- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
As an individual who moderately identifies toward Libertarian social values and operation, I believe that anyone should have the right to speak absolutely anything. There should never be limitations on what we can and cannot say. This includes the concept of 'hate speech'. As human beings, when we say or do anything, we also must accept the consequences for stating those opinions.
I believe that someone should have the right to walk up to a Black man and call him the N word. I also believe that the Black man should then have the right to beat the shit out of that guy for being a racist shithead.
In the same vein of being able to run businesses exactly how one wants, and running the risk of going out of business for how its run, we need a society where we are taught that our actions have consequences. We learn the best and most concrete lessons by experiencing ramifications for our words and actions.
The thing about people who believe that healthcare is an inalienable right don't understand how much of a hit the economy would take if that were the case.
First of all, we're devaluing Doctors and the amount of time and finance they have put into earning their degree and becoming adept at medical science. If healthcare is a public good and does not cost anything to the individual, where is the money supposed to come from to pay the care providers? Are they supposed to be paid from the "bottomless Government fund" that exists solely to pay doctors? Well, no.
Are doctors supposed to work for free? They won't. Humans rarely work toward things on a mass scale without an incentive, usually financial. The medical fields of study will take a massive blow, and eventually there won't be enough care providers to tend to those seeking care.
And once again, capitalism is the only way to move the country forward. Any and all examples of socialism being successful are not pure examples of socialism, but rather corporatism; and often, with a much larger emphasis on capitalism than the defenders of socialism will admit.
Socialism will only ever work for the social and political elite, because they can afford it.
We CANNOT consider healthcare an inalienable human right. Can we make it more affordable, better quality, and/or more universal? Absolutely. That's the goal. But not working together to finance it as a country is the equivalent of everyone saying "Well, I want it, but I don't want to work for it. So I'm just going to say that I deserve it so that it will happen".
Well, it depends on whether or not people want to be intellectually honest. If we, as a society, are going to generally be accepting of the notion that an individual can be born as one gender, and choose to identify as another; then people should also be able to identify as a different age, therefore rendering pedosexuality a moot point.
I mean, that's how it works right? What's the difference between identifying as the other gender, and identifying as a different age?
I'll preface my retort with the fact that I am not a practicing member of any religion. However, I believe in the existence of some kind of omniscient creator. If one would like to refer to that as God, then that's fine.
First of all, 'Ancient book of nonsense' is not, in itself, a valid argument. That's essentially saying "Here's what I think, so I'm right".
Historical evidence has shown that key events in the Christian bible indisputably occurred in the past, and many of these are unanimously agreed upon by religious and non-religious scientists, anthropologists, archaeologists and historians alike. These unanimously agreed upon events include a genocidal flood that consumed the earth; the torture, crucifixion, and unexplainable resurrection of Jesus; A significant amount of historical accounts chronicling the life of families that stretched for generations, including lines that are not unbroken as of today.
Let me ask a probing question, why does the concept of an omniscient creator make no sense to you, while the concept of the universe being created 'because it did' correlates to facts and logic? Currently, there are no proven theories of how or why the 'big bang' happened. The scientific community has never not been deadlocked on this issue. And yes, there is no physical or tangible evidence that there is an omniscient creator (citing to the argument of 'God exists because the universe' is not an accepted argument, and not one I would make). However, attempting to call one thing a factually and logically incorrect ideology, while secular creationism is also not proven/accepted by fact or logic renders your argument invalid.
Secular creationists are consistently switching the fundamentals of their respective ideologies in order to fit with the ever-growing historical evidence and accuracy of biblical events, as well as making desperate appeals to the most unscientific notions imaginable. Lee Smolin (cosmologist) suggests that the only way to solve the big bang's scientific problems is to argue that 'the laws of physics were different in the past.' How is that a sensible argument?
Additionally, leading secular creationism researchers Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman readily admit that no observed natural processes can produce life from non-sentience. But they also assert that the required natural processes existed at one time anyway and, for some reason, we just haven’t yet discovered them. That line of thinking sounds an awful lot like belief in a faceless, omniscient creator, wouldn't you say? All either side is doing is believing in something without a guarantee.
Freedom to do what, exactly? And do you mean specifically in America?
