It seems that, even in the very modern churches of today, there is still a complete stigma against marijuana. As much of a cookie-cutter position as this may seem, why do the various religions of the world seem to take issue with marijuana, and not with alcohol? Of course, many will cite gluttony. But would the same rule not apply to alcohol? Now that it is being legalized both medicinally and recreationally in more states of the U.S., and the studies on marijuana and alcohol's respective effects on the body are at least somewhat clear, why does religion seem to still take issue with marijuana (and not take issue with alcohol) even in more modernized sects of religion?

A prominent claim, and trending topic (especially among the Bernie Sanders' Left), is that Medicare for All is the clear and ultimate solution to remedy the healthcare problem in the states. It has been shown that while MfA may be more affordable to the individual, it is not affordable to the country. Liberal-majority states are voting against the passing of MfA (California, notably) because they are aware of the profound spike that will occur in the debt. Additionally, people argue that 'single-payer works in countries like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway', when in fact, their healthcare systems are a spiraling mass of issues. The countries that have adopted a single-payer system have profoundly long wait times, poor quality care, and massive co-pays. So, Medicare for All: Yes or no, why or why not? 

*Note: Be civil. I am going to do my best to take the position of an unbiased moderator. Since the Golden Globes last week, everyone has gone crazy about Oprah potentially running for President. The left, with cries of: "Yes!; This is who we need!; Oprah for President!" and the right with "No!; Why?; It doesn't make sense!"The political parties are already in turmoil, given that a significant percentage of the right and the left couldn't come to grips with the primary candidates that were chosen for their respective parties. One of the biggest criticisms of Trump's presidency (and his running in general) was that while he is a reality TV star and billionaire businessman, he knows/knew very little about politics and how the country should be run. This is a valid criticism. However, now that Oprah has expressed her interest in running, the left are over the moon about her potential candidacy. However, does Oprah not represent their very criticism of Trump that they were so vocal about the last two years? Here is a shortlist of likenesses between the two: - Great at talking, can captivate their respective audience, as well as individuals from other viewpoints- Famous television stars- Quite wealthy- Universal awareness of their existence prior to any political campaign- And most importantly: Little--to no--political experience, whatsoever. I understand where this is coming from. A black, female president would be a tremendous social stride forward for America. However, that individual should be a qualified one. Oprah is a great speaker, and seems like quite a genuine person. But, she has said nothing that indicates that she would be a better leader for the country than other women in the conservative or liberal parties. So the questions for debate: 1.) Is Oprah fit to run the country? 2.) Have we, as a society, stopped voting based on policy, and started voting for people mainly based off of their gender and the colour of their skin?   3.) Is it hypocritical that the same people who slammed Trump for being a billionaire television star with little-to-no knowledge of how to run a country, are now supporting Oprah: a billionaire television star with little-to-no knowledge of how to run a country? 

This week, Phillip Brailsford was found not guilty in the 1/18/2016 killing of Daniel Shaver. To recap the situation: - Shaver was drunkenly pointing a non-loaded pellet gun out of a window in order to impress a woman he was with- People outside saw him, thought it was a real gun, and called the police- When the police showed up, the supervisor (Brailsford) gave him commands that were contradictory, such as telling him to get on the ground, keep his hands on top of his head, and crawl towards him (all as one action). - In the evidential video, Shaver is shown having no malicious intent, he is sobbing, and complying with the officer's commands. - Shaver moves his hands away from his head to comply with the officers command of crawling towards him, and he is shot dead. My problem here... We are all aware of the significant media coverage, rioting, and public outrage whenever an African-American man is shot by the police, because it has to be an act of racism right? There's no chance that the man was shot because he was committing illegal crimes and not complying to police commands, right? The amount of rioting and public outrage concerning this incident: Absolutely none. Why exactly? Not to mention the fact that the officer has now been found not guilty. If Shaver would have been an African-American man, there would be rallies, petitions, and cries of outrage against the "corrupt, racist American system." So, what do you guys think? Do you think that those who riot in the streets and make a big deal out of African-American men getting killed were just busy on the day that Daniel Shaver was killed? Do you think they're just as outraged? Or is it possible that they're using that aspect as a way to further pseudo-substantiate their claim that America is a nation founded on racism, and run by racists? 

