When people represent themselves on online dating sites they only choose to show their aspects that they find to be attractive. Which leads to false representation which ultimately leads to a let down once a face to face meeting occurs.

Judging from personal experience ( those around me ) I have yet to see an online relationship end up working, so my personal opinion on online dating is that it is not worth it.

Touché

I have no argument, I posted on both sides as to get the debate started. My opinion resides with the opposition to the ideology of Anarchism.

Touché.

I don't think that is a very appropriate analogy.

It wasn't one of my best, I was at a loss for a good analogy. However I personally feel that the general idea is the same, I believe that the point of the debate isn't if you get both. It is if you solely socialize online that is a link to loneliness. To which in my mind ( with no studies to back it up ) could indefinitely be a direct correlation to loneliness, as it is in human nature to socialize.

It can be, but isn't necessarily, rooted in physical activity.... fake or necessarily less satisfying?

According to what you have told me you get equal doses of both forms of communication, therefore neither are less satisfying. However you would need to step in another's shoes to be empathetic with the idea of solely socializing online. From personal experience when I was ill for two weeks my only form of communication was via my computer, I can tell you even with all of my "online friends" I found myself in a slight form of depression.

Though I still stand by my initial ideal, I do believe you make solid points.

Regional intervention is often more effective at producing change. Whilst groups such as the UN may be successful in keeping the peace in the countries they are involved in (questionable in itself), once the soldiers leave, their philosophy leaves too. By having regional groups intervene, we can be sure that the influences they have in the country will not leave once the troops have, as regional politics will ensure that progress after peacekeeping is continued.

Women are equal to men in the armed forces, but they are not the same as men. While the vast proportion of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. While some women are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not.

This position upholds equality between the sexes. As long as an applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary.

Anarchism is marked by a utopian, unrealistic argument - a diatribe based on the principle that the grass is always greener on the other side. Far from freeing humans, anarchy allow them to be dominated by primitive forces that a controlling state has eliminated, such as the use of physical force by the strong to oppress the weak. Laws and a police force are necessary to prevent this. A state allows industries to be organized and crops to be grown so as to support its citizens, and without these high-intensity techniques there is no way that all the population could be fed. All advances in art and science have been made possible by a state that brings people and resources together. Anarchism is merely a backward and dreamy approach to serious political matters.

Anarchism is essentially a fight for human freedom. Modern states, even those which claim to be democracies, stifle their citizens with oppressive and artificial machinery such as laws and taxes. These are imposed by the people who run the state - the elites, the governing classes. Anarchists believe it is better to live without such controls imposed by such people. As it is in human nature to be free.

Many African countries end up being involved in wars that are set out to procure diamond mines and other resources within war zones, and thus certain countries end up having a greater vested interest in fueling wars, opposed to resolving them.

Interference is more often than not a necessity, especially when regarding genocide. As it is the duty of other nations to protect the innocent when a nation's defenses are either not enough or are the problem within themselves.

There is nothing wrong with your moral compass if you choose not to have children, and likewise if you choose to have children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_inventions

Those are all pretty good things that have come out of America.

And my own personal point has been proven: that you truly are unable to discuss anything in a serious or coherent manner.

This guy is a complete ignoramus. I have tried talking some sense into him ...

no i am mearly stating that by keeping our language you are either lazy or british wannabe's

So you are saying that after we kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War we should have spoke an entirely different dialect. This isn't in the form of a question, this is what you are saying. And if you cannot see how ridiculously stupid this idea is, you have serious mental issues mate.

So you are saying that any country that breaks away from another should create its own dialect?

That is the most asinine statement I have heard in awhile.

but it is not broken away if it uses our language.

So let me get this straight: you are saying that America isn't its own country due to it having a similar ( not identical ) dialect as England?

So Australia probably isn't its own entity either, due to them using a dialect based off of English. Yeah going by your logic that makes perfect sense.

Human beings need direct interaction and contact with other people, it is just in our nature.

Communicating online is essentially fake interaction, as a tennis player playing Wii Tennis is essentially the same in that the player isn't really playing tennis and the player will feel as though something is lacking and that is the reality of the situation: they were only pretending to play tennis.

Yes I believe so.

your own, american language

So do you not understand that America broke away from England?

that was my point, let me know when this changes

Let me make a point: you are an idiot if you think that England is better than America due to America using the same language as it's founding country.

You are a redundant dolt.

no what i am suggesting is that you (an american) are speaking english - pure laziness

Do you not understand that America broke away from England?

let me know when your iq increases enough to work out what is meant in a basic sentence

I really lack any form of a graspable idea as to what in the hell you are talking about.

The Titanic was one of the best movies that revolve around a boat that I have ever seen.

Oh man this was rich.

For one reason, 2010 has not happened yet.

You do realize that 2012 was a movie right?

And just to let you know ( so we are on the same page ) we are in the year 2011.

Second, 2012 might not going to happen.

Well the year 2012 is inevitable, whether or not we as the human race make it their is what you could make an argument over. And it would be "might not happen", so take the "going to" right out of there.

Give him a break, he's obviously American ;)

im sorry

Apology accepted.

who cant be bothered to make up there own language and stole ours?

Colonists were British, that dammed British education system must of missed a couple centuries...

You see the colonists came from England ( want to take a guess at what language they spoke? ), and eventually broke away from British rule after being victorious in a war to free us as the American people ( who are English ) from the oppression of England.

So what you are trying to say is that the British stole their own language from the British?

like i say,either use a valid arguement or not.

Maybe if British people had a better education system you wouldn't misspell an average of one word per sentence, my vocabulary ( judging by what I have read you type ) is far broader than yours.

and made no points what so ever with regards to the arguement.

I didn't pull us off subject mate, you might want to re read previous posts before pointing your finger rashly as my original dispute did nothing but make a point towards your argument.

now do you have a point you wish to convey about the given topic, or are you just going to continue wasting my time

If I am wasting your time I suggest you don't reply, as me replying to your perforated arguments gives me nothing but easy points.