#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Science fiction predicted everything that's happening now? What do you think?
Add New Argument |
Science Fiction has predicted a lot, William Gibson pretty much predicted the use of portable computers with his Cyber Punk books and a Clockwork Orange predicted Joy Riding and other youthful anti social behaviour that did'nt exist in 1962, i'm still waiting for my time machine though!! 1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
Since I'm not really disputing you but informing you, I choose clarify. Some people would claim that working to help the poor and lower middle class is a push toward socialism. Things like mandated health care, college grants, welfare programs, etc. lean toward socialism on a small scale. As far as the decline in morality, I don't know if there is any more decline now then what has always been. What I do know is that the acts of immorality now are on a larger scale, such as Madoff, Enron, BP oil spill, etc. 1
point
"As far as the decline in morality, I don't know if there is any more decline now then what has always been. What I do know is that the acts of immorality now are on a larger scale, such as Madoff, Enron, BP oil spill, etc." BP oil spill was immoral????? It may have been bad for the environment, but immoral? Do you even know what that word means? 1
point
BP could have stopped the spill almost immediately by imploding the well and would have prevented the extreme levels of enviromental damage that followed, but chose not to as it would prevent them from accessing the well again. Their greed prevented them from taking immediate action. 0
points
Wow, there is so many things wrong with your statement. Here, let me help. Originally, they were going to send a nuclear bomb down there and implode the well. But Obama didn't want to do that because it would "give an excuse for Iran to build 'peaceful' nuclear weapons". So no, Obama prevented them from taking immediate action. 1
point
GeneralLee, once again you haven't done your research. Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said that neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was thinking about a nuclear blast under the gulf. The nuclear option was not — and never had been — on the table, federal officials said. “It’s crazy,” one senior official said. Source is from the New York Times. It is the 7th or 8th paragraph, feel free to read the whole article for better perspective on the issue. 1
point
I was not doubting the fact that the russians have used nuclear weapons to seal oil wells. Everything in the above dispute I wrote refutes your statements. Using a nuke to seal the oil well would violate an international treaty, that's just one reason why we didn't consider it. 1
point
True, but name me one country that would have been pissed that we broke this treaty in this specific circumstance. Like the news article said, Obama had just received his Noble Peace Prize (still trying to figure out what for). I think it was more of a political move than a practical one. 1
point
True, but name me one country that would have been pissed that we broke this treaty in this specific circumstance. I don't have to name a country, that's irrelevant. What matters is the message we would be telling the world. "We're the United States, and we don't give a fuck about nuclear treaties.". How does the rest of the world know we won't break another treaty? Especially being a nuclear treaty...they don't know. The world would be alarmed that the U.S. is so arrogant to think it doesn't have to obey treaties that it signs. Like the news article said, Obama had just received his Noble Peace Prize (still trying to figure out what for). I think it was more of a political move than a practical one. Do you think Obama asked to receive the prize? He didn't. The Nobel Peace prize committee are the people who decide who to give the prize to....Obama didn't have a choice in who they nominated. So this nonsense you speak of about it being a political move by Obama rather than a practical one, makes no sense. 1
point
"I don't have to name a country, that's irrelevant. What matters is the message we would be telling the world. "We're the United States, and we don't give a fuck about nuclear treaties." And what is Russia saying every time they use a nuke? "We're Russian, we don't give a fuck about the US authority." What's the point of this if we never actually enforce it? And what if we asked permission of the countries we signed the treaty with? Then we would NOT have been violating any treaty. Again, this was just a terrible political move on Obama's behalf. Even Democrats agree with me on this one (read Newser comments for verification). 1
point
When was the last time Russia used a nuke in violation of a nuclear treaty? I'm not aware of any law that would enable the U.S. to simply ask permission to break a treaty. It would have to be another law revoking our commitment to the treaty, or something else. How is this a terrible political move? Obama did not have the authority to break a treaty, it would have been frowned by the international community. It was a brilliant move by Obama to not use a nuclear bomb to seal the well. I highly doubt the democrats agreed that we should have used a nuclear bomb. I referenced an article saying that the nuclear option was never on the table and that it would have been a terrible move. 1
point
"I'm not aware of any law that would enable the U.S. to simply ask permission to break a treaty." You are acting like a treaty is some sort of law. It isn't. Think of it as more of an understanding between nations. If Russian launched a nuke at us, would we hesitate to fire back because of a stupid treaty? Of course not! And we can ask the nations that signed the treaty if we could use a nuke for this purpose since a treaty is not a law. 1
