CreateDebate


Niko's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Niko's arguments, looking across every debate.
2 points

This is why I hate debates over whether it's a choice or not. It can't be proven to straight people because they can never understand unless they are actually gay. The best proof I can give to you is this: I am gay, and, if I could change my sexuality, I would in a heartbeat. I live in a family of super-Catholics, where homophobic statements are expressed whenever someone remotely gay appears in the media or in real life. I have not come out to them, and I will most likely never do try to. All I want is for my family to love the real me, but I can't. Instead, I have to live this life of constant paranoia until I move on to college next year. I've known about my sexuality since I was eight; I'm seventeen now. Life has been miserable for about that long because I realized that it was wrong. I'm not trying to write you a sob story about why you should believe that being gay is not a choice. I am just trying to give you the best proof that I can, which is my personal experience as being gay. To me, this is proof enough, but, if you want to, I can go into all of the juicy details of why I'm not attracted to women, and it isn't because I'm sexist; I have many more female friends than male friends, if that doesn't surprise you. It's all because of the biological attraction to women, or even the fact that I have had both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, and the only ones that have ever felt right were homosexual ones. There are numerous other reasons why I know that I am gay, but those are the key ones that prove it the most for me. Sorry for talking your ear off, but I hope that this helps.

1 point

"I've been treated like shit most of my life, I should take it out on others." Is that what you're basically saying? If so, then I feel bad for you. I would and still do feel sad to hear that this has happened to you because I can relate. But just because I feel like I should be more irritable towards others doesn't meant that I should act out on it. It helps when I try not to be angry, otherwise, I treated like shit even more :/

1 point

Yes, but in the case of fighting back against the government of one such as the United States of America, you cannot state that there is evidence of such a revolution being successful. The government of the United States is far more powerful than any of the those other governments during that time. Yes, Libya and Syria were different, if you're referring to the modern day struggles, but they are still war-torn, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. If we are to even stand a chance against our government, we need more than just guns. You can't successful fight against tanks, militaristic planes, missiles, and various other weapons with just assault rifles. So if you're suggesting that all the public needs is assault rifles to combat against a tyrannical United States government, then you might want to recheck what the government's capabilities are.

To be honest, though, I am fine with people having guns, but I see no reason for assault rifle possession among civilians. Why do people need something that can release such a large amount of bullets when the gun is already extremely lethal with just one in the barrel? I have not seen a valid reason as to why any civilian needs one. If you could please explain that to me, I would be very grateful.

1 point

You really think that civilians with assault rifles will be able to take back their government, which would hypothetically possess and implement powerful weapons such as tanks, missiles, and heavily-armed soldiers to control the public? This isn't some fantasized situation from the movies, where the civilians are able to outmaneuver and take back their government. The United States has one of the strongest militaristic systems in the world. I'm pretty sure that, in the case of civilians fighting back against the government, the masses would lose. Using the Second Amendment doesn't even apply anymore. It was drafted in the 1700s, where technology was limited to basic handguns and rifles, along with the occasional cannon. Times are different. I shouldn't have to explain the numerous advances in militaristic technology. The ability to kill is significantly higher. Does this mean that we should just abandon the Second Amendment? Absolutely not, but there should be restrictions on what civilians should be able to possess, otherwise, if you really want to completely follow the amendment, why not just let everyone have whatever firearm they want? I can guarantee that, if everyone possessed a weapon to "protect themselves", the mortality rate will rise. One disagreement that gets out of hand can lead to a standoff. Do you really want everyone to have to ability to possess high-capacity magazines with their assault rifles? It's just bound to get out-of-hand, no matter how much regulation is done. We are only human, and people make mistakes all the time. Unless there is a way to prevent every single human being from developing even the slightest feeling of anger, I will never back up the argument that assault rifles should be allowed for possession among civilians.

1 point

This is so repetitive, it's annoying. Here's the deal. People are constantly posting these, and the statistic is the same every single time. More are pro-gay marriage. So seriously: get original with your debate topics.

