I can't wait for the debates. Romney is one of the best debaters I've seen. Obama not so much. And I'm not just saying that because I like Romney better. Obama is a good speaker but let's not confuse that with a good debater.
To be fare though Romney already has the upper hand because he's got 4 years of a presidency to pick at. That's something Barrak doesn't have.
I wrote a research paper in one of my Psychology classes about change in political opinion and the way people view their own changes on certain stances. The result was basically that people don't like to just up and change their political opinions. They like to act as if they've always had their opinions.. Not to toot my own horn but that's what makes me unique.
I think psychology sort of helped me to become more open minded thus allowing me to change opinion.
Now this is something that I would have completely disagreed with when I joined this site that I now agree with completely. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 even when I was a kid I remembered being confused about "why Iraq" but then I quickly formed my opinion when I heard people talking crap about Bush cause that was a no no.. So me being for Iraq was really just a defense mechanism because I hated liberals. ..well I still do. (:
Although there is some pretty sketchy stuff about that day..like building 7.. heaven forbid I mention the C word. ..no not that one get your mind out of the gutter! (;
Edit: one thing I forgot to mention- you said something about a declaration of war.. -never happened.
"Sure, generally... if libertarian isn't a partisan position."
K so you might have a point there but it's not so much bipartisan as it is open minded. We all know that both parties are not perfect. I'm not saying you said that democrats are perfect but I'm also not at all saying that you were bipartisan like you said you were.
"For this particular comment though, description without context in order to enhance the negatives one holds of one party, even should that person at the same time be pointing out the negatives of the other party, is not bipartisan, it is partisan, only partisan from the "lesser evil" perspective."
What's wrong with that?
Well it wasn't me that did it but perhaps it was due to lack of sources or uncontrolled partisan bias. It just sounds like a kid sort of thing to act like one party is golden and the other one sucks. You sound like a kid talking about how superman could kill batman.
Democrats are much more easily defined and predictable than republicans these days. It's big gov. pro abortion you can't do it, let us do it discouragement campaigning hoopla.
But there are all sorts of republicans out there.
Republicans like to act really conservative when running for office and then not act conservative while in office. This makes things confusing because some actually are conservative and get ignored by the media. (Ron Paul)
I've never really felt comfortable calling myself "republican" I usually say conservative ish/ almost libertarian. No matter what side you are on it would be childish to say that there aren't serious issues on both sides..
First of all what does the ten year old believe? Why do the parent's beliefs play such a big role here??
The parents should tell the "truth" which is the fact that they DO NOT KNOW what is going to happen. Which brings us to an interesting point. Atheists claim that they don't know until cold hard evidence is in place yet they say there is no heaven as if it's a "cold hard truth". So it's not at all fare to call that truth. (:
"They scream for the people to be allowed more freedom, yet force I.D. laws to restrict the voting rights of minorities."
How would that restrict voting rights?
"They say they want smaller government, but stop American people from marrying those that they love."
What are you talking about prop 8? It would be a big government move to ignore the majority vote would it not?
"In reality, they want the original America"
We want the good parts. Not slavery and discrimination.
"(hence the constant referrals to the constitutions greatness);"
Isn't it great? If protecting the constitution is what you mean by constant referrals then yeah.
What do you mean "honor killing" like war?
The way I see it is that religions don't tell me to do things God does. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.
So If God tells me to do something I will trust in God and do it.
Look at this we're having a real debate without jokes! This is rare people. (;
Who's giving these boundaries?
If we're talking about Government there seems to be a conflict because conservatives are generally religious yet they say they wan't smaller government. Which is fine but you can't ask for small Government and demand a bunch of morality laws.
The Government should help to an extent but people have to choose to have morals. It's funny I keep hearing everyone talking about rights and freedom but nobody seems to be talking about responsibility.
People can't be forced to be good people. It's like my friends who had stricked parents were always the ones to rebel and vise verse.
But I have to say just because somebody is an atheist doesn't mean that they don't have morals.
(I'm a conservative Christian by the way)
Notice that not a single person on the other side has added reason to their arguments. Is this a poll or a debate?
It is laughable to hear people say that we're better off now. It is clear that the Obama administration is preventing states from having the freedom to help their individual economies. As well as interfering to much with businesses. The Government is getting to big. That's all there is to it. It really is that simple. Obama will continue to drain the middle class he's never done otherwise. His campaign is based on lies. When the Government is telling us that we need more and more government something is wrong. These are not complex issues.
We now have less weapons and our enemies have more. We're getting involved in so many things over seas and ignoring problems here. This needs to stop.
