- 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
In any case, you still haven't shown that abortion is morally wrong.
Morality exists in the mind of the individual. I am only saying that abortion involves the killing of an innocent human being. If you believe that it is morally acceptable to kill innocent human beings, that is morality for you. No one can "prove" morality to someone who does not accept certain basic warrants.
Try pricking a newborn with a needle and see if it has feelings, won't you?
Any creature with a nervous system has "feelings", what I am referring to are thoughts and emotions.
No, you're wrong here. The fetus is considered a parasite.
It is both, humans maybe parasites for the first nine months of their existence, but they are still human.
Conversely, when a woman chooses to abort the fetus, she is simply disallowing the fetus to continue living within her.
Thus killing a human being.
The fetus, within the first trimester, is not a person.
You made the point earlier that unborn babies are not human, but rather parasites. Unborn babies still fit the definition of "parasite" regardless of what trimester they're in. Do you contend that the unborn baby can be both a parasite and a person at the same time?
I agree with you until you said: "It is arguable that it is 'killing' or 'murdering' a creature, but you cannot end something that hasn't ever been started."
The fetus being killed most certainly has been started. It is a human being. It may not have any great capacity for intelligent thoughts or feelings, but neither do newborns. Is it OK to kill them too?
I will agree with you other point that women (and men) should be able to do whatever it is they want to their own bodies. But in the case of abortion, this right does not apply because it does not only pertain to the woman's body, but the body of another human being still attached to her. No one should have the right to kill innocent people.
I can say (and truly believe) that lying is wrong. Most people agree with that and most people teach their children that. But in reality, has anyone ever NOT lied in their entire life? In this sense, everyone is a hypocrite if they tell anyone that they shouldn't lie. But does that make the point that "lying is bad" invalid?
So you want to raise taxes...
Here are your responses so far:
Should we raise taxes? No
Should we lower taxes? No
Should we keep the current levels? No
There aren't any other options. Your position is illogical.
We should lower taxes on businesses and the wealthy and level it to all income levels.
Remember when I was telling you how republicans are batshit crazy...?
Anyone is batshit crazy when you take what they say out of context.
I have explained this already. Lets assume, as you say, there is no correlation. Then why should we lower their taxes? You just indirectly admitted it won't have ANY EFFECT on employment and GDP growth, so why are you claiming it will have an effect?
I didn't say it wouldn't have ANY effect, only the effect you predicted.
Then why are they so heavily invested in it? Why then Pakistan go to them to sell US technology after the Bin Laden raid. Why then was there speculation that our f=drone in Iran would be sold to China?
China more often then not, is the highest bidder.
When did it begin to involve us?
It always has, and if it's not stopped, it always will.
Any evidence from history?
Don't need it. It's basic common sense. Although I don't expect you to understand that since you have rejected common sense.
What is this, the civil war? Do all the terrorists come out of their caves, line up, and face off in one large battle? Should we get our bayonets? I don't think you understand guerrilla warfare.
I fight guerrilla warfare for a living. And what I can tell you about it is that we don't have anywhere near enough troops to adequately saturate the area. We never did and that's why it's been such a failure. What we needed was a draft. Omnipresence is a must when you are in the midst of unknown combatants.
I know! We could have done this in a day! I could have probably done it myself! Do you see my point yet?
We could have done it much easier if congress would have declared war. Which they didn't do in Vietnam or Iraq.
YAY! Mass genocide again!
genocide: To eliminate a portion of a given population based on race or genetics.
Killing a few thousand North Vietnamese (who were almost entirely affiliated with the Viet Cong is not genocide.
1) Nukes. I assume Russia and China would just let us waltz in an massacre hundreds of millions of their people...good luck with that.
They couldn't do anything about it. China wouldn't have had the ability to lob a nuke across the ocean, and as for Russia, bombing them back to the stone age means wiping out their nuclear launch stations. So there's not much they could have done about it either.
Money. And how are we supposed to afford this?
HA. I can't believe a liberal would EVER ask that question.
Dead soldiers. Although I have noticed your eagerness to massacre people, is that really what you want? Millions of dead americans?
There wouldn't be dead Americans. Only dead Jihadists, which is how they are supposed to be.
So the people who resist invasion of a hostile power? I assume if China invaded tomorrow ou would welcome them with open arms....?!
There is an enormous difference between the Chinese and a band of insane extremists who demand that everyone conforms to Sharia law or dies.
This only works when there is a clear and defined enemy ( a nation's army and the sort). How do you win in one decisive victory if the enemy is unknown and hidden?
Vietnam war had 1,800,000 million soldiers on our side. We lost. Numbers can't achieve victory against that kind of enemy.
It's not just numbers. It takes some bold offensive action against the "behind the scenes" governmental powers that are supporting them. For the Viet Cong it was China and Russia. For the Taliban, it's Iran and Pakistan.
So the level of taxation of the poor and middle class is perfect?
No, there really should be a level tax regardless of what income level a person has.
What? You said there were facts to the contrary.
Facts do not prove anything. They are used to show or support correlations. What I am saying is that I do not believe any "correlations" that do not make any logical sense. For example, fact 1.) person A smokes, fact 2.) person A has cancer, conclusion: Person A smokes because he has cancer.
