- 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.
You simply take what your government tells you as truth on faith? You've got to be kidding me. Sorry, but the hippie down the street that grows and sells pot is not part of any Al-Quaeda cell as far as I know. Marijuana is not a gateway drug.
I participated in a lot of formal debating twice in two years at a meeting called SOMA (Southern Ontario Model United Nations Assembly) for high school students, but that's about it formally. I've done PLENTY of debating of all kinds on other sites and definitely with friends and family in person.
It's nothing incredible, but it is useful and not as bad as I think the other side makes it out to be. It's good for a situation where you're just checking facebook quickly and instead of having to leave someone a message on their wall you can simply IM it to them through the chat quickly if they happen to be online. Catching up with people I haven't spoken to in a long time that I don't have on MSN is a good thing as far as I can tell. If you don't wanna talk to them, then don't. The notifications of recent activity that come along with the chat are really handy too.
I believe they can co-exist in one's mind, however I also think that making them coexist is deluding yourself and manipulating the religion in to making it so. Science will cast great doubt on the major beliefs of the most prominent religions in the world, and so in this sense they cannot co-exist. However it is very easy to manipulate your own religious beliefs in to something so foreign that it perfectly can coexist with science in harmony, and thus, I vote no.
Depends on the age, but generally, kids know damn well what they're doing even if their parents taught them not to. The parents should NOT be held responsible at all for graffiti, unless in the rare situation where the parent may have encouraged or endorsed it.
Agreed. The democrats are the most socially conscious that are in support of social welfare. This is EXACTLY what Jesus taught. He did not ask the poor if they "earned" the money that the rich may have donated to them. He said if someone asks for something, you give it to them, and if they strike you on the cheek, you offer the other.
I am not necessarily in support of these values as I am not a Christian, however from my objective point of view I do believe that the Democrats represent Christianity best.
As a whole, yes, I believe humanity does not have any general or specific purpose for it's existence. I do not consider any religion to be able to provide such a purpose as none of them have been proven to be true. People's specific lives most definitely do, but that is not the question here. Life is what you make of it.
"level of performance" needs to be defined here. As somebody else pointed out machines already destroy us when it comes to specific processes such as mathematics. However, if you mean to be just as intelligent and versatile and conscious as humans, which I assume is the definition in this case, then no. It is not even known as to whether or not consciousness is a product of the human brain (I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm indifferent so far), and therefor it may actually be impossible. However, assuming that it is eventually possible for someone to create such AI, I still don't think it will happen simply because humans won't allow it. There would be no need for an AI so advanced that it needs to be conscious, and the risks involved with building such a being would not be worth it.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!