- 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
maybe not punching slashing or shooting, but they have the right to act aggressively when the person in question does not listen. this person could cause the death of the other hundred people traveling with him on the flight. punching does sound slightly normal when the person goes 'can't you see i'm on the phone.'
Religion sets rules and laws that, if you break, you will be punished in the next world/ life/ existence.
that is not necessarily true. you could be punished in this life as well. or you could be punished after a few hundred lives.
Governments set rules and laws that, if you break, you will be punished for in this world/ life.
or sometimes it may let the criminal go free. in rare cases though.
they have the right to forbid what they like. but they do allow airplane mode during most part of the flight. and we should be thankful for at least that. they require you to not use the cell when they're landing or taking off, because the usage does cause static disturbances with the ground control. and landing and taking off are the integral parts of flight. the rules and regulations are for your own safety. you should follow them when you're asked to do so.
if the debates are a few years older and full of older users(who didn't come back) with huge arguments posted, i think it would be difficult to find out where your other arguments in the debate are. it would be easier then, to have a new debate of the same or similar type with new arguments with new (and operational) users.
that way the debate could go on seriously and you wouldn't have to end up looking for your disputed arguments. and you would be able to debate with the users more easily.
scientifically speaking i think its the brain that controls what we like and what we don't.
the brain makes the heart pump fast or slow. and usually the chest hurts when you're in deep emotional turmoil, for eg. during a breakup that the heart muscles do contract to a greater extent. but it usually is based on the brain as to what the heart should and should not do.
although, figuratively speaking, loving with all your heart and from the bottom of the heart and all that is cute. but i think one should consider and weigh the possibilities regarding the whole 'falling in love' deal.
here again, i think one should look at all the pros and cons of falling in love with a specific person. when you love a person with your brain, then you could go ahead and fall for the person with all your heart.
it is possible for some specific students to listen to music while doing a free assignment.
but while in school when the teacher is teaching, i think it would help to concentrate only on the teachers voice instead of eminem, or avril or whoever you listen to.
also that is one reason why the teachers constantly try and ask you to stop blabbering with your friends. because you need to listen to what they have to say.
even though he is a great player and all that, i think his biting incidents have been going too far. not many decent/normal people try to bite their opponents' arm out.
besides this, it is a sport. someone had to win. biting away another players shoulder wasn't going to get him anywhere.
and un-sportsmanly spirit was clearly on the display here.
Buddhists worship a fat obese man and make sacrifices towards Buddha 4-5 times a day.
the fat obese man you think is Buddha is actually a Chinese Buddhist (this i'm not sure of but as far as i think i remember) who gave poor children gifts. like Santa Claus does.
the fat man is more commonly called the laughing Buddha.
your second fun fact isn't that much funny at all.
Buddha is not a being or a form. Buddha means the Awakened one. therefore, anyone could attain that state. and people do. that certainly does NOT make them 'fat'
But I don’t believe mischievousness ought to be rewarded with adoration.
agreeably. but i think most kids understand what to and not to do in various circumstances. they can tell after a certain age that some things do not have preferable rewards.
A child will naturally test the limits, but a parent who is firm in the limits they set teaches a child that there are indeed limits and that the parent is to be trusted in upholding them
agreed. a certain limit is to be set. most parents usually scold the first or second time and next time onwards simply 'glare'.
this happens to work only a few times, before the child is no more scared of his mum giving him the look.
but to argue that parenting leads to misbehaved kids because it’s too extreme is an appeal to the extreme, not to the parenting itself.
well it is upto the parents to decide what sort of rules and regulations they're going to put upon their child.
i'm not drifting away from the topic. if you see the description, its quite obvious that the child is fed up of listening to constant nagging from his or her parent.
a more common reason is that parents pamper their children initially and then wish to implement sudden manners.
I don’t agree with this sentiment.
but you should. would you rather a granny jump around on your bed? or plead with puppy eyes for a candy? or climb a shelf to reach for a cookie jar?
Indeed, there are many things that are not appropriate for a kid to do, it’s important that they understand this.
aggreably. a child should be told from right and wrong. but he or she shouldn't be constantly hissed at with a not there not this and other negative directions.
