HomeFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog inThe Airsoft Sniper

Share | 
 

 ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Zane
Major
Major


Posts : 920
Join date : 2008-09-05
Age : 107
Location : In a place

PostSubject: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:51 pm

Creed769 VS. Spl. Durkee (I)
TOPIC: In matters of life or death, should the US federal government legally require the administration of medical provisions (MMR vaccines, cancer treatment, insulin) to children when their parents refuse?
Creed: Pro
Durkee Contra

(1)
CREED:Position;
Yes, they should. If you were dying would you want to be treated? I think we all know the answer, but what if your parents were religious, so the "procedure" was not allowed. Some religions don't even allow morphine!
(Ex. Jehovah's witnesses cannot have blood transfusions; http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/352295/why_cant_jehovahs_witnesses_accept.html )
But this just isn't about religion, some parents could just plain REFUSE because they don't like the treatment.
This means you will die...
Unless the patient said "let me die" or "no I don't want it" then the fed. wouldn't step in.
(an age requirement would have to be employed. Or a "show of maturity")(thanks zane for reminding me)
Now, the 2 largest positive points of the federal govt. stepping in are;
You'll live
The parents later won't have to live with a guilty conscience

May I remind you, this is only in severe matters, and the Federal govt. should not step in if it is anything less than life threatening or the patient refuses it him/herself.
This would be sacrificing "freedom of choice," but in my eyes it would be worth it.
(sorry it's a day early)

DURKEE:Do excuse my rambling...it's a sign of ignorance

TOPIC: In matters of life or death, should the US federal government legally require the administration of medical provisions (MMR vaccines, cancer treatment, insulin) to children when their parents refuse?

POSITION: Contra

I believe that the government should not be able to administer medical provisions without the consent of the patient's parent's approval. The child's parents should have total control over their offspring's medical care because in the event of misdiagnosis or mistreatment, the host nation's government will be at blame for their actions.

Allowing the government to act without consent would open them, in this situation, to legal action should the patient's condition worsen or persist.

DrummerBoyz95 VS. Insane Mercc (II)
TOPIC: Limit on Spring Power or FPS by CQB Play
Mercc: Pro
Drummer: Contra
DRUMMER: (2) :: My position (am I allowed to do this?)
There should be a limit on FPS in CQB games, but it should be raised from what it is now. Right now the average limit is 350fps, and it should be raised to at least 400.

Players enter the game of CQB airsoft knowing that they will "suffer" slightly based on the general idea of the game: Shooting (and getting shot with) fast-traveling projectiles at close range.

Most of the time, wearing a complete facemask with 100% (straight-on) face coverage is a standard on CQB arenas, so no major injuries will occur from the projectiles themselves. Several CQB arenas have an "unspoken rule" of aiming for the body, not the head. Chances are, if a player has a gun with a high muzzle velocity and is playing with others that have the same, he has the gear to protect himself, so there is nothing to worry about.

FPS limits can annoy players. Sometimes, they only have a gun that shoots over the arena's limit, and they don't want to cut down their only spring or make other modifications, but they want to play CQB. They only have a couple of options. They can either turn around and go home, or rent a gun from the arena, which can be costly if one wants to keep playing. They could buy a new gun for CQB, but getting the money for that can be hard if you don't have a place of work.

Merc: (II) Main Point:: Pro FPS Limits in CQB Games/Events
Ok....lets get right to it then....I am for Lower FPS Limits because in CQB games the average engagement distance is much closer. In an outdoor game you might be engaging someone at anywhere from 25 to 125 feet. Indoors, I'd say engagement distances are at most 50 feet, and can be as little as 5. You're going around corners, busting into rooms, going down hallways -- it's all just a lot closer. People are also a lot jumpier. If someone busts around the corner 5 feet away from you, chances are your reflexes are going to kick in and you're going to pull the trigger and shoot them. CQB simply creates a much larger potential for very close and near-point blank shots, and in fact, it's probably inevitable. Taking that into account, injury is more likely, so FPS limits are lowered. Imagine getting shot in the neck from 5 feet away; which would you prefer, 350 fps, or 400 fps?

