Shooting up DMT is better, in my opinion. Just like taking MDMA rectally is best.

What's with all these "psychedelics and the law" type debates lately? I'm tired of this...

Psychedelics have done me far more good than harm over the course of my life; I do not typically advocate for their use by general individuals, but I do not support any efforts to limit the supply of psychedelics. They are good for you, quite often; for your mind, a part of the human make-up that many people fail to realize can need maintenance as well as the body.

Surely when an insult is made against one, offense is meant, no? Why hide the truth behind what has become a cliched and meaningless sentiment?

"lol" ought to have died long, long ago. It is the most annoying, obnoxious three letter combination in the English language. Every time I see it I feel like I die a little.

My efficiency is 94% and this is why:

I don't think most people bother with my arguments; perhaps too complicated for the average debater?

A good grammar is far better than any work of fiction, save perhaps the works of Verne and Lovecraft.

Some drugs do, some drugs don't.

Acid, shrooms, pot, various others are mind/consciousness-expanding, in both my opinion as a user (though I prefer the word "psychonaut"), and in the opinions of many other psychonauts and researchers. However, as Timothy Leary said in the '80s, there are some consciousness-closing drugs. I view non-psychedelics as being mind-closing, and have never supported their use.

Then, as Terence McKenna well says, television is probably just about the worst drug:

I recall one of my most shameful schoolboy memories: there was this REALLY fucking annoying girl, probably mildly retarded (at least very slow, developmentally-speaking), who wouldn't leave me and my friends alone in class. So I took out a piece of paper, handed it around to everybody who sat at our table (it was a tech class), and brought it to the teacher, filled with signatures to have this girl removed from our table. I felt bad immediately afterwards, but in the end we got the rest of the semester without her.

Sounds almost like a happy ending, but in the end it became a mark of shame; I couldn't look that teacher in the eye again for the rest of my high school years, and realization fully hit home when another teacher recalled a similar incident in one of her classes many years earlier, saying that it was the one time she had truly ever become angry (and verbally abusive) at a student.

Srom might have dumb religious beliefs, many not even grounded in his religion, but that isn't reason enough to have him removes from this site.

Before one can ponder the point at which life begins, first one must determine what qualifies as life. I do not fully accept the existence of such a thing as birthing, much less believe it to be any more important than conception: there can be conception without birthing, but without conception, there can be no birthing. The foetus is alive prior to birthing. Why is it that we view birthing as being of such import? Because it is the first time that the human is seen to exist outside of its mother? That is a rather sensory-oriented position, too much so for a lifelong solipsist like myself.

Life is existence. Conception gives existence, birth doesn't.

Business management, maybe; probably, considering the billions he's made through Trump Enterprises, but there is difference betwixt economics and business. One is micro, dealing only with a handful of variables and assets, whereas economics deals with all of society.

Smoke what?

Tobacco and nicotine and tar, now that stuff's disgusting, and it'll kill you eventually.

Smoke weed everyday, and you'll live a good, happy life.

Give me a decade, I'll be there.

I think both are names that nigh every Westerner ought to be familiar with, but when it comes to actual knowledge of the individual, Albert Einstein is far more recent and his achievements (haha!) more known about; all most people know about Newton is something about an apple dropping on his head (a myth) and gravity.

There are three different types of people that nobody likes to see on the road: teenagers (much less children, my god!), Asians (well, it isn't really their fault they have such slitty eyes that they can't drive worth shit), and women (needs no explanation).

I have a gmail account, along with many others, but I usually only use it to access restricted youtube vids.

A con of making a pros and cons list is that you have to think, quite unbiasedly, of a list of pros and cons.

A pro is that you get to see the pros and cons in an orderly, relatively understandable and comparative manner.

You mean, do I ever go to the ladies' washroom, not the men's? No, I can't say I ever have.

We do: just click on the CreateDebate logo at the upper left hand corner of the page.

My latest trip was just the other day - myself and my two closest friends - most of which consisted essentially of bonding, with a half hour taken out to try The X-Files episode The Post-Modern Prometheus, which I thought (rightly so, I guess) would be a good one for our situation.

I meant to support your argument, but only reverse the self-given credentials to give your argument greater voice.

I seem to recall In Bruges being a nearly non-stop laugh-fest.

I don't care too much for watching movies while under the influence, but The X-Files was amazingly more bizarre under the influence of acid.

The only people in the world who should be able to get free medical care are those on whom the individual providing medical care is willing to provide medical care for free. No individual involved in the act of providing medical care should by any means be coerced into providing said medical care to any individual for any reason.