You were born into poverty, had a poor education, reached adulthood with no marketable skills/experience, have no hope for scholarships or financial aid of any kind due to a number of factors.Your parents just abandoned you.  You have 30 days to come up with $600 or lose your home.  You must also meet your other basic needs in the meantime.  No friend or family are available to assist you with board or other needs.  You need not keep your current home, the only requirement is that you accomplish all of this on your own power, with neither financial aid to assist you or dependants you need to support.Please respond within these parameters; this is not the only scenario I will be presenting, so criticisms regarding this particular one are misplaced.  I will respond within the same paramters.Please see my argument below prefixed "NOTES" for more specifics.Questions:1) What is your plan to meet your basic needs in the short term?2) What is your path to financial stability in the long term?

Simple as it sounds.

Is it an automobile mechanic, with three decades of experience working in certified and privately owned auto shops, as he claims in this debate(http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/We_should_shun_businesses_that)? Or is it a mechanical engineer turned heavy equipment repairman, as he claims in this one(http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_wellfare_recipients_have_to_be_drug_tested)? Or is it neither, and he's just a troll who will fabricate whatever lie he needs to in order to feel he is 'winning' the argument?My vote is option C, although I daresay he'll try to claim that both are true, somehow.

The debate title should give an idea of what I'm looking for here;  When a human has dissociative identity disorder (multiple personalities), how do you feel such things as personhood and rights should be handled?To help guide the line of thought, I've split the analysis into 4 separate cases for analysis. In all cases, for the sake of simplicity, I am referring to a dissociative identity disorder patient having three distinct and separate personalities/identities.  I will use the term 'body' to refer to the physical body and all personalities as a single entity, and the term 'personality' to refer to the individual personalities/identities.Case 1: Generalization.Is it the body that we ascribe personhood and rights to, or is it the personality?Case 2: Specifics- Criminal JusticeIf the body commits a crime while one of the personalities is 'active,' is it reasonable to punish the body (and all three personalities) for the crimes of one?If yes, to what extent?  Fines?  Short prison sentence?  Extended prison sentence?  Life imprisonment?  Death penalty (Set aside personal stance on death penalty for the moment, and assume this is a jurisdiction that does have the death penalty for certain crimes)?If no, do you have any ideas for an alternative wherein the specific offending personality (and only the specific offending personality) can be punished?Should individuals with Dissociative Identity Disorder be exempted from criminal justice?Case 3: Specifics- Politics and the vote.Is the body or the personality assigned the right tovote?If the body, wouldn't this effectively disenfranchise all personalities except the one that happened to be active at the booth?If the personality, how should we handle it?Should individuals with Dissociative Identity Disorder be denied the right to vote altogether?Case 4: Specifics- Contracts.Is it the body or the personality who enters a legally binding contract, anywhere from a non-disclosure agreement to a marriage or civil partnership?If the body, wouldn't any personalities who disagree have a reasonable objection to being bound by the agreement?If the personality, how could the terms of the agreement be enforced in such a way as to affect only the bound personality?Should a body with Dissociative Identity Disorder simply not be allowed to enter a legal contract?I do not actually hold a position on this one, and I thought it might be an interesting intellectual pursuit, and a bit different from the standard fare here on CD.

In another debate (I won't go into the specific users in question), there was some heated discussion regarding whether a given action was objectively wrong.  The party running the debate was highly irrational, and conflated this position as being one condoning and supporting the action in question, despite the other party's flatout statement otherwise.  The party running the debate in question banned and blocked both attempts at explanation, and went on to further make indirect accusations that either or both of us in fact supported the act in question; as such, said party has been banned from this debate to prevent it from similarly disrupting this discussion.The implication here would seem to be that if an action is not objectively wrong, it is not subjectively wrong either; that a disbelief in objective morality by definition means a disbelief in subjective morality as well.Does this remotely hold water?  

We've seen a lot of downvoting sprees recently.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting irritated by it.Right now, the minimum number of points required to vote on a post appears to be one, and that's being abused by throwaway accounts that make a few spammed posts to generate points, then go off on a spree.I suggest a minimum number of points should be required in order to cast votes on posts.  We will need to strike a good balance here; we want the number sufficiently high so as to prevent spammers from abusing the system, and sufficiently low as to not overly penalize newer legitimate posters.Do you believe that there should be a minimum number of points aside from one before voting can take place?  What threshold?

