- 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
In the current setup of our civilization, the resources you possess are simply the quantification of the money you have.. So yeah, have more money, you'll have the finest of resources for your time of existence on this planet.
One might argue money is the root of all evil but my reply to that is absence of self control is. So yeah, the idea of having papers around with no inherent value
quantifies one's services of all kinds and does not limit you to possessing certain specific resources.
That was pretty much my initial stance, but think about it..
What hunger and non availability of resources and reasons along that line could do, (naturally select) would take an earthquake or a famine, just in a bigger scale to naturally select.. so we currently haven't terminated the phenomenon, we've just moved toward doing that over time..
Stop playing semantics. You asked if natural selection has ceased and I answered you.
I will agree that abortion is not natural selection. It is unnatural selection of the worst kind.
1)We wouldn't have language, our biggest advantage over every other species to live, if not for semantics.So yeah, there's no such thing as playing semantics, if there's reasoning there has to be semantics involved, unless you prefer not using reason to debate.
2)One could argue about abortion, which would again come down to semantics. to say that abortion defines the whole spectrum of natural selection would be way off of the context of this debate because it would come down to a needless question of whether morality plays part in natural selection.
The Democrat Party has decided that they will make it legal for us to perform our own natural selection. If you are a viable baby, the Left has deemed that you can be selected to be dismembered for any reason up to birth.
If evolution were true, we would not be so selfishly evil to kill our own innocent children. Most animals have more compassion than these extremist pro abortion fanatics.
Not everything is about politics, mate.
Nobody cares what the left or what the right think, in the context of this debate.
We're talking about the species as a whole here. Not groups of people with certain ideologies.
This site is evidence that natural selection has been bypassed by humans. We now are under the influence of socially constructed selection. Take Outlaw60 or Bronto for example, in nature they would be very, very dead by now, but the stupidity that should be their bane is actually rewarded in society because their stupid values are those valued by society. If you are against the status quo, you are ostracized whereas those mindless parrots who follow it are rewarded, as demonstrated by the fact that right wing trolls flood the site and the few reasonable people are constantly drowned out by a constant stream of bullshit. Selection in these times comes down to what cultures value, and those who are at the top are using the stupidity of the masses to create a culture that benefits them, while the masses are rewarded for serving the establishment, leaving those who are vastly superior to either join those at the top in being a scumbag or live their life as a ridiculed hermit.
Honestly, right now I see no difference between you and outlaw. I would've appreciated it if you actually contributed to the debate.
Free healthcare, in my opinion. A free college education doesn't guarantee that people would choose to go to college, while on the other hand, a free healthcare would be much more useful for a larger number of people who can't afford it and people would definitely use it. As an idea, free healthcare seems much more effective. Of course, if one could implement both, it would be amazing.
moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
That's the definition of ethics. That being said, I'm sure there will be cases where the so called "ethics" of a deed might go against morality.
The application of moral principles specifically with respect to a deed, only affecting its immediate consequences
Seems like a more well suited definition to me.
And in your opinion, "critical thinking" is asserting that people who have degrees aren't intelligent because some people who don't have degrees are intelligent? You see, if you'd actually been to university, you'd have been taught that's stupid.
If you'd spent half the time actually thinking, rather than rote mugging up stuff, you'd possibly know what I'm asserting in the first place.
This is why I call people from a university stupid(especially ones who think it's an indicator of intelligence). Seems like you haven't read my whole argument before you replied, but go on.. You stand to prove my argument.
The fact that many of the finest ever in academia weren't the finest in their so called formal education proves how inefficient an idea it is to try to quantify intelligence through degrees. It doesn't take one much to observe that there is little to no actual emphasis on genuine learning and critical thinking in the larger scale. Most people who supposedly have "amazing grades" get through by mugging up texts in most places today.
In a world which holds the opinion of the majority to the highest regard, it's not surprising to see that the education system is designed to make the majority of mediocre intellect succeed.
It's not quite about finding the truth always..
Though I'm not denying the truth in statements of an argument, It need not always be to verify how true a statement is.
Often debates have a common objective, but different ways to achieve it. Such debates depend on which approach is better.
Personally, I just love the reward from using reasoning to debate..
No, but it would be cool if we came up with one. I don’t think Batman could function as Batman under some ideologies, such as those which necessitate oppressive regimes. Which means he arguably could stand for ideologies in which he can function, such as Gotham’s system if people were more individually moral.
I'm not sure if I get what you mean by "under some ideologies which necessitate oppressive regimes".. do you mean batman representing the ideologies or the ideologies imposed on the general public?
In the first case, certainly, he wouldn't be batman under either a far left or far right perspective..
an interesting point to note is: when we move too far right or too far left, we see a decline in moral values in objectives..
and if he actually represented an ideology, albeit custom made, it would certainly have as its feature, a sound sense of morality.. this brings me to another question.. would we have batman if not for a lack in sense of morality among the public?