So I can decry the state of the world and morality in general?! Sign me right up, someone make a campaign for this to happen.

Yep. This is the same thing as the "White people are all racist" cry that seems to be everywhere because this is implying there is no individuality. There is. People consistently forget about the whites who helped the Underground Railroad, the ones who campaigned to have slavery banned. No one class of people is all the same. Everyone is an individual. But that's not to say that a class can be oppressed. An obvious example is the peasantry of medieval England.

Buddy, it's spelled "Bible", with a capitalized first B. Please use spellcheck or something, because I'm not sure if you had a severe hand spasm ("I" and "A" are on opposite sides of the American keyboard) or were trying to make a reference to the Tower of Babel or joke that the Bible is really "Babble". Cheers!

I'll put it this way:

My family is from the South. We owned plantations, and yes, slaves. Does that mean that I, their descendant, am responsible for the sins they committed? No.

If your grandfather died freeing slaves, then his wife would receive reparations. If she's still alive, that is. Which I doubt because the Civil War was 6 generations ago. But for the sake of continuity, let's continue. If the wife is also dead but they have children/siblings/parents still alive, then obviously they would receive the benefits. As a grandchild, you're not exactly the most eligible for the reparations until all of these people are dead.

On the other hand- these are different times! You live in a completely different world than your parents, aunts, uncles, or grandparents. Viewpoints change. Which is why I have such an issue with calling a white person a colonizer. That was generations ago.

If I want to be petty about this, then no, you're not. Your reward is the fact that you live in a country without slavery. Enjoy your personal freedom.

All I have to say about this interesting topic is this:

It's 'accused'.

Well, for one, they should make it a hell of a lot cheaper to be able to care for your mental health. Therapists, medication, insurance, hospital bills if you have a serious self-harming issue are all expensive. I want to be healthy, mentally and physically, and not have to pay over $100 a session just to have a vent and feel mentally better.

Now, healthcare nowadays is bad, but that's another topic.

There's also the issue of weapons. There should be more talk about how mental issues affect your thoughts and behavior, and your mental health should be taken into consideration before you buy a weapon. It would be hard, because mental issues form differently for different people, but in any instance, mental health should be taken into consideration.

OK, real-life example here. In gym class, everybody was forced to play a game. And every time, only a few select girls (such as myself) actually played dodgeball. Mostly, the others (who were generally the 'popular' sort) stayed in the back and shrieked. In kickball, we were occasionally split male/female into teams, and in general, girls were given five outs when boys got two, or some other ridiculous proportion.

But what I noticed was that the people who generally refused to play were not the ones who were incapable. Indeed, most of the non-players were in sports. But it was the fact that they were just apathetic to the game that they didn't play.

The gym teachers KNEW this fact, and it was not blatant sexism that made them give girls more chances or outs.

But on another note, they did give girls who were actually terrible the chances to get better.

But to the question here. Men and women have different physiologies and their bodies are made differently. So there would be a large disadvantage with there.

Do I believe that women could win against men if they tried hard enough? Yes. Do I think that it is possible for a woman to play with a men's team? Yes. But my issue is from watching the so-called "sporty" girls in my class not participate whatsoever.

How so? It does have negative side effects, why shouldn't people know about them? Are the common people not allowed to know the consequences of smoking or eating junk food? Ignorance is not something that should be encouraged. And knowing those things can lead to healthier populations.

On another note, why are you on the health campaign side when you have an argument against it?

Uh, hun, slow your roll. While I agree that everyone has a different body shape, sometimes it truly is not really a good thing, especially when it is not healthy in and of itself.

While it should not be something one should be ashamed of, people should definitely keep precautions as to their weight. Asking your doctor what your ideal weight should be and be keeping to the proper amount of exercise one should have each week. And while I realize pregnancy and not having enough time are factors, you should also try and keep a healthy diet and/or exercise as much as you can.

And please, do not accuse people of being Nazis.

Yes, but they should not be using them openly in class. A phone can be used to contact their parent/guardian(s), keep them connected to their friends and family, and be a source of news.

