I asked your age to make sure you could comprehend what I was explicating to you, as English could be your secondary language. I will assume it is your tertiary and will suggest a different medium to spend your time on, however this is your choice. Personally at 13 I would have rather been on Myspace or Facebook than a debating website.
:l
I am going to cast my ballot for not missed. I believe that he finally realized he would not be able to keep up with the pace. Even if he was accumulating around 300 points per week Joe's consistent 30 or so kept him in the positive by to grandeur a number ;)
At the cellular level there's no difference between female muscle and male muscle. So, theoretically a woman with X pounds of muscle mass will be as strong as a male with X pounds of muscle mass. Women are designed to carry more muscle in the lower body, so she will probably have stronger legs and glutes and he will have stronger arms/back/chest.
We ( Women ) have fewer muscle fibers (especially in the upper body), so it's difficult for us to achieve the muscle mass of even an untrained man.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/
That would be from two separate body builders.
Women are not designed to be as strong as men, however there are few exceptions.
like i said b4 online is better but not by much
That is your opinion and I respect that, however people differentiate from eachother. It is within human nature to have direct contact with fellow humans, however those that find they do not need this contact fall under the category are exceptions.
wat do you think your doing now
I think I am engaging in a form of online debate.
hint: i have never seen or met you b4
You are correct, however whether or not I am getting social stimulation from this is totally different.
and another thing I LOVE WII TENNIS
It was an analogy.
because i live in a bad neibor hood so i don't go out side but i can stay looking healthy by doing wat ?
Might I ask how old you are before I get to deep into this?
I am only a mere 18, and when I started on this site I was roughly late 15; I have re read several of my arguments and they greatly embarrass me....
Perseverance does pay off indefinitely, I am currently actually going to State finals within bio-medical debate as my team and I won 1st in districts and regionals.
However since my recent return to this site I feel that my posts have definitely gone up a few levels in coherency.
I also hold a broader knowledge base for different concepts including political ideologies.
This post deserves no credit to me and was used to kick the debate off as is the opposing post on the affirmative side, I choose to defend which post my opinion resides on which is in fact that Anarchism is not a valuable political ideology.
Anarchism is an ideology which holds onto ideals which if given the opportunity to flourish would merely turn into a dystopian society. Where people find themselves starving to death without an adequate supply of food, resorting to thievery and murder as a mode of survival. As a society which removes the state in its entirety leads people to resort to their primitive states: where physical dominance decides who eats at the end of the day.
I don't know if that is any good, however I am on three hours of sleep currently.
far the most logical argument I've seen you make
That depresses me =\
I wouldn't go so far as to say I was making an inference, As the the gentleman's posts on both sides of the debate could lead me to the conclusion as I stated. Therefore I would put it at more of an educated guess than an inference.
However my statement was purely speculation.
If what DaWolfman is saying is true
What I am saying is if another country launches missiles at another country then interference by other countries is necessary. There is nothing to dispute here.
than no wars can be won
?
in order to stop the terrorists, Israel must destroy their rocket launching sites, training centers, and headquarters near enough that they can do damage.
I never said that, get your facts straight.
If Israel did what DaWolfman is saying it should, it would allow terrorists to do their jobs with impunity.
Your question was why can't Israel host a war against terrorism. I answered that they themselves cannot if they are interfering with other countries', as a country in itself does not represent terrorism a certain slice of it's inhabitants do.
