- 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.
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.
America needs a black woman to be president
- Um... no, America needs a good president who knows how to run the country. If that individual happens to be black, then that's great! But if you're basing the necessity of one being president just based on their skin colour, you know nothing about politics or life.
After Trump gets done destroying all the progress Obama made America will need a break from mysogyny, racism and trickle down economics
- First of all, you spelled misogyny wrong, so good job. Furthermore, name all of the progress Obama made that is good for America as a whole. This is a debate, and since you took a biased opinion, you are required to provide statistics for your claims. Thirdly, I walked past a Black Lives Matter rally a while back and caught the phrases "all white people should burn", "What do we want? Dead white cops!" and "Fuck white people! They don't know shit about anything!"
There's your fucking racism, you unintelligent profligate.
We can finally break the glass ceiling
- It doesn't exist, so...
Give transgender people the right to vote
- Oh good lord. At this point, I'm just hoping your original debate posting was just bait, because this is too much unintelligence to even be funny anymore. Transgender people do have the right to vote, you professional victim.
If this whole thing is serious, please. Please stop popping off of the pillow in the morning with new ways to victimize yourself and whatever social class you belong to. Black president? Woman president? Bring it on! That would be wonderful. But I could care less about someone's gender or race. I care about whether or not they would make a good president, and Oprah knows nothing about running a country.
Your argument is uneducated, childish, and invalid. The fact that you felt the need to respond out of emotion and with the use of expletives proves that you do not possess a mental capacity that is capable of critical or logical thinking, and must resort to a sort of tough-guy anger when you can't grasp a concept. Furthermore...
I don't think you understood my response at all. Charging someone more for being gay would be a good example of a Free Market system. The head of the bakery would say "We're gonna charge gays more since we don't agree with their lifestyle choices."
The gay couple would see this and say, "Well, we're being charged more because we're gay. Let's go to the bakery down the road where they don't charge us more based on our sexual preferences."
Business A is free to practice its religious/moral freedoms, and Business B picks up the profit that Business A missed out on due to practicing its religious/moral freedoms.
It should be universally known at this point that every action has a reaction. You choose to charge gays more or not to serve them? Cool. You're well within your legal right to do so. But you need to understand that the REACTION to your initial action will potentially result in loss of finances, loss of customers, and potentially a bad word-of-mouth reputation getting around about your business.
Please, for the sake of individuals: Try to really sound the words out and comprehend their meaning next time. You attempted to dispute me, but all you did was make a point that supported my initial point.
If the police can come to your home and arrest you for selling alcohol to teens at your own home, how far can they push their agenda?
-- I mean they should be able to push it however far they want. If you're over the age of 21, and you're selling alcohol to a minor, it's a felony. It's only relatively acceptable when you're doing it in your own home, mostly because they can't do anything about that.
What if the teen is your own child, should you be arrested for having your own child in a safe environment where they can experiment with alcohol?
You can keep an eye on the effects alcohol will have on your child.
-- This is where you lose me. What parent is selling their child alcohol? Giving, sure. I'm all for that. Teaching kids about alcohol and not acting like it's the blood of demons is important in them not acting like idiots when they go through their rebellious teenage phase later. There's a reason why European teens don't have as big of a problem with alcohol as American teens do. There's such an enormous taboo on the concept of alcohol in this country, that the first time a 14 year old is offered booze at a party, they take it because it's unexplored territory, and they think it will make them feel older and cooler. If you're taught when you're young that drinking is just a thing people do, and not something that legitimately makes you cooler, a large majority of those teens won't feel like it's their go-to option.
Or should the your teenager go with their friends to another place to get alcohol, get wasted, get into a car and then (God forbid) get into an accident? Or if your teen is a girl she gets, GHB'd?
--Honestly, it's much more important to teach your kid to have an honest and open relationship with you. Chances are, your kid is going to go to a party in high school, and will probably have a drink. They need to know that if they go to a party and fuck up, that you'll be disappointed in them, but won't come down on them in a crazy way. Otherwise, they'll never trust you with anything. It's more important to teach them:
~~"If you drove to the party, you better not get behind the wheel after drinking. Additionally, if someone else drove you, and they got wasted, they better not be driving you. If you're without a ride, call us, Uber home and leave the car, just whatever you do, don't drive.
~~"Never take a drink from someone unless you physically watched them make it with your own eyes, it's someone you trust and know wouldn't try to put some crazy shit into your drink, never leave your drink sitting alone, and if you do, go get another one."
~~"If you're going to choose to drink at a party, you need to understand the consequences that could happen to you if the police showed up to the party and you got busted. Additionally, you need to understand the consequences and legal implications if you were at a party where someone got into a vehicular accident, overdosed on drugs, or got alcohol poisoning.
It's absolutely imperative that kids don't view alcohol as a rebellion tool. Otherwise, if they kind of hate you when they're going through their shitty little phase, they'll use drinking to say "Fuck my parents. I'll do what I want!"