The section of Islam that is prone to violence and an outdated ideology shouldn't be allowed to commit public actions of crime, but sure. All people should be allowed THE CHANCE at freedom. If they commit crimes or break the laws of this country, then they should not. Case closed.
- Even though a common standard for debaters is "using facts", it is also just as necessary to provide sources and statistics in order to substantiate your claims. If you can't provide reasoning and application to your claims, they aren't valid.
- Having the self-control to avoid resorting to emotion-based responses. What an individual THINKS about the world is not important. What facts, stats, and logic SHOW and PROVE about the world is important.
- Have humility and respect for the person you are debating. Accept that not everything you say will be correct, and that you can have a spirited debate without it being combative or hostile.
Because there would be no legitimate way to enforce that law at this point in time. Let's say that someone doesn't have a "license to parent", and the woman gets pregnant. If they don't get approved for a license, what's the government going to do about it? Forcibly kill the unborn child? That sort of operating is significant of borderline government tyranny.
Well, yes. But there has to be a middle ground. I do not identify with either specific political party, which is good to counterbalance the pros and cons of each side. While, absolutely, a percentage of the Left have gone absolutely crazy, with many ideas that do not make any logical, political, or social sense. But they aren't alone on that. There is also an equal-sized percentage of the Right that can be described in exactly the same way. The difference lies in which ways we define behaviour that does not identify the party as a whole.
If one is to say that Democrats never learn, that is not entirely true, in a general statement. I have had many reasonable conversations of substance with individuals who identify themselves as 1st-wave Democrats (linking their political ideology to versions of it from the past), and they tend to be much more in line with the modern conservative way of thinking. The deviations are there, but there are many more commonalities there than between modern liberals and conservatives. Additionally, if one is to say that Democrats never learn, one must also conceded that Republicans never learn, simply due to the fact that sections of the Right also still believe in some ridiculous ideas. You must operate outside of the narrow political dividend if you are to understand your own party, as well as the members of the opposite party, wherein you may find more rational individuals than you realize.
So Oprah wouldn't be a good president just because she's a black woman? Who says she wouldn't be a good president? You are only saying this because I specifically am talking about a black woman!
- First of all, very nice strawman. Quite clearly, I didn't say Oprah wouldn't be a good president because she's black. In fact, I followed up my initial statement with "we need a good President, and if they happen to be black, then great!" Once again, Presidential effectiveness should have nothing to do with skin colour or gender. In fact, for a number of years, I have advocated that Condoleezza Rice run for President. I think she would make a fine leader. The difference between her and Oprah? Rice has been a politician for decades. Oprah lives in the lap of luxury. She knows nothing of political proceedings.
He didn't make any progress. Instead he spent his whole presidency cleaning up the mess George Bush left behind. Now Trump is here to fuck it up even worse.
- Then that alone is an incorrect statement, but it isn't the one you originally made, which is also incorrect.
It's too bad some people use racism as an excuse for racism, but that's not what the vast majority of libs do. By your logic, I guess all conservatives are neo nazi white nationalists who watch the Alex Jones show.
- If you couldn't infer from context clues by now, I'm not even conservative, so... And that's actually not a correct application of my logic, at all. You talk about Trump spreading racism in America, when in actuality, the most boisterous examples of racism and sexism that I see frequently is that from groups like Black Lives Matter, feminists, ANTIFA, and other groups of the sort. Examine your thinking.
When you register to vote, how many genders can you choose from? What if someone wants to identify as non-binary?·
- Well, non-binary doesn't exist, so I guess you can't
Furthermore, the last US election ballot very clearly had a check-mark option that said "Male", "Female", and "Other". But you don't know that because you didn't fucking vote.
Also, if you're transgender, you go from being one gender to another. If you're a woman who wants to identify as a man, then you very clearly check "Male" in that bubble, and vice versa. Literally every word you just said was wrong.
Neither does Trump, but he's a white male sooooooooooooooooo.....
- Yeah, I didn't say he was a good president. I didn't say I voted for him. But he won because Hillary was the worst presidential candidate in the history of US elections.
In conclusion, your arguments are statistically incorrect, you have chosen to act childish, you believe in a thin set of ideals that you clearly know nothing about since you can't defend your points with actual correct facts, and you have proven yourself to just be a mindless apologist sheep in a sea of licentious degenerates.