The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.

Thou shall not kill....except (insert long list ranging from homosexuals to nonbelievers to disobedient children and dozens of things. Indeed, in some of these cases, it would seem to be a sin not to kill.

Different rules for Jews and for Christians.

We supposedly aren't to judge and punish; list of things which we MUST judge and punish...often by death.

Yes, Starchild, contradictions abound in the Bible.

And regarding sins not covered in Bible OR COULDN'T be because these concepts did not exist and were not comprehended in spite of God supposedly knowing they would some day be an issue:

Intellectual property issues

Drugs other than alcohol

Firearm ownership and usage

Would operating a poorly maintained and dangerous vehicle be a sin? How about a hotel in dilapidated condition?


MuckaMcCaw(1716) Clarified
1 point

Intellectual property issues

Drugs other than alcohol

Firearm ownership and usage

Would operating a poorly maintained and dangerous vehicle be a sin? How about a hotel in dilapidated condition?


...some of these are not directly mentioned others COULDN'T have been because the items in question were not invented for thousands of years. Attempting to adapt existing scripture to cover these things could lead to different people having different interpretations, therefore different people who believe wholly in the Bible can come up with different rules. This is hardly something I'd expect from a text written by a perfect being. With a "why" instead of a "what", any unforeseen change in society or technology could be accounted for, not just things that were of issue in the Bronze Age.

daver(221) Clarified
2 points

The validity of you argument rests on biology as the signal for when sex should be deemed appropriate for minors, and on the concern that reproduction will occur.

Society's normally adopt laws meant to prevent harm to members of the society.

We no longer live in small groups where survival is a daily group effort. In these small numbers an additional child to share in the work of surviving and eventually to add to the survival of the group can be seen as a benefit to the group.

In many ways survival, as well as success, is a much more individual responsibility in the society's we live in today. Children having children are far more of a detriment to our type of very large and complex society. This is primarily do to a child's inability to provide for themselves. Hence laws are made to prevent the harm.

1 point

Not much to go on there. Except some reference to being forced into communicating with some sort of undesirables.

So I'll go off with:

Sure, the Constitution protects our right to remain silent if we feel that our statement may be self incriminating.

Now you can explain the circumstance you are thinking of and flesh out your argument, so that I can agree or refute.

1 point

you say-"I think that criminals are made, they might have a streak of bad when they are born " doent it mean that they are born bad?? if they are born bad, then they are criminals!!!

1 point

Knowing that most minors (12/13+) are biologically able to reproduce (which means it's time to have sex) then there should be no laws that prohibit what the body is naturally ready for. In the wild, the minute an animal is ready to reproduce, they do (or at least try). And humans are part of these animals- only with 'legalities' trying to mask and reject what our anatomy says is okay to do.

Harvard(13) Clarified
1 point


Controversial .

Harvard(13) Clarified
1 point

Ehh, not really. Even if you did "justification" is subjective. Most people who do--in the general population's eyes--unjustifiable killings justify there actions themselves. This is why it is subjective, it is up to whomever to decide why is justified and what is not- mainly a judger or authoritative figure.

Harvard(13) Clarified
1 point

Acting on impulse is fine when one has instincts to guide him.

These very impulses, mostly, are instinctual. But humans try and 'mask' these instincts through the subjective COC aka "morality".

You can't say: "A code of conduct becomes necessary (for survival) when there is a lack of instinct," then say: "The objective aspect comes with the recognition that some conduct is objectively better/best for survival."

We have all the instincts we need for survival. So to say "necessary" is problematic. You also seem to make morality (the issue at hand) into a term that allows room for interpretation. You also seem to be redefining morality to fit your argument. Morality is centered around what's "right" and what's "wrong" in a behavioral sense. "Right" and "wrong" will always be subjectively asserted in a behavioral view (assuming no psychological deficiency and/or disability).

A survival necessitates a code of conduct for humans.

As I said before, early humans and our ancestors survived without the conception of morality -and some humans still do today. Therefore survival does not necessitate 'morality'.

Harvard(13) Clarified
1 point

That is false. Suffering (fundamentally) is an uncontrollable natural occurrence. You cannot say things that naturally occurring rights are 'factually' wrong.

1 point



the act or process of orienting.


the state of being oriented.


an introduction, as to guide one in adjusting to new surroundings, employment, activity, or the like:

New employees receive two days of orientation.


Psychology, Psychiatry. the ability to locate oneself in one's environment with reference to time, place, and people.


one's position in relation to true north, to points on the compass, or to a specific place or object.

I am using the definition of number 2 or number 4. In relation to other people their sexuality is X. This is the definition social sciences use when discussing sexual orientation. See above where I noted and included a link from a professional psychiatry organization that notes most people do not experience a choice in their sexual orientation. I clearly do not mean 1 nor do they. You are using a definition close to 1.

When using a word that has different meanings in situations that warrant the other it is the fallacy of equivocation.

J-Roc77(180) Clarified
1 point

what I am saying is choosing your orientation is no different than choosing what type of cereal you eat in the morning.

...those choices can vary, even though we have preferences.

Preferences here is equivalent to orientation in the context you are using.

...and what's inside we can choose or not choose to act upon.

This is a continuation of conflating orientation with actions. Being gay is not decided on actions but what you prefer, that is why we label some acts as "gay acts". For instance some long time prisoners may engage in gay acts but not align their preference (orientation) as gay. Your actions can betray your position.

Did you cogitate about your sexuality? Did you decide to like X after seeing arguments for it or do or do you just like X? You can choose (action) Y but still prefer (orientation) X.

