- 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
housing children bickering amongst each other regarding the benign topics of fashion
That is disgusting.
one sided debates to incite uproar
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
you put any us marine against any british marine. seriously try it.
This is merely a conception, and it is a useless point as all humans differentiate from eachother. Sure you can say that any one British Marine could handle any one American Marine, however do not suffer from the misconception of thinking that all British Marines could handle any American Marine. As any Marine ( despite nationality ) could defeat any other marine in combat.
and yes i have a few friends in the marines who all say that its hilarious how many americans it takes to get a ship running
Once again this is merely a conception, since you are also telling me that your friends are explicating to you how many Americans it takes your friends are obviously biased. Just about any American in the military will tell you that British Soldiers are pussies and can't get anything done, then you go over to England and every British Soldier will tell you that American Soldiers are pussies and can't get anything done.
I do think that no matter how they got their degree, they should work through a certain internship period before "graduating" as full medical personnel, to ensure they have adequate practical experience
They do, every person getting into the medical field via an online course must have hands on practice and pass hands on physcal tests.
The United States is the number one millitary power in the world.
the uk military would beat you into the ground with regards to discipline
They would beat us down in discipline? So is your point that America would beat the UK down physically?
i mean it takes twice as many amercan marines to operate a ship half as big
Got anything to prove that?
ok well the fact that you want to take this agruement seriously is a joke in itself,
I addressed your post was a joke, I made that fairly obvious. Once again I found your joke to be idiotic and childish, so I chose to dispute it.
seriously you can not give any evidential proof as to one country being better than another and to be honest it woul be racist to try
I addressed that in my comment on the U.S.A.'s side of the debate, where I posted that you cannot determine whether or not one country is better than another in a general sense.
now dont insult me by saying that i am an adolesent, if you want to argue a genuine topic, well bring it on.
Well as far as I'm concerned that is on your table to argue in a debate that is worth your attention span, I have nothing to prove and what I had to prove I stated as crystally as possible.
now if you'll excuse me i need to get back to my afternoon tea with scones and crumpets
See now that was funny.
Ok you really need to get a life outside of this website
I spend roughly 10 minutes a day on this website at the maximum, just post a few of my thoughts and get on with my day.
you clearly take life far too seriously.
Oh I have a sense of humor, it just appeals to people who have gotten past elementary school.
First of all i do not joke all of the time
All of the posts I have seen you make are foolish within themselves.
Now while you may argue that his argument for the grammatical errors is over aggressive
I was disputing him for calling me over aggressive, and was saying you appear to be a fool ;)
he has a valid point and in your own words "do you have a point in disputing it."
I disputed your argument due to the way it was set up. Your point was to make fun of Americans whom you stereotypically put us as obese and unable to even click the correct side. Your joke was distasteful and overly child like, it was also the 4th or 5th argument I had seen you make that was overly childlike in nature, and had quite frankly gotten annoyed at seeing them.
Finally how dare you call me a fool,
Act as a fool be called a fool, being a bit antithetic there Jeremy.
this has no point in an argument and you in yourself have no point in which to dispute the argument.
My point in disputing your argument was that it was distasteful in my opinion, and factually extremely childlike.
I do not expect a reply from this and in future i hope that you will learn to try to use valid arguments
also i hope that in future you do learn to distinguish when a person is making a joke.
Oh I could tell you were making a joke, refer to my above comments.
If you get a degree online, you don't get the experience you do when you actually go to college, the hand-on-hand stuff. You can read all you want about drawing a blood sample, but once you go to do it, it's more than just a picture on a screen.
To pass the course you still have to pass the hands on portions of the exams. If I want to become an EMS I would have to go out and do some test runs, pass all the physical tests ( I.E. stabilizing someone ), and pass the written tests.
Yes, my point was that he was joking.
One who jokes all the time is within himself a fool, defending a fool for no other reason than to point out that the person is a fool seems a tad bit worthless.
As for grammatical errors, whilst being undesirable, they do not render an argument invalid.
