- 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.
Let's please distinguish between "terrorists" and terrorist suspects. Don't run right over the complex political structure and non-structure of our conflicts in the Middle East and pre-qualify these prisoners as absolute terrorists.
Most of the information we needed was obtained by verbal communication, so you should understand that I'm troubled over a suspect being waterboarded afterward 50+ times in a month, for what?!
It's a game of numbers. A handful of suspects in a prison means nothing on a news ticker, it's a rather elusive way that we treat death when the passing of a local girl sprang public outrage over the girl's parenting and supervision, whereas we're completely passive toward the 1,000's of soldiers who died in Iraq. It really depends on how absorbed you are into the situation, and when the whole world is watching you backstep on your own practice of due process and a fair trial, it becomes a little more than a symbolic issue.
Terrorist SUSPECTS, Pyg.
If you're truly interested in disclosing the argument about Obama and change, then by all means challenge me in a debate, however I'll have to reject this argument due to topical relevance for the current moment.
That's sort of a presumptuous statement, don't you think?
And Middle America can be swung one way or another given the fitting propaganda, Bush's exaggerated (in retrospect) records and reports in making the case for Iraq pulled America almost unanimously into war.
So please establish whether Middle America really wants to be tough on crime and terrorism (especially given the controversy over Guantanamo), or is just currently scared or ignorant of the situation at hand.
As for this change you expect, it's been a few months, time will tell.
No, babies don't bomb people, they are the same people as YOU AND I from birth. Not homogenous throughout their lifespan.
I believe the manipulability of people by their environment combined with dangerous teachings will make a dangerous person, and because of this, terrorists aren't intrinsically different people who should be treated as such by killing them instead of long-term negotiations and reasoning.
I'll take an observational approach for each aspect of either philosophy.
Economically speaking, capitalism has enabled us to generate mass amounts of wealth by allowing the basic human element of personal gain/greed to empower society through investment and mass production. Usually we work upon an exploitable resource until new market trends point the industry in another direction. So we get a steady rise of wealth over time and an occasional recession when resources run out and the market forces reset themselves to a new craze.
That would be ideal. However, in today's society this profit-based motivation has pushed jobs overseas in search of maximizing profit. It has caused overproduction in housing and crashed its value. It has spawned loan sharks and usury. It has allowed the oil enterprise to dominate our energy industry and suffocated any attempts at pushing for efficient, American-made, renewable, non-pollutant energy like solar, wind, hydrogen, etc.
Today's society is too structurally complex for blind market forces to repair themselves into working order. We can't expect our energy producers to group together and re-organize countless gas stations, power plants, and energy production facilities to accommodate this.
We need a group of experts to oversee and intervene on behalf of the greater good. Folks, I'm sorry, we need government oversight.
What we don't need oversight on is our lifestyles. I think we can agree that morals will change from person to person, it isn't fair to force one's views upon another especially when morals are an extension of preference and are therefore subjective.
Unless you're religious, in which case is unacceptable in the realm of a free democracy, especially when it makes people fervently adopt fallacy for fact like:
1. A group of cells equates to a living, conscious human, such that when this group of cells is disrupted, it equates to murdering a person.
2. Homosexuality is harmful in some way to other people and changing the legality of same-sex marriage will change the sexual ratio of the population which has remained relatively constant for millenia regardless.
What group would encompass people who infringe on personal matters that have nothing to do with them? What group would encompass those who discredit science (the most reliable source of all) and credit people they like dressed in suits, or credit an ancient religion? What group stubbornly insists on rigidity in the face of emergent and duly needed change?
The Republican Party. I will take no part in that.
(about 1.) This alone has caused centuries of social and emotional damage, has destroyed women's lives, and stunted the most promising branch of medical research in all history.
Are terrorists not the same people from birth?
People aren't born evil. I could take two identical twins, raise one in Texas, the other in Iraq and the two will be blood enemies.
Think about it. This experiment showed that under the unprovoked influence of a mere idea, 75% of the population could be brought to kill somebody.
Now imagine you've been taught Islam from birth with the added provisions that America is a tyrant devil and that Christians and Jews pose a threat to eternal salvation. Then the tyrant devil blows the shit out of your village and your family and the rest of your fellow villagers find out about it. It's no wonder they shout "DEATH TO AMERICA". They're as pissed and charged as our own 9/11 victims.
People can be easily inflamed to murder. And when they're misinformed, they become nazis, terrorists, martyrs, jihadists, hezbollah, north korean militants, bolsheviks, kamikazes, etc.
Let's take a second to examine logic.
It's our mammalian way of understanding or mimicking the known order of the universe. 1 + 1 = 2, red pigment mixed with yellow pigment will yield orange pigment, objects of mass will gravitate towards each other.
If we algebraically and logically move among our observations and theories we will eventually find that living, breeding, then eventually dieing is a very bleak existence and has no logical "purpose" to it. Life, reduced to pure logic, has no meaning.
Picture a species that doesn't like other like creatures. It would die off in civil war. A species that doesn't mind dieing wouldn't fight for survival. A species that doesn't have a hunger would starve. A species that doesn't feel pleasure would feel meaningless.
Makes perfect natural, evolutionary sense.
It's this funny thing we have called an emotional consciousness. We have IRRATIONAL factors that provide a motivation for us: fear of death, seeking reward and self-sustenance, and an intuitive bond towards others. If you think about it, everything we do in life is designed to satisfy these emotions, because they are, in fact, our ultimate motive. To satisfy our emotions.
JakeJ, you're an idiot. The color of someone's skin doesn't tell them to abide by religious doctrine. There's a difference between an active moral authority and the arbitrary shade of your physical appearance.
We know religion is responsible for jihadist martyrs, on the other hand black people definitely aren't solely responsible for rape.
What a terribly weak argument.
People don't need religion to know right from wrong. You said it yourself. Drugs can hurt people. So we should probably do something about it. This is called judgment.
Don't surmise that someone who can't make logical decisions without threat of being eternally reprimanded or has to be rewarded with eternal glory has MORE morality than someone who can decide the above situation on their own.
Obviously life can't be explained in a few experiments. There are several of them. These 2 new developments in tandem with experiments in the past should collectively prove life's formation.
1. Replicated, mapped, created (in various parts with relatively simple methods to that of most technology today), anything-else-ed life in various forms.
2. There is an extensive fossil record with plenty of transitional fossils.
3. We've documented all of the necessary processes of evolution in action and seen natural selection take its course countless times.
You all forget, experiments like this take place in what represents a puddle or so in a few days of testing, imagine the probabilities involved with the surface area of the ENTIRE GLOBE over EONS.
Seriously. Guys. It's like Wheel of Fortune where there's one letter left, just solve the damn puzzle.