Simply because pointless wiki pages have been created in the past does not inherently warrant another one. I have yet to see an argument that proves the necessity of a wiki pages. Merely saying "well others did it" doesn't not me you should.
Perhaps you just lack imagination?
No, I just see no purpose of doing so and I see no purpose in making wiki pages for things with little information. Everything you just listed is little information. You used 38 words to tell me about the site. Literally, I see no point in making a wiki of that. I might as well just go to the site myself when searching it on Google. Online debating isn't even that popular of a thing especially in this format, so those who seek to do so will generally just Google debate sites like I did. I would even need the wiki.
You can give a teenager a car and they will say I love you since that is the expected response. You can give a child a muffin and they will say what is expected. I think children are almost conditioned to give certain responses from receiving something, and of course this depends on what the parent expects.
I cannot speak for the long distance populace, but from what I have seen the ones who are truly devoted seems to be able to make it work out just fine. Those who truly seeks love and devotion tend to find it and reserve themselves for that other person of which they share their likeness. I think that the quantity of devotion to that other person determines the way the person will reserve themselves for the significant other.
I would have to decide upon the equal effect option. Of course each of us are predisposed to act in particular manners, but a personality is mostly well constructed during adulthood which lends itself to be primarily developed by nurture. Nature can only go so far in humans. For some traits continue on for good, and in other cases traits can rather be ignored and behaviors can be changed.
I agree that both can be dangerous, but I don't think religion has caused more wars, nor does religion have the highest death toll in wars. Here is a list of the top 10 wars ever fought and only one of them was a religious related war.
I'm rather shocked that you would ask that knowing your experience in debating, but if I must inform you of the proper techniques then sure.
First off the easiest and most used way of debating is what I term "proper" and that is having a claim back up with several warrants and some evidence. Then while addressing the opposing sides argument deducting their "supposed" flaws or fallacious content and demonstrating how their systematics do not work and how yours do. This is what I see most often and this is what I deem as properly debating. Do not take this as an official guide.
EDIT: Sorry I'm not trying to dispute you. I merely clicked the dispute option out of habit.
Hmm.. the USA has the biggest government budget per year in the world. This is what I mean by being a rich country.
Mhmm, good backing, but are you aware of where this money goes? Also, still keep in mind that we are still in debt. We really have no money to spend, but we do anyways. Keep in mind that this money comes from taxes collected from individuals and corporations, but the amount of corporate taxes collected are less than the amount collected individually. We could tax the corporations more, but that leads to an entirely different argument. We also get money from borrowing, but you can see where that puts us.
The law would usually be that you can only use force reasonable compared to the threat of force you believe to be under. I was wrong, that it isn't in all states. Some states though do have the 'castle doctrine' that allows the use of deadly force for any intruder.
Here is the problem, saying that "The law would usually" doesn't prove anything. The law says one thing, but laws vary depending on where you live and even then a case by case basis determines the outcome. Now I agree with this statement, but first you need to accept the notion I keep presenting you.
The castle doctrine does hold in some states. I must give you that one, but keep in mind that a few times it didn't.
Are you sure about that?
Yes, I'm sure, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. There is a huge difference between a boy who wants his ball back and you blowing a hole into his head than a man who break into your house with the intent to kill.
My understanding is that in US you don't have to be in fear for your life in order to use deadly force.
Like I already stated, this depends on this case. If there is no true danger the why kill? If a homeless man breaks into a house and is confronted by a man with a gun the man with the gun can be tried if he shoots. There are cases where the criminal gets injured in the house and the owner gets sued by the criminal and somehow the criminal wins. This depends on the case. In the case you presented this is over a ball, which would most logically be resolved in a much easier fashion than the barbaric example you gave.
For such a rich country to not have a public health system that covers everyone is scary.
I'm not sure you understand what we mean when we claim to be a rich country. The government barely has money, in fact, it should be of no surprise to you that we are in debt. The wealth in this country in driven towards the businesses that produces the best products and sells the most of it. That is where the money is primarily located.
If someone is out of work and they get cancer they have a much higher chance of dying from it than those that work and have health insurance.
That's a dependency based on case by case occurrences.
The USA is very much a society that if you do something wrong you are seen as subhuman.
Disagree, particularly because that depends on the wrong. Also I don't think we see criminals as sub-human, but inhumane if they commit acts that are socially regarded as inhumane. For example, a drug dealer, a thief, a hacker, and many more criminal types aren't seen as "inhumane" and most certainly not subhuman.
2 million people are in jail in the USA.
That shows social problems. Most crimes are petty, such as drugs and minor offences.
In some states the age of criminal responsibility is as young as 6 years.
Mhmm, but keep in mind that they have to prove the child fully understood the implications and consequences of the crime they committed.
If a 12 year old breaks into your house to take back his ball that you confiscated, you confront him with a gun, he wets his pants with fear and you shoot him in the head... you cannot be charged with any offense because the boy was committing an offense.
First off, what kind of example is this? Here is what I find wrong with your statement here:
1. If you "confiscated the kids ball" then you obviously know the kids face and know why he broke into your house in the first place.
2. A 12 year old will break into my house? To get a ball? Really?
3. You "confiscated" the ball and the child no problem with it at first? Wouldn't he tell his parents?
4. You just shoot the kid....why? What sane person would do this especially over a ball?
5. In the head? Really? I'm really worried about the state of your psychological being.
6. You can be charged with an offense. It all depends on the case. If this was a grown man that broke into your house and truly attempted to kill you then I can see why you wouldn't be charged. In your case the shooter would be charged.
Similarly, if you kill someone who is 'evil' such as a pedophile that touched your kid then a jury will never convict you.
I don't know about that one. I'm quite positive that you could still be tried for murder. Our legal system is intricate. The art of persuasion and presentation of lawyers and the individual thoughts of each juror and even the judge determines the case.