Jarhead999 76 VS. br55ftw (III)
TOPIC: Should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18 in the United States?
Jarhead: Contra
Br55ftw: Pro

BR:(III): Drinking Age
Position: For

Okay, while it may be that there are more incidents of DWI and alcohol-related fatalities (which is why the drinking age was raised to 21 in the 1980's), there are several reasons why this is a good choice.

A) Keeping the drinking age just drives it underground like in the Prohibition era. This means that kids will hide and have alcohol without any sort of moderation or parental supervision.

B) If you were a parent, would you rather have your kid learning how to drink with his college friends or at home with you? This is another major reason to lower it.

C) In America, you essentially become an adult at age 18. Tobacco use, able to be drafted, can go to jail/prison, etc. We are also the only country to have the drinking age at 21.

SOURCES:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/19/60minutes/main4813571_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/02/02/lowering_drinking_age_to_18_wo.aspx

JARHEaD: This will be my first debate, bear with me. I'll prolly add on a little bit before midnight tonight

(III): Drinking Age
Position: Contra

Here are some reasons why I am against lowering the drinking age to 18.
At the age of 21, your brain has fully matured so you will make better decisions
If you drink under age, you are more likely to become an alcoholic later in life
Underage drinkers are also more prone to comitting violent crimes
Alcohol is a depressant, so there will likely be more instances of suicide in the United States
After you hit 21, you have the rest of your life to drink. Why increase it by three years?





Any questions PM me

*************You are allowed to edit your posts as many times as you wish till 12 PM eastern time on the last day.


Last edited by Zane on Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:11 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zane
Major
Major


Posts : 920
Join date : 2008-09-05
Age : 107
Location : In a place

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:39 pm

No indiv threads..to much stuff, don't worry i am keeping track of each groups arguements in a word doc and those will go out to the judges
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zane
Major
Major


Posts : 920
Join date : 2008-09-05
Age : 107
Location : In a place

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:25 pm

Just a reminder, you have till sunday to submit your points.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jarhead999 76 65
General Grade 2
avatar

Posts : 4940
Join date : 2009-04-29
Age : 85
Location : Rio Rancho/NW Albuquerque, New Mexico, Socialist States of Obama

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:18 pm

This will be my first debate, bear with me. I'll prolly add on a little bit before midnight tonight

(III): Drinking Age
Position: Contra


Here are some reasons why I am against lowering the drinking age to 18.
  • At the age of 21, your brain has fully matured so you will make better decisions
  • If you drink under age, you are more likely to become an alcoholic later in life
  • Underage drinkers are also more prone to comitting violent crimes
  • Alcohol is a depressant, so there will likely be more instances of suicide in the United States
  • After you hit 21, you have the rest of your life to drink. Why increase it by three years?


Last edited by Jarhead999 76 65 on Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://cqbtacticalairsoft.webs.com/
slob212
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 1489
Join date : 2008-09-05
Age : 106
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:42 am

ALL KINDS OF POSTS DELETED !!!!

Gentelmen please reaad the rules, this is going to be hard enough to keep track of, dont go cluttering it with posts ouside your Debate Topic, there will be an open session at the end of the Debate, Thanks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Spl. Durkee
General Grade 2
avatar

Posts : 4652
Join date : 2009-03-28
Age : 60

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:34 pm

Do excuse my rambling...it's a sign of ignorance Very Happy

TOPIC: In matters of life or death, should the US federal government legally require the administration of medical provisions (MMR vaccines, cancer treatment, insulin) to children when their parents refuse?

POSITION: Contra


I believe that the government should not be able to administer medical provisions without the consent of the patient's parent's approval. The child's parents should have total control over their offspring's medical care because in the event of misdiagnosis or mistreatment, the host nation's government will be at blame for their actions.

