- 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
The entire ideal seems rather sidestepping to me. This doesnt really solve anything or shut anyone up or do anything, it merely presents more problems.
From the Pro-life perspective, this does fine.
From the Religious perspective, this does fine because no moralized philosophies are violated.
From the Pro-choice perspective, personally, Id still like to see abortion in place for the elimination of unwanted future elements, but yes this is fine too. As long as they dont start taking up shitloads of space in basements across the world.
Yes, the fater should have some right to allow the continuation of growth, but at the same time no, they shouldnt. From the equal rights perspective, the man was equally and arguably more responsible for the fermentation to begin with. However, from the autonomy perspective, its a big no-no because its her body, right? If it were another woman's body continuing the growth of a fetus after the father's partner had it removed, Id say the father's consent is required. If the mother would like to continue it, no the father's consent would not be required, for if these two partner's are still together and the father did not consent it, LOOK OUT.
Heres a page on the Macroscopic violation of Thermodynamics. I Believe it also makes reference to other violations, including scalar dimensions/universes, Quantum Foam(Theory?), certain interpretations of aerodynamics and other specific statistical theories I cant remember.
I never said the technology existed, Protozoa. Im merely relating it back to the argument of cleanest and best energy source. If you think about it, all one really requires is electromagnetism and superdense matter. After that, youre golden. The Zero-point energy I speak of is the transcendant energy of gravity waves of all matter floating through space. I dont think it would be very difficult whatsoever to harvest that.
As for the manipulator search suggestion, that was mostly a joke. Refer to my first statement.
Okay, yes, its energy conversion, but weve already cleared that part up.
As for entropy, Screw it. Think about non-realistic applications of the manipulation of zero-point energy fields and how nice and useful that would be. Just think about it. Its so limitless.
As for antimatter, I just dont see it happening on planet. It requires way too much Capital.
Go do something better Enigmatic. That is all there really is to say. Unless of course you are trying pointlessly to rack up some quick points for your account. Then by all means, continue. And eating with sticks is indeed fun. Anyone who disagrees with that is a bigoted fool.
As for my lunatics comment, I mean the Chinese Communist government in general when I say lunatics and the rest of the country is very quickly moving toward a capitalistic-Democracy.
How about a privatized Government? One that utilizes the competition mechanic to achieve efficiency and lower costs? Except, instead of competing over money, they are competing over the number of people that live in their country and the educational/worth density of those people? In other words, splitting a well-established country in two to achieve privatized government, one that legislates quite literally as the people see fit to get the most that they can out of them and their opponent. Now, the question here would be how do you prevent underhand tricks? you do so with a promotion of open-book government, a paradigm change to such and a paradigm switch to making everyone more politically active or at least more politically aware. This would result in a much lower and even destroyed underhand-dealing mechanic.
As for war, these two separate governments are still part of the same country. In the end, these two governments act as one internationally. Kind of like two states instead of fifty in the US. They both have equal access to their respective north and south relative borders, i.e. both have equal access to Mexico and Canada in the case of the US. Finally, both would sign a document guaranteeing their mutual disclosure of information, resources and military power, Ultimately meaning that the two are still the same country with checks and balances to each other, but potentially significantly different laws apply to things inside each respective government's boundaries. War is prevented, the people get what they want, the economic experiment is engaged and no one gets hurt. It also forces to surface many issues that require answers. Thus, the ultimate serving of government is, well, served.
I disagree with your statement on the insatiable want to grow the government, by the government. Has every government in American history acted this way? No, Jefferson shrank the size of the government significantly, Hoover did, Coolidge did and I believe one of the post-civil war presidents did as well. Some even left them the same size by the time they left the office. Whats to say that next United States president after Obama wont shrink the size of government significantly, even destroy specific taxes, sign in free energy and destroy Public Healthcare? Any of that could happen, right? More or less. Regardless, Saying that government by nature of its establishment hungers for growth of itself is misguided at best. It depends entirely on the institution, its leader and how good he is at selling an idea.
"Well, that is your opinion, and it is not a negative attitude, it is simply the truth."
Do not confuse a sense of realism with pessimism.
Hey! Im not uneducated!
And I did not know it had passed 60% efficiency. Perhaps we should be looking to that then.
As for antimatter, even a mechanic for capturing the antimatter generated by Lightning storms would be expensive, dont you think? Transport is still a problem, holding remains a problem, manipulation remains a problem, realistically, youd need an entire planet designated for energy generation for cost to become feasible. Thus, I do not believe it has any realistic potential. So there.
As for Zero-point energy manipulator generator, I meant merely a device used for manipulating and conglomerating Zero-point energy into a useful amount of energy and then using it to generate electricity. Not a manipulator-generator, something that generates manipulators. Sorry about that.
If you want an article, look up "zero-point energy manipulator" alone. That ought to turn up some results.
Its rather easy to conglomerate energy into more using a really long addition problem, Protozoa.
Secondly, were not converting energy to a higher state, were just putting it together to say we have more energy total. No conversions there.
