- 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.
In my opinion, to be responsible for someone's death you must have caused it, and in this case the person refusing to help did not cause the death. I'm not saying that makes it okay not to help, it's just that the person not helping would be guilty of something else, that is, being an asshole.
I never said or implied that I wouldn't help a drowning person.
It is very helpful for people on the fence and for people who want to develop their understanding of the sorts of topics debated about. Most of the topics suck but a few interesting ones pop up every now and then. I wouldn't say it touches many, but I'll be happy if I've just convinced one person to agree with me, or have had my opinion swayed, as it has been before.
Hmmmm... The article linked above states that atheism and agnosticism are dying out but proceeds to say that their numbers are increasing, and only their share (a percentage) of the worldwide population is decreasing. That's self-contradictory.
Also, it explains that the portion of religious people is increasing mainly because of huge growth rates in Africa ("The huge growth rate will be among Christians in Africa"), while stating that their portion is decreasing in western countries ("While the numbers of those who are “religiously unaffiliated” is predicted to rise in Western Europe and the United States").
In other words, the portion of religious people is increasing because there are high birth rates in less civilized countries, not because science points to God as you infer.
Another reason suggested for why religiously unaffiliated people's portion is decreasing is "mainly because individuals in this group are older and have less children." Again, not because science points to God as you claim.
"Free speech certainly doesn't exist on this site. Express a view which is at odds with the looney left's agenda and the post is downvoted into oblivion."
I disagree with these two lines, as the downvoting doesn't in any way silence these views, meaning their freedom of speech remains intact. Sure it pushes their arguments to the bottom of the page, but it's pretty easy to scroll down. I don't see people's arguments being removed by the site's owner, and I don't see the banning function being abused very much. People have the freedom to downvote as much as they like.
I agree with the rest of your argument though.
i can't speak for black in the U.S, but I know that in NZ, Maoris (indigenous people) (and other pacific islanders) are given seemingly unfair advantages, e.g, they have preferential (guaranteed) entry into university even with terrible grades, along with access to more scholarships. I have friends who are Maori who barely have to pay for university (mind you it is pretty cheap here anyways), even though they haven't done anything better than I have, and don't have any greater financial need than me. They agree that this is unfair, but I can't blame them for taking the money. If you have good grades and are Maori (like my friends) you're set through high-school and university. There are also truckloads of special clubs and things, but that doesn't bother me as I wouldn't want to join them even if I were Maori.
The purpose of these advantages as far as I can tell is to reduce poverty levels among Maori, but I don't see why these advantages can't just be for poor people rather than Maori.
That being said I wouldn't say it is a tremendous asset, but it is useful.
It also seems unfair to have quotas for certain racial groups in some employment (which I think we have).