Oh, and I'm pro-gay.

2 points

It is if you make it serious. For me, I see it as serious because it shows that you trust that person to share their body with you; it's one of the most open ways you can be with someone. So, in my opinion, yes, it's serious. But again, that's my opinion on what sex means to me.

1 point

It's different for everyone. Some people want love more than money, and others want money more than love. In my opinion, however, I would rather have love.

1 point

Ok. Thank you for explaining that. Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you were saying in your initial description. Yes, I agree; haste is waste. I like to argue things carefully. Sorry if I presented myself as stubborn and jumpy when it came to debating.

I also agree that we need to work together to resolve the God debate on both ends, otherwise it isn't a mutual conclusion.

1 point

If you are asking from a moral standpoint: then no. But in all honesty, equality is a human idea. Nothing is ever equal. We cannot, however, determine whether girls are better or worse than boys; there are so many positives and negatives for both that it is almost impossible to figure that out.

I, however, believe that we should take the simple and peaceful route and say that both are equal.

1 point

Ok. You have absolutely no confidence in yourself. I am not saying it in a mean way. Here's the revelation. You have posted 4+ debates on how you can get women, and have repeatedly said all of the negatives about yourself and can't seem to find the positives. You are obviously at a low point in your life and possibly need to see someone about your pessimism. IF you want a way to find women without meeting them publicly, just use dating websites. They are an easy way to get familiar with someone before you meet. If you have good chemistry with them online, you are likely to have chemistry with them in public. I don't know what else to say besides this:

You need to take action in what you want. You constantly ask people on a debating website about how you can get a girl to like you, and yet, when it seems like great advice is showing up on each post, you just create another perspective debate over what you should do. Seriously, take action. You cannot find a girl by asking others. Yes, maybe you have failed a few times at meeting a girl, but if you fail many times, you need to find a different way to find one. Women only like guys without personality, success, and looks if they want to do community service and help them achieve one of those things. You, however, are doubting that you have any of them.

If you don't have a great personality, fine. That can always be changed. It is by psychologists that, if one pretends to be someone for a long enough time, they will eventually develop that persona as their own. This can be very bad advice though, because you do not want to use this to exploit women.

If you do not have success, it's not too late. You believe it is, and therefore, you make it impossible to achieve. If you don't have confidence in yourself and work hard, you will never achieve success.

When it comes to looks, you believe that you are average or below. The funny thing is, when a man has a lack of confidence in their looks, they usually turn out to be because they believe it to be true. Even if that man is generally a nice-looking guy, he can believe and cause his appearance to look bad through facial expression, dress, attitude, etcetera. Have confidence in your looks. Try to find features that you like about yourself. Soon enough, you will create a happier, more confident person, which is actually very attractive to women.

1 point

Actually... Rape is forced sex. Just pointing that out.

Click the link and read the definition of rape.

Supporting Evidence: Rape: Definition (dictionary.reference.com)
1 point

In your opinion, God sends people to Hell. It is not a proven fact, it is a belief.

As for the funeral part, I am neutral; either way is fine, but it depends on what the deceased wants. A party celebrating that person's life is meant to celebrate the things that they have accomplished, what they will leave behind that imprints their existence into history, whether big or small, and it is meant to be meaningful and joyous that they had a wonderful life on Earth.

1 point

So, only if it is a Christian symbol, it is OK to be displayed on public property?

1 point

It is his house; he can do as he pleases inside his home. He should, however, be considerate and close his blinds so that he does not surprise or upset anyone around him.

1 point

I am glad that you are putting your opinion out here, but the question was about what you believe is the most important thing that you should do before you die. I am glad that you are a very devout Christian; Christians are the most optimistic people I know. But please don't try and preach to me what the most important thing I should do is, based on your opinions. This debate is only about what you want to do.

I'm sorry if this comes off as up-front and hostile, but I am being sincere this time and am just asking for peace.

