Can somebody please help me because I really want to win a debate on the titanic that we're having?
613584
Okay, dissecting this piece by piece:\n\n1) NO, the Titanic was not on the iceberg when it sank. The berg scraped along the side of the ship, which continued to travel for some time (I believe it was more than an hour) before going down completely, snapping in two as it did.\n\n2) No sites or theories, sorry.\n\n3) Yes, and no - in some ways, the White Star Line was responsible, but in other ways, it was not. They were pushing for a new Atlantic speed record, and so the captain didn't slow down even when he was warned of the danger of icebergs. This was his fault. \n\nHowever, what actually sank the "unsinkable" ship was this: the watertight compartments in the bottom of the ship, which SHOULD have made the ship unsinkable! When the ship scraped the berg, the FRONT compartments were breached by ice below the waterline, while the BACK compartments were not. Water flooded the front compartments, making the ship "top heavy" in the bow end. This pulled the front of the ship down. In the scenarios envisioned by the WSL, ALL the compartments would have flooded, and the ship would have continued to float because the water wouldn't have been able to get above the level of those compartments. However, they DIDN'T flood that way. That's also why the ship went down bow-first - the bow was heavier than the stern.\n\n4) I'm not aware of where the steel was obtained, but sheared rivets (the fasteners that held the ship together, cut in two by hitting the berg) recovered from the ocean floor show that there were flaws in the composition of the steel. \n\n\nPersonal observation: you might have better luck arguing that it was the WSL's fault that so many people died, as opposed to the crash itself being their fault. Why? Because:\n\n1) Not enough lifeboats\n2) Lowering half-filled lifeboats (Yes, this really happened - it wasn't just in the movie)\n3) Waiting for a long period of time before attempting to rescue any of the people who lived, but didn't make it to a lifeboat and froze in the water instead\n4) People from the lower classes were actually sealed belowdecks to keep the lifeboat stations from being swamped, and to allow the "more valuable" passengers to get off first. More than 2/3 of the ship's population was from second and third class. \n\nIf I were you, I'd check Wikipedia for articles on the Titanic, and do a basic Internet search. Try "How did the Titanic sink?" and "How was the Titanic built?" on ask.com to get good results.
1057050
Start by making two columns on a piece of paper: Pro and Con.  List all the arguments you can find for each.\n\nPick one to three of the best arguments from each side.  Find statistics, surveys, other writing to back up and/or counter the arguments. Avoid unsupportable arguments such as "I think spanking turns kids into axe murderers"; it's a waste of time to argue this way, because it's impossible to either prove or disprove your assertion.\n\nGood luck.
104147
Choose, Evolution. Thats a Hot topic at the moment and there is plenty of information about both sides of the debate.\n\n\nAnhar Hussain Miah
435522
Please give us a little more detail. For example, what government are you talking about? What is your speech trying to prove? What are the criteria? As a general guideline, if you are writing this to persuade, then make sure you have some persuasive elements in you speech. Such as appeals (rational, emotive etc). For more info, go to http://aal15.tutor.com/nGEN/Apps/SocWeb/main.aspx?ID=9f3e62b7-fff2-4173-bbe3-c33e445cb66e, where real people will give you reliable answers.
1066718
sure wats the topic 2 debate on m always a game 4 nything..email me the topic
363561
Obviously there are all the potential topics listed above, but these can sometimes be difficult to prove beyond personal feelings.  Something that can be easier and more fun to prove or disprove, are historical debates and conspiracies, such as, "Was their a second shooter at the JFK assassination?  If so, from where did they shoot?  Did Oswald actually do anything or was he a scapegoat?  Was their a mass conspiracy?  If so, did it involve the American government?"  You can talk about the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or aliens.  Maybe you'd rather talk about the different theories on how people got to the Americas or the Polynesian Islands.  Who was Jack the Ripper?  Did Shakespeare write his own plays?  Did the girls who accused the "witches" in Salem Village make everything up, eat rye infected by the fungus used to make LSD or suffer from clinical hysteria?  Did St. Patrick really exist?  Did King Arthur really exist?  Did Walt Disney have himself criogenically frozen?  Did Irish explorers reach the Americas in small boats?  Did a Welsh man reach the Americas long before Colombus and teach some Indian villages Welsh?  There are so many wonderful historical myths and theories to explore, which can be more fun for you and refreshing and interesting for your teacher to grade.  I hope this helped!
948134
What's the theme of the exhibition?\n\nIf you want to do something that applies to current events, you could research the methodology behind the study of Mortality before and after the 2003 Iraq invasion and occupation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq ) and similar studies. While the subject matter is not mathematical in nature, it's an excellent way to show how mathematics (in this case, statistics) can be used to model real life.\n\nAnother project could look at polling (related to elections), either the telephone polls we hear about every night, or the exit polls, and questions about their validity after the 2004 elections.
