- 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
Neither! However, I would not be surprised if the majority picked Che, the reason being (and they will not realize this) is because Che was killed (basically by Fidel) before ever reaching a position of power. Everyone looks good when they die young. Guaranty you if he had lived as long as Castro he would be just as fucked up as any other altruistic scumbag dictator.
I think its the worst way. Yes some students will do well, some of them completely understand the material, concepts and requirements. These students are usually of a particular learning type and have adapted well to the system in which they are taught. Others, who do not test well are not necessarily less bright, on the contrary most of them extremely intelligent, creative and innovative (which is what our society needs, innovators) however they don't often successfully conform to the system in which they are forced. If the test is to decide who is the best reciter of information an exam would be able to decide that. If you want test for who is the smartest an exam will not find them.
I'm not saying that the person who physically puts the murder to death is without blame or wrong doing, if thats what your asking. There are ways around that situation; for instance, a murderer (after being found guilty) could be given an inter tube and dropped off in the middle of the ocean =) My point is after someone commits murder, they are no longer entitled to their life, they killed their right to live when they murdered. The act of putting a murder to death is not considered "killing", its considered justice. Dose that make sense?
Its easy, a persons life is their own, more then anything else in this world. It should be treated as the most important thing in existence. When a person kills out of maliciousness, they are unjustly taking the greatest of all possessions without justifiable cause. If a person commits murder they should be stripped of all life pleasures and possibilities (including the possibility of enlightenment), since they robbed another of the same. Death is the only way to punish murder.
Killing anyone for any reason besides self defense (or defense of others)is wrong. The murder of a civilian is not a "lesser" murder then that of a cop (in my opinion) and the punishment for any and all murder should be death. I'm on this side because everyone is capable of killing, even a cop, so in a case of self defense, killing a cop is justifiable to me.
We have, for around 10,000 years, genetically engineered our food supply. We also use viruses, deadly fungus, venom, poison and radiation to do amazing, beautiful and wonderful things. I think the majority of anti GMO (ers) are being emotionally manipulated to fall in line with some extremists agenda, ego and even greed (yes organic growers and organizations are capable of greed). It’s always good to know all views and to make sure the reason for disliking something, as amazing as GMOs, is not just because they are( at least in their mind) synonymous with a certain corporation, they are not.
I apologize, those comments weren't necessarily aimed at you, but rather all the people Ive come across in my life that think that humans are some how not "natural". People who see everyone else as some greedy, "plastic", fat, parasite that should be eradicated. Humans are just as much a part of this planet (in everything they do) as any other creature.
I don't think the world would be "better"without humans, it would be different, but I don't think better is the right word.
Acknowledging the achievements of a child, even if the child is the only one who cares about it, is creating something positive that is real and achievable. Peace and love are a subjective fantasy and displaying a bumper sticker promoting the two only conveys the owners hypocrisy, ignorance and eventual disappointment in reality.
I think they have excellent possibility. The organic, environs have made it there mission to discredit and morally stigmatize this evolution in technology for their own agenda. They have done so by paying off media sources, making an obscene amount of documentary's (design to scare, not to educate) and conducting junk science. They are (in my opinion) equivalent to to the religious powers of old trying to manipulate the masses into believing the earth is flat and only 10,000 years old. Attacking an entire field or study because one company is using it to make money is disgusting and ignorant.
i am very aware that every person on this earth thinks differently, including "liberals". However, if you ask someone, who calls himself a liberal, they will essentially say they are for legislating morality. There are some people that call themselves something els( libertarian, republican etc.) and still believe in the same ideology but I guaranty ALL self proclaimed liberals subscribe to that view. If everyone used terms as they originally where used then "common sense" wold mean something besides gun control, "gay" would mean something beside sexual orientation, feminism would mean equality not special treatment and so on. Liberalism, as it is used today, means acceptance and encouragement of total government control which is the same as socialism and communism.
Again, I don't think there should be ANY age limit to drinking. Drinking itself only hurts the drinker if even that. There should not be ANY laws against DRINKING anything. I am not religious, I don't believe in God in any conventional form, but I recognize that others do and I (unlike you) do not hate them for it.
I don't know how you can call yourself an atheist and then refer to God as if he exists, and I quote "He (God) is the putrid repugnant bastard of our universe". Sounds to me like you DO believe in him.
I also dont know how you can call yourself a anarchist and be for laws, such as a drinking age limit. Do you know what atheists and anarchist mean?