- 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
Yes we are born naked and therefore should all go naked?
If you want to, then why not..? Outlawing clothes is not apart of my argument, the choice is.
We are also born with the ability to have sex with anyone, should we then have intercourse with our parents, children, siblings? To satisfy our desires is only natural isn't it?
Having sex with anyone seems a bit ludicrous don't you think? No I don't believe we should eat other people, fornicate with whomever or rape children.
The choice to be clothed or not is simply a choice that would physically effect the nude person, and possibly visually upset a viewer.
There are boundaries which humans follow, being clothed is not truly one of them. I have spent nearly entire days nude with my wife, am I an animal? No, the need for clothes simply wasn't present. There are nude beaches all over the world. Why? Because people like to be naked sometimes, it allows for optimal tanning. Are these people barbarians? No, simply people that choose to not wear clothes. There are entire nudist colonies that simply go about unclothed, and guess what; they continue to live just fine and just as humans.
The difference between wearing or not wearing clothing and murdering someone for their flesh are so utterly different from each other to link them together in a form of 'my argument is complete chaos' is insane. What I am suggesting already exists, just not in a blanket sense. Only in small areas. Where nudity is accepted in many places across the civilized world, I know not of a single one where cannibalism and rape are.
I would never condone bullying under any circumstance as it can be completely traumatizing.
But I was harshly bullied by my older brothers as a kid, and I have to say that because of them military life ( whether it be deployments or just basic training ) has been somewhat easier than had I not gotten my ass kicked repeatedly by them.
I don't get how the trap he fell into was an obvious one, past tense was used in the rebuttal where Poisonous said that they should be presently ruling the world and the rebut to that was And... that is exactly what we did. Which puts the implication that England no longer runs the world ( which it doesn't ), which was Poisonous' point.
How it was a trap is completely unbeknownst to me, as the rebut was solidifying Poison's argument.
Being arrested for being nude in public is like someone telling you that you can't think.
In fact it is not, people are not arrested for performing an intangible process that is only perceivable to the one conceiving the intangible process. Being arrested for being nude in public is just someone breaking the law by doing something illegal. And if laws are not upheld then what kind of society do you want to live in?
"i don't want to be a fat naked obese man or woman." Why? It is due to the fact that it is unpleasant.
Who wants to be fat? I would actually go so far as to say people don't want to be fat due to health reasons. Which is probably why obesity is a major health topic, not because people don't like the way fat people look; more so due to fat people developing health issues in a general sense.
If there was a law that nudism would be allowed, we will all get used to it mentally eventually.
Humans do have a tendency to adapt.
Am i right? lol
Well if someone doesn't want to wipe down their seat with a sanitary napkin or put a towel down then that is their own fault for contracting a disease by sitting on a chair. Drinking chlorine, lead paint, paint, ink, Drain-O, and many other substances will kill you, but they are not illegal to purchase. Same concept. If nudity is legal, then people can do something stupid and sit on a dirty bus seat without cleaning it and contract a disease ( <-- that would be stupid ) or a relatively intelligent nude could simply put a towel down on the seat or clean the seat off.
Im saying "Yes" because nudism is a natural right. How? I can't really prove that. We are born naked. And wearing clothes as a law doesn't seem right to me.
Then why are you arguing with me about proving points, when you make a statement in a factual format and follow it by stating that it is something you can't prove?
We as human beings can survive without clothes, being born without them kind of reiterates that.
Of course we are also born without food and water, but we are born into caring hands that have the intellect and ability to obtain those necessities.
Clothes are not necessarily a necessity, food and water are; therefore I come to my opinionated conclusion that nudism should be accepted in public as it is our human body in its most natural state, whether or not someone chooses to act upon the option of public nudity ( if it were in fact legal ) then let that be their choice, equally allowing people to wear clothes if they wanted too.
What would make sense if God was real and He told us that it was ok to choose whether we want to wear clothes or not.
No. That does not make sense but let me tell you what would: if God was real and we were born with clothes and God said we ought to have clothes on in public. Then I might go ahead and side with keeping nudity illegal.
But because we don't have that form of basis, you cannot make your judgement.
What in the world are you talking about? Just to let you know, judgement is synonymous with opinion so please answer me this: how can one not make an opinion?
In other words, what evidence is there to prove what you stated?
I don't need evidence to prove my personal opinion on the matter, given that it is my opinion and that I wasn't trying to sway anyone. The question asked of me my opinion. You disagree with my opinion which is fine, but I still have made my judgement and that is: nudism should be accepted publicly.
Why is the fact that we are born with no clothes gives us the choice to wear clothes or not wear clothes at all?
Mate... we are not born with clothes, so if clothes were not available for one ( hypothetically and please bare with me ) to wear then one would not have the choice and would simplistically not wear clothes at all. However in the current society most live in ( Bush Tribes for example don't always wear clothes ) it is now something relatively everyone does.
