- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
I'm going to disagree on this one because the definitions are unclear. What is meant by "water powered" do you mean steam, cause they have that. Do you mean cold fusion, because there are a lot of people claiming that is possible but nothing viable has been shown. Basically it takes more energy than is produced, beyond that I don't have the expertise to explain it.
There are thousands of quacks and scam artist on the internet claiming they have water engines, just do a search on youtube, but hardly any of them are willing to have a real scientist test their engines. With modern communication it's not possible for big oil companies to keep this kind of thing under wraps, if someone made a real working "water engine" it would rock the industry over night. It would be everywhere. It simply hasn't happened yet, and probably won't because the concept isn't viable.
There are air powered engines but the tanks are huge, and the concept simply isn't scalable yet. It is interesting though and I think more realistic than a "water engine"
"So, you're saying everyone should get the vaccines for the benefit of society even if by some freak occurance it manages to kill or ruin some of the people getting the vaccine?"
This is a strawman argument. Obviously if there was a chance for this then a vaccine wouldn't be released to the general population. Also, there is no evidence that any vaccine has ever done this.
"Ya know the new HPV vaccine going around for women? Would you apply the same Heard immunity theory to that one? I wouldn't."
I believe the virus you speak of is recommended for young women (girls) 11-12 years old. If they plan on being sexually active then yes I would recommended it, but it's not like I'm a doctor or anything, I am just a layman that can read the CDC's website. Obviously its a different kind of virus than the flu, and it's not airborne, but the heard immunity concept still applies, I don't know why you would think it wouldn't.
So you believe even though you have no evidence for or against, you just have faith because you have faith because you have faith.... You are a classic drone because if you accept no evidence nothing can sway you, your mind is closed. In the real world nothing is for certain but everything can be backed with some kind of evidence. If it can't it doesn't exist.
"I highly doubt marijuana would spark a billion dollar industry. There would still be a lot of private growers to circumvent the taxes on it and to make it cheaper. I'd say the same for cigarettes, but tobacco is not the only thing in there. It's a precise mixture of dozens of substances and chemicals, so people can't exactly manufacture that on their own."
People don't just smoke marijuana. it can be made into a variety of things for very cheap. It has long been speculated that if it were legal it would rock textile industry to it's core. Hemp used to be used for making rope and paper, the constitution in fact is written on hemp, but not anymore. It has even been suggested that the textiles industry is in on keeping the drug war going just to protect their market. So, your argument is completely wrong, because of it's many uses and how easy it is to grow (we are talking about weed here, it often grows in spite of efforts to stop it) marijuana would most certainly become a muliti billion dollar industry if legalized.
I don't agree that a developed nation has the responsibility to help undeveloped nations. It has the responsibility to support itself and not destroy other nations, and that's about it. I think when you start looking at issues like education it's all subjective and ultimately political what you teach. May be the Muslims feel that a liberal education is evil, they have to come to that on their own. I think the best thing to do is to keep trade open so that they can develop their economies naturally.
For the first paragraph I disagree that measles is an unreasonable vaccine for kids to have. The disease has been almost irradiated yet it still persists because not enough children are vaccinated for it. As for your aversion to getting the flu shot, you are obviously not familiar with Heard immunity. In order for a vaccine to be effective a majority of the population needs to have it. You don't get vaccinated just because you might catch something, it's because you might carry it and give it to someone else. Like some one for whom that seasons vaccine doesn't work for or even worse for some one with a weak immune system like small children or elderly people who could die from something like the flu. So not getting vaccinated is a pretty selfish thing to do, especially if you have no good reason like an allergy or something.
As for the second paragraph if you actually read my summary, it addressees your apprehensions. There are more cases of autism now than in the past because of an expansion of the scope of the definition of autism.
It will soon be possible for everyone to power their homes with small nuclear reactors that are self contained and can run for decades without refueling.
"there are alternate sources of energy, which we have not fully taken advantage of but still can with more technological advancement."
who knows how long that will take? What about in the mean time? Nuclear power is already advanced enough to be safe and less harmful than current practices, why not use it while the better methods are developed
"nuclear power produces radioactive waste which we have not successfully disposed of without danger of radioactive contamination to the disposal region."
The amount of energy generated compared to the amount of waste is very small and there are ways to store it that don't harm anything. Plus, it's harmfulness and instability are usually greatly exaggerated. Besides, it' still not as harmful as the waste generated by current practices such as coal fire plants belching co2 into the atmosphere.