Privatee message me, then. I don't give that kind of information out to the public.

.....Are you asking my sexuality? .

The Earth orbiting the Sun falls into the laws of motion.

Honnestly...

Prove it. If you make a statement, you must back it up. This is the same issue we have every time you debate with me, you make statements, not arguments.

Really now? Just because you're like that everyone must be just like you? Damn, mind=blown.

...Your avatar has the image for the Third Reich in it, yet you're talking as if free market is bad...My brain hurts now...

flips table

Why is there no up-voting a debate?! This is much overdue, and I applaud you for it.

Look at some of people in history, that did great things. Stalin(arguable, debate for another day), Bill Gates, Bell, Tito, etc. Those people all had enemies, does that make them any less of a person?

It is physically possible, quite simply, actually. (InB4 argument about brain development)

For human life, yes. It's proper distance from the sun, so we don't burn to a crisp or freeze (light we would on Jupitar or Pluto), it's proper with its atmosphere, and it has enough water for us.

So, you're saying that if you had an enemy that's bad? If so, a hell of a lot of countries must be bad, because North Korea hates EVERYONE.

"(D) Largely because of changes he made in Roman government, Rome had the stability and strength it needed to endure longer"

However, it stil fell. Could you argue that it also caused it's collapse?

Also: (A) He came first.

So Nero was better than Washington? Or really any president?

Pretty obvious since my user name is Julius, and my profile picture is of the SPQR, an era of Rome.

Julius Caesar himself did so much for Rome, he was intelligent, and he was ruthless. He seized power from the corrupt Augustus, destroyed the old German tribes, and even invaded Egypt, bring it under Rome's wing.

Beside, define 'better'?

As stated below, no sciences this term, last term I had my science course.

As for waht you said about getting rid of some of the courses, I disagree and agree. The statement about PE being gone will never happen, we have a too high of a level of obesity, as such, we need it the class.

We have our 5 mandatory, each at an hour each, one elective(grade10), another hour, and after grade 10, you have all but one course as an elective for an hour. Keep in mind though that we also swap classes mid-term. Last term I went with PE and Science, this term I have French and History.

No, for multiple reasons. The most prominent, how ever, is the fact that he's extremely inexperienced and is just riding in his Father's old glory.

Because no one else will, I will.

In the current Education system, for Canada, we have a five class schedule, again, at least in the School I know. These five courses generally are as follow: Economics, History, French, Math, and English. Please, tell me as to what we're suppose to get rid of to fit in two new courses.

A good way to explain this: What's perfect for the spider is a nightmare for the fly.

I want to reply to this, but if I reply in a way of sarcasm, I'll not be helping the situation. If I reply in a way in which I'm taking it seriously, it'll make me seem like the sarcasm is going over my head, making me look like an idiot.

Well played, Mad One. Well played indeed.

No, I'm against Communism, anyway? And when you look at the post itself, you can see that it's about the political compass, and it explaining it.

..Kay? What's the point of that? My argument is neither for nor against Communism, nor any other political point?

...Why the Hell will you report someone to the authorities for SLANDER? Maybe if it was major HARASSMENT I'd agree with you, maybe if it was a DEATH THREAD I'd agree with you, but SLANDER? Y'know, the FBI has nothing better to do then deal with some random civilian's problems and hunt out this person's IP, then either A: Make him pay cash, or B: Bring him to jail...OH WAIT! I'm pretty sure Slander isn't even against the law. Please, use some logic in your OT, or, at least stop making debates like this. What's the point?

sighs Humanities intelligence seems to be dropping by the day.

I ask you two things from this entire post: What is the point? And do you know anything about Communism?

Communism on the political compass is refereed to as, 'left' or, 'east'. Capitalism is refereed to as 'right' or, 'west.' Yet, North and South? North is Authoritarian, and South is liberal. You can be very left, to the point of Communism, yet you do not have to be Authoritarian.

Please, don't use propaganda to judge Communism.

You're either theist, or non-theist. As such, you're either believing of a god(s), or you don't. Before any one even thinks about mention Atheism isn't a religion, etc, that's a debate for another day.

Oh the irony in this one post is so rich...Alas, irony is often lost.

Amazing guy, fairly smart. We butt heads(more than most realize). He's a trollish person once you get to know him, and he's a little too... capitalist (if any of you think I'm serious with that, find out more about Kozlov.) for my liking, other than that, smart and cool guy, glad to know him.

I agree, in reality everything belongs to the goverment in some form of way or another. That car you have? It's the banks. But, who wons the banks? The men in office laughing as we all starve.

...Morgan Freeman has a show...?

(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.)

More mods. Simple enough, right? They'll help keep this place under control (Read as: Oppressed)

That is, 'till Stalin comes out of no where and takes over.

GGNORE.

There's a diffrence. Even in the wild, all pack animals have a leader, the alpha male...

The world is full of trying to be equal, but you're taking the words to literal.

So, you're agaisnt eqaulity? Because you can't be for equality here.