Allowing the government to act without consent would open them, in this situation, to legal action should the patient's condition worsen or persist.



Sorry hahaha. I forgt about this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Creed769
Colonel
Colonel
avatar

Posts : 1009
Join date : 2008-12-30
Age : 23
Location : Southern California

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:55 pm

1.)
Rebuttal;
So because of a feared legal action the federal govt. should not step in to save a child life?
May I remind you we are not talking about a fetus, who's life and person-hood are debatable, we are talking about a child, already born!
In the chance of a misdiagnosis or "malpractice" then the federal govt. could POSSIBLY be sued, but surely they can afford it IF they lose the trial...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://thetruthaboutairsoft.blogspot.com/
br55ftw
Captain
Captain
avatar

Posts : 433
Join date : 2009-04-04
Age : 23
Location : Clinton, NY

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:38 pm

Jarhead999 76 65 wrote:
This will be my first debate, bear with me. I'll prolly add on a little bit before midnight tonight

(III): Drinking Age
Position: Contra


Here are some reasons why I am against lowering the drinking age to 18.
  • At the age of 21, your brain has fully matured so you will make better decisions
  • If you drink under age, you are more likely to become an alcoholic later in life
  • Underage drinkers are also more prone to comitting violent crimes
  • Alcohol is a depressant, so there will likely be more instances of suicide in the United States
  • After you hit 21, you have the rest of your life to drink. Why increase it by three years?

Yeah I'm late, but I've been out of town for a few days.

REBUTTAL:
-That is OVERdrinking when you're underage, you could drink huge amounts when you're 21 and still be more likely to than someone who drinks at 18.
-Anybody under the influence is more likely to commit a violent crime....
-Valid point, I have no argument against this.
-The reason is that your parents can teach you how to drink, as a result, you will make better choices about alcohol later on.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
DrummerBoyz95
General Grade 2
avatar

Posts : 3897
Join date : 2009-05-13
Age : 21
Location : Ventura County, CA

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:43 pm

II. Rebuttal

Insane Mercc wrote:
(II) Main Point:: Pro FPS Limits in CQB Games/Events
Ok....lets get right to it then....I am for Lower FPS Limits because in CQB games the average engagement distance is much closer. In an outdoor game you might be engaging someone at anywhere from 25 to 125 feet. Indoors, I'd say engagement distances are at most 50 feet, and can be as little as 5. You're going around corners, busting into rooms, going down hallways -- it's all just a lot closer. People are also a lot jumpier. If someone busts around the corner 5 feet away from you, chances are your reflexes are going to kick in and you're going to pull the trigger and shoot them. CQB simply creates a much larger potential for very close and near-point blank shots, and in fact, it's probably inevitable. Taking that into account, injury is more likely, so FPS limits are lowered. Imagine getting shot in the neck from 5 feet away; which would you prefer, 350 fps, or 400 fps?

The thing is, people KNOW the situation they're going into. They could just look at the name of the style and think "Close quarters, yikes, I better get [or borrow] more safety gear," or, "Oh, I don't have the right gear, I'll stick to field," and if they don't... Well, they shouldn't be playing. People should know that airsoft is a game where you GET SHOT. It WILL hurt.

In my opinion, 50 more FPS won't make much of a difference at that distance.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Insane Mercc
Colonel
Colonel
avatar

Posts : 1693
Join date : 2008-12-16
Age : 23
Location : Western Minnesota

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:15 am

Quote :
DRUMMER: (2) :: My position (am I allowed to do this?)
There should be a limit on FPS in CQB games, but it should be raised from what it is now. Right now the average limit is 350fps, and it should be raised to at least 400.

Players enter the game of CQB airsoft knowing that they will "suffer" slightly based on the general idea of the game: Shooting (and getting shot with) fast-traveling projectiles at close range.

Most of the time, wearing a complete facemask with 100% (straight-on) face coverage is a standard on CQB arenas, so no major injuries will occur from the projectiles themselves. Several CQB arenas have an "unspoken rule" of aiming for the body, not the head. Chances are, if a player has a gun with a high muzzle velocity and is playing with others that have the same, he has the gear to protect himself, so there is nothing to worry about.