1 point

I believe one of the few reasons why I am still alive, to this day, is that I want to find my special someone, or at least someone very close to that. I am an affectionate guy, and I want to find someone that I can look forward to seeing everyday and live for. If I don't get that before I die, then I'll have wasted my entire life.

1 point

In reality, this is an opinionated question. And I'm stating no.

1 point

Well my mom and my dad our married and they are Christian and they haven't had a divorce.

I congratulate you on that. They are very lucky that they still love each other. That is true dedication.

If your a Christian once your married to that person you have to stick with that person for the rest of your life.

Based on the Bible. It is your opinion whether you want to believe that or not. People can still choose to go against that. Not every Christian abides to this.

1 point

...if I am alone and not married and I need an emergency and I am home alone who is going to take me to the hosiptal?

Either call 911 or have LifeAlert, and the ambulance will come once you call for them. You don't need family to take you places. The hospital has staff for those instances when you are alone, or you could simply have friends to call if you need help.

1 point

No... You're talking a bit extreme.

I was in a relationship with an adult that was a few years older than me. It was a mutual relationship, and it lasts for many years. He never raped me, and we were very much in love.

1 point

no tennagers that young have to many hormones

Puberty. Nuff said.

dont begin to understand real love till 18 or older

Not true. Just like my ally above, I too have fallen in love when I was a teenager.

We both were in love for quite a while, and it was true, but it faded away over several years. It was, however, a very mutual and loving relationship.

it is wrong

In your opinion.

Note: There is a spell-check button, or you could just right-click the words that are underlined in red. They will give you the correct spellings.

1 point

Do you think [sexual intercourse is] for the sake of pleasure?

No, but to some people, like me, sex is more about being with your partner than having children. And that is my opinion; everyone doesn't have the same opinion.

2 points

...we are humans beings we are not insects or animals.

Correction: We are animals, but are also intelligent.

1 point

Actually... There is an age limit on certain videos. They make you sign in onto certain provocative videos and, if your account's date of birth is above 18 and you click the "I Confirm that I Am 18" button, you can view them.

1 point

Two names of great female comedians: Chelsea Handler and Kristen Wiig.

1 point

Drake because 1) He's fresh and already has a lot of harder-hitting singles. 2) He got into the Songwriter's Hall of Fame within two years of hitting the mainstream. 3) He puts more heart into his lyrics. 4) A wide variety of audiences are raving over his music.

0 points

I believe that it depends on the music. If it's a song that everyone within hearing range likes, then yes, maybe they could blast it out loud. Other than that, I advise just listening privately in your headphones or ear buds.

3 points

True, but I have absolutely no declaration. I vote for the party who makes the most sense at the time. That is not Libertarian.

1 point

Obama because Romney is kind of a nutcase. He makes promises that could never be completed in a 4-year term, such as completing a border that goes along the entire Southern border of the United States.

1 point

This is an opinionated question. My opinion is you're OK.

3 points

Neither because I'm neutral on pretty much everything that is political. I go for the one that is most logical, like placing this post on both sides.

3 points

Neither because I'm neutral on pretty much everything that is political. I go for the one that is most logical, like placing this post on both sides.

1 point

I know. I didn't state that overpopulation is caused by a drop in standard of living. I stated that overpopulation leads to a significant drop of standard in living; they are hand-in-hand. I think we are stating the same thing, but are just confusing each other because we are wording it differently.

3 points

Yes, it definitely is a very valid argument. It shows the contradiction of the idea of God. If one is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and benevolent (all-loving), ideally, that person, or in this case, deity, is perfect and will have perfection.

God is described as having all of these qualities, and because of this, His existence is disproved for many reasons.

For example, one could bring up the topic of natural disasters. God is benevolent, meaning that He would not want people to be harmed by these disasters. Seeing that He is omnipotent and omniscient, He knows that they will occur and has the power to prevent them, or to not create them in the first place. But why do they still occur? For natural disasters to occur, He has to have an absence of one of those qualities. He could be both omnipotent and benevolent, and just not know when they will occur. Or He could be benevolent and omniscient, and not have any power over the disasters. Or He could be omniscient and omnipotent, and not feel any remorse for those that die in those disasters.