Anarchy is not physically possible( in reality). Look at wolves, their packs always have a leader. Schools, they have leaders. Families, goverments, communities, leaders everywhere. There will always be a leader.

No, it shouldn't be the publics choice. If the public find said person funny, yet said person is going around spewing nonesense and utter spam, should the people be allowed to keep this, 'friend' of theirs?

It should not be the peoples choice, but the choice of the leaders of our community, the Mod(s?).

Kozlov isn't a Commy, I should send you to the Gulag for that.

..>This is a debate site, not a door. Go be like the Jehovah Witnesses if you want to convert people.

Stalin, he was Soviet. Must more be said?

Randomness that needs to be put because of the count...

But, you can't get the other factors into it, such as the effects it'll have on your brain.

In the long run, will they give you the proper results? The same results?

So does apple...

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

COMRADE! You can't go!

...Do the Mother Land proud!

You're a pretty cool guy, and very intelligent.

☭ You will be missed ☭

How is there any question here? The CCCP, of course! Without them, we would have lost. They ended up making it so Germany was fighting on two fronts. Without that, we'd have lost.

Aphrodite/Venus were more sex related, and Cupid and Eros are the same thing, Cupid is just the Roman incarnation. Same with Aphrodite and Venus.

Though, thanks for Hathor comment. Never knew that one.

If a child becomes depressed and cuts, should their parent be held responsible? By your logic, yes. It's up to the parents to make sure they stay happy.

But the USSR would have been demolished and joined the third Reich if Stalin didn't industrialize the country.

Trust me, buddy. Comrade Communist over there did his his background check. I saw it all, he's not that stupid.

Best: Stalin (Prepare for flame!)

But ya, did he or did he not industrialize the country, allowing it to y'know, create tanks. If he didn't, many people would die.

Worse: Stalin

90% percent of people don't realize that I'm not a teacher, nor realize my true age. Oh, how fun it is to be sneaky.

We have BEDMAS here in Canada. They're 'brackets' here. The Parentheses are []

Nawwww, thanks. Hopefully I'll end up not going insane...Hopefully...

IF anyone would look at the link as to the source, you'd realize I was quoting someone...

Link's not mine, of course I don't teach, don't have the ability to deal with annoying people.

I used a fraction bar because I was too lazy to figure out how to insert a '÷' ;)

I meant to use a '÷'

Now what? ;)

^ Word for word from Joe

What is, 'logic' though? There is logical reasons to be against it, for example, the bible. They believe it's wrong, they're logic is correct and there. You can dispute that they're wrong, but it's their religion.

Also, for you sakes,

am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today.

The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with . therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it.

6÷2(3)

(6) ÷(2)(3)

6÷23,

or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move)

(6)(1 (over) 2)(3)

are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or

33= 9

Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations.

The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this:

(1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1))

From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9.

If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar.

HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem.

Once and for all, the answer is 9.

Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question.

End of debate... hopefully.

Source(s):

Doctorate, 9 years teaching experience.

9, BEDMAS.

BRackets for 3.

6/2(3)

6/2=3

3(3)=9

And my post isn't long enough yet....

Define;Atheism

Putting that into good search will come up with the one that I got, so, it looks like we're going to be at a standstill because of that.

Assuming this is the whole one with the Criminal and the farmer? With the farmer on one side, with guns, and the criminal with gun. Then, the farmer loses his yet the crimnal keeps his? If so, you've just become so much more awesome.

When in doubt, compromise! I approve!

...........................

Actually, Greek. Saturn is the Roman one.

My point is that you can an atheist but still be theist.

a·the·ism

/ˈāTHēˌizəm/

Noun

The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Hence, if I believe Cronos created the world, and god is something the whiteman created, then I am an Atheist.

Yes, because what we're learning now is good for nothing. I highly doubt I'm ever going to need to calculate the velocity of a boat.

If it's more along the lines of hunting, cooking, etc. then yes, the later should be taught. They help in life, politics is just brain food.

Not really. Their theory was either let a nation flourish and watch as it grows, or watch as it falls and dies. Hitler was more of a "make the ultimate race!" Kinda guy.

Also, why is this debate even here? Aren't you someone who complains about, 'drama' on CD? If so...

(He, waiting for someone to get the irony in my post.)

Aren't you the creator of CD? By the logic, doesn't that make your word law?

No. Heavens no. That's asking for trouble.

You end up having people downvoting another person just for the sake of getting back at them.

"Lets kill the Jews!" Said Hitler.

"Lets destroy the Nazis!" Said America.

"Let's destroy everyone!" Said the USSR.

And so the Second World War broke out.

"Hence the reason people who believe in any god are a theists and those who don't are atheists."

...You literally just agreed with me...? My argument is that if you don't believe in God(Noun), then you're Atheist. If you believe in Zeus, then you're Theist.

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal...

Again, word for word, theism.

NOW,"god"

god

/gäd/

Noun

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme...

Exclamation

Used to express a range of emotions such as surprise, anger, and distress: "my God! Why didn't you tell us?".

