I don't get it, between the "opposed" label, the "no, it's very fun" tag, and then fact that I was shooting down the other side, you have to ask if I have an opinion in the debate?

And what exactly is immoral about pleasure?

How? There is nothing in science that either proves or disproves God. In fact, if someone would like to explain how this experiment could even be set up, I would like to hear about it.

Sure, science can and has contradicted specific mythos of certain religions. Many followers have come to the understanding that the point of mythology is not litteral truth, but rather figurative truth.

If anything, science ultimately encourages new forms of spirituality. For example, check out how followers of the Law of Attraction validate their beliefs with quantum physics.

Indisuputable proof: A year ago, I would have said "no."

C'mon, this one is not even close. The Republicans represent a single group: white men. Democrats, on the other hand, represent everyone else (including a number of white men such as my self.)

Take a look at a Republican rally and then take a look at a Democratic rally and you will see an obvious difference. America, no matter how badly Republicans wish it so, is not a country of a single race that all thinks the same thing about every issue.

A cross section of a democratic rally is much more similar to the country as a whole. There, you will see races of all kinds, both genders, gays and straights, religious people and atheists.

Football is more physically challenging, because the competition level is much, much higher. Let the nations top athletes play polo and let an exclusive number of people play football, and this would be reversed.

If Polo is more challeging, do polo players live the rest of their lives in chronic pain like ex-NFL players do?

Personally, I'd rather swim for an hour than be hit 30 times by a 300-pound man on steroids. But maybe that is just me.

A blind man who examines the front of an elephant will have a much different understanding than a blind man examining the elephant's rear. The two blind men's descriptions would even seem contradictory. . .

The atheist often seeks to understand his world by understanding its smallest parts and putting the pieces together, i.e. a bottom-up approach. "God", on the other hand, is quite simply the top-down approach of understanding the universe. God and nature are synomous; the only difference is which end of the elephant that blind humanity desires to study.

I have complaints about the American government; we all do. But at the end of the day, no style of government has brought about more freedom than a Constitutional Democracy. No style of government has brought about more equality and social justice than a Constitutional Democracy. No style of government has brought more freedom and liberty than a Constitutional Democracy.

I don't get it, Joe. The USS Cole was worse than 9/11?

That copy and pasted speech was horrible. You want to blame environmentalist for high gas prices and paint the entire scientific world in some giant conspiracy?

Gas prices are high because the Iraq War ended the lucrative oil-for-food program, disrupted production lines, and created uncertainty in the World's cheif oil producing region. Global warming activists seek to reduce the demand for oil, which logically would REDUCE oil prices, not raise them.

To argue that global warming gets unfairly positive coverage by the media is an absolute laugh riot. Out of the thousands of questions asked by the media in our current presidential race, something like eight of them have been about global warming. This despite being a major issue of concern for hundreds of millions of Americans.

Look, even oil companies are finally admitting that global warming is a legitimate concern. Even the Bush White House has reluctantly admitted it.

You will find what small number of places where drilling has not been allowed in the US are for environmental concerns other than Global Warming. But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good argument.

Carbon dioxide is only .036% of the atmosphere (making it the fifth most abundant gas.) There is absolutely no logic behind the argument that says a gas that is 36 parts per million cannot have an effect on things.