I must say, your bait is absolutely legendary. I'm a massive fan.

As an individual who moderately identifies toward Libertarian social values and operation, I believe that anyone should have the right to speak absolutely anything. There should never be limitations on what we can and cannot say. This includes the concept of 'hate speech'. As human beings, when we say or do anything, we also must accept the consequences for stating those opinions.

I believe that someone should have the right to walk up to a Black man and call him the N word. I also believe that the Black man should then have the right to beat the shit out of that guy for being a racist shithead.

In the same vein of being able to run businesses exactly how one wants, and running the risk of going out of business for how its run, we need a society where we are taught that our actions have consequences. We learn the best and most concrete lessons by experiencing ramifications for our words and actions.

The thing about people who believe that healthcare is an inalienable right don't understand how much of a hit the economy would take if that were the case.

First of all, we're devaluing Doctors and the amount of time and finance they have put into earning their degree and becoming adept at medical science. If healthcare is a public good and does not cost anything to the individual, where is the money supposed to come from to pay the care providers? Are they supposed to be paid from the "bottomless Government fund" that exists solely to pay doctors? Well, no.

Are doctors supposed to work for free? They won't. Humans rarely work toward things on a mass scale without an incentive, usually financial. The medical fields of study will take a massive blow, and eventually there won't be enough care providers to tend to those seeking care.

And once again, capitalism is the only way to move the country forward. Any and all examples of socialism being successful are not pure examples of socialism, but rather corporatism; and often, with a much larger emphasis on capitalism than the defenders of socialism will admit.

Socialism will only ever work for the social and political elite, because they can afford it.

We CANNOT consider healthcare an inalienable human right. Can we make it more affordable, better quality, and/or more universal? Absolutely. That's the goal. But not working together to finance it as a country is the equivalent of everyone saying "Well, I want it, but I don't want to work for it. So I'm just going to say that I deserve it so that it will happen".

Well, it depends on whether or not people want to be intellectually honest. If we, as a society, are going to generally be accepting of the notion that an individual can be born as one gender, and choose to identify as another; then people should also be able to identify as a different age, therefore rendering pedosexuality a moot point.

I mean, that's how it works right? What's the difference between identifying as the other gender, and identifying as a different age?

I'll preface my retort with the fact that I am not a practicing member of any religion. However, I believe in the existence of some kind of omniscient creator. If one would like to refer to that as God, then that's fine.

First of all, 'Ancient book of nonsense' is not, in itself, a valid argument. That's essentially saying "Here's what I think, so I'm right".

Historical evidence has shown that key events in the Christian bible indisputably occurred in the past, and many of these are unanimously agreed upon by religious and non-religious scientists, anthropologists, archaeologists and historians alike. These unanimously agreed upon events include a genocidal flood that consumed the earth; the torture, crucifixion, and unexplainable resurrection of Jesus; A significant amount of historical accounts chronicling the life of families that stretched for generations, including lines that are not unbroken as of today.

Let me ask a probing question, why does the concept of an omniscient creator make no sense to you, while the concept of the universe being created 'because it did' correlates to facts and logic? Currently, there are no proven theories of how or why the 'big bang' happened. The scientific community has never not been deadlocked on this issue. And yes, there is no physical or tangible evidence that there is an omniscient creator (citing to the argument of 'God exists because the universe' is not an accepted argument, and not one I would make). However, attempting to call one thing a factually and logically incorrect ideology, while secular creationism is also not proven/accepted by fact or logic renders your argument invalid.

Secular creationists are consistently switching the fundamentals of their respective ideologies in order to fit with the ever-growing historical evidence and accuracy of biblical events, as well as making desperate appeals to the most unscientific notions imaginable. Lee Smolin (cosmologist) suggests that the only way to solve the big bang's scientific problems is to argue that 'the laws of physics were different in the past.' How is that a sensible argument?

Additionally, leading secular creationism researchers Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman readily admit that no observed natural processes can produce life from non-sentience. But they also assert that the required natural processes existed at one time anyway and, for some reason, we just haven’t yet discovered them. That line of thinking sounds an awful lot like belief in a faceless, omniscient creator, wouldn't you say? All either side is doing is believing in something without a guarantee.

To quote the great Ben Shapiro, "facts don't care about your feelings."

Freedom to do what, exactly? And do you mean specifically in America?

The section of Islam that is prone to violence and an outdated ideology shouldn't be allowed to commit public actions of crime, but sure. All people should be allowed THE CHANCE at freedom. If they commit crimes or break the laws of this country, then they should not. Case closed.

- Even though a common standard for debaters is "using facts", it is also just as necessary to provide sources and statistics in order to substantiate your claims. If you can't provide reasoning and application to your claims, they aren't valid.

- Having the self-control to avoid resorting to emotion-based responses. What an individual THINKS about the world is not important. What facts, stats, and logic SHOW and PROVE about the world is important.

- Have humility and respect for the person you are debating. Accept that not everything you say will be correct, and that you can have a spirited debate without it being combative or hostile.

Because there would be no legitimate way to enforce that law at this point in time. Let's say that someone doesn't have a "license to parent", and the woman gets pregnant. If they don't get approved for a license, what's the government going to do about it? Forcibly kill the unborn child? That sort of operating is significant of borderline government tyranny.

