You're really not helping the debate by attacking how they write, and not the idea they're trying to present in their argument.

Video games causes plenty of violence in reality. All violence originated from people who're playing violent games. It's just that simple.

Enough with attacking the person who have stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Marriage is next, it's inevitable. The opposition is fading; states have legalized it; the numbers show that more people are in favor of it than those who are not. This debate is almost over, lets not add any more fuel to the heated arguments that have been repeated time and time again. Although opponents will argue, saying that the pope okaying same-sex civil unions, doesn't mean that same-sex marriage will be next (Slippery slope fallacy), the truth is, there's more than enough sufficient evidence to prove it.

What you've said to support your position, does not bring in any weight. The opposing arguments are weighing you down, their proven facts are beyond the ground. Don't put the educators who have educated you, in a bad light. Your appreciation for them, is lacking with every ridiculous assumptions along the way. How would you have known to spell and type without them?

Teachers should, without a doubt in my mind, get paid a lot more for their involvement in educating students across the world. If their weekly wages were to increase, it would " attract the best and the brightest," and "to retain the best and the brightest." There's too many benefits to raising their pay then to not do it at all.

If you guys honestly think that a girl have to significantly impress a boy (when it's the other way around) to have sex with him, "get off your high horse," and provide proper evidence or plausible reasoning before making dumb assumptions.

I totally care about Chipotle not serving guacamole because of climate changes when there are way better alternatives that are always there for everyone. The idea of the climate directly relating to the availability of the guacamole AND preventing them from coming up with a strategy to keep serving it (because the demand for the product is in the negatives), is definitely not stupid at all. /sarcasm

Although the Massachusetts court have said that 'upskirt' photos are legal, there's still a reasonable expectation of privacy for women. The law does not grant an proper excuse of severely extenuating one's "common sense," and respect for other people nearby.

Just because the future of the world is within our hands, doesn't mean that we're in trouble. There is no casual connection shown between us and the consequent action of everyone being in trouble (Slippery slope). The debate itself have not provided a clear reason for why it would happen, therefore it's invalid, and the resulting arguments over it may be based from unproved assumptions (or opinions).

I do not mind that you believe the concept of marriage is more to blame for divorce situations, however it's certainly not idiotic "... the one thing men CANNOT do, is bear children, and the one thing women CANNOT do is day after day of actual HARD manual labour. so marriage was created, to trade our surplus labour for you're ability to bear children."

It can not be stated enough that having to constantly change where you live because of a divorce between your parents, is more than just a "life changer," it's a "life terror."

The debate is primarily concerned with how the divorcing of parents will affect their child mentally. There is nothing that implies a concern over any kids marrying each other within this discussion. As for my argument, although there are many factors that are dependent on the specific situation, it's generally bad for young children to experience one.

In the United States, the constitution guarantees the right to free speech. A lot of people believe that the internet should be a place where all information can flow freely. Therefore the government should not censor the internet. Need I say more?