Mitt Romney has a large focus on helping the middle class and giving business more freedom so that the economy can take care of it's self. Also the state level government will be able to do it's job. He won't do weird things like return a statue of Winston Churchill. He's not an anti colonialist.
We actually know more about Mitt and Paul's life than we know about Obama's who didn't just come out of know-where like a celebrity.
Fine it's not cognitive dissonance it's just a lie from the left elitists. Much better. Cognitive dissonance just sounds so good though..dang.
The old lie is that the republicans are the rich greedy ones taking from the leftist little guy. There's much more to it than that and I'm not saying it's black and white. And I'm also not saying that we don't need roads and schools. (so tired of that argument by the way you libs are so in love with your roads and schools lol by the way have you ever seen the roads in a blue state they're always crap; not that I've been in every state)
Obama is an Apologist. K? And he doesn't get sole credit for anything good or bad including killing Osama.
I'm not as partisan as you seem to think. If I was saying that only democrats are to blame and everyone who is republican was great your arguments would hold more weight. But I'm not.
You're saying "our problems are better and more complex than yours". I'm saying all of those problems suck and I have nothing to do with them. Not that I'm perfect I'm wrong sometimes. But man it's great to not be tied to anything such as a party. -but I would still refer to myself as a conservative/libertarian.
The fact of the matter is that there are many types of liberals and your comment about cognitive dissonance is completely flawed. End of story.
Take your pick there's not much in the middle. (; Cognitive dissonance is the beautiful irony of liberalism. The 'broke' is what the elitists are always using to sell their arguments. So the conflict is already there.
Are you going to respond to this?? You seem to be ignoring me lately.
First of all I hate it when people brag about how they don't watch T.V. I honestly think that some people choose not to watch t.v. just so that they can brag about it.
That being said there are a couple differing definitions of "watching t.v." I think channel surfing is pretty boring and lame.
It's: Watching tv for the sake of watching tv vs watching tv to see a particular program.
There are a few shows that I really like(arrested development, the office, 24, lost) and will watch on netflix to avoid commercials. But rarely will I just flip through the channels to see what's on.
But you can't ignore that there are much better ways to invest your time. It's not that tv is so terrible. It's just that there are so many things one could do other than watch tv. You really aren't rewarded with anything in the long run.
I've thought about this a lot actually. I bet if ants were the size of a horse(though that would be terrifying) people would react differently. What if a Bald Eagle was the size of a fly??
I think we allow ourselves to have varying perceptions on animals just because they look different.
How I feel. When that happens.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Well yeah, if you're not going to cut spending (the correct way) of course tax cuts aren't going to help. They'll even hurt. It's not science exploration and all those other things that are going to create jobs and prosperity- don't get me wrong those are good things and they help. But that shouldn't be the focus.The government just shouldn't be the focus. Of course we need roads and schools but what good will they do if everyone is too broke for cars or tuition??
It's production and creativity that should be our focus. That's what America used to be known for. And lately the government has destroyed that. What? You don't think we're capable of preventing corporate slavery with a free market?
Cut taxes AND spending(not necessarily in that order) and let the free market take care of it's self. It's simple.
Because the point that one makes is often bigger than what is said. You're defending what he said. So am I, but i'm offending the reason behind what he's saying.
The reason people are pissed is that we all know why he said that. It's part of a big government agenda. We're not dumb we know that you can't do everything on our own. But this is an issue of big Gov. vs. small. Are you going to tell me that isn't what this is about during these months?
You're confusing the POINT with what he said. What he said does not necessarily = the point.
Yeah that's what he said and I agree mostly. But why is the president of the united states talking about how we need help. The point of the greatness of our society is with the people and our Independence. Barrack has attacked everything that contains creativity and production in this country. His point is to say that we need help and lots of it. It's the lots of it part I have a problem with.
You see, Atheism itself is not a copout. But the gross amount of bias as you observe above is. Chuck just couldn't help but throw in the bit about a deity, he just couldn't help it.
Take that out and I was going to say that I can say the same thing as a Christian who doesn't disregard science. Atheists aren't the only ones who care about science. Arrogance, in this case, is a total copout.
I know I seem pretty anti atheist but I'm really not against atheism as a whole. Disagreeing is one thing but I don't think that having a belief is a cop out. It may be for some people.
It would be pretty bold to say atheism is a cop out because by saying that you're talking about all atheists.
To tell you the truth I give atheists more credit than all these people who say that they're "Christian" who hardly ever act like it, rarely go to church that never legitimately sought for answers and just assumed the position as christian.
"It is a very American idea."