Well, yes. But there has to be a middle ground. I do not identify with either specific political party, which is good to counterbalance the pros and cons of each side. While, absolutely, a percentage of the Left have gone absolutely crazy, with many ideas that do not make any logical, political, or social sense. But they aren't alone on that. There is also an equal-sized percentage of the Right that can be described in exactly the same way. The difference lies in which ways we define behaviour that does not identify the party as a whole.

If one is to say that Democrats never learn, that is not entirely true, in a general statement. I have had many reasonable conversations of substance with individuals who identify themselves as 1st-wave Democrats (linking their political ideology to versions of it from the past), and they tend to be much more in line with the modern conservative way of thinking. The deviations are there, but there are many more commonalities there than between modern liberals and conservatives. Additionally, if one is to say that Democrats never learn, one must also conceded that Republicans never learn, simply due to the fact that sections of the Right also still believe in some ridiculous ideas. You must operate outside of the narrow political dividend if you are to understand your own party, as well as the members of the opposite party, wherein you may find more rational individuals than you realize.

So Oprah wouldn't be a good president just because she's a black woman? Who says she wouldn't be a good president? You are only saying this because I specifically am talking about a black woman!

- First of all, very nice strawman. Quite clearly, I didn't say Oprah wouldn't be a good president because she's black. In fact, I followed up my initial statement with "we need a good President, and if they happen to be black, then great!" Once again, Presidential effectiveness should have nothing to do with skin colour or gender. In fact, for a number of years, I have advocated that Condoleezza Rice run for President. I think she would make a fine leader. The difference between her and Oprah? Rice has been a politician for decades. Oprah lives in the lap of luxury. She knows nothing of political proceedings.

He didn't make any progress. Instead he spent his whole presidency cleaning up the mess George Bush left behind. Now Trump is here to fuck it up even worse.

- Then that alone is an incorrect statement, but it isn't the one you originally made, which is also incorrect.

It's too bad some people use racism as an excuse for racism, but that's not what the vast majority of libs do. By your logic, I guess all conservatives are neo nazi white nationalists who watch the Alex Jones show.

- If you couldn't infer from context clues by now, I'm not even conservative, so... And that's actually not a correct application of my logic, at all. You talk about Trump spreading racism in America, when in actuality, the most boisterous examples of racism and sexism that I see frequently is that from groups like Black Lives Matter, feminists, ANTIFA, and other groups of the sort. Examine your thinking.

When you register to vote, how many genders can you choose from? What if someone wants to identify as non-binary?·

- Well, non-binary doesn't exist, so I guess you can't

¯\(ツ)/¯

Furthermore, the last US election ballot very clearly had a check-mark option that said "Male", "Female", and "Other". But you don't know that because you didn't fucking vote.

Also, if you're transgender, you go from being one gender to another. If you're a woman who wants to identify as a man, then you very clearly check "Male" in that bubble, and vice versa. Literally every word you just said was wrong.

Neither does Trump, but he's a white male sooooooooooooooooo.....

- Yeah, I didn't say he was a good president. I didn't say I voted for him. But he won because Hillary was the worst presidential candidate in the history of US elections.

In conclusion, your arguments are statistically incorrect, you have chosen to act childish, you believe in a thin set of ideals that you clearly know nothing about since you can't defend your points with actual correct facts, and you have proven yourself to just be a mindless apologist sheep in a sea of licentious degenerates.

America needs a black woman to be president

- Um... no, America needs a good president who knows how to run the country. If that individual happens to be black, then that's great! But if you're basing the necessity of one being president just based on their skin colour, you know nothing about politics or life.

After Trump gets done destroying all the progress Obama made America will need a break from mysogyny, racism and trickle down economics

- First of all, you spelled misogyny wrong, so good job. Furthermore, name all of the progress Obama made that is good for America as a whole. This is a debate, and since you took a biased opinion, you are required to provide statistics for your claims. Thirdly, I walked past a Black Lives Matter rally a while back and caught the phrases "all white people should burn", "What do we want? Dead white cops!" and "Fuck white people! They don't know shit about anything!"

There's your fucking racism, you unintelligent profligate.

We can finally break the glass ceiling

- It doesn't exist, so...

Give transgender people the right to vote

- Oh good lord. At this point, I'm just hoping your original debate posting was just bait, because this is too much unintelligence to even be funny anymore. Transgender people do have the right to vote, you professional victim.

If this whole thing is serious, please. Please stop popping off of the pillow in the morning with new ways to victimize yourself and whatever social class you belong to. Black president? Woman president? Bring it on! That would be wonderful. But I could care less about someone's gender or race. I care about whether or not they would make a good president, and Oprah knows nothing about running a country.

Your argument is uneducated, childish, and invalid. The fact that you felt the need to respond out of emotion and with the use of expletives proves that you do not possess a mental capacity that is capable of critical or logical thinking, and must resort to a sort of tough-guy anger when you can't grasp a concept. Furthermore...

I don't think you understood my response at all. Charging someone more for being gay would be a good example of a Free Market system. The head of the bakery would say "We're gonna charge gays more since we don't agree with their lifestyle choices."