Here is your challenge.1) Access a free adult website. 2) Browse the gay porn category particular to your personal gender (gay males for the guys, lesbians for the girls). 3) Select a video. 4) Make a temporary choice to be gay. 5) Watch the selected video, masturbate to it, and climax from it. 6) Pray to Jesus for forgiveness.If you are unable to do all of this, then kindly dispense with your assertion that homosexuality is a choice.  If you are able to do it, comment below, and we'll examine as to whether you actually chose to be gay or were simply expressing existing desires that you were actively or subconsciously suppressing.

This debate is targeted at Christian believers; those who do not subscribe to Christianity are welcome to chime in if they so choose.  Please begin your post by identifying whether you consider yourself to be a Christian or not.The purpose of this debate is to indirectly examine, and possibly criticize, the 'canon-' that is, the construction of the new testament performed by the early christian church, wherein a large number of writings were either approved or rejected for inclusion into the bible.  You are a ranking member (such as it is) of the early Christian church.  You and your fellows have adopted the good news of Jesus' birth and sacrifice, and want to spread it as far as possible.Your dillema: Your stature has placed you on a council that is responsible for determining which of many writings are to be considered 'canon' and included in a Newly Published Testament.  You have been presented with numerous accounts of the good news itself, each recorded by a different individual; some of these have subtle differences between them, others have huge differences- there are dozens of different writings simply covering the Gospel alone.  Beyond just the accounts of the gospel, there are numerous collections of letters and other writings, each one purported to be the divinely inspired word of God.  Your religion has already been plagued by false prophets (both those who are blatantly trying to manipulate others AND those who mistake a mental disorder for God speaking to them directly) as well as those seeking to exploit the faith for either financial or political profit.Obviously, not all of the texts in question are divinely inspired.  Your task is to determine a set of objective criteria and processes that can be applied to the various writings, vetting them (so to speak)- you will make your recommendations to the rest of the council based on these criteria; each other member of the council will be putting forth their own criteria and recommendations as well.  The contents of this new published testament will be determined by the councils decision.Basic premises you are working with are1) That the Torah (Old Testament) is an accurate accounting of Gods interactions with man up to the birth of Jesus2) That Jesus himself was the messiah promised by the Torah.3) You do not have access to modern knowledge regarding the history of christianity; you are viewing it from christianity's infancy so to speak.Please refrain from favoring scriptures that actually passed the historical canon and made it into the new testament, and please do not work backwards from the assumption that any given book in the New Testament is either true or false.  Please also refrain from personal attacks within this debate.

Just what it says in the tin. While I welcome all posts, I'm particularly looking for posts from those who: 1) Believe that love is real- as a complex mix of metaphysical emotions, a complex set of chemical exchanges, or some of both. 2) Have experienced both heartbreak, and the process of falling out of love and having to end things with someone.I would also appreciate if you could note which, both, or none of 2 that apply to you as well.Edit/Note: I know that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  To clarify a little:  I'm referring to the reason for the breakup in general; if the other person cheats, etc and breaks your heart and you fall out of love due to that, classify that under heartbreak.

Earlier this evening, my wife called me over to show me a blog run by a particularly extreme radical feminist.  She simply couldn't believe what this woman was saying!Here is a link to the blog in question, and an excerpt from one post:(PIV is an abbreviation used frequently on this blog; it's an acronym for 'penis in vagina,' presumably because the writer does not recognize such activity as sex.) http://witchwind.wordpress.com/"No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion – one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All women’s “attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None. Any woman “sexually” or “sentimentally” attached to a man is ONLY trauma-bonded to him. This is a universal rule under patriarchy."This is only a part of it; this writer asserts that all sexual activity between a man and a woman is a case of rape, and the woman just doesn't realize it.  Heterosexual intercourse is also decried as being, among other things, unnatural by this writer.  A good read is the blog post 'PIV is always rape, ok?'What are your thoughts on this?

Was curious as to what order people tend to consume media that exists as both a book and a movie.

When you're anticipating reading a new book, watching a new movie, playing a new game, etc-Do you tend to avoid spoilers like the plague, hoping to enjoy an untarnished experience?Or do you read spoilers, synopses, reviews, etc etc ahead of time?I'm aware that this is a false dichotomy and it's possible to do neither, but there are only two debate options.

