People in favor of torture love to bring up situations in which America is teetering on the brink of catastrophe and the terrorist in his jail cell has information to stop it. Whenever I hear this, I have to laugh. I mean seriously, this never happens. We are never moments away from cataclysm with a terrorist who can give us info to stop it. This is the stuff of 007 movies and Dick Cheney's dreams. Enough with the reactionism already.

We have to realize that not only is torture ineffective and unreliable, but morally unacceptable 100% of the time, regardless of the situation (as if the aforementioned situation ever arises at all)

No, I think nuclear war or overpopulation will kill off most of humanity before global warming does.

Why is this a question? No offense, but seriously? Is anyone going to legitimately argue for the other side? I don't think so. This "debate" is absolutely meaningless.

I suppose ideally museums ought to be free for everyone, but in reality people are probably not going to donate anywhere close to enough money to adequately fund museums, pay for security, maintain collections, ect.

I worked all night. No fireworks for me :(

Oh well, there's always next year.

You're wrong, there is nothing wrong with using "an historic" because the 'a/an' rule is a matter of pronunciation, not spelling. It is used more commonly in British English than American English, but there is nothing wrong with it. And what is this business about McCain starting it??

Not even close. Country is one of the few genres I cannot stand at all. Rock is definitely where it is at (mostly)!

Larry David is the greatest living American. He's an absolute Genius!

That is exactly how I felt! Honestly, MJ was cool, but whatever. Billy Mays was the man! I absolutely loved that guy, and he will certainly be missed.

I really don't even like Slipknot very much, but AX7 just sucks it so hard, I have to argue for Slipknot on this one.

I don't think you're answering the question. You have a good point, but the question was not whether or not the current post-secondary education system is relevant or effective, but whether it is a good decision for an individual to make use of such a system, as it currently is.

This is clearly not a yes/no question, because it depends on what you want to do in life, but whatever. I would say that for most people, such as myself, college is a good investment, because it opens up an entirely different strata of career opportunities that simply aren't available to non-graduates. Four years of your life and some student loans in exchange for a higher paying, more rewarding career (hopefully) seems worth it to me.

1. I personally believe her to be unqualified for the presidency, as well as generally annoying and unappealing. So as for if she should run, I say no, there are many other republicans I would rather see in the race than her.

2. As to whether she will run, I think the answer is yes, but I doubt she will win the nomination of the party. I think at this point it is almost settled that her future includes an attempt at the presidency. However, I really don't see the republican party trying to ride a candidate like Palin after her debacle this last time around, and I think it would be a sign of poor judgement on the part of the party, especially if Obama seeks a second term.

Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Lakes. I love it here, and I hope never to move away.

If the allies had been less harsh in their reparation demands after WWI, the German economy would not have suffered as large a setback as it did, leading to extremist policies and the rise of the Nazis. However, once Hitler assumed power, his foreign policy was clearly one of aggression, especially towards the Slavic populations of Eastern Europe, and there was not much that could have been done to prevent his action fro that point on.

Haha, well you have just about the most f-up sense of Christianity I've ever encountered. But whatever, I really don't think we're making any progress on anything at all, so goodnight, and enjoy your "religion."

So you just ignore parts of scripture then? And scripture is the Holy word of God? Your directly ignoring God then you know. And that doesn't sound like a good Christian now does it?

How can you call yourself Christian without believing in Christian doctrine? I mean, pardon me, but isn't that kind of the point? Because if your just going to make up your own rules as you go, why do you need Christianity?

Then how can you claim to be religious. Aren't you supposed to conform to religion, and not the other way around. Sorry but you sound so full of crap.

Honestly, your argument is that, "I agree with the parts of religion that sound nice, and disagree with the parts that don't." I mean, come on, what's really the point then?

I'm sorry but i have to call bullshit on this one. I guarantee I know more about Christian doctrine than you. Christian doctrine is definitely against gays, and that simply isn't debatable. Honestly, no mainstream christian will allow homosexuality. It's just so absurd, because it is directly condemned so many times in scripture.

