That's all well and good, but who's asking anyone to move out of these areas?

It is possible to prevent any further residential expansion in these areas whilst maintaining the area as a source of plantation, tourism, or whatever purpose it may best serve as.

Evacuation requires no consideration in the topic (luckily), with the exception of dealing with the impact of a high-scale natural disaster; the recent Japanese earthquake should suffice as a reasonable, if not perfect example.

These 'financial implications' are not going to be an issue, provided that population growth can be controlled in order to prevent an issue with locating a suitable residential areas. The natural disasters themselves would serve as a concern, but this idea hardly relates to the topic when you consider everything I've just mentioned.

Today's kids really don't seem to notice the term 'legal age' in regards to almost anything, and pornography is a big one in this case. The assessment of risk vs. harm in terms of child exposure to pornography has continued to tilt from right to left as years go on, and more and more parents are finding themselves less concerned about the modern day Internet's level of exposure to children.

A ban, in my opinion, isn't going to draw a dramatic concern from too many sources. Naturally there'll be your ethnic and religious groups, and probably a few in relation to departments of education and child protection, but it's important to remember that the child's perspective and reaction is the most important.

We are actually capable of regulating certain decisions, so as to preserve genetic diversity...

It is always an option, and if this ever does happen, we will be able to explore our own options and make decisive and well-thought-out choices.

One other point that I'll add here is that each country (assuming that this technology will be available globally, or at least a certain majority) will have its own way of dealing with this system. America may choose to allow no restrictions in choices, while Australia may decide to allow only a small amount of options; these are just examples and may not necessarily reflect actual decisions.

So, looking at it that way, the system will change communities around the world. These communities will, however, be categorized as countries, because like I said, each will have its own unique way of handling this technology.

I agree with you, to a certain extent. Here are a few points:

"...then the world would form itself into somewhat of a utopia."

I wouldn't call the proposed, futuristic world "Utopian", as there is no way that humanity can escape all problems in life.

" True, parents do make a lot of decisions for their children, but these decisions are mainly made to make sure their happy."

To make the child happy, or themselves...?

Are these decisions the correct decisions? Are they ethical? Are they made beyond reasonable doubt?

There is obviously a lot to consider about parental decisions in the first place.

I'll try to stress a big point here: if a parent is designing their own child in a way that is beneficial to the child (particularly in the long-term), then why does this call for such doubt? Surely, as human beings, we look to improve ourselves for the better world; not a Utopian world.. but a better one.

" If you were to choose the gender of your unborn child, then who is to say that it could possibly end up in same sex marriage?"

I'll ask a personal question here; do you have an issue with same sex relationships or marriages. I'm not making any wild suggestions here or anything, but this response of yours seems almost like an attack on the whole subject.

Nevertheless, getting to the point, this really isn't an issue, after all, the world isn't out to destroy same sex relationships or anything of that sort...

" I do not agree that it is the right thing, because it is as if we as humans wish to outmaneuver nature itself."

In several specific ways, humanity is already superior to the surrounding natural environment. Above our superior mental abilities, we are highly adaptable creatures and are capable of immense physical abilities.

And for the record, do you really think that our number one goal in designing our own children is to try and better nature in some sort of competition? I think not.

"If you have not noticed, when we tamper with nature, with cloning for example, nature has a unique way of ridding the world of the misshapen thing that nature did not create."

No, apparently I haven't, so please enlighten me.

"As far as living things go, leave them alone, as it may end up in the destruction of our world."

Sure, with that attitude we would be nowhere near our current technological status in the world at this time. Technology is good and bad, depending on where you look. Would you throw away the good, just to give up the bad?

The focal point of having teachers and students is to satisfy the need for education. Whether this involves young children, teenagers or adults, there are so many different types of students, but they are all in their places for learning purposes; to receive the educational benefit of their teachers. Why should abusive power be handed to teachers, when it is clear that their moral duty is not to control students but to educate them. Besides, the concept of "forcing students to do things they don't want to do" seems to be barging right through the point of control. While adopting this concept, we might as well be adding the title of "slave" to each and every student of the world.

One thing that needs to be considered, also, is the fact that not all teachers are responsible with the limited power that they already possess when teaching their students. This link will give you an idea of what kinds of abuse I'm talking about. Yes, there are laws set in place to prevent things like student harassment, but they are already rather ineffective in several cases. If we are looking at giving teachers a full control over their students... well... we are looking at expanding this problem and its severity.