This is just one example as to why "The Problem of Evil" is a valid argument. It can be applied to many aspects of life. If need be, I can post other examples to show how, in other ways, it is a good argument.

2 points

I agree with you that the standard of living will definitely drop once a state of overpopulation is achieved. The point that I am trying to explain, and probably have not effectively placed in my preceding posts, is that, once a general state of overpopulation is achieved, then yes, the standard of living will drop, whether it is significant or insignificant.

If it is a significant drop in the average, that means that a large percentage of the families that were already struggling before the drop will now be at more risk to possibly die off, and the mortality rate would go up. With a significant drop in standard of living, there is a significant drop in population, and it could take many years to finally bring the average standard of living up.

1 point

Same here. I don't seem to get uncomfortable a certain age group. It's only certain people that make themselves uncomfortable to be around.

0 points

I believe humans are, indeed, a pretty crappy species. Yes, we are very intelligent, but that seems to be more of a negative than a positive. There are so many reasons why humans suck, and they seem to outweigh the reasons why humans are great. I can't list all of them off of my head, but once someone inevitably disputes this, I can start listing some.

1 point

Which language was the first one you learned as a child? Based on proven psychology, humans learn languages easier when they are children. If you learned English as a child, then you can't say that English isn't harder, because you don't have the experience of learning it after learning your first language. It's harder to transition to a second language than it is to learn it first as a child.

1 point

I meant that, if every military couple was producing children, then it could cause overpopulation.

1 point

Because of nature... Unless you believe science is non-existent?

2 points

It most definitely is not above 70% in all of America. In certain cities, however, it could be; they would be the ones where the population is very, very low.

Guns really aren't causing large amounts of deaths; in fact, they're very random. I advise you kindly to not make assumptions because you seem to be frightening yourself over what you think might be true, based on narrow observation.

1 point

It's fine. But still, getting a salad at a fast food restaurant isn't healthy, either. A majority of the time the produce is processed and they give a lot of dressing. Plus, the calories in those salads are usually really high.

I disputed to support myself.

1 point

Fast foods, in my opinion, is used stereotypically to brand a food as unhealthy if it comes out of a restaurant. Fast food is not always bad for you, but it rarely is good. I've yet to find a restaurant that makes food fast, but also makes it healthy, while keeping a lower price for it.

1 point

Here's a very good reason as to why this is happening:

In this era of American history, more Latinos are immigrating into the country. This may sound like a stereotype, but it truly isn't: Many are coming into the country looking for a better life, and the majority of those Latinos don't have a lot of money. Because of this, they are forced to buy cheaper foods, which usually means from fast food restaurants, and have to work extra long to get as much money as they can to support their families, taking time out of their home life.

Cheaper foods such as McDonald's and Taco Bell usually are usually the only option for those with less money. For example, the vast majority of Native Americans on reservations are forced to get fast food because they are living in impoverished areas. This is similar to immigrating Latinos. Latino families come to America with a small amount of money and have to find jobs quickly; if they can't, they will become broke and could possibly starve to death. That's why cheap foods are usually their best and only option.

When it comes to occupation, they usually can't find a very good job fast and have to resort to very low-paying jobs. That's why many usually stay more towards the border; the further north they travel to find a place to settle, the more money they have to spend.

Since both parents usually have to spend time working long hours to provide for their families, Latinos don't have a lot of leisure time to do things such as exercising. As for the gym part that you mentioned in the description, many can't afford to pay monthly fees, and even if they did, the harder-working families usually cannot go often, proving that a membership would be a waste of money.

2 points

It seems like you don't have much confidence. When you try to meet a girl, you can't just be friendly. Most "average" guys think they can't get their "dream girl", and they won't be able to because they have doubt. The thing that separates "extraordinary" and "average" guys is that level of confidence.

