Hah, xkcd.

Actually, we were just talking about this in Calculus the other day, the teacher thought it had something to do with the lesson... Forgot what that was... I'm pretty sure it was dubbed "The Creepiness Quotient".

But in reality, it's a pretty realistic formula.

1. In bed, at home, it was really early in the morning here.

2. Sleeping.

3. 8, 3rd grade.

4. Confused.

5. The feeling and awkwardness of the conversation at school that day with the teacher.

I had that question, once, too, but once I checked in the (rather outdated) FAQ, I had the answer:

What are reward points?

Rewards points are a fun way to keep track of how well your debates and arguments are doing on CreateDebate, as well as how much you're participating. The more you participate with quality arguments, the more points you receive. So go on and get debating!

What are reward points good for?

We're still thinking about redeeming points for free stuff or special privileges on the site. In the future, when you vote for an argument, your level of points will influence how much those votes are for. If you have any suggestions, let us know!

So, I guess they're useless at this point, except as a status symbol or something.

Yay for the 4-digit club!

Just because two major countries have names referring to their subdivisions doesn't mean all countries, or countries like/near them, have to do the same.

In fact, most countries have major subdivisions, Mexico has states, Ireland has counties, Australia has states and territories, but there's nothing saying that they have to be called by what makes them up.

There are perfectly good reasons why the USA and the UK are called their respective names, "America" alone is technically a very large region with many countries, so the United States of America places the United States within America. The UK is called what it is called because Britain is an island, England is a part of that island, and the entire country encompasses more than just England or Britain alone.

This is a website promoting a movie.

"© 2009 Sony Pictures Digital, Inc.", "Explore the 2012 Movie Experience", and the giant disclaimer, all at the bottom of the page, gave it away for me.

I always look for that kind of stuff, the legal things always ruin good fake websites. :)

I see.

Not a bad plan, but, even if the price is low, people really won't want to pay. However, the rest of the site will still be free, so I can see the upside to this.

I agree it would be nice to have experts. It's not a bad idea, it would just be a big change. Not that I would be opposed to change.

I don't really think that's the feeling the site is supposed to be. Granted, I could be wrong, I don't know what the creators were thinking, but this is what I think.

If that were to happen, which I think we both know is pretty unlikely because of the costs involved with finding and paying experts in areas so diverse as those debated here, then I think it would drive away input from the average user, besides creating debates just to have experts answer and see what the "right" answer is, even if there may not be a right or wrong answer.

It would change the site from one where people can discuss opinions and dig up facts when needed, even if that is happening less and less often these days, to an educational site where people come to read what experts have to say on a subject or ask them a question.

Even less appealing is a debate where someone posts information and then the expert comes in and corrects arguments and tells people they're wrong or their information is wrong, and this is the way it really is.

Now that I've said that, I would also like to say I agree with you on parts of this argument, mainly the two types of debates, and that drawing experts into this site wouldn't be a bad idea at all. It's just that making people pay must be tough. Free things are way more popular than things you have to pay for, but there may be other ways to pay for it.

I'm tired and this argument might ramble on... But I hope you get the idea. It's a mixed response.

I was taught that the island which Wales, England, and Scotland are on is Great Britain (Britain), while the entire country is now called the United Kingdom, which is Britain + Northern Ireland.

So I guess someone from N. Ireland wouldn't be British, but Northern Irish, or some demonym for UK.

America technically includes all of the Americas, which consists of the continents of North America and South America. The United States of America isn't saying that the USA is "America" alone, but is the United States of America, so I guess there could eventually be a United States of Europe or United States of Africa, but by now it would seem a bit unoriginal.

It is confusing that the country is called United States, yet the people are American.

Maybe we could work on that... But really, I doubt it'll change.

I agree. Words alone can't always do me justice.

At least that's what I like to believe...

That's why being the oldest child has its benefits. Sure, you have to do more work and things get blamed on you, but you're always the one dishing out the pain, not being spit on and other things that make childhood a nightmare.

That's how I thought it mostly was, except for some cases, you know, but then came all of the websites where wealthy men can somehow instantly become attractive to women, and TV shows where a woman sits back and lets rich men fight over her, knowing that it really doesn't matter who wins, she's with a rich guy anyway.

It's messed up, to me, that is. I guess I'm really not one to say money can't make someone attractive, in a non-physical way.

Wow, this is a tough choice.

After thinking about it, though, I find that I would rather be forgotten than hated. I couldn't handle being hated by a majority. I think I would waste all my time trying to keep people from hating me.

