All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Argento and I have locked horns on the above, titled subject. This debate is intended for those who are reasonably sceptical of both positions. As for me, I recognize the merit of both views; but I am finding it very difficult to draw a line in the proverbial sand of the certainty of either. Consequently I would that all participants would forego the typical CD mentality of outright animosity.
Submit your opinion of what you think mainstream media would promote if the illegal, Mexican immigrants inside the U.S. were tea-baggers.
Some people subscribe to the notion that the U.S. economy is recovering from the Great Recession. Others subscribe to the notion that the U.S. economy is entering, has entered, the Greater Depression. But regardless of which notion one chooses to embrace, let’s consider the question of this debate.
Did the U.S. economy enter into the current recession because of too much debt, or too little credit? If the recession is the result of too much debt, then the economy is suffering the consequences of too much debt, and hence the crisis that began in earnest during 08’ and continues until this day, is a debt crisis.
But if the recession is the result of too much credit or not enough credit, then the economy is suffering the consequences of credit availability, and hence the crisis that began in earnest during 08’ and continues until this day, is a credit crisis.
Either way, the crisis must be the result of debt or credit, proper.
Credit cannot benefit an economy. Ever! After all, until credit becomes a debt it is not contributing to the economy.
(I may argue these premises if no one takes the torch.)
I think all of us (adults) can admit that both camps are not above using propaganda as a device for their ends. So let's entertain a debate on the question of who is more effective with it in certain categories.
Pick your propaganda poison.
Examples not excluding other examples are:
Conservatives are better at War propaganda than liberals are at Anti-War propaganda.
Liberals are better at Social propaganda than Conservatives are at Anti-Social propaganda.
Does this mean that your nuttless, canine wonder named “Brutus” licks his balls?
Does that mean the statement is false because Brutus has no balls to lick?
What if your dog is female, is it then therefore false?
(I have noticed an absence of sound inference from the distribution of quantity of some of the subjects in some of the debates at CD. Perhaps this debate can help evidence the importance of quantity in discourse.)
It is not called “Bushcare” or any name that is derived from a republican administration.
(Before one answers this question, the same might consider the possibility that many, if not most, Republicans are Briar Rabbits. “Oh, PLEASE don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
Furthermore, remain mindful of the fact that politicians tend to think they were elected to determine what is “best for us all” apart from what the majority of the constituents of their districts demand.)
As for my view, I equate politicians to a cunning salesman. A salesman persuades his victims to act upon irrational impulses in order to buy products that further his cause despite their cause.
Why was Nancy full of grins and giggles during her final speech which preceded the final House vote on Healthcare/insurance reform?
The grins I can understand, but giggling?
Why haven’t the Republicans initiated a campaign for the House to urgently vote on the Senate version of healthcare reform?
Are they waiting for Obama to make another speech recommending the same? Or are they waiting for Nancy Pelosi to negotiate additional democratic votes?
Republicans should be forcing a vote now. Any further delay is nothing more than tacit support for a bill which they claim they are opposed to.
An Irish man confessed to his priest that he had lain with another man’s wife, but all they did was rub against one another. He then asked his priest if that was adultery, and the priest answered, “Yes, rubbing is the same as putting it in; you have committed adultery.”
The Irishman responded: “What then shall I do for forgiveness?”
The priest answered: “Say “Hail Mary” ten times and then put $50 dollars into the offering plate.”
And so the Irishman, seeking forgiveness for his sin, did as the priest said. He lowered his head, rubbed his rosary and shouted obeisance to Mary ten times. He then arose, withdrew $50 from his pocket and proceeded to the exit of the sanctuary. And while exiting the sanctuary, he paused, rubbed the $50 against the offering plate and placed the money back into his pocket. Then afterwards, while he was walking through the double doors, the priest shouted, “Hey, you did not put the money into the offering plate!”. The Irishman replied:
“What, you told me that rubbing was the same thing as putting it in!”
Now, apart from the joke, is the Irishman guilty of adultery?
Nothing is better than wisdom.
Bread crumbs are better than nothing.
Therefore, bread crumbs are better than wisdom.
(The answer to this challenge is not found at CNN, CNBC, FOX, MSNBC, NPR, CNN etc.)
Hint: This is a thinking challenge.
Which is a better response to unwanted pregnancies, castration or abortion?
(Yes, I am referring to humans. And hysterectomies are for women who rape a man.)
Our opinions are facts, but those facts are not necessarily valid or invalid inferences.
(This is for all of you who love to use the term 'fact' as a validation of an argument without proving the truth or falsity of the fact of inference.)
This discussion is between lawnman and atypican.
So, if your post is ignored by us then engage someone else.
(Exclusive but not private!.)
(Please forego the “I don’t know and I don’t care.” reply.)
Have you observed a tendency of your fellow country-men to aspire ignorance and apathy?
What are your comments if so?
Are inter-racial marriages the manifestations of the ultimate form of racism?
For example:
A male of race A marries a female of race B. Can we infer that both the male and female want their progeny to be neither, only race A, or only race B, but to be race AB? Or when children are not involved, can we infer that the male of race A is not attracted to the females of race A, and the female of race B is not attracted to the males of race B?
Or, are inter-racial marriages the manifestations of the ultimate form of anti-racism?
For the sake of this debate the term ‘race’ denotes three primary divisions: Caucasian, Mongoloid,Negroid.
So what is racism again?
I’ll heavily moderate this debate for a few days.
Be congenial!
According to my understanding, any people who can be said to be simultaneously "fearful" and "arrogant" are mad.
This contest is an opportunity to demonstrate an intelligent appraisal of the current, predominant state of mind of most US citizens.
Example:
Americans are fearful that the US is losing its hegemonic grip on the world, while at the same time asserting that US hegemony is in the best interest of all the people in the world, and any country who defies the best interest will be brought into subjection by their military.
That is madness!!!
I will not tolerate any BS in this debate. I will ban anyone who I think is abusive within this debate, gay or not gay. (No personal attacks acceptable, attack the argument)
The question:
**If being gay is indeed genetic, as opposed to choice, would the gay population of the US support legislation that would fund genetic research aimed at regulating the births of the genetically gay?**
I'm not picking a fight; I'm aiming to settle a fight!
And I will oppose any argument or evidence that suggests my government has conspired against me with any and all arguments and evidence the government provides.
Lawnman's view: all men protect their interests.
And because of such I'll disbelieve both the conspiracy theorists and the conspiracy deniers!
A Problem:
If justice is de jure mutable in accordance with democracy then by what subject of science shall we measure the righteousness of a democracy? And if there be no subject of science whereby we can measure whether democracy is righteous or not, then any assertion that posits democracy is just is blatantly unscientific?
A Solution: Justice must be de facto immutable.
Now consequently another problem arises. If justice is immutable then justice cannot be subject to democracy, and yet we assert that democracy is a just form of government.
↓ Show Details
