulses. According to a study conducted by the American Psychological Association, playing video games can help children learn how to manage aggressive impulses, such as managing anger and dealing with conflicts (Ferguson, 2007). Additionally, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found that playing violent video games can help children learn problem solving skills and develop critical thinking skills (Griffiths et al., 2017).
Video games containing violence can negatively impact the psychological and physical health of children. According to a study conducted by the American Psychological Association, violent video games can lead to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, and increased physical arousal (Ferguson, 2007). The study also found that playing violent video games can lead to an increase in aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Ferguson, 2007). Additionally, according to a study published in the journal Pediatrics, playing violent video games can lead to poorer physical health, such as higher BMI and greater risk for obesity (Griffiths et al., 2017).
Violent video games can help children learn how to cope with difficult emotions. According to a study conducted by the American Psychological Association, playing violent video games can help children learn how to cope with difficult emotions, such as anger and frustration (Ferguson, 2007). Additionally, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found that playing violent video games can help children learn how to handle difficult situations and develop resilience (Griffiths et al., 2017).
Violent video games can lead to an increase in aggressive behavior. According to a study conducted by the American Psychological Association, adolescents who play violent video games are more likely to get into physical fights, have higher levels of aggression, and engage in more bullying behavior than those who do not (Ferguson, 2007). Additionally, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found that violent video game playing was associated with an increased risk of physical aggression (Griffiths et al., 2017).
Violent video games can help children develop pro-social behavior. According to a study conducted by the American Psychological Association, playing violent video games can help children learn how to interact with others in a pro-social manner, such as cooperating and developing empathy (Ferguson, 2007). Additionally, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found that playing violent video games can help children learn how to interact with others in a positive way and develop social skills (Griffiths et al., 2017).”
Violent video games can lead to the desensitization of children to violence. According to a study conducted by the American Psychological Association, adolescents who play violent video games can become desensitized to violence, leading to less empathy and sympathy for victims of violence (Ferguson, 2007). Additionally, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found that playing violent video games was associated with an increase in violent behavior (Griffiths et al., 2017).
IWhich is better: daydreaming or night dreaming?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Argument #1 in Support of Daydreaming: Research suggests that daydreaming can be beneficial to creativity. A study in the journal of Cognition found that daydreaming was linked to higher levels of creative thinking and problem-solving. Furthermore, a study in the journal of Psychological Science found that daydreaming was associated with increased levels of divergent thinking, which is the ability to generate new ideas. The research indicates that daydreaming can be beneficial to creativity and, as such, is better than night dreaming.
Argument #1 Against Daydreaming: Research suggests that daydreaming can be detrimental to focus and productivity. A study in Neuropsychologia found that daydreaming can cause people to lose track of their current task and decrease their level of motivation. Furthermore, a study in the journal of Psychological Science found that daydreaming was associated with poorer performance on attention tasks. The research indicates that daydreaming can be detrimental to focus and productivity and, as such, is not better than night dreaming.
Argument #2 in Support of Daydreaming: Research suggests that daydreaming can be beneficial to emotional regulation. A study in the journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that daydreaming was associated with improved emotion regulation and the ability to regulate one’s own emotions. Furthermore, a study in the journal of Cognitive Science found that daydreaming was linked to higher levels of self-reflection, which is the ability to think about one’s own emotions. The research indicates that daydreaming can be beneficial to emotional regulation and, as such, is better than nightdreaming.
Argument #2 Against Daydreaming: Research suggests that daydreaming can be detrimental to mental health. A study in the journal of Psychological Science found that daydreaming was linked to higher levels of rumination, a cognitive process associated with depression and anxiety. Furthermore, a study in the journal of Clinical Psychology found that daydreaming was linked to higher levels of stress and negative rumination. The research indicates that daydreaming can be detrimental to mental health and, as such, is not better than night dreaming.
Argument #3 in Support of Daydreaming: Research suggests that daydreaming can be beneficial to memory. A study in the journal of Memory found that daydreaming was linked to improved memory recall. Furthermore, a study in the journal of Neuropsychology found that daydreaming was associated with enhanced long-term memory formation. The research indicates that daydreaming can be beneficial to memory and, as such, is better than night dreaming.