Also, I thought that even if I was to be forgotten, as many people are, it is possible that the things I do and/or the things I create or inspire can live on into the future in my place.

I can't stand it when people don't like me.

Exactly my thinking when asked this question.

Sometimes I think people just want to sound self-righteous when they take the other side on this one.

Oh! And a button that shows all replies in a debate or on a side of a debate, because going through and expanding them all can get annoying.

I agree on the votes in your debate notification, that is annoying. I don't know if this is or isn't already available, but now that there are CreateDebate communities, I'd like to be notified if one of my debates is added to a community.

Yes! That has happened to me a lot recently. I hate it, it gets my hopes up. :(

Yep, I'm getting all of these. That's good, I guess, but too bad I can't provide some evidence of the notifier problems.

Also, I love how this "debate" got so popular!

Here's my argument, do some stuff to it that would normally be notified to me.

Hobbes. A classic. I've been wanting to read some Calvin & Hobbes for a while now, ever since I read an article that had a reference to Calvinball and a hilarious XKCD reference to the sledding and wagon scenes.

Anyway, yeah, Hobbes is awesome. He's always overshadowed by Calvin, but secretly, I always liked Hobbes more. ;)

I've liked the idea of painting roofs white for a while now, but people just don't take it seriously. It probably wouldn't look great, but still, if the effects are big enough it's worth it.

The King of Queens, and maybe Seinfeld.

King of Queens is a bit late '90's, but it's awesome. Kevin James is hilarious!

And Seinfeld... What can I say about Seinfeld that hasn't already been said?

Good point, that's a side of the argument I overlooked in my post.

It was his job, that's how he made all his money, so why not?

Now that he's died, and everyone knows who he is, which came along with all the other benefits to one's name after he or she died, the products will probably sell much better than they ever would have while he was alive.

It depends on which type of pollution you are talking about.

I'll post on this side and assume you are talking about CO2 emissions, which are more popular these days.

Diesel fuel has a higher energy content and therefore can propel a vehicle farther on the same amount of fuel. In fact, diesel fuel can provide 20% - 30% more miles per gallon than a similar gasoline engine. (Source) (Source) Not to mention diesel engines are easier to maintain and last longer.

Now, the other side to pollution is smog and particulates, and this is where diesel is more polluting than gasoline. Diesel engines exhaust more particulate matter, which can create smog and be harmful to the human respiratory system. (Source)

So there are the facts, and there are pros and cons to each type of fuel. The better fuel simply depends on which type of pollution you want to discuss.

That's kinda what the admins do as of now, except they're busy and need help, i.e. the "Report" button.

Should there be one or a team of people doing this full time? I'm not sure, it depends on how it would be set up.

Would I like to have this power? Of course, who wouldn't. ;)

This gets to me, too. Sometimes, people do it so often that I wonder if I'm the one doing it wrong, but that feeling goes away pretty quickly.

I actually took a quiz online before about "there, they're, their" and it said I got 50%! I looked up the ones I got wrong, and the quiz creators were even wrong about it.

Then you'd better slip in a wish for invulnerability from STD's, too. ;)

Good thing he didn't ask me then, right? ;)

Seriously, if I can wish for anything, for all the world to just go away, to be mega-rich and super famous, to make people live forever or die instantly, then why in hell couldn't I wish for unlimited wishes?!? Stupid rule.

Ah, Carls Jr. I love that place, but it's so far to the nearest one I never go. :(

I really dislike insects of all kinds, but there are two that I can't stand.

1) Spiders. Any size, any type, I hate them all. Sure they help get rid of other bugs, but keep them away from me.

2) Mosquitoes. They aren't as gross to me, just so damn annoying. Where I live, you can't get away from them. Ever. I'd be fine with any way of exterminating every single one, I really could care less about the consequences. There are other bugs to fill in the food chain. Just get rid of them.

Come on guys, really, nobody has said this yet? Unlimited wishes. It's the only option for me, I've got a lot of work to do. But the actual three wishes that I'd list here would be:

1. The ability to slow/speed up time, but I'm still acting in 100% time speed, you know what I mean?

2. Immortality. I know people say "I wouldn't want to live forever, I'd have to watch all my friends and family die and blah blah blah..." Friends and family die anyway, so why not just take literally all the time in the world and see everything the world has to offer? It'd also be really cool if I could selectively choose people who could live forever with me, but I wouldn't want people to know about this power. Imagine the crowd that would form around my house... And the increased overpopulation of the Earth. That would get annoying fast.

