So is it worth coming back here?  It doesn't appear as though much actual debating occurs, with the bulk of the threads appearing to be flame wars, with many of the old usual suspects.Is that a fair assessment?  Or is it indeed worth coming back, and I simply took a look at an unflattering moment?

Well, it has happened:  A terrorist group, Al-Shabaab, has created a new recruitment video that features Donald Trump talking about his plans regarding Muslims in America, saying:""Muslims of the West, take heed and learn from the lessons of history. There are ominous clouds gathering in your horizon. Yesterday, America was a land of slavery, segregation, lynching and Ku Klux Klan. And tomorrow, it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps.""Recently Hillary Clinton claimed that this was going to happen, and was decried rather strongly by the Republican Party.What do you think about this turn of events?

As we have seen, civil unrest has been met with extreme force when the topics being protested are racial in nature.  You may think that extreme force is justified based on extreme conditions, you might not.  But after the Bundy Ranch debacle brought the Sovereign Citizen movement to the political forefront, we saw none of that same reaction, despite the people in question being heavily armed and having said themselves that they had no problem killing government officials.  Now the movement is back in Oregon with the Hammond family, who is being rallied around by the Bundy family who has threatened "serious civil unrest".Do you believe there is a double standard at play here or no, and why?

For starters, I am posting this as a result of a story I read about the proposed New Hampshire bill that would make it a misdemeanor for a woman to expose her nipple in public (only targets women).Do you believe that women should be able to be topless within the same situations as men, or no, and why?Note: I am referring to legality, not ability.

A recent poll done by Reuters/Ipsos has shown an increase in a trend that most already are familiar with: The Republican Party has difficulties appealing to racial minorities.  The most recent figures show that Hispanic affiliation with the Democratic Party at 60%, African American affiliation with the Democratic Party at 80%, and, though it isn't race, white voters under 40 identify with the Democratic Party over the Republican Party by 8%.  This is all on top of Asian Americans, who as of 2012 voted Democratic by a matter of 73%.Considering these figures, do you believe the Republican Party will be able to remain competitive politically without appealing to minority (and to a lesser extent youth) voters, and how do you believe the Republican Party can go about doing that?Note: I am asking about the Republican Party.  I am not looking for "Well Democrats do X yada yada yada". 

In case you haven't heard, Aliso Canyon, California, is experience a massive environmental disaster in the form of a methane leak that is erupting methane gas at a rate of 110,000 pounds per hour.  1,700 people have been evacuated thus far, and the owners of the facility, Southern California Gas Company, does not expect the leak to be stopped until late February or early March. Now even if one doesn't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change, this massive leak is causing a very real drop in air quality in the surrounding area.  If one *does* believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change, this leak is a substantial eruption of a green house gas that is responsible for 1/4 of the warming we have been experiencing. My question is this:  When private companies (such as Southern California Gas Company) are responsible for substantial public harm, should they be held responsible by the United States government (as opposed to the citizen law suits that they are facing) or no, and why?Additionally, if you do believe they should be held publicly accountable, what sort of recompense and punishment do you believe groups such as this deserve?http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-we-cant-stop-the-enormous-methane-leak-flooding-la?utm_source=vicefbushttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-methane-idUSKBN0TL06120151202

It's that time of the year again! Lights, egg nog, claims of religious oppression, the delightful holiday spirit!  So in light of the number of times claims regarding a "War on Christmas" have come up, I thought we'd have a debate on it.Do you think there is a "War on Christmas" or no, and why?