Extraordinary guys usually have a certain strength in them, whether its their charisma, wealth, or looks; this causes them to have a higher level of confidence because they believe that they can get the girl they want. Average guys, like yourself, have this doubt that causes a lower level of confidence, and it shows during social interaction.

My advice is to build up your confidence, and be genuine about yourself; usually these pretty girls are smart and have adjusted to be paranoid. They get tons of fake guys that only want them for sex. Show that you really want to be with them, and not use them.

1 point

I believe that teenagers should be able to date adults. If anyone has any reasons why they shouldn't be, post something as a dispute after mine, and I will gladly debate with you.

1 point

Actually, it is. Other languages are generally straight-forward, but English is constantly contradictory in its grammar and pronunciation rules. That's why it is one of the hardest modern languages to learn.

2 points

Yeah, definitely. Match.com or eHarmony.com

And it also sounds like you're not confident in yourself. If you want to put your main focus on finding a suitable lady in their 30s, you need to show that you have confidence in yourself, otherwise you won't find many because many are waiting to be found. Believe in yourself every day, and you will definitely find someone soon.

2 points

No, I don't.

But does anyone else feel like this should be a perspective debate?

1 point

But the zero power isn't times itself. Everything to the power of 0 is 1 because they divide by itself.

24^0=24/24=1 3508^0=3508/3508=1

With that said, 0^0=0/0, and I won't repeat anything because this is explained by the comments on the right side.

1 point

Execution is so much better: They can't have fun on the world anymore, don't have the chance to turn around their lives (like they ever would), and no one has to pay money to keep them alive. It makes logical sense.

1 point

This is probably the only thing I will ever agree with you on, but yes, their music is completely amazing.

1 point

Jesus was as much an elephant was he was the son of a deity.

1 point

Criss Angel's a magician. Don't compare Criss Angel to a man claiming to be the son of God.

1 point

Any religion that empowers one to have a positive outlook to life and therapeutic effect to one's self, as long as it does not discriminate others and never tries to explain the world without evidence.

3 points

Oh yes, it is a sin. I'm not acting on the Bible's word.

That is a hypocritical statement because sin is an immoral action based on the text of the Bible.

I'm acting for humanity.

Saying that you want to kill homosexuals is not acting for humanity. It discriminates minorities that are part of your said "humanity", and you therefore are being hypocritical. In all honesty, we need birth control these days. If you aren't acting on the word of God, then I guess abortions and other forms of birth control are ok with you because they will allow us to prevent over-population, which could lead to lack of resources that are essential to humanity. So a very small population of homosexuals isn't doing any damage to humanity; discriminatory people like you are by separating all humans.

2 points

When it comes to the Bible, no, they aren't. The Bible has so many hypocrisies and a large lack of evidence that it's almost unfair to debate against it; it's an easy win.

2 points

Ok guys. If you haven't looked at the title, the question is "Should be homosexuality considered as a sin?" (which should read, "Should homosexuality be considered as a sin?")

This should be an obvious answer to everyone. Yes, it should be considered a sin. A sin is a religious term for something that is immoral. So, to all Christians that take the Bible literally, yes, you are correct.

Here's the thing, though; the Bible is a hypocritical text, just like Christians are hypocritical about their religions. There are Christians that are constantly sinning, and most likely sin more than once every day. So, the question should be Which sins should be considered secularly immoral, and not religiously immoral?

I am an Atheist, and the answer is yes that homosexuality is a sin, which is an immoral action based on the Bible. However, homosexuality should not be considered immoral on the world stage because not everyone believes in the Bible.

2 points

Ok. Let me get this clear. You say that there is a beginning to everything, which I agree on; the thing that doesn't make sense is that you constantly say that, because of this, it is an entity that created the universe, despite the evident lack of valid evidence and proof.