I'd rather be underpaid. It's better to have a terrible source of income than have no income whatsoever. But what is the definition of 'underpaid' here? Is it like your opinion of being underpaid or because you're working 60+ hours a week for like 9.78 an hour?

In my opinion, it depends on the circumstances. If you risk your own life to help this person, you might be considered a coward or whatever else. It's more of an issue of your personal bravery and willingness to help someone.

Or it could be that this is a really terrible person. If, say, Hitler or H.H. Holmes was the one drowning, I sure as Hades wouldn't be wanting to help them.

But the only way I'd say to be actually responsible for the death is to do it yourself, or if you could actually help them without risking a life yet you still refused.

Tea. Tea actually contains more caffeine, but since making coffee requires more beans, coffee turns out to be the energy-enhancing one. It also makes you poop, and it's bitter to the extent that you cannot stop the flavor.

(Coming back after like sixteen days. Anyway.)

The main reason violent protests work is that fear is a driving factor. People join the cause not because they believe in it, but because they fear that whatever violent thing that is happening will happen to them.

Almost every major change in the world has happened after some form of violence.

Perhaps. But they were bad changes. Anyway, do the revolutions led by Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Cesar Chavez mean anything to you? All were non-violent- and they worked. Boycotts and strikes worked. Non-violent ones at that.

And do the changes invoked by the Bolsheviks, Taliban, Nazis, and others mean anything to you?

They are rich in antioxidants and other necessary vitamins. They also don't have the little seeds that can be stuck between teeth. And you don't have to worry about eating leaves accidentally.

(I'm not Christian, but still.)

Yes, it can. You can use the existence of God as an explanation for how the universe pulses with energy, or you could say He is the 'lifeblood' of the universe. Or you could say he is a source of energy. The list goes on.

Without science, you wouldn't be typing out a response to this online debate. And you wouldn't have a computer, phone, or whatever else you're typing on. And you won't have a house, car, roads, whatever else keeps you comfy. Enjoy the fire, bud. Oh, wait, that requires science too. Oh, well. Enjoy the cold.

True. People who actually want to succeed tend to get dragged down. But there is the fact that those who goof off tend to live horrible lives.

Unless you want to work in McDonald's for a living, or some other terrible job, get your diploma. It is a tool in thriving. People who drop out of high school tend to live terrible lives.

Violence is a part of life in some form or another. While it may not be in the form of intestines flying, it is there. In punches or whatever else.

It is the parent or guardian's role to decide if their children or teenagers should be allowed to play violent games. But since people enjoy the games, it would be ridiculous to say it should be censored.

Violence is everywhere. In movies, books, TV shows, real life. You can't avoid all forms of it.

Education is a right. With education, you can further yourself in life and be successful. Do you want to argue that people in undeveloped countries don't get an education? They do. They have to fight long and hard for it, but they do. Education is getting a better understanding of the world, and it is important.

You can form well-though debates with education, or create things that help people who can't. Do you want an example? There is a website called "SafeMoto", created by Africans who fought long and hard for an education. And there is "FarmDrive", a record-keeping database that helps farmers. And with farmers being more successful, that means money can be put into education- which in turn helps further the country.

Yes, the fact is that many are illiterate. But that is because of lack of transportation, or war, or anything that keeps them there. Like harvesting. Yes, people in America are literate, but because we made it so.

That does not mean it is a privilege, however, it means that educated people helped further education.

Education is a tool for success that all should have. Just because a lot do without doesn't mean it is a privilege. It means it's a right. Since success is something we all want, shouldn't a tool for it be within our rights?

Waffles don't absorb the syrup, unlike pancakes. And when pancakes absorb the syrup they get mushy and the texture of baby food. Waffles stay crispy. And they have little compartments that you can put food in. Like blueberries.

"In fact, America presently has a misogynist for a president, so one could legitimately argue that you need to get your own house in order (assuming you are in fact American) before criticising other cultures."

It DESERVES TO BE CRITICISED. The fact that women in the Middle East are forced to MARRY their rapist is disgusting. A sixteen-year-old girl committed suicide to avoid marrying the man who assaulted her. Ooh, and get this: an Egyptian lawyer named Nabih al-Wahsh said that women who wore revealing clothes (such as ripped jeans) deserve to be raped.