So we should start a world war every time there is chance that someone we don't like is making something even if there is ZERO EVIDENCE to prove this?
There are reasons to believe Iran is in the process of developing WDMs (which you have conveniently ignored). And, like I said earlier, it wouldn't be a world war to disarm one country.
Prove to me that the business from NK (whose entire GDP is a tiny $28 billion) is more than 60% of China's oil imports...
It's not just businesses. They are allies for political reasons as well. China, from a political standpoint, is quite opposed to the middle east.
Actually it is proven that they were less violent when we were minding our own business and not killing their people.
But they were still violent. And when that violence starts to involve the US, it demands attention.
So more troops=less cost? uh
In the long run, yes. One strong decisive victory costs a lot less than prolonged issues and conflicts that will proceed indefinitely.
160,000 troops in Iraq at one point. 100,000 in Afghanistan. That ISN'T a "war at all." That's half of our entire 20 year involvement in Vietnam. Or was Vietnam not a real war either?
No, and Vietnam wasn't a war either. What should have happened there is the US should have obliterated north Vietnam, bombed Russia back to the stone age and it should have done the same to China if it continued to supply the Viet Cong.
How does killing innocent people help? Mass genocide. That is your idea of "improvement."
When I said "every last one", I was not referring to the entire population as a whole, I was referring to every last one who resists. The majority of the population in the middle east hates the jihadists as much as the US does, possible more.
Also, I see you ignored the dead soldiers point.
I'm a soldier and I can tell you that I would rather die resolving this conflict once and for all than pussyfoot around it and have my son die a decade later because the US government didn't have the integrity to wage a decisive war in the first place. Police action and not an all out war is only going to leave the problem for future generations.
So you are saying we need to raise taxes, the opposite of what you said previously.
I never said I wanted to raise taxes. I just said I don't see why we need to cut taxes for the poor and middle class.
What evidence? You can't deny the facts.
Yet you can deny logic.
"It documents alleged Iranian work on the kind of implosion device that would be needed to detonate a nuclear weapon." --BBC News
If there is even a CHANCE that a crazy militant dictator has or is making WMDs it demands attention.
Really? Because they seem to be heavily invested in the region. Oil imports from the middle east. It has gone up 3000% from 1990-2002. Now 60% of their oil comes from the region? But NK is more significant? How?
Oil is a minuscule portion of China's power. The vast majority of it is coal. North Korea has companies owned by China and vice-versa.
Because we antagonized them. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be violent if no one had done anything in the first place.
Why? To kill "terrorists?" How many trillions more do we have waste?
The reason we are wasting resources is because we are involving ourselves in police action that is dragging on for over a decade instead of wiping them out all at once.
How many millions more have to die before you are satisfied?
Every last one of them. That's what it's going to take if we expect any permanent improvement in the middle east.
So even though the war in the middle east has proven to not only be innefctive, but harmful to our national security, you want more dead soldiers and more dead civilians and more debt?
It is ineffective because it does not qualify as a war at all. And if we continue with our current foreign policy, we will be further in debt as the years go by then if we had just solved the problem permanently in the first place.
Really? When in the past, say, two decades (10 congresses) have the republicans ever championed tax cuts for the middle class and poor (if you say bush tax cuts I will laugh so hard...).
Why in the world should low and middle class get any less taxes than they already have?
what I heard (no disrespect): blah blah blah, unfounded theories, hypotheticals, blah.
1) If it works in theory, you should have no problem proving it with facts.
2) The facts contradict your claims.
what I heard (no disrespect): I am not interested in common sense or acknowledging that there is evidence that can sway to both sides of the argument.
Well it would be hard to continue their nuclear power program without it...
It would also be pretty hard to build WMDs without it too. By the way, implosion disks are used in nuclear explosives, not reactors.
That's not evidence, and would you let agents from an organization that is crippling your economy with sanctions enter your country to steal information?
The U.N. nuclear safety commission knows exactly how nuclear weapons are made in every detail. They wouldn't need to steal the information from Iran.
And Iran isn't? Porbably along with half the middle east...
Iran not as much. China has a much higher economic interest in North Korea than anywhere in the middle east.
That's not my point. Attacks have SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED since we started our preemptive wars of aggression. And now Iran is next. You wanna guess how that will affect the trend?
Well of course they would increase. We haven't killed nearly enough of them to effectively gain control of that area. That's why they should have restarted the draft and gone to an all out war instead of pussyfooting around with police action.
I disagree. You said that republicans fight against tax increases, yet they sat by and prevented a vote on tax cuts for the middle class.
I know that, but in general, republicans tend not to be in favor of more taxation across the board. This is a general debate, so I am making general arguments.
There is absolutely no evidence that this is true and mountains of evidence to the contrary.
