CreateDebate


Volker's Waterfall RSS

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

So the one who left was bi. .

1 point

"The question is, should we make tobacco products illegal, which really is the only effective way to ban their use."

That's circular reasoning. We should ban them because that's teh only way to ban them.

1 point

No, govermnent shouldn't have the right to prevent adults from harming themselves. Government is necessary to solve conflicts between people but not to tell people how to live.

Besides, every form of drug prohibition creates a black market and a crime problem that is bigger than the problems caused by the drug itself.

0 points

WE don't know. I find it somewhat more likely taht there is no good but there is no way to be sure.

0 points

Sorry, I didn't see that. .

1 point

As long as bioth partners are old enough to consent, do consent and neither of them is cheating on a third person I don't see anything wrong with it.

2 points

Do you have any sources to back up this claim? .

1 point

It's what invaders from Essembly do. They bring their bad habits to CD, they bring their strange words to CD, they bring copied debates to CD. Essemblers are evil.

2 points

All in all it's reducing pollution more than creating it. It works well in many other countries, so why not in the US?

1 point

This is a ridiculous strawman resolve.

Most conservatives don't want to ban gay sex or strauight oral or anal sex or sex before marriage. They may find it immoral but they don't want to ban it.

There are almost no conservatives who want to ban alternative religions.

Keeping the spankinbg of children legal isn't nanny-statish at all - parents can decide themselves if they want to spank their children or not.

Having English as official language doesn't have anything to do with the nanny state.

Not allowing gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with teh nanny state either.

You can do better than that, Hadrian.

1 point

Because it is a violation of the right to life of another person. Your freedom ends where you violate the freedom of another person.

1 point

No.

1. Human rights trump utilitarian considerations.

2. A tortured person will confess what you expect him to confess. So it's usueless as a source of information.

1 point

Makes sense

.

1 point

This is a typical example opf the hasty generalization fallacy. I don't particlularly liek trade unions but it's legitimate for workers of the same industry to unite and fight for their causes - just like any other group.

1 point

Yes but I should have the right to deny it nonetheless .

1 point

In don't see a reason to gban any film except when its production was illegal or it's violating privacy rights. (e.g. child porn, your ex-girlfriend in the shower)

1 point

I am generally against banning films or other forms of censorship.

1 point

When the military was desegregated there were probably still a lot of people in the armed forces who would have preferred a segregated military. There were a lpot of people in the armed forces who were used to segregation at home. THere were maybe some who felt uncomfortable showering with blacks. Desegregation of the minds took longer than institutional desegregation. If the US government had waited with desegregation until the last person who felt uncomfortable in an integrated military had left the US military would still be segregated.

Did it hurt the US armed forces? No. (or do you seriously claimed the tie in Korea and teh defeat in Vietnam were due to integration?)

And the US shouldn't wait with repealing "Don't as don't tell" until homphobia has disappeared. Sometimes the government has to lead social change ratehr than reacting to it. Yes, some servicemen and -women may feel uncomfortable in some situations because of it. They are probably the ones who feel uncomfortable in teh presence of homosexuals anyway. But if you feel uncomfortable in teh presence of some of your fellow countrymen or -women just because of their race or tehir sexualorientation maybe soldier isn't the right job for you. As soldier you have to be able to cooperate with poeple from different social backgrounds, from different parts of teh country, with a different skin color, people who are different in mahny ways but in the same uniform, serving the same country. An effective military should integrtae a nation, rather than dividing it.

Your military is defending the right to be gay, and many other rights, against people people, who want to turn the whole world into an Islamic dictatorship. There is no reason why gays shouldn't take part in this struggle.

1 point

Actually I don't care. I still agree .

1 point

That's totalitarianism. .

0 points

Fuck censorship. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................

1 point

Life is more important than money. To kiill children to keep taxes down is immoral.

1 point

Yes, there has been some over-use of the word "revolution", as in "Reagan revolution". But considering the word hyperbole only when it comes from the right is hypocriticial.


1 of 4 Pages: Next >>

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