The gay couple would see this and say, "Well, we're being charged more because we're gay. Let's go to the bakery down the road where they don't charge us more based on our sexual preferences."

Business A is free to practice its religious/moral freedoms, and Business B picks up the profit that Business A missed out on due to practicing its religious/moral freedoms.

It should be universally known at this point that every action has a reaction. You choose to charge gays more or not to serve them? Cool. You're well within your legal right to do so. But you need to understand that the REACTION to your initial action will potentially result in loss of finances, loss of customers, and potentially a bad word-of-mouth reputation getting around about your business.

Please, for the sake of individuals: Try to really sound the words out and comprehend their meaning next time. You attempted to dispute me, but all you did was make a point that supported my initial point.

If the police can come to your home and arrest you for selling alcohol to teens at your own home, how far can they push their agenda?

-- I mean they should be able to push it however far they want. If you're over the age of 21, and you're selling alcohol to a minor, it's a felony. It's only relatively acceptable when you're doing it in your own home, mostly because they can't do anything about that.

What if the teen is your own child, should you be arrested for having your own child in a safe environment where they can experiment with alcohol?

You can keep an eye on the effects alcohol will have on your child.

-- This is where you lose me. What parent is selling their child alcohol? Giving, sure. I'm all for that. Teaching kids about alcohol and not acting like it's the blood of demons is important in them not acting like idiots when they go through their rebellious teenage phase later. There's a reason why European teens don't have as big of a problem with alcohol as American teens do. There's such an enormous taboo on the concept of alcohol in this country, that the first time a 14 year old is offered booze at a party, they take it because it's unexplored territory, and they think it will make them feel older and cooler. If you're taught when you're young that drinking is just a thing people do, and not something that legitimately makes you cooler, a large majority of those teens won't feel like it's their go-to option.

Or should the your teenager go with their friends to another place to get alcohol, get wasted, get into a car and then (God forbid) get into an accident? Or if your teen is a girl she gets, GHB'd?

--Honestly, it's much more important to teach your kid to have an honest and open relationship with you. Chances are, your kid is going to go to a party in high school, and will probably have a drink. They need to know that if they go to a party and fuck up, that you'll be disappointed in them, but won't come down on them in a crazy way. Otherwise, they'll never trust you with anything. It's more important to teach them:

~~"If you drove to the party, you better not get behind the wheel after drinking. Additionally, if someone else drove you, and they got wasted, they better not be driving you. If you're without a ride, call us, Uber home and leave the car, just whatever you do, don't drive.

~~"Never take a drink from someone unless you physically watched them make it with your own eyes, it's someone you trust and know wouldn't try to put some crazy shit into your drink, never leave your drink sitting alone, and if you do, go get another one."

~~"If you're going to choose to drink at a party, you need to understand the consequences that could happen to you if the police showed up to the party and you got busted. Additionally, you need to understand the consequences and legal implications if you were at a party where someone got into a vehicular accident, overdosed on drugs, or got alcohol poisoning.

It's absolutely imperative that kids don't view alcohol as a rebellion tool. Otherwise, if they kind of hate you when they're going through their shitty little phase, they'll use drinking to say "Fuck my parents. I'll do what I want!"

It's certainly possible. It's quite telling that Newt Gingrich was defending Franken on his show recently; Not because he believed that Franken was innocent, but because he didn't want the media to go after Trump the same way. And of course, after throwing Franken under the bus, the leftists immediately said, "Okay, well we threw Franken and Conyers out, how about you guys throw out Moore and Trump?"

Granted, I believe that the scenarios are vastly different, since there was actually tangible, photographic proof of being a sexual predator. Moore (even though I personally believe he's guilty) just got hit with several accusations (some of which have been debunked, no less), and the accusations that Trump got hit with pretty much disappeared after he became President. It's all a sketchy fucking mess. We should just throw all of the ballot candidates for senate seats out and have a write-in campaign.

No. What's ethical is a free-market system where businesses have the right to practice religious or personal moral freedoms, and lose income, and lose customers to other businesses. That's what drives the state of businesses: Competitive marketing.

Sidenote: If I owned a bakery, I would make a cake for a gay wedding. I don't have any qualms against doing something like that, because I don't care whether or not someone's gay. A customer is a dollar sign. But if there was another bakery down the road from mine that refused to do gay weddings, I would be grateful about that; Simply because it means that the gay couple would come and use my services instead.

Free market system.

If that makes sense, then why is it that on submission forms of various kind, you see one of these two things:

Sex: (circle one) M or F

OR

Gender: (circle one) M or F

Notice the interchangeably used words.

Yes, this is also true for Doctors' Office and Hospital forms. So if you are going to claim that the majority of doctors are incorrect, please do so.

No, because that would fall under free speech.

However, if you legitimately believe that the holocaust didn't happen, I would question your intelligence level, or the existence of your intelligence at all.

No, it shouldn't be a crime, which is why it isn't. And fortunately for individuals that question the holocaust, stupidity isn't a crime either.

- Cigarette Smuggling

- Media Piracy

- Prostitution

- Illegal Gambling

- Counterfeiting

Any of these things sound familiar? That's because they're five of America's largest underground economy markets.

Cigarettes are legal here, and there is a vast array of regional cigarette companies. So why would there be a black market for them?