My rational on the matter ( that you agreed with relatively ) where you said "that agrees with my common sense" is simplistically that we were not born with clothes, therefore we should have the choice to wear them.
What would make them absolute contradictions if i was one hundred percent completely on either one of the positions.
Your position is unclear due to you being on both sides...
I don't live on the equator, and that is completely unrelated.
The weather of the public place in which someone chooses nudity is not what is in question, nor is the question suggesting wearing clothes be illegal. It is asking if nudity ought to be accepted in a general sense. As in your next door neighbor goes out to get a newspaper without any clothes on, and that is legal. Whereas you can choose between both. The point isn't whether or not it is ridiculously cold outside, it is whether or not it should be permissible.
The question isn't whether or not clothes should be outlawed, it is whether or not any given person should be permitted to be in public without any clothes on.
If you place a baby, unclothed, in extreme weather it is going to to certainly not thrive as well as it would if it had clothes. I am glad we are both in agreement that extreme cold, and a lack of clothing do not positively correlate with any given persons well-being.
I appreciate you not downvoting me.
Let me rephrase what I said: Considering we were not born with clothes, we should not be mandated to wear them. Hopefully my revamped argument is now more synonymous and understandable to what I already said (in your eyes of course).
Those are definitely views to consider.
Here is the ideal situation: wearing clothes is not mandated. Wearing clothes is a choice. People can choose whether or not they want to wear clothes. Those sentences are all quite related to each other. One might even go so far as to say they are saying the same thing. But of course you might have some form of idea to contribute (i.e. a different way to say what was already said ).
So this debate which asks a simplistic yes or no question based off of opinion was answered by myself with the simplistic answer of ( essentially ): I believe nudism should be accepted in public as a choice.
Now you might have noticed that I have reworded my opinion on the manner several times, as I can only hope that you understand my viewpoint is not that wearing clothes should be illegal ( as that is not what the question asked of me nor is it what I said ) but that wearing clothes ought to be a choice.
"There are views to consider. One view is that people have the natural choice to wear clothes.
The other view is a contradiction to the first view."
That my good sir, is complete genius. I am glad you explained to me that there are differentiating views in existence and not only that but that these multiple views don't agree with each other in a complete sense.
Since I usually don't downvote people, I won't downvote you. I hope you think real hard about your next rebuttal if your next response is in fact a rebuttal ( considering your own position on the matter is unclear ), presumably you ought to be able to do that considering your enlightened thought process and that your name and picture is of the statue by Rodin which represents the ideology of thought.
Until then, I'll be back in a couple of weeks to check up on ya.
Why do people have such a greater disapproval of my post opposed to yours?
I would think they would have attacked the comment which is not only the highest, but made an argument that is wholly more blunt; that there is 'no good reason to outlaw it'. I mean I completely agree with you mate, I just don't understand why nobody is posting their dispositions towards your position :(
In today's military I don't think you realize what kind of women actually choose to enlist, the women that choose to do are stronger than the men that choose not too. Women aren't weak in combat situations, I'm personally in the military and I have never had to second guess whether or not the woman next to me is going to defend my life or question whether or not the woman will be able to cut it. The women that find themselves in combat situations are women that have prepared the same as men for them, and if they are unable to make the cut they don't make the cut ( just as men don't ).
There are special op women that could kick my ass, battle wheathered or not. Women may have been nurturers in the past, but everyone is different. Just as some men would rather play video games all day opposed to serving their country, some women only want to serve their country. And if they are stronger mentally, spiritually, and (in some cases) physically I'd rather have them by my side opposed to some guy who barely made it through boot camp and who was forced to enlist whom has no sense of pride for his country and isn't willing to give his life up for me.
"Measuring 46 meters in all, the tower represents the age of the earth, with each centimetre equating to 1 million years and with, at the tower’s base, a tiny band of gold a mere millimetre thick standing for mankind’s time on earth.The Temple is dedicated to the idea of perspective, which is something we’re prone to lose in the midst of our busy modern lives."
I actually find the idea in itself interesting, but I also find it extremely peculiar. I have no problem with a building which represents Atheism within itself, but it just for some reason reminds me of George Orwell's 1984.
Actually yes, when I first started to use this site I was a church going Christian. Of course I had to put up with being forced to go to church, nonetheless I still held no reason to disbelieve any of the information I was given.