Did you read this at all? Academic studies indicate that the single greatest predictor of whether a death sentence is given, however, is not the race of the defendant, but the race of the victim. According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, blacks and whites were the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims.

That takes care of "there is no proof a black convicted criminal is any more or less likely to get the death penalty than someone convicted of any other race."

How can you not think it's a sin if you religion claims that it is?

You seem to have a pretty convoluted idea of Christianity.

Really? Well it looks like you haven't been paying attention:

Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals.

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Jude 7 - So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

...Dozens of others.

So were you really just ignorant of these, or did you just try to brush them off?? Especially the Jude one clearly refutes what you just said. How do you explain that??

I really don't think there is a new meaning. I think it has always meant an ideology of using violence against the population at large to influence the decision making of the state. Am I wrong? Is this not what it currently means?

Well, I was only able so assume based on your profile stating you are a christian and the fact that the Bible clearly states over and over that homosexuality is a sin. I've never understood how one can manage both beliefs at once.

Care to enlighten me?

1. Also, from wikipedia: "Academic studies indicate that the single greatest predictor of whether a death sentence is given, however, is not the race of the defendant, but the race of the victim. According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, blacks and whites were the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims."

I'd like to see you work your way around that one. Is it just one big coincidence??

1. I read about it in a book entitled "The Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty," originally published in 1987. And no of course it's not an official reason for why, but an undercurrent of racism that steers these trials. The study reviewed a composite of all North Carolina executions over the last century or so, and came to the conclusion that the most consistent variable tied to a death sentence was the victim being white, not weight of evidence, severity or brutality of the murder, ect. I mean these numbers are really not easy to refute. After looking at the evidence, it becomes pretty clear that ulterior motives have entered into many of these decisions.

2. In my opinion, there is no "but" with regards to human life. "it's not exactly like we're losing a good guy" is a very telling phrase for the mindset of a capital punishment supporter.

It was his choice insofar as his mind was overcome with pressure from others to conform. Nevertheless, it's always impossible to debate homosexuality with christians, because they have an irrefutable argument: "it's sin."

And my last post was well more than 50 characters. Are you saying it was a "dumb joke"?

Yeah, I'm definitely joining this side due to the obvious bias in the naming of the two parties. This whole debate and how it was phrased is BS.

That's not from prayer, that's from the overwhelming social pressure to be just like everyone else. It's pretty sad.

I'm not being a smartass, I'm just pointing out how absurd that is. Your first paragraph is completely emotion-based. There's no logic there. You're just saying to act with emotion and kill for revenge because you are upset at the death of a loved one. Is that really how we ought to act?

Also, I disagree that very many people cannot be controlled without capital punishment. It has consistently been shown that states with capital punishment have as high or higher murder rates than those that do not. There are no "cold people" and such a term sounds like something from the middle ages.

"Some people just need killin'" - That sounds just fantastic!

Any war between two nuclear superpowers would be absolutely devastating on a scale never seen before. I, do think, however that the US and a handful of other countries could take out China, due to the fact the America's military spending is far and away the largest in the world.

2. Read Descartes. Not everything he writes I agree with, but there is some interesting stuff in there along that vein.

3. Sure, but all of that is just psychology. So, yes, I agree that psychology can certainly be aided by studying the effects of religion on people, but sciences such as biology and physics ought to be left alone, and not diluted and distorted based on someone's religious beliefs (creationists vs. evolutionists). Basically the effects ought to be taken into consideration in social sciences, but the actual beliefs should not change the scientific studies.

I think we are more or less on the same page, and I don't find anything wrong in what you just said (except your "existance as a thought" thing, but whatever).

I don't enjoy the NFL itself, but I do follow it because of fantasy football, which I must say is one of the most enjoyable activities ever if you get into it. I also enjoy college football because there is nothing like the atmosphere at college games. Go Gophers!

