- 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.
It's a woman's right to decide what happens to her body, which includes having a baby. Therefore they can chose to not have a baby. Therefore abortion is fine.
Also, because there is not scientifically agreed upon age of development at which a foetus becomes a human, you can't say that abortion is murder because you can't prove that a feutus of any age is technically human.
Hey all you people who don't support gay marriage, even if you don't want it to happen, and don't want it to be an issue, they're going to make it an issue until it happens. You make it more of an issue than it needs to be by denying them marriage. Might as well just let them do whatever the hell they want and go back to sorting out your own lives, huh?
Often giving the majority of people what they want doesn't support the future of a country in a positive way, even if the majority can't necessarily see it. Things like gun laws and gay marriage (thanks to Obama) might not be supported by the majority, but less guns only means less fighting (which is good) and not supporting gay marriage is like saying "I'm on a diet so you can't eat donuts." (Not supporting is selfish). So even though these examples of things that Obama has done aren't supported by the majority of America, they make the world now and in the future a better place. Obama is therefore awesome.
I don't even live in America. #straya
The fundamentals of Kantian ethics are flawed. Kantian ethics bases its system on not paying attention to the consequences of actions. But the Categorical Imperative (a key part of Kantian ethics) asks us to justify actions by using the maxim 'Only do that which is universalisable' that is, actions are only moral if everyone could do them all the time. This part of Kantian ethics offers a direct contradiction, as considering universalisability surely pays attention to the consequences of actions.
Kantian ethics pays no attention to the consequences of the actions they do or do not take. But the rest of our lives are based on consequences. Systems of learning, how we know things and so forth. Paying attention to consequences is inherently part of human nature, and so we shouldn't build a system of morality (such as Kantian ethics) that is not based on consequences.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!