3. The power to help people. Whether that would be health, money, moral issues, or whatever, if I could be that person who could just fix problems for people, that would be amazing. Again, I'd have to keep this pretty secret so I can help the people who actually need it, not just everyone annoying me constantly for every little problem they have.

So there are my three, plus an infinite number of others.

Thank god I'm not the only person who dislikes people. Maybe I should take a look at the book, I've heard it's good.

I'm sure it would help the prices go down, and I know what you mean when you talk of the government paying through the nose for everything. It bothers me, too. >:(

As for your last paragraph, that's ridiculous! Obviously the school system in Florida (And I'm sure it's safe to say in most of the country, if not all) is very broken. I' thinking they should do away with the whole system and build another one from ground up.

As for longer school years, I support it. There are masy ways to lengthen the school year that I can imagine, four days on, three days off for the whole year, longer days and preserve summer break, etc. That way, we could learn so much more in a year and go so much deeper into our subjects.

Anyway, good luck with your system. :)

"I have seen too much money wasted in public schools (and private ones as well) to believe that money spent is a good indicator of quality."

Of course money doesn't ensure quality, but it sure helps. At the very least, it can provide schools up-to-date and accurate textbooks and the materials and access to resources that can improve the education system.

"Ever since I got out of college I have wanted to establish a non-profit K-12 school that would have a 45-week school year and a reformed curriculum that would let students graduate with the equivalent of an associate’s degree. But I seriously doubt that there would be a market for such a school because most parents do not care."

I don't think this is true, if the price was reasonable and the difference was made obvious, I think there would be a large market for this kind of school.

I cannot agree more. There is absolutely no reason that in one side of the country students learn one curriculum, and on the other side another, let alone different standards and curriculum for students across town from one another.

A national school system would help ensure that each student is given the same opportunity and that poorer schools can be given money needed to educate the students to the same level as schools in rich areas.

All schools should educate students to the same levels and there should be no way for a student to do less work, try less, and take easier classes while still receiving a diploma that carries as much weight as a hard-working, intelligent student.

Imagine the culture shock at that dinner party! Just explaining everything to Washington and Adams would take all night! ;)

First of all, it's funny to me how you ask him for proof as you list off statements with no sources, not only in this argument, but in a huge chunk of text to the left over there <--.

For a bunch of conservatives just trying to maintain the status quo, there really were some radical changes in government. Without a doubt, the type of government that was set up by the founding fathers of the United States was not only very different from that of Britain at the time, but it is also much more flexible and much weaker with respect to the figurehead. Sure, the President is a powerful person, but nowhere near as powerful as a King.

Well, the sun went behind the mountains a bit after 10pm, but it really didn't get dark enough for fireworks until well after midnight, and we had to let the little kids get their firecrackers and things out of the way first, you know how it is... :)

It was pretty funny, most of the people we celebrated the 4th of July with weren't even American citizens, but they're still pretty grateful of the jobs they can get here and the system in Alaska, especially being able to earn $42/hour and only working half the year. It was eye opening for me, hearing some native Spanish speakers talking to each other. I can only understand small fragments of what they say.

I was pretty tired for the hour and a half ride home, but it was a great day.

(Ugh!!! I wasn't alerted to this!)

We went to the parade downtown first off, which was actually pretty good for here. After that, we hung out at home for a few hours and then headed up to a friend's cabin at Eklutna for a Mexican fiesta and some fireworks, fireworks that didn't start until 1:00 in the morning, but they were pretty cool for a private fireworks show. Fun day!

Ha, it's funny to hear that argument, because for me it's the exact opposite. I can't do anything when it's too hot outside, and I can do pretty well in a t-shirt and jeans in 10 degree weather.

But countries are split up already, usually into areas that are divided by the types of people that live there. I see what you mean, but representing a country isn't the same thing as representing every single human.

Yeah, I dodged the question, but only because that was the only answer anyone could seriously consider.

I would write more, I might in a while, but I'm pressed for time.

But the worst thing is how I wasn't notified of this response!

I don't think WWII is arguable at all, Japan not only attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor and launched an assault on Alaska. You can't say that they didn't want to take at least a part of the United States.

As for interventionalism, I think I agree with you. I'm not for it. I'd like to see what happens if the United States would just worry about itself and not get involved in every little thing that happens. Although it may turn into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, but who knows, I'd like to see.

I don't think that first statement is true, really. Usually, when two people on this site disagree, they go back and forth with disagreeing with each other for a few replies, but if you watch the argument, somewhere hidden in the replies there will almost always be a supporting/favoring argument where the two see the point of each other's statements and realize the other person does have a point.