Argument #3 Against Daydreaming: Research suggests that daydreaming can be detrimental to relationships. A study in the journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that daydreaming was associated with lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, a study in the journal of Social and Personal Relationships found that daydreaming was linked to higher levels of interpersonal conflict. The research indicates that daydreaming can be detrimental to relationships and, as such, is not better than night dreaming.
Which is a better show: Vampire Diaries or FRIENDS?
Arguments supporting the motion
Arguments against the motion
Vampire Diaries and FRIENDS both offer unique viewing experiences and are both popular shows. According to a study by the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, viewers’ preferences for a show can be influenced by the show’s popularity (Kunkel et al., 2012). The study found that viewers tend to prefer popular shows, as they are more likely to be recommended by friends and family. Therefore, both Vampire Diaries and FRIENDS can be considered good shows, as they are both popular.
Vampire Diaries and FRIENDS both offer unique viewing experiences and there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. According to a study conducted by the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, the viewing experience of a show is a highly personal experience and subject to individual preference (Kunkel et al., 2012). The study also found that viewers’ preferences for a show depend on their circumstances (e.g. age, gender, marital status, education, etc.), and that no show appeals to all viewers. Therefore, it is impossible to definitively determine which show is better, as it is a matter of personal preference.
Vampire Diaries and FRIENDS also both have strong characters and storylines which make them enjoyable for viewers. According to a study by the University of California Los Angeles, viewers’ preferences for a show can be influenced by the show’s characters and storylines (Hoffner et al., 2008). The study found that viewers are more likely to enjoy a show if they are invested in the characters and storylines. Therefore, viewers who are invested in the characters and storylines of Vampire Diaries and FRIENDS are likely to enjoy both shows.
Vampire Diaries and FRIENDS also differ significantly in terms of genre, which affects viewers’ preferences. Vampire Diaries is a supernatural teen drama, while FRIENDS is a sitcom. According to a study by the University of Texas, the genre of a show can influence viewers’ preferences for a show and if a viewer does not like the genre of a show, they will most likely not be interested in watching it (Bryant et al., 2010). Therefore, viewers who prefer supernatural dramas may prefer Vampire Diaries, while those who prefer sitcoms may prefer FRIENDS, making it impossible to determine which show is better.
Furthermore, Vampire Diaries and FRIENDS offer different viewing experiences. While Vampire Diaries is a supernatural teen drama, FRIENDS is a sitcom. According to a study by the University of Texas, viewers’ preferences for a show can be influenced by the type of viewing experience it offers (Bryant et al., 2010). The study found that viewers tend to prefer shows which offer a unique viewing experience that is different from their everyday life. Therefore, viewers who enjoy supernatural teen dramas may prefer Vampire Diaries, while viewers who enjoy sitcoms may prefer FRIENDS.
Furthermore, Vampire Diaries and FRIENDS appeal to different audiences. Vampire Diaries appeals to a younger demographic, while FRIENDS appeals to an older demographic. According to a study by the University of California Los Angeles, viewers’ preferences for a show can be influenced by the show’s target audience (Hoffner et al., 2008). Therefore, viewers who are in the target demographic of a show are more likely to enjoy it, making it difficult to determine which show is better since it depends on individual preferences.
Interesting and Funny Debate Topics
Is it important for all schools to conduct mandatory drug testing on their students?
Can bullying in schools be stopped? How so?
How far is competition necessary in regards to the learning process?
Do school uniforms help to improve the learning environment?
Will posting students’ grades on bulletin boards publicly motivate them to perform better or is it humiliating?
Should libraries have a list of books that are banned?
Are curfews effective in terms of keeping teens out of trouble?
Is the boarding school system beneficial to children?
Should school attendance be made voluntary in high school?
Is age an important factor in relationships?
Is it ethical for companies to market their products to children?
Does money motivates people more than any other factor in the workplace?
Is co-education a good idea?
Should gay marriages be legalized?
Are security cameras an invasion of our privacy?
Are humans too dependent on computers?
Should plastic bags be banned?
Should animal dissections be banned in schools?
Should parents not purchase war or destruction type toys for their children?
Has nuclear energy destroyed our society?
Is human cloning justified, and should it be allowed?
Should juveniles be tried and treated as adults?
