- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Also people are never to intelligent for religion, there will always be beliefs that people will fall back on in times of discomfort. Religion isn't a sign of dumbness, it's just a sign that a person wants to believe that they are part of a 'plan', 'purpose', or a 'saved group'. This isn't a bad thing, some people do great things with religious justification. While others may do worse things, it isn't necessarily correlate with their religion.
1.) English is the most commonly spoken language in the United States of America, if you don't speak it you'll have to learn it anyways. So it makes sense to have a national language that most people can understand.
2.) Cost: It would be cheaper to just produce all Federal documents in English only, not our fault if they can't read it. They should've learned.
3.) Follow by example: Plenty of states have done it, so why not the federal government?
4.) Patriotism: What message do we send across if we don't even agree to have the most pure, godly, capitalistic, scientific language as our national language? A bad one, it shows we don't care about the majorities concerns and wants.
There is no De Jure national language in the federal government of the United States for a couple reasons.
1.) Flexibility, you never know when there will be more speakers of one language than English one day. Spanish is already spoken by a significant minority of the US population, that number is growing. It likely won't take over English as the dominate language any time soon; you can't ever know either.
2.) Openness and Freedom: It shows that the US federal government is open to all languages of the world, this is good for propaganda reasons at the very least. It shows that we are accepting of people of all nationalities, not just those with an English language background.
3.) Federal law applies to the entire nation, thus it is better to have no national language in areas that other languages are very common. Examples are New Mexico (a US state, some people know this, some don't), Southern California, or Louisiana (French).
It is utterly ridiculous that molestation would change someone's sexual orientation. It would likely scar them for life.
HOWEVER ignoring your argument above, and focusing on the title of this debate I have a different conclusion. YOU can change someone's sexual orientation (On the outside) through making them afraid of being punished (heavily) for it. This is one of the reasons people find it difficult to come out, out of fear of being punished in one form or another.
With this conclusion I state that you could change someone's external feelings with torture/ making them really afraid of crossing you wrong. It would lead to self-hate, extreme depression, and suicidal emotions yes, but it would work.
However it is unlikely to change their true selves.
Saluton, Cxu oni scribas Esperante?
Give blood or organs
If it's against their morals?
If they gave up their freedom what options should they have, they should work for the community should they not?
Same as above
Be given medical care
Fine, what of experimental medical care? Or just plain using them as human guinea pigs?
Fight for their freedom or die
Think of the revenue for the state! Plenty would be made! Far less prisons, all you would need would be temporary cells! Also some television corporations would be willing to help fund the program provided they could broadcast what happens.
If you don't want them out fine. However what if they get special benefits such as a far superior bed?
Be participants on either a game show or a reality show((
What of game-shows?
I'm not worried about changing beliefs.
I am, thus I use a lighter hand.
That's not what this discussion is about, however. This discussion is about the veracity of claims.
Accuracy and truth are subjective, it differs from person to person. Facts however...
The facts of the matter are unambiguous and the dispute is between those who want to believe fantasy because it feels good and those who accept the facts. This is not a dispute in the sense of being meritorious or defensible.
First, the facts we know are highly likely to be changed someday with better evidence. While it may be more accurate than whatever Creationists say, it most likely isn't the complete truth. However that is meaningless in the context of this debate. Second, I was just pointing out that there is a dispute.
Exactly my thought.
Apparently we only differ in the amount of force used in order to make a point.
While that is great evidence, I might want to have some fun with a couple points.
1.) How do you know that is not a test of faith?
That is a horrible question that requires the existence of god to be verified before it could be answered.
2.) What if every primate species was infected with the exact same type of virus at separate times with no line of descent at all?
Extremely unlikely... this isn't a good question either, yet I heard it used before.
3.) What if the study is faked?
Peer review.... what else can I say?
Why give an unverifiable claim equal footing as science? We can't prove that reality isn't a dream, should that have equal standing too?
1.) To avoid getting into an internet argument with the more zealous on this site, it just ends in disaster with no change in belief. If you are light on the person they can cooperate and put up less resistance to something that they don't agree with. Eventually leading into someones change in beliefs.