This doesn't always happen, but I think it shows that most people are reasonable and can understand what others have to say. So yes, this site is a good way to get a point across.

We couldn't send one person, we would need to send a group of people. I can't possibly think of one person that would represent everything of the Human race, let alone the whole of Earth.

If we took a person from each continent, at the very least, then we could send some kind of idea of what Humans look like.

If you want to split hairs, and I do, then you can't say that money buys happiness, although you can buy some very awesome things with money. These are the things that cause happiness. Without money, you can still have happiness, it's just much easier to do it with the money to buy things.

Another question would be, why is he wearing a dress? Aren't there plenty of very patriotic suits for men? Is it patriotic to wear a dress? Why didn't anyone tell me?

I would say yes, but join the military first. You could get some great experience that would make you stand out much more than the average applicant for a police officer position, and you could have more time to think out the decision. Military service would help with almost every job, I would suppose, so I think it's a good starting point no matter what.

That's ridiculous. I could understand someone not liking a short name, I only go by Andrew, never Andy, but I would never send two emails telling someone not to call me by another name, let alone 19.

If someone takes themselves that seriously, though, ever, I would just have to poke the bear and call her "Liz" just to prove a point.

I'd love to take a trip to Europe. Me and my friends are starting to plan a senior trip to Europe to make the loop, hopefully visiting Ireland, the UK, Germany, and more. That would be amazing.

Next summer, though, I'm planning to visit Ecuador and the Galápagos Islands with my Spanish class. That's going to be an adventure!

It doesn't look to me as though people dislike the changes. For the most part, I've read that we all like it. I haven't used the "My Profile" page enough, really, to know whether this version is more useful or not, but it does appeal to me for some reason.

I like it. Things need to be changed once in a while to keep things fresh.

The one thing I don't like as much is the smaller ally list on the left, I would rather see the allies/enemies/hostile list larger, but I'll get used to it.

P.S., I like the other parts of the update, too! I really like the mouse-over highlighted links much more than the mouse-over underlined links. Keep it up, I've learned a lot about web design from the development of this site. And I just noticed that you changed the responses to "Support" and "Dispute." Cool.

There's snow where me and Tugman live from mid- to late-October until May. The snow's not that bad where we live, we get about eight feet every winter, but it gets very bad in other parts of the state with less-moderate climates.

I'd say come up to Alaska. I like it. : )

You have no idea. Once you get away from the places everyone goes to, it's amazing.

Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. It's awesome here. I love it, and I don't know if there's anywhere else I could live the way I do here.

What would you say to a technology community?

I created one a few days ago, I'd like some people to get involved in it. I don't want it to be too jargon-filled, but some people with a solid knowledge would help.

And I think that the practice is actually pretty annoying. It's really not that hard to come up with at least 50 characters to fill in the argument. See?

That's something that my brother does all the time, put the emphasis on the wrong syllable or word. I don't know if there's a specific rule for emphasizing words/syllables, I'm pretty sure there is, but it should be made known or created if there isn't one. I find it very annoying, one of the most annoying things I've encountered.

"You can't spend your way out of a recession. And WWII ended the GD."

You're contradicting yourself here. WWII itself did not bring the US out of the depression, it was the massive spending and sheer number of jobs created because of our involvement in WWII that brought us out of the depression.

I think that's what iamdavidh was talking about.

Looking throughout history, both recent and farther back, we can see that the leaders that gained the most power did so through the use of pride, anger, and fear.

Exhibit A: Adolf Hitler's tactics that brought him to power prior to World War II. Not only did he scare the German people into believing that other races and their impurities would lead to the worsening of the world and that these peoples must be exterminated, falling into the "fear" category, but he also pushed the idea that the people he was pandering to were the ideal race, which falls into the "pride" category.

Anger and fear can drive a single person to do things that they would never normally do, but when this is mixed with the anonymity and intensity of the mob mentality, a group of people can act and think in extreme ways. When a seemingly worthy leader emerges from the crowd, people grab on to their ideals, no matter how ridiculous these ideas seem from a historical perspective. Again, one can look to the example of Adolf Hitler's Germany.

This is why we need people to always be looking at the bigger picture. Hopefully, the people doing this would be the people in charge, but this is not always the case. Ideally, everyone would be able to look at the bigger picture and make decisions accordingly, but since this is probably not going to happen, we can only hope that we, as a group, will react with caution to the next event that causes anger or fear or when we get too proud of ourselves.

