- 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
This is why I hate debates over whether it's a choice or not. It can't be proven to straight people because they can never understand unless they are actually gay. The best proof I can give to you is this: I am gay, and, if I could change my sexuality, I would in a heartbeat. I live in a family of super-Catholics, where homophobic statements are expressed whenever someone remotely gay appears in the media or in real life. I have not come out to them, and I will most likely never do try to. All I want is for my family to love the real me, but I can't. Instead, I have to live this life of constant paranoia until I move on to college next year. I've known about my sexuality since I was eight; I'm seventeen now. Life has been miserable for about that long because I realized that it was wrong. I'm not trying to write you a sob story about why you should believe that being gay is not a choice. I am just trying to give you the best proof that I can, which is my personal experience as being gay. To me, this is proof enough, but, if you want to, I can go into all of the juicy details of why I'm not attracted to women, and it isn't because I'm sexist; I have many more female friends than male friends, if that doesn't surprise you. It's all because of the biological attraction to women, or even the fact that I have had both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, and the only ones that have ever felt right were homosexual ones. There are numerous other reasons why I know that I am gay, but those are the key ones that prove it the most for me. Sorry for talking your ear off, but I hope that this helps.
"I've been treated like shit most of my life, I should take it out on others." Is that what you're basically saying? If so, then I feel bad for you. I would and still do feel sad to hear that this has happened to you because I can relate. But just because I feel like I should be more irritable towards others doesn't meant that I should act out on it. It helps when I try not to be angry, otherwise, I treated like shit even more :/
Yes, but in the case of fighting back against the government of one such as the United States of America, you cannot state that there is evidence of such a revolution being successful. The government of the United States is far more powerful than any of the those other governments during that time. Yes, Libya and Syria were different, if you're referring to the modern day struggles, but they are still war-torn, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. If we are to even stand a chance against our government, we need more than just guns. You can't successful fight against tanks, militaristic planes, missiles, and various other weapons with just assault rifles. So if you're suggesting that all the public needs is assault rifles to combat against a tyrannical United States government, then you might want to recheck what the government's capabilities are.
To be honest, though, I am fine with people having guns, but I see no reason for assault rifle possession among civilians. Why do people need something that can release such a large amount of bullets when the gun is already extremely lethal with just one in the barrel? I have not seen a valid reason as to why any civilian needs one. If you could please explain that to me, I would be very grateful.
You really think that civilians with assault rifles will be able to take back their government, which would hypothetically possess and implement powerful weapons such as tanks, missiles, and heavily-armed soldiers to control the public? This isn't some fantasized situation from the movies, where the civilians are able to outmaneuver and take back their government. The United States has one of the strongest militaristic systems in the world. I'm pretty sure that, in the case of civilians fighting back against the government, the masses would lose. Using the Second Amendment doesn't even apply anymore. It was drafted in the 1700s, where technology was limited to basic handguns and rifles, along with the occasional cannon. Times are different. I shouldn't have to explain the numerous advances in militaristic technology. The ability to kill is significantly higher. Does this mean that we should just abandon the Second Amendment? Absolutely not, but there should be restrictions on what civilians should be able to possess, otherwise, if you really want to completely follow the amendment, why not just let everyone have whatever firearm they want? I can guarantee that, if everyone possessed a weapon to "protect themselves", the mortality rate will rise. One disagreement that gets out of hand can lead to a standoff. Do you really want everyone to have to ability to possess high-capacity magazines with their assault rifles? It's just bound to get out-of-hand, no matter how much regulation is done. We are only human, and people make mistakes all the time. Unless there is a way to prevent every single human being from developing even the slightest feeling of anger, I will never back up the argument that assault rifles should be allowed for possession among civilians.
It is if you make it serious. For me, I see it as serious because it shows that you trust that person to share their body with you; it's one of the most open ways you can be with someone. So, in my opinion, yes, it's serious. But again, that's my opinion on what sex means to me.
Ok. Thank you for explaining that. Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you were saying in your initial description. Yes, I agree; haste is waste. I like to argue things carefully. Sorry if I presented myself as stubborn and jumpy when it came to debating.
