A better analogy with your seed metaphor would be if someone dug a little hole in the middle of your house and planted a seed for a tree. At first it didn't matter, but then the tree started to grow and take up your whole house. You couldn't get around, there were birds flying around your house that laid nests in the tree, it was awful. So you decided to remove the tree, it is your property after all. But there is a group of people who worship a book that tells them that removing trees from the ground is immoral and should never be done under any circumstances. They are so influential that it is illegal for you to remove the tree. "What am I supposed to do?" you say. "Just wait until the tree is grown after a year, and then you can give it up for someone else to care of" "This isn't fair" you say, "I shouldn't have to have something growing in my house that I don't want"

This is by far the best answer on here as it's actually backed up by research. For anyone who is curious here is only study on prejudice between social groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbers_Cave_Experiment

Haha, I'm not a douche I just debate passionately. And I'm glad you finally get what I was trying to say however many months ago that was.

"Atheists (if I'm not mistaken) believe that when they die, ..that's it."

This is generally true, but not necessarily true. Being an atheist just means you don't believe in god. You can not believe in god and still believe in some sort of afterlife or reincarnation. You could also theoretically believe in god and not believe in an afterlife. However I will answer the question because I am an atheist who does not believe in afterlife. First of all the concept of death seems surreal and abstract so it's hard to say exactly how I feel about it. Obviously I don't want to die and if I could would want to live on forever. However dying doesn't seem bad, or even god for that matter because your consciousness doesn't exist to think about your circumstances. The way I conceptualize life and death is that life is like a vacation. Yes the vacation will eventually end so you could say what's the point of even trying to enjoy it if it won't last. But that isn't what people do. They make the most of it and try to have the best time possible and forget that the experience will not last.

What is your point about it causing short term effects? There are lots of things that have worse short term effects and even permanent effects that are legal. The example I love to use is that it is legal to drink a can of paint thinner if you so desire. This is phenomenally worse for you than smoking marijuana. So if your reason that marijuana should be illegal is that it is not good for you, then you must support making every illegal that is at least as bad for you as marijuana and certainly worse.

I'm going to copy/paste one of my earlier arguments because I feel that it properly argues for legalization from many angles. And on the other debate no one argued against me, so I welcome anyone to disagree if you can actually make an argument other than "Well it's illegal therefore it's bad therefore it should be illegal."

I will argue first from a practical position, then philosophical, then historical.

Marijuana is not dangerous. There has never been a death recorded due to marijuana. The LD50 or amount that it would take to kill half the population is incredibly high. The estimate is 1500 pounds of marijuana in 14 minutes. You can reasonably say it is so high, it is impossible to die from overdosing on marijuana. Also marijuana does not make you stupid. The reason people think this, is that there was a study done on monkey where they let them breathe only marijuana smoke and they died from hypoxia or lack of oxygen. When you die from a lack of oxygen, your brain cells die. The severe errors in the study, however, were released much later than the results so there is now a stigma that marijuana use makes you stupid. They have found that smoking marijuana does not cause cancer like cigarette smoke. A UCLA study found no link. The gateway drug theory is actually perpetuated by the prohibition of marijuana. Because marijuana users must get pot from drug dealers, they are exposed to harder, dangerous drugs. If marijuana was able to be sold in stores, this would not happen. Legalizing marijuana would not lead to an increase in use by children. According to many studies, it is vastly easier for teenagers to get marijuana than it is for them them to get alcohol. This is because alcohol must be purchased through legal channels where vendors check for IDs. However, because of the black market for marijuana drug dealers do not care how old someone is when they sell them pot. The legalization of marijuana will be very good for the economy. We spend billions of dollars each year to keep people in prison because they like to get high and relax. Additionally marijuana is a huge cash crop the government could make a lot of money off from taxation. It is the number one cash crop in California for example. ~60% of the money of Mexican drug cartels is earned by selling marijuana in the US. Severely compromising their funding would reduce crime in the United States as well as Mexico, which would help improve Mexico's living conditions and curb illegal immigration into the United States.