point
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was opened for signature in 1968, and has nearly190 Parties. The Treaty comprises legally binding non-proliferation commitments and is the basis for international cooperation on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Treaties can be legally binding. So no, I do not think you can just ask for permission to break a treaty. If Russia launched a nuke at us, we would likely fire back because then they would have broken the treaty first. But these two circumstances are very different. So they are not comparable in the slightest. 1
point
1
point
Depends. Did Russia sign a treaty saying they could not use nukes in such a way? What year did they use these nukes, and what binding treaties were in effect? If they were under treaty, do you have a link? I'm skeptical of the claim "russia used nukes to seal wells, therefore they broke their treaty". 1
point
Russia never signed the treaty. That's why they were our enemy during the cold war years. But what I do not understand is, why can't we ask permission from the other nations that signed the treaty to use the nuke to stop the oil well? It makes sense to me. Lets say we have two people Bob and Jim. Bob gets a contract offer from Jim to do some work. Later, Bob doesn't want to do that work. Bob asks Jim if he could be relieved of his contract and Jim agrees. Since both parties agreed, no legal infringement was caused. So I don't understand why we couldn't do the same thing. Sure it's a law, but if everyone including those who made it says it's OK, then we should have been able to do it. Like all laws, they can be modified or repealed to fit a certain situation. 1
point
If Russia never signed the treaty then they were under no obligation to ask anyone for permission. We are under treaty though, that is why we cannot simply do as we please in violation of our treaties. It would send the world the wrong message, a message of arrogance and disregard for international law. In regards to your Bob and Jim example, this is not just a 2 person contract here. It is an agreement between countries, each country has individual senators and congressman who have their say in the matter, some will agree, some will disagree. It is a time consuming process. It is nowhere near as simple and quick as the Bob and Jim example. I would imagine that if all parties agreed to this one exemption, then yes the United States could use a nuke to seal the oil well, but that is disregarding the fact that having radioactive oil/water is a lot worse than just oily water. It is risky to choose the nuclear option. 1
point
All right, where shall I begin? 1. The allowance of tapping into any cell or landline phone to listen in on our conversations, the interception of any and all text messages, the interception of any and all emails, the unwarranted allowance of tracking devices on our vehicles (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/ 2. The tolerance of sex before marriage, the tolerance of sex with more than one partner, cheating on your partner becoming common (http://www.chacha.com/question/ 1
point
In what way does the 1st thing make this country socialist...? What does it matter if people have sex before marriage? Who cares if people want to hook up with X amount of guys or girls? I do understand how cheating on your partner (spouse) could cause problems, and I even consider it immoral myself. As for the guy sleeping with three women, I would imagine I and most other people frown upon it, but I don't see it as immoral really. It's their choice. So long as both adults are consenting, I don't see a problem with whatever they choose to do sexually. And about getting me to shut up, I was at work. I had enough time to sign in and see what you responded but I didn't have time to respond yet. 1
point
"In what way does the 1st thing make this country socialist...?" In what way does it makes us a free democratic country? "I do understand how cheating on your partner (spouse) could cause problems, and I even consider it immoral myself. As for the guy sleeping with three women, I would imagine I and most other people frown upon it, but I don't see it as immoral really. It's their choice. So long as both adults are consenting, I don't see a problem with whatever they choose to do sexually." Why don't you see it as immoral? "And about getting me to shut up, I was at work. I had enough time to sign in and see what you responded but I didn't have time to respond yet." Yeah, yeah; it's just that I saw another Democrat use "you're not posting fast enough" on one of us (interestingly on a debate that you were on) and couldn't resist. 1
point
In what way does it makes us a free democratic country? In what way does that answer my question? I asked how was the United States a socialist country, and all you do is change the course of the debate? If you make a factual statement, back it up with something. As for the immorality part, what do you propose we do? Make laws that make it illegal for people to have more than one sexual partner; or make it illegal to do any of the other things you listed? Of course not, that would be a violation of our freedom. It is a cultural shift that has caused people to act in this way even more so than they have in the past. The only way to fix it is to cause a cultural shift in the other direction, which would be extremely difficult to do. I personally don't see it as a big problem, very minor in my opinion. Regardless, the things you referenced won't cause the downfall of our nation. Which debate was this? 1
