John says, "I feel just like a newborn baby."

"Really!? Like a newborn baby!?"

"Yep. No hair, no teeth, and I think I just pooped my pants."

Pinocchio was devastated. He went running to Gepetto, crying, "My girlfriend says that when we have sex, I give her splinters! Is there anything you can do?"

Gepetto says, "What you need, my boy, is a piece of sandpaper. Use this once a day, and that'll solve the problem."

About a month later, Gepetto ran into Pinocchio on the street. "How was that sandpaper I gave you?" He asked. "Are you still having problems with the girls?"

"Girls?" Pinocchio asked. "Who needs girls?"

One day the teacher called on her while she was napping, ”Tell me, Mary, who created the universe?” When Mary didn’t stir, little Johnny, an altruistic boy seated in the chair behind her, took a pin and jabbed her in the rear.

”God Almighty !” shouted Mary and the teacher said, ”Very good” and Mary fell back to sleep.

A while later the teacher asked Mary, ”Who is our Lord and Savior?” But Mary didn’t even stir from her slumber. Once again, Johnny came to the rescue and stuck her again. ”Jesus Christ!” shouted Mary and the teacher said, ”Very good,” and Mary fell back to sleep.

Then the teacher asked Mary a third question, ”What did Eve say to Adam after she had her twenty-third child?” And again, Johnny jabbed her with the pin.

This time Mary jumped up and shouted, ”If you stick that damn thing in me one more time, I’ll break it in half!”

Just go about it from the other side, human side, your side. It will be much clearer…

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to increase the amount of jokes, so we can keep the quality of humor and laughter as high as possible.

I’ll forego (unless provoked otherwise) a brutal assault against your hasty question. Yet, in response to your question, I will provide a reason (via Socratic method) for you to live that may exceed your sole purpose to satisfy your emotions. And after having done so, I will leave to you the decision of determining what in fact it is that you live for and that which you don’t live for.

Are you gay?

Do you support gay marriage?

If gay marriage becomes universally accepted, which is more important to you: the universal acceptance of gay marriage, or your joy of the universal acceptance of gay marriage?

So, what is it that you live for, your joy, or the universal acceptance of gay marriage? (We’ll presume the necessity of gay marriage for this dialogue.)

I could submit a plethora of examples that evidence you do not live for emotions. But, I think one example is sufficient to shine a light upon the darkness of your hasty question.

(BTW, Our emotions are consequences, not causes. We don’t create causes for the purpose of a possible satisfaction of an emotion/s.)

Thank you

Here is the a the direct quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In oder for the state to be secure we cannot have deadly weapons used for looks like they are some new type of hot wheels made for fun and looks. Your constitutional right is to keep and bare arms, not guns, and for the safety of the state and all in it we need to take away simple dangers for citizens, cause eventually we need to stop playing with hot wheels and grow up.

I. Define Terms:

1. History: By its most common definition, the word history now means "the past of mankind." Compare the German word for history -- Geschichte, which is derived from geschehen, meaning to happen. Geschichte is that which has happened (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 41).

2. Historical Method: The process of critically examining and analyzing the records and survivals of the past is here called historical method. The imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by that process is called historiography (the writing of history). By means of historical method and historiography (both of which are frequently grouped together simply as historical method) the historian endeavors to reconstruct as much of the past of mankind as he can (Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 48-49).

3. Scientific Method: ...related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation or repeated observation (McDowell, More Than A Carpenter, 33)

II. Your points:

1. "If Jesus Christ was a real person where did all those magical powers came from that's talk about in the bible...?"

2. "..why we humans today don't have that power?"

III. Refuttal:

I believe that you misunderstood that the debate deals with the question of "Was Jesus Christ a real Person?". That is, it is a question of the past, hence history. In order to know if Jesus of Nazareth from the Bible was indeed a real person, than you have to do it by "examining and analyzing the records and survivals of the past" (Gottschalk 41). You can not measure an historical event because it is the "past" and therefore not repeatable. Thus, you can not prove that a person existed in the past by using the scientific method. For example, you can not even prove to me that somebody attacked you physically with the scientific method. You would have to prove that historical event by historical method. That is you have to gather evidences such as, fingerprints, blood samples, eye witness, etc.

IV. Conclusion

Therefore, your argument is self-refutting and makes no sense at all.

Adults get to do that too.

"being a kid is great because you get to talk to your friends"

Adults don't get to talk to their friends?