CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The world doesn't have a population problem. Everyone in the world could fit in Texas if they had living space. If every person had 1 square foot to theirselves, everyone could fit in Los Angeles.
Although this is true, it is also not true. Yes, if we had everyone live at the same density they do in New York City you could fit everyone in a city the size of Texas. However, this does not account for all the space that would still have to be used for farming, energy, water ect.
Two short range nuclear weapons hit Islamabad and the Pakistan retaliates by hitting New Delhi. This causes Pakistan to plunge into Civil War and their nuclear weapons are lost track off. Insurgents, Taliban, and the Iranians flood into the area and add more chaos. The Iranians are successful in stealing some of their nuclear weapons and are able to bring it back home. They attach them to modified SCUD missiles and fire them to Israel. Israel fires back and plunge the entire area into chaos. Oil skyrockets in price and forces a Coalition force into the area to bring peace. Millions die and prevents and idea of Middle East peace for decades to come.
A nuke will not create anything good for either countries. It will result in plenty of bloodshed, hundreds of innocent families dead, and yet another reason for the American government to step in and create another war, the last thing any country needs.
You're forgetting that Pakistan has its own nukes (and had them before India obtained its nukes). MAD is very much in effect in India/Pakistan. You don't start throwing nukes around just over a minor border skirmish, especially when your enemy can throw nukes back at you.
So what you are saying is that an armed society is a polite society. Sounds like an argument against gun control ;)
We should not have gun control because if everyone carried guns people wouldn't start shooting at their neighbor over a minor skirmish because their neighbor can shoot back. MAD would be very much in effect in the U.S. ;)
Read it again. I didn't say no one has guns. I said everyone has guns. I said an argument against gun control. An argument for gun control would try to limit guns (take guns away). ;)
You seem to be under the impression that if you take away all the guns that no one will get shot. You are wrong. If you take away all the guns, criminals will find a way to smuggle them into the country and then only they will have guns.
Drugs are illegal and yet, criminals manage to sneak them into the country.
Illegal aliens are illegal, and yet they manage to get into the country.
What would be the point of disarming law abiding citizens? That doesn't make any sense. ;)
What they mean is..., that if you gathered up a bunch of gays and asked them what their favorite sports is, they would say, "Shooting." But since gays only make up 10% of the population, I would not expect the percentage of gay shooters to be more than that. Or maybe, just maybe, when they say "shooting" they don't mean what you think they mean ;)
Even though I know you're joking, I can't let this go unchallenged.
MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It is used in the context of nuclear arms, to state that no one will fire upon each other, for they would also be fired upon: if you destroy another, then you will also be destroyed. So far, it's worked.
This idea does not apply to guns. If I shoot someone else, they will not automatically return fire upon me - they'll be dead. Obviously there is a form of retribution, in the form of the justice system, but this is very different from the absolute response that nuclear weapons would incur.
And anyway, MAD is ridiculous - it isn't an argument for nuclear weapons, and against disarmament, it's an argument of how nuclear weapons don't necessarily have to be as dangerous as people can think. It does not mean that governments should not disarm - simply that the problems are not as great as they could be, that the importance of disarming is (somewhat) reduced.
What I want is for everyone to be armed so that when person A shoots person B, then persons C through Z can shoot person A. Now I know that the definition of MAD as you have described it would have to change but hey..., we changed the definition of marriage so WTF ;)
First of all, as you said, that isn't MAD - it's a very imperfect form of a justice system, which would encourage capital punishment, rampant violence, and remove access to a fair trial for anyone. If that's your idea of a good structure for society, then hey, make sure you invite the rest of the NRA ;)
Secondly, empirical evidence seems to suggest that the opposite brings less violence. Gun crimes and gun ownership is positively correlated across countries, quite strongly. While your idea works, it doesn't work at stopping crime - only punishing it.
We are either looking at different data or we are focused on a different problem. Maybe you are focused on reducing "only" gun violence through gun control. I'm focused on reducing "all" violence. Countries with "low" gun violence have "high" crime violence over all.
As far as the first paragraph, it is our right for a fair and speedy trial. When you have multiple people witness person A shooting person B, then the fastest, fairest trial is one were the witnesses take out person A.
BTW, this method also save a lot of court costs and time. ;)
As far as it being a "good structure for society," all I can say is that it has worked in societies prior to ours.
No since Nuclear radiation has detrimental side effects in which not only the Pakis would suffer from. It would also render their expedition useless since the land would have to heal first before being used. Approximately thousands of years.