Yeah but why would Obama come out talking about some old American Idea? To appeal to his ever patriotic supporters...? His point, we all know it, is that we need government(true) and lots of it(not true). He's got this sort of discouragement campaign going on. It's all about "you can't do it let us do it". A VERY un-american idea.
Tell me, in proper debate how effective is it to label people so that it put's you above others? It draws attention away from the subject and onto the opponent. I guess you could in a way say that it's effective in making somebody really look dumb. But that leads us to the ever important question of: "what is our goal in debate?". So I don't know what the goal might be for giving somebody a hard time but I doubt that it is to learn and or inform (the eternal cop out) as would be in a healthy debate.
Call it bullying or whatever but it doesn't make you look like a very good debater.
Well I haven't really looked into srom that much but I know that he's generally disliked. Either he's just really good at pushing peoples buttons or perhaps there are those who feel threatened.
I don't know but I think it's safe to say he might be Christian?? Just a shot in the dark.
I know what it's like to have lots of people mad at you though, there was a bunch of down voting controversy back in the day. But I was being kind of a jerk lol
While I do like what troy said on the other side about Christians predicting the damnation of others.
I wan't to say that It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for there to be more than one god for everybody. It's just ..it wouldn't. I'm just trying to imagine some big meeting where they decided "let's co run this planet" I guess it's not that fare of me to say what's weird and what's not but it just doesn't seem that logical to me.
I think you get my general feelings from the description.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying leadership is a bad thing. What I'm saying is that some people are natural leaders and some people are natural followers neither one better than the other. And that people usually give all the glamour and credit to leaders.
And when I say follower I'm not talking about people that can't think and make decisions for themselves, that give into peer pressure. I'm talking about in a work environment.
It might just be that Christians are usually the majority religion where there are atheists around.
BUT it would seem as though many atheist have this sort of annoyance with Christianity. Kind of in the same way liberals are annoyed with traditional american culture. That's just the way it's always looked from my perspective.
It's been a roller coaster thing with us. (; We have lots of fun debating. He put's up a great fight, a challenge is always good. As far as debate skills goes he's definitely one of the best. We disagree on almost everything but he might be the funniest one on here. Sorry Joe. (;
My philosophy is that if somebody is going to make fun of me it better be funny. David is a good example of that. He's sort of the Bill Maher of CD.
"Sometimes the undesirable consequence can be something like, a terrible life for the actual child. This in a sense is selfish, if yourself does not wish a horrible life on a child."
If somebody want's to have unprotected sex, have an unwanted kid, and not be a good parent they are making that choice. I don't wish that on anybody. And that is when it's none of my business.
Selfishness is't always wrong but in that case and in the case of abortion for the sake of abortion it sure is.
It shouldn't be up to us to decide when somebody is human. Say we go by the third trimester augment or whatever. What's the difference between the day before that deadline and the day after?
Why can't the fetus have a say? Why isn't it the fetuses business?
If people don't want kids/ aren't prepared to have one it's not that hard not to have one but that's beside the point. Nobody talks about responsibility anymore.
It's great that you're thinking outside the box really it is. But why should somebody be denied rights just because they're inside of somebody opposed to being outside of somebody? Why is potential not a factor? Why should our constitution not apply to somebody because they haven't been pushed out yet? Is that not discrimination?
It's just semantics I think everybody knows what we mean. I guess it's easier to just say "religion" rather than- "belief system" or whatever. It's just a matter of getting butt hurt.
It's like squares and rectangles. A religion is a belief but a belief is not necessarily a religion. But an atheist is a square and a agnostic is a triangle and a baptist is a trapezoid at the end of the day who gives an ish?
"No actually, we don't even need science in this case. We only need logic and freaking common sense."
It's your common sense vs mine! This is exactly why we need science.
"when disproving christianity"
When? (;
"We don't even need science half the time. There's also logic, reason, common sense, historical fact, and lack of such for god. "
So we don't need science half the time because we have science?
"And rarely do we "poke fun"."
K big shot, you must be new to create debate, and that's fine but I'm sure you will observe what I am talking about.
And I realize that you individually may not poke fun and I would applaud you for it.
"Tell me how scientific it is to assume Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc are fiction."
That's not an assumption. We know J.K. Rowling is a person who admittedly wrote fiction as did Tolkien. We have their birth records. Comments on what inspired their writing etc.
The bible however is inspired of God. Yes written by prophets who are men. So it's a different ballgame.
But even if you don't believe that, it still doesn't make sense to directly compare the two ideas as you did.
I've never cared about points. I just like voicing my opinion. ...and pissing off liberals lets be honest.
Also, in an online debate people can't find cheap little ways to cheat. You have all the time you need to think without getting flustered, nobody can cut you off. It's really the most fair way to debate if you think about it.
