CreateDebate


Vassilgl's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Vassilgl's arguments, looking across every debate.
2 points

If the assumptions are made that democracy is the preferable form of government and that the dictator is tyrannical and harmful, then the assassination of a dictator is not the solution to the problem.

It is important to note that not all dictators are bad for their countries. For example, Stalin, despite being ruthless and cruel, made the Soviet Union into a superpower that helped defeat fascism and has provided continued economic benefits all over Europe and central Asia to this day. Killing Stalin wouldn't have really solved anything.

Despite Stalin's strength as a leader, it was ultimately the failings of the system that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Killing the leader doesn't change the country, the solution to dictatorships is a re-structuring of government. In Russia, the collapse of the soviet system did not cause the death of their premier, just as the death of the premier would not cause a change in the system.

1 point

Humanity is a myth. Humans are animals on this planet just like cats and dogs and bugs. Therefore, they must follow the same rules the achieve the same objectives of survival and reproduction. Instinct will drive people to do whatever is necessary to achieve these goals even if that means going against what people consider to be "humane." There is nothing special about humans that holds them to a different moral code than animals.

1 point

Listen, I saw David Blaine change a cup of coffee into quarters. If that's not an amazing occurrence, I don't know what is. That totally beats Jesus' water to wine thing. Just goes to show ya that you don't need Jesus to have amazing things happen.

Plus, it's not fair to say that all amazing occurrences today are just tricks, and when Jesus did it it was magic. For example, if you saw a street performer change water into wine before your eyes, you would think it was a trick, but when someone else tells you that a guy a long time ago did it, its magic? or a miracle?

The point I'm trying to make is that Jesus isn't real, and any "amazing" things that people say happened either a: didn't happen or b: were tricks. It is certain however, that they weren't magic or somehow done by the power of "god"

1 point

Being a man is awesome. You don't need to make babies or have periods, you're less likely to be mugged or raped. You are usually a little bigger and stronger than the average woman. You don't have to make the decision whether to stay at home and look after the kids or get a job to support them. Men's traditional gender roll tells them that they are supposed to get a job, whereas women need to decide to be a self-empowered woman and get a job in the workplace or follow their traditional gender roll and take care of kids.

The only bad things about being a man is that you almost always lose in child custody cases, and you are eligible to be drafted. Besides that, life is a lot easier.

1 point

The amazing things that happen in this world are not because of Christ. He is not real. These things just happen. From what I've been told about Christ, were he real, he wouldn't have anymore magical powers than David Blaine.

1 point

You are wrong on so many levels it is astounding.

"if we were in control, then we can squash this Nationalized Health Care thinking"

The national health care push is an internal democratic movement that is supported by the majority of the US congress. Just because there are similar health care models abroad, doesn't mean that its their fault for it or that taking over them will get rid of it.

"the rest of the world want to force their views on us, I say we do unto them before they do unto us"

What exactly are you talking about here? Can you cite any specific examples of how foreign governments have exerted influence on us recently? I think you may have this backwards because in the last 10 years, the US has been exerting far more influence than it has been exerted upon. Like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US, in the most clear fashion, is trying to make their governments like ours. You can even look at the number of English speaking people around the world and especially in Europe. In Europe, English is the most popular language despite the plethora of other languages on the continent and the relative minority of native English speakers.

Clearly the influence you are talking about goes contrary to what you think, and beyond that, a global, Napoleonic/Hitler-esque take over would do nothing to solve any of the problems you are talking about.

1 point

It is true that the poor do need help, but it is just as much their job to be able to make what they can of the assistance as it is society's job to provide it. If they continue to do things that they know to be harmful and wasteful, they fail to keep up their side of the bargain and therefore leave the government no obligation to keep up its side

1 point

I think it would be unfair to tax people based on mental handicaps because people who are handicapped haven't made the decision to be like that. Its not fair that you tax someone more just because, through no fault of their own, they need more medical assistance. If it IS their fault, then taxing them more makes perfect sense (ie: smokers, drinkers, and the overweight)

1 point

I think it is unfair to make the claim that poor people tend to be unhealthier and more prone to smoking, alcoholism, and obesity. There are plenty of people who are very well off financially who are still alcoholics, smokers, and over weight. There are also plenty of poor people out there who are in good health. It seems like a slippery slope argument to say that poor people will drink and smoke more and will therefore need more health care and shouldn't need to pay more because they cant afford it. Even if this was the case, a higher tax on alcohol and tobacco products would only create more of an economic incentive for those people not to throw their money away on those products.

1 point

Yes, the point of health care is to provide for those who need it, but that doesn't justify people going out and creating those needs at the expense of the system. If someone decides, on their own, that they want to pick up a smoking habit or do something that is clearly unhealthy, why should I be responsible for paying for it? It would be like me making the lifestyle decision to buy a Ferrari, and then expect everyone else to pay for my incredibly high insurance cost. Its simply not fair that I need to pay for someone else to be reckless with themselves.

1 point

It is my belief that a person's body is his or hers own property, and therefore has the right to do with as he or she pleases. If someone in a painful state has given up on fighting their illness, it should be their decision whether to keep fighting or not. Matters can be complicated if the person is in a vegetable state comatose, it can be difficult to determine, without earlier consent, if the person wishes to continue struggling with his or her ailment. However, in some cases rehabilitation is medically impossible, and death would only end the suffering of a person who is destined to be living off a machine for the rest of their lives. I think it would be more cruel to prolong this persons misery than to simply euthanize them painlessly.

