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.
Should we allow companies to use their offensive security skills to fight back or should companies be careful what they wish for (since the hacker is the more skilled at hacking afterall)?https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/hack-back-law-why-the-future-may-be-like-the-legalization-of-marijuana.html
I have been waiting for a jailbreak to come out for iOS 11.4.1 for months.
That way I can download apps that Apple’s App Store won’t allow, like TVOS,etc.
Doing it voids Apple’s warranty.
Should we jailbreak our phones?
Is it ethical to void Apple’s warranty?
I made another debate about this:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/I_changed_my_mind_again_democrats_are_both_equally_dumb#arg0For this reason, if you fit a perfect description of Democrat or republican you are just an idiot and a hypocrite. End of story.
Look who's funding the studies. The funding is going to people who profit off marijuana. Let me put this in the context of another drug by comparison. For this comparison we're gonna say I'm a rich drug lord with a lot of money and I want to make cocaine legal:Step 1: find a doctor, which means they are also a scientist, that I can corruptStep 2: offer them five million dollars to produce a atudy that cocaine is good for youStep 3: find a bunch more doctors who I can do this to and repeat steps one and two a few timesStep 4: publish studiesStep 5: profit
Take for example someone without autism. They don't have the the same mental condition that an autistic has. But maybe they think "everyone had their quirks so shouldn't I be allowed to get the same treatment that they have? Shouldn't I be allowed to be a part of a special needs school? Shouldn't I have similar medication for my focus?" The problem is having quirks too doesn't make you autistic. There are probably other examples outside of autism but that's the first thing that comes into my head. The person won't ever benefit from these things because they don't have the same brain condition.
My argument in favor of privacy is that a society that decides to try and achieve full transparency will fail and collapse in the process. Steps:
1. maximal possible surveillance becomes possible due to technological advances
2. the government implements surveillance on citizens
3. the government makes an exception to surveillance to allow themselves privacy
4. it becomes illegal to use technology to try and achieve privacy
5. only criminals have privacy, due to the fact that they are the only ones who can break the law in order to get it
6. equal privacy becomes unenforceable (preventing us from having a truly transparent society)
7. more people who are mentally ill but innocent go to jail, simply because the cops watching the surveillance cameras don't know enough psychology to tell the difference between a mentally ill guy bragging about killing people as part of a conversational point with his friend even though both the mentally ill people know for a fact that this is a myth
8. Any young guy who plays shooters who talks about killing people will be arrested because they didn't say "in the video I killed this guy" instead of "I killed this guy" every time, since the cops prefer that but no one is willing to say that interchangeably every time they are talking about a kill in xbox live and they will constantly forget
9. criminals will know when an innocent autistic is taking adderall and will know to steal it
10. therapy sessions will become pointless and people with depression will not be able to share things that are just straight up embarrassing confidentially
11. an attempt to enforce complete transparency ends up only working on law abiding citizens, but within that it doesn't discriminate against people who need privacy
12. criminals can black mail people by using their own issues against them at the workplace, in public, or even in court, despite the fact that the people being blackmailed are innocent
13. fighting back against the government will become impossible because the government will be able to assassinate any whistleblower, journalist, or activist that it wants due to knowing everyone's actions simply because by the time any movement to fight back gets enough people, all of those people will be dead before they can do anything
14. two teared society: government and/or criminal on one tear and normal person on another tear
15. crime goes up because people who aren't criminals but who have any form of mental issue but who aren't criminals will be forced to become criminals. Also, it will go up because in order to keep themselves, their family, and their friends safe, normal people will be forced to break the law to try and gain anonymity
16. society doesn't function properly because everyone's a felon
17. there is a war between society and the government, even though so many people in society didn't initially believe mass surveillance would cause all of this horrible shit to happen
18. the government beats society most likely because of the information they have on everyone which becomes very difficult to remove in order to fight them (probably impossible so we can't take it away anyways)
19. whether or not the government wins, they'll be a large history of an increasing rate of murder because murderers who are willing to get privacy by breaking the law before all of the rest of us do will have had a higher success rate but they will not be caught due to a "transparent" society because they didn't give into the transparency
20. the only nice people with the ability to fight anyone will be grey hat hackers, who still count as criminals
21. even with grey hat hackers, society will either people totalitarian if the government has one, or it will become the wild west and essentially what anarchy isn't (but more like what people think it is)
22. society's ability to sustain itself will be gone
23. cyberpunk style societal collapse
That's my hypothesis anyways. Do you agree? No? Why?