292838
PLEASE NOTE: If your teacher has asked you to read this, nothing you pull from this information will suffice as a report. I've included this simply so you will have a synopsis.\n\nSOS TITANIC\nPrice: $2.95 - $25.00\n\nDescription from Windy Hill Book: Diego: Harcourt, Brace, (1996) Hard Cover. Fine/FINE Dustjacket. Signed by Author. San 7th Printing. 246 pages, boards. Story of the sinking of the TITANTIC as seen through the eyes of a 15 year old boy traveling from Ireland to America. SIGNED BY THE AUTHOR. \n\n\n-------Info from Harcourt-------\nSOS Titanic\nby Eve Bunting\n\nBarry O'Neill is journeying to New York on the Titanic's fateful maiden voyage. His parents had left him in Ireland to be raised by his grandparents when they moved to China for business, but now that they're living in New York, they want him with them again. Barry is reluctant to leave his grandparents, but he boards the Titanic as one of the few first-class passengers departing Ireland. He's homesick and worried about the Flynn boys, who are traveling in steerage and have threatened to throw him over the rail. Little does Barry know that a struggle with the Flynns is the least of the dangers that await him.
768247
Dear Madame, \n\n1. Asking the opinions of the contributors of this forum for a research paper isn't in your best interest. There's no telling what kind of psychos you're going to come into contact with.\n\n2. It is politically incorrect for me to tell you where to stand on this issue. I guarantee that you will fail your paper, if you don't put your --ve researched the topic, and become even more knowledgeable.\n\n4. If you don't believe/know about a particular stance, don't take that stance. This only shows your ignorance. \n\n5. Please read my book for more information: "Guns don't kill people, fetuses do."\n\n--Pianoguy
685468
sounds like homework....\n\ntsk, tsk.\n\nwell make sure you properly annotate your work.\n\n Lookslike speakeasy did your work.. he/she gets my vote
299968
try debatabase. i've linked directly to the topic.
773717
Other than those in the links below, this should give you a good start:\n\nFallacies of Relevance \n1. Argumentum ad Bacculum (appeal to force) \n\n"Pay back the loan and 10 % daily interest by Thursday, or be sure that you have you hospital insurance paid up."\n\n2. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive) \n\n"Don't believe anything John says; he's a nerd."\n\n3. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)\n\n"Of course he thinks fraternities are great. He's a Phi Delta."\n\n4. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)\n\nThere is no proof that witches exist; therefore, they do not.\n\n5. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity) \n\n"Your honor, how can the prosecution dare try to send this poor, defenseless child to jail for the murder of his father and mother. Have a heart; the boy is now an orphan."\n\n6. Argumentum ad Populum \n\n"Don't be left out! Buy your Chevette today!"\n\n7. Argumentum ad Vericundiam (appeal to authority) \n\nJoe Namath selling pantyhose; Joe DiMaggio selling Mr. Coffee.\n\n8. Accident \n\n"What you bought yesterday, you eat today; you bought raw meat yesterday; therefore, you eat raw meat today."\n\n9. Converse Accident (hasty generalization) \n\n"That man is an alcoholic. Liquor should be banned."\n\n10. False cause (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) (Many of our superstitions stem from use of this fallacy.) \n\n"A black cat crossed Joe's path yesterday, and he died last night. The black cat caused Joe's death." \n\n11. Petitio Principii (begging the question) \n\n"It's time to come in the house now, Billy."\n"Why?"\n"Because I said so!"\n"Why?"\n"Because it's time, and I said so."\n\n12. Complex Question \n\n"Have you given up cheating on exams?"\n\n13. Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) \n\nIn a law court, in attempt to prove that the accused is guilty of theft, the prosecution may argue that theft is a horrible crime for anyone to commit.\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nFallacies of Ambiguity \n1. Equivocation \n\nSome dogs have fuzzy ears. My dog has fuzzy ears. My dog is some dog!\n\n2. Amphibole (grammatical construction) \n\n"Woman without her man would be lost." or "Save Soap and Waste Paper."\n\n3. Accent \n\n"We should not speak ill of our friends."\n\n4. Composition\n\n"Each part of this stereo weighs under one pound. This is a very light stereo."\n\n5. Division\n\n"Purdue is a great engineering school. Mike went there; he must be a great engineer."
