- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Of course it matters. Laws aren’t set in stone. There were enough people who were against the 18th Amendment (prohibition), that we had the 21st Amendment to repeal it. I personally don’t like the 16th Amendment. If there was a Constitutional Convention to repeal it, I would support repeal. That’s not an unconstitutional outlook.
You can support anything from all of it to nothing except one part of it.
If you only support one part of the Constitution, can you really claim to support the Constitution?
I don't support the constitution because it is basically a list of false rights.
No it isn't.
People have never actually had rights because society/the government always decides what "rights" you have.
Even if this were true, it wouldn't mean people do not actually have them. If society decides that you can have a car, do you have a car any less?
If there was such a thing as "rights" they would be inherent and no one would be able to take them from you.
Having a title to your car doesn't mean it can't be stolen.
The US government has violated every single one of the constitutional amendments at one time or another
First, no they haven't. Second, there is more to the Constitution than it's Amendments.
There is no universal consensus on what someone "ought" to do.
Biological altruism is an observable phenomena in many species of animal.
That doesn't counter my point.
Taking another life is pretty much the only single action regarded as de facto immoral across all human cultures.
That's not true at all.
you undermine your initial premise of a universal "ought" and "ought not".
My initial premise is that "Morality VS Reason" is a false dichotomy.
You are the idiot who believes morality is some inherent part of human cognition and not a learned program in the human brain, isn't that right?
Morality is simply “ought” and “ought not”.
it is essentially a social construct that gets imprinted on your brain from society, and has no inherent connection to empathy or compassion
Empathy and compassion are social constructs.
Yes, most people would say it's "immoral" to kill people
I think most people would say it depends on why you’re killing.
Morality is absolutely meaningless
Is there nothing that people ought, and ought not do?
when people say it is "immoral" to molest toddlers what they really mean is "unethical"
Please define the difference between morals and ethics.
You've voiced your displeasure about HOW we demonstrate or WHAT we demonstrate for..
How you demonstrate actually does matter. You can't protest tax cuts by shooting people, to give an extreme example. As for what is demonstrated, that's more of an issue for the new (young) left, as they are the ones who will literally riot to stop free speech.
This debate is a false dichotomy. There is a significant amount of brain space dedicated to moral reasoning. Indeed, this very debate is a moral attempt to reason for the elevation of reason above morals. It doesn't present an actual debatable choice, but rather illustrates the confusion of the debate creator.
There's plenty to discuss about reason and morality, but a discussion of "either/or" isn't truly one of them.
I say tomatoes, you say tomahtos.
Who the fuck has ever called them tomahtos?
You and I BOTH know that Whitaker would NOT approve ANY indictment against ANY subject of the probe.
No, we really don’t. Sessions was an early Trump supporter, and an honest AG. If the news told you ahead of time that Sessions would act this or that way, you would say “you and I BOTH know (parrot headline)”, but it wouldn’t be true.
Mueller KNEW that Sessions would be fired and the ONLY way to catch these lawbreakers was to INDICT them BEFORE an indictment could be blocked..
Or maybe everything is proceeding exactly as it would anyway. Maybe not. You and I both know that if there is a big indictment, you will say you knew all along, but if there is no big indictment, you will cry foul (after the news gives you that opinion).
If he is literally Hitler, then this is literally Nazi Germany, and I better literally keep my guns just in case there’s literally an underground resistance because this is literally World War Two.
If you literally want me to give up my guns, then you are literally supporting the Nazis of World War Two...literally.
Didja know that in Florida, people send out ballots to cast votes after the election just in case a judge decides they can count them? And then they kept finding new ballots. Until people pointed out that they kept finding new ballots. Then they stopped finding them. Now they’re going to have a hand recount where they try to determine how the voter meant to vote.
Nothing to see here.
Obama said the idea of bypassing Congress and making laws on his own is “very tempting”.
Bush said if this were a dictatorship “it would be a heck of a lot easier”.
That’s what they said. People don’t become President if they don’t seek power. But that’s not how it works here, so it doesn’t matter what you believe Trump wants to do. He is constrained. Why, has he said something?
I knew you were stupid, but I didn’t expect you to be this kind of stupid.
Greater male variability is observed with a number of characteristics with various species. You were expected to discuss this matter, not expound on your various ignorant prejudices and your bullshit reasons behind them.