- New Activity
- Most Heated
- Most Recent
- Most Arguments
- Most Votes
- Debate Research
- My Debates
- My Waterfall
- Public Waterfall
- Newest Recruits
- Most Persuasive
- Most Provocative
- Most Outspoken
- Most Creative
- Alphabetically
- My Allies
- My Enemies
- My Hostiles
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
| Reward Points: | 1264 |
Efficiency: ![]() | 82% |
| Arguments: | 1203 |
| Debates: | 25 |
Wow, a strawman argument of a legitamate position...what else is new Joe?
What the two sides should be are:
1) It is something the government cannot punish you for excersising (like the right not to get thrown in jail for speaking freely)
2) It is something that the government must protect (like the right to property, so people don't steal it from you).
My answer would be, both. There are certain rights that put limitations of the government, and others that sometimes require government intervention to ensure. This usually means spending some money (paying for a police force, judges, etc...)
Let's ignore for a second the fact that there are likely innocents in the prisons that don't deserve to be there:
In America we believe that we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights. Is this because of something as arbitrary as location of birth, or is it because we are human? I would argue the latter is what the founding fathers had in mind.
Yes some of the people who were in gitmo are terrible, terrible people and yes they deserve to be punished, but the fact that we treat them better than they treat us is what makes us better than them. They would slit our throats, but we give them trials. They would blow us up, but we keep them in prisons that are reasonably humane. Is this because we are dumb, or because we are a nation that recognizes people's humanity, even when they decide to behave like animals?
No one wants to pay money to take care of prisoners, but damnit we're the best fucking nation in the world, and this is because we believe in fundamental human rights for everyone.
You get along fine by yourself? Consider this:
-Every day you eat food and possibly take medicine, that you know is safe because it is approved by the food and drug administration
-You know what the weather is going to be like because of satalites designed built and launched by NASA
-You check the time, which you know everyone uses because it is regulated by congress and kept accurately the the National Institute of Standards and Technology
-You drive a car that you know is safe thanks to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and drive it on roads built and monitored by local state and federal agencies.
-You then get to work and use the internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration
-During this whole day you do not get killed, carjacked or robbed because of local, state, and federal law enforcement keeping you safe
But of course you get by fine on your own, don't you Joe?
Let's face it, unless you go off into the woods to live, you are not taking care of yourself, so get some perspective and realize that there are a lot of things we need the government for, and those services require money; money that I am more then willing to pay to enjoy the quality of life I am fortunate enough to have because I was born in the U.S.A.
People aren't asking for handouts: they are trying to improve the lives of everyone, and that requires everyone to chip in...themselves included unless you assume that all democrats are poor, and all republicans are rich which is an absurd assumption.
Marriage must always be between consenting adults, because children are unable to give consent under the law; that is a seperate issue. This was understood in the previous argument when it was said that man + woman = marriage.
The point I was trying to make however is that all these stupid little formulas are meaningless, and the best definition of marriage would be one between two people regardless of gender. Age is a completely different argument, and not one that is relevent ot this particular debate.
You give the arbitrary definition of man + woman = marriage and say that this is the only possible definition. You could have been more specific and said specific man + specific woman + marriage, and then the argument would have been different specific man + different specific woman cannot equal marrige. Or you could have said same race man + same race woman = marriage and then the argument could have been made that different race man + different race woman cannot equal marrige.
The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.
Actually gay marriage exists in a number of states [see my picture for exactly how many]. Prop 8 was only in California.
As far as civil unions, I think it's a good first step (many states don't recognize any union between homosexuals) but separate but equal, is inherently unequal, and marriage is a fundamental right (this isn't my opinion, but was decided unanimously by the supreme court).
I am very glad though that you decided to keep religion out of the equation.
Well, other than microbes that can digest plastic (as joe suggested) there isn't much we can do. The pieces are far to small, and the area is much too large for there to be a feasable solution for cleanup. All we can really do at this point is stop adding plastic to the oceans by doing a better job of recycling and stop dumping garbage in the ocean.
I read this somewhere, and I think it's appropriate here:
"I am a conservative.
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its
valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."
Okay so I read this and I tried to dispute but the debate was closed so I will do it here:
"
I read this somewhere, and I think it's appropriate here:
"I am a conservative.
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. -..blah blah blah yada yada -
and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right." "
I read all of that then I saw that last line: "because the government can't do anything right"
Now most conservatives I know don't think that. So it's not a great example. Just because we are against big government, doesn't mean that we hate the government and want anarchy. The things this country has done amazes me every day. But entitlement programs hurt the one thing that fueled ALL of those things, hard work.
annaisaac52@gmx.com
Hi, I am Anna!
please how are you! hope you are fine and in perfect condition of health.I went through your profile and i read it and took interest in it,please if you don't mind i will like you to write me on this ID(annaisaac52@gmx.com) hope to hear from you soon,and I will be waiting for your mail because i have some thing VERY important to tell you.Lots of love Anna!
I thought you might appreciate this: http://failblog.org/2009/
Just wanted to say that your comment to Jake on the "What we hate about Obama..." debate was absolutely spon on. It said what some of us on this site have been trying to get through to others perfectly.
Bra-fucking-vo.
I knew it was Supremelord. As soon as I wrote that I decided to double check and lo and behold! So I left him a little note. Thanks though :)
(part 1)
Andsoccer16-
"After having looked at your arguments I have to say that, although you appear to be intelligent, I cannot in good conscious accept the alliance of someone who does not recognize the grave injustice of current marriage laws.
No hard feelings I hope."
Dear andsoccer16,
I was originally drawn to your account by following your comments on socialism vs. capitalism. After reading more, I was particularly impressed with your argument where you make the distinction between a command to shut up vs. name calling. This shows you have the ability to distinguish nuance within language; a valuable skill. In truth this was the deciding factor which drove me to extend an ally invite to you.
(part 2)
I am pleased that you have responded to my "ally" invite. I must point out that your stated reasons for rejecting that invite are unfounded, as your personal characterization of me is inaccurate and misplaced. Civil unions between same sex couples are a touchy issue I realize, especially when viewed in the context of civil rights. Certainly I do not stand for denying civil rights. Please understand andsoccer that I assure you of my sincerity on this matter.
(part 3)
But personal opinions aside, what I stood for in my arguments on the question "How can gay marriage hurt any one?" was a stand against the misuse of language, which is not a trivial matter. In open debate, arguments should be judged by the merits of their case. Personal opinion should carry no weight in the matter. I ask you to please stand with me on the issue of civil responsibility in promoting fair and open dialogue on all issues.
So long as argument always keeps to reason and logic, and refrains from statements of personal opinion or ad hominem attacks, then there is never any need for hard feelings.
Thank you.
Most respectfully yours,
Nonostrum
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate BlogTake a Tour Help/FAQ Newsletter Archive |
Sharing Tools
Invite Your FriendsBookmarklets Partner Buttons RSS & XML Feeds |
Reach Out
AdvertiseContact Us Report Abuse |
Basic Stuff
User AgreementPrivacy Policy Sitemap Creative Commons |