228871
You're doing something called Original Advocacy - better known in the Speech and Debate realm as OA. \n\nIts simple - your speech should have a focus. For example, let's say that you like Coke more than Pepsi. Then your points would be focused on why Coke is better than and/or offers more advantages than the Pepsi. \n\nYou can also just blatantly slant your speech into an argument. For example\n\n"This allows us to ask ourselves the question, is Coke a superior alternative to Pepsi, the answer is yes, but such an answer is incomplete without further analysis. In order to fully grasp my point, one must understand the my (X) point(s) of analysis.\n\n1. ~~~~~~~~~~\n2. ~~~~~~~~~\nX\nX\n\nAnd finally we'll make an appraisal. \n\nhope this helps =)
761801
try this site it has great speeches.\nhppt://www.presentaionhealper.co.uk\ncheck it out.
369722
Face to face debate isn't for everyone.  Some people have a knack for it while others know the answers but just can't get it out.  You may need to become part of a team.  Find someone able to stand up front a be the person that supports them with research and documentation.  Like everyone else, you have value.  Its just not where you're looking.
52444
First off what you want to do is have some sort of basis for what you believe.\n\nRead the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Machevelli, Democracy in America by Alex de Toquville, Common Cents by Thomas Paine, George Washington's Farewell Address, Communist Manefesto, 1984, Animal Farm, Diplomacy by Dr. Kissinger, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, In the Spirit of Crazyhorse, Plato's Republic, John Locke's Two Treaties of Government.\n\nAfter this, the least biased news site and a connection to all the news sites I know of is the http://www.drudgereport.com
317148
Debating ideas \n \n\nThe Five-minute Debate Planner (Mk I)\n\nTopic \n\nIssue and justification \n\n\n\nDefinitions and justifications \n\n\n\n\nCase line \n\n\n\n\nMaterial (arguments) \n\n\n\n\n\n\nRebuttal arguments \n\n\nAllocation \n\n\nAnticipated opposition arguments: \n\n\n\n \n\n\nThe "Five-minute Debate Planner" appears above — it is not unique. Use this sheet on some practice topics, and changed the plan to suit yourself.\n\nUse your version of the planning sheet\n\n\nto plan how you will present each debate, and \nto "capture" the other side's plan during the debate so you can analyse it. \nThe terms used in the sheet:\n\nThe topic is obvious. Just write it down as it is stated, and note what side you are on by writing "Aff" or "Neg" at the end of the line.\n\nThe issue is what the topic is really about. This question is very important if the topic is about a metaphor, like "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". In this example, the issue is not about throwing real stones, or living in a glass house. You must always take time out to identify the issue.\n\nIn the same section, write down your justification for interpreting the issue this way. This shows briefly why you have chosen what you have chosen as the issue.\n\nNext, you come to your definitions. Mostly, these will come from your interpretation of the issue, and must refer to the issue. Sometimes, the definitions will come from what the "person in the street" would believe, or from the context of the topic. (If the topic is "That we should kill all the lawyers", this does not necessarily mean standing all the solicitors against a wall and shooting them, even if this strikes you as a tempting proposition. It helps to know that this was meant literally when Shakespeare wrote the lines for "Dick the Butcher".) Note down the context, if you know it.\n\nNext comes your case line. You need a quick statement of how the debate will go from your side.\n\nThen comes a brief points-form listing of your material, the arguments that your team will put forward.\n\nAs a separate section, note down rebuttal arguments. These are things that you need to remember and plan for, but which you plan to bring out in rebutting the other side's arguments.\n\nNext comes your allocation for the first two speakers. This divides up the caseline into a neat and logical division that gives each speaker a reasonable amount of material to work with.\n\nFinally, note down what you expect the other side to argue. Watch out: there may be more than one way of arguing either side of a case!!\n\nSample topics\n\nThese topics are roughly graded in terms of difficulty. In training, you will sometimes be required to take on a task which is easier or harder than your ability and age. Note that even the hardest topic can be debated at a simple level, and a very simple topic can be debated brilliantly!\n\nEasy\n\nThat homework should be banned.\n\nThat school uniforms are good for us.\n\nThat television is too violent.\n\nThat television does more harm than good.\n\nThat terrorism can be justified.\n\nThat the earth can look after itself.\n\nThat the IOC made the wrong decision for Sydney.\n\nThat a woman's place is in the home.\n\nThat Australia is a nation of bigots.\n\nThat the car is a luxury we can do without.\n\nThat all our woes have come from science.\n\nThat people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.\n\n \n\nJunior\n\nThat the Olympics are a five-ring circus.\n\nThat spectator sports are a waste of time.\n\nThat organised team sport is legalised violence.\n\nThat we are Uncle Sam's nephews and nieces.\n\nThat the law is an ass.\n\nThat education is the key to success.\n\nThat education starts after school.\n\nThat there is strength in diversity.\n\nThat peace depends on fear.\n\nThat we should try, try, try again.\n\nThat we should be vegetarians.\n\nThat we should