1 point

I think that stings like "To Catch a Predator," bait cars, and prostitution stings should be considered entrapment. I understand that the police should try to be proactive in their jobs, but it looks to me like they are just trying to sucker people into doing something illegal. For example, the people on "To Catch a Predator" probably wouldn't be there if they hadn't been invited over by someone posing as a flirtatious teenager. "Johns" probably wouldn't try to hire an under cover cop for sex if the police hadn't put her there to begin with. People most likely wouldn't steal bait cars if they had not been put them in public places with they keys still in the ignition. "Baiting" by definition implies that you are trying to catch or lure something that wouldn't have otherwise been caught. The point being, if the police are required to set up the circumstances of the crime for you to commit it, aren't they just as responsible for the crime as you are?

4 points

I don't think that it would be any more cruel or unusual than death by lethal injection. Its a surgical procedure that actually functions as a way to stop unhealthy libidos. I think serious consideration should be given to this as treatment for pedophilia, because with it people can be returned to be functioning members of society without being a danger to it.

1 point

I think that pedophilia is something someone is born with, so I don't know if these people need punishment so much as they need treatment. I think its unfortunate that these people are the way they are, but they are a menace to society and must be dealt with. Castration is a legitimate medical method of stopping libido, which is the problem for these people. Granted, it is not the only way of stopping sex drive, but I think it doubles as both a good cure and punishment. The only reservation I would have about this is the permanence of the punishment. No court system is perfect and it would be horrible if the procedure was done to someone innocent.

3 points

The difference between old, young, and otherwise disabled people is that unlike smokers, fat people, and drunks, they don't have an option in their problems. Obese people, smokers, and drinkers made lifestyle decisions that led to their state of health. Why should I have to pay for someone who makes the couscous decision to be unhealthy?

1 point

The point of a court proceeding is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused using evidence. What better way to document the trials than on video? Courts already have stenographers to document the trial, and they are all already open to the public, I don't see how allowing cameras would hurt.

3 points

From a legal standpoint: Sure, why not? It's peoples' own decision if they want to get married to several people. All the government should be concerned about are tax issues and couples' rights. Besides that, who is the government to tell you how many people you can marry?

From a moral standpoint: That's really weird and I certainly would not take advantage of its legality, but that doesn't mean we should ruin it for other people.

2 points

Patriotism is not blindly following what your government tells you because you've been brain washed into thinking that your government is some kind of infallible god. Patriotism is sticking to your guns and fighting to make your country what you want it to be. What you are talking about is indoctrination, not patriotism.

3 points

People should be allowed to pray privately in schools if they want to do so without distracting other students or making a scene, but by no means should the school itself actually advocate and lead prayer itself. There are institutions people can go to to pray as much as they want, and schools are not those institutions. I don't teach in your church, so don't preach in my school.

4 points

I think people who smoke and drink heavily should also pay more just as obese people should. You say that some obese people have mental/physical imbalances that cause them to be obese? Do people have these imbalances in Africa? or central America? Because obesity doesn't seem to be a problem there. It looks to me like people are simply products of their lifestyle, and it is unfair that those who live healthier need to pay for the lifestyles of others they have no contol over. Smokers, drinkers and obese people take more from the system, so they should have to pay more.

2 points

Because sexual activity is awesome and a sign of good health. It is a primal action that is at the foundation of humans' hierarchy of needs (according to Maslow: http://www.colinchristianson.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/800px-maslows_hierarchy_of_needssvg.png) ) So stopping sex is not the solution to the abortion debate. People do need to be careful and do need to be held accountable for their actions, but accidents happen and shouldn't people be able to have a choice in how to deal with such a life-altering event?

1 point

Here are two definitions of the word law:

1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties

2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present

These two definitions say that laws are either absolute truths in the universe, or basically just rules made up by people to govern themselves. Since the debate topic is whether or not there is a universal moral law, the debate is looking for an absolute truth in human morals. Therefore a statement of fact (as noted in the second definition) is needed. You acknowledge in your rebuttal that people are not bound by these moral "laws" like they are by other laws of science. So, by definition, these cannot be laws, just differences in opinions. Therefore, there is no universal moral law. Just because your thoughts on morality don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, that doesn't make science inapplicable, it just makes you wrong. Morals are only made up by individuals and the people they allow to influence them, there is no cosmic rule book for everyone out there.

2 points

For something to be considered a law, scientifically, it must apply in all situations, and must be consistent in all situations. Gravity, for example, is a law of the universe, because it applies all the time and is consistent every time. Gravity will also apply in all situations regardless of human presence. Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally.

1 point

"It's not about the locals taking care of themselves, first of all, it's about us making sure that shit like 9/11 never happens again."

The whole point of going into Afghanistan was to rid the world of a safe heaven for terrorists. The goal now is to set up a friendly government that will fight terrorism along side the us so that the US is not forced to remain in a permanent, expensive war. Therefore the goals of stabilizing Afghanistan and preventing future terrorist attacks are crucially linked to one another.

Military failures-

First of all, the reason Bush never instituted the draft was that it would be political suicide, not that it would be bad for morale. Secondly, drafted armies can be, and have been made into effective forces (WWII for example). The problem in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan is that conventional militaries cannot fight well against insurgencies and guerrilla warfare. The Soviets had the same problem in the 1980's and even the British encountered it to some degree during the American Revolution. Our army is built to fight with other armies, not abstract entities like Al Qaeda. It's like trying to fight off a swarm of bees with a machine gun.


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]