I agree, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is by far, the best book in the Twilight series. Much better than all the other ones. In fact, I don't think Twilight was EVER good until HPDH came out. :P

If you can waste your time arguing about stupid things then I can do the same to tell you that you're being stupid. :)

From cannibalistic tribe interviews, I hear we taste a lot like pork.

Now who doesn't like pork?

The question itself is stupid. First of all, you can't just separate people into "Good" and "Bad". That's like separating fruits into "tastes good" and "tastes bad". It all depends on who's the one eating the fruit, or talking to the person.

Even if there was "good" and "bad" people, both could do good or bad things. The better (but still dumb) question would be, "If a person does a bad thing, does that make him bad?" You're both arguing over nothing. Go solve world hunger or something.

Save the ammo for times when you CAN'T kill the bastard, instead of shooting it into a dead body.

Regulating means controlling. So it would be keeping the numbers at a certain level, not necessarily decreasing or increasing as you said. In that case, I think we should regulate the amount of humans being born so that we don't overpopulate the earth. If we're regulating the numbers of humans born, we're basically killing the rest who have the potential to be born. Or we may regulate the amount of human beings so that the earth is not underpopulated. Which means that we are creating more than nature intends for there to be. In either case, there is one group of people deciding whether we want more or less. If less, we are killing; if more, we are acting as god. Might as well regulate the ratio of men to women, or blacks to hispanics, or whites to asians.

If you say that instead of calling people idiots, you'll sound a lot smarter, I promise. :)

It takes a long time, but they eventually get thrown a bone. :)

I've thought about it, and actually, I agree.

The thing is that the question automatically gets people started on abortion and fetuses, when really, all it's asking is, when does life start? I'm not sure if the intention of the person who made this debate was to talk about abortion or simply the creation of life, but if it was the creation of life then it would be the zygote.

"Bacteria can do all of the same things and they are only one cell each. Nobody says they're not alive."

So if this argument is taken as an abortion issue then one (well, me, duh [: ) could argue that while bacteria may be alive, no one really has any qualms about killing bacteria because as I stated in my original argument, it is not a conscious, thinking, feeling thing (at least not in the way humans are, just to be clear).

In the famous words of Marie Antoinette, "Let them believe!" ... Wait, that's not right...

God's real to the believers, bullshit to the atheists. At least, that's what I figure. I'm not the type to tell you to believe or not believe. But that's just me. ;)

So just because you don't think that it's right for someone to remember all the bad things they've done when they die means that whoever does do that is an idiot? What kind of a closed-minded hating person are you? So, his fans will remember the king of pop and those who didn't like him will remember him as a freak, and though I'm sure the fans outnumber the non-fans, I'm sure you don't mean that EVERY non-fan is an idiot for not liking him. You'd be a very bigoted person if you mean that, wouldn't you? :)

Go read my argument, it's on the yes side. :) I posted it before I posted that. And by pointing me out, you're not helping the argument either, you're just going to cause a dispute about something stupid. :)

Actually, I just went to read your argument. Mine's right above yours. You wrote two lines. I wrote a paragraph. So if I were you I'd stay quiet or at least do the research first. ^_^

"Gays aren't being killed here..."

If you support the idea of conception, which, judging by your response to my argument on the debate "When does life start?", I'm inclined to think that you do, then you must concede that if they start regulating the gay population through genetics, then they ARE killing gays.

But if you don't support the idea of conception then I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions.

Well, why can't I be happy and rich? Does money make you miserable? Does a lack of money make you happy? This is a ridiculous question. Why do people always ask this? I mean, the socially correct answer is obviously poor and happy, but if offered a million dollars would you really not take it on the premise that you think you'd be miserable?

THAT IS ALL

As in, THAT IS THE FINAL WORD!

As in, I HAVE SPOKEN!

As in, THERE IS NO MORE TO SAY ABOUT THE SUBJECT

As in- okay, I'll stop. :D

"The human race is tainted enough with morons and the last thing we need is more morons"

Great! Haha, I agree completely.

I wrote: These things are not conscious like the human mind is conscious, so we don't think about it.

Is that clearer?

Life starts at consciousness. Life ends when you are (permanently) no longer conscious, so why shouldn't life begin that way? There are diseases that rot your body from the inside out and you have the potential to die, yet you still live because you are conscious of your self and your body.

If it is all about potential, consider this: The plant you walk on that looks like grass has the potential to become a great shade giving tree. The flora of endangered rain forests have the potential to become life-giving nutrients for the fauna of the forests, yet we cut those down. The fruits that we eat have the potential to kill us through an allergic reaction. The difference is consciousness. These things are not conscious like the human mind is conscious and so we don't think about it.

Let us look at consciousness: Consciousness depends on our neurons being able to communicate with each other; all the medical evidence and understanding we have in medicine and neuroscience points to consciousness and awareness arising out of cell interactions. If this is the case then the neurons have to be mature enough to develop an action potential. Myelin sheaths have to be developed so that the nerve cell is sufficiently insulated so that the charge that is transmitted is not interfered with or lost. Lastly, the body must produce neurotransmitters, chemicals that allow the charge from one neuron to be transmitted to the next neuron.

So life begins after and not before these three conditions are met.

Because of the rising number of overweight, obese, and morbidly obese kids and the consequently rising number of health risks involved with such a sedentary lifestyle, physical education should be mandatory all four years. But school districts should also hire qualified physical education teachers that care and are not just there for a paycheck. Physical education should actually educate kids and engage them in a variety of activities, not simply have teachers calling roll, telling them to walk for fifteen minutes and then they can sit down. But teachers/coaches should also be sensitive enough to know when a teenager simply cannot complete the task and is at risk of injuring him/herself because of so much stressed placed on the body that it is not used to. Some may say that it should be optional or only mandatory for the first year. But if it is optional, or only temporary, we are stuck with the same problem, Morbidly Obese America. If mandatory for all four years, it would get kids accustomed to physical exercise and make it part of their daily lives at least nine months out of the year. If implemented correctly, an exercise regime like that, coupled with more nutritious food served in the school would promote healthy living. More teens would lose weight the healthy way and therefore have a better self image. If we are forced to complete four years of english even if in the end we become mathematicians or scientists, why shouldn't we also be "forced" to complete four years of physical education which is more beneficial to us overall, whether we be english or math majors. It doesn't have to be a boot camp if you have caring coaches and a school district that places emphasis on the health and well-being of the child.