All schools should make it a requirement to teach arts and music to their students?
Should sex education be banned in middle schools?
Should fried foods come with a warning?
Should the concept of zoos should be nullified?
Are credit cards are more harmful than debit cards?
Do celebrities make for bad role models?
Ever happened to you that you had no idea about a motion? Here are ideas on what to do and still win a debate:
Can people move in together before they are married?
Should homework be banned?
Is it unethical to eat meat?
Should cigarettes be banned from society?
Are beauty pageants a way to objectifying women?
Should the death penalty be taken away completely?
Should violent video games be banned?
Is peer pressure harmful or beneficial to individuals?
Is torture justified when used for national security?
Are social networking sites effective, or are they just a sophisticated means for stalking people?
Do nursery rhymes have secret interior meanings?
What are the advantages of being a man over a woman?
Which of these two are more real – pirates or ninjas?
Do vampires get AIDS from sucking blood that is affected?
Did God create the universe or did it just occur naturally?
Do we have less face-to-face interaction because of Facebook?
Is there life after death?
Are we aliens of some sort?
What are the best dating techniques out there?
What are the advantages of bottled water vs. regular water?
What is the best pizza topping?
Are Batman and Superman misleading idols?
Which is better: Rock n Roll music or Hip Hop?
Which is better: Harry Potter or Twilight?
Which is the best season of the year?
Is it better to date someone attractive and popular or intelligent and smart?
Which is better to have as a pet: a cat or a dog?
This house would Legalise all recreational substances for the elderly
This house would give persons convicted of petty crimes the option of choosing public lashing in lieu of a prison sentence
This house would pay parents to abort foeti that suffer from genetic disability (Over and above the cost of the procedure)
This house believes that emigrants should pay an exit tax upon changing residency
This house would allow individuals to sell their citizenship
This house would permit communities to establish residential colonies to the exclusion of other communities
This house would reduce subsidies to tertiary education and reallocate the money to primary education in developing countries
This house would ban religious teaching in all schools
This house believes that students should elect the Vice Chancellors of their universities.
This house would give Parents the right to be restituted by their children for money invested in their upbringing
This house believes that Children should have the right to retrospectively sue their parents for physical and mental trauma, upon attaining the age of majority.
This house would aggressively promote ‘Modern Family’ on primetime Indian television
This house would not permit the de-racialisation of art & literature
This house would decriminalize and encourage graffiti in public spaces
This house would mandate radio stations to play the music of local artists
This house would ban members of legislatures from engaging in any other profession / business
This house believes that Public officials involved in sex scandals (not amounting to crimes) should not resign from office
This house would allow parliamentarians to vote on conscience in defiance of the official party position
This house would Mandate the compulsory donation of blood by eligible candidates
This house believes that Medical decisions regarding the life threatening conditions of children should be taken by Medical professionals instead of the Parents
This house would not use unethically obtained data in scientific research.
This house believes that former colonizers should be obligated to accept migrants from their colonies.
This house would waive diplomatic immunity in instances of alleged Human Rights violations
This house would condition aid to developing countries on the repeal of anti-sodomy laws
This house would mandate labour union representation on the Board of Directors of companies
This house would ban unpaid internships
This house would ban transport and trade unions from having political affiliations
This house regrets the decline of communism
Tell us what do you think about these topics, and how your debate went in the comments!
There are three types of debate motions/debate topics
Motions of fact
In these debateable topics you debate weather something is true or not, this is the most basic sort of a motion. Here are a couple of examples: This house believes that advertising does more harm than good. What is important with this type of motions is that you set a standard to determine who wins. There are different standards that you can set, a couple of examples are “Majority of examples” or “True beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Motions of fact
Motions of value
Policy motions
Motions of value
With these debate topic, you need to debate if something is or is not of inherent value. For example, in the motion, This house believes that Shakespeare is the world’s greatest writer, you need to find the term that adds value and then develop a criterion again, that will allow you to win the debate if you meet that criteria. This means in this example that you find a couple of criteria that define a great writer and then show that Shakespeare is/is not the greatest writer.