There is a mountain of evidence that goes both ways, but lets utilize some common sense. Lets say you're the CEO of McDonald's, and you've had a fairly sizable profit increase. You can either pocket the money, or you can invest it in expanding the company and making even more money. Most people choose the latter. It's risk taking that got them there in the first place. But even if you pocket the money, it doesn't just disappear. The purpose of having money is to be able to acquire items and services. Suppose a wealthy person pockets his extra profits and decides to buy a fancy new mansion in California. Those millions of dollars he's spending are going towards other people. Contractors, architects, masons, electricians, plumbers, and dozens of others who are needed to produce the final product. Not to mention plenty of work for supply companies and lumberyards.
You are the most open-minded republican I have ever met.
Actually most of us believe that. Even Glenn Beck.
"What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?" --Dr. Ron Paul
Lets make something perfectly clear. Members of extremest organizations like AlQueda and the Taliban hate anyone who do not conform to Sharia law, and they believe it is their responsibility to conquer anyone who resists it.
What makes North Korea and Pakistan any different from Iran. NK is also ruled by a crazy dictator (like father like son).
Because North Korea is allied with China, and China would have a lot to lose from a nuclear war between Korea and the US. But I do think Pakistan should be disarmed.
The report claimed that, but it provided ZERO evidence to prove that.
They were building Uranium refinement plants and running experiments on prototype implosion disks. They also fought the UN safety commission tooth and nail when they demanded an inspection.
All you have proven is that terrorists attacks occurred before 9/11.
That's all I needed to prove. Islamic extremists hated the US even before there was widespread occupation in their land.
Honestly, did you even read what I wrote?
Yes I did read what you wrote. My point is that the big moneymakers in the US economy have a greater influence on it's health, and therefore, should not be taxed.
Most of Islam is friendly towards the U.S. and quite peaceful. The extremists who are not openly admit that their motive for violence is to bring infidels under Sharia law. They will attack and intimidate anyone who don't adhere to their extremest views. U.S. occupation or not.
Proof? Wait..there isn't any.
The IAEA disagrees. They report that Iran had undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability. Not only that, but they refused to allow U.N. safety inspectors in to research these claims.
should we start a world war? China has nukes, should we go to war with them? North Korea? Russia? Pakistan?
A war with Iran would by no means be a world one. In fact, if the U.S. were to reinstate the draft, Iran could be wiped out in less than a year. China is not under the leadership of an insane extremest dictator "president", nor is Russia. Though North Korea and Pakistan should probably be closely watched.
Here's a few links:
they fight against tax increases when it benefits the rich
Yes. Like I said earlier. Tax increases. Rich or not, the more taxes there are, the less money there is in the private sector economy.
They hate us because we invade their land and kill their people. Imperialism is never sustainable.
No, they hate us because we don't don't conform to Sharia law. Go there sometime and you'll understand that.
And now these idiots want to go to war with Iran.
Yes, a country with an insane Holocaust-denying, Islamic fundamentalist leadership with nuclear ambitions. No reason we should worry about that situation.
Have there been fewer terrorist attacks/attempts on the US and her allies compared to before 9/11 or more?
You are wrong. They have increased as we have become more and more like an imperialist regime thanks to republicans. The "terrorists" have won.
There have always been terrorists and terrorist attacks. The only reason anyone takes notice of them now days is because of instant, mass communication and greater abilities for small groups of people to cause a lot more damage.
I am so tired of Republicans calling themselves "patriots" while fighting against everything presented to attempt to help the country and not hurt it more.
Republicans have fought against:
1.) The planned deportation of only felons or threats to national security instead of all illegal immigrants.
How is this going to help the country??? All it is is the Federal government buckling and giving in to hordes of lawbreakers because they don't have the fortitude to deal with the problem.
2.) Tax increases.
Again, tax increases aren't going to help. Taxes (even with the proposed tax increases from the Obama administration) do not generate enough federal revenue to offset the federal spending. If anything, a tax increase in this economy will drive the market down even further than it's already crashed.
3.) The reduction of federal funding to the US military.
If anything there needs to be more. The U.S. DoD has had to deal with budget cuts of every kind for as long as Democrats have had a say. Some of them having to do with armor and weapon reliability. Those kinds have caused unnecessary bloodshed.
If not for evolution there would be no new viruses and no new bacteria, ever.
Agreed. Anyone who is going into the business of making antibiotics should be well versed in the evolution of pathogens. But why is it necessary to teach it as a general education course?
Absolutely. Not in any extreme form that might cause physical damage though, and I don't think it should be used as a punishment for academic performance. If a student is being disruptive or disobedient and previous warnings and punishments have failed to resolve the issue, I think it's perfectly acceptable to slap, belt, or paddle. I had a principle who was quite fond of the cattle prod for unruly students, and it was the most orderly school I have ever seen.
Although this type isn't uplifting, I believe it may be more cathartic to people who are grieving the loss of a loved one. If you plaster over the loss too much with a celebratory spirit, it wont allow the people attending the funeral to let out their emotions. That being said, I also don't think it's healthy for people to dwell on negative emotions, so it shouldn't intentionally cause people to feel sadness more than what they are already experiencing.
The British occupied India for a very, very long time. Even after it was explicitly stated by the Indian population that they didn't want the occupation to continue. The American colonies got rid of British occupation very swiftly through violence as soon as the population decided they wanted them out.