I also agree that we need to work together to resolve the God debate on both ends, otherwise it isn't a mutual conclusion.
If you are asking from a moral standpoint: then no. But in all honesty, equality is a human idea. Nothing is ever equal. We cannot, however, determine whether girls are better or worse than boys; there are so many positives and negatives for both that it is almost impossible to figure that out.
I, however, believe that we should take the simple and peaceful route and say that both are equal.
Ok. You have absolutely no confidence in yourself. I am not saying it in a mean way. Here's the revelation. You have posted 4+ debates on how you can get women, and have repeatedly said all of the negatives about yourself and can't seem to find the positives. You are obviously at a low point in your life and possibly need to see someone about your pessimism. IF you want a way to find women without meeting them publicly, just use dating websites. They are an easy way to get familiar with someone before you meet. If you have good chemistry with them online, you are likely to have chemistry with them in public. I don't know what else to say besides this:
You need to take action in what you want. You constantly ask people on a debating website about how you can get a girl to like you, and yet, when it seems like great advice is showing up on each post, you just create another perspective debate over what you should do. Seriously, take action. You cannot find a girl by asking others. Yes, maybe you have failed a few times at meeting a girl, but if you fail many times, you need to find a different way to find one. Women only like guys without personality, success, and looks if they want to do community service and help them achieve one of those things. You, however, are doubting that you have any of them.
If you don't have a great personality, fine. That can always be changed. It is by psychologists that, if one pretends to be someone for a long enough time, they will eventually develop that persona as their own. This can be very bad advice though, because you do not want to use this to exploit women.
If you do not have success, it's not too late. You believe it is, and therefore, you make it impossible to achieve. If you don't have confidence in yourself and work hard, you will never achieve success.
When it comes to looks, you believe that you are average or below. The funny thing is, when a man has a lack of confidence in their looks, they usually turn out to be because they believe it to be true. Even if that man is generally a nice-looking guy, he can believe and cause his appearance to look bad through facial expression, dress, attitude, etcetera. Have confidence in your looks. Try to find features that you like about yourself. Soon enough, you will create a happier, more confident person, which is actually very attractive to women.
In your opinion, God sends people to Hell. It is not a proven fact, it is a belief.
As for the funeral part, I am neutral; either way is fine, but it depends on what the deceased wants. A party celebrating that person's life is meant to celebrate the things that they have accomplished, what they will leave behind that imprints their existence into history, whether big or small, and it is meant to be meaningful and joyous that they had a wonderful life on Earth.
I am glad that you are putting your opinion out here, but the question was about what you believe is the most important thing that you should do before you die. I am glad that you are a very devout Christian; Christians are the most optimistic people I know. But please don't try and preach to me what the most important thing I should do is, based on your opinions. This debate is only about what you want to do.
I'm sorry if this comes off as up-front and hostile, but I am being sincere this time and am just asking for peace.
I believe one of the few reasons why I am still alive, to this day, is that I want to find my special someone, or at least someone very close to that. I am an affectionate guy, and I want to find someone that I can look forward to seeing everyday and live for. If I don't get that before I die, then I'll have wasted my entire life.
Well my mom and my dad our married and they are Christian and they haven't had a divorce.
I congratulate you on that. They are very lucky that they still love each other. That is true dedication.
If your a Christian once your married to that person you have to stick with that person for the rest of your life.
Based on the Bible. It is your opinion whether you want to believe that or not. People can still choose to go against that. Not every Christian abides to this.
...if I am alone and not married and I need an emergency and I am home alone who is going to take me to the hosiptal?
Either call 911 or have LifeAlert, and the ambulance will come once you call for them. You don't need family to take you places. The hospital has staff for those instances when you are alone, or you could simply have friends to call if you need help.
no tennagers that young have to many hormones
Puberty. Nuff said.
dont begin to understand real love till 18 or older
Not true. Just like my ally above, I too have fallen in love when I was a teenager.
We both were in love for quite a while, and it was true, but it faded away over several years. It was, however, a very mutual and loving relationship.
it is wrong
In your opinion.
Note: There is a spell-check button, or you could just right-click the words that are underlined in red. They will give you the correct spellings.