The big question is, why does it have to be an entity that created the universe when there is more proof that it wasn't the work of an entity? Not only does the idea of God have no proof for its existence, but there are numerous hypocrisies that prove that God is only an imperfect, human idea.

3 points

The load of laundry won't start because it isn't made by the Earth; it's artificial. Nature made everything that was in the Old World, before the Technological Era began. For example, how is ice made? The freezing of water, which was originally something that could only happen naturally. Now we have technology, which allows us to freeze things on our own. The Earth isn't a machine (natural), which the laundry machine is (artificial).

2 points

Evidence, noun: 1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was evidence of his fever. 3) Law: data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Proof, noun: 1) evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief that in it s truth. 2) anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3) the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4) the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5) Law: (in judicial proceedings) evidence having a probative weight.

Above from Dictionary.com

Below from Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary

Evidence, noun: 1) SIGN OF PROOF something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion: There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet. 2) PROOF OF GUILT the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime: The police have no evidence. 3) STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry.

Proof, noun: 1) CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something 2) TEST a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true 3) STATE OF HAVING BEEN PROVED the quality or condition of having been proved 4) TRIAL EVIDENCE the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court's decision

Here are definitions from two different sources; there are even example sentences if you need them. If these don't help, let me know. We can work together to help you understand that they are so that you can apply them to your statement; putting proof or evidence into your statements turns sentences into arguments.

2 points

Sorry, maybe I'm confused, but you say that we can resolve the God debate if we accept that Christians believe, I repeat, believe, that God exists because of an unproven statement that God created everything there is except Himself. You haven't proven its validity in any way.

If you could please, would you explain how knowing what Christians believe proves that what they believe exists?

1 point

You have freedom of choice. You don't have to keep your promises when you make them.

To answer the scenario: You don't have to give them the money. There were no other witnesses of his death, and you can choose whether or not you follow through with that promise. If the children are already getting a lot of money, not giving them the money won't be as bad. If they didn't have the money, then it'd seem more immoral.

1 point

It seems like people only want to debate about religion and controversial topics that break some laws of Christianity. If it isn't one of those topics, then the topic is about liberals being feral and incompetent, and conservatives being discriminatory and incompetent. It's been a while since I've seen a really creative debate.

1 point

I will agree with you. It isn't the answer in most cases. But you stated in most cases. That means that sometimes it is an answer. If suicide is sometimes an answer to an answer, then that means that suicide can be an answer, proving that the answer to "Is suicide ever the answer?" is yes.

1 point

...of course, anyone who didn't vote for Obama.

Not true at all. You're saying that all liberals are intolerant of people that didn't vote for him, which isn't true. It's just a stereotype of liberals that some conservatives are using to try and leverage themselves against the liberals. Liberals are intolerant of lies that are used to make a party look better than the other.

Not every liberal is intolerant of anti-Obama people; there are liberals that don't plan on supporting Obama anymore, but they are still liberal. It's just like conservatives that don't plan on voting for any of the GOP debaters. There are some out there.

1 point

Going to help for a small amount of time only instills hope into those-less-fortunate; it isn't a solution.

1 point

The fact that you could suffocate from your own blood and still have blood getting pumped out of the support for your head is terrifying to me.

1 point

But the question is, "Is suicide ever the answer?" You are saying that suicide isn't always an answer, but when someone asks is it ever an answer, and it is a possible answer to a problem at least once, then the answer to "Is it ever an answer?" is yes. You can argue that it is never a good answer to a problem, but just because it is immoral or simply not a good thing to do, that doesn't mean that it isn't an answer.

1 point

If the world keeps following the path that it is going through, then yes, it is fucked. What we have to do to keep it from fucking itself over is pushing for change. There are numerous problems in the world, but all of them are fixable.

