- 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.
I'm kind of on both sides here, so I will state my overall point first: Computer games are taking up too much time in a child's life, but as the games continue to evolve, the detrimental effects will diminish.
Ok, so there are two things that are very negative about video games.
1. They can encourage a sedentary, as opposed to, an active lifestyle.
2. They can serve as a substitute for social interaction with others.
While these are both very serious issues for our youth, as our childhood obesity levels continue to grow, the technology advances in the videogames are working to curtail both of them.
The Wii is motion sensing, so now the games are actually forcing kids to move in order to play the game. They've even released the Wii Fit, which is played by doing actual workouts, and yoga stretches. This is all tracked on the game's system to show monthly improvements, just like a real personal trainer would do!
The lack of social interaction with others is still a major problem, but all of the new gaming platforms are connected to the internet, which allows gamers to interact with other gamers through headset communication. As the technologies continue to innovate, I expect that live video communication will be an integral part of these video games in the next 5 years. While this will not replace live social interactions, it will reduce the detriment.
Look, school is for learning... You said that yourself... We also know that school is as much, if not more, about learning how to socially interact with others, as it is about learning about specific subjects.
Sex is definitely a social interaction, yes? If so, when kids learn about it in school, they ought to learn how to protect themselves properly.
The concept of free condoms/ cheap, and readily available condoms is to teach the practice to even the kids that can't afford them.
I buy my condoms, but if I was 15, and I only had 5 bucks to get me through the week, that money would be going to food, not protection. This obviously leads to a cycle where those that can't afford to have a baby, are more likely to have a baby, thus more likely to need government assistance to raise the baby.
So why not just give out the condoms? It's way cheaper than the alternative.
If you want to raise taxes on those who make more, Fine. That part I can understand conceptually, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
But there shouldn't be cuts for others when we are running an exorbitant deficit, and social security is set to collapse in the next 30 years.
If you are raising taxes on those that are diligent and motivated enough to make more, then put that money towards public works programs like improving our country's ever aging infrastructure.
This would improve our way of life, as well as provide jobs to the unemployed. If those that just lost their jobs don't want to work, ship them to Mexico so they can see what poverty really looks like. We built America with our hands, not our handouts.
We know that we are contributing to global warming. What we do not know is whether we are the sole cause of global warming. Remember, the planet has gone through an ice age before, and dinosaurs didn't drive Hummers.
What should be done to fight global warming, is to levy taxes on all items that are inefficiently emitting co2 (example: cars that get less than 20 mpg), and simultaneously increase subsidies for technologies like solar and wind power.
Once solar, wind and other alternative energy technologies mature, the cost will go down, which will allow them to compete in a free market with oil.
And once alternative energies are able to compete in a free market with oil, we will be able to pass this technology along to developing countries.
The problem with the Republican Party is that they have become synonymous with two things: Cronyism, and fanatical religion. This is, obviously, thanks to bush.
I believe both of these issues display the same problem, and that is blindly making decisions based upon preexisting beliefs, regardless of any new occurrences/information that may have materialized.
One example of this would be Bush's veto of embryonic stem cell research. Bush had not vetoed a bill in his entire presidency, but he chose to impose his personal religious beliefs on something that a majority of the country supported. Whatever happened to "Separation of Church and State"?
The problem here is that if you can't trust a party to think logically, you can't trust the party. Yes, each party has stances on issues, but it's the great presidents that are able to compromise in order to accomplish what they deem is in the best interest of the COUNTRY, not their particular affiliation's most extreme, unyielding interests.
Ok, save your judgment on this one until you try it. I also realize that those of you that live with girls won't be able to get away with this one. But for the Bachelors out there living by themselves... I adopted the old adage "If it's yellow, let it mellow, if it's brown, flush it down" STOP! Before you blow this off, let me just say that this system dropped my water bill from $65/month to $18/month... I'm saving an average of 20 gallons of water PER DAY! Bachelors, enjoy the extra beer money.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!