Do you have evidence that there is a link to violence on tv and violence in society? If I recall, all scientific studies on the concept suggest there is no correlation to violent behavior and watching violent tv as a child.

Well, Switzerland is a pretty small country. However, they only have elements of a direct democracy. They themselves are not a direct democracy. They incorporate such elements.

However, for a country as large as the United States, a direct democracy would be cumbersome and it wouldn't work. getting 150,000,000 people to vote at election for every little law seems a bit cumbersome.

However, with the internet, it may become a lot easier to implement a direct democracy. At the same time, it is also fairly easy to commit voter fraud on the internet. There are pros and cons to such system. I say that a representative democracy is better because it avoids certain problems associated with a direct democracy. But whatever works, I am fine with.

The ratio of men to women is roughly the same, 50-50. In most countries, there are still more women than men. And besides, who says that it would be one man, multiple women? Can it not be the other way around? Or an equal amount of men and women?

One of the biggest things which supports the legalization of polygamy: it is natural. Humans, despite popular belief, are naturally polygamous. (this can be seen throughout history) It is actually unnatural for anyone to be monogamous. This is one reason why both men and women cheat on their spouses. It isn't because they don't love their spouse, far from it. It is because they have an innate desire to mate with others to spread their genes. It wouldn't surprise me if there would be less instances of cheating if someone engages in a polygamous relationship.

Now I am going to counter your points. To counter point one, who are you to decide how someone loves? What if his wife agrees to it and actually likes the idea of having a wife, as well? Maybe she is bi? Who knows. But who are you to dictate how consenting adults live?

Second point, why would he need to take care of them? This is the 21st century, it is not up to the man to 'take care of his wife'. She isn't property, she is a human being, who can also get a job. It isn't like he is the only bread winner. If all three have a career, what is wrong with that?

Who says this woman with multiple husbands wants kids? And if she does, why not have kids with all of them? Or just let them have sex with her and leave it to chance. Like a game. I don't know, nor do I care. It is there life, who am I to decide?

No, the psychology of the child would not be destroyed no more than a psychology of a child would be destroyed by having two moms or two dads, or being raised by his/her grandparents or uncles or aunts or siblings or being adopted.

I can be for polygamy yet still not want to be in a polygamous relationship. I am for gay marriage, but I do not see myself as wanting to be in a gay relationship.

I think it should be legalized. I see no reason as to why being married to more than one person should be illegal, so long as ALL parties consent. (if a man is already marries, and he wants to marry another person, both the person he wants to marry and his current wife must agree. This applies to women as well)

Personally, I would not get into a polygamous relationship. But if another person wants too, and all parties consent, I say live and let live.

Which the true nature of man is usually dominance. We are primates, after all. It is written in our genetic code. Power has the capacity to corrupt everyone. Absolute power has the power to corrupt absolutely. It isn't 100%, there are those who would not abuse such power. But what is there to stop an absolute dictator from becoming a tyrant? Nothing, not without a separation of powers.

And philosopher-kings are not a form of government, but a specific set of rulers. Both Plato and Aristotle were advocates for an Aristocracy, the rule by the best. Aristotle even said that tyrannies were unstable. (rule by one person with absolute power, as per the classical definition)

Besides, what does this have to do with religion influencing US law anyways? If you want to continue this debate, shall we make a new one somewhere else? It shall be fun, me thinks.

And what happens when you successor become power hungry? As a wise man once said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Plato said that an aristocracy is, in theory, the best form of government. Now, just to clarify, an aristocracy is not rule by the wealthy. That is a plutocracy. An aristocracy is a government that is ruled by the most intelligent, most qualified citizens. The intellectual elite would run the country. If you are intelligent, you will be able to see problems that others cannot, predict future problems, and deal with them accordingly. Unfortunately, only a few percent of the population can be considered highly intelligent, and the more power held by less people, the more dangerous corruption becomes. It is more difficult to corrupt 100 politicians than 10 aristocrats, or 1 monarch.

Cells do not need Oxygen. There are many cells that actually die from oxygen exposure. Many members of the kingdoms Monera and Archea and even Animalia do not require oxygen for survival. Extremophiles are Archea organisms that live in environmental extremes, such as inside volcanoes, where life normally wouldn't occur. And water is not oxygen. It has an oxygen atom, but the cell does not rely on the oxygen in water, it relies on the waters properties.

Evolution does not claim life comes from this primordial ooze. That is abiogenesis, separate from evolution. Evolution is just how life changes once it is there, but it does not explain where that life came from. Evolution has been observed. It is fact. We have witnessed it. We have witness countless examples of speciation. But the reason we have never seen an 'amphibian become a reptile' because it takes far too long. We have proof that is did happen, called fossils. Maybe you should look them up.

The giraffe has seven vertebrae in its neck, like most mammals. But its neck is so long. Why is that? Because of mutation and natural selection. And that is all evolution is. Evolution, at its most basic, is the combination of random mutation with non-random natural selection. Both work together.

Dinosaurs still exist. We call them birds. The Velociraptor, a 6ft, 30 lbs predator from Cretaceous Mongolia, resembles a bird in many ways. It had feathers, in fact, it had complex feathers that modern birds utilize for flight. We know this because of the present of quill knobs on its arm. Though not all birds with flight feathers (flamingoes) have them, all birds with quill knobs, have feathers. If it were alive today, we would have called it a bird. A weird looking bird with claws and teeth, but it still superficially looked like a bird. Even Tyrannosaurus' ancestors had feathers. A relative a T. rex, just found recently, was covered in feathers and is the largest feathered animal known to have exist. It is called Yutyrannus, and it was 30ft long and weighed over a ton.

Archaeopteryx is a prime example of a transitional fossil. It has many featured of a reptile. Teeth, claws, a reptile-like hip structure, but it also has many bird-like features, such as complex feathers, a wishbone, etc. Now, technically, all extinct species, except those that have no modern day descendants, are transitional forms, but that is beside the point.

Evolution is one of the most well studied theories. It is one of the most widely supported theories. There is more evidence to support the Theory of Evolution then there is to support the Theory of Gravity.

And to make it clear, a theory is an explanation of a naturally occurring phenomena. We know Gravity exists, but we don't care. We make theories to explain how it works. Same with evolution. We have both directly and indirectly observed Evolution, and we make a theory based on what we observe. That is science. The Theory Evolution had so much evidence that it is unlikely to change in the near future.

We've already cloned a chicken. Therefor, we have already cloned a dinosaur. And besides, Dinosaurs aren't some massive invincible behemoths. They are just like every other animal, and if we lived back during the time of the dinosaurs, we would be a greater threat towards a T. rex than another T. rex.