However roughly 3 or 4 years ago: after defending myself with the most simplistic arguments, and trying to make my arguments sound better with the usage of tons of metaphors, I came to the realization several weeks later as I looked back on the highest grossing and oldest debate this site had and started reading through all the arguments those whom disbelieved in God had to say ( this was of course after I argued endlessly with Xaeon ) I came to the realization that God might not exist. I started contemplating whether or not what I had been taught for all these years had any true basis. Then I eventually went with the side of uncertainty, and that is where I remain today. Agnostic Theist or whatever you decide to name it, regardless of other peoples opinion: God to me sounds awesome, if heaven does indeed exist I will repent and beg for forgiveness. However if it doesn't I will simply pass on this life and see what death is really like when that day comes.
But I would have to say that ultimately this website and the arguments posted on it regarding whether or not God existed changed my belief.
Personal belief and faith are completely acceptable, I can have faith in that my vehicle will safely get me to work. Though it is not a truth it is a belief, and faith is a belief put into action. Belief essentially being based off of personal experience, since everyone experiences different things throughout their lives hosting different beliefs is something everyone does.
However, when one takes their personal belief and believes in it so strongly that they begin believing that their ideology is correct and those whom do not believe the same are incorrect that is when religion comes into play. As a religion does not have to be reasons for why the universe has come into being, it can be as simplistic as a fundamental set of beliefs and practices; though generally believed in by a group of people could even be believed in by a singular person.
For example: Joecavalry believes that Sunday should be a day of grilling and football. He believes this so strongly that those whom believe anything different are wrong, he will argue his position that Sunday being the day before the workweek deserves to be a day of relaxation filled with grilled food and a sport played with the skin of a pig. Not only does this belief hurt himself, it hurts his relationship with other people. As Joe will argue his position to the grave, and hears no other sides. Because of his strong belief in Sunday grilling and football he has missed great opportunities and missed wonderful things. Since personal religion can evidently be negative, imagine that closed minded thought process being branched out among millions of people in an organized manner. Your average organized religion teaches you that your religion is right, and that the others are, of course, incorrect.
With the thought process that I am correct, my fellow believers are correct, and you are wrong is obviously a detrimental way to think. You can try and lightly bring up the ideology of evolution around certain people and they will become not only upset but even hostile at the mere mentioning of the idea.
Mob mentality is something that religion definitely creates, as the individual average Joe would never do things that people have done over the years without the prompting of someone who is preaching, in the minds of the listeners and believers, absolute truths ( NAZI Germany, the crusades etc. ).
Throughout history people have taken a personal belief and turned them into the beliefs of their religion, then as those whom do not believe and reject the lunacy are essentially thought of as people attacking the religion. Which is where ignorance gets amalgamated with religion. The first thought that comes to mind is the positions behind homosexuals and their restrictive rights as human beings. People have been told that homosexuals are bad for society, and with the negative thought processes they have become a hated group of people by the majority. It is almost funny how people when asked if there should be equal rights for all, the winning side is always by a landslide.
People can be tricked into believing things simplistically due to someone in a position of power stating that whatever he/she wants or does not want directly corresponds to whatever religious group he/she is identifying with. Then you have people who are taking in 'absolute truths' and being directed into believing certain ideals and leading people into believing that certain religious groups ought to be hated for their atrocities or that some religions are better than others...
Religion has been and will more than likely always be a tool for manipulation. Using the mixture of fear, hatred, ignorance, added into religious belief gives those in positions of power the ability to direct people down paths they would normally never go down by themselves. If the action is believed to be justified by any given persons religion whomever is directing the manipulation has nearly 100% support from the ignorant followers whom would blindly do as they are told, whether it be killing witches, bombing churches, schools, or embassies, works of art destroyed, child abuse, and countless other atrocities that have been linked to people whom have been influenced by someone puppeteering their religion so that whatever is essentially wanted will be accomplished at whatever cost in the mind of any given extremist leader.
When it all comes down to it, I think religion has had a net negative influence on society.
People can argue that it should be Leif Erickson Day, but in actuality Columbus brought Europe to the new world. That is what we should be celebrating. Not the discovery of, to argue that anyone other than the native Americans discovered the land is ridiculous in itself.
Really? Who fought in the war that lead to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima? Was it just the Marines?
So the Marines guard the white house, and that makes them by definition the best branch huh?
Who are the first responders? Depends on the situation and even if they are the first branch on land they didn't get there by themselves.
Try having some respect for all of the men and women who serve their damn country, instead of putting on a little biased show to prove your branch is the best (all your reasons prove absolutely nothing by the way) why don't you just give equal credibility to all of the branches whom serve and are ready to die for their country.
Funny, you are saying that they hardly ever get truly injured. Just minor things huh? The players whom work in the trenches, the running backs, and normally the quarterbacks as well end up developing brain issues.
I am personally a soldier and though I think we ought to be paid more, at the same time we signed up for what we receive. The military isn't begging us to join, civilians are begging the military to join. So I have no issues with our pay rates, in actuality making what we make with all living expenses paid for is a pretty good gig.
