In response to their distaste of both Trump and Clinton, many voters (primarily Sanders supporters) are looking for new options, in Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. So my question is this:In a situation where it is almost 100% guaranteed that the president will be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, is it throwing away your vote to vote for a third party candidate? Is the political statement worth it? What are your thoughts? 

In America, a lot of political discussion refers to the morals that this country was founded upon. But should we really focus on that? We've already deviated from a lot from how the country was in 1776. On both civil issues, such as race relations (slavery) and women's rights, as well as plenty of economic and other issues, we are not longer abiding by the same morals and values that our country was founded upon. In my view, we should value the history of the country, but should focus on the values that we think are right, and not so much the values of those alive hundreds of years ago. They can overlap, but they don't have to. And I don't think "our country was founded on it" is a good reason to justify something.Thoughts? 

I saw a video about a recent case on this topic. The video lays out a clear opinion and is centered around religion, which is the argument made by those in the case, but there is no need to include religion in your answer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sdDYgf8eDg

Bernie Sanders recently said, “I understand that the issues of abortion and gay marriage are issues that you feel very strongly about. We disagree on those issues. I get that. But let me respectfully suggest that there are other issues out there that are of enormous consequence to our country and in fact to the entire world that maybe, just maybe, we do not disagree on and maybe, just maybe, we can try to work together to resolve them.”Do you agree that issues such as abortion and gay marriage should be dismissed, or at least temporarily put aside so that other topics may be addressed. Do you agree that there may be many more topics that the two parties may agree on and these controversial topics are taking up an unbalanced amount of focus? Or is it alright that these topics are getting the attention they are getting because so many people are so passionate about it? What are your thoughts? 

If a child is at a party where there is illegal activity (underage drinking or alcohol) but they do not take part in this activity, should the child still be punished? (This is assuming that the party has been busted by the cops or that whatever school these children go to has found out.)   Right now, simply being at a party where underage drinking is happening can lead to the same consequences as engaging in underage drinking itself. What do you think?

Ok, so I've been thinking about it recently, and I really think the downvoting feature on this site should be removed. We had a discussion about this a while back (here) and I've been thinking about it ever since.When you downvote, you are commiting the purest form of argument ad hominem. You are discrediting the person's argument without adressing any of their points. This means the argument is not really adressed, but the downvoted is still attempting to weaken the point. This is a clear example of the fallacy. On a debate site in particular, shouldn't we avoid it?And upvote is fine, because when you agree with something you don't need to say why; you agree because of the reasons already stated in the argument. But if you downvote, there is no way for someone other than you to know for sure why you disagree with the argument made.So how bout it Andy? Any chance we can get the downvoting feature removed?  

READ DESCRIPTION PLEASE With extremes in either of theses cases, the answer is obvious, so I'm going to set up a hypothetical here.  You are hiring a new employee. You already have a bunch of employees working in this space, and people collaborate or work in small teams often. Person A: Is great at what they do. They always produce acceptable work, and usually the work is truly stellar. However, they have a history of not being liked, and they clash easily with others. They aren't particularly nice, and no one really wants to be around them.   Person B: Is a truly lovely human being. They raise the morale of the palces they are in; everyone likes them; and they make the space a nicer place to be in. However, they simply don't have the skill and experience that Person A has, and, while they try their hardest, they will have a few more mistakes or slightly less quality of work than person A. Who do you hire, A, or B? 