Adam Smith, an 18th century Philosopher, is generally considered the father of capitalism.  He was one of the figures that most influenced figures like Milton Friedmen, and is credit for the creation of laissez-faire capitalism and the "free market", two concepts that are often touted in the United States.  The thing is, the capitalism that Smith envisioned required a society to abide by the "fingers of the invisible hand", principles that are required for capitalism (as he knew it) to exist: no barriers to entry, no seller big enough to inflate prices, no producer holding pivotal private tech, no buyer big enough to move prices down, and perfect (truthful) information for everyone.Within the United States, however, the majority of corporations adhere to a framework referred to as the Porter Forces to ensure the strength of a business' position within an industry: ensure barriers to entry for new competitors, ensure there is no buyer big enough to deflate prices, ensure there is no producer powerful enough to inflate costs and hold technology or techniques that can not be replaced by competitors.This means that the framework which modern American businesses adhere to are in direct contradiction to Adam Smith's invisible hand.  Do you believe this undermines the validity of Smith's veneration as the father of not just Capitalism, but American Capitalism as well, or not, and why?

To those of you who play video games or have any interest, CD Projekt Red's magnum opus, The Witcher 3, just won Game of the Year at the 2015 Game Awards, beating Fallout 4, Bloodborne and Metal Gear Solid V (among others).  Do you believe it should have won, or no, and why?

“Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East,” said Duane R. Clarridge, a top adviser to Mr. Carson on terrorism and national security. He also said Mr. Carson needed weekly conference calls briefing him on foreign policy so “we can make him smart.”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=1Do you believe Ben Carson is intellectually qualified to be President?

According to the Pew Research Center, more Mexicans are currently leaving the United States than coming here (both legally and illegally).  According to the Research Center, much of this is credited to the Obama administration's stepped up border-security policies.  They also credit it to less demand for positions that Mexican immigrants have traditionally taken, such as Construction and seasonal worker positions.In light of this new information, do you believe that Mexican immigration is a problem (or still a problem) or not, and why?http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/more-mexican-immigrants-leaving-us-than-entering-report-finds.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Disclaimer: Not a fan of the website in question, it's simply where I saw the interview be hosted: "http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/30/cnn-david-daleiden-producer-doctored-planned-parenthood-videos-admits-fraud.html"So essentially, the creator of these videos, much like the creator of the ACORN expose videos, just admitted that he intentionally misrepresented the contents of the video that has been making the rounds.  For those who believed the video was legitimate, does this admission change your mind or no, and why?

As of right now, over half of all U.S. Governors have said they will not allow the federal government to settle vetted Syrian refugees in their states.  The thing is, as the Supreme Court said in Hines v. Davowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution".In other words, the Governors have no legal or Constitutional ability to actually prevent the federal government from settling the refugees.  So why do you believe these governors are making these statements?

Now that we have had plenty of time to listen to the Republican candidates in the debates, who do you believe is performing the best, and why?

"When students owe subservience as the price of not being assaulted, schools become prisons." http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/there-are-no-innocent-black-people-1739019535This article is inspired by the recent event at Spring Valley High School, but the content extends far past that.  I highly recommend reading it before posting.Do you believe that schools are becoming more akin to prisons, or no, and do you support whichever trend you believe is occurring?

“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.)""Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee, what are her numbers today?"" Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif).In light of recent statements by Republicans in the House, do you believe the House Committee was a legitimate endeavor, or intended for a political attack?

After almost every mass shooting that occurs, many individuals quickly change the subject towards mental health care.  Yet according to the American Journal of Public Health, less than 5% of gun related violent crimes involve individuals with mental health disorders.  http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242While it seems (at least to me) obvious that using mass shootings to discuss general gun violence is illogical, I am confused why so many find it acceptable to do the same with mental health.Why do you think this jump occurs?

Due to a unanimous vote by the Seattle city council, Columbus Day will be replaced this year with Indigenous Peoples Day, continuing the trend set by Minneapolis, as well as South Dakota's Native American Day."This is about taking a stand against racism and discrimination," Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant told the Seattle Times. "Learning about the history of Columbus and transforming this day into a celebration of indigenous people and a celebration of social justice ... allows us to make a connection between this painful history and the ongoing marginalization, discrimination and poverty that indigenous communities face to this day." -http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/12/354274630/seattle-swaps-columbus-day-for-indigenous-peoples-dayDo you support this move or no, and why?