Did I say grammatical errors make an argument invalid? I was merely building a case for which I made what seemed, in your eyes, to be an overly aggressive dispute of his initial post.
my point was
What is your point in disputing me? This debate is on whether or not England is better than the United States and vice-versa, you are pulling away from the debate at hand to defend a fool on whether or not I was harsh on my response to his post. In which case you trying to tell me this was off topic within itself.
So once again, do you have a point in disputing me?
It really depends on what grade the students are in, as well as the level of difficulty the course in itself is.
You could group up a massive amount of AP students and not have a problem with the class, however you drop down to the level of Liberal Arts and the level of devotion to the course begins to drop like a rock. Where students are all on the drop out course and really care nothing about anything other than whose party was the sickest the previous weekend, and or whose will be the sickest this coming weekend.
I firmly believe that modernity is not only getting dressed up in party clothes, wearing mini skirts and slim leggings..but modernity in it's true sense means advancing with time but holding on to ones cultures and traditions or roots at the same time
Modernity can have a plethora of different meanings depending on what context it is used.
In its entirety it means to be modern or something modern.
So dressing modern could simply mean wearing Michael Jordan brand shoes, not necessarily mini skirts.
Since a student does not need any special training to wear party clothes or miniskirts, therefore what does need training is the implementation of traditions.
I feel as though you ignore your own question, as you do not even address teachers until the bottom half of your affirmative constructive statement.
a teacher himself or herself should have it in them in the first place.
What modernity? For the most part everyone has modernity within them, as everyone had to grow up. Therefore they have been subjected to the culture wherever they reside, I use culture as that seems to be your definition of modernity.
As an institution is not just about the academics
It damn well sure be, it should have hardly anything to do with educating students on how to properly dress whilst at school. This idea in itself is completely off topic to your own debate question.
it should also contribute to the deepening of one's roots(the student's)
Do you remember what we are supposed to be discussing? We are supposed to be discussing whether or not high school teachers should have a strict dress code.
Also sexual appeal from a teacher can be quite distracting for a student and also inappropriate and unexpected
A teacher should not need a strict dress code in high school as an adult any teacher should understand the basic concept of dressing appropriately for work, in which case all that should be needed is a suggestion of what to wear.
Thus i think teachers in school should have a strict dress code.
You posted a paragraph, and you only truly addressed your own question in one sentence of it.
All in all your whole post was off topic and irrelevant to your own question.
I think he lacks the capability of making a serious post, honestly after seeing most of his posts on other debates I have come to the conclusion that he does not have the mental capacity to make an argument that has less than five grammatical errors.
Did you have an argument for what I posted? Otherwise the notification for a dispute was rather worthless.
Every single one of that guy's posts are ridiculously childish, this website to him is quite frankly a joke.
That or he is an adolescent, in which case he is incapable of making a decent argument for any subject he chooses to debate on.
So I am not going to chill the fuck out, because trust me I am about as chill as one can be.
Oh man, that sure was a funny comment you made!
Is that the type of response you are looking for? You might have gotten a response that may have held a slight chuckle in it had you used the right words in half of your idiotic retort to the question being asked of you.
Jeremy Fargus, you are a disgrace to trolls and online comics all over the world.
i can picture it now, (in between big macs)"cummon mouse move!, ah screw it ill just click england. omnomnom." (continues eating)
So is this you proving how England is better?
In saying that I now realize you are either a preteen, or are suffering from being in the mental state of one.
on a serious note, the uk kicks ass.
How so? Fish n' chips have gotten to you my friend, go have yourself a scone and mock the biggest power in the world. However do these two actions separately, as I wouldn't want to see you hurt yourself trying to multi-task.
Next time you create a two sided debate, I suggest you choose the option of making it a two sided debate opposed to a perspective debate.
Because now, just to be that guy I am going to choose something that is completely different from both suggested answers above.