Penn Jillette, like so many Godhaters fabricates lies from God's word. First of all, God was absolutely NOT okay with Lot's daughters being raped, because they were NOT raped. Lot offered them to the angry mob that wanted to seduce the visiting angels, but that was Lot, NOT God. Anyway, the mob refused Lot's daughters because they were homosexual, and they wanted to have sex with the male angels. The two daughters later seduced Lot because they truly believed all men were destroyed when God rained fire and brimstone down upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now I like the logical reasoning you had, it was in fact absolutely outstanding.
My only issue is all of the support for your argument sounds completely and wholly insane. You backed your argument with what you believe to be true and you did use logic to back yourself, it is just what you are defending. The specific story that is, the bible isn't wholly rediculous all the time... just a solid chunk of the time.
So how did you do in English grammar and spelling in school?
Just wanted to break the ice there, I haven't watched either of Joe's videos because I am sure I have seen enough of those on Youtube and other sources before... The point of the video is probably that after the gentleman read the bible in depth, whilst using logical reasoning, he realized that after reading the unbelievably amazing and extraordinary happenstances that Christianity or Catholocism or whatever his specific denomination happened to be; he decided it was all rediculous.
I tried to challenge Joe's status as 1st place, that was back when he had roughly 3,500. TERMINATOR was the last person to try and topple Joe, he however reached his essential "breaking point" as we all have.
You can sure as hell try, I gave up around 2,500, and all points accumulated after that have been for what I think this site was originally set up for; debating.
You would need to hold onto that weekly leader board for a long, long time. TERMINATOR held onto it for about 3 months, he still didn't even come close.
That award was nothing more than a publicity stunt
disgraced the honor and prestige of the Nobel Peace Society
Probably not that bad, I tell you what is a disgrace to the Nobel family: the NSHSS run by a distant cousin who has the last name "Nobel", that is a disgrace to the family name. Obama being the recipient of an award of peace in a time of peace really does not seem that horrendous as you make it seem to be.
Don't really care but he should be forced from office
Well that is an incredulously worthless point to make.
Give me at least some reasoning opposed to homosexual slander, as to why.
The question asked of you was whether or not Obama should be forced to give his Nobel Peace Prize back, as we ( being the United States ) are currently involved in a conflict with another country; making Obama as an upholder of peace an antithetic label as he has brought us as the United States into a conflict with another country whilst having a Nobel Peace Prize.
Whoever gave you the downvote was correct in doing so, as you had no basis to your point and made an empty argument.
Did I say theory?
How about a false ideology which oppresses those whom hold differentiating beliefs?
Well I am going to make the assumption that you are of the Christian faith and I shall ask you a question, this will be a 2 part question; A.) do you feel that homosexuals commit a sin in being who they are ( homosexuals ) B.) using simple logic and deduction why would someone want to be a homosexual? They are a hated group of people by the masses whom are attacked constantly ( both physically and verbally ) based off of their orientation which, as long as it is consensual, hurts absolutely nobody.
If I am correct in my assumption then I am just begging this question, and you sir belong in the same category as those whom follow the ideology of "ignorance is bliss", implicit or not may the force of hatred be with you and those whom take their beliefs to the extremist levels in any faith.
I never said you were repeating my argument I just said that I had already argued against something which you had repreated.
You cannot deny that the person who I originally disputed was a bad logician.
I was refuting you, I did not read the disputee's arguments very thoroughly.
We had the world to control as well as fighting your rebbelion.
Nothing to argue with there.
Most of our ships were destroyed just trying to get to your country it doesn't matter how equipped your weapons are when you're drowning.
Nothing there either.
exactly my point.
Took you a while.
I was just getting annoyed with your monotony and decided to state very bluntly that you telling me the size of Great Britain changed nothing within any argument I made.
I dont see how this is disputing my current statement apart from the fact that you are repeating what I argued against.
You originally used the size of the US to give credit to why Great Britain lost the war, I simply made the point that using size could easily be refuted by Great Britain hosting a population well over double that of the U.S.
I made my own argument for your argument, I'm not repeating you unless it is in italics...
I have I said that guys logic was stupid you highlighted that sentance and said that was stupid logic and I don't understand what you're talking about
Your quote which said "if loads of people got it wrong that means its right." the quote can be easily be flipped, which makes the logic within it flawed.
1) Their army simply wasn't large enough to occupy enough square miles of territory in North America.
Once again Great Britain had double the population that America had, we couldn't cover our own land either.
2) Distance. The American rebels had the "Home Field" advantage, while Britain had to maintain long supply lines back to the Mother Country.
Great Britain was, regardless of distance, better equipped for war.
3) The American Spirit. So long as the colonists were determined to resist, the British would have a difficult time retaining all the thirteen colonies. They had to break the American will to fight or at least disrupt America's unity to make it too painful for the colonists to wage a sustained rebellion."
