- 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
Also along the same line of thought as "If God is possible what logic is there in being Atheist?" is "If there being no God is possible, what point is their in being religious?" or even "If it is possible that all of the Greek Myths are true, why be Christian, Jewish, so on?" It is up to what you believe in and what you think is true. If the reasoning is "Hey if it is possible to have eternal happiness why not get on the road just in case?" then I can say "Why be Christian if it is possible that the aforementioned Greek Myths are real? Why not worship those gods and goddesses instead?" It is all up to personal belief and some believe it is a waste of time to pursue religious endeavors since they don't believe in a God or any gods/goddesses.
Your body is not "Godly" as the side's hyperbolic title claims, but it should be treated with respect. Think about the amazing processes your body undergoes daily for you to live. Such a complex system resulting in life. If that's not good enough it should be treated well so you can better enjoy your time on Earth and also so that you can have more time on Earth if nothing else.
To live you need good health. To have good health you, most likely, will need healthcare. I believe everyone has a right to life, and if you are religious you should see that God would want his children to live as you would believe that he gave the gift of life and that we humans should protect everyone's gift and right to life.
That is quite the argument except I know liberals who support Trump. I am not at the liberty to disclose any personal information, but I do know some people. However I agree with your statement that supporting a party that supports those political views is simply supporting those views.
I don't support their views, they are not my own. I am sorry if I was not clear on what I meant with my original statement. It was simply to display how in the minds of the left it is possible for them to be anti-gun (because of their fear of death) and also pro-abortion. I don't agree with this sentiment and believe it is hypocritical to believe both but many left-wingers do. I was simply presenting a left argument for someone to dispute. I was perhaps not clear enough with the intention of my OP.
It should definitely be an option and readily available to any students who want to take a foreign language. About it being a requirement I'm not so sure. Some students won't use it and won't do well or enjoy it. It should be an option but perhaps not a necessity.
violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.
Violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.
By definition a man could be attacked within the home by his spouse/partner, therefore domestic violence on men is by definition real.
I was simply displaying how it is possible that one can be afraid of death themselves and also be for killing a baby. They believe that unborn babies are not people until they can survive on their own, although in nature mothers care for their young which contradicts their argument. I also never said they believe the baby is not a valid human person just days before it is born. I was not and will not even look at the point of view of such an extreme. Looking at and understanding the other sides' point of view is important, even if you think/know they are wrong. You have to understand them to be able to debate them. I don't agree but from their point of view they are not hypocrites and I was just telling you how that could possibly be so, I was not defending them or their beliefs.
Religion is all about faith. Faith is a choice. There is no proof for any one religion and even though all religious think their religion is right there is no proof only faith. Since faith is a choice I think we should be able to choose what we believe and what we think is true when presented with all of the facts.
In today's society offensive is such a broad term in the sense that you could say you like chocolate ice cream over vanilla, I say that's offensive and racist and in some cases I can have your post taken down for something so ridiculous. Unless it is truly hurting someone, I think we should have free speech.
To be fair if the art is sanctioned by the College then it is not bad. Personally I wouldn't care even if it was showing the decapitation of someone I like. It is freedom of speech but could be considered graphic and not appropriate for school grounds. That is up for the school to decide to my knowledge. I think as long as foil7 is supporting both sides of the coin, no matter whose severed head it is, it is an argument that is respectable.
I don't think any president would like being president. It is one of the closest things you can get to the weight of the world on your shoulders. I think they do it because they want to make the world a better place. Unless they are corrupt (which I am not suggesting Trump is) and are only in it for the power, although the president is not a dictator.