- 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.
Also people are never to intelligent for religion, there will always be beliefs that people will fall back on in times of discomfort. Religion isn't a sign of dumbness, it's just a sign that a person wants to believe that they are part of a 'plan', 'purpose', or a 'saved group'. This isn't a bad thing, some people do great things with religious justification. While others may do worse things, it isn't necessarily correlate with their religion.
1.) English is the most commonly spoken language in the United States of America, if you don't speak it you'll have to learn it anyways. So it makes sense to have a national language that most people can understand.
2.) Cost: It would be cheaper to just produce all Federal documents in English only, not our fault if they can't read it. They should've learned.
3.) Follow by example: Plenty of states have done it, so why not the federal government?
4.) Patriotism: What message do we send across if we don't even agree to have the most pure, godly, capitalistic, scientific language as our national language? A bad one, it shows we don't care about the majorities concerns and wants.
There is no De Jure national language in the federal government of the United States for a couple reasons.
1.) Flexibility, you never know when there will be more speakers of one language than English one day. Spanish is already spoken by a significant minority of the US population, that number is growing. It likely won't take over English as the dominate language any time soon; you can't ever know either.
2.) Openness and Freedom: It shows that the US federal government is open to all languages of the world, this is good for propaganda reasons at the very least. It shows that we are accepting of people of all nationalities, not just those with an English language background.
3.) Federal law applies to the entire nation, thus it is better to have no national language in areas that other languages are very common. Examples are New Mexico (a US state, some people know this, some don't), Southern California, or Louisiana (French).
It is utterly ridiculous that molestation would change someone's sexual orientation. It would likely scar them for life.
HOWEVER ignoring your argument above, and focusing on the title of this debate I have a different conclusion. YOU can change someone's sexual orientation (On the outside) through making them afraid of being punished (heavily) for it. This is one of the reasons people find it difficult to come out, out of fear of being punished in one form or another.
With this conclusion I state that you could change someone's external feelings with torture/ making them really afraid of crossing you wrong. It would lead to self-hate, extreme depression, and suicidal emotions yes, but it would work.
However it is unlikely to change their true selves.
Saluton, Cxu oni scribas Esperante?
Give blood or organs
If it's against their morals?
If they gave up their freedom what options should they have, they should work for the community should they not?
Same as above
Be given medical care
Fine, what of experimental medical care? Or just plain using them as human guinea pigs?
Fight for their freedom or die
Think of the revenue for the state! Plenty would be made! Far less prisons, all you would need would be temporary cells! Also some television corporations would be willing to help fund the program provided they could broadcast what happens.
If you don't want them out fine. However what if they get special benefits such as a far superior bed?
Be participants on either a game show or a reality show((
What of game-shows?
I'm not worried about changing beliefs.
I am, thus I use a lighter hand.
That's not what this discussion is about, however. This discussion is about the veracity of claims.
Accuracy and truth are subjective, it differs from person to person. Facts however...
The facts of the matter are unambiguous and the dispute is between those who want to believe fantasy because it feels good and those who accept the facts. This is not a dispute in the sense of being meritorious or defensible.
First, the facts we know are highly likely to be changed someday with better evidence. While it may be more accurate than whatever Creationists say, it most likely isn't the complete truth. However that is meaningless in the context of this debate. Second, I was just pointing out that there is a dispute.
Exactly my thought.
Apparently we only differ in the amount of force used in order to make a point.
While that is great evidence, I might want to have some fun with a couple points.
1.) How do you know that is not a test of faith?
That is a horrible question that requires the existence of god to be verified before it could be answered.
2.) What if every primate species was infected with the exact same type of virus at separate times with no line of descent at all?
Extremely unlikely... this isn't a good question either, yet I heard it used before.
3.) What if the study is faked?
Peer review.... what else can I say?
Why give an unverifiable claim equal footing as science? We can't prove that reality isn't a dream, should that have equal standing too?
1.) To avoid getting into an internet argument with the more zealous on this site, it just ends in disaster with no change in belief. If you are light on the person they can cooperate and put up less resistance to something that they don't agree with. Eventually leading into someones change in beliefs.
2.)Yes, yes we should. However we should focus on things that will lead to a better life rather than indefinites, dream or not a dream doesn't matter and hasn't influenced our lives tremendousness. Just like the origin of the human species, it is great knowledge to have, but doesn't influence regular life all that much.
The evidence says that we live on an ancient Earth, and naturally formed upon. There really is no dispute, just denialism.
Anywhere there is argument (well founded or not) there is dispute. Denialism is reserved for those who don't want the implications of the truth in their reality.