I don't see anything wrong at all with snakes. I can hold them, watch them, and I'm pretty comfortable around them. Larger ones make me nervous because they are so strong, but spiders are just bad. I can't be in the same room as a spider, and I've heard spider stories that want to make me lock myself in a spiderless room forever. Where I live, spiders don't really get much bigger than about an inch across, and I'm thankful for that, but the inch-wide ones here are freaking scary looking.

Every time I see a little black speck on the wall I must make sure that it's not a spider. I've tried many, many times to work up the courage to kill one, but I can't even do that. I have to get someone else in the house to do it or just leaver the room/house for a little while, until someone gets back to kill it.

I couldn't imagine living where there are tarantulas or in Australia where a friend told me he saw a spider as big as a plate (and I don't care which type of plate, that's big already) and it was clear, and his mom touched it... Ugh...

It makes me shake a little.

A boat wreck usually doesn't involve any massive amount of falling. Plane wrecks can happen over all of Earth, which means there's a pretty good chance that the flaming, disintegrating plane wreck will only turn into a boat wreck situation once it hits the water nearing a thousand miles an hour. If not, then you hit the ground. You lose either way.

Usually, not all the time, but usually, boat wrecks are slower and more manageable situations, and a greater people come out of boat wrecks alive that those that escape from aircraft wrecks.

My internet connection... Well, not my internet connection, I don't think, but a neighbor's internet connection is terrible. I used to be able to get online fine, but now I got this new desk and my laptop is in a slightly different part of the room, and now I can only get on the internet for minutes at a time, and with a terrible, slow connection at that. I can't download anything, and without notice I'll lose connection, right in the middle of something. I wouldn't be surprised if I lost connection in the middle of this. I guess I'll just need to fix my router, but I think I'll need to buy a new one. Whatever I do, I need internet to survive.

Oh, it's definitely much less expensive over time. That's why I think it's such a great idea.

I didn't know about the injector, but I'd like to learn more about it. I wonder if the principle is to split the water into H and O and then inject it into the chamber and ignite it, just like gasoline today, and then collect the water as exhaust. That must be it, I can't think of any other way. But yeah, it's all really, really cool stuff and in just a few years, with the right innovation, it could be affordable and easy for everyone.

That's fine, when found in or after a sentence with other characters, but alone, it's usually a bad thing.

Examples:

"Ugh. He's an ass."

"..."

This means something like, "Why don't you like him? He's not that bad."

"I am so freaking stupid."

"..."

This example's meaning is more like, "Please explain, self-loathing guy. I don't want a suicidal friend here."

"Don't you just love that song?"

"Meh."

"..."

This example is kind of like the first, except more of something like, "What do you mean 'meh?' This song is awesome!"

And, of course, there are always more examples. But, they all mean something bad. I use the "..." in IM all the time, although it's terrible to get one when you think you've explained yourself.

Yes, water is inexpensive. But the initial cost of the engine is more expensive than current engines.

I don't think huge changes should be made that drastically change the feel or usage of the too much, but some change would be okay, and some things in particular would be cool.

Instant Messaging - This would be a better way to talk with people who are online, but I'm not sure that this would need to be limited to "allies" like how Facebook's chat system is limited to "friends," although that may be a good idea. Sending messages between two online people as of now is a little bit clumsy and slow.

Private Messages - If it's that private, email would work best, but I guess there could be an option to make a message private or something. I just think that would cause getting more mad at each other, maybe.

Online List - Yes, this would be cool. I've always wanted something like this. Although it really wouldn't be that useful until some kind of real-time instant messaging system is available or something else that requires the other party being online.

First off, let me say that there is no middle ground here, so I will just post on this side to make some people mad. I know this side is the one Tugman wants to see winning anyway. ;)

I really neither love nor hate Michael Moore, mostly because I think every point of view needs an opposing view from the other end of the spectrum to exist.

He's doing his thing, creating controversy, and there are the people that love him as well as the people that hate him, and I kind of like to sit back and watch the two duke it out.

If I could say one positive thing about Moore, it would be that he brings many topics to the limelight and allows them to be debated by the public.

On a personal level, I don't think too highly of him. I find him kind of... Crude, for the lack of a better word.

Right. Often, the way I (And others) speak is different and makes more sense to hear than to read, and I find myself going over my arguments to take some of this confusion out.

Still, once you notice it the first time, there is a huge discrepancy between how we all speak and how we write things out. It's interesting, actually.

I have been having that problem. A lot of weird things have been happening with my notifications, like I was invited to a challenge debate that didn't work out last month, and there is nothing there once I click on a link, and there is no option for me to dismiss the alert. Oh well.