Will anyone agree with this debate? I'd think not... at least... no-one mentally sound would anyway... but nonetheless, there isn't a need for the domination of students by teachers to come into a 100% effect. The ends wouldn't justify the means in any case.

To be personal, and honest, we should be making this site as available as possible to any age group. We should be less concerned with age, and more concerned with content.

It is rather stereotypical to suggest that it is the majority of Teenage users of this site who are spamming, abusing other members of the community, and basically running a-muck in the various debates that are open to all. I neither suggest the same for Teens or Adults, because to be quite honest, we can't really tell the difference. I could call myself a 20 year-old and there could be no way of knowing if I really was. In saying that, do we declare, then, that age makes no difference on this site? You decide :P

Another thing to keep in mind is that (and this sort of goes on from what I was saying before) both age-groups are both conformative people and very much individuals, yet, more individual here than anything. We all have differences which separate us, and this is what truly makes something like Create Debate unique; the fact that it allows for a point of view to be shared and argued against, regardless of age, gender, race, etc. The unique nature of the site is what compels such interesting responses to one-another.

As a side note: I'll say that I'm 16, honestly. Believe it if you really want to.

Kinda, have you heard of respect?

Most people just throw the term around these days, but there's no doubt that millions of people have forgotted the pure definition of the term.

You fail to respect others, and you, in this way, paint the picture of society's downfall.

So, if society is failing, and you resemble society, then I suppose you fail in that sense.

Whatever, my point here is to show some respect or join a forum full of hypocrites; a place where you may be playing with even opponents (everyone but Qymosabi seems to be superior to you).

"look people have different opinions"

No Kidding.

" know harry potter has romance in it and it has people coping with different feelings what i meant was that more people especially teen girls can relate more to the twilight saga than harry potter."

And do they?

Perhaps the focal point of the character 'Bella' is to relate to many teenage girls, but with a shirtless teenage guys running around... it is easy to interpret the movie very differently. The big question here is that does the moral of the film make a better difference than the techniques involving imagination (the clash between the two movies demonstrates this)? I argue that the pure magic of Harry Potter would win the contest anyway, but with the entire teenage-relation moral to the story of Twilight being used, and used, and used again, it compels thousands (if not millions) of others like me to just burn the thought of it all.

One word to the Twilight fans of the world...

OWNED

- That is all...

Incredible, you have made the least sense in this debate than I've seen in any other.

Let me be specific, you firstly said...

"The Twilight Saga Is More Real Becuase It Deals With How People Have Different Emotions And How They Cope With These"

...which is actually fairly relevant in Harry Potter as well. While it isn't the most stressed part of the series, it is present. Perhaps you should really watch some of the later movies in the series and see for yourself.

Okay, you then said...

"Harry Potter Is Just A Made Up World That JK Rowling Created."

Which is obvious, but you then made yourself sound retarded by saying...

"At Least Stephanie Meyer Created A World That is Real And Both Boys And Girls Relate To It."

So, you're either retarded or you're wrong. To me it doesn't really make a difference, because when you can't tell that vampires and werewolves aren't real.. there is a problem.

"The Twilight Saga Has Got Great Actors And Actresses In It So How Can You Compare The Actors In Harry Potter To The Twilight Saga When Both These Films Are Completely Diffferent."

The point of making a comparison is to show how each has been done and how effective/ineffective they were. If this isn't obvious, then you shouldn't make a call in these kinds of debates.

Yeah, well so does a porno movie. ;D

Twilight, scratch the emo nature, might as well be one.

AMEN there, and that's an accurate statement too because so far the only fan base that I've seen for Twilight ARE emo teen girls!!!

Harry Potter, for the simple reason that the series hasn't annoyed millions of males around the world! ;)

Ha-ha. I wasn't sure if this was a serious debate, and now I can see that it actually is.

I'd agree that he is rather hypocritical in the sense that he is an extremist in the common grounds of arguing. He presents clear and loud reasons as to why an opposing side is wrong, but in fact does little to present his own. This isn't an isolated incident either; he has clearly drawn is rage towards individuals in separate debates and has continued to "have a go" at others for the simple reason of having an opposing opinion.

Black or not (which is rather irrelevant) he clearly wants to draw the race card here, and it is amusing to even see colour appear in this debate on character. I'm white and an Australian, but I don't start calling out these facts when people have a go at me.