Synonyms

lord - deity - divinity - godhead - idol

NOW, "Deity"

de·i·ty

/ˈdē-itē/

Noun

A god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion): "a deity of ancient Greece".

Divine status, quality, or nature: "a ruler driven by delusions of deity".

HENCE, Satan is a Deity, making him a god.

Look at the words carefully. It doesn't say, for Atheism, that they don't believe in any other super human body, it says they don't believe in God.(IE: Christianity's deity.)

You can be an Atheist and still believe in the Olympic gods, for example.

Because you know, Wikipedia is a legit citing source.

sa·tan·ism

/ˈsātnˌizəm/

Noun

The worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices.

Looking up in google, "Define; Satanism."

Don't like that one?

Sa·tan·ism [seyt-n-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.

the worship of Satan or the powers of evil.

2.

a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan is worshiped.

3.

diabolical or satanic disposition, behavior, or activity.

And, before you can say it, "LaVeyan Satanism, often referred to simply as Satanism among most adherents, was founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey." Taken right from the words of Wikipedia.

ALSO, because you did it, -rolls eyes-

Just noticed this now, but sex can kill you. It raises your heart rate, blood pressure, and core body tempeture. Too much of it CAN kill you.

No, god refers to Jesus' father. Jesus is the lord, according to the bible though.

Their right to chose between killing themselves, being killed, or dying of old age?

Okay, then why don't I have the right to go kill someone who pisses me off?

She already hates me for putting her as an enemy because of an argument between her and Kozlov, so i'm good with her hating me more.

It's a list, with Hellno being first, comma separating myself and him, then you, Kozlov, Vermink, and then anyone willing to back up what they're saying.

Why? Why do they have that right? Back up your statements.

What's the point of sending me a link about Democracy VS a Republic? Links are much like quotes, you don't just post it and leave it hanging.

Back up a statement if you're going to make it. Saying that they shouldn't have to live a miserable life isn't a real argument.

"cow·ard·ly

/ˈkouərdlē/

Adjective

Lacking courage.

Adverb

In a way that shows a lack of courage.

Synonyms

adjective. craven - recreant - chicken-hearted - lily-livered

adverb. faint-heartedly

"

Right from the horses mouth. The congruous thing to do is to stick by it, and continue to live through the hard times. Hence, they lack the courage to do that.

Okay, okay, what? Rome falling because of the taxes? Really? How? Rome fell because of the fact that the way they expanded was solely by taking the resources of conquered territory then using those same resources to invade again. Not taxes. Not pensions. Imperialism. I should know, ever notice my profile picture?

Don't get me wrong, I understand suicide. I feel like trying to break this tie, so I'll be the Devil's advocate here. If anyone wants my real opinion, message me.

Yes, it can be seen as cowardly. You're leaving the hard times without thinking of anyone else and you're not standing to fight. Hence, cowardly.

"ROTFLMAO "

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

But, it means, 'Rolling On The Floor Laughing My * Off."

Hellno isn't bad, I like to look at myself as smart on some things, you, Kozlov, Vermink, pretty much anyone willing to back up a story.

"Look at Ancient Greece, they stayed more within themselves. "

wait, what?

Ancient Greece staying mostly with themselves? Alexander the great conquored Persia, Egypt, and pretty much everything in between the two. The greeks destroyed Troy, too. The spartans themselves took over a lot of stuff(Not sure as to the numbers with that one.)

So, before you go around saying how 'wrong history' is a petpeeve of your's, please double check your facts.

Sources: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html

Thank you! The final stage of Capitalism is always Imperialism!

No, it shouldn't. When you think about it, Euthanasia is literally just suicide accisted by the government, yet the government creates things to help stop suicide from happening. Why, you ask? Because the killing of one self is generally frowned upon.

(For those who are wondering, I base the whole government suicide thing on the fact that this is suicide prevention month.)

Your grammar! It burns !

Yugoslavia was one of those countries that just makes you say wow. It was so interesting. There were civil and economic liberties. People miss Yugoslavia.

Why exactly are you having a go at SovietSpy, when he's done pretty much nothing? He asked why about the friendship. You replied about minding his own business, etc. Yet, this is all on a public debate? Really, you shouldn't be having a go at the poor lad when he's done nothing.

Yes, everyone always judge people. You call someone nice, is that not judging them? You call them mean, is it not judgement? It's in our nature to judge others as we see fit.

Nawwwwww, don't give him Pluto! Give him a god that's more..debate-ish. Like Janus, or maybe Minerva.

Ya..no. I have no reply to that, I tip my hat to you. Upvote for you!

Generally, the Spartans didn't really fight with the rest of them. Only untill it was a unified empire(?) did they, and even that I'm not 100% sure on.

ASSUMING it was a fair battle(a ratio of 1:1) the romans would win. If you do the battle under the proper Emperor, then there'd be no compeition. The romans litterally were born to fight, and were trained to do it. IF it was the Spartans..well, that's another story.