point
The thing is, I wasn't shifting the debate. I am merely questioning the grounds on which you called my backup statement to view. You said, "In what way is the United States becoming socialist?" I provided you with information. Now, instead of providing a rebuttal, you are merely trying to bring my argument into a negative light with which you can use it to your advantage. I am merely questioning the grounds on which you are doing it. So, my question still stands, How does this make us a more free and democratic country? And don't dodge the question. I provided the back up in my first argument, now it's your turn for the rebuttal. All right, now on to the fun part. Why would laws for this be a violation of our freedom? It's illegal to murder someone, it's illegal to speed, it's illegal pray and read the Bible in schools. Why don't we just top off the list with this? And why do you think this is a minor problem, and why wouldn't this cause the downfall of our nation? And why are you asking which debate this was? 1
point
You didn't provide any information that backed up your statement that the United States (I assume) is a socialist country now. You referenced certain laws like the Patriot Act and the NDAA which seek to diminish our personal freedom in this country, I am very much against any and all laws which seek to diminish our personal freedom. What you don't understand is that the U.S. making steps towards becoming a police state does not equal socialism. Socialism and a police state are two very different things. Also, I have not made a statement affirming the country is or is not a free democratic country. Your question therefore does not stand. Why would laws for this be a violation of our freedom? Simple. The crimes you references are violations of someone elses rights (murdering someone, risking people's lives by speeding), or they directly violate the constitution (congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That means it cannot endorse one either). To my knowledge it is not illegal to simply possess or read a bible in school. I imagine if a student tried to preach a verse of the bible to the class, then that would be crossing the line. Having sex with multiple partners, so long as they are consenting adults, violates NO ONES rights. Cheating on someone violates NO ONES rights. Sex before marriage violates NO ONES rights. On what basis do you have to declare these acts illegal?
I think this is a minor problem because how can sex before marriage, sex with multiple partners, or cheating on your spouse, cause the destruction of the entire nation? Sounds like it's being blown out of proportion. People have been having multiple sex partners, and cheating on spouses, since time began. Society has been destroyed for much more serious issues, and not once to my knowledge of merely adventurous sex activities. The debate question was a response to this post by you earlier "Yeah, yeah; it's just that I saw another Democrat use" 1
point
"What you don't understand is that the U.S. making steps towards becoming a police state does not equal socialism." Technically they don't, literally they do. What you are saying is basically, "Just because I am standing next to this radioactive plutonium cell with no protective gear on doesn't mean I'm going to get cancer." That statement would be true, yet at the same time laughable. All police states are socialist. Not once in the history of the world has a police state not been socialist. They just go hand in hand. To my knowledge it is not illegal to simply possess or read a bible in school. What the liberal media hides from you. Here read these: http://www.10news.com/news/ http://www.adherents.com/misc/ "The crimes you references are violations of someone elses rights" Defined how? Playing the devils advocate, I argue that laws against murder hinder someone's right to kill another person. And as for speeding, that is just as ambiguous. For example, highway speed limits in my state are 65. In a neighboring state, they are 75. So you are saying risking people's lives varies from state to state?? It doesn't make sense. You only think it's endangering someone. It has yet to be scientifically proven. "Having sex with multiple partners, so long as they are consenting adults, violates NO ONES rights." Wow, that was a bold statement. I do not think you fully understand how much that destroys a women. Because you are a heartless guy, you have no clue what sex does to women. When women have sex with a guy, they bond with him. This bond is extremely strong, like super glue. When the heartless douche has his fill of sex and breaks up with here, he basically destroys her. So much so, I think it is a crime against women and should be outlawed. Read here: http://phys.org/news133617019.html http://www.icr.org/article/4776/ " think this is a minor problem because how can sex before marriage, sex with multiple partners, or cheating on your spouse, cause the destruction of the entire nation?" It's because destruction of morals is a domino effect. It starts out with sex, then leads to other bigger problems. After all, how could one little cancer polyp destroy an entire body? 1
point