Ok, so this is a kind of dated thing that I'm referencing here, but in the somewhat recent debate between scientist Bill Nye and creationist Ken Hamm contained one question that I've been thinking about since. The question was this:What, if anything, could ever change your mind?   Bill Nye was quick to answer: He'd just have to see any one piece of evidence that suggested that God existed and that the science he knew was wrong. He would immediatly change his view of the world, jsut as scientists do whenever a new discovery is made.Ken Hamm, on the other hand, evaded the question slightly and ultimately gave his answer: Nothing.     I think this is an important question, and the answers I tend to get when I pose this question to religious people tend to be pretty much in line with Hamm's response, and that continues to drive me away from religion in general. When I made the point to RightWing11 that I believed that "if no proof, logic or reasoning could ever change your thoughts, then you are not mentally well.", they responded by claiming my argument was "so abusive that I do not really wish to chat about your comment much more." I do not think my point was abusive, and the lack of an actual response helps back that up in my mind. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. If what I said was abusive, I would like to correct my actions.    The fact that people beleive things so unconditionally is very scary to me because to me, that is a sign of mental illness, or perhaps mental inhibition is a better term. Or simple-mindedness. If you believe something so wholly that no logic or reasoning will ever convince you otherwise, then it seems to me that you are being extremely close-minded, illogical, or just plain foolish. Because most people's religions come from their upbringing and not by their choice, the fact that people refuse to even look at reasons not to believe what they have been told to believe I think is very dangerous.        So to Christians, and all relgious people, I'd like to ask the same question: What, if anything, would ever change your mind about the existence of God? If the answer is nothing, can I hear some justification for that? I don't want to be rude, I'd seriously like to here the reasoning behind this.     Note: Just to be clear, I have no problems with following the moral guidence of a relgion or group. I think many of the valeus that many religions espouse are very valuable, I just take issue with the justification of these morals coming through a 'God.'

In the age of the internet, many employers have started looking up potential employees' on social media, such as facebook. The same is true among college admissions officers. Is this an invasion of privacy. Even though things may have been posted to the public, does that make it alright?

Islamaphobia, or anti-muslim sentiment is extremely prominant, and extremely accepted in society. Even though terrorist groups and actions have been done by isolated people, the country has united against the billion+ people who are members of the religon. So much so, that the republican party fought to show Obama as a Muslim, as if that discredited him as a presidential canidate. What can/should be done about this, or anything? Or what is your opinion on Islamaphobia in general? Some argue that islamaphobia is the most accepted form of discrimination in the United States. Do you agree? 

Title says it all. Personally, I'd probably say that global warming SHOULD be top priority because otherwise the human race is pretty much screwed, and ignoring it doesn't change that. But that's just me, and I am not educated on all the going on's in the world, and there are lots of other thigns to talk about. What do you expect will be the talking points in the upcoming election, and what should be the talking points in the upcoming election?

Recently, a bill was passed in Indiana (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) that allows buissnesses to refuse services to anyone due to religious belief. You can read in detail about it here: http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/lgbtq/discrimination-now-legal-in-indiana/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/indiana-gay-rights_n_6910746.html If you don't trust those news sources, feel free to do more reasearch on your own. The liberal stance is this (this is copy pasted from the first source above):According to the Human Rights Campaign, the loosely-worded law will allow one’s religious beliefs to interfere with others’ rights. For example, a religious pharmacistcould legally refuse to fill a prescription for birth control medication. A police officer could refuse to patrol near a church that’s not of his religion. A pro-life doctor could withhold information from a woman whose life would be threatened by full-term pregnancy, and to prevent her from seeking an abortion. The beliefs of particular Christian sects would also legalize their discrimination against women and divorcees, and even against minorities (remember – the KKK identifies itself as a Christian organization).It also cuts off any legal help for these people as it “prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.” The conseravtive stance is that people's religious freedoms should be respected, and to deny them this is a violation of the first amendment. I am in general liberal, so this may be been presented with some bias, I am sorry if that is the case. Please correct me if I am wrong, just trying to start a discussion. What are your thoughts? 

Recently, a Republican senator (Tom Cotton) wrote a letter that had the goal of sabatoging negotiations in Iran, headed by the Obama administration. 46 other Republican senators signed the letter, giving ti their full support. Some argue that this takes the struggle between Democrats and Republicans too far, as it should remain an internal struggle. Others go further, claiming that by interfearing with foreign affairs in this way, these 47 senators have committed treason. What do you think?

For example, are TV Shows stronger than movies? TV movies better than regular movies? And so on. 

 Single-gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American public schools?

This is questioning wheter or not an infant who is raised with no views on either side of the racism factor, perhaps raised alone, would have racist tendancies when they grew up. Or something. Interpret it as you wish. 

Are rules in general created around boundaries that people are inclined to follow? If you think the answer could be on both sides, pick the side you agree with the most, and then explain all your reasoning. Or, don't. Up to you.