The government should not have a right to prohibit you from doing something to yourself that does not harm anyone else. It is not illegal to go home and drink a gallon of paint thinner, but I guarantee that it's much better for both you and society that you smoke marijuana instead of drinking paint thinner. Here's a more reasonable example: Should the government make it illegal to consume significantly more calories than you expend? This is much more harmful than marijuana, and obesity related illnesses are one of the leading causes of death. The bottom line is that this type of reasoning that the government needs to be able to protect you from yourself is dangerously close to fascism. Where do you draw the line? Do we monitor people's jobs and make it illegal to not work hard to make sure people are productive and that they get promoted? Do we make it illegal to be late for job interviews because that is bad for you? Do we make it illegal to sleep in beds instead of on the floor because people have died this way and no one has ever died from marijuana? The answer is no. Adults are free to make their own decisions that only affect themselves. We do not live in a "nanny-state" as Ron Paul puts it.

Many people assume that because marijuana is illegal serious research and thinking went into the decision to ban it. This simply isn't true. The first marijuana laws in the United States forced people to grow marijuana during colonial times. Marijuana became illegal for a few reasons. One was due to extreme anti-Latino and anti-black sentiment. People were fear mongered into believing that minorities were a danger to white society especially due to marijuana. The "reefer madness" campaign created undue hysteria. Yellow journalism and personal career advancement also played a role. In fact President Nixon commissioned a report on marijuana which concluded that marijuana should not be illegal. http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

The next logical question is why is marijuana still illegal. Again there are a few reasons. What kept it illegal during the middle and late 1900s was again a fear mongering campaign linking marijuana use and communism. By this point in history there is so much social stigma against marijuana, that if you ask someone against legalization why it should be illegal, they will most likely cite things that simply aren't true. Additionally the alcohol and tobacco industries are absolutely huge. Companies in those industries make a so much money that they can spend vast amounts lobbying congress to keep marijuana illegal. They don't want competition. Why would you drink or smoke tobacco when they are incredibly dangerous and addictive when you can smoke marijuana which is harmless and not addictive? Many people underestimate the effect that a large lobby can have on national and state policy. The alcohol and tobacco companies also perpetuate the social stigma against marijuana by funding anti-drug and anti-marijuana advertisements and programs. The goal of these programs is not to make you not do drugs, its to stop you from doing drugs that they don't sell you. Also marijuana for medicinal purposes is a huge threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest industry in the United States. Just like the tobacco and alcohol companies, pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars lobbying congress. Marijuana has been said by some doctors to be the single best drug for maintaining health. It combats an astonishing number of diseases and conditions, and has no side effects. Compare that to the multitude of side effects from prescription drugs. It has become a cliche how at the end of television commercials for prescription drugs they rattle off a long list of some pretty serious side effects. Thousands of people die from adverse reactions to prescription drugs.

As I hope you can see, the prohibition of marijuana is completely wrong on many levels. Making marijuana legal will keep it away from kids, keep people away from dangerous hard drugs, and allow adults to make their own choices when it comes to their own lives.

I don't hate religious people at all. I hate religious extremists and religious people who try to force their religious beliefs on others(gay marriage, abortion, creationism in schools), but I have nothing against moderate religious people.

1. When did I ever say that the government should "force it down their throats"? This is something that I believe should happen, but that doesn't mean I think the constitution should be circumvented.

2. Hospitals can't let people who are having a medical emergency die because they can't afford a procedure, but for all other treatments they can. For example if you have some disease that is on insurance companies list of preexisting conditions (a list that is growing) then you would be able to get insurance. And if you can't afford to pay for your treatment out of pocket (incredibly unlikely) then you will die. 50% of bankruptcies are related to medical costs. Is it really fair that a person should be given the choice between being poor or being alive? I think America can do better than that.

You made a pointless 'debate.' You are just complaining because you don't like it when people disagree with you. If you have the maturity to ignore them, or even better discuss things with them rationally, then great. If not, then return your intellectual bubble of Fox News, your conservative family, etc. Maybe one day you will be able to handle being exposed to ideas contrary to your own.