Do you know how cheap it is to buy music and rent movies in today's market? Especially now with Spotify (which is essentially music piracy anyway, but that's a whole different TED talk) where, essentially for free, you can have almost any music you can think of. Yet, people still pirate music. Why?

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point by now. (However, I'm perfectly willing to go on about the other four if you ask, since there's a 50% chance that your next argument will contain something akin to the phrase "You didn't say anything about the other four because you have no argument for them".)

Whether or not something is legal or illegal, there will always be an underground ground market for goods and services, especially things that were made legal in more recent years.

Almost universally, it makes sense.

I'm from Seattle, and Marijuana has been recreationally legal in Washington since 2012.

In the three-year period between 2012 to 2015 (the most recent expansive and reliable statistics), things have either changed for the better, or haven't changed in a negative way.

Crime:

Low-level marijuana offenses lowered by 98%, all categories of marijuana law violations lowered by 63%, and all marijuana related convictions lowered by 81%. Due to these factors, Washington State has been able to cut millions of dollars in specific funds concerning marijuana law enforcement.

Financial:

The state has collected over $682,023,598 in marijuana tax revenues. That number expected to exceed $733,000,000 before 2018. This money is being channelled into such sources as: substance abuse prevention and treatment, youth and adult drug education, and community health care, among typical tax pools.

Safety:

The number of traffic fatalities due to driving under the influence of marijuana has not spiked since legalization.

Similarly, marijuana usage of minors has not increased since I-502 was passed.

In conclusion, the stigma against marijuana is something that I still don't quite understand. I am not a regular marijuana smoker, but I see its legalization as a positive thing for the American economy. Additionally, anti-legalization activists have no credible data or statistics to back up their claims that it shouldn't be legalized now, especially with Washington and Colorado being used as a "trial group" of sorts for the past 5 years.

The bottom line/bigger picture is:

- Young people who want to smoke marijuana will find a way, whether it's legal or not. Let's use France as an example. Marijuana is 100% illegal in France, yet 22.1 % of individuals between 15-34 use it on a recreational basis. That's nearly a quarter of the young adults in the country. Total illegality of something will never stop it completely.

(Plus, if your kid is going to spend money on marijuana anyway, wouldn't you rather that their best friend's older brother buy it from a licensed shop, rather than some sketchy dude in an alley-way who very well could have laced the marijuana with other drugs?)

- People who drive high or drunk are going to do that anyway, whether or not marijuana is legal. Unfortunately, the government can't really make "being a shitty human being" illegal, but even if they did, people would still drive high and drunk. Those kinds of people will always exist.

- The same people who cry fowl at the prospect of widespread legalization, and freak out about it entirely, are the same ones unwilling to concede that if marijuana is illegal, alcohol should also be made illegal. It's common knowledge at this point that alcohol causes a vastly larger number of deaths per year than marijuana. Obviously, there has only been one reported case of a fatality by "marijuana toxicity" in the United States, ever, but it can still be the catalyst for why you ran your car off of the road while driving high.

If you're going to push for marijuana to be illegal, I would recommend not taking a hypocritical stance, and also being willing to let go of that glass of wine, bottle of beer, or shotglass, if you want to look like an educated individual.

"Actually no. Just shut up. That would be way better."

Wow. Great debate strategy there. Brimming with quality.

I'd like to cite Ben Shapiro, "It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture."

Violence is not a gene encoded into the DNA of black people, nor is it that way for anyone on the planet. Often times, when you see this sort of violence occurring, it isn't most often taking place in middle-class suburban neighborhoods near middle-class public schools.

The top three cities with the highest murder rate (Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis) have a murder rate (per 100k people) of 43.82, 55.37, and 59.29--respectively.

The African American population in these three cities is 81.55%, 63.7%, and 18%-respectively.

The poverty rates in these three cities are 40%, 24%, and 30%--respectively.

African Americans aren't more violent than white people. There are just more African Americans living in negatively-cultured cities in the US--the bulk of them, from birth--and growing up in harsher circumstances, impacting them in their later lives.

There are plenty of African-American men and women in the United States who have been brought up in a rough culture in the US that disallowed them from being able to access certain things in their younger years, but rise from it eventually. 75% of people who are born into the lower class do not stay in the lower class. If they finish high school, enter the workforce/get an education, don't have babies before getting married, you fall into that 75%. There are plenty of African-Americans who have achieved success after living in impoverished cities.

You are the exact sort of example I am speaking of. You are the reason why people hate God.

The Bible states that human beings should adapt traits of love and compassion toward our fellow man. Nothing that you just said signified any sort of love or compassion.

The way that you're presenting Christianity makes it look unappealing, because you're being an absolute fascist. "TELL ME YOUR TESTIMONY OR YOU'RE DEFINITELY A FAKE." Wow. God would be proud of you, buddy.

Also, I'd just like to say, I can guarantee that I've had a much more difficult Go in life than you have. Only after I was raised on the streets, sexually assaulted twenty times before I was 16, and then became addicted to Heroin and Opiates for over a decade, did I understand how a life could be changed. The only method through which I kicked my substance addiction and style of living was by casting my problems upon God, and finding community in my fellow brothers.

Go ahead. Come at me, you uneducated profligate.

