- 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
A) Belief in the bible does not necessitate a belief in hell - ref
B) There is no actual voluntary abortion in the Bible.
C) The accidental abortion in Leviticus 21 is treated as a property crime against the father not as murder.
Does this mean I can be prochoice?
Whether you believe in God or not, you can be both pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously. Take divorce - the New Testament says not to get divorced except for adultery. You can believe that this rule is fine for you, but not necessarily that the government should impose this on everyone. The Bible doesn't command you to support all morals in the Bible being made laws for everyone, they are for those who choose to believe.
Yea - I found it fairly odd. Did they think I was endorsing child porn, or did they not like the implication about the Libertarian platform, or ...?
I was fully expecting that someone was going to post a Libertarian defense, which I believe to be partly achievable - e.g. the size and power of a government large enough to enforce such a law, etc., but a down-vote with no post seemed more shameful than when it happens for some other posts.
That's more or less a definition of civil contract.
Except the government is basically a party to the marriage contract as it not only recognizes it, but provides benefits based on it.
So why the need for redefining marriage?
Is removing an exclusion on who can enter a contract a redefining of the contract itself?
Was allowing interracial marriage a redefining of marriage?
why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?
Yes, logistics is a valid state concern, but I think the government can and should overcome those hurdles for polygamy. (We already allow people to marry lots of people, just not at the same time.)
A) Al Qaeda wouldn't use Gitmo if they didn't think it was effective.
B) If it makes no difference, then why spend millions of dollars per prisoner per year housing them at Gitmo rather than under 100 thousand for imprisoning them at a SuperMax?
Obama is currently trying to release these scumbags
Bullshit. (And bullshit you've been called on multiple times.)
there willingness to bow to Obama
Many of the military officials called for it to be closed before Obama became President and/or made their statements after they had retired, so fear of Obama was not their impetus.
Do you think GW Bush, Colin Powell, John McCain, etc. were bowing to Obama before he even became President?
The lies of mistreatment are false. Dis-proven.
Can you really claim both that torture at Guantanamo worked and that we didn't torture at Guantanamo?
Just because "Congress won't" doesn't mean it isn't the better option, or isn't a practical one, or isn't at least worthy of discussion. Is the reason they won't, at least to a significant degree, partisan?
Both of your responses not only ignore my statements, but seem to suggest that you understand Guantanamo not to be necessary.
How is that an argument for keeping it?
If whatever happens at Guantanamo can happen elsewhere (while I do encourage you to take up GN's challenge regarding evidence that torture worked, it isn't necessary to resolve for our discussion since, as you seem to concur, the treatment can occur outside Guantanamo) for cheaper, with less propaganda utility, without conveying any additional rights, etc., how is it beneficial?
They are coming for us because WE ARE the great Satan. End of story
If I call you the Great Satan, does that instantly provide me with an army? Or, do I need to convince people, and the more evidence I can provide, the more people I can convince, correct? Military officials and people from both parties believe it to be a net negative and endorse closure - what overriding benefits that those people did not consider are you offering in its defense?
What would your PC sensibilities prefer "radical Islamic terrorist scumbags"
- you may not have finished your question here.
Jihadiology------ that's going to be your source? Really
Didn't make it past the first link, eh? The links marked #2, #3, and #4 link directly to a propaganda magazine created by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Without Gitmo, we would not have found OBL in the way we did.
Silliness. Presumably you mean to endorse the torture program, not that the torture had to take place at Guantanamo Bay to be effective...
release more scumbags
The same false choice you have already been called on.