"Ok I can show you tons of unsuccessful people that have successful kids."

I don't doubt that there are a large number of successful children who had unsuccessful parents. But this number is significantly smaller than the number of unsuccessful children who had unsuccessful parents.

So let me ask you a question. Imagine an inner-city kid who works hard in school and works a job at night to help his single mom take care of his siblings. His high school had very little money because the money comes from property taxes and the surrounding areas aren't worth much. Therefore he recieved a poor education and was not prepared for college. He didn't have advisors to explain to him which classes are important to take in college and other things like the SAT. So he doesn't end up going to college and no one ever explained to him how he can go to his local community college and transfer to a four year school. He ends up working 2 hard jobs for most of life just to provide for his family. He works the night shift, then comes home and goes to sleep for a few hours before waking up to work during the day. He worked this hard until he died from a heart attack at the early age of 62, most likely due to a combination of stress, poor nutrition, and lack of sleep.

Now imagine a totally different scenario. An upper-middle class kid who grew up in a wealthy community in the suburbs. His parents had plenty of money and he never had to work because they gave him money when he needed it. Therefore he was able to spend as much time as he wanted to studying. When he had trouble in a class, his parents hired a private tutor to make sure he got a grade. His school had excellent teachers and programs to encourage kids to go to college and explain the entire process to them clearly. He was tutored to prepare for the SAT, and in fact he took it multiple times despite the cost because his parents could afford it. He ended up very high score. His parents hired a private college advisor to make sure he could get into any school he wanted to. He went to college and didn't have to work to pay for school as his parents had it covered so he had plenty of time to study and have fun. He graduated and connections through his parents landed him a great job paying an $80,000 starting salary. He worked for a few companies over the course of his life, all of which were easy to get jobs at due to his prior experience. He would wake up each morning and take a relaxing drive to work. He would do some work for a while and then take a break. He came home in the evening and relaxed with his wife and kids. On the weekends he was free to pursue hobbies or do whatever he wished. He retired when he was 60, and lived out the rest of long life relaxing in one of his various vacation homes or traveling the world.

You tell me who worked harder and had more committment. Forget your idealized view of success. Hard work and determination are almost almost neccesary, but they are not even close to a guarantee. There are millions of people who harder and longer than you ever will, just to get by.

Atheism isn't a religion so I'm not sure what you are talking about. And why is Mr. "Political correctness is so stupid and for liberals" complaining about people criticizing Christianity? There is nothing special about Christianity or any religion that makes it exempt from critique. Furthermore if you are sick of these debates, then don't look at them. I know that cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, so I wouldn't blame you for avoiding things that trigger you to think about religion logically.

"They don't have lack of education at all!"

Are you being serious?

Naming one person who escaped poverty does not prove anything. There will always be exceptions and people who got lucky, but it is a fact that you are more likely to be successful if your parents were successful regardless of their race.

Alright I understand that you do, but we just have different opinions. Instead of claiming that people who want to reform health care "don't get it" just understand that while you are okay with people dying because they don't have money, others aren't.

The disproportionate incarceration rate of blacks is confounded variable. The social factors that increase a person's likelihood of committing crimes (poverty, lack of access to good education, etc.) disproportionately affect blacks. There is nothing inherent in being black that makes one more likely to commit crime, that is simply a stupid thing to claim.

Even though I am 99% sure you are a troll, if you are going to call other people stupid you should probably learn the difference between 'there' and 'they're.'

Are you capable of actually responding to arguments or do you say random things? How much the department of energy spends has nothing to do with my reasons for supporting health care reform. I consider the right to medical care so important I don't care how much we have to spend to allow it. Not only that but we already spend more than any other country on healthcare, I don't see how we can get any worse than that.