I have had my arguments with him and judging from them I'd have to conclude that he either is a very desperate man in need of a lot of attention, or has some form of anger issue and cannot be bothered to take it out on people in his life away from his keyboard and mouse. I wouldn't be surprised if his personal chair (being the one he uses with his PC) could be otherwise referred to as his habitat, but let's not get too carried away.

So in my opinion, he is.

To a certain extent, yes it is.

There are still many problems in the world that attract the attention of feminist organizations, and I regularly agree with what they are saying. Look, there have been plenty of cases where they take extreme to an entirely new level, but their approach to a situation is completely personal to them, and I respect that. I do not necessarily support their relevance to society, but I can certainly respect it.

As for what exactly it is relevant to, there are several. There is firstly the issues with differences between male and female income in identical professions (which actually does exists, in case some of you didn't know). There are also smaller problems (meaning little to do with economy or politics), such as the continued problem of sexist remarks directed at women and their stereotyped image in the eyes of men (etc, etc). Look, there are almost an infinite amount of possibilities as to what "problems" feminists may act against, but they certainly are relevant to certain extents (taking into account that there are some fairly stupid acts, but also some very important ones). Again, I do not necessarily support the feminist approach to life, but I can certainly respect it.

Never to me personally, though I have seen evidence of this occurring several times. I'll save my darker side for them... personally.

I whole-heartedly agree. Every chance I get to speak with one a conversation can only be directed their way. Liberals themselves seem to remain ignorant of this; intentionally or not. Their moronic points of view have lead to their moronic status in this debate, and in the minds of many Conservatives and etc.

Good to see you have a sense of humor... I hope...

The concept of steroids being excluded from the sporting world is what makes them so interesting to hear about, on top of the abnormal transformations involved with its use. If such a "Running Man" concept came into play involving the use of steroids, the viewers would naturally be watching it, whether they consider it ethical or not.

Steroids themselves are not socially considered ethical on the human body, and clearly this steroid league concept would take the icon of 'rule breaker' to 'steroid competitor'.

By the way, I find it amusing when you referred to me in third person when your comment was directed towards me (no insult intended).

Naturally people would, even those that argue against this topic (even if they choose not to admit it!).

Think about it; men and women using steroids in their respective sports, in an effort to make things more interesting. Abnormal? Naturally. Wrong? Probably. Interesting? Absolutely! Entertaining? Probably!

It sounds interesting enough, and despite any negligence when it came to steroid use in past, or any problems found with the use of steroids in past, people are going to watch any show that has something to do with steroids.

Okay, you have issues with this?

Forget I even said anything.

You're right; I actually do have better things to do than sit here typing to someone who clearly has little to no interest in the matter.

So, basically, have fun arguing and such.

"I argue from psychology when it's appropriate to the debate. For example when dealing with subjective or non-serious topics that don't require or cannot require strong evidence."

This is ridiculous; you now claim that credentials shouldn't be demanded from this debate, as it is apparently a topic (or in this case an argument) that is subjective or non-serious. You presented an opinion which you defended by presenting "experience"; do you not understand that this merits a need to present credentials when asked for? The other option is of course to admit your fraud and have this over with, despite whatever 'claim' you may make.

"You also cannot prove your ability to infer details about people on-line."

I really can't prove anything on here; I can only present an opinion. This is where the line should be drawn, but you clearly have to be 'that one step ahead', by claiming all sorts of highly potential nonsense.

"Kinda can claim no defense or pity because he used this debate as yet another excuse to vilify a group of people."

That's basically saying that you can't claim a defense if you have committed wrong in the same situation. This is not only questionable but is probably just your biased opinion.

"Not that credentials matter on the Internet, but it's more like hundreds of people, I have an exceptional memory, and many things in my life suggest I am a genius polymath"

Well, they actually do if we are talking about the Internet in general. For example, I could claim to be Abraham Lincoln for as long as I want, but I won't be believed until I prove it in reality. And if the mention of the "exceptional memory" and the supposed status of "genius polymath" is another attempt to defend your claims to hold great psychological experience, then I'm repeating myself again by saying that your past encounters with others in terms of psychological study (if it can so be called) would not match a worldwide perspective, and would probably be countered by thousands of variables.

" But like I said, it doesn't matter what my credentials are because no one believes anyone on the Internet, and I really prefer not to toot my own horn unless it's appropriate."

Well, if you can accept that you assume the identity of a liar in this debate, then that's fine by me. By all means, keep your horn to yourself, in a matter of speaking.