I think the legality should depend on the severity of the situation. If a clinically depressed person walks into a hospital and wants to be euthanized, that shouldn't be allowed, since clinical depression can be remedied and dealt with.

However, I have heard of circumstances where one's circumstances of health are so bad, that it's the only option they could think of. For example, if someone steps on a landmine. Quadruple amputee, loss of sight, hearing, smell, taste... Inability to live, essentially... I could see that being a situation in which euthanasia would be acceptable.

I don't really understand your broken English, but since your argument is "No"...

Euthanasia does not make it legal for Doctors to "kill the patient" at will. It's a self-made decision.

So many people hate God because of things like the majority of this debate section.

As a Christian, nothing is more irritating than an Atheist trying to perform an impromptu conversion by telling me about all of the ways that science can "prove" that God isn't real. Clearly, I'm not interested, as belief doesn't need to be focused on what you know, but rather, what you believe. Faith is essentially belief without a guarantee. None of us can tangibly prove that God exists, but we believe because of what we have seen in our own lives.

NOW, the core problem comes down to Christians who choose to do this backwards, and try to perform a conversion on non-believers. Nothing pushes a non-believer away more than saying "You're a sinner. Your whole life is sinful. You need to change the way you're living. You're going to go to hell." and things of the sort. NOTHING will turn someone off from Christianity faster than someone trying to communicate to them like it's still the 1830's.

It all comes down to better communication.

Another reason is the rise of neo-Christian churches (the Foursquare Church) that focus so much on being pop-culture icons and wanting to be popular with young people, that they become their own culture, ostracizing people who don't fit in with their image, and solely just believe themselves to be untouchable and important people. There is a certain culture of self-righteousness, pride, and lack of integrity that exists now, and it is a major factor in making Christianity look less appealing.

"Don't be silly. I quoted your own words verbatim."

You quoted my own words in order to clarify and lay a flimsy argument on top of it.

Example 1: "It 'doesn't matter' that our deterrent isn't a deterrent. Let's just keep killing people for the lulzies and say it's a deterrent."

Example 2: "Murder is murder. Except when the state does it. Then it's entertainment."

Neither of the examples above are things that I said "verbatim". They are things that you said. You took things that I said, added an accentuated sort of maliciousness upon them, and attempted to paint me as some sort of person who gets erect at the thought of murder. (See, I can do it too! Learning is fun!) You tend to go back to the Strawman a lot in order to make your claims since you don't have any actual legitimate arguments.

Furthermore, I don't want murderers in jail. Because, once again, I don't want my tax dollars to be going towards sustaining the lives of violent criminals. If you take a look at the statistics on how many taxpayer dollars go into sustaining the life of just one prisoner, it's absolutely ridiculous. I can think of several other avenues that the $39 billion spent on sustaining the lives of prisoners could be channeled into: Public schools/colleges, healthcare, charity organizations, international defense, STEM... All things that benefit the lives of Americans who choose to actually be civilized citizens and abide by the guidelines set forth by the government.

So we should just kill everyone instead?

--Gasp--... Could it be... another Strawman? Because yes, that is exactly what I said. I would greatly enjoy a countrywide genocide. Your argument is laughable.

And nope. Not a Republican. Just someone who isn't interested in tax dollars going to support the lives of murderers. Core-conservatives and general Republicans don't share my viewpoints. More often than not, when debating about this issue, Liberals are the ones who eventually see my point, when I bring up the issue of hatecrimes rooted in racism or bigotry. If someone murders a Transgendered person, because they're Transgendered, Liberals will be the first ones to shout for him to be sent straight to the chair.

I know that you are probably anti-death penalty because you think human life is valuable and important (Which is a hilarious irony, since people who are anti-death penalty traditionally tend to be pro-abortion.)

Human life isn't rare, and it isn't important; We're here to procreate and die. Humanity serves no other purpose. So what's worse? A violent criminal who racks up a bodycount of 25 people; Or that same one person dying.

--Confront me outdoors, comrade--

Ahh the Strawman. The typical defence of individuals who don't have any legitimate arguments. Okay pumpkin, game on 😉

"It "doesn't matter" that our deterrent isn't a deterrent. Let's just keep killing people for the lulzies and say it's a deterrent."

First of all, our deterrent is not valid when it comes to the 75% of murders in the US that classify as crimes of passion or crime without reason. There is no way to get to the root cause, because there isn't one. We don't "kill people for the lulzies", we practice a system in society where your actions have reciprocal consequences. You kill someone, you lose the right to your life as a civilized human. The act of putting someone in prison is useless at this point, since tens of thousands of dollars go into sustaining the lives of criminals so that they can be provided free healthcare, consistent meals, and general activity.

"Murder is murder. Except when the state does it. Then it's entertainment."

Again, it's all about reciprocity. An example needs to be set.

In regards to your first section, he was talking strictly about the death penalty, which is almost solely warranted for acts resulting in malicious death. Your point that "A lot of murders come down to crimes of passion or impaired judgment where a deterrent does not and would not factor in to their decisions" doesn't matter. Murder is murder. That's another reason why nomenclature's original argument of trying to "get to the root of the problem" of murder doesn't make sense either; Because many of these crimes are crimes of passion, and can't be predicted or be given a predetermined cause.