No the death penalty ought to be abolished for a multitude of reasons. Chief among them are:

1. The current implementation of capital punishment has been shown time and time again to be racially biased. Whether based on the race of the perpetrator or victim, a study in North Carolina found that the single most consistent variable in determining whether a murderer was given death was the race of the victim. This incredible bias is unconstitutional and immoral, and it is absurd to continue such an unjust and arbitrary form of punishment.

2. This one is a bit more philosophical and depends on personal opinion, but in essence claims that killing another human will not bring back the victim, it will just double the toll on human life. Many call for "justice" in the application of execution, yet in reality, this is just a desire for revenge. We ought not let emotions decide the fate of a human life.

1. Sorry, I probably shouldn't have assumed that.

2. So what if science can't prove God does not exist? It can't prove that Santa or the Easter Bunny don't either. The lack of any evidence, in my opinion, is enough of a condemnation, at least for the moment, of religion. Why should we pretend to believe in something for which there is no evidence. If you can show me evidence, I'll believe, but until then, I find it expedient to assume non-existence.

3. You keep saying they are connected, but you give no examples. Do you mean that they are both at the core of western civilization and culture? Do you mean that they have historically been used together? Because I will admit both of those, but I see no philosophical significance in these connections other than sociological connections.

I don't assume that religion is wrong, I understand it to be wrong based on an empirical analysis of it using scientific methods.

The difference between our viewpoints comes in at the very core of how we view the world. Starting from scratch and building up a structure of knowledge, I assume scientific methods upon which to base evaluations and make decisions about the world. In light of this, I evaluate religion as generally being incorrect.

You, on the other hand, begin with an assumption that God exists, and religion is the path of knowledge. You then attempt to rectify this with science by pressing to two together (usually quite awkwardly), so that you will not be forced to abandon either, while attempting to follow both.

It is this initial choice in viewing the world from which our standpoints diverge.

Environmental preservation will not come about through the individual contributions of individuals or non-profits, but through the action taken by the government to ensure sustainability. Thus is the nature of capitalism, and while many corporations currently appear to be hopping on the environmental "green bandwagon", it is all just publicity to drive profits. No, this current fad for "going green" will accomplish nothing until the government begins mandating harsher changes. Otherwise, people's interests will overcome the common interest to preserve the environment.

Whenever I read something that is atrociously written, I cannot help but question both the education of the writer and the credibility of the opinion put forth. Writing relies heavily not just on substance, but also on presentation, and when a sentence is presented in an infantile fashion, it immediately begs to be considered as incorrect.

I don't believe that science without religion is lame. Science for the simple sake of empirically studying the world is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. I see no need to attach religion to it. There are, I will admit, large cosmological questions that science may never answer, but religion to me appears to be just as unqualified and unable to answer these as science has thus far been.

Well than what do you propose? Living outside of any civil society? Because that's about your only alternative.

Voting is an essential right of any citizen, and there is absolutely no way of determining a "qualification" for participating in the democratic process other than citizenship. To try and make guidelines for who can and cannot vote based on intelligence or maturity would be impossible and likely unfair. It would completely destroy the right of self-rule if citizens were subject to a system of standards needed to qualify for taking part in democracy.

18 years old ought to be the voting age due to the fact that that age is when citizens are officially considered adults. Throughout western history, an approximation of this age has been used to define adulthood and the rights and responsibilities that come along with it (including, as mentioned above, the duty of defending their nation). As for maturity, I do believe that 18 year olds (at least those who care enough to vote) are certainly mature enough to make an informed and responsible decision when voting.

Ever since I first saw Conan I have loved his style. Maybe he is a bit more immature and gimmick-oriented than Letterman, but I just generally find him more entertaining. It's really just a matter of personal preference.

I am a steadfast atheist, and yet I find this label pretty absurd. Obviously, it was crafted for the sake of being humorous/satire, and I do find it compelling in a way. However, to place these on Bibles is offensive and unnecessary. Also, that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment (I really hate first amendment arguments, but come on). To institutionalize a critique of a religion would be just as harmful as institutionalizing the practice of a religion.