- 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.
It's not news that Fox has a republican bias. Considering the preposterous allegations, one can conclude that the results were manipulated in order to give the Republican party some favorable light: If the news source flaunts happiness, something that human beings tend to want, and then connects it to the political party it favors, some people will start considering the pro's the party has to offer... maybe even change their political affiliations.
Why appeal to males? We live in a male dominated society. Whether we like it or not, the truth remains that there is no gender equality. Many women would be willing to vote as their husbands do, many women would be willing to vote as their fathers and brothers do. Appealing to men is more effective than appealing to women when it comes to politics, because a male voter can more easily "run the show."
Happiness,. however, comes with a feeling of fulfillment and/or prosperity and, contrary to popular belief, cannot be bought or bargained. The article you posted, considering the source, would not have said that a woman, a child, an immigrant, someone with low income or (much less) a democrat is more likely to be happy.
That an older person is more likely to be happy than an angst ridden teenager, is true. However, sex and political party have nothing to do with it.
The image of a Knight in shining white armor counters naught the women's right movement. 'Tis a mere symbol of heroism and protection standing to say that a man has the"obligation" to protect a woman. The women's rights movement has nothing to do with protection, it has to do with equal rights to those of men, earning respect. By saying that the Knight in shining white armor image counters the movement, one would be stating that women are far too proud to need rescuing/protecting/respect. In other words, it is achieving the opposite of what women want. Every being, man or woman needs to feel protected, the image of a parent caring for a child, two old persons taking a walk, the knight in shining white armor and a woman standing beside a man all convey that image of protection.
That the image makes feminists feel undermined is different. Feminists are not the only one's fighting for women's rights, they are they ones that take it to the extreme my seeking Independence from men. My personal believe is that said independence is not necessarily needed since, like I said, no human being can truly stand alone and be happy.
This is pathetic. If you are enrolled in a school, it is your obligation to go. If you choose not to go, you are disregarding your obligations and thus deserve no credit. Passing everyone in order to hurt no feelings encourages laziness and confirms to the world that Americans expect things handed to them on a silver platter. (Note: it's what I often heard when I went to University)
It is grammatically correct and to answer your question,
Altruism isn't. Period. The guy at the movie theater? Either way he would have run out. The soldier? has sworn to protect his country and is under oath to do the necessary things to ensure that protection, even sacrificing himself. The soldier (again)? could maybe want to be remembered as a hero, or is so F*ing sick of war that he just wants to end it.
Everything in life has a price, and Altruism is the price of being recognized as a charitable person. Society will tend to overlook a motive if a donation or action is large/important enough.
If you would like me to fill in the blank of your title I'd say: Nothing Is Altruism.
Okay, you are asking us not to whip out a Bible and quote it as support, yet you are asking us to prove something that is stated in the Bible as foundation for one of many Spiritual doctrines. Historical evidence that a man named Jesus sacrificed himself to save mankind from, what was it again?, oh right! sin is a little blurry, mainly scholarly speculations. So until history does not concretely prove the man's motive and if he was indeed willing to die for mankind, I cannot provide historical proof of whatever argument I make. However, I can make a small inference, if Jesus had indeed sacrificed himself to save us from sin, the Jihad would not be occurring.
and even if he did sacrifice himself I'll ask you to consider the state of the world and answer the following question: was it worth it?
This is an unfounded debate, it's one of those things that will start going around and around with no true basis of support. There's a word that defines arguing that one religion is better than another: DISCRIMINATION.
There are other religious and spiritual doctrines, not to mention the fact that other people simply choose not to believe... by proposing a two sided debate of "rival religions" you are both encouraging discrimination and discriminating against those doctrines that do not have a place in your debate.