1 point

What's fucked up is that you're using religious beliefs to say that "we as a planet" are fucked. Gay rights activists aren't hurting anyone. You sound like a Southerner from the 1700s or 1800s. You're worrying about homosexuality and suicide (which is caused by people like you who discriminate homosexuals on a regular basis), and yet, you could be worrying about the economy, over-population, dwindling natural resources, etc, etc, etc. Religion isn't going to help the world; it's separating people instead of unifying them.

1 point

Just to clear this up before I dispute, I am not against men and women in the Army having families. It's their decision over whether or not they do. Freedom of choice.

In all honesty, not everybody should have a family. Yes, they are beneficial, but in all honesty, not everyone should because it'll eventually cause overpopulation, unless most families only have one child.

1 point

Here's the real question; it's very similar.

Would you rather get all of your insides sucked out at random rates and possibly get inflated a few times afterwards, or would you rather be the tube that has another objects insides flow through you?

1 point

I have no clue. It honestly isn't that sexy and it looks pretty stupid, in all honestly. But then again, I am gay. :/

1 point

Hahaha... favorite post of the month is from you now. :P and I had to type this last junk sentence to get 50 characters.

1 point

I honestly plan on skipping prom. It's not that they are horrible social-gatherings or anything; I just don't want to go. I don't see the point in paying a large sum of money to go to something I don't want to go to.

1 point

You said it is never an answer, and yet you later state that it is "the easiest way to deal with hard things in life." An answer deals with or solves a problem. In a majority of cases, yes, it harms other people severely, but it doesn't mean that suicide is never the answer. It just means that it is a very horrible choice to make.

1 point

Suicide can and will always be a plausible answer to certain situations. Just because it is morally or religiously wrong does not mean that it is and has never been an answer. The real question, however, is if it is ever a good choice to make in certain situations.

2 points

Not true. Suicide is a possible answer. The definition of an answer is "a thing said, written, or done to deal with or as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation." Just reminding you in case you forgot. Suicide can be an answer. If you are being bullied, then you could commit suicide to deal with the situation.

It most definitely is an answer to certain problems/situations, but the real question is that it is not a good answer to those problems, which is what you basically stated if you exclude the first and last sentence.

2 points

Bisexuality is easier to hide than heterosexuality and homosexuality. Bisexuality, which is when a person is attracted to both men and women due to their hormones, can be hidden easier because one could say that they are either a heterosexual or homosexual.

For example, if a bisexual is in a homophobic area, he/she wouldn't have to hide his/her sexuality, but half of it. Now, if a person is a homosexual, and he/she were to be in that same area, he/she would have to hide their attraction to anyone and lie to the entire community in order to avoid discrimination.

What determines a person's sexuality, as proven by the science, is the balance of hormones for attraction; every person has both male and female attraction hormones (this is why almost everyone can tell when a person of either gender is attractive or not). Heterosexuals have the balance more skewed towards their own hormones, and homosexuals have the balance more skewed towards the hormones of the opposite sex. Bisexuality, however, has both sides of the balance very close to equal, causing attraction to both genders. The reason why this makes sense because the balance is never completely balanced at all. That is why bisexuals usually have a preference, such as a man preferring women over men, but still being fine with having a relationship with males.

That's basically what distinguishes bisexuality from heterosexuality and homosexuality. Bisexuals can be attracted to both genders without forcing themselves to, and heterosexuals and homosexuals are attracted to one gender, and have to go against their bodies if they want to like both.

2 points

It depends on what issue you are worried about. Religiously? Yes. Morally? Depends on what set of morals you are following; go with your instinctual conscience. Ethically? Based on today's ethics, yes, it is ethically wrong. So, based on the laws and regulations that society has set up for itself, it is wrong.

In my opinion, I honestly don't see anything wrong with it, but that's my opinion.

1 point

I agree. We don't have an obligation, but morality suggests that in doing so we are more morally stable.

1 point

But that's the thing. In the reality of the world today, even if three people of three different races were to be raised the exact same way, which is already a difficult feat to pull off, you cannot completely control how they think and react to certain things. People learn and receive everything differently.

