- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
NASA's definition of water cannot be taken seriously as they would be looking for spectrographs which reveal the existance of molecules containing two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, in order to decree that there is water..and they dont mean you can drink it, cook in it, or swim in it ! and any mass has gravity ? no, sir ! gravity is a force exerted by the earth on objects around it, including the moon ..
On the other hand, the college atheletes should be made to pay for the chance to evaluate their worth in the real competitive world and it is from this stage they get the confidence to go pro or head towards the olympics or decide that their future lies in a different world. Paying college athletes would render them as professional students, which goes against the very definition of students. If you paid college athletes, then you should also pay college students for their performance as students, which is an idea that is on the border of ethics.
The moon ? NO WAY ! Have seen enough images to know that the moon is not a very hospitable place and is not good enough even as an adventure outing. It has no people, no animals, no birds, no trees, no buildings, no air, no water and not even gravity ! I wouldn't even go if someone paid me, leave alone a free trip
Going beyond the literary translation of the topic, the idea of a person who lives to eat is typically not the one who eats too much, but eats much more than he produces.. i.e., his contribution to the society in general is much lesser than what he takes from the society. They need not be eating too much, but exploit every chance of getting their meals free.
People who eat to live are those who contribute to the society by taking just enough for their requirements and in general leave a surplus for the society ( which gets swallowed up by the persons who live to eat ! )
"people, probably you included, take those chances everyday. There is a small chance that you would die in a car accident if you chose to drive somewhere, but people take that chance everyday." When you add all the possibilities of getting killed, road accident, lightning strikes, building collapses, etc etc etc, we already have a big probability of dying an accidental death.. the probability of getting killed by being mistaken ( or deliberately ) under this pretext would be adding to this possibility .. I could do without adding to this possiblity..
I have seen how evidence can be created / destroyed /tailored to suit a situation post facto. I have seen people turning a Nelson's eye to the incongruencies of evidence. and anyway, the evidences only go to rationalize an act which would otherwise be termed murder.
When someone kills me, and I'm dead, I have no doubt that people around me will say the same, i.e., that " Those police officers probably had a reason to shoot the man. I highly doubt that they did it just for the way he looked. " The sad part of it is that even those who have known me for years, will swallow it.
There are no universally acceptable morals. What is morally right in one society and at one period of time, may be totally wrong in another society and in another period of time. It may scandalize you, but even today, there are tribal societies in Assam, India, where it is considered morally right for a father of a girl to deflower his daughter. Sorry, that is disgusting, I know, but that is the dimension of morality. Think of the terrorists who think it is morally right to kill the infidels. Think of the church which sold indulgencies. Think of the church which imprisoned Galileo for his heliocentric theory. They, and along with them many near them, thought they were sane and reasonable people and that they had the right to do so.
"calculate the chance that you will be killed by someone who thinks that you are a terrorist and then see if you should keep acting like its reasonable to be scared of death by this mistake." In general, where there is even a .0001 % chance of my losing my life, then that is a chance, I would not like to take. My life to me is very very valuable and I love my life ! Secondly, 'evidence' is too specialized a subject for me to even think about, I've heard of concocted evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and fait accompli, mistake of fact, mistake of law .....I agree it is not a common situation, thank heavens for that, and I'd love for it to remain that way.
I wish I was really ignorant, but I have personally come across cases where even persons who were in positions of authority under law have been known to have abused their position to settle scores on some one in pursuit of their religious beliefs. I'm less fearful of looking like a terrorist, than I am of what is going on in the mind of someone who might think that killing me is their gateway to heaven !
"the chances of you running into a terrorist on a trip around the world is almost nothing. This world is not infested by terrorists." In an enterprising situation as contrasted with a gambling situation, one would think of what would be the consequence of the chance materializing, and one would avoid the risk if it can lead to death.
I wish I was really ignorant and not so cynical. I wish that when I hear the official version that the illegal immigrant shot dead a police officer and so they shot him dead 79 times using a full platoon, my mind gets suspicious as to whether the police officers were not acting on their hatred of illegal immigrants. When a person dubbed as a "terrorist" is found to have been shot in the back of his head at point blank range, I wonder what really was the motive..
" They would need ample evidence to suggest that your death would benefit society. They would have to see a bomb or some kind of weapon to even think about trying to kill you." I wish all people's minds were so clear and straightforward as that, but I know different, I know people can imagine ( in the name of god, yes, really ) that they have evidence that you are an "infidel", and that they see that in your death, their society will benefit !
I draw confidence to some of the most valuable provisions of law, which are : let a 100 guilty people escape, but not one innocent person should be punished. that governments should be of law, rather than of men.
It is not so much that I fear my appearance being mistaken for a terrorist that bothers me, as much as it bothers me that someone has the right to kill me because they think that it would benefit society. Murder, appearing to be a killing of a terrorist !
No way ! Google has taken computer information systems to the level of ( almost ) expert systems and decision support systems; and using this platform has made artificial intelligence come nearer to possibility.
Even after years of its existence, no other search engine has even come close to what is possible on google.
There is a saying "do unto others as you would be done by ". Living to an old age is indeed a blessing for anyone; you see more of life's bounteous beauty when you live longer. Part of the beauty of life comes in seeing your children grow up and have their own children and then their children having their own. If you are denied this you will never enjoy the extended life.
When you take care of your elders, notwithstanding the fact that they are helpless and sometimes a burden on your privacy, you are sending home a signal to your offspring that this is how you would also like to be treated when you grow old. If you even entertain the thought that you should subject your elders to euthanesia or inter them to old age homes, then that is the life you should also expect for yourselves when you grown old ..
I would treat our elderly people with respect and affection.
no, they are just wrongly distributed. China and India have a vast population which does not have enough land and resources to meet their needs and they are an ancient civilizatiion. On the other hand, US, Canada, and Australia which are relatively new nations do not have enough population to use the natural resources.
Sadly, there is a lot truth in the saying "those who can, do; those who can't, teach; '
While it is true that the teachers teach, it is also true that the students study and work themselves to the career as bankers or any other high paying jobs by dint of their hard work and application. And some students also make it to the top in spite of bad teachers. and some students become criminals in spite of the best teachers .
Nobody stopped the teacher from going in for top bankers' jobs, and certainly they knew as well as anybody else that teaching is a lowly paid job.
There is also another saying "don't brag. it is not the whistle that is pulling the train "