- 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.
However, if we apply this scenario to something like a supermarket (i.e. where you pay for the slaughtered animal), it could be argued that eating and therefore paying for a slaughtered animal is more morally incorrect. The reason behind this is by buying an eating the slaughtered animal you are supporting the meat trade, which of course cannot exist without consumers. By supporting the meat trade instead of boycotting meat, you are helping someone kill an animal, since you pay for their salary etc. Without you, the consumer, the animal would not have to die. The consumer is the root reason for the cessation of said animal's life.
Destroying a fetus is like destroying a part of yourself. One's genes, blood and cells are within the body of a their fetus, yet they undergo an abortion and prevent a human life from being lived. A fetus does not deserve to be denied life, because the fetal stage is probably is the stage of life where we are morally the most neutral. We cannot think for ourselves, nor can we comprehend good or bad. On this basis, infants are also considered innocent. Why deny life to something that does not deserve such a fate?
The Treaty of Versailles nearly annihilated the German economy. To pay for the massive reparations, the Germans had to print more and more currency. With more and more currency, there was more and more inflation. By December 1923, hyperinflation was so severe, one US dollar was 4.2 trillion marks. Stacks of banknotes literally became children's playthings. The First World War left the nation crippled. While Adolf Hitler is responsible for his Anti-Semitic agenda, his party only won because it was fuelled by German resentment for the Allies.
There is no universal meaning of life. You decide what your purpose in life is. It is what existentialism is based upon; it emphasizes the existence of an free willed individual responsible for determining their own development and purpose in life. This itself is carried out through will - the choices and actions we take in our day to day life.
While abortion may not be considered as murder or manslaughter, one thing is for sure. By going ahead with an abortion, you are denying someone, or atleast something life. Life is the most sacred, fundamental right of a human being. While an unborn may not be considered a human being, the fetus would've been a human being. Therefore, you reuse to give life to something that would've been a person.
Had the fetus not been terminated, it could've had so much potential. It would grow up to be a child. It would get to listen to music, smell the first day of spring and catch the first glimpse of snow. Everything we take for granted in life and life itself, is taken from the fetus.
Many argue that an unborn child does not have consciousness and therefore, it is morally acceptable to undergo an abortion. In the same sense, is it alright to inject lethal toxin into a child that has been sedated for his whole life? Pro-choice people are therefore saying that we can deny life to something that has never experienced consciousness. This argument is irrational and morally incorrect.
What's more worrying is that the mother of a fetus makes this decision. The very provider of life and sustenance refuses to let her unborn child live. It is not her choice to make. It is no one's choice to make. No one should have the authority to deny an unborn child life. Imagine the world without you, because your mother had an abortion. You would never live all of your experiences. You would never have emotions. You would've never existed. Such is the travesty of abortion. Over a million lives, of which collectively would add up to over 70 million years, would never be lived.
Rape, sadly does happen. But legalizing abortion does not solve the problem. If we want to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies as a result of rape, then we need to tackle the issue of rape itself. Harsher penalities, stricter monitoring policies, promoting rape whistles, reducing poverty and a nationwide sex offender registry are all possible solutions for this. Reducing the amount of unwanted pregnancies from rape down to zero is next to impossible, but we can get this number a lot lower.
Unwanted adult and teenage pregnancies can be solved by removing the social stigma associated with contraceptives. Pharmacies and the government should advocate the use of condoms or birth control pills as a way to enjoy sex without any unwanted consequences.
Abortion means denying the opportunity of life to what would've been a someone. We cannot continue with this madness.
I believe that no one should be waterboarded. Not even to convicted mass murderers like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. How can one say they believe in the equal rights of ALL human beings if they torture a few of them, but leave the rest intact. Waterboarding, while it won't kill you, makes you believe that you're drowning. CIA agents themselves could not last for more than thirteen seconds. Waterboarding is so severe, you'll wish you were dead, a reason why there are so many suicide attempts at Guantanamo Bay.
The Universal Declaration of Human rights, established over 60 years ago, reminds us all of the rights and freedoms we all are guaranteed. Article 5 states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
The federal government has repeatedly ignored some of the most important things in our lives that we take for granted; sanity, dignity and most importantly, our humanity. To be human in the moral sense means to be a compassionate, merciful individual who has respect for other humans. Many think that waterboarding will provide us with valuable information. Just like aggressive interrogation, the prisoner would likely provide false information, so the pain would stop. It is human nature to do so.
Therefore, waterboarding is cruel, unnecessary and violates some of the most basic principles of humanity. The alleged "information" we garner from waterboarding is most likely inaccurate and will simply waste more money. It's time we stop this sick game.
It's scientifically proven that most women are more in touch with their emtions than men. This, likely is an evolutionary trait built on the premise that women were ment to take care of the children, while men would get food. In today's society, much hasn't changed. Mom stays at home, taking care of the kids, Dad goes to work (of course, it is slowly changing as more and more women become employed).
It is then this emotional intelligence and awareness that lets women cope with the problems that they face from day to day. Women also have to have female friends. These social circles provide support and comfort to the attendees, when all their emotional awareness is quantified together.
Men, on the other hand, do not have such circles and are far more competitive. Emotions like greed, jealousy, spite and anger can be commonplace in a testosterone fueled workplace.
Conclusion: Because women are usually more in touch with their emotions, they can to some extent, handle day to day life better than men, especially when their friends are around. However, most men have a competitive attitude in the workplace (even if you think they don't). Since men are less emotionally intelligent than women, the result is a fierce fight for promotions, results and the chance to brag.
I'm constipated, in pain and need to get back to work as quick as possible. My ass burns from last night's chili. Folding my toilet paper to be more eco-friendly would be the least of my worries. Personally, I'd grab the toilet paper, scrunch it and finish as soon as possible without giving it a second thought how many times I could fold it. I don't have the time or the need to carefully fold it over and over again.
Good and evil are morals, beliefs and values that we made ourselves. The universe is not an entity and cannot create such values.
How can we explain good without knowing evil? Similarly, how can evil exist without good? As the Chinese clearly put in their "yin yang" principle, opposites attract. Opposites co exist. One cannot exist without the other.
We can explain our conscience through this. Everyone has different standards of good and evil. There is nothing that is entirely universal. A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing.
Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it.
Adolf Hitler massacred millions of Jews, thinking that he was doing something right. The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic.
Everyone's morals are different. Some condemn all forms of lying, others do not. We can apply the fact that to some, the values of others, the law and the consequences do not matter. There can be no universal moral law because of such diversity of beliefs.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!