In conversations with others about taxes, many individuals are not aware of the different places that their tax dollars are funneled into. Obviously, we're aware of the general larger categories. However, it's the sub-categories that individuals are not informed of. One such example is that of the tax dollars spent on sustaining the lives of prisoners. $55 Billion are spent per year on medical care, food, and other various amenities for prisoners in and out of Death Row. TO THE POINT: I am sure that there are many Americans who would rather their specific tax dollars to not go into bettering the lives of criminals, and would instead, like them channeled into public education, law enforcement, health care, and veterans benefits. Alternatively, I am sure that there are still some people who want their tax dollars put into prisons. Should Americans be sent a form at the beginning of the year (instructing them to pick a minimum number of categories), and being given the ability to choose where their tax money goes? 

It seems that a majority of individuals on the left AND the right have no idea what fascism actually means. Its meaning has been bent and twisted in order to fit with respective arguments to use as a tool in order to keep from substantiating an actual legitimate argument. Define it, and give legitimate, real-world examples. 

**I have left any political bias out of this in order to create legitimate conversation. Calling people "cuck; libtard" (@ the left) or "white supremacist; nazi" (@ the right) doesn't create legitimate conversation. Be adults please. The 2016 Election was an absolute disgrace to America's history. It pitted two of the worst imaginable candidates in America against one another. Even if you completely factor out their respective policies, just the fact that they both caused so much animosity in the opposite parties (and their OWN) was a warning sign to the ridiculousness of it all. Trump and Hillary both have respective aspects about them that stripped away a considerable amount of their credibility, and were such extremists on their sides, that even individuals in their own parties couldn't bring themselves to support them. Regardless of what the left thinks of John McCain, or what the right thinks of Barack Obama, the 2008 Presidential election was a fairly good Presidential race. McCain was a respectable War-Hero, representing the hard-work ethic of America, who had to overcome many emotional and physical challenges to get to the point in life that he had achieved in 2008. When he spoke, people respected things that he said, as he spoke with the knowledge of a survivor. People on the left could identify with his points, at the very least. Obama also had his own set of personal challenges that he had to overcome in his life, and was an icon for African-Americans. He was a good and intelligent speaker, and made people feel excited. He, too, represented a set of American ideals that even people on the right could identify with. The largest distinction between the 2008 and 2016 elections: In 2008, the majority of people were not saying "If McCain/Obama wins, the country is fucked." McCain wasn't being painted as the poster boy for racist propaganda, and Obama wasn't the face of radical feminism and counterfactual statements.  NOW... The biggest problem with this past election was the settling. A good percentage of people only voted for Trump or Hillary because they had an R or a D next to their name. Another good percentage of people only voted for one side to combat the other. There was a lot of "Well, they both suck, but I'll choose the lesser of two evils." That is not what an election should be. Not choosing between the lesser of two evils. There shouldn't be any evils involved in a US Presidential election, let alone both of the primaries. So many people complained (and still complain) about how outraged they are at the 2016 Election primaries, and yet they voted anyway. Obviously, it isn't realistic to say "If nobody would have voted, what would have happened?"Because there will never come a time when nobody votes. However, if people only voted based on typical political preference, and combating the other side, what is the point of voting at all? Whose fault is it really that the two most under-qualified individuals became our Primaries? 

