I personally like debate Island. No matter what site you go to, there is always going to be that user that people don't like.
Many people think of hell as a punishment for the evil. I, on the other hand, think of heaven as a gift that nobody can earn, and hell is just the natural state of mankind. If you think about it that way...
From the Christian religion...
If you think of hell as a punishment, then you need to change your paradigm.
"The wages of sin is death."
Basically, this means that the consequence of sin is hell, not the punishment.
If you put enough pressure on a ruler, it breaks. If you stay underwater too long, you will drown.
Fortunately, this is where Jesus Christ comes in to save us from our sins so we can go to heaven by grace.
Wrong Perspective: Hell is a punishment where bad people go to.
Right Perspective: Heaven is a blessing that nobody is worthy for.
People should be allowed to protest whatever they want because of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Even if you don't like a President, you need a severe charge against a President in order to impeach him/her. That was in order to make sure that people of one party don't abuse their power of impeachment.
Yes, that's how DNA works. It shows who your ancestors are and, via migration patterns, determines your ethnicity.
Indeed. It is wrong to go against any religion (or a lack of one). These two options are very loaded, as they are both the same.
The difference between atheists/agnostics and religious people is the source of their moral compass. Atheists/agnostics likely get it from the laws and their consciences. Christians get it from the Bible. They are all effective moral compasses.
However, being a Christian myself, I would have to say that Christians have a stronger moral compass because the Bible is the best moral compass. Atheists/agnostics can have a moral compass, but it would need to be based off of something other than the Bible. It's like the difference between an interview with a soldier from a war and a documentary about that war.
Agreed. These are not mutually exclusive.
It's kind of like a robot that can learn. It was created by a human, but it became more advanced over time.
On the contrary, you did some calculations wrong. I think you forgot to multiply by 100 to get the percentage. But anyway...
There is some statistical chance, but it is low. However, it is comparable to the chance of getting killed by a shark, and is significantly higher than getting killed by a falling meteor.
I guess they can be. Any group can be wrong about anything.
Keep in mind, however, that Democrats had supported slavery back then. If Democrats were wrong about slavery, then maybe they can be wrong about other things, such as gays.
Being wrong before cannot be used as evidence that you are wrong now.
Real ones can actually kill people. Games with guns do not kill people.
Very certainly. For example, anyone who has a PhD is relatively smart, yes. However, most people here can probably think of someone who has a PhD that they consider dumb. If you have extreme beliefs on politics or religion, you would probably conclude that the person who thinks the opposite way would be dumb, even though that person might have a PhD in a certain field.
Because our sins were forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Global warming is happening. Indeed, it would naturally occur, but the rate at which it is occuring is alarming.
Debate Island has more functions than CreateDebate.com. It has more types of debates and more responses (instead of upvote-downvote, they have Great Argument, Irrelevant, Fallacy, etc.)
Agreed. The question of whether a murderer should deserve the death penalty is one question, but the death penalty is irreversible, unlike life in prison. That is an important point that should be addressed by those who support the death penalty.
After all, how can you be 100% sure that the person actually commited the crime? Witnesses can be dishonest, DNA evidence can be misleading. Unless there is a significant change in the law system and it was possible to be 100% sure of guilt, we cannot do the death penalty.
I would have to say No because if you say that you are responsible, that means that you are responsible for any deaths in third-world countries if you don't give money to charities.
I personally am against abortion. The whole abortion debate essentially rests on the question of whether the fetus counts as a person. If it does, then abortion is morally wrong, as abortion is equivalent to murder. If it does not, then abortion is perfectly acceptable. I believe that the fetus does count as a person.
Yes, because I believe in the Bible, and the Bible says so, so I think so. And who says science disagrees...
Does God hate criminals? No, God does not hate anybody, God loves everybody, but God does not necessarily approve of homosexual behavior.
This is according to Christianity. Other religions may have different beliefs on this issue.
Yes, the case for a Creator, and other books by Lee Strobel, are very good books examining the evidence for God.
Many Christians believe homosexuality morally wrong. You might ask why they impose their beliefs onto a secular nation, but in reality, if it is right and wrong issue, then it makes sense that people want to ban what they consider wrong.
We should use a cancer cure even if the cure was determined based off of the death of hundreds of people. Logically, if we don't use it, then we are avoiding saving people's lives. Either way, the people died, so not using the cure would not undo it. Likewise, not using the information would not undo the Holocaust.