Also, other than self-defense (what I believe to be the only exception), point me to one specific example of when someone feels like they have no choice other than to murder someone. A real-world example that would actually be realistic enough to be taken into account in order to pass a law.

In regards to your second part, I am aware of how long prisoners stay on Death Row. There are prisoners that have been on for decades. Additionally, why did you choose to single out this section of my argument to target? Your response only further validated my claims.

Alright Sweetheart, let's go 😘

People who murder other people in cold blood aren't interested in learning the lesson. I misspoke. The lesson is demonstrative to the American public. The concept of "If you kill people, you will get killed in turn" sends quite a strong message to those interested in taking up murder as a hobby.

"Society gains precisely nothing from punishing crime after it has been committed. Focusing on post crime punishment instead of pre crime prevention implies policy makers either do not want to tackle the root causes of crime or they believe it is inevitable."

Nice Strawman. We're not talking about general crime. I'm not stating that the death penalty should be instated for every single crime. If you rob a store for its cash, that's not a crime that necessitates fatal consequences. Also, hold up. You honestly think that we shouldn't focus on post-crime punishment, and should instead focusing on trying to prevent something that you don't even know is going to happen, or when? That doesn't make any logical sense, whatsoever. We live in a civilized society, where there are very clear policies in place as to how you're supposed to act if you want to reap the benefits of this country. You rob a store, you go to jail, or do community service and pay a fine. That's a consequence of violating the policies that the country you live in has set forth for you.

GENERAL CRIME is a far different concept from murder. Since you think that post-crime punishment isn't a necessary concept to focus on, you think that we should just let murderers run rampant and not have to answer for their crimes?

Or alternatively, if you think that they should be kept in prison, I'd like to remind you that the annual average taxpayer cost to keep one prisoner incarcerated in the US is $31,286. I don't know about you, but I'm not keen on the money that I work for seven days a week to be used to sustain the lives of violent criminals and individuals who have decided they don't like the "bonds of society" and choose to break the policies set forth by the government.

If by "matter" you mean, "Make an impact on the country in some way", then absolutely.

A growing federal debt leads to diminished demand for treasuries, leading to increasing interest rates, which would in turn devalue the American dollar from what it is now. Congress has already recognized that it is in the middle of a debt crisis. Over the course of the next two decades, the Social Security Trust Fund won't be able to cover the retirement benefits promised to the baby boomers' generation, leading to higher taxes if the US rules out loans from other countries. If Congress made the decision to curtail benefits, rather than raise taxes or get loans from other countries, that would affect retirees not in the 65-70 age margin, and those who are high income, and depending on their savings for their retirement money, rather than having to depend on social security.

No. Because of two simple words: BOY SCOUTS. Boy. There is a Girl Scouts organization for a reason. So as to balance that equation out and create equality there.

This further demonstrates the theory that Feminism is no longer about equality of the sexes, but more about women wanting something, and using the argument of oppression to try and rationalize it.

Not to other people, no.

I am a Christian, and I agree with the statement that there is no conclusive proof that God exists. That's essentially what the word "Faith" means: Believing in something without a guarantee.

There is proof (through historical evidence) that a man named Jesus existed at the time that he was supposed to have existed. But there is no proof that he was the Son of God. I believe that he was. However, that is my belief that I wouldn't try to push on someone. Just as I know Atheists don't want Christians coming up to them and telling them reasons why "what they believe is wrong", (reasonable) Christians don't want Atheists doing the same, and wants to just be left alone, and to leave others alone.

Faith doesn't need to be such an upsetting thing, nor should it be a method through which to disqualify one's intelligence. Christians and Atheists both use the "You do/don't believe in God argument, so that means that you're dumb."

You can believe/not believe in God, and be able to solve a trigonometric equation. Belief doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. Everyone grow up, start acting like normal fucking people, and just leave people whose beliefs oppose your own alone.

Absolutely. We need to create a society where your actions have consequences, and those consequences need to be demonstrative enough so that it creates a standard for others who may or may not be an offender.

The main problem with the Death Penalty is that inmates on Death Row stay there for years (sometimes decades). Raymond Riles has been on Death Row for 41 years. These individuals who remain on Death Row are soaking up money (remember, they are provided with free healthcare; consistent meals; and various amenities), space, and are being preserved under the theory that just maybe they weren't guilty, even if there is definitive and conclusive proof of their guilt.

The annual average taxpayer cost to keep one prisoner incarcerated in the United States is $31,286. In New York, that number comes in at as high as $60,000. The middle-class, working public should not be responsible for bettering the lives of those who have already given up their societal rights.

[These stats come from the Vera Institute of Justice.]

It teaches you of a world where your actions have consequences. And those consequences should be reciprocal of your original actions. You take away someone else's right, you lose your right to be a human being.

It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. In many European countries, the driving age is 18 (while the drinking age begins at 16--for beer and wine--and 18 for hard liquor).

The number killed in automobile-related accidents in the US in 2013: 34,064

The number killed in automobile-related accidents in the combined countries of Europe in 2013: 26,000

An entire continent has a lower rate of death in automobile-related accidents than America alone.

They're clearly doing something right, or we're doing something wrong.

