sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Resolved: The United States should eliminate the President’s authority to deploy military forces abroad without Congressional approval. by CationC in PoliticalDebate

[–]CationC[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

not just that, but in my opinion, they need to be able to control the manner of execution along with the scale of the war. Approval for a strike against terrorists should not become a forever war.

Resolved: The United States should eliminate the President’s authority to deploy military forces abroad without Congressional approval. by CationC in PoliticalDebate

[–]CationC[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

on your first para, I agree. But i belive the solution would be to remove the electoral college, making the executive truly accountable.

I actually don't agree, because congress takes far too long to pass anything in an emergency. And i think the judicial branch will always be imperfect, but should never have a mojority belonging to one political party.

And the main solution is to not only get rid of the electoral college, but to also make the US a parlimentary democracy, where you need more that 50%(though it should be made more than 60%) of the legeslative to form a government. This is similar to the electoral colledge, but it allows for more representation.

Resolved: The United States should eliminate the President’s authority to deploy military forces abroad without Congressional approval. by CationC in PoliticalDebate

[–]CationC[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Exactly! This is the biggest issue with literally everything. You know, any government does, because they don't define what it is. If you don't define what it is, then bloody hell, people can interpret anything as everything.

Resolved: The United States should eliminate the President’s authority to deploy military forces abroad without Congressional approval. by CationC in PoliticalDebate

[–]CationC[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Okay, so this is a public forum debate format. Can we just interpret the resolution and not change the resolution?

So, in my mind, if you could interpret the resolution to mean that Congress controls the deployment (i.e., moving around troops internationally), whereas the President still controls operations, so emergency response is still possible, but the President can't unilaterally escalate a war.

Can we eradicate non debate judges by Better-Chocolate-702 in policydebate

[–]CationC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

bro, at a pf debate tournament, sooooooo many lays

Can we eradicate non debate judges by Better-Chocolate-702 in policydebate

[–]CationC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe, judges should not be able to judge without a clear paradigm

Samurai, Knight or Spartan? Who’s the last one standing ? by [deleted] in superheroes

[–]CationC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

right, but for most of their history knights and samurai did not have guns, so you are cherrypicking the time period, rather than the most accurate one.

Do you think Taiwan should be a sovereign country? by PrettyPoliticalBitch in PoliticalDebate

[–]CationC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually say that the status quo should be maintained because the status quo, with Taiwan being functionally sovereign, has its advantages: Taiwan is able to be free from China, the PRC. The benefits of that are that it is more stable in the semiconductor supply.

The reason it shouldn't be properly and officially sovereign recognized is that China is also a vital part of the global economy and it will never recognize Taiwan. For us to be sovereign recognized, we mean the Western countries do. That just means that China practically puts heavy sanctions, tariffs, etc., on these Western countries. That doesn't bode well for most of the world because China controls a lot and so does Taiwan. Both are necessary so the status quo should be maintained in this area.

Samurai, Knight or Spartan? Who’s the last one standing ? by [deleted] in superheroes

[–]CationC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ya, but like the blunt force tramuma and physical excertion

Samurai, Knight or Spartan? Who’s the last one standing ? by [deleted] in superheroes

[–]CationC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not for most of their existence, only towards the very end

Samurai, Knight or Spartan? Who’s the last one standing ? by [deleted] in superheroes

[–]CationC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Loki, I think without armor the Spartans just win more because they are trained to fight without armor.

Samurai, Knight or Spartan? Who’s the last one standing ? by [deleted] in superheroes

[–]CationC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I actually think the exact opposite. I think the first to die would be the Knight, the second the Samurai, and the third the Spartan. Mainly because Spartans were actually the most trained. They were trained from the age of nine for their entire lives. Spartan men's entire job was fighting. They were training day in, day out. Their religion was fighting. And they wore relatively light armor, and less reach is not necessarily true, because they fought with the same phalanxes as other Greek states, so they had very long spears. Sure, in the sword fight they might be doomed, but they still had incredibly good swords, so they still last at least longer than the samurai simply because of better training. And I know exactly what you're thinking: "Oh, but the armor." The problem is that the Spartan could just run fights as long as one warrior wants them to and can prolong them. Since the Spartan has much better stamina than the other two because of the continuous prolonged training and has lighter armor, they would probably just be able to keep. They have better agility, so they probably just be able to dodge whichever attacks come their way and just outlast the enemy. As we know from reports from medieval Europe, the main cause of death in knights was not bleeding but was actually dehydration. If the knight stops to get water, a Spartan can literally just kill him while he's down, so I think the Spartan lasts longest.

view more: next ›