Do the circumstances effect who you are in an amount that can change your personality? For instance, if you were born in a family which thinks negatively, is it your destiny that you cannot change or can you break free and live a positive life? But what motivates you to do that if there are only struggles around? At the same time, you have your own mind and thoughts so if you realise you want to be happy, can you do that with a bad atmosphere? But what if you don't realise it? Is the chance of living a joyful life taken away from you?

http://www.vice.com/read/heres-whats-happening-with-that-dress-with-the-confusing-colors-882 http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/what-like-see-a-hundred-million-colors.html

I note that the Jews throughout the many countries where they have settled are a hard working, innovative and law abiding people. I have never heard of ''Jewish riots'' or Jewish terrorist atrocities. Despite that there were six million Jews tortured and murdered by the Germans I have never once heard them using those unimaginable horrors as an excuse for any misfortunes which they may have suffered as an ethnic group. None of the ''oh poor us'' mentality, we were enslaved and persecuted, that's why we don't like being eductaed and would prefer to sell drugs and commit violent crimes instead. The truth about certain other ethnic groups is that violence, criminality, a strong aversion to formal education and laziness  are all congenital imperfections of their character. Israel was formed around 1948 and is now one of the most progressive, affluent,self sufficient and ''formitable'' nations on earth. They're surrounded by hostile countries, almost all of which have tried to annihlate this small state, but still the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people prevails. I cannot help but compare Israel with other countries such as Liberia which is, dispite all the chaity it receives, at the opposite end of the spectrum of nations.

These terms get thrown around a lot and we are just supposed to know what they mean. Do we? EDIT: This debate is meant to use the American sense of each term but international opinion is more than welcome.

Thousands of animals expessialy horses are sent to be turned int o dog food, uses fot their skin and just to kill them. Who do you choose?

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. This information is taken from NASA.GOV (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

Many starve. Lots are obese. What do we do?

We give Obama a second term, we owe our lives to China, Detroit still exists, and more problems than a country should ever have. What do you believe America should start doing. You can focus on a single topic or talk about everything if you want, I want to see CreateDebates opinions on America.

The,youths of today prefer a lot of things to education, the quiestion is,do they prefer personal pleasure to education too

A recent resolution making its way through parts of Northern Idaho seeks to hae Idaho labeled as a "Christian State", which if approved will move to the state legislature.  Proponents argue it is an important step in fighting back againstn what they see as a "strident attack" against Christianity.So what are your thoughts: Is this acceptable and Constitutional, or no? 

Why so much money should be spent on the olympics each year. Think about.

I'm back, over my depressed stuff (Long story, rather not talk about it, ever). Any who I've noticed I got a free slot of time so I'm comming on back. I thought about and best case, I have lots of fun, worse case, I have to look at Hellno's picture for five seconds (six seconds more that doctors recommend). So what's up? :3

Breaking diplomatic protocol, Congressional Republicans invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to give a speech before Congress, doing so without consulting Congressional Democrats or the President.  Obama has refused to meet with Netanyahu while he is here out of a desire to avoid meeting with a foreign head of state while they are in a reelection campaign (a historical standard the U.S. has held).  So do you believe it was okay for Republicans to invite him, and was it okay for Netanyahu to accept?

if not entirely passionate about anything then just pick your favourite hobby or thing you like to do. or not even your favourite.

sorry, more morality debates. title is somewhat self-explanatory but if you feel like it read on, if not i have the questions below. recently finished watching an interesting japanese show called mushishi, in which one episode brought up this concept (sacrificing one for the good of many). the story is that there was a seed that when planted would bring a good harvest in a time of natural disaster where otherwise many would die. however planting the seed causes another seed to grow in the form of a tooth in the weakest villager and upon falling out after the harvest the host would die. the village leader planted the seed and his wife, who had hidden her illness, grew the tooth and died, leading the character who planted the seed to feel the full consequences of his actions. iin time another natural disaster occurs and the same person plants the seed again but this time drinks poison in order to make him the weakest in the village thereby to grow the tooth and dies. i recommend watching it, i believe this particular episode was episode 9. the episode conveys everything very well and much better than i have and brings its own ideologies.  so 1. is it right or wrong in your own opinion (not collective species) to sacrifice a random person for a greater number of lives as part of an action? 2. what about when the perpetrator of that action is the one who knowingly dies as a result of their action? 3. (for those who want to question the lives saved) is it right to save 1000 people from death through an action with no immediate consequence? if not, when is an action justifiable? or is it right to allow people to die? feel free to add your own questions    

British Journalist Katie Hopkins has viewed some very controvertial views leading her to be thought as the most hated women in Britain. But is she only saying what people don't want to hear?

Do you believe that, in light of the information that has come out pertaining to O'Reilly's time spend in Argentina and his reporting on it, he should get the same treatment as Brian Williams when he lied about his experience in a combat zone?