And when I say energy manipulator generator, I mean energy that is being manipulated into a closed state i.e. conglomerated, and then used to generate electricity.
As for Nuclear Fission, it is actually rather green. Youre environmental argument stems from the 1960s and '70s, when analysts obviously saw waste products from a radioactive process being dumped in places. All of these arguments have been more or less stemmed thanks to an overview. When you think about the total radioactivity of 5 years worth on Nuclear Power plant waste, it comes up to about one cancer dose. Secondly, the materials used to encase the waste products and make sure they stay that way are generally lead and tungsten composites. These exist naturally in the environment to begin with. We are merely putting it in other places on the planet. Places with equivalent specs to the places we took those resources from. Thus, taking resources from one desert and putting them into another desert(Sahara to Nevada) isnt really much of a problem.
As for efficiency, if you can just cite the source for your stats at the bottom of your argument, Ill address that. Until then, The most cost-effective/energy-effective Nuclear power plant built recently has been built in China, with a (non-cited) low building cost and it produces nuclear energy at a rate of $0.022/kW/h. Pretty cheap.
When one addresses the cost of maintenance on either wind or Nuclear and the length of their lives producing power, the average 20-acre Wind farm has a 20 year life, whereas modern nuclear has a 35-40 year life span. Cost of maintenance over the course of their life times per year are actually EXACTLY the same(weird!). That number comes out to be $4,500(rounded).
What if you could create a paradigm shift in the people so that they feel as though the government works for them without engaging in socialism? How about a government that does exactly that and doesnt stray because its people know the history and WILL engage their government to make sure they do not take control? What about a constitutional guarantee of smaller, efficient government? Its all about the theory. Just because it doesnt exist now does not mean it cant exist. Why so negative?
By saying Capitalism, I meant the economic-political tie that exists, like a government that is democratic, but uses Sharing of wealth, like Communism. Just a clarification.
Stating that there is no best form of government and only the least worse one is just having a negative attitude, Prayerfails. This argument is supposed to be positive and constructive.
As for constitutional Democracy, its primary down fall is what? Identify and warrant, please.
Piezoelectricity is a very neat topic, especially under Highways and high-traffic-volume streets. However, as of now, most generators have only a 20% efficiency and a high input cost, and due to the nature of their placement, roads and highways, it would require a huge government bill to put these in. If they can achieve a much higher efficiency, around 60%, Id say that they should and would be put into every Highway. Until then, the easiest form of green energy remains thermo-solar.
As for Most potential, you give the example of a Matter-Antimatter Anihilation Generator. Yes, it gives off a great amount of energy per kilogram, but the cost of infrastructure and a stable reaction chamber would be in the trillions per facility and the cost of fuel would be enormous, regardless of its source. Unless we can get Zero-Point Energy manipulators in here, there is no way to efficiently transport, hold or utilize Antimatter. My suggestion would be a Zero-Point Energy Manipulator Generator. By utilizing the gravity of any mass at all, useful energy is produced. Essentially, the Earth's Own Gravity could be used, or the gravity of every single body of mass in the universe. Endlessly, as well.
Also, your projection for Ocean waves is incorrect. I believe that figure comes from current Wave-Mechanic Generators. Future ones on the ocean floor, where the current is 80000 times stronger, will produce far more energy than ones as of today. Your number of 2.88x10^20 x 8x10^4 equals 2.30x10^25 J/year. Thats a lot more. Not to be mean or anything. That sounded mean, sorry.
The most efficient form of Energy known today is Actually Gasoline. The most efficient Heat energy-mechanical work converter known today works at 65-67% efficiency. Bioethanol actually has a -12% energy Efficiency rate. The Cheapest form of Green Energy is Nuclear Fission, almost by definition. The easiest to make form of Green Energy generators is Thermo-Solar, it can be as cheap as $300 to cover a small roof. The one with the best potential is actually Zero-Point Energy Manipulator Generators, as they quite literally suck energy out of "empty" Space and are powered by the gravity of all mass in the universe. As of today, Id say the Best form of Green energy is Nuclear Fission, thanks to its low cost and high energy output.
Of course there hasnt been a better system in human history. Otherwise, it would still exist. I agree that Democracy is the best, or the least horrible, governmental system thus far. What if I told I DID have a new and more Beneficial system to its people, one that would exist as long as its people were modified with a slight paradime change? One that could minimize the levels of Poverty and increase government efficiency? What then, Mr. David H.?
Yes, Anarchy is a silly, idiotic, primitive, impulsive form of both life and "Government." I hope we can agree on that.
China is a backwards, ageing nation of lunatics who eat with sticks.
I THINK NOT. Though you seem to think Size is not synonomous with strength, I disagree. It is actually RATHER synonomous, but not necessarily exactly so. China is big, and growing. It is indeed filled with lunatics, but the rest of the country is growing more and more aware of that and moving in for the kill. And eating with sticks is fun, dont be insulting.
