housing children bickering amongst each other regarding the benign topics of fashion
That is disgusting.
one sided debates to incite uproar
Nuisances.
he would be a breath of fresh air
I miss him being the only one up at 3 A.M. est.
Plus he said I should write a book :p
You indefinitely have a brilliant mind.
You are completely wrong to the core, Terminator left because he was tired of liberal infestation of this website as I am.
So are you going to leave?
TERMINATOR screamed for attention, though I almost always appreciated his input.
He was gunning for the number one spot, and even posted on Kuklapolitan's page "hey you have more points than me, who are you?" which I could have taken out of context and the true meaning behind it was merely to be humerous.
However, if he personally told you this then there is possibly some truth to it. However viewing the situation from my understanding the man simply came in to realization of the near impossibility of breaching JoeCavalries rank.
I am actually going to be shipping to basic training in under a year with the Air Force, on the course to become an officer.
The military holds many amazing opportunities and most branches now are only accepting diplomas. Times are getting tough, and more and more people are shooting for the military.
She never said she could see Russia from her house...
No but Tina Fey did, Jesus they look identical.
Well the interview itself was a disaster, as Palin really wasn't prepared for the questions being asked for her. She was fairly inconsistent with finishing her thoughts, which made her look like a fool she isn't the only crazy one. I mean look at Joe Biden that man is a lunatic, and hardly anyone seems to notice.
However I just noticed that you are banned, therefore I will end with bringing you back up a point.
Evolution is still within itself a theory. It has yet to be factually proven as a definite, hence the name "Theory of Evolution".
Just due to you and I being different than the accepted normalcy of things does not mean we should oppress the mindsets of others.
I am saying that since both are technically theories should they not both be taught?
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.
When people represent themselves on online dating sites they only choose to show their aspects that they find to be attractive. Which leads to false representation which ultimately leads to a let down once a face to face meeting occurs.
Judging from personal experience ( those around me ) I have yet to see an online relationship end up working, so my personal opinion on online dating is that it is not worth it.
Touché.
I don't think that is a very appropriate analogy.
It wasn't one of my best, I was at a loss for a good analogy. However I personally feel that the general idea is the same, I believe that the point of the debate isn't if you get both. It is if you solely socialize online that is a link to loneliness. To which in my mind ( with no studies to back it up ) could indefinitely be a direct correlation to loneliness, as it is in human nature to socialize.
It can be, but isn't necessarily, rooted in physical activity.... fake or necessarily less satisfying?
According to what you have told me you get equal doses of both forms of communication, therefore neither are less satisfying. However you would need to step in another's shoes to be empathetic with the idea of solely socializing online. From personal experience when I was ill for two weeks my only form of communication was via my computer, I can tell you even with all of my "online friends" I found myself in a slight form of depression.
Though I still stand by my initial ideal, I do believe you make solid points.
Regional intervention is often more effective at producing change. Whilst groups such as the UN may be successful in keeping the peace in the countries they are involved in (questionable in itself), once the soldiers leave, their philosophy leaves too. By having regional groups intervene, we can be sure that the influences they have in the country will not leave once the troops have, as regional politics will ensure that progress after peacekeeping is continued.
Women are equal to men in the armed forces, but they are not the same as men. While the vast proportion of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. While some women are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not.
Anarchism is marked by a utopian, unrealistic argument - a diatribe based on the principle that the grass is always greener on the other side. Far from freeing humans, anarchy allow them to be dominated by primitive forces that a controlling state has eliminated, such as the use of physical force by the strong to oppress the weak. Laws and a police force are necessary to prevent this. A state allows industries to be organized and crops to be grown so as to support its citizens, and without these high-intensity techniques there is no way that all the population could be fed. All advances in art and science have been made possible by a state that brings people and resources together. Anarchism is merely a backward and dreamy approach to serious political matters.
Anarchism is essentially a fight for human freedom. Modern states, even those which claim to be democracies, stifle their citizens with oppressive and artificial machinery such as laws and taxes. These are imposed by the people who run the state - the elites, the governing classes. Anarchists believe it is better to live without such controls imposed by such people. As it is in human nature to be free.
Many African countries end up being involved in wars that are set out to procure diamond mines and other resources within war zones, and thus certain countries end up having a greater vested interest in fueling wars, opposed to resolving them.
Interference is more often than not a necessity, especially when regarding genocide. As it is the duty of other nations to protect the innocent when a nation's defenses are either not enough or are the problem within themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Those are all pretty good things that have come out of America.
And my own personal point has been proven: that you truly are unable to discuss anything in a serious or coherent manner.
no i am mearly stating that by keeping our language you are either lazy or british wannabe's
So you are saying that after we kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War we should have spoke an entirely different dialect. This isn't in the form of a question, this is what you are saying. And if you cannot see how ridiculously stupid this idea is, you have serious mental issues mate.
but it is not broken away if it uses our language.
So let me get this straight: you are saying that America isn't its own country due to it having a similar ( not identical ) dialect as England?
So Australia probably isn't its own entity either, due to them using a dialect based off of English. Yeah going by your logic that makes perfect sense.
Human beings need direct interaction and contact with other people, it is just in our nature.
Communicating online is essentially fake interaction, as a tennis player playing Wii Tennis is essentially the same in that the player isn't really playing tennis and the player will feel as though something is lacking and that is the reality of the situation: they were only pretending to play tennis.
your own, american language
So do you not understand that America broke away from England?
that was my point, let me know when this changes
Let me make a point: you are an idiot if you think that England is better than America due to America using the same language as it's founding country.
You are a redundant dolt.
no what i am suggesting is that you (an american) are speaking english - pure laziness
Do you not understand that America broke away from England?
let me know when your iq increases enough to work out what is meant in a basic sentence
I really lack any form of a graspable idea as to what in the hell you are talking about.
Oh man this was rich.
For one reason, 2010 has not happened yet.
You do realize that 2012 was a movie right?
And just to let you know ( so we are on the same page ) we are in the year 2011.
Second, 2012 might not going to happen.
Well the year 2012 is inevitable, whether or not we as the human race make it their is what you could make an argument over. And it would be "might not happen", so take the "going to" right out of there.
im sorry
Apology accepted.
who cant be bothered to make up there own language and stole ours?
Colonists were British, that dammed British education system must of missed a couple centuries...
You see the colonists came from England ( want to take a guess at what language they spoke? ), and eventually broke away from British rule after being victorious in a war to free us as the American people ( who are English ) from the oppression of England.
So what you are trying to say is that the British stole their own language from the British?
like i say,either use a valid arguement or not.
Maybe if British people had a better education system you wouldn't misspell an average of one word per sentence, my vocabulary ( judging by what I have read you type ) is far broader than yours.
and made no points what so ever with regards to the arguement.
I didn't pull us off subject mate, you might want to re read previous posts before pointing your finger rashly as my original dispute did nothing but make a point towards your argument.
now do you have a point you wish to convey about the given topic, or are you just going to continue wasting my time
If I am wasting your time I suggest you don't reply, as me replying to your perforated arguments gives me nothing but easy points.