Technically they don't, literally they do. What you are saying is basically, "Just because I am standing next to this radioactive plutonium cell with no protective gear on doesn't mean I'm going to get cancer." That statement would be true, yet at the same time laughable. Your analogy does not apply here. The United States is not a police state, it is also not a socialist country. To say it is to either of those statements is to vastly exaggerate the issue. Small steps towards becoming a socialist state or a police state does not equal automatically becoming one. What the liberal media hides from you. Here read these: But you haven't even read them. The first one says the student tried to preach in class, this could and should result in disciplinary action. The second one says the student possessed a bible, which I think the school wrongly accused him of being illegal. And then it goes on to say that the student put some book cover on another book (I assume school book? If its not a school book then its legal) saying something about god or the bible. The school should have the right to prohibit certain book covers, including religious ones, from being on school books. Defined how? Playing the devils advocate, I argue that laws against murder hinder someone's right to kill another person. This is silly. You are not allowed to make someone else a victim. highway speed limits in my state are 65. In a neighboring state, they are 75. So you are saying risking people's lives varies from state to state?? It doesn't make sense. You only think it's endangering someone. They are only minor variations in opinions. They have the ballpark figure correct, they are not ambiguous. Now, if one state said the speed limit was 20 and another said 120, then that would be ambiguous and make zero sense. Do you think they just made up a number that would be safe for interstates? Wow, that was a bold statement. I do not think you fully understand how much that destroys a women. Because you are a heartless guy, you have no clue what sex does to women. You're just delusional. You're willing to take away a woman's rights all for the veil of protecting them. If the girl wants to have sex with one guy or multiple guys, let her. It's her body, she controls it. Not you or anyone else. She isn't doing anything wrong, and neither is the guy, if all parties consent to it. When women have sex with a guy, they bond with him Says you, what about all the sluts and prostitutes? Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their life style, if they want to live that way with other consenting adults, I nor anyone else has the right to prohibit them from doing so. If you are really willing to take away the rights of women (or even men i guess), then I'm glad you are not in power and I hope you never get a position of power. It's because destruction of morals is a domino effect. It starts out with sex, then leads to other bigger problems. After all, how could one little cancer polyp destroy an entire body? Your comparison between cancer and morals is laughable. The two have no comparison. A cancer self replicates non stop because it is a malfunction in the DNA or something to that nature. In regards to morals, how does it compare? Casual sex will not cause the destruction of society, this assertion is completely baseless. 1
point
"The United States is not a police state, it is also not a socialist country. To say it is to either of those statements is to vastly exaggerate the issue. Small steps towards becoming a socialist state or a police state does not equal automatically becoming one." I didn't mean that we are socialist, I meant we are becoming socialist. Small strokes felled great oaks. "And then it goes on to say that the student put some book cover on another book (I assume school book? If its not a school book then its legal) saying something about god or the bible. The school should have the right to prohibit certain book covers, including religious ones, from being on school books." And yet I've seen ones promoting Islam or Hinduism and that is somehow OK??? Why is Christianity book covers bad, but ones of other religions OK? "They are only minor variations in opinions. They have the ballpark figure correct, they are not ambiguous. Now, if one state said the speed limit was 20 and another said 120, then that would be ambiguous and make zero sense. Do you think they just made up a number that would be safe for interstates?" Your statement makes zero sense. There is an obvious safety difference between 20 and 120. There is no safety difference between 65 and 75. No, they don't make up the numbers, but they plan for speeding tickets. See, tickets are a huge source of income. So they set up speed traps in order to make money off them. For example, I have a highway that's 65 MPH. For about 1/4 mile, it drops to 55 MPH for no reason then goes back up to 65 MPH. And every time I go by there at night, there is a cop sitting there without fail because they know they will make money off the ticket. They can raise the limit to 75, but they make too much money off the tickets to do that. "You're willing to take away a woman's rights all for the veil of protecting them." Rights based off of what??? The Constitution? Which is based off of what? What is the basis for your moral theory? In regards to morals, how does it compare?" Morals start off as being something small, then corrupt and turn into something destructive. 1
point