Ok, let's say two guys are friends. Let's call them Jon and Joe. They both have serious mental conditions (even most guys don't know that some guys do this because only rarely do people do this) and talk about throwing people off of cliffs but they both get that neither one of them actually wants to do it, like so:Jon in car with JoeJon: *hears radio commercial he thinks is annoying*Jon: I want to put the guys who invented commercials in the incinerator.Joe: I agree.Jon: We can throw their great grandkids right off of a cliff!Joe: Or we can skin them and rape their wives.Jon: we should cut their balls up, grind em up and make em into -Joe: We get it Jon you hate commercials. Now honestly please shut the fuck up.Jon: Ok...*two minutes of silence*Jon: *yells* I stab a bitch, inject her with polio, and throw her off a cliff if I have to tell her twice!Joe: *laughs*In reality both Jon and Joe aren't going to do any of this in real life. They can't tell most people, even other guys about this. The problem is that there are still SOME people who are in on this kind of secret if they can relate to having a similar mental illness or disorder like autism or whatever but also be able to relate to this kind of thing as an exaggeration since they also have a similar condition.But most people that would participate in these discussions and not say "that's seriously sick man! You should go to jail!" appear to be assumed to be a subset of most guys. I'm sure there are girls out there that can relate, but guys who do this generally have like at most three friends they can say this shit around and otherwise they don't go around looking for other people because that's dangerous.But it is the case that the few guys that do this seem to take extra precautions not to tell girls since if your someone who knows people like this (I do but I made up the above scenario) you probably don't want your girlfriend to think you are a psycho and you probably also assume that its embarrassing to tell other people especially girls. Obviously, there has to be a girl that's safe to talk about this somewhere right? Further even if you think she can handle it, you probably don't want to take the risk about telling a woman about how you feel "raped" for the same reason you wouldn't tell normal people + also you want to have some chance of going out with someone without being rejected due to mental illness.Does this create a sexist attitude of some sort? A lot of guys with certain forms of mental illnesses talk this way. I'm not saying that only people they don't tell are girls. Police officers also would take this the wrong way. If this is you, then you know that seeking out other people with similar problems is extremely dangerous and could land you in a mental hospital or jail even if you haven't committed any serious crime.Regardless, is this sexist or justified? I understand its very exclusive but is it for a good reason?
I think if you say no then I would like to also ask if you think saying a women is taking advantage of a man is ok? I say that because I think feminists still won't like the implication but I believe in, as George Caitlin once said, "simple, honest, direct language," like the word "shellshock" as opposed to PTSD.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/07/17/this-amazing-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-you-implant-under-your-skin-is-the-future-of-medicine/?utm_term=.1da992442713Just make a law that every female must have one of these until she is 21 or even 18 and you will have no more abortion debate problems. Am I wrong?
Any law you make will screw someone over somehow. I think a compromise could be if liberals want to let Muslims into the US then people should be allowed to have guns without conceal carry permits so they can feel secure and defend themselves in the case of a terror attack. Deal or no deal?
So chew on this...We all believe what our candidate says. We defend them and provide mountains of evidence that the other person's candidate is corrupt. What if they are all corrupt and there are no candidates to vote for? What if every candidate sucks? The government is a corporation. What if the choices we are given are ultimately leading towards the same generic goal, even with their differences? Or what if they aren't but somehow any candidate who doesn't comply with some corrupt lobbyist group at some point will not be able to effectively do anything with their power?They have rules in place against crimes, even if a police officer commits them. But if no one arrests the officer because they like him, is that law anything more than a sheet of paper? Why are politicians any different? Is anyone able to truly keep the people of our country safe?
https://newrepublic.com/article/138133/25-year-olds-tried-juvenilesIt's an interesting concept. I want to know what people think of this. Please comment.
Let's take an example of two kids.Kid 1 is privileged because teachers want him to study martial arts from a young age because he's an appropriate character for school.Kid 2 is unprivileged because teachers don't want him studying martial arts because him beating someone else in a fight, even in self-defense, is not within political correctness.Kid 1 starts Krav Maga from the time he's a kid but isn't very talented.Kid 2 is very talented but has to start at age 18 because his school lies to his parents to try and stop him from getting equally good at martial arts.If this is what's required for Kid 1 to be equal to or better than Kid 2 than Kid 1 isn't really better at any martial art than Kid 2, at least in terms of talent. Maybe you would say he's more skilled, but that's not a fair distribution of skills.Do you agree?
Anyone here who says a single person who's Jewish mentioned in the lists mentioned in the argument below did not achieve what the article is saying they did, or that they secretly did not achieve it, is just subconsciously jealous because they can't achieve it themselves and neither can someone who isn't Jewish. If you don't agree, I dare you to cite a single source that proves otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHyUYg8X31cA machine that is conscious will still only have emotions we program them to have. Thus they wouldn't care to kill all humans and/or make us their slaves. Am I right?
So here's the thing. Hacking is cumulative, so it would require a good amount of prerequisites that a lot of schools don't currently offer anyways, despite the fact that these prerequisites have other uses, but that's beside the point. Understanding hacking gives one the foundation to secure their data the best. On the other hand, we had better teach the kids computer networking, Linux, and some computer security knowledge first so they can know what their doing pen testing their own devices or ones they they have written permission to test and improve security of.
There is going to be a gay kissing scene. There is going to be a newly made up side story where a third character who is male gets a gay kiss. Yes, we are all going to have a wonderful time explaining this to our kids. Time for leftists and rightists to slam each other. Let the controversy begin.
We should have rules against flaming on this site. If you are going to make a flamethrower joke you should know that's not what the word "flaming" refers to you fucktard now gtfo. I am a hypo for even daring to suggest such a thing and god hates me for that but it would be a good rule to outlaw flaming on create debate.
↓ Show Details
