vs
The onus is only on the affirming pro side.
vs
vs
No description provided.
vs
No description provided.
vs
This debate will be an epistemological question on whether empiricism is the best mode to come to truth.
vs
No description provided.
vs
No description provided.
vs
we're all human, barriers and roles are useless. fuck illuminism I'm wild wild zombie, and read the description
vs
Scripture based topic.
vs
Woe to them mocking.
vs
No description provided.
vs
Ohk so I have seen many debates around Islam, but most of them are just arguing about the existence of God, I am here to argue that Islam is not only wrong about allah but all of it is wrong... some rules, don't use AI for arguments or any other source other than your brain, don't go like "this book, this page this verse, allah commands blah blah blah" I don't care what your allah says so keep it rational
vs
Is animal testing truly necessary? Can we justify the suffering of animals for scientific progress? Are there viable alternatives, like advanced computer models or cell cultures, that can replace animal testing? How accurate are these alternatives in predicting human outcomes? Shouldn’t we prioritize ethical methods that minimize harm? As we advance scientifically, is it possible that we can move beyond animal testing altogether?
vs
This is a made up right that no one has.
vs