A whole country who revolts in the name of nationalism is a hard revolt to thwart.
Notice that the first one clearly states that land size was a big point.
I realize that the United States is bigger than Great Britain.
Though this is the less popular technique to reviving an economy; I am unable to find one example of the Pump Prime working, whereas I am able to find at least two where the Trickle Down ended up working.
I feel like the Obama Administration should have gone with the Trickle Down opposed to the Pump Prime; my reason being that the unemployment rate didn't go down it actually went up even after the massive stimulus bill was put into effect.
Country size makes a big difference to the enemy attempting to conquer it
You used the United States' size to defend a reason behind defeat, I simply stated to use size was a useless argument when the population of the defending country was literally more than half that of the attacking country.
Try reading my post again.
Not only that but we also had to manage controling the world, which is a pretty large place, and all that from 1 small island.
Well they ruled the world didn't they? So why couldn't this itty bitty country that ruled the world ( a pretty large place ) not defeat a country whose population was half that of the itty bitty country and whose army consisted of civilians?
How pathetic do you have to be to go back 300 years to find a war you won on your own, and that was with a country 100th your size.
Ha, I thought we beat the number one military power in the world?
I guess that doesn't matter when your country is bigger right?
Unless you happen to be Russia.
Either way; to use the size of the United States is an idiotic argument when back 300 years ago the population of the U.S. did not match that of England, which makes your argument a pathetic one. According the the US Census Bureau in 1776 the population of the US was put at 2.5 million, that of England judging from two seperate sites have told me that in 1750 the population was put at 5.4 million; it only went up from there.
So your argument is that a country that had 100 times more land to cover beat another invading country whose population was over double the country with 100 times the land?
Makes England look pretty bad if you ask me.
We invented the road how can we drive on the wrong side of it?
Ha, good one.
Because you are the one's who go around blowing up towns with nukes.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked saved millions of lives, however it was an idiotic move as doing so breached the terms of war: we killed civilians. In actuality if we had taken to invade and conquer Japan it would have taken several more years to island hop until the deed was done, it would have cost millions of lives as the emperor would not have surrendererd until we were beating down the door to his palace.
Was the bombing a necessity? It could go both ways but I'm not going to delve into it any further as it would be pointless and end up in a totally different debate which has been addressed on this site many times before.
That's just stupid logic: if loads of people got it wrong that means its right.
That is equally stupid logic.
Though that was funny it was bull.
I would bet you any amount of money that they skipped over quite a few interviews of people who knew basic knowledge, simply keeping the idiots on to further ask them questions that would only embarrass the American people more.
The same could be done with England; doing a street interview and asking relatively the same questions to roughly 100 people and finding 7 people who held no basic knowledge of events, currencies, coalitions, and even countries both current and past.
If it is used for what it is supposed to be used for then yes Facebook is a benefit. However people seem to believe that Facebook is merely a place to play graphically poor games which help no person and are solely time eaters.
I still use Facebook to its original use: being able to connect to fellow classmates and discuss anything from politics to the homework that is due the next day.
So I will say that Facebook is good for people if they use it to the initial intended purpose; though many use it for reasons which are either questionable or extreme wastes of time.
This was utterly incoherent and I had not even the slightest idea as to what you are talking about.
What do you mean homework is absolutely and only for us ?
It will be a huge loss to those who are studying if there is no homework.
This argument as well makes no sense.
The PC is more complicated, and not quite as user friendly as a Mac. However I am computer savvy and hold no issue with PC operating systems. I have been using the same 40 GB hard drive lap top for 7 years and it runs smooth as silk due to me resetting the computer to initial set up, running Comodo ( free security system ), and keeping my processes below 90K ;)
So as far as I am concerned Mac's are overpriced, PCs are the way to go if you are computer savvy!
I have always had much more fun playing the Halo series compared to the Call of Duty series.
I feel that Halo requires a player of skill, whereas Call of Duty calls for someone who can press the trigger on a grenade launcher; or where someone can be in a helicopter picking people off with kill streaks that show utterly no skill whatsoever.
One who feels no empathy or sympathy towards any human ( especially one in pain ) are normally unable to be taught how to understand a person.
People whom suffer from APD feel that whatever they do affects nobody else but themselves; even if what they are doing is mass murder.
if this is wrong and there simply is no way to treat them, I'd see deterrence/incapacitation as reasons to keep them separated from society
Certain disorder hosting people should be kept away from society and attempted to be treated; all should have an attempt at rehabilitation as a human is a human. Humans are known for being indifferent to basic ideals such as diseases which are normally incurable; case studies are not a very rare occurence within psychology.
This is a horrid atrocity. Had the physical capability been available anyone should have intervened.
Syria should have never released the couple back to Afghanistan, how Syrian officials could merely accept Afghanistan's promise to simply slap the couple on the wrist and let them be at peace is ludicrous.