Dude. Holy shit. You are so unbelievably ignorant, it is absolutely hysterical. I have told you SEVERAL times to give me your own facts and statistics that combat my own. If I'm wrong, THEN PROVE IT. SHOW ME. I WILL LISTEN TO YOUR ARGUMENT IF YOU BACK IT UP WITH FACTS.

Also, I'm not even a liberal, sweetcheeks. Just someone far more resourceful and intelligent than you, since all I have to do is research on Google for an hour to find accurate percentages and statistics.

Give it a try. Learning is fun!

Or, since you are saying that I am wrong, YOU could provide me with all of the information I need. So I will give you one final chance.

Give me statistics and facts that combat the ones that I laid out for you in my argument in order to back up your claims. If you can’t, concede that you are wrong. If you aren’t wrong, then it should not be difficult to find evidence.

Again, I’m more than happy to listen to your arguments if you point me to statistics and citations that combat my own. Generalizing the issue by saying “illegal immigration is down” is a really bad debate strategy. I would LOVE to believe that illegal immigration is down so that they aren’t leeching off of the country. However, you must point me to specific examples, with statistics to back it up that prove you are right.

You ARE aware that the sentence you're referring to was not being applied to Trump, right?

If you would have read the rest of my retort, you would have been able to infer that I am not a Trump supporter.

I was speaking about Ben Shapiro, who IS, in fact, completely untouchable when it comes to debating. You definitely just turned it up to 11 on an issue where you misconceived meaning.

What are you talking about?

"Wait till a negro becomes a hitman"

You're saying that NEVER in the history of this country have there been black people that have committed murder? Because that's false.

I have seen the exact amount of outrage toward a white man who commits murder, and a black man who commits murder.

Ben Shapiro.

The reason the left hates him is due to his completely untouchable debating strategy. He embodies what the general Republican wants: Someone to say it like it is, and to actually make promises to the country that will be kept, or made progress on.

The Conservatives thought that Trump would be that individual, but it's true that he will not be. Shapiro is one of the smartest individuals on the political scene currently, an excellent debater, and knows how to shut down absurd ideas that are perpetuated by the left.

At the same time, when the left calls Trump a "Racist" or "Xenophobe", what they say FEELS more justified because of stupid things that Trump has said in the media. Shapiro, on the other hand, has never exhibited any uncontrollable speech regarding race, or any other hot button topic. All he does is read facts and statistics from different fields of study to substantiate his arguments.

The country needs Shapiro in 2024.

How does it feel to not say anything fact-based, OR logic-based and try to call it an argument?

First of all, you know that this website is called CreateDEBATE, right? What you just said was not debating. Saying "you are just a hater", is not a good debate strategy. When I debate liberals, I consistently have to tell them, you CANNOT debate facts, statistics, and logic with feelings or emotions. Because you will lose.

The same goes for conservatives. Either combat the statistics that I gave you with your own source, or concede that I am correct.

Also, "my fake news channels"? While I am flattered that you think so highly, I am not currently the owner of any television networks that distribute false news.

But if what you meant is that I avidly follow CNN or liberal-biased networks, I don't.

You're only correct on one thing in your entire argument, and that is that much of the news reported from the left side is exaggerated, or made up entirely. Therefore, you are incorrect on every level but one.

In the words of today's urban youth

ahem

Come at me, bro.

I mean, of course she's going to dodge prison.

She's a dual minority: African-American and a woman.

And I know that, of course, I'll probably get called a racist misogynist for that claim, but feminists should be happy. It's the skewed equality that they've wanted for years.

Statistics from the U.S. Dep't of Justice show that 5 out of 6 rape allegations made by Males toward Females are either dismissed, or put in the back of the priorities until the situation passes out of recent time, and never gets any attention.

Rape allegations made by Females toward Males are taken into immediate seriousness 83% of the time.

Sound equal?

Let me bring you into the real world, where you have to speak and think like an adult in order for things to make sense.

Scenario A: A white man shoots and kills 60 people.

Response: Public is horrified, man is either jailed, killed, or takes the coward's way out.

Conclusion: The public deeply hates this white man who killed 60 people.

Scenario B: A black man shoots and kills 60 people.

Response: Public is horrified, main is either jailed, killed, or takes the coward's way out.

Conclusion: The public deeply hates this black man who killed 60 people.

OVERALL CONCLUSION:

It doesn't matter if you're black, white, or anything else. Regardless of the colour of your skin, if you shoot and kill 60 people, the majority of the American population is going to call for your imprisonment or death.

I've seen you on Trump arguments before, and I've noticed that almost everything you say can be debunked, and isn't based off of any facts, just how you FEEL about the President. So, just letting you know, you're a liberal-at-heart.

[[Have you noticed how when Trump gets involved with issues, things happen?]]

-- Um... No. I've noticed how things stall and don't come to a resolve. I don't give a shit about Trannies being in the military. I DO give a shit about a healthcare system that replaces the current ObamaCare (which provides healthcare to illegal immigrants, and made the co-pay on my medication that I need to survive jump up from $35 to $175 per refill).

[[For the past decades, none of these issues improved...............

Trump talked tough with illegal immigration. It has dropped in a big way sense he became President, just from Trump's tough words..]]