First, my apologies for this non-debate.  I am only creating it with the hopes of it ultimately having a positive effect on the site.To FromWithin:  I propose something that I am willing to bet can be mutually agreeable.  From this point on, anyone who agrees to the terms I am about to list is unbanned from your debates on the condition that if they violate said terms, they will be banned again.  Additionally, I am willing to bet that if you agree to this, Cuaroc can be persuaded to stop creating his copies of your debates, which I am sure you will appreciate.  The following terms are what I was thinking:  I, and anyone else who agrees to this, will not insult you or be disrespectful to you during debates.  This does not include disagreeing with things people say or their opinions, unless said disagreement is done with insults or in an overly disrespectful manner.I, and anyone else who agrees with these terms, will not lie to you during debates.  This means that any comment made to you is an honest reflection of what I (and anyone else who agrees) actually believes or thinks is true.  This means that if someone says something you do not believe is true, there is an actual topic for debate which should be discussed.  This does not mean that any time someone disagrees with another it should be assumed that they are maliciously lying.It's my hope that this will put an end to the current conflict heavy state the site is in and can lead to more actual debating in the future.  Again, sorry to everyone for the non-debate nature of this topic.

So in reaction to the recent shooting in Oreogn, presidential contender Jeb Bush said this: "A child drowned in a pool and the impulse is to pass a law that puts fencing around pools. Well it may not change it. Or you have a car accident and the impulse is to pass a law that deals with that unique event. And the cumulative effect of this is, in some cases, you don’t solve the problem by passing the law, and you’re imposing on large numbers of people burdens that make it harder for our economy to grow, make it harder to protect liberty.”The thing is, in 2000 Governor Jeb Bush committed to signing the Residential Swimming Pool Safety Act, referred to as the Preston de Ibern Act after a child who **nearly** drown in a residential swimming pool.  The act requires residential pool owners to take precautions to prevent children from swimming in their pools without supervision.So what does this say about Jeb Bush and the comments he has been making on the campaign trail? 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-oliver-tackles-medias-awful-coverage-of-european-migrant-crisis/Now to preface this:  The link is only for the sake of the video included, not for any of the commentary on the article itself.  For the relevant information, skip to 1:50 minutes in to see the segment in question.Now after watching the segment, do you believe FOX's actions were acceptable or worthy of a news organization?

The Attorney General of Missouri has concluded an investigation into Planned Parenthood after an activist group released videos they claimed proved PP was misusing fetal tissue.  These videos have led Republicans in Congress to try to strip the organization of any and all public funding, akin to the debunked scandal with ACORN where a Conservative activist edited videos and released them which caused Republicans to strip them of their funding as well.Do you believe the Attorney General of Missouri finding them free of wrong doing will change anything at all?

The District of Columbia, the capitol of the United States, is subject to the same federal taxes as the rest of the country, but is directly under the control of the U.S. Congress.  Local legislation and budgets must be authorized by Congress, and are often victim to political machinations regarding non-local issues.  While D.C. does have a Representative, they do not have any voting power and thus is incapable of truly defending their district, leading to situation where the citizens of said district do no have any representation despite being taxed.  Do you believe D.C. should given statehood or at least voting power, or no, and why?

"A Kentucky county clerk petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday for an emergency order allowing her to continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move coming two days after a federal appeals court rejected her request.In a related move, a federal judge refused to extend a stay of his own ruling requiring the clerk to furnish marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples while she appealed on the grounds that her religious faith overrides her duties as a public servant."[source](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/29/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0QY02V20150829)So this woman, a Kentucky county clerk, believes that her religious freedom is violated by being required to personally sign same-sex marriage licenses, which go against her beliefs.  Do you believe that she should be forced to sign the licenses or be removed for her position, or not, and why?