In a backwards country such as Afghanistan there really is no such thing as a slap on the wrist for an engaged woman adulterous.
Had Syrian officials been in their right mind they could have avoided this whole situation by not releasing the couple back to Afghanistan.
Had physical intervention been possible then someone should have intervened.
There was no trial, and the actions within themselves were a direct breach of basic human rights.
I find the whole situation disgusting.
Well though it may seem messed up; the people employed by EPIC Security have the choice to quit.
So if EPIC Security had to hire these people with them aware of the knowledge that they would be working X amount of hours and receive X amount of vacation time, so chances are these people went into their jobs fully aware of the time alotted for vacationing: they get no sympathy from me I used to work slave shifts (10 hours no breaks ).
I am going to assume you meant "with meaning in the lyrics"
To say that rappers don't have meaning in their lyrics is absurd. When you take the O.G.s of rap they are truly feeling what they rap about, whereas there are some rappers i.e. Soulja Boy whom posses no true skill and also lacks a basic understanding of the English Language.
There are definitely rappers that deserve plethoras of kudos to their ingenuity with the English Language. Rappers such as: Gangstarr, AZ, Lupe Fiasco, Nas, Fabolous and the list goes on...
Rap isn't what it was in the 80's
Yes it is, if not better.
Listening to your local radio station isn't going to let you delve into the true world of rap, that will take you as far as iTunes ( current ) top 100 will. You have to go underground for the good stuff.
something of real life struggle.
So what the rappers that grow up in the worst neighbor hoods, have no money, and are constantly fought and abused don't count due to making it big? So as soon as they land that record deal and move out of the slum they all of a sudden don't fit into the category of rapping about real life struggles?
Well mate as far as I am concerned it is the circle of life.
Some people have only been on this website for 20 minutes, however I can remember a choice few whom have created debates grossing in over 400 posts.
Some are indefinitely not even worth arguing against as they have posted an incoherent argument that, even after disputing it hoping for someone to argue back, no one will defend the person in question.
Some however make epic posts that end up being the highest rated comment and generate a major debate between lasting members of CreateDebate.
So with me it is a love/hate relationship, that leans more on the benefits of love.
The basic knowledge of sciences within themselves still elude me ...
I am indefinitely a humanities person. As they say everything is eventual and hypothetically I will possibly have a slightly firmer grasp on anything within the field of science in the future.
That being said I concede, and am much more confused with the situation than when I started.
Nothing you have said has changed the fact that allele frequencies change over time.
I said that was fact.
So: Not factual.
I said the specific piece I posted was not factual.
Argumentum ad populum
Ha, I was going to post an argument regarding this however decided against it but apparently left the heading up.
So I will leave this with a question: so is the Theory of Evolution a "proven theory" or is that within itself not coherent?
The theory of evolution is not a law, and is still a theory. Though it is highly testable and holds well evidenced explanations; it still theoretical.
Don't tell me have you ever heard of the "theory of gravity?", as it is a theoretical explanation of observed force between matters.
allele frequencies within a population change over time.
That is a fact.
Human chromosome number 2 is an exant combined match of chimpanzee chromosomes 13 and 14 (a fact explained by the theory) homologous structures exist between closely related taxa (a fact explained by the theory) atavisms occur in organisms (a fact explained by the theory)
There are parts of the Theory of Evolution which still holds the label of theory.
So: Not factual.
Argumentum ad populum
I think there are a number of arguments "for" the bombing of the two Japanese cities during World War II, so I'll take the unpopular role and play Devil's advocate. First off, if you look at the title of this argument, it is "Was the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable or not?". Not just "Hiroshima", but Hiroshima [August 6th] AND Nagasaki [August 9th]. Even after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese war machine would not surrender. This really shows how hard the citizens of Japan and the politicians of Japan were fighting in this total war.
Secondly, the usage of Nuclear Weapons for the first time by the United States was relatively fortunate. If it were a country at war with America who'd dropped the first bomb, you could easily argue that due to the tension of this time period the US would've deployed more of them in retaliation. During the Cold War, for example, arms races between the US and Russia led to both sides having hundreds / thousands of nuclear missiles. Since the US was the first to drop the bomb, it set a historical precedent and was used as a deterrant. Despite the low yield of the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" bombs [modern stockpiles have warheads thousands of times more powerful], the sheer destruction caused gave Nuclear Weapons an area of seriousness and the reality of their destruction that has prevented their usage under the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction".
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fought under Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan by American forces using conventional warfare tactics [think: Omaha Beach, Operation Market Garden, etc], would the more powerful Nuclear weapons have been used during later wars? How would the Cold War have progressed differently? If Fat Man or Little Boy were dropped during testing in the Bikini Atoll, would more powerful, modern nuclear bombs have been used in any of the wars since the Second World War?