And if you think this site is chaotic well, you know what the joker says about chaos.. it's fair. (;
Are you asking me about the Holy Bible of fairy tales? Pick one.
It is completely unfair to put it into one question implying that the holy bible is untrue without question. Which is funny because one who is mocking Christianity is usually an atheist who claims to rely on science.
So tell me how scientific is it to assume Christianity to be false without question?? It's laughable how unscientific atheists tend to be when poking fun at Christians.
I love that you bash republicans and liberals in the same argument. That's so rare these days.
And I too am depressed about the whole Ron Paul thing.
Anyways, I wan't to know why you think Romney is a less expensive Obama. And how Ryan's plan has anything to do with big gov. Even though Romney has his own fiscal plan..
Not really. But that doesn't mean that it is bad just because it's not good. I'm not sure what good it offers other than temporary entertainment.
Though I have met people that weren't allowed to watch Disney movies when they were kids and they're usually pretty weird. Not always but usually. I hope that doesn't offend anybody.
Kids who are sheltered and restricted an extreme amount usually tend to rebel. I watched pg 13 movies ever since I can remember and never really had a curfew and I turned out ok. But everybody is different.
I think it's funny that everyone who's saying he can win the ticket seems to be for Romney/Ryan and vise verse. Why can't people ever cris cross?? (;
When it comes to winning I have to say the unthinkable; I don't know. But I will say that this "middle ground" of people supposedly just waiting for this VP pick to see who they're going to vote for isn't as big as everybody on the left is saying. It's not like the goodold days. More people are into politics now, more people are biased now. It's just the way it is. People already know who there voting for early on.
I think they just wan't to kill the fun for conservatives because by the way the right is stoked about this pick(for the most part) We have a decent ticket with people with good ideas and ideals and we might have a good shot. So naturally there will be many attacks on this ticket as can be. Which should be fun be cause all they seem to get is that Romney left a dog on a car and then there's Ryan who is literally a boy scout.
So go ahead and watch the left grasp at straws.
"But now the vast amount of centrists that could have been swayed from Obama to Romney will likely be put off by the extremity of Ryan's economic policies.
Basically, Romney just lost Florida."
Take medicare for example, I know you must think it's soo extreme to give citizens so many options to choose from. After the age of 50 or 55 I think, people would have the choice to keep what they have and not participate. Hi's policy is full of freedom and options for people. I know that must sound "extreme" to somebody like you.
So basically, it would be Florida's loss. (though I'm thinking more big picture stuff)
With the way things are going it won't soon be a stretch to call freedom and the bare constitutional ideals "extreme" If you go from point A to point F going back to point A will seem pretty extreme. Thus it's all about perspective. Big Gov. vs small gov.
And another thing I really don't think the number of undecided centrists that are vulnerable to sway is really all that big. I think it used to be but politics have changed in recent years. That vast amount you speak of seems to be shrinking. I think most people know who they're going to vote or not vote for.
"You are not free to not buy their stuff?"
Where are you getting that?? Nobody is saying these people don't have the right to boycott. We're saying they're being hypocritical.
"And the boycott has 0 to do with "disagreeing," it has to do with being hateful."
That's sort of an oxymoron because a large part of the disagreement has to do with weather or not it is "hateful" to oppose gay marriage. And how childish name calling has people scared to speak their opinion. (It shouldn't. Look at how much money liberals made chickfila) --that's right a big company making big money don't you love that? Speaking of which, liberals love to boycott companies. They don't need excuses like "hatred". Like mcdonalds and how it's evil because burgers and fries aren't healthy. Ok I went of on a tangent again.
"I'm still looking for a reason why so many anti-gay republicans are having gay sex and why Republicans don't see the hypocrisy in that."
You're really running away with the whole gay republican thing. Does the idea of gay republicans turn you on or something? (; I thought you were joking.. are you?
If it makes you feel better I think it's hypocritical and I'm conservative.
"Why would someone spend so much trying to deny rights to someone that they love?"
This question is tweaked at a very pacific and biased angle, but my official answer would be; To protect the definition of marriage.
"I assumed 'this' referred to boycotts. What did you mean?"
You were correct but I never said it was infringement on freedom. It's just really dumb.
"Isn't that a need in itself? Capitalism rests on the idea of self interest. If you are not interested in buying certain goods or services from certain people, then it would be 'anti-capitalistic' to restrict your right to choose what to buy. A boycott is a legitimate tool of a free market society."
Whatever you wan't can be a need. It's just a question of if it is reasonable. You could say that it rubs you the wrong way but anybody could say that about anything. What the hell makes your opinion so special??