Voter ignorance is a big problem in the United States.  Simply put, a number of people seem to vote without actually taking the time to inform themselves, and that seems to be a big problem.  This ranges from blindly voting for the candidate affiliated with the party an individual supports, to voting based on individual charisma, to bandwagon voting in general. Everybody has the right to vote, but what is a vote? I'm of the mind that a vote cast in ignorance is not in fact a vote.  From dictionary.com: vote 1. a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals. If an individual has not researched the platform of all available candidates, how can that individual have an opinion as to which candidate is the best for the job?  If I've only eaten Vanilla ice cream, I can call it my favorite flavor, but that isn't really a valid opinion.  If I've never eaten ice cream or chocolate period, but know that most people like chocolate and call that my favorite flavor, that also isn't really a valid opinion. I believe that we need a way to 'filter' uninformed votes out.  This would serve three purposes: 1) Increase overall understanding of future candidates amongst the populace. 2) Prevent those who are generally apathetic from skewing the vote in one way or the other. 3) Ensure that when a candidate renegs on the position he or she ran on, the entire populace is aware of it and can hold him or her accountable for it.  Some have addressed concerns that this may not be a good thing, and feel that people have the right to vote (informed or otherwise).  For those who have this stance, I'd like to hear more detail regarding their position.  For those who agree that some form of filter should be created, I'd like to hear any ideas you may have in that regard.

This debate is mostly copied from my petition, linked below. As it stands now, when we create a debate here, we have a few options. -A perspectives debate, where there are no sides to choose between and everyone posts his or her stance on the matter. -For/against debates, wherein two positions are defined and can be argued for or against according to the posters choice. -Challenge debates which are much the same as the for/against category. However, there are almost always more than two possible stances on an issue. Very often, there are more than two popular stances on an issue. Not every topic is a dichotomy. I'm opening this petition to request the option to include a third, or possibly even a fourth 'side' in the for/against and challenge debate types. I believe this will allow many debates to be more active, and as such get more perspectives and arguments in general for the topic- a solid win all around, in my opinion. I've read many a debate where I was interested and wanted to make statements, but couldn't countenance the idea of voting for either option offered, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Setting the goal initially to 50 signatures. Petition URL: http://www.createdebate.com/petition/show/The_option_for_more_than_two_sides_in_a_debateI am aware that there are likely some difficulties involved in displaying more than two perspectives; there is the fact that it would by necessity mean less horizontal space for each individual side, which can definitely impact readability, but it's not a problem that can't be worked around.

There is a lot of controversy in the US over the problem of gay marriage.On one hand, the government is (supposedly) required to treat all its citizens equally, regardless of sexual orientation et al.  Furthermore, the government is required not to respect, establish, or prevent the practice of religion.At the same time, though, the majority of US Citizens are at least somewhat religious, and the majority of religions are decidedly anti-gay.  This large, very vocal crowd generally wants to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.Currently, in the US, a marriage requires two things: 1) A state-issued marriage license 2) A ceremony conducted by someone recognized as able to conduct said ceremony (most often a preacher, priest, or pastor, but not always).Civil partnerships are offered to gay couples as an alternative to marriage that allows most of the same legal protections. I propose that, in order to sidestep the issue, the US (and constituent states) governments cease recognizing the term 'marriage' altogether.  Rather than issue a marriage license to a heterosexual couple, they would instead be issued a civil union/civil partnership license.  In this model, all of the same rights et al entailed in a marriage or civil union/partnership would be present in the new civil union.This is not a ban on marriage; it is essentially the government doing what it has always done, while leaving marriage in the domain of the religious.  A couple who wanted to have a Catholic Wedding, for example, could get married in the church by a priest- but in order to enjoy any legal benefits of the union, they would still need to file for a civil union license (in the same way they currently file for a marriage license). If a gay couple then wanted to be married, they would have no issue applying for a civil union license from the government, but if the term 'marriage' or the idea of being 'married in the eyes of God' matter to them, they would need to seek a church that condones and allows gay marriage ceremonies.This saves the government and politicians from the gay marriage question, to focus on other issues.  Individuals may choose not to recognize the marriages of those whos beliefs differ from theres (since when do religions consider anything about other religions legitimate anyway?)  But would be required to respect the rights of the civil union.  This provides the same system for both gay couples and straight couples, with equal rights and protections under law.  It also provides the same system for both gay and straight couples on the religious end; that is- no providence and completely separate from the government, and up to the church/organization in question.  The only issue I can see is non-religious individuals who are focused on the semantics of the term marriage; but without the government recognizing marriage anyway, I could see a secular organization forming to conduct non-religious marriage ceremonies.