I will instead go with:
A tricycle, as it is an effective mean of transportation. It is also very well balanced with excellent handling capabilities, this mode of transportation can host a wide range of ages as the three wheel design will allow for; adults, children, and even elderly people to operate the machine with relative ease!
What is going to happen when scientists pin point a certain gene to homosexuality?
It is only a matter of time before the literal trigger for homosexuality is discovered, and then what? Will all these religious people simply accept it? More than likely they will merely shun the research, cover their ears, and scream: ignorance is bliss!
There is no point in trying to argue with JesusFreak, you have to argue with someone who has not been swallowed up by any form of religion. Who associates himself with a religion but is not obsessed. One who when questioned with the very same questions you pose begins to actually question his own beliefs, and from their you as an intellectual can chip away at the average person's religious bubble until it pops.
It is just sad how the people who have become swallowed up by their religion don't even realize what they are doing to society. JesusFreak is one of those people who holds up signs that have all kinds of horrendous slander written upon them, degrading different people who oppose their religious views.
Religion has been the cause of more death than anything else in the world to date; and that my friend sickens me.
Would you not give him any credit for anything he has done so far? Or are you against him 100%?
Do you feel like his health care bill was a mistake?
Would you not also say that he entered the presidency in an extremely rough time?
In my opinion I say we give him the next four, he is not nearly as bad as the eight years that preceded him. I feel like he is trying to implement change, and do what he set out to do in the beginning of his campaign.
I really see no president that is going to do a better job ( at least that has a chance of getting elected ) than Obama, unless you had someone in mind that had a hope of winning?
Your average teenager... mistake on your part.
I'll give that one to you, as I know this is factual from taking different psychology courses. Which is an excellent point. However we are talking about college students, where there is a major difference between those who come to party and those who come to word diligently. Procrastinators normally do not fall under the latter category.
Did you know that 39% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Ah a funny man.
Check it out.
But you are avoiding my other points, that's not fair ;l
You wouldn't happen to be a jackass would you?
No, just your average high school student.
My thought process is not flawed, it just did not contain any good sources of information and was a reply to your question off the top of my head.
Well I would like to hear this good information.
I can get more in depth if you want...
After you sir.
Speeding up the process is usually not a good thing when it comes to schooling, at least from my experience.
Well that is an interesting claim. However anyone from the medical field must pass all tests in order to become anything in the medical field. These tests include ones where a professor is present and evaluating ( the important tests ), so if a student happened to cheat on all of his/her tests taken within the comfort of their home will more than likely fall into the less than 1/8th percentage of students who drop out or fail online courses.
Procrastination to the point of failure is a sign of one who is weak of mind.
No the idea is an atrocious one.
The idea of knowing my nurse drawing my blood actually graduated by taking a speedy course isn't a very comforting idea.
Though that might be the idea running through your head it is a misconception.
As all nurses, along with any field within the medical sphere, must pass all tests both taken online and physically ( hands on ) to pass the course and become certified.
Online just helps speed up the process. Basically allowing any people who are diligent workers to take and finish their course in a faster time than in a regular class room setting.
Yes it is.
Having any sort of degree obtainable through online course work allows for the student to do a lot more with their life during the time that they are enrolled in a virtual school.
Just because it is medical online school doesn't mean it changes the quality of work involved with obtaining the degree.
Online courses that involve medical fields are all to the extremes of different.
We'll take getting a degree in being a Nurse Practitioner for instance. Though all the course work is taken online, meeting of a teacher, and performing hands on work for a final and for different labs throughout the course are a requirement.
Now that your heart rate has settled, knowing your nurse didn't only take a crash course in nursing online...
Taking online courses in different medical fields leaves students with a lot of time to spare. Which leads me to job opportunities. With a lot of time to spare students then get the opportunities to hold steady paying jobs. Ones where the student can start paying off any debts, or simply saving up.
On the area of saving up: students who decide to take online courses side skirt all those extraneous bills such as; books, living, and transportation. As we know most students within the collegian sphere are normally not to heavily set with a nice cash flow.