If you decide to not eat somewhere ever again it should be about the food or service etc. I listen to plenty of music with liberal artists saying things I disagree with. But I really enjoy the music.
But as I have said you have the freedom.
"Denying rights to specific groups is discrimination, yes?"
It depends on the rights. Marriage is marriage I gave you my stance on civil unions.
"I think it is ludicrous that the 'definition of marriage' can endure so much change from the Biblical marriage"
Why?
"And you agree with their discrimination?"
Whose?
"I'm saying that causing other people pain (not allowing them to get married) because of your own opinion is hateful."
That is where we differ.
"They've caused pain, ripped apart families, and ruined lives."
Who exactly are we talking about?? You speak as if we're talking about one person. You can just label a whole group of people like that.
"Please list how boycotting, or complaining about someone, is infringing on their freedom"
Did I ever say it was? I don't believe I did. Please list why there is need to boycott something completely legal.. Other than the fact that it just rubs you the wrong way.
"it is most definitely the people they're choosing to discriminate against by actively trying to prevent them from getting married."
See here's the problem, you think it's discrimination. So who's right you or me? Who is to say? It's not so much about preventing gay people from getting married as it is protecting the definition of marriage.
"People need to quit denying gays equal rights. Simple as that, really."
They have equal rights. Don't make it sound like something it is not. Why don't we just enact another type of union for gay people that way we don't have to change the definition of marriage. To put it frankly marriage is ours we had it first. So they should make their own civil union.
"And I find it massively biased how you will defend the right of people to discriminate, but not the right of people to insult those who discriminate against others."
Hey! of course they have the right to discriminate I never said they couldn't. I just don't agree with what they're saying. And I don't enjoy name calling or people saying that any opinion other than their own is hateful. It's just so..cheap and annoying. But no they totally have the right.
"I can think of no other explanation."
That holds no weight.
I could say that I find no other explanation as to why you can't see my point therefore you're stupid. Same thing, you know it is. But you see that would be assumption and name calling. Do you see what I'm getting at?
"Why would someone spend so much trying to deny rights to someone that they love?"
You sound like a teenager complaining to their parents. ..Are you a teenager..? (;
"Once your personal belief that homosexuality is wrong enters into law it becomes bigotry."
Says who? What source are you basing that from? The bigotry law? One could say that about any law one dislikes..
"Don't wanna be called a hate monger"
Where are you getting that? I don't care what you call me or anybody els. It just makes you look dumb.
To those of you in the other debate I didn't know that CFA was funding certain "anti gay marriage" groups but it still doesn't matter. This is about freedom. A private company has the absolute freedom to do so. Weather you agree or not is your problem. People need to quit calling names(hate mongers etc.) at those who disagree.
Being anti gay marriage does not in any way mean that people have hatred.
"No one's telling him to shut up"
Did I say anyone was telling him to shut up? No. But even worse you are using the words hate and discrimination. Those are strong words to just throw around without any explanation. And you have added NO reason as to how this company is hateful OR discriminatory. So go ahead.
"they are saying that the money should not go towards the promotion of hate and discrimination."
So are you saying that when you buy a product you are promoting the opinion of the business owner?
This is very much about freedom of speech. People shouldn't have to worry about being called hate mongers for having an opinion. People like you are a hindrance to free speech. Sir.
Well, we're not a pure democracy. We're a representative democracy.
Though at times it may seem as though we have little control over anything and that's true. But we have just about as much control as anyone CAN have in a government without an overwhelming amount of chaos. We have it pretty good.
It rubs me the wrong way when people say that we don't live in a democracy. Especially since it's usually those on the left who consequently want bigger government which would make this country even less of a democracy..
You know, it's not even about gay marriage it's about freedom of speech. Regardless of what chickfila's "stance" is(who cares) people should respect that freedom regardless of if they happen to agree.
The left acts like the only people allowed rights are those that agree with them. No, they don't believe that but they ACT like that. It's funny because all they did by making this a huge deal is make chickfila a BUNCH of money. And that's just what liberals hate. (: They know how childish they're being so many wont show up to this debate. -I guess because it's not about god, that's the type of debate that's popular these days. Yeah you know who you are.
Explain to me how a genre of music can be "dead".
Furthermore explain how it is supposed to be dead OR alive - to who? Everybody? Just because something is dead to you doesn't mean it's dead to me.
This is why I hate genres. A lot of my favorite music is hard to define. There is not one genre of music that I can completely say "oh I don't like country"(for example). I generally do not but every now and then there will be a song I like.
If you like a song you like it if you don't you don't.