Many of the responses to my arguments go unnoticed by the system. I wonder why that is? I can't help but feel that there are a bunch of responses and questions to my arguments that I have no idea of, and a bunch of people waiting for another response.

So, if you responded to one of my arguments and I never got back to you, sorry, because I almost always respond and I probably never got the message. ;)

I'd like to see the US just focus on itself for a little bit. The world does not want our help, and I mean that sincerely. It may be that they find us not being there a terrible thing, and they might want us to come back and help out later, but it is also a possibility that other countries needing to fend for themselves will strengthen them and also strengthen any changes or victories accomplished, because the countries have done it themselves, not with the aid of the global superpower world police.

This could give the United States a chance to fix its own problems and spend tax dollars on the people that paid them. Let the world deal with its own problems or let someone else be hated for stepping in.

The guy driving the fire truck, not the guy that has to run into the burning building, just drive the truck,

Pilot,

Trucker,

Ice Cream Quality Control Specialist,

Train Conductor,

Whatever it is that Richard Branson does nowadays, that looks like a fun job. ;)

This is a good question, and I think the principles of this can easily be extended to other substances.

There is always going to be a black market where illegal or prescription drugs are sold, but by making steroids illegal, the government has removed the safe, controlled way of obtaining steroids and leaving only the black market.

It may be too late to go back to the ways that steroids were used or sold back during the time period the quote was referring to, because now that there is an obviously established black market where anyone can buy steroids, having to go through the trouble to get a smaller, probably more expensive, doctor-prescribed dose of steroids won't be worth the time of whoever wants the drugs.

It's not so much as that steroids should return to being legal, because it may never be as controlled as it once was. The problem may have been avoided altogether by the government not removing the better option for getting steroids.

Steroids are bad for your health (just like cigarettes, other tobacco, and alcohol), and the correct way for someone to make the decision whether or not to use steroids is to be fully informed about the long-lasting effects and dangers before use.

The argument can be made that militias are, in some cases, harder to fight than conventional armies. When the enemy is comprised of un-uniformed individuals who operate out of homes and flow from the crowds of innocent bystanders, instead of a unified, uniformed army operating out of defined bases with attack plans and everything else that comes with the organization of a national army, I would say that the militia would be a tougher enemy for a country not involved in total war or a country concerned over its civilian casualties.

History has shown time and time again that organized armies have a very hard time beating militias and stateless factions, just remember Russia in Afghanistan, the United States in Vietnam, the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even think back to Great Britain in the American colonies. These are/were the world's most powerful militaries.

I agree. A good debate, though, is hard to find and hard to make. I most enjoy debates that require thought to participate in, and debates that are not obviously one-sided. I like debates which ask questions ambiguous enough not to direct the answers to one side or the other, yet pointed enough to cut down on waste arguments that ask questions about the debate or are debating an unwanted topic.

Many of the important issues of the world have been debated before, and one can only revive a debate so many times before it becomes useless. Debates are created at the speed of the news, and when debatable world news slows down, the debate quality and overall intelligence of the debates decrease, and we find debates that more or less ask for approval or disapproval of the CreateDebate community rather than a debate over an issue.

I understand it's annoying to go through when there is little to debate about, or little that some people are willing to debate about, but I'm sure something interesting will come up, or someone will think of something to debate. It's only a matter of time, and I would look towards Lawnman for the next big question.

Water-powered cars are already possible, through the fuel cell process whose technology is already available, albeit at a very high price.

As with any technology (i.e. computers, cell phones, automobiles in general), the price is high now, but just wait, and the technology will be more widespread in the future. It just takes time.

You know what? I would actually love that.

It would make me so much more important. ;)

The KKK is a racist organization, and racism is idiocy.

People need to be judged on what they do, not what the tone of their skin is. It's amazing that people can still judge by skin color, and it's shameful that people could have judged people based on skin color in the past. It's embarrassing.

I feel that it may be a bad idea to post an argument on this debate, but here goes.

I think it is the other way around. The Quraan didn't appear out of thin air, it was written by someone. This person/group of people who wrote the Quraan had knowledge of the ways of the world, and therefore expressed these facts through the writings. The fact that the Quraan came from the Middle East, a very educationally advanced society, doesn't help the opposing argument. It is very possible that scientists of the day had a hand in developing the Quraan and expressed their findings and knowledge in it.

I am not familiar with the Quraan and therefore I don't know what it says about issues of science, but that's my guess.

Remember how we were talking about the CreateDebate awards last week?

Here's my nomination for most down-to-earth, eye opening argument.

That was awesome.

"So then out of curiosity how do you feel about legacy in college admissions?"

