The Joker is a unique sense of insanity, but with clever cunning beneath it all. He dresses as a clown, a figure to induce happiness and such, yet he brings fear to Gotham. It is this dualism that makes him so interesting. A much more sinister enemy than Voldermort, as, which i was inspired by the first argument, he ends the victims in a slow, fearful slicing rather than an instantaneous spell.
No, at least not in the form they are now.
Currently, you need to wear special, often bulky, and often expensive glasses to view the 3D, like anyone who went and saw Avatar or any of the other recent 3d movies. People with glasses find them extra uncomfortable. I do no think that this is the way to go, nor will it kick off if you have to shell out money for glasses for each person that might want to watch your TV
Yes.
War is often caused by one group having something the other group wants, or doesn't want them to have, i.e. oil, weapons, certain religions, governments, freedoms (lack thereof), and more. These wars could have been prevented by a logical, diplomatic debate and agreement, rather than the oft-too-rash aggressiveness.
Contrastingly, you could have a somewhat Orwell-ian influenced look, where war still exists, but it does not effect the people, to their knowledge.
This is an extreme example, and so can not be used for the general examples.
No.
For one, it is an inhumane way to treat people, just to get a piece of information, and for the second, the information given is likely to be false, simply to end the pain and suffering. It gets you a quickly constructed lie to stop the pain.
Your argument is for the "yeap" opinion, not the "Nope!" Please make sure to know what your saying is for the side you've chosen
I don't see any point of having an argument less than 50 characters, it cuts out such things as "YES!" "NO WAY" or other agreements/disagreements that have no facts or logic behind them.
Hey bud, their looking for us, they have the the descriptions of one awesome tough guy and a retard. They caught me, so grab your crayons and run!
This is a trick, double question. Either choice could be either person (questioning or answering) and thus whichever I, or anyone else chooses, you will win, but I could say that we ( the others) have one.
This goes along with a similar debate on victimless crimes in which I have said, and will say again, that whether or not I have on a seat belt changes nothing about the crash, as it pertains to you. You are hurt the same, your car wrecked the same.
Yes, wearing them is safer, but whether or not I want to is my choice.
Again this is a matter of control, and so even if no control is given, mind reading may be best, as you could at least ignore it, as you would with a neighbor's loud music, and tune it out. Plus, unlike suddenly zooming off randomly, there's no chance of getting hurt, at least not physically.
Yes indeed they should. There is nothing upon this site inappropriate for a seventh grader, nothing that should stop them.
Forgive me for this fallacy, this appeal to emotion, but to not allow them would be akin to saying that their opinion does not hold weight or matter.
Although whether to use it during school hours would have to be the discretion of the teachers/schools.
And I do not see how this can be debated as you ask no questions of age to allow entry, so you cannot debate to open this to 7th graders as some arguments of those against are pointing to, and I doubt any 7th grader which has no interest in debate would be spamming this site, let alone be on it.
There are in the arguments against, there are crimes which are not purely victimless, like speeding, which is true it can end with victims, so not purely victimless, or at least not all the time.
Pure victimless crimes hurt no one and infringe upon no one.
For example seat belt, helmet, and other such safety crimes are victimless. If I crash into your car, it makes no difference to you, your car, or your insurance, whether or not I had a seat belt or not.
Other victimless crimes, such as "no loitering" or curfews are laws that persecute simply because you may or may not have been wanting to commit a crime, not because you have.
Science, for the purpose of this debate, could be analogized to a hypodermic needle. You can either fill it with figurative medicine to solve the problems of the patient/world, or it could be filled with drugs, giving cool and easy lives, but causing problems.
So the question is, how do we use the needle?
This is a prime example of the logical fallacy "Ad Ignorantiam" where it is assumed that because X can not be disproved, it is proved true.
While this is true you chose these types of songs, pump-up or chill, because of your mood
To select music to listen to, the greater majority of people choose a song based on their mood. This however, does not need to be the same mood you are currently in, but is based upon it. In example, if I was in a particularly sad, depressed, or downhearted mood, I would choose music based on this, and would not choose a saddening, depressing, or downhearted song, I would choose one more upbeat and lively. However this argument appears to refute itself, as I would have chosen the song to affect my mood to a happier state, but the reasons for choosing the song were because of my mood before the song.
Reviewing arguments for the other side, and my reasoning above, leads me to believe that the only true way to have the music come first would be to hit shuffle on your iPod, and allow a neutral third party to select it for you, removing your bias from your mood.