FPS limits can annoy players. Sometimes, they only have a gun that shoots over the arena's limit, and they don't want to cut down their only spring or make other modifications, but they want to play CQB. They only have a couple of options. They can either turn around and go home, or rent a gun from the arena, which can be costly if one wants to keep playing. They could buy a new gun for CQB, but getting the money for that can be hard if you don't have a place of work.

True, all CQB arenas have a Full Facemask requirement and maybe there is a rule of not targeting the head but thats not to say there isn't going to be times when this does happen and it will be at a relatively close range. Even if the gun has a lower FPS theres a chance the BB could break the mask or go through a Newbs cheaper goggles.

Another of the reasons why they make you use a weaker gun or spring is beacause of the insurance. If you own a CQB arena and have a high FPS limit then theres going to be a higher rate of injuries. Also they use these limits in anticipation of the Noob player thats 10 or 11 and gets shot real close with an airsoft gun shooting 400 or higher and they don't come back to the Arena and they tell their friends that Airsoft hurts way too much which ensures that the sport doesnt spread to the younger generation.

Sorry for the Erratic tone of my post. jocolor
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satan
Major
Major
avatar

Posts : 759
Join date : 2008-07-20
Age : 22
Location : bucks county PA

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:35 pm

Wrong the cqb place near me doesn't require full mask only full goggles.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Insane Mercc
Colonel
Colonel
avatar

Posts : 1693
Join date : 2008-12-16
Age : 23
Location : Western Minnesota

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:25 pm

Are you the one debating though?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Spl. Durkee
General Grade 2
avatar

Posts : 4652
Join date : 2009-03-28
Age : 60

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:41 pm

Oh this is still going? I thought we were told not to by Admin or something.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
DrummerBoyz95
General Grade 2
avatar

Posts : 3897
Join date : 2009-05-13
Age : 21
Location : Ventura County, CA

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:48 pm

Yeah I'm pretty sure it was discontinued. Or... Iono. There was some form of no-no that he gave us I guess.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zane
Major
Major


Posts : 920
Join date : 2008-09-05
Age : 107
Location : In a place

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:23 pm

There was no no-no, responses were pretty half assed since most don't realy care about the topics...ill leave them to our debate teams, the only thing people will debate for fun is controversiol topics and those are of limits here. So I see no further point in continueing this, however

I am considering finding some airsoft topics that we can debate...for starters im thing about the best beginger sniper rifle, such as the BAR 10, UTG L96, AGM L96 ect. i will think about it but I think we can debate that..and who knows then we can tell the noobs what is best :p
Back to top Go down
View user profile
DrummerBoyz95
General Grade 2
avatar

Posts : 3897
Join date : 2009-05-13
Age : 21
Location : Ventura County, CA

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:31 pm

Well we don't really need to set up an organized debate for that sort of thing... Just wait until a newguy comes in and asks "the question". Which I can guarantee you will happen several times.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zane
Major
Major


Posts : 920
Join date : 2008-09-05
Age : 107
Location : In a place

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:36 pm

aye but I tihnk we need to make a official decision on that..they all cost the same..and one of them has to be better
Back to top Go down
View user profile
slob212
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 1489
Join date : 2008-09-05
Age : 106
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:53 am

Well the enthusiasim was there at the beginning, but petered out fast.

Sadly the Debates were mostly based on emotional response ( thats fine ), but there is no real way to Judge better or worse, winner or loser.

@Zane,
Check your PMs if you want to try again.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: ~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~   

Back to top Go down
 
~~~~DEBAT ROUND I~~~~~
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Square pegs into round holes ( or the other way round)
» Nike MacSpeed Square or Round Head
» Round head screws
» Round vs Elliptical DD
» Club Football Championship Round 2

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Off Topic :: The Lounge-
Jump to: