The Catholic Church forbids the use of barrier methods of contraception, such as condoms. Unlike other forms of contraception, barrier methods not only protect against unwanted pregnancy but also against sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS and HIV. In many African and South American countries, AIDS and HIV are huge problems but people continue to have sex without condoms in order to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. In this debate, the proposition believe that the Catholic Church's position of forbidding barrier methods of contraception, such as condoms, is justified.
Edit it should be noted that this debate is partially out of date as there is no longer a complete ban: ‘There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute [in this connection, the Holy See Press Secretary specifically stated that the Pope was not singling out “male” prostitutes; the same argument, he said, is valid also for female prostitutes] uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality’ (Benedict XVI, 2010)
The new member named Qopel is an extremely militant atheist troll.
I know this because since I left Debate.org he has become a worse troll than me and whilst I lasted 5 months on that site, he has barely lasted 2.
I warn you sincerely and wish all non-atheists to prepare themselves for a violent onslaught of atheism.
Since the end of World War II and Japan's surrender to the Allies, the United States has retained a considerable military presence on the island nation. US forces are distributed across the major islands, but concentrated mostly on the small island of Okinawa. Initially used as an occupation force to ensure the post-war peace, the bases soon took on the role of strategic positions during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Japan was a necessary forward base for fighting the Korean and Vietnam wars. However even when the Soviet Union collapsed the bases remained. Now, more than sixty years since the end of World War II, the United States continues to maintain its bases and resist urges to leave. The Japanese public has for several years clamored for their removal, citing numerous crimes committed by American soldiers against Japanese civilians over the years. The United States, on the other hand, has persisted in its insistence that the bases are vital for maintaining security in East Asia and for protecting Japan, which has no standing military capable of offensive combat. Proponents of removing the bases, cite the lack of need and mandate from the Japanese people, and the strategic and diplomatic benefits they perceive as stemming from withdrawal. Opponents contend that the bases are a strategic necessity for protecting Japan and for maintaining stability in East Asia. Debates thus focus on the issues of whether the bases are necessary for the security of Japan and East Asia, and whether or not the United States military is a force for good in Japan.
In 2007, Eliot Spitzer, Governor of New York proposed that all illegal immigrants in his state should be allowed to obtain drivers licenses. At the time, it was estimated that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 illegal immigrants were residing in New York state, most of them driving on the roads despite a lack of a driver’s license. Spitzer proposed that instead of needing an American Social Security number to get a driver’s license, New York would also accept a foreign passport as adequate identification to obtain a license.
The move for giving illegal immigrants licenses is an issue that has arisen and re-arisen multiple times, especially in states with high illegal immigrant populations such as California. However, American citizens are seemingly overwhelmingly against this policy with over 70% of New Yorkers polling against this policy. This creates a debate over what the impact of these licenses will be and how the public’s perception of this policy weighs up against these potential benefits. Currently, seven states in the US allow illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses: Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington.
The first quarter of 2011 saw a remarkable wave of protests sweep across the Arab world. On January 14th, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia who had ruled since 1987 fled following days of protest. This success for people power was unprecedented in the Arab world where previous regime changes have been coups lead by members of a narrow elite or the military. The Tunisian success emboldened opponents of other regimes across the Arab world. There was a wave of protests in Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen and most significantly Egypt. The King of Jordan dismissed his government on February 1st. This was followed by the rather more significant resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on February 11th following weeks of protest. The protests continued to spread around the Arab world. Protests in Eastern Libya resulted in a still ongoing civil war. Something of a counter revolution gathered pace with the protests in Bahrain being crushed by Saudi outside intervention. On April 23rd President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen agreed to step down but continued to soldier on for another couple of months. By October of 2011, the conflict in Libya had ended with the death of Muammar Gaddafi. As Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya undergo their first legitimate national elections in decades, Syria and Yemen face uncertatinty as violence continues and the goal line appears more and more distant.
Boxing, the physical skill of fighting with fists, originated as a sport around 800BC. It is a sport of antiquity that has had a troubled and contentious livelihood. The modern day sport has developed from rules and standards established since this time; with two participation forms: professional and amateur. Each has its own rules, although for both forms of boxing, a win is achieved by scoring more points than an opponent by delivering more blows to the designated scoring regions of the body (trunk and head), or by an opponent being unable to complete a bout. When first started, this sport was designed as entertainment for aristocrats who enjoyed watching two people ‘slug it out’ to the death. That history has continued into the present day sport which is a largely entertainment based activity, with millions of dollars of investment at the highest of levels. The potential dangers of the sport are a double-edged sword - they create both the entertainment aspect that makes boxing popular, but also run the risk of ending the sport altogether. In the 20th Century, approximately 1000 boxers died in the ring, or shortly afterwards. The youngest death was in a 12-year old participant. In the first decade of this 21st Century, an additional 68 participants have died as a result of their participation in boxing. Such deaths are more common in professional boxing, but deaths in amateur boxing have also been reported. Thousands more boxers have suffered permanent disfigurement, detached retinas in their eyes and various neurological complaints. Unfortunately for the sport, the most well-recognised and revered of all of its participants - Mohammed Ali - is now seen shuffling and mumbling as a result of Parkinson’s Disease which many incorrectly contribute to his boxing career. While neurological conditions (including chronic traumatic encephalopathy - which has almost exactly the same symptoms and signs as seen with Parkinson’s Disease) have been reported at high rates in former boxers, Ali is not one of its victims.
Despite a tightening of safety regulations, neurological and non-neurological injuries have continued with this sport. Most medical associations have policies against boxing, including the World Medical Association and the national bodies of the USA, Britain and Australia. Although the tightness of regulations upon boxing varies from country to country, and from state to sta
According to the WHO, in 2004 there were approximately 2.25 million premature deaths worldwide linked to alcohol. Alcohol is responsible for 4.5% of the global disease burden, even after the protective effects of low and moderate alcohol consumption had been considered. Furthermore, binge drinking (excessive alcohol consumption) is becoming an increasing problem in most countries.
In almost all countries in the world, adults are allowed to buy and consume alcohol with very little restriction (although there are often laws about the exact hours that bars and shops are allowed to sell alcohol and laws against drinking and driving). This is in marked contrast to the legal situation with regard to other mind-altering (or ‘psycho-active’) drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, acid, and heroin. The first question this offers is whether alcohol and other drugs should be treated the same? How do you make a difference? Further on the question is also, what is an effective policy regarding alcohol consumption. Is it higher prices or the ultimate “ban” approach?
Currently a few Islamic countries have the ban imposed, these are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and the Gaza. In 2002 also the “liberal Arabic country” Bahrain has started a debate about banning alcohol.
In the past, the experience of ‘Prohibition’ in the USA in the 1920s and 1930s, when there was a huge black market in alcohol run by a powerful criminal underworld, makes most people very wary of trying to ban alcohol and equalize it with other drugs.
Some countries use a total ban on all types of alcohol; this also includes beer, wine as well as stronger liquor. Other countries (due to tourism and investment) have a special license for foreigners as the state connects the ban mainly to their Islamic heritage.
Is it time to try to solve the alcohol problem through more restrictions and campaigns or is it time for a ban policy?