Is this statement addressed to "chavs", Englishmen or the the opposition? Upon which published statistics do you base your claim that all chavs suck, that all Englishmen are chavs, that this is only generally true or that it is true at all?
It was a joke, Enigmatic. Dont you have something better to do than insult Americans?
That's just a childish argument.
Point in fact.
Is that a joke, or do you seriously believe that is how the word "wank" is used?
THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS A JOKE. GO WANK IT OFF WILL YA? (Sorry, I heard one of my English Friends say that once and it makes me laugh every time.)
The trouble (one of them, at least) with being American is that geography is beyond your conception. Scotland is a horrible, horrible place.
Have you any proof? Regardless, I meant more so of the people. I have had a much better experience with the Scottish than the English. Less Drunk men, nicer people and less over-bloated self-confidence. But maybe its just me.
Most of America is a wasteland. The rest is filled with Americans. The only conceivable worse place on Earth is Spain (excepting Africa and Asia, but they are just awful).
You are just a mean man, Enigmatic. It seems were on comepletely different sides of this argument in every respect. I refuse to drop to your level of supposedly unbiased truthfullness. Besides, England is a land of refuse where old drunk, fat men rape their women and beat their children out of their homes, which they eventually lose to the Government and somehow maintain the shitty quality of life they had before. Sorry, moment of weakness.
Anarchy is important in the balance of the political stream in both a theoretical and realistic sense. It is the absolute end of the Freedom part of the Political Spectrum, providing an absolute end. Simultaneously, it helps to point out potential flaws in our thinking and our applications of laws, philosophies and ideals. Without it, The Elite would completely control the minds of the World, as no relative negative exists to pull people away from the Elitist view. Anarchy also empowers the average man to be his own, whereas Elitism essentially either guarantees the worthlessness of that man or that he futilely try to be more like the Elite and forever fail. This is truly the only real benefit of Anarchy, and in general it need remain a more abstract, intangible item than applied ideology due to its direct violation of established human rights through its upholding of primal instinct and destruction of social barriers. Anyone who engages in any form of Anarchy is a fool.
I wouldnt necessarily say that Obama isnt exactly trying his hardest or not doing anything at all, I just personally dont believe that the direction that hes taking is a very good one or beneficial one. He has more or less driven himself into a hole of favor debt, one that he pays back in biased legislature, and hes part of the Democratic Political party which is essentially using him, regardless of what he thinks. Under such, I believe that Both a new candidate is required, preferably one from an independent party for some fresh air and far less political agenda, and eventually a massive political overhaul of parties and lobbying. But since were talking about Obama specifically, youve got youre answer. No, its not a good idea. No, we dont have a good candidate replacement, but still no, its not a good idea.
Though teachers should generally dress rather well to emote a greater sense of power and psuedo-leadership while teaching for their own good, it for the most part would come down to a question of the school and whether or not it has a dress code to begin with. British Schools argue that the teachers dont require a dress code because they arent the ones who have done things wrong, and Ill remind you I hate British schools in that they assume that the students are there because they are faggot wankers of kids who require complete control over them in order to function correctly. Regardless, any school without a More specific Dress code, such as suitcoat and tie for example, would not require the Teachers to necessarily dress in any specific manner, as long as they dont show up in an outfit that violates student Dress codes. In the end, thats what it comes down to: If it violates generalized student Dress codes, then no, they cant wear it. However, a Strict Dress code is never a requirement, especially seeing as they are the ones who exhume the power in the clasroom(Hopefully).
Im not saying political systems are bad at all. Im no anarchist. I just DISPISE the generalizations and corruptions and stereotypes that follow Politcal PARTIES. Not Political systems. The United states Government is currently the best government in the world as of now Id say, but that doesnt mean we have an excuse to stop trying to make a better government for the FUTURE. I believe that the elimination of Political parties, a new standardized Voting system and a paradigm shifttoward being politically active and aware in your country is the best possible form of political election we, or anyone, can have.
Saying that no government is perfect is often used as an excuse argument, though Im not necessarily accusing you of it. The American government has quite a few potential changes it could make toward a more successful, efficient, streamlined government if the democrats and republicans, the country's political parties, would stop bickering over petty stupidities of the Government's size. Both need to be completely humbled and slapped in the face or gotten rid of for more than just that reason.
In short, regardless of how good you may think we are now, thats not an excuse to stop advancements. We can do much better than just this.
That statement alone would can be analyzed in this way:
Do you know of the Little Red Cookbook Incident in China? When a man stood in front of a line of Chinese Tanks for Free Speech? He was killed on the spot. This is an excellent example of what Im trying to get across in the entirety of my argument. If a person does not work for the government or hold any form of high government position, theyre life is essentially shit if the government doesnt like what they say, which can include a long list of things if youre the Chinese Government or even the United States Government. Limits of any kind on free speech to begin with are essentially the beginning of the end in my opinion because it allows the strong to manipulate the weak and the truth and whats right can never surface, regardless of the problems like hate speech that puts forth. Its a requirement. No clever Trolling here, sir.