My two main reasons for being in favor of health care reform are as follows:

A) I think that having access to the best medical care possible is a fundamental human right. This has nothing to do with "getting" anything. It's just different morals. I am not okay with a single human being dying simply because they cannot afford treatment. I'm not saying my moral beliefs are better, they are just different. I don't understand why people have to make everything into an I'm right/you're wrong situation. If you think that it's fair for people to suffer and die because they are poor, then that's just what you believe.

B) My other reason is more fact driven than opinion. It is a fact that we spend more money on healthcare than every other country. It is also a fact that the world health organization ranked our quality of care at 37th in the world. Where does all of that money go when we still have a lackluster system? The answer is health insurance companies. It is a fact that premiums have been rising for years while at the same time coverage is being taken away for things like preexisting conditions. We need to develop an alternative to the monopoly insurance companies have on our health. I'm sure most people understand that when you buy things in bulk, they are cheaper. Most people have been to a Costco or other consumer cooperative or at least get the premise. This exact same concept can be used to make healthcare cheaper. If the government provides health insurance, it will lower the cost that we will pay (in taxes) as opposed to the money our employers or ourselves pay for health insurance. This is not to say that I, or any other liberals are advocating the elimination of private insurance. If you like your private insurance, then you can keep it. Even you will benefit from the plan, however, because the increased competition will force insurance companies to decrease their prices.

I'm not really sure what it is I don't get. From my moral point of view it is the right thing to do, and from an objective economic point of view it is as well.

It's not narcissistic to take pride in your appearance and want to be healthy. Narcissism is unhealthy ego- arrogance, envy, entitlement etc. While there may be some bodybuilders who fit these characteristics, being narcissistic isn't implicit in bodybuilding. Personally I think bodybuilding is a good thing to do for everyone. It makes you healthy, builds the good kind of confidence, teaches the value of dedication and hard work, and I think it's fun. Bodybuilding is one of the best things I've ever done for myself and I highly recommend it.

Right because admitting that there are areas in which America is not successful and pointing to countries that do succeed in those areas as role models is weak and unpatriotic.

That is not even close to what I said. I said I hope you are a teenager because you have a very immature worldview, so at least if you are young you have an excuse. What you said was so absurd and backed up by so little evidence that I honestly didn't even see the point in acknowledging it beyond what I said. But since you asked so nicely...

I've already told you how calling feminists feminazis is just your brand of sexism, but you can't seem to get past your intolerance so I won't be discussing that further.

Saying that ugly women are more likely to want equal rights than attractive women is just a colossally stupid thing to say, and unless you can provide any evidence to support this I'm not going to discuss ignorant, baseless generalizations.

About political correctness, I've said this before, but saying that Republicans are against political correctness isn't true. They just care about different things than liberals. To preface this I want to point out that I think political correctness is unnecessary, but at the same time if you don't take other peoples' feelings into account before you say things then you're an asshole. Back to the point about Republicans, did you not hear Republicans during the Bush administration condemning people for criticizing Bush during wartime? This is an example of right-wing political correctness and there are more examples here

Nice Al Franken quote. I love that line. But by the way JakeJ has already proven to be absolutely close minded. Many of us have given him logically coherent arguments against him which he either doesn't read or doesn't understand based on his response. There is no point in trying to discuss things with someone who clearly has no interest in anything but affirming his own views.

You are so incredibly immature and misguided it's shocking. You lack the ability to not view the world in absolutist terms. Because you have little experience you base your worldview on generalizations and popular stereotypes and misconceptions. For your sake I hope you are a teenager because if you are then at least there is hope for you to grow up someday.

First of all don't try to pretend you are on high moral ground when you use disparaging terms for people with whom you disagree. And I'm not sure how calling them teabagging events is arrogant when that's how the people participating in the events described them.

That may not have been the provided reason for the protests, but I saw videos of protests where those things were mentioned. They also criticized colleges for brainwashing people in one of the videos I saw.

He is talking about the people who participated in the 'teabagging events' where they complained about taxes, Obama's Kenyan birth, and evolution. And a better question is what weren't they delusional about?

I'm glad you can think from a non-partisan standpoint now. Out of curiosity are there any things you think that Bush did right?