When you experience something that creates an emotion you don't think about the stimuli then arrive at the emotion. You categorize things as you experience them. You see a beautiful guy/girl and experience attraction. A family member dies, you don't go through a list of memories then decide to be X, you are X as you experience the stimuli.

If we can choose our attractions why don't teenagers just choose not to be attracted to X during their school years? This would be beneficial to all if with fewer distractions wouldn't it? Again they could choose not to act on it, but they are still left with preferring X.

Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

I imagine those who identify near the middle of the Kinsey scale could experience a "choice" of what they prefer more but they could literally go both ways. The simple fact is though that the majority of people do not choose their sexual orientation.

1 point


1 point

derp !

1 point

That's an interesting painting, and it's very telling how it's done. Obama is not portrayed as a Roman emperor, or as a king. He's portrayed as Napoleon, and there's a very interesting parallel between Napoleon and Obama (there is very much they do not have in common, but one thing they do have in common is this): crazy, right-wing nuts wrongly regard them as the face of the revolution for basically doing things that are not only not revolutionary at all, but that those very right-wingers themselves have been doing forever. And this is the case with immigration reform. Executive action on immigration is far from new. It was undertaken by a wide variety of different presidents, with the most analogous to the present situation being George H.W. Bush.

Let me break down the separation of powers: the chief executive is an elected official, and as such has discretion over how to execute legislation, and that inherently includes the power to refrain from executing some legislation. If it did not include that power, there would be very little reason to vote for the chief executive at all, since that person would only be the servant of the legislature. And the historical precedent for executive orders is overwhelming. It's as old as the country, and all executive orders are simply an exercise of the president's discretion of how or whether to execute a given legislative mandate.

Nothing in the immigration reform, from allocating more budget resources to border control, to refusing to seek deportation against certain persons when there are active people who could otherwise be deported under the legislative scheme of modern immigration law, steps outside of the core decisions of how to follow the legislative scheme. It doesn't take affirmative legislative action by any standard. It is squarely within the authority of the president.

Nor is it particularly revolutionary, and I say this as someone who wishes it was revolutionary. To state my own ideology, I am an anarchist who believes there should be no such thing as borders. I wish deeply that this was a revolutionary act, but it is not. It is a mild reform well within the president's authority.

ironman34698(224) Clarified
1 point

the homosexual person who believes this is simply denying reality, just like an alcoholic who denies he is responsible for what he chooses to do. by using the word 'orientation' you seem to be using another word for thoughts, and it has already been scientifically proven that nothing can force a person to think a certain way. even in situations where a person is forcibly moved to believe something by outside forces, within that persons subconscious they have a strong tendency to deny whatever it is they are being forced to believe.

state of being is who you are based on your thoughts. the actions one takes is based on your thoughts and is the end result of your state of being. anyone can have a multitude of thoughts, some of which are not in our character but it is our choice whether or not to act upon them. so, in essence, what I am saying is choosing your orientation is no different than choosing what type of cereal you eat in the morning. we all wake up with choices to make every day and we can alter those choices accordingly. those choices can vary, even though we have preferences. the choices we make that lead to our actions are based on our state of being. actions are simply the revealing of what's inside, and what's inside we can choose or not choose to act upon.

1 point

You clearly haven't read ONE article on Google about the miraculous effects of marijuana. My suggestion, click on one of the links I put up. If none of them work, Google "marijuana miracle drug" and look at some of the results. So no, its not bullshit.

Nevertheless, I agree with you. If someone wants to unnecessarily take it, to be drugged out, let them. I don't care either. If someone wants to ruin themselves from smoking, its okay. But not if they want to ruin themselves with pot?

Very reasonable logic on your behalf for the most part. But it works like a magic pill for some autistic people.

And how do you know if what society thinks is truly okay?

We as human beings cant fully be moral but to be brutally honest societies teachings are the closest thing to perfect morality we have.

Oh and I know this is a little off topic but I wanted to apologize to you for getting mad during our previous debate. You were being so nice and calm to me and I was being kind of a douchebag :/. Lolzors was pissing me off and I let my anger get the best of me so please forgive me.

1 point

Basic skills and knowledge… what’s the point?

I’m more interested in rethinking the purpose of education and it’s not as simple as doing good at school so I can go to uni, or getting a good job that pays well. If this is what we aspire too, then we’re missing out and short changing our learners.

For me the content of the curriculum should be secondary, to a learner’s ability to utilise the curriculum and develop their capacity to learn. Which in itself sounds aspirational. But who decides a curriculum anyway, the content of it evolves rapidly, especially given the changing dynamics of our knowledge society. As knowledge changes and evolves, can it be confined to a curriculum? Case-in-point - should coding be compulsory in a curriculum (as seen on the news 2 weeks ago). I’m not saying that certain knowledge/learning areas are not of importance, but perhaps shifting the focus of school from learning areas to learning capacity is more paramount? Or are we doing that already… are we doing it well? Disciplinary knowledge is not an end in itself for most people, but perhaps a vehicle to achieve an end product (actively, involved, lifelong learners - yes it just rolls off the tongue).

So to find a balance, are we actually transitioning between discipline/content centred education, to learner capacity centred education as a society? Do we have to do one or the other, can we do both?

Bolstad et al. (2012) Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching - a New Zealand perspective

1 point


I'd chose a female who was an expert in human cloning. We could use different DNA's from hair found left in random locations. She Would have kids of all different DNAs and we would recreate humanity, only better. No more autism of genetic diabetes. It would take a century to get the human population to get to about 20,000, but it will rebuild itself and things will get better.

1 point

All of the above. Derrrrrrrrrr

Contradictory list of sins? There is no such thing found in the bible. Also what sort of situations would you even be put in that a Christian, Jew, or Islamic wouldn't understand?

1 of 21 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]

About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.