All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
It ir proposed to diminish the societal importance of the institution of marriage by means of its total abolition or the dissipation of its legal benefits. We admit of no government or institution the right to dictate the legitimacy of a birth, the division of private wealth between two persons or the allocation of the offspring of any such union.
"I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice... A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love..." -Martin Luther King Jr.
It has often been argued that free will precludes the notion of destiny. We are to believe that the ability to choose between several outcomes constitutes grounds upon which to dismiss the concept of fate. However, it seems to me that, as decisions are made due to the chemical state of our brains, this "free will" is an illusion.
When one makes a decision it is one's mentality which compels one to pick a particular option. For example, if one were to cross the road one might be hit by a car. We shall assume that this is the definite outcome (such as all other circumstances would presage it) if one were to attempt to cross the road wihtout detecting the car. One would detect the car if one looked left before crossing. Looking before crossing is the pivotal decision. Fundamentally, the reason one would look before crossing is the particular chemical state of one's brain (memory, the urgency of the crossing to the individual &c.). As that state is the product of similar choices made before, perhaps by different people (who your mother decided to marry, whether they decided to teach you to look, whether you had witnessed somebody being run over &c.), you will only ever pick one option; the one dictated by that chemical state.
Essentially, while it may theoretically go several ways, it can only practically go one way. While you may think you have a freedom to choose one of many paths, your choice is the product of other events and therefore has no potential to be any but one particular path.
We have read of the beliefs integral to liberalism, and have, in passing, found little which we do not agree with. However, we observe a great deal of contempt being directed towards liberals, and find our discourse with them to be most distressing; we cannot stand those we have met or read of (we make a notable exception for the writings of our intellectual benefactor, Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay). So we ask, do you hate liberals or liberalism?
It has come to my attention (I had previously very little interest in African American activism - nor do I have any great amount now) that the individual known as Malcolm X has been described as " one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history". From what I can tell, he was a racist, bigoted maniac who favoured segregation, black supremacy and the universal vilification of white people. Come to think of it, he's essentially Qymosabi (in fact, it is now apparent that Qymosabi drew a great deal of his hatred form Mr. X).
The premise, therefore, is this: Is Malcolm X worthy of remembrance as " one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history", or does his uncompromising hatred of white people make him as much a bigoted fiend as the very persons he sought to vilify?
Though it is lessening now, I have noticed that sexual intercourse and related activities are surrounded by an incredible amount of stigma. This strikes me as odd; as organisms, reproduction is merely one of our processes. As intelligent beings, it is simply a means for acquiring pleasure. The question is, why should something so intrinsic to human life be surrounded by taboo?
Dear friends and fellow debaters, I have recently learned that my avatar and my person have been usurped by a creature who professes enlightenment, yet reveals in speaking the want of a brain and a conscience. I speak of course of this "enlightened" fiend, who has in mimicking me made a mockery of all I believe in and stand for.
I ask that my good friends stand by me in this hour of need and sign below, to show this perfidious beast that we will not bow idly to his terrorism.
A note for the enlightened; it is acknowledged that the notion of a purpose defined by a deity is fallacious, but the term purpose is a very loose description. If preferred, it shall be called "the primary motive".
The question being "If you had the power to intervene in one historical event, in the knowledge that your actions would have repercussions in the future; what would your intervention be?".
Nazism is frequently criticised for its practice of outlawing other political parties (among other things). Is the banning of it unwittingly ironic, or do those governments simply not care, so long as their agenda is fulfilled?
The premise at length:
Authorities(be they local or national) and the media, pay more attention to, and lend a greater air of urgency to the reprimand of, anti-black racism than they do to anti-white racism.
The conditions of this debate are as follows:
1) The planet will develop into one similar to earth.
2) Evolution is a genuine occurrence.
3) There is no meddling God.
The premise: Evolution of life will culminate in the emergence of an intelligent species such as ourselves.
Note
This is a scientific debate. Those who do not believe in evolution need not attend herein. In addition, those who post religious arguments will be banned without hesitation and with extreme prejudice.
Example case:
A gypsy is charged with not providing adequate education for her children.
Rigid Law.
The gypsy is subject to the same laws as everybody else, she must enrol her children in a school, and allow them to finish their primary education, as well as [whatever the nation's policy is on the minimum amount of time a person must spend in secondary school].
Flexible Law.
The nomadic nature of gypsy culture makes it impossible to enrol children in schools. Therefore the gypsy cannot be convicted as any other person would be.