Return to CreateDebate.comrundleacaemy • Join this debate community

Rundle Academy



Welcome to Rundle Academy!

Rundle Academy is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Mogar

Reward Points:2
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:2
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
2 most recent arguments.
1 point

Eric

It is in the national interest of Canada to stake claims in the arctic. It would be of great benefit for multiple resins, however the big two are oil and the northwest passage. Canada is one of the few developed countries that has an export in energy much of which is oil. the total GDP of Canada in 2013 was 331.9 billion; 24% of that was power. If there is as much oil that geologists say there is locked in the arctic, Canada's economy would be stable for a long time after the oil sands are depleted. Second the northwest passage. If the northwest passage is considered Canadian, witch it is because it goes straight throw beautiful Canadian wilderness, it can become a steady source of income for the economy as long as it remains open for at least the summer months of the year.

1 point

Eric

Although the Americans sent warning letters, it was unjustified to bomb civilians. To stop the war by bombing military installations might have been justified, but the Americans wanted complete surrender meaning they wanted every person in japan to acknowledge that the USA was better and to submit defeat communally to them. At that time in history, it was an unwritten rule that civilians aren't targets for warring countries. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, it was strictly to cripple the military not to kill civilians. Just like how ISIS is doing wrong by executing civilians now, america was doing wrong than by targeting non military installations.

Mogar has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here