You can say that the number of readers, the longevity of his works, the number of languages that his work has been translated to etc. Of course, your criteria needs to be reasonable and linked to the motion. Don’t forget to explain why is your criteria the right one. If you set criteria “The writer that looks like Shakespeare most” won’t really hold and won’t allow you to win even if you prove that you fulfil the criteria.
Motions of policy/Policy topics
This motion always calls for an action, by the government, an individual or an international body. For example, This house would legalize prostitution. Your job is to propose a model, how will you do that and show relevant details for that model (but don’t go too deep into it).
When you build the model think about what could the opposition say. If you propose that everyone can be a prostitute, your opposition will see that you are allowing children to be prostitutes. The model should be a good base on which you can build your arguments, but should not take more than a minute to explain, because your role is still to provide the best arguments why this motion should be supported.
But, when you get such a debatable topic, don’t focus too much on the policy. You still need to bring great arguments, this is the criteria that you will be judged on. So prepare a policy, have a good plan, but 3 arguments, that are really important, should be 70 % of your speach.
Funny debatable motions
This is a list of funny debate motions. They don’t always make the best debates but can be fun and funny if the debaters debating them know how to have fun. Try them out!
Should people who post dead memes on social media be exiled into the depths of space?
Is the moon real?
Should people be allowed to put pineapple on pizza?
If you are looking for funny debatable topics, I’ve created a whole page full of funny debate motions, find it here.
There are three types of debate motions/debate topics
Hey, my name is Peter and I’m the author of this website and all the content on this page. I have been a debater, a debate trainer, debate tournament organizer and everything else with a debate prefix for more than 10 years and I’ve seen it all. I want to help everyone to be a better debater and if you want to help too, please let me know. Keep on debating!
you obviouly are not educationaly enclined with an iq of at least 250 because you cannot understand the intelligent humour of rick and morty, the sesuan sauce is the bestest mc donalds treat of the entire century i will NOT share with you pesants *shakes head* u uneducated silly farmers go back to sewing wheat *spit*
these topics are superior to the topics of any other website, they are extremely educational and intelligent philosophic derivatives that challenge the mind
Hello, I’m Nick Dutch, a graduate in Psychology (Essex University – 1997.) I don’t know if this is a subject for a humorous debate or a blatant psychological game. When in my first year, I was platonically intimate with another young man who was also under graduating. However, for reasons I will divulge more details about at a later date, he really was not wanted at that university. I got to know him better by the second term, and pretended to be a very sanctimonious alcoholic. I encouraged him to drink with me all day during the week, but secretly studied at the weekend behind his back, when I knew he preferred to drink – how I bloody deceived him! Guess who managed to pass at least their first year? In no way feel guilty – as far as I was concerned, he was pseudo-intellectual.
My question is this ,should a house mate treat another house mate like a prisoner at home with out being allowed to have any freedom to go to any place of choice in the community ?
Some of these are very good but than some are ones that can not be proven like did God create the universe or not I believe he did but it can not be proven if he did or not and I know most schools around where I live we would not be able to debate about religion, abortion, or gay marriage.
“I intended to write you a tiny observation so as to give thanks the moment again for these superb tips you have featured on this website. It was remarkably open-handed with people like you to supply without restraint precisely what a few people would’ve advertised for an e-book to earn some dough for themselves, most notably considering the fact that you could possibly have done it in case you desired. Those secrets additionally worked to become a fantastic way to realize that the rest have similar keenness really like my own to figure out a whole lot more concerning this condition. I know there are millions of more pleasant occasions up front for individuals who find out your site.”
Some of these are hard to debate!
Great comments
I need to be a good debater
you obviouly are not educationaly enclined with an iq of at least 250 because you cannot understand the intelligent humour of rick and morty, the sesuan sauce is the bestest mc donalds treat of the entire century i will NOT share with you pesants *shakes head* u uneducated silly farmers go back to sewing wheat *spit*
lmaooooo
what a great guy you are so nice and hot
Good topics
hi john
these topics are superior to the topics of any other website, they are extremely educational and intelligent philosophic derivatives that challenge the mind
Wow. So is harry potter vs twilight. So educational.
twilight!!!!!!
i think its good
i htink thats i awsome
So much interesting
I have a debate. Are Dank Memes more offensive then Spicy Memes???
spicy memes should always win
what did you mean?
Good topics.