Well, I was unfamiliar with the term, but I did some research and I think I know what you are talking about. That's not okay, either. Reading about it made it seem instantly shady and under-the-table. Colleges really should focus on recruiting the absolute most intelligent students, and secondarily, the best athletes they can. Although the idea of old family money being donated really influences their decisions, they could probably make even more money if they give a chance to a regular person and he/she becomes rich whereas he or she wouldn't have the opportunity to otherwise, they would receive donations from someone who couldn't have made them without this higher education. I don't know if that made sense, but it seems like colleges that practice legacy decisions are very near-sighted and aren't best for the college.

"Okay so we are in agreement that affirmative action based up race was necessary, so we are in agreement in that."

Yep. Reconstruction needed to be done, that's obvious.

"Personally I think the best way to move forward is to have affirmative action based on socioeconomic status, but having it based on race is better than having no affirmative action at all can we agree on that?"

Well, yeah, we are. If the government is going to do anything at all to help people, why doesn't it look at each situation independently without adding factors like race? Helping the people that are worse off, without so much as asking "race" or "ethnicity" would make the country a better place than with the race-based decisions made today.

Okay, I can understand the reasoning for the tag, so I took away my downvote.

That was fun.

No matter how one looks at the issue, it is still governing by race alone. In no way is it actually holding up to the merits of the individual, as there are plenty of white people in lower socioeconomic levels that have little chance of moving upward. Their kids cannot go to college.

I can understand a social reconstruction system following the destruction of the people during slavery, but there must be an endpoint.

There is nothing inherently wrong with people in minorities that determines them to be immediately placed within the lower levels of society, and I wholeheartedly believe this and that people should most definitely not be judged, at all, on the color of their skin, their name, or where in the world their family comes from. So why am I being called a bigot here? There's no need for this.

There must be a better way to remove people of all races, colors, and religions from the depths of this country, but you must remember that no matter how great the world gets, someone will always be at the bottom of the line, and hopefully the people down there will not be determined due to race!

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)

n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

A dictionary.com definition of the word.

Although this is not "negative racism," this is a form of judgment based on one's race, and this type of system should not be allowed to continue if we ever want to distance ourselves from a society where one's race carries so much weight in society.

Touching on the subject of Black/White Slavery and un-PCness, I would like to bring up the subject of affirmative action.

It was stated in the Black/White Slavery debate that America's history not only contains a history of black slavery, but white slavery as well, and slavery of all peoples exists today. Since this is the case, why are certain races and demographics given an advantage over others? I tend to focus on individuality more than the overall aspects of one's race, so I don't see why one person who is just as good of a person or less so given the benefit over myself. I was never a slave owner, they were never a slave, I never did anything negative towards them, and they have never been harmed by my actions. Is it just that I am unlucky enough to be born in the majority race who decides that we all need to feel bad for the others because of what some of our ancestors did to them?

History sucks. We all know that. Many, many, many bad and even atrocious things happened over the years, and just because some bad things happened in recent history and people are still thinking about them, some lucky people are given benefits and others are not.

I feel strongly about this. As a resident of Alaska, I experience the effects first-hand of a large portion of the state's land being outright given to Native Alaskan groups from different regions throughout the state. I plan on learning more about this in the near future so I can use more numbers and facts, but the point of the argument is that I, too, was born in this state, and just because my family hasn't been here as long as theirs, they get free land and I don't? Everyone's from somewhere, and almost nobody (if anyone else at all, anywhere in the world) gets these privileges.

I challenge anyone on this site to logically defend what is going on all over this country. It's not right.

Lobbyists are simply paid to sway politicians towards the agendas of their employers. There are very few things that someone will not do when promised money.

They are just like employees at any other job. While a friend giving you information on a new car may be trustworthy, you know that the salesman at the dealership is going to do everything in his or her power to get you to buy the car, even if some of it is unethical or beyond the scope of their power altogether.

Whether or not they are good people, regular people, or any other type of people, lobbyists cannot be trusted because they will do almost anything to "sell" their employer's views to the lawmakers, just like the salesman will do everything to sell you the car.

Who do you mean has the right to do so? The alumni, or the school?

If you speak of the alumni, then no. Of course not. What have they done? They graduated from the school, they do not run the school. Although they may donate money to Notre Dame, they are not in charge, and them trying to sway the actions of the school simply because they have donated money to it, and I know this happens all the time, is bad. They have little say in the matter. They do not attend the school anymore.