The Korean War, The Cold War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf Wars, Iraq, even Iran in the future. What would the American Military's stance on the usage of Nuclear bombing be if it didn't have the negative press from the bombing of Japan? It would certainly lack it's biggest deterrent.
Perhaps this could be seen as a constructive or progressive "lesser of two evils". America would not have backed down from Japan, as Japan was starting to lose the battle. Regardless of whether the fight was waged using conventional tactics or nuclear bombs, a similar Japanese death toll would have occurred. These days, the largest argument people see these days against the usage of Nuclear weapons is the debate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps the two bombings actually prevented further loss of life from Nuclear weapons.
There hasn't been a nuclear bombing since on this magnitude [with the exception of the common usage of Tactical Nuclear devices on much smaller magnitudes]. Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki save lives, by having the bombing during "favorable conditions"?
1) Low-yield nuclear bombs, by conventional standards.
2) The circumstances were that America was the only one with Nukes.
3) No fear of retaliation, no world-wide destruction followed.
4) Japan clearly had no plan to back down. How many more lives were lost versus a full-on invasion?
5) No American or "Allied" lives were lost.
6) Field-test of a nuclear device, set the precedent for the level of necessity required to drop "The Bomb".
Anyway, what the hell do you mean
If it is in italics then that means I didn't say it mate, it means I am quoting.
I think that you forgot the word, not.
I forgot nothing. You just don't understand how to read quotes.
Have you seen Army training?
Marine Corp holds the toughest physically demanding boot camp, that is not debatable.
Lance Corporal Jackson told me
Tertiary biased information.
Are you actually a Marine anyway?
Sorry mate I am a bit confused, did you end up turning your paragraph into statements which were betwixt me and LTyossarian?
That makes this whole situation extrememly confusing.
What is the time frame mate?
The slim xbox percentage is the one you have to use now for the failure rate. Always go by the newer as the older is the reason they made the newer.
55% Failure is only taken of those who reported either favorably or unfavorably. Hey I have a question for you: if you had an xbox and it crashed on you would you report it to Microsoft? Yes you probably would. If your xbox didn't crash would you report it to Microsoft? No you probably wouldn't.
Your statistic is flawed and invalid.
If you had read my earlier post, you would know that some women who work as translators, dog handlers, signallers, and many other trades, often work alongside infantry units, even elite ones such as paras or marines.
I read it originally only a few days ago, my debate turned from you over to Zombee and had completely forgotten your mention of this.
However as for linguists they are prized possessions. If they are working in the field they are doing so within an office.
I am not familiar with the Tech school of a signaler, or dog handler. My questions for you are of these average women who are holding jobs that have no need of a restriction based on sex: when you say they are working in the field do you mean they are doing the physical tasks of lets say a Marine? If a soldier is wounded and weighs 200 pounds is the female linguist already physically strong enough to carry the soldier to safety? Is this dog handler trained to give cover fire with an M-16 while lobbing grenades over 30 yards? Is that signaler ( as a requirement of their respected Tech school ) required to do the same physical activities as that Marine infantrymen was during his Tech school like say run a 6 minute mile?
Don't tell me about yourself, tell me about the average woman who takes up these jobs. Does BMT ( which has an easier workload to graduate ) make a woman who is anatomically not as physically strong as a man ( on an extreme average ) automatically able to carry out tasks that for the average woman are not actually physically possible?
My motion: a waiver for those specially qualified.
And as for the graduation standard, why are you asking me that?
I addressed that above.
I believe the standards should be the same, but did i make the rules?
There would be a much lower demographic of women in the military.
I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower, many women, myself included, would have passed even if we had been men.
What you are saying exactly is this : If I had been a man I would have still passed the physical exam.
What you are saying is incoherent, what you meant to say I hope was : I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower , many women ( including myself , could pass the physical requirement of a male soldier even though we are women.
In which case I have no dispute there.
There is a handful of females that can be a special operative, but that is a handful. My proposition is that the job of special ops and jobs of that caliber of physical activity are not listed as a choice for women as not the average woman is physically capable of being in Spec Ops. What I am saying is that a waiver should be administered if a female passes a male graduation standard for physical fitness.
It is fair and equal and would keep the drop out rating of women spec ops to an extreme low.
Hating/Being scared of a person due to who they are as a person is not ok in any form, the one being persecuted cannot help who they are. If you were an African American and someone hated you because of that you think that both the persecutor and the one being persecuted are equally wrong?
Yes. Not gay as in i take 'it up the bum' gay but gay as in 'you're a fag', gay.
You didn't differentiate at all, and I feel that even if you had your statement would have been incoherent.
neither of them can help who they are.
You are an ignorant person.