2.)Yes, yes we should. However we should focus on things that will lead to a better life rather than indefinites, dream or not a dream doesn't matter and hasn't influenced our lives tremendousness. Just like the origin of the human species, it is great knowledge to have, but doesn't influence regular life all that much.
The evidence says that we live on an ancient Earth, and naturally formed upon. There really is no dispute, just denialism.
Anywhere there is argument (well founded or not) there is dispute. Denialism is reserved for those who don't want the implications of the truth in their reality.
Well you bring up an interesting ideas, things which are complicated and could have many an explanation.
How were humans created?
It is different according to your viewpoint. Scientific proof shows that Humans came from early life-forms. So that would be evolution. Some people think that is indisputable proof that there is no god. I think it doesn't prove anything in that field. After all how do you know that a god of some sort didn't guide our evolutionary path? You can't, simple as that.
On another note if humans were created by god, as in just poof without prior beings, what would that suggest? I think it would suggest that humans are a tool being used for some purpose, why else would you create something? (Entertainment is a purpose).
Why are we on this planet?
Old-World creationists, Panspermiaists, and Atheists agree that the world was around for a very long time. They seperate as too why we are here on this planet, Non-Panspermia Atheists think that we are only here due to chance. Which is a very rare thing to occur, so we are lucky to even exist. Old-World creationists think that God made this world just so that humans would eventually come about due to the attributes god gave to the world. In short we are here because we of the conditions of the earth eventually rising about to humanity.
As for New-World creationists and Panspermiaists, life-forms were placed here by a higher power, which were either humans or one day would become humans. In short we were put here with intent of us to be here.
Which is true is currently impossible to prove, so it differs on your viewpoint on what is correct.
My thoughts are that
1.) It should be a choice of the prisoner, no matter their sentence they can choose to die.
2.) They should be able to choose what method they want (within reason).
4.) A psychiatric examination shall be conducted at least every week for a three months to determine if they are ready to die (and not being told by voices to do so).
These all died out due to survival of the fittest. Not being fit enough to their environment to survive, or at the least not being fit enough to breed.
You are right that Darwin's theory is wrong, but it is like Newton's three laws. It was the base, and now it is improved and refined through a little over a century worth of research. Like the three laws the basic knowledge is there, but is not up to today's knowledge.
If you are arguing from a Christian viewpoint then you should be aware that a Christian monk discovered evolution!
Another point to the Christian viewpoint, if you are Christian what makes you think good doesn't have the capability to come up with such a system? There are supposedly no limits to god's power isn't there?
Statistically that is the case in all fields except STEM (Science, technology, engineering, mathematics) areas, where males excel more... As for spending more time on it, it differs per household. As for college there are more females in every class except STEM (again) classes, so in two decades every field except STEM and service work will have more females working in it rather than males. The UK is actively trying to make sure the genders are equal in all fields... this includes areas where males must receive a boost.
Communism and capitalism fall somewhere in the middle, but both are similar representations of one or the other through a semi-free market.
I can't think straight, my meds are kicking in... so tired.
You want to know how it goes? (Smallest to largest, in magnitudes of ten)
decimeter (there's your go between)
Learning is good.
Well... heaven's sorting system must be insane if I got up to the pearly white gates while supposed to be in hell.
However do you know what I would say to him? I would ask him three questions.
1.) How many people actually got into your heaven? (As I am curious what a 'true' believer is like, each follower of the faith thinks they are a 'true believer)
2.) I have done minimal sin, and I have done much charity work; so can I just be let onto the first circle of Dante's hell if I can't get into heaven? (good enough for me, and not as much of a dictatorship. Plus I get to speak with many great people over the course of history)
3.) Can you please explain the nature of these people, and do they get into heaven? (If they do it's not the place for me, if they don't I can rest peacefully knowing that they are either suffering in purgatory or hell)
I would then thank god for answering the most important questions on faith, and go wherever I am needed.