However;

If you meant to ask if the administration of Notre Dame has the right to revoke the invitation, then of course they do. Obviously, someone, in some department, at some time thought that the invitation was a good idea, and people had to agree with him and allow the invitation to make it all the way to the President. This does not mean that the administration must follow through with the invitation, and if they wish to listen to their alumni, students, and supporters, who do contribute a lot of money and can make a very big difference on the future of the institution, it would be a good idea to revoke the invitation. But, it being the President, they probably won't because it would be a major PR problem and a very large number of people would look down upon Notre Dame.

Either way, it comes down to the opinion of the administration.

We don't need the admins. It might work just as well if we do this ourselves.

We just need to be organized. Maybe have a real popularity contest for each category, and someone could nominate someone else, and whoever gets the most votes wins. There might be some kinks to work out, so let's think. Together. :)

Of course, if the admins do take interest, we could always use their help. ;)

Ay... Sí, yo sé. Un de mis amigos mejores… No, I'm not going to do this in Spanish, :). This friend sat next to me in Freshman year Spanish, and one day we had this substitute who really knew almost no English whatsoever (although she knew a bit more than our normal, old, near-senile Spanish teacher) and when she singled him out for speaking English to me, (we were supposed to be speaking only Spanish) he just went against her in everything, like when she asked why she was speaking English, and he said he didn't know Spanish, that's why he was there. This was our third year of Spanish, Spanish III, and we had both skipped a level, so we knew enough to speak. He was just being an ass. I wanted to punch him, and when I talked to him about it, he just laughed and moved on or said how funny that was. Ugh.

Aside from the hearing loss, that's really cool. It's amazing to think about how our experiences can change the way we perceive things, but it's also very hard to think about. I mean, I can't imagine what colors smell like, but it's cool to imagine. :)

I hate it when people mess with teachers. Especially substitute teachers. If the teacher's playing along, fine, but you don't have to be an ass.

I know, it's an interesting thought, isn't it?

It's funny you mention hearing colors. Me and some friends were talking about something and the conversation morphed into a talk about using different senses for things we don't consider being within the scope of those senses. You know, seeing taste, smelling color, hearing touch, etc. That was another interesting concept.

But yeah, thanks for your input. I like this statement (And now that I thought about it for a minute... More confusion) I agree.

I'm not sure we ever really know what just happened.

Well, Lawnman has been doing some pretty innovative things with debates recently, I wouldn't be surprised if he did start something like that.

For the record, seeing or participating in anything like that would be awesome.

God dammit, lady. Just cool it, here's what you do:

1. Do something about it. Get real like many of the debaters on here and only post on things you have an opinion on and when you do, research it and know it to the best of your ability, and if you don't let us know. Much of this site is opinion-based, and that's just how many debates go. Too bad if you don't like it, but it's a democratic society, and you can change it if you try hard enough.

2. Conform. You teach it for a living? Wow, you should be really good at it then. Go ahead and use it in the debates going on here. Or just be like the rest of us and go along with how things go here and make adjustments to yourself instead of nagging everyone.

3. Leave. Yeah, go ahead... That's always an option. If you've been here long enough for only five points, and I'm guessing many of them were lost due to downvoting, you obviously aren't that important of a contributor and you won't be missed all that much.

So... yeah. That's what it's like. This is kinda how it is right now, and, as you might be able to change it, why don't you just try it instead of being an ass about it?

Maybe I'm just getting a little protective (Hah. Protective about a website. But still, I'm kind of passionate about it...) but you all must understand where I'm coming from.

Most politicians seem to check their brains at the door when they get elected, anyway. It's all you can expect when someone's already been about as successful as they can be in the business world and then they just... Move on to bigger and, well, I guess you could say better things. Not all of them, remember, I'm not saying all of them are like this, it's just that it seems like many politicians are moving on to something more powerful.

While I think I have the capability to "pull out the debate guns" and really kick some ass from time to time, there are those people who just kind of sit and wait until some really big, important question comes up and just kick everyone else's ass. I'd have to agree with JakeJ and say Xaeon is a really great debater, but he's not alone, there is also Lawnman, iamdavidh, borme, and loudacris, of course, are all great when there is something to really be said. I just like to think I get people thinking and make some good points from time to time.

That's the same thinking I have about this. Some family members are on Facebook with me and I keep it pretty clean on there, but I really try to segregate my life and my CD life. I have brought friends on the site, maybe a good idea, maybe not, but I really want to keep my family off here.

Ha. We went camping this weekend up North (it gets hotter up there) and it got up to around 80. That was really, really awesome. Until I fell asleep on the banks of a river and got sunburned over my face and arms... Oh well. Worth it.