--Illegal immigration hasn't dropped since he became President, especially not in the number-neighborhood that he is talking about (78%). He uses different timeframes to make a case that illegal immigration is down. He has looked at year-over-year March border apprehension data to say there’s been a 64% decline; compared February 2017 numbers to the election month, November 2016, to say it’s gone down 61%; and said there was a 40% decline from January, the month he was inaugurated, to February. Calculations of the latest figures available from U.S. Customs and Border Protection do not show a 78% decline in apprehensions. The closest number to that would be based on cherry-picked numbers of the highest number of apprehensions in November to the lowest number, in April.

[[Trump talked tough with Nato nations on their not paying their fair share towards military spending. They started payng more!]]

-- Yeah, but that isn't (and was never) a legally binding rule. He is correct that only five of the 28 members currently meet the GOAL, and they are the United States, Greece, Britain, Estonia and Poland. Trump is referring imprecisely to a goal NATO has set for each member to spend at least 2% of its gross domestic product on its own defense each year. The 2% standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding requirement.

[[Trump talked tough with idiots taking a knee during Anthem. Finally the NFL is starting to address it.]]

--He may have gotten involved with this issue, but what exactly happened due to his involvement? All the situation did was was divide people further. I will concede that the left is absolutely ridiculous in their claims that him calling Kapernick a "son of a bitch" was racist, however.

[[We need a President with the guts to tell it like it is, so that things might get done. He does not worry about what his words might do to his political career. He's not a career politician!]]

--No, we need a President with the guts to DO it like it should be DONE. Not "tell it like it is". What is just talking going to do? He SHOULD worry that his words won't get him elected again for a second term.

[[He talks off the cuff and does not worry what the Liberal fake news channels will say about him. He actually answers questions rather then being trained for decades in the art of saying what the people want to hear, and then doing the exact opposite.]]

--Okay, seriously? You have to be just kidding. I'll 100% admit that the left's sole tactic for debating/gathering voters/attempting to make "change" is solely based off of pandering to emotions and feelings, but that's exactly what Donald Trump did during the 2016 election. There's a reason that seven years ago (WHEN HE WAS A DEMOCRAT), that he said "I could run for President as a Republican, and they're all so stupid, I'd win." Because he knew that he could pander and tell the Right what they want to hear. He IS a good speaker, but a speaker isn't what the country needs. It's a DO-ER.

[[He's doing a good job, and if the establishment republicans stop acting like Democrats, and come together with Conservatives, this will be the greatest President for change in our lifetimes.]]

--To wrap up, nothing you said here was factual, and if you would like to fact check the statistics I used to debunk all of your claims, please feel free. You're correct. The downfall of the country is heavily on the part of the socialist culture that the Left is trying to create. BUT, it is also about the Conservatives who voted for Trump simply to vote AGAINST Hillary Criminal-ton (snicker), sticking to their voting choice and refusing to believe that NEITHER candidate was qualified.

Tag, you're it.

What does this mean exactly? Equal on what field?

Men and women will never be equal, SIMPLY, because of genetic makeup, and the social aspects that come with that makeup. Men will never be able to spontaneously pop a baby out of their body. Women will never get testicular cancer. Men will never be able to take maternity leave. Women will (probably) never be required to sign up for the draft.

If you're speaking about other types of equality, let's look at a few.

The Gender Wage Gap: Any serious economist will tell you that the gender wage gap is absolutely nonsensical. It doesn't exist. According to a study done in Time magazine in 2010, women actually earn 8% more on average than men in 50% of U.S. cities. The wage gap is immediately debunked when you factor out the types of jobs being done, the amount of time in the workforce, the amount of time taken off, the number of hours of work, their college major, etc. It's not real. If it was, what intelligent employer wouldn't employ ONLY women, so that they could increase their own payroll?

Catcalling: Oh no. You're out in public in a tight red dress with your cleavage hanging out, and a man yells out that you're hot. Whatever are we going to do?

Grow up. You're telling me that no woman (let alone a majority percentage of them) have ever "catcalled" a man? It has nothing to do with misogyny or sexism. It has to do with basic biology and chemical reactions making you feel sexual attraction to a person's exterior, and vocalising that you find them attractive.

Someone's complimenting you. Boo-hoo.

Rape Culture: Are you kidding me with this one? You want to talk about inequality? If a crazy man gets drunk, and has sex with a woman, and wants to go to the cops and report it, he'll get laughed off and the case will never be taken seriously.

If you reverse this situation, the man's life will forever be ruined because of "possible sexual offender" claims made against him. Law enforcement always believes a woman who says that she has been sexually assaulted.

Personal experience: I was sexually assaulted when I was 14 by a 19 year old-girl. When I try to tell people about this, the biggest response that I get (even from women) is, "What are you complaining about? She made your teenage fantasy come true!"

Yeah, no. It wasn't a fantasy. It was horrifying, and I was afraid. It isn't a "teenage fantasy" when someone is forcing themselves on you and won't stop.

If you reverse MY situation, and reverse the gender roles, everyone would be horrified upon hearing this story. They would call for the man's balls in a jar.

Go ahead. Dispute me. Tell me that I'm wrong about this.

There's your inequality America. Do with it what you will.