This is why I'm not a feminist for American women. Women's marches protested about wage gaps when really there is rape/sexual assault occurring DAILY in the Middle East. And they were SILENT.

FREE SPEECH ALL THE WAY. Without freedom of speech, people cannot know if what someone is saying is true. Without freedom of speech, creativity and the exchange of ideas are choked to death.

Take North Korea. Its propaganda says that their government is the best, that America is evil, and that South Korea is full of suffering. Here's something they say about Americans: they kill babies for fun.

But because the people of North Korea have closed media, they have no idea if this is true or not. They are forced to believe this for lack of any other news.

Before you say freedom of speech is bad, consider North Korea. Consider the Soviet Union. And then formulate your answer.

Everything has some degree of danger in it. And football, like anything else, has some sort of risk. Consider this:

-Accidents happen with cars all the time. Yet we get into them all the time.

-Offices have sharp objects such as pencils and scissors. People could hurt or get hurt easily.

-Alcohol is a known drug that reduces the ability to think. Yet it is consumed in large amounts.

-It is possible to fall down stairs and break something, yet people go up and down them all the time.

You cannot keep children from 'danger'. You cannot bubble-wrap them, and they can get hurt in other ways. Falling off the bike or a tree, to name one. Football is as dangerous as anything else. But it gives them exercise, allows them to feel successful when they win, and tones down their energy.

This question is not a question of morals, but a question of safety.

(Before I start, let me clarify. I am neither 'yes' or 'no' to the does-God-exist debate. However, since I've been forced to be on the defensive from people, I'm going with 'no' here.)

'God' has different meanings for everyone. So one has to consider this: what do you mean by 'God'? For example, 'God' might be a source of comfort for one, or someone/something to be worshipped and an explanation for what happens to another.

People often talk about 'finding God'. But that could mean different things. Perhaps they were searching for answers and found them in God's word. Or perhaps they need comfort and faith brought that.

You also have to consider how religion and people's belief work. In Greek mythology, to name one, Zeus was the god of lightning and thunder. He was the one who made storms and the like. And the Greeks used him as an explanation for natural phenomena.

This is present in other cultures too, using supernatural or mythological explanations for things. Another example is Harry Houdini. People believed he used supernatural means to create his famous magic acts. (He often protested this view, however, stating his means were entirely natural.)

People tend to use God or other deities to explain things. (I tend to think of supernatural things myself when my door creaks mysteriously, instead of it just being a simple draft.)

Also- consider the fact that the Old Testament was written over 2,000 years ago, and that they might have been made by insane people. We don't have time machines and we cannot verify the account.

And there's the fact that religions tend to fluctuate. Greek mythology was widespread for a good 1,000 years, and Hinduism has survived many years. Christianity might be dead in a century and replaced with another religion.

But one thing is true: the belief in God and Jesus Christ has been present and will most likely continue to be present for years to come. They have values that are reflected in everyday situations. And they will continue to.

What I meant was that you shouldn't turn to violence at the very beginning. As in trying the debate first then, if all else fails, go to violence. But stay contained. And controlled.

If you truly expect that in this vast infinite universe of ours we are the only life, you're wrong. Whether or not they have visited us is a different matter altogether.

Violent protests should never be okay. Ever. There are laws against that, and they are there for a reason. Have you ever heard the saying "fight fire with fire"? If you are going against something- and you go to their level or worse- you are fighting fire with fire. And you are burning everything down around you- including whatever it was you were fighting for.

Destroying property, assaulting people, and generally wreaking havoc are not ways to get your point across. Screeching to the heavens is not a good way to get your point across either.

Peaceful marches! Calm debate! Those work wonders. And if you know what you fight for well enough, you can shoot down any protest or argument because you are right and know how to counter anything.

Since I know most won't believe me, consider this: if someone came through and wrecked your home, what would you do? Would you listen to why they broke your home to pieces?

My answer's no. Because they are criminals, and people generally don't listen to criminals. Or they scoff at them. If you violently protest, what will people consider you? Insane, a terrorist, and a criminal, to start.

The only thing you'll achieve with violent protest is disbelief and a resistance to what you believe in.