"But I'll tell you one thing, I never claim absolute knowledge when using these heuristics, which you're apparently too young to understand as it is something that comes with experience, it can be very accurate, but it isn't absolutely reliable."

I understand the impact of variables in both a hypothesis and the resulting outcome of a situation. Your situation (being the study or memorization of the behavior of others) would contain so many of these that we would be here for days trying to think of each one of them. Whether you accept this or not, you do not identify it, and therefore in the eyes of anyone reading you could potentially be making up crap on the spot, instead of trying to find reason behind your (supposed) actions, both here and in life.

"I could be wrong, but you most certainly are for thinking that the only way to know someone is logically."

Have I said those exact words. I never noticed...

Logic is important, but it isn't the only way to view things for how they are. I believe that logic is suitable for this debate, as well as personal belief. I consider the variables - you seem to run straight past them. If you would agree that logic is suitable for this debate then let's see some.

What I find interesting with your argument with both Kinda and (mostly) TERMINATOR is that you have made several claims to wield a form of "psychological experience" over both TERMINATOR and Kinda, and yet you have shown no proof of this and have demonstrated no form of logical experience to even suggest that what you say is actually true.

Consider it from a different perspective; you pressured Kinda into saying things that he probably didn't want to say in the first place, and brought him into an argument that probably shouldn't have happened in the first place. Then TERMINATOR jumps into the conversation and calls you out for what you said, and you then immediately justify your actions with a common excuse; that Kinda was nothing more than a hamster in a little 'experiment', in a matter of speaking.

You've claimed to know quite a lot of things, but there isn't anything here on this debate which can back you up. I study psychology at high school, and, while my knowledge is still limited, I know enough to agree with TERMINATOR in saying that your "experience" is probably a load of crap. You've probably had a few conversations in both reality and on-line (I'm thinking no less than 10 either way, but this is actually irrelevant), and you have then assumed that from "patterns" that you claimed to have identified, you now have "experience" in the psychological field. Firstly, whatever experience you may have will not tie together with a worldwide perspective. Secondly, as TERMINATOR has already mentioned, you could not have accurately known who exactly you were speaking to on-line, and especially what kind of person they truly were. There is enough evidence here already to call you out as a liar, but I won't go any further on that.

I would conclude that you are either a moderate liar or are just too stubborn to admit that you are most likely wrong. You'll probably flame me for this but I'm sure that you'll either consciously or sub-consciously agree with me.

Naturally, this is a very serious - and worldwide - issue. Naturally, action should be taken against it.

Now, humanity seems to have been ignoring this issue for quite sometime, despite all efforts made to draw the matter to the publics attention. Several countries have launched various campaigns in order to tackle the publics "lack of interest" in the issue, though they seem to have little effect as of late. This is the beginning of a very serious problem; if the public cannot accept the obvious, then humanity is a lost cause in future.

The obvious that I refer to are greenhouse gasses; the primary suppliers to the travesty of global warming. Our carbon emissions from day-to-day life are bad enough, not to mention the high usage of petrol-fueled transportation, which is adding to the air pollution. Our ozone layer is falling apart, and what fight is humanity putting up?

Now, getting to the action; we should obviously all start pulling our fingers out and start reducing our daily carbon emissions, such as supplementing our home technology for a more natural, pollution-free method of doing things (such as hanging clothes out to dry rather than using a machine). The next obvious is a cut-back on using automotive transportation. Public transport is a suitable option, and is something that the VIC (Australia) government should be dealing with in a more serious matter (in my opinion). WE should all be taking public transport when we can, but I understand that the use of a car is vital in many (if not more) instances. In this case, our government's should be investing further into the production and distribution of Electrically-Powered vehicles, and even supplementing them for our current vehicles, which in the case of gas-use is harming our ozone layer. This would be a hard adjustment, but a necessary one.

We are facing many potential problems should we not heed the warnings given to us about the global warming issue. It will begin with simpler problems, such as an increase in potential melanoma and other various skin-related diseases. It will progress to a further depletion of glaciers in regions such as Antarctica, which will create an immediate rise in sea levels. Eventually, we will be roasting our planet to the point where it will be uninhabitable.

Humanity needs to wake up and smell the burning sun, because the rays are only going to increase if we keep up the ignorance of this rising situation, as we have done for too long already.

Okay, if you want to play a game of bullshit then fine by me.

Never mind the question; you're not taking this seriously.

Let's rap this up: you are against the death penalty, I am for it.

Let's just agree to disagree? Yeah?