Lessons like this lead to law abiding behavior in adults.
either that, or they decide they want to try doing exactly what their parents told them not to do.
i'm not talking about normal parenting here. i'm talking extremes. parents who put too many restrictions on their kids usually end up having naughtiest kids of all.
Telling a kid no doesn’t lead to disobedience; there’s usually a factor between the parent saying no and the child misbehaving that causes the misbehavior.
it leads to disobedience after constantly hear what not to do by their parents.
Otherwise how would you explain children who genuinely do what they’re told and don’t misbehave?
kids who aren't constantly pushed into doing things usually don't misbehave. its that thin line between pampering and rigorous discipline.
disobedience is rooted in disrespect and lack of trust; it goes back to bad parenting.
you're right here. i agree about disrespect and lack of trust but i think, too much restriction and mannerisms also lead to the misbehavior of children.
when my side is losing, i usually end up voting up a few arguments. but i don't drastically vote up all of them.
i also usually do it when the debate is a serious one, and i've been aggressively participating and proving my point. and the other side is obviously(according to me) the wrong side.
but the only serious debates i've been participating in are dogs v/s cats, chicken or egg, and clever beggars.
kids are meant to be mischievous. that's the best part about being a kid. you get to be all that and your still adored.
but misbehavior of kids is usually linked to lac of discipline(like you said) or too much of it.
most kids only hear NO this and NO that. which is why they end up doing everything they would do, initially careful to make sure their parents are not around, and later not caring.
its kind of part of their job, to make sure no harm is done to anybody. and the only way they can assure it is by preventing anybody from walking down to find trouble.
i'm not saying you'd find trouble necessarily. but the chances are high. at 2 am in the night, not many people would be out to protect you if some random drunk guy points a knife at you and asks you to hand over your money.
so, in general, the police would obviously interfere when they see you walking down the street at 2 am. they wouldn't take you in, but they'd make sure to escort you back home and make sure to tell your parents of your nightly trips.
most cases i've seen, are primarily due to parenting. most parents want their kids to be extremely disciplined and well mannered. and that makes them seem un-childlike(?). also, when their parents are not around they do all the things they wouldn't do around their parents.
usually some kids are just fed up with their parents and therefore wreak havoc right in front of them.
although i don't think its just the Christians who aggressively support their God, but i do believe that they've got more support from the major world population. we do follow the years according to Christ's birth and death. and even though there are other calenders of other religions, the dates are preferably followed according to Christ's birth.
i don't know about America and Americans and their English, but I've come across many Indians who don't like speaking Hindi, and look down on people who do so.
also, people in their respective regional states can't or son't want to speak their own regional language.
some students prefer listening to music as they study, but while learning, i disagree that a student can listen to music and concentrate on chemical problems. it has to be either one of them.
i agree that music could be allowed in a few classes, maybe during gym, or art, but during classes that require full attention, i think music would only be a distraction.
i agree i haven't really looked up what i stated here. that came from whatever stories i'd seen and heard. but i did look it up right now, and i don't know to what extent it is correct, because i admit i didn't do any heavy research on it. but anyway, even though it could be wrong,
maximum people who you meet online are not like it offline. not all, but maximum. and you may have met somebody who doesn't come under this category. but there's always more chance of things not working out later on.
most people also say a lot of things online that they wouldn't normally say as a person. and there can be one person controlling multiple accounts on some site too. and we know that
you need to travel for a couple of months. you have five books you wanna read while you travel.
i like seeing my suitcase or bag filled with books. besides, while traveling for a few months, most people tend to buy books on the go instead of taking them with.
i guess its far better to carry a kindle.
i could agree on this. kindle does take a lot less space than material books. but that is probably its only advantage. otherwise, books are more preferable.
i'm not a vegan myself and i don't, in general, support it. this could be because i'm more vegetarian and milk and its products are a necessity in my diet. occasional meat doesn't provide me with the basic proteins that i need.
i don't mind people being vegan. its annoying when they want everybody to follow their business.