They already have this same work load as an average infantry soldier, as well as say, being a translator.
Women already have the same workload as an average infantry soldier? Then why might I ask are their requirements to graduate lower than the requirements of men?
And what does being a translator have to do with anything?
I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower, many women, myself included, would have passed even if we had been men.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Even if you had been a man you would have passed?
I'm sorry but I don't understand where you are going with this.
but how many people would pass those courses if they do not have the hands on experience
Every person within the virtual medical field must still physically pass all tests required of their field of interest, as in an EMT would have to do all necessary physical tasks before being certified.
Why was this a dispute?
even if they are fairly rare.
Which is why I said offering the job to all female applicants would be ludicrous when a waiver can be released to any female who meets the necessary requirements of a combat specialized soldier. To hold a whole 8 weeks of training for only a slight minority ending up graduating would be a useless waste of government spending. Whilst the elite women can merely get a waiver which allows them to fall into rank next to any man.
hahaha is this an air force DEP talking shit?
No, I'm not.
Marines have the toughest graduation requirements son... so wake up.
I never said they didn't, though Navy Seals hold onto that title. For regular enlistment sure Marines do have the toughest BMT.
No it wouldn't the Marines are the best as far as being physical goes.
Humans differentiate from eachother. Though the different branches teach us that teamwork is essential, it does not change that one person is different from another. You say your average Marine can do 60 push ups a minute, I am sure we can both find people who can surpass that limit with ease.
As far as I'm concerned mate, we as members of the military are swearing to protect our country. Arguing over whose branch is better isn't worth it.
Every man that is in the military had to pass basic military training, and that in itself shows a mans worth.
That is an excellent and valid point.
What I was trying to convey is something such as a morbidly obese man might have a picture of when he was in the prime shape of his life, or possibly someone having a profile picture that isn't even them. That is what I meant by false representation, not when a person puts off a front that they are somebody whom they are not. Though the way I worded my statement made such a conclusion indefinitely logical =\
female bodybuilding has a healthy following
Did you mention this due to me mentioning it earlier?
These women are undoubtedly as strong, or stronger, than the average soldier.
That is a bold statement, one which you are obviously not giving the average combat specialized soldier very much credit.
Your average combat infantry Marine is trained to hold the physical capability of running a mile in a half within 9 minutes, and run a solid 40 minutes straight.
I feel that your average female body builder would have trouble accomplishing such a task.
There are many different physical requirements of an infantry trained soldier, ones that I feel a female would not have the capability of accomplishing. The extremely limited few who do hold those capabilities can get a waiver, however the majority of women joining the military should not get to apply for such a job. It should be a request that is judged on a physical capability basis.
It seems like most of the women interested in such roles would be fairly likely to be physically qualified for it.
If you look at the requirements upon graduating between a male and female recruit you ought to note a noticeable difference. They are not as physically qualified as a male is, regardless of equality: a female trainee upon graduating did not have to meet the same physical requirements as a male trainee.
The military is an amazing opportunity for men and women alike, however I adamantly feel that some jobs should be reserved for men, unless a woman falls into the category of an overly physically qualified female.
There is absolutely no sexism present within my argument, any that is perceivable was either a mistake on my part or was a comment which was inevitable.
No I am not in the Army, I am in the United States Air Force E-3 currently in the DEP.
The Marines have the toughest boot camp out of any of the other branches.
That doesn't make the Marines the best branch, not even the best at push ups.
The Marines are the strongest both mentally and physically.
That is a biased misconception. I could say the same for my branch or any other branch, and it would still hold the same level of credibility.
do you think kids under the age of 18 should do drugs
A more specific question would be much appreciated.
I will assume that you are asking about drugs such as Marijuana, X, Zanex, basic hallucinogens, stimulants, and depressants AKA drugs that get you high in some sense.
No kids under the age of 18 should not do drugs, it is bad for the developing mind. Once they are in their mid twenties I could care less, however before their mind has fully developed messing around with different drugs can be detrimental to one's development as well as being possibly fatal.
13 year old america female
In all honesty ( and I am being totally truthful ) most of the ideas discussed on this website are over your head. I would suggest sticking to debates where you can post something valid on, I would also suggest re-reading your posts as when you write as sloppy as you do people tend to decide you have no valid point to make.
This will be my last post on this subject, as we are off the debate topic.
Had the intention that was perceived by you was to promote creationism I would have most likely clicked "dispute" opposed to "support".
I meant that ignorance is bliss in the sense that those whom are consumed by the ideals of creationism find themselves ignorant of the livelihood of those around them who happen to not follow or denunciate their personal path. It is these people who violate the basic human rights of others whom find themselves in not only feeling a sense of accomplishment after a good picketing, but find that they themselves have done something for the betterment of mankind. Which is where I believe the phrase "ignorance is bliss" applies to such people.