Mark seems to be doing just fine tearing you a new one on every issue here, so I'll leave him to it but I can't resist having a little bit of fun with this piece of trash: Wow, that was a bold statement. I do not think you fully understand how much that destroys a women. Because you are a heartless guy, you have no clue what sex does to women. First of all, the fact that you're pulling from the site of a religious institute and from a psychology site that doesn't even agree with your point (the majority of women, according to the source, have positive feelings about one night stands) shows you personally have no idea what you're talking about; you have to borrow from others, and the things you're borrowing from don't even support your point. Secondly, I think it shows your sexist and low opinion of women when you say that casual sex "destroys" women, while the men walk out unscathed. Thirdly, I think it's hilarious you want to get the government involved in what goes on behind the closed doors of its citizenry's bedrooms in a vain attempt to protect women, a gender you clearly see as too stupid, emotional, and weak to make their own decisions about their own sex like and deal with the consequences. Lastly, you're slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. ... Eh... one more point... I don't know either of you, but based on what I've seen from you both you have no right to call mark "heartless." Mark has more kindness and sincerity in his little finger than you have in your whole body. 1
point
1
point
I think prostitution should be legal so I don't exactly see your point. The government should regulate prostitution just like it regulates any business, of course. But this is entirely different from the government intruding on peoples private sex lives. This would be like the government regulating free speech to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt. Also... you address 1 point in 4? 5, if you count my personal critique. Quality debate skills, my man. 1
point
I think prostitution should be legal as well. I mean, what are the arguments against it? "We can't legalize prostitution because it's wrong!" ? As far as regulating it, why? Do the shoe shine boys and street performers in big cities get regulated by the government? (I honestly don't know, but I'd guess no) If someone was running a prostitution company, then I can see how regulation would make sense. But if it was just a one person job, exchanging money for a service, why should it be regulated and I assume become taxable income by the government? 1
point
As far as regulating it, why? If someone was running a prostitution company, then I can see how regulation would make sense. That was actually more the kind of prostitution I was talking about. Brothels and escort services and whatnot. Even if prostitution was legalized, that doesn't make parts of the populace any less likely to kill hookers and leave them in a dumpster, so I would imagine most prostitutes would want to work in an organization of prostitutes, as most of them do now. Legal or not, it can be a sketchy business, and these ladies of the night need someone to keep track of and protect them. And working for a company that provides health and dental coverage is obviously a perk. But if it was just a one person job, exchanging money for a service, why should it be regulated and I assume become taxable income by the government? I think even if you're working as an independent, in any field, you're still technically supposed to report your income and thus pay taxes on it. I don't actually know, I'm not saying I support it if it is the case, and I also think it would be fairly easy for an independent prostitute to dodge if she so chooses. 1
point
1
point
1
point
It ain't a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree"? It ain't Merry Christmas, it's Happy Holidays? They say, "Oh, you offend atheists when you say things like that, so we will censor the freedom of speech and say YOU CAN'T SAY THOSE THINGS!" Or how about abortion? The can say that it's just a bunch of cells you are killing. There nothing wrong with that, but when I try to hold up a sign with a picture of an abortion, I have to take it down because it "offends" people? Don't play dumb. It just makes you look dumb. 1
point
1
point
1
point
Do you read your own sources? At all? The claim is that the White House decreed that its Christmas Tree would be called a Holiday Tree, and your source found the claim false. And in any case, even if the claim had been true, it was regarding the Christmas tree of the White House, and what the White House would refer to it as. This was not a decree to the American people, or about how the American people must refer to their Christmas trees, which is what you implied it would be, and what would be closer to an equal parallel to the level of intrusion you are proposing on the privacy American populace. This source doesn't even address what you wanted it to address and even if it did its findings don't support your position. 1
point
"the majority of women have positive feelings about one night stands" They do? According to Professor Campbell, although women do not rate casual sex positively, the reason they still take part in it may be due to the menstrual cycle changes influencing their sexual motivation. Yeah, that's positive feeling alright. "Secondly, I think it shows your sexist and low opinion of women when you say that casual sex "destroys" women, while the men walk out unscathed." I did? Show me where I said that! And don't not reply to this argument either. Show me where I said that! If there is one thing I can't tolerate, it's someone who will falsely accuse someone of something they are not guilty of. I already covered the third argument below, so I will move on to the last. Mark has more kindness in his finger than I have in my whole body? On day one, I disagreed with one of his arguments and he immediately declared me an enemy. It wasn't even a strong disagreement, but NOPE, I'm an enemy anyways. Wow, he's sure kind. Got a heart of gold. Not even iamdavidh is that "kind", and we've fought for hours. In fact Mark was my first enemy declaration ever. And I have never even debated with the second enemy declaration, so I assume Mark told him to do that. So keep telling yourself lies; you are just delusional. 1
