Its against the rules to make debates wich are not in the form of a question, as it is against the rules to personnally attack people. Do you want to know why? Its is to avoid utterly stupid and pointless debates such as this one.
"Andy doesn't know the difference between science and religion"
As debators what do you expect us to do when we see the title of such a "debate"? There is no debate to be had, you are just throwing out your opinions without backing them upp without any kind of evidence. A user of this website once compared people who do such things as "monkeys who throw shit at each other" , the image is stricking and fits perfectly
Here is a usefull link on how to debate, please read it:
Dunno what debate youre talking about, but maybe its because you were not following the rules he specified? This debate doesnt follow the rules either btw:
-1. All debates must be written in the form of a question. If you do not, I will take the liberty to change those which I see are statements into questions.
-3. No attacks on members. You may post debates and arguments that attack public figures, but you may not post a debate or argument attacking another member. Do it once and you will be warned. Do it twice and you will be banned.
Go read the rules and have a nice day
I'm not sure its the republican party as a whole who is against abortion but rather the christian part of it. But nonetheless I think you are right some christians are real hipocrytes (spelling?) on the question of abortion; publicly they are against it but when no one is looking they dishonor their faith
The problem with that reasoning is that the fetus didnt just pop out of nowhere like some kind of virus, it was due to consensual hanky panky stuff (rape cases etc put aside of course) If you cant assume the consequences of an action, just dont do it!
And even after birth the baby is reliable on its mother for sustenance
A) I have two younger sisters Charlotte and NoƩmie, dunno if that was what you meant ^^
B) I taught basic english and latin to kids, and advanced french to adults
C) I gave blood a year and a half ago, and apparently my blood has an unusual quantity of platelets so every 3 or 4 months they call me to give blood and offer me a meal
G) In highschool I made a story telling group, I couldnt read books to them because since it was a catholic school I would have had every book to be approved by the school and it would have taken an eternity to get the group going
I) I am on the administration council, most of my job consists of stopping the pseudo communist group
You wont be tortured and put to death because you knocked something off a shelf at your local supermarket ;)
Torture is sometimes necessary, all countries practice it but few admit to it. What would you do if you caught a terrorist who planted a bomb somewhere and refused to reveal the location?
You would have the choice between torturing a murderer, or letting innocents die. For me the choice is already done
I'm not sure refusing the execution be carried out on a plazza in the middle of town is hiding it. It can be done inside a prison and everyone who wants to can come and watch, there should also be an announce on tv that X is being executed for X crime
Just read about this course on wikipedia
Why not use it? Many bad people have invented good things; its not as if this course taught you how to be a child molester. From what I understood the course was about discipline and being yourselfn where is the wrong in that?
I can understand why americans dont like russians, but dont try to push your hatred of them on the rest of the world
"But the russians will cause a nuclear apocalypse!!" Please, you americans are the only nation in the world that have used nuclear weapons
So fuck you
Yeah sorry I couldnt give a very profound answer last time, I had tests and stuff to do
Democracy clearly isnt working out in my country, after the monarchy fell we have been through a succession of regimes that just dont work out. A clear proof of this is that todays republic is the 5th (and there are talks about making a 6th one)
Having a hereditary ruler would give us a continuity in our political agenda, because currently each time a leftist president does something, the next rightist president cancels it, and vice versa.
France isnt like the US where people vote for one party and stick to it for years, they vote for one side and then the other, which is bringing us nowhere
There is also another problem: since nothing is happening in french politics people became completly uninterested in them, in the last presidential elections 43 million people could vote and 35% or 40% didnt, this has been happening for years and is getting worse, each president is getting more illegitimous than the last
The people have no idea who to vote for, they just follow the media blindly, the candidate who was going to win last years elections was destroyed by the media for a minor fraud, while he was an accomplished man with experience.
Our actual president is a kid who won the elections without even presenting a program!!!!! At the time if you asked people who they were going to vote for they would reply Macron, and if you asked them why they said it was because he was young and dynamic
I could talk about this subject for hours, but here is my conclusion: the french people are too fkn dumb to vote
Hard to answer this question without writing a whole book (in France the roman empire is one of the most important things we study), but the answer can be summed upp to:
-During the monarchy: a bit early to tell
-During the republic: socially left wing, economically right wing
-During the empire: three periods: 1) capitalist 2) "soft" socialism 3) hardcore communist dystopia
I come from a only boys school, and from what I can see here are the main benefits:
-boys work a lot better if there are no girls around, easier to concentrate without being in a relationship
-since we dont know many girls we have a tendency to be a lot more polite and caring (witch the ladies seem to like)
After not being around girls until university, there are tipically two kind of guys:
-the guys that will date pretty much any girl and have 3 girlfriends a year
-the guys that are like: "I have waited until now, why not wait for the right one?"
Hi I'm catholic and I dont know much about protestants but it doesnt seem to make sense: why would God give us the right to only exist in hell?
There is no predestination, we are all born equal in front of God and our actions and toughts determine if we go to hell or heaven
After my own observation I can say there is a wage gap: not because women are payed less because they are women but because they work jobs they like even if they dont pay much (women do mostly "social" work: history, litterature, languages etc) while often men dont consider if they like the job or not, they just look at the salary
I have said it before and I will say it again:
We abosolutely need more lucid politicians like Jolie running the world, things would be so much better, she is like a super AI: capable of learning from everything, just look at the brilliant idea that has just sparked in her while watching the Matrix
I wonder what wondrous ideas might spawn in her mind while watching Disney movies
unwed parenthood and divorce are much greater threats to society than gay marriage and adoption
I believe that they are the root of the problem, homosexuality, transexualism etc are just one of the many consequences of it.
I dont know if you were implying this but just because there are worse things is not a reason to allow such things
I had no idea the situation was that bad in the US, in France it is about 17,5% wich is not as bad, but still, damn
Well depends, I think the guy should always propose, the answer depends on the girl, and you can have a good idea of the kind of girl she is when its time to pay
For the first few dates I think they should split the fee, only if it gets serious the girl should accept that the guy pays for her
First of all thank you for your elaborate response
I'm french wich changes several things fro what you may think:
- while it is lagally possible for gay "married" people to adopt, it is near impossible for them because french psychologist consider it detrimental for the psychological well being off the child (link later on)
- surrogacy pregnancies are illegal for several reasons: the french constitutionnal court deemed it illegal because it is essentially give away a child for money (you can sugar coat it the way you want but essentially it boils down to that), and it raises additionnal bioethic problems
Gay marriage leads to surrogacy, the court of human rights is condemning us every few months trying to force us to change our legislation so it will probably be legal in a few years :(
I will continue to respond to this later on, but now I have a trin to take
Have a nice day!
Gay marriage doesn't pose any more of a danger than heterosexual marriage,
It actually does, because marriage gives them (or will give them) the right to adopt, and you need a man and a women to correctly raise a child
It is also bringing upp other issues such as (dunno the english term for it, but its when you pay a woman to carry your child), the french constitutionnal court outlawed it because it is essentially buying a human being, and it brings other problems such as "baby factories", making medecine out of unborn babies etc