**I am a centrist, with views that skew both left and right. Please be an adult in this comments section, and don't take jabs at anyone for their political views. Listen to their arguments. In both a political and social manner, we all can identify members of the alt-right and the alt-left; These factions of the political duality that have separated themselves quite far from the original intent of the Republican and Democratic parties. The alt-left is typically associated with social groups like Antifa, Social Justice Warriors, the LGBT community, Black Lives Matter, the neo-Feminist movement, and the Body Positivity movement, among others. Obviously, the general left has existed for quite a long time. But this separated, extremist, liberal faction has seen a huge growth in the last five to seven years. Society has come to a point where it feels like a risk to say anything in public that flies in the face of the alt-left belief system; Their favourite arguments always peaking with "You're a racist", "You're a homophobe", "You're a xenophobe", "You're a fascist", and others, that merely take personal jabs, rather than actually being able to substantiate an argument. Feminism is now but a pale shadow of what it used to be. Rather than wanting equality between the sexes, it has become something centered more around male-hatred, and convincing themselves that they were born into a world where the so-called "male patriarchy" wants to force them into a hole for the entirety of their lives. Now, due to this neo-Feminism that shifted from its original purpose, less than 1 in 5 women in America describe themselves as a feminist, despite 85% of women in America saying that they believe in equality of the sexes. Now... WHAT EXACTLY WAS IT that caused the radical left to rise up and become so vocal in the last 5-7 years, perpetuating all of these groups, movements, and political viewpoints that fly so heavily in the face of logic and fact? 

The last election has proven one thing: It doesn't matter which political party you identify with. The person dominating the race in your political party will not always reflect the ideals that fit your schema. Bernie Sanders, for example, once considered himself an independent candidate. Knowing quite well that he would never have a shot at the presidency if he didn't identify himself one way or another, he chose to call himself a Democrat in the recent election. On the other side, I'm sure there is a record percentage of Republicans that were NOT happy that Trump was picked to represent them. This day and age, there are Conservatives who believe that abortion should be legal. There are Liberals who don't believe that transgender people are justified. There are Conservatives who believe marijuana should be legalized. There are Liberals who believe that capital punishment/the Death Penalty should be instated in American law. The political stereotypes that we associate so heavily with each party do not exist as they once did. Removing the party system would further entice the American people to vote based on ideals, plans, personality, and intelligence, rather than "They're a Republican/Democrat, and I'm a Republican/Democrat, so I'm voting for them." The political party system (especially this day and age) has merely shown itself to be another way to divide the American people. If you honestly think about it, there is no reason for the political party system to exist. There are, however, reasons why it should not exist. - The Third Party candidates represent a faction of individuals who veer slightly outside of the main ideals of the Republican v. Democrat party (but still veer slightly to the left or the right.) None of these independent candidates have ever come close to winning the presidency, five third-party candidates in history have won more than 10% of the popular vote, and merely eight of them have won any electoral votes at all. - Too many people only vote for a candidate because of "Republican" or "Democrat" next to their name. They don't look closely enough at their ideals or what they would actually DO as President. (Do you think half of the Republicans in the previous election would have voted for Trump if he wouldn't have called himself a Republican?) The party system has turned the American public into mindless partisan identifiers. - Something that profoundly divides the country is whether or not you're a liberal or a conservative. The ideals that we assume an individual holds based on their political preference causes turmoil within human relationships long before a conversation can even be struck up (as I mentioned above in my second paragraph). Should the Political Party system be abolished? Has it run its course, and is it time for American to try something new? Or should it remain this way, in hope that things will one day change? 

A common claim from Social Justice Warriors is that "every white person is racist, every cis person is transphobic/homophobic, and all men are misoginistic." 

As of right now, if an individual has been proven guilty of a capital crime, these sentences are not carried out immediately, or an any kind of timely manner that makes sense. In fact, as of this past October, 2,902 people were on death row. Some of them have been on death row for over THIRTY TO FORTY YEARS. This means more money going into Death Row locations and being used to essentially sustain the lives of violent criminals.If someone has been found unmistakably guilty in a capital crime, they should waste no time, and carry out the sentence immediately. Treating any violent criminal in a humane way is ridiculous, given that, when they're dead, they can't appreciate the fact that you treated them sympathetically. Because they will be dead.