point
They do? Yes, they do. Check your source. It was close, but yes the majority of women have positive feelings about one night stands, according to your source. Yeah, that's positive feeling alright. What's wrong with your sexual hormones influencing your sexual decisions? That seems completely normal to me. I did? Show me where I said that! Amnesia much? In regards to a woman having sex with multiple partners, you said: "I do not think you fully understand how much that destroys a women... When women have sex with a guy, they bond with him. This bond is extremely strong, like super glue. When the heartless douche has his fill of sex and breaks up with here, he basically destroys her. So much so, I think it is a crime against women and should be outlawed." And don't not reply to this argument either. Have I made a habit of this over our long debating history? I don't know why this is in here at all. I already covered the third argument below You didn't actually, you sidestepped it. Why should the government police the sexual behavior of its citizens the way an over-protective father polices his 16 year old daughter? Mark has more kindness in his finger than I have in my whole body? Your defended an attack on your character with details about your friend/enemy list on CD. I don't even know how to respond to this. And I have never even debated with the second enemy declaration, so I assume Mark told him to do that. So keep telling yourself lies; you are just delusional. These two sentences seem contradictory. 1
point
"In regards to a woman having sex with multiple partners, you said...." Thank you for proving me right. I never said that it doesn't affect the guy. You just inferred that. "You didn't actually, you sidestepped it." No, you did. You turned it into some messed up debate about the freedom of speech. "I don't even know how to respond to this." Just like I really don't know how to respond to you saying that mark is kind without any proof. "These two sentences seem contradictory." Nope, mark is having people gang up on me. That ain't kind at all. 1
point
You just inferred that. Then why did you only state that women are affected by this, and not just say "people?" In all your claims and "supporting evidence," as well as your proposed government interference, you only address women. If this is an issue that affects guys and girls, why didn't you say that instead of only targeting women? No, you did. You seem to read past posts about as thoroughly as you read your sources before making these kind of authoritative statements. Which is to say, not at all. Go back and check. I made my third point, and the only way you addressed it was to say that it was similar to prostitution. I stated that I think its not a good comparison, because I support legalizing prostitution, but I discussed my position on it anyways. In part of my defense of prostitution (two separate posts, one to you and one to mark), I made an example pertaining to free speech. You latched onto this and only responded to this part of my argument in the following post. And then you spectacularly failed to provide evidence for you position when I challenged you on it - in fact you once again provided evidence against your position. And apparently, according to you, I'm the one playing dumb. Aha. Just like I really don't know how to respond to you saying that mark is kind without any proof. I thought it was kind of self evident. From what I've seen from both of you, in and outside this debate, mark seems like the more level headed and mannered of the two. That was really the point I was trying to make, and I had to use antonyms like "kind" when addressing your attack of "heartless." Nope, mark is having people gang up on me. That ain't kind at all. You seem very keen on proof for hunches, so whats your proof for this statement? It was also really very bold, some would say hypocritical, to compel me to reply to a part of your post and not ignore it when I have never done that to you, and you make a habit of not responding to parts of my disputes all the time, presumably because you have no response. Lets look at this last post for example. You didn't touch on my point about your failed source, you didn't talk about my point regarding hormones, you didn't provide a response to my inquiry about ignoring you, and aside from essentially saying, "No, YOU!!," you haven't actually addressed a point I've made several times, "Why should the government police the sexual behavior of its citizens the way an over-protective father polices his 16 year old daughter?" You ignore all of these things and more in previous posts (in fact you completely failed to respond to two whole disputes on this debate, alone), and yet you have the balls (some would say arrogance) to sit there commanding me to respond to every point you make, when I've already been diligent about that, especially compared to you? I don't say this often, but get your head out of your ass. You wanted more evidence about why I think marks a better person? He wouldn't pull some shit like you did. -1
points
1
point
I also like how you abandoned the debate about evolution when you were exposed to be lying about your education, and clearly over your head when you attempted to claim evolution was false. You also abandoned the accusation that Obama was a muslim. I provided my source, and I bet you googled it to prove me wrong and in the process you found out that you were the one who was wrong indeed, spreading propaganda bull shit. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
-1
points
1
point
1
point
|