0 points

So, you're saying you are choosing to be homosexual, despite all of the consequences?

2 points

The question is asking whether they contribute to youth violence. It does because it can act as an influence towards your actions. It isn't you completely blame the video games. You also blame yourself, which is what you said. Violent video games don't contribute to all of youth violence, but it does in some cases. It's just another case where the environment can contribute or influence a certain person's actions.

1 point

I personally believe that equality does exist because humans make it exist, which is what I think you agree with, but how can any two things be completely equal?

0 points

No, because your mind is developed enough to make decisions at that time, unless you're a fucking genius. Once you have a brain, you are able to make choices on your own.

1 point

...we create equality that otherwise wouldn't exist.

So, shouldn't you be on the opposite side of this debate?

0 points

But you don't get it! An automatic machine only has one function: to complete the same action over and over again. It is limited in what it can do, and has no control over its actions. A human mind, however, has the ability to make its own decisions, despite outside factors; even if you are to be oppressed severely for your actions, you can still choose to act that way. How can you say that we are no different than machines? We are biological, not artificial. Only certain things are permanent by biology, but decision-making is not.

1 point

Free will is the ability to control one's actions and decisions. Everyone can choose whether they obey or disobey their parents. It just depends on whether their choices are influenced, and if so, they can choose whether or not they abide to those influences.

No choice is made at random

Of course not. But, like I said, you have the choice to either abide to those influences or not. Yes, the chemical signals play a part to. Their role is to make certain decisions easier or harder to make. But you still have the ability to choose which route you'll take.

1 point

When it is asking whether they contribute, it means to ask whether or not video games could be a factor for violent behavior. It isn't asking whether violent games should be completely blamed for violent behavior.

However, I do believe that certain people are using violent video games as a scapegoat, which they shouldn't be, because bad parenting and genetics also contribute to their behavior.

Were you trying to ask whether they should be blamed entirely?

1 point

When something contributes to a certain outcome, it means that it is one factor for that outcome. It could either have a small or large effect on that outcome. This is why violent video games contribute to youth violence. Their effect on youth violence, however, varies on the youth's response.

Sometimes there are youth that never demonstrate violent behavior due to violent video games. There are instances, however, where youth are partially influenced by video games; I personally have seen this. I knew a person that wanted to go to war because Call of Duty "made it look fun and adventurous" (a direct quote from him). This shows that video games can influence behavior and the routes or decisions that people make. In this case, he wanted to go to war, which he did; so why can't a video game influence violent behavior if it looks fun?

We all know that there are mentally-unstable people in this world, and there are also those who have weak moralities. These can be influenced by genetics or parental oversight, as stated before. These can contribute to their response to video games, and, if they do not receive them in the right way and find that harming others would be fun, entertaining, or even just the right thing to do. So yes, video games should not be entirely blamed for violent youth, but they can easily contribute to a violent state of mind if approached in the wrong way.

1 point

When it is asking whether they contribute, it means to ask whether or not video games could be a factor for violent behavior. It isn't asking whether violent games should be completely blamed for violent behavior.

However, I do believe that certain people are using violent video games as a scapegoat, which they shouldn't be, because bad parenting and genetics also contribute to their behavior.

Were you trying to ask whether they should be blamed entirely?

2 points

Couldn't you say that two people are never raised the same, and that, due to every mind being unique, certain actions throughout each twin's lives separates one from the other? Everyone grows up doing different things and responds to the outcome differently. So, even though one does grow up with the same things as another doesn't mean that they react the same way, whether there is a small or large difference in how they come out of childhood.

I agree that total equality in fact does not exist. But what if the entire topic of equality is just an ideology to make sure humanity doesn't believe certain people should get extra privileges or rights?

1 point

All thanks to you, my greatest teacher. I couldn't have done it without you.

1 point

Fine. Contact the moderator. Because obviously saying that a user of a public debating site will shoot you for not agreeing with them is not an accusation that they are murderers, but that it is simply banter.


1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]