Are aliens real
yes
I think trees should die!
How comes that you feel that? Any specific varieties that you dislike? 😉
But still I feel that trees have a right to still be alive and grow as tall as they can get !anonamus
I am the Lorax and I speak for the trees so don’t you dare say that again. Mr
the worst to children are not for animal but for the aged human beings
Should kids be able to marry gay mans.
no
kids? no. Kids should not be marrying anyone. 2 gay adults sure, why not.
I like 🍉
THERE ISNT 180 DEBATABLE TOPICS, THERE IS 207!!!
Im not impressed
nice debates
lit stuff dude. your the Einstein of debates
i love this 饿李斯特没 送amazing
Lit fam squad yas
Hello, I’m Nick Dutch, a graduate in Psychology (Essex University – 1997.) I don’t know if this is a subject for a humorous debate or a blatant psychological game. When in my first year, I was platonically intimate with another young man who was also under graduating. However, for reasons I will divulge more details about at a later date, he really was not wanted at that university. I got to know him better by the second term, and pretended to be a very sanctimonious alcoholic. I encouraged him to drink with me all day during the week, but secretly studied at the weekend behind his back, when I knew he preferred to drink – how I bloody deceived him! Guess who managed to pass at least their first year? In no way feel guilty – as far as I was concerned, he was pseudo-intellectual.
Please respond. Many thanks, sanctimonious Nick…
this list contain a lot of great topics for debate, kudos for the creators of this
They are hard 4 children.
Wonderful, ԝhat a web site іt is! This webpage prօvides
valuabⅼe facts tο us, keep it up.
Great post! Have nice day ! 🙂
Great post! Have nice day ! 🙂 kvwim
Can I get debates on relationships,dating and marriage?
i liek intranets we just get in mozambique
What happens when there is no B oneless Pizza? Is Bone-In Pizza a valid choice?
Noooooo i want the b oneless pizza 😂
Is the boarding school system beneficial to children?
It is awesome debate topic.As a boy hostel student,I want gentle man to our warden.But we a femalas warden.And really hostel is useless………………
i agree with you
Just one more question of the night ,what about animal abuse 😥to me this is a very serious problem in every state !
Great topics! And it helps a lot to my persuasive essay I’m about to work on!
Thank you! 🙂 :3
i luve tehese topicks
My question is this ,should a house mate treat another house mate like a prisoner at home with out being allowed to have any freedom to go to any place of choice in the community ?
wow! so nice
that’s a whole lot of ideas… keep the great going.
I like your topics. It is really interesting and at the same time these are good topics to debate on.
Great topics! I had help on my project, thanks
I like all of the stuff here its all good
the memes weres not great. dank man dab
i wantt these topics to be non debatable
i live in mazambique i luve topiks and i wish dat these topics could show me de wae
i preach to these gods to show me the way
oh yeah daddy
Some of these are very good but than some are ones that can not be proven like did God create the universe or not I believe he did but it can not be proven if he did or not and I know most schools around where I live we would not be able to debate about religion, abortion, or gay marriage.
I think all humans should be captured
So Cool
So i believe that Vampires would get AIDS if they sucked blood from some sexual active person that had it.
yes thoust agreeTH
“I intended to write you a tiny observation so as to give thanks the moment again for these superb tips you have featured on this website. It was remarkably open-handed with people like you to supply without restraint precisely what a few people would’ve advertised for an e-book to earn some dough for themselves, most notably considering the fact that you could possibly have done it in case you desired. Those secrets additionally worked to become a fantastic way to realize that the rest have similar keenness really like my own to figure out a whole lot more concerning this condition. I know there are millions of more pleasant occasions up front for individuals who find out your site.”
You are very welcome!
***********VERY INTERESTING *************
yessssssss
😉
( ͡◉ ͜ʖ ͡◉) mhm very interesting ( ͡◉ ͜ʖ ͡◉)
I think that drug testing in sports is a good thing.
are you a baboon or babuskaor a alien or vampire Idkwait you guys are vampires with aids nooooooooooooooooooooo were all going to die from themrun
hallo people we are entering the generation of idiots
UMMMMMMM i realLy like 98 it shoed me de wae
kindly help me to phrase a motion on free distribution of sanitary pads.
thanks