True. But imagine all the attractive females walking around topless. This is a double edged sword.

Technically men have breasts, theyre called pectoriallis majors.

Oh my goodness why is this still an issue? Now Im neither an advocate for or antagonist against gay marriage, but ive always believed in free will of a person(if it doesnt affect others in a harmful way). It should be personal preference, like rly, do 2 people you probably dont know of same sex getting married affect you at all? If not why does it concern antagonists? Personally im not gay because im not interested and also my religous beleifs prohibit that, but its my choice to be straight. So why cant a gay person whos not religous or religion permits that life style be with another person whos gay? It shouldnt matter to other people and u shouldnt impede on others free will if there not harming you.

I honestly feel society should have moved on from this issue a long time ago to focus on other more important issues in America and then around the world.

Its not a secret that humans negatively impact the planet resource wise. Also how we are destroying the environment. Now maybe we dont need to reduce the population but we can install a system of limiting population growth. I dont know if it work like chinas but a global golden rule should be applied so that we put limits to how many children a person can have aswell as what is the minimum age to have a child(to avoid early pregnancies so we dont speed up the process of mating, so we drag out the life cycle and not speed up reproduction). If we limit how many children as well as how old a person needs to be before having a child, maybe we can freeze the population so for every 1 death, 1 birth occurs or close to it. And well still eventually cause the meltdown of the earth if we stay at same population but maybe we just freeze pop until we find unlimited renewable energy and how to save/replenish ozone layer.

Firstly, it is no secret humans have enjoyed violence and brutality since the beggining of our conception, such as the Romans watching real humans being decapitated by lions for sport. We exemplify this affection for violence in the modern movies of the past half century as well. As tech progressed it was innevitable that this human trait leaked into the virtual worlds that millions of people go to escape reality every day. And yet even before violent video games were introduced into the mainstream, violent crimes, murders and rapings were still taking place.

I feel that gaming controversy thus far has been nothing more than a scapegoat for lazy parents, because everything in moderation, and also these violent video games all have age ratings on them so the fact that the parent blames the game when he/she allows the child to play the game and doesnt monitor said child enough to restrict his or her play time, seems like the issue lies within the parenting and not the game itself.

About games causing obesity, antisocialness, lazyness, etc, are all personal problems that the individual needs to controll, and usually the case isnt video games causing these traits but instead people with these traits just turn to gaming because it is an easily accessible form of entertainment that provides an escape for the person suffering from those unfavorable traits. Correlation isnt causation.

And the violent crimes being shouldered on games is also not causation, because 67% of american households already play games regularly, so just by the criminal living in america, he already has a 2/3 chance he plays games or lives in an establishment that does. So blaming games for their criminal acts usually stops us from ever getting to the true cause that might be underlying in the context like he might have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, or bullied or parentally abused etc etc.

And finally by closemindedly assuming violence come from games we are immediately ignoring the potential possibilities games can produce for society and its youth as study after study has shown that games can neurologically improve the minds of children and critical thinking skills if implemented correctly in moderation and as a society we are supposed to capitalize on every new technological advancement that comes along.

And its also selfish if you ban those games because parents cant keep them out of the kids hands and by banning them you deny adults any access to this form of entertainment and it is a free country so, bug off.

My main source other than the stats is that i am an avid 16 year old gamer who lives a perfectly normal life and who has friends, is on the honor role, is polite to strangers/adults and plays sports because i have basic self discipline and understand the moderation rule. I must be one of the lucky ones hmm? Go figure, right?

To be a servant of God's word. Also as a citizen i feel the obligation to try and make society and life a better place for the next generations after me as our predescesors have done for us by technologically advancing society. I want the world to be a better place because i was here, i want to positively impact the peoples lives around me but make sure im content too. But yea i want the best life for my future family and I. But also to continue the giant game of trial and error that is society and to progress humanity forward, but i dont know exactly how to accomplish these things yet but there are problems to fix and problems that will arise in the future so i know ill take part in the global struggle to make the world the best place possible as should be the goal or intentions of every human being to exist on this earth(ideally).

School doesnt teach kids to think critically, but instead gauge the bases of "learning" to listening to the glorified babysitter spew irrelevant info like "the mitochondria is the power house cell", and judge the intelligence of the kids by their ability to listen and regurgitate that info onto a standard exam then given a monetary letter grade that can define self confidence and lead stuggling childern to internalize the below average grade and to instinctively fear that they are not worth the time or resources the heard as allocated to them like a material product with less return on investment. This might be exaggeration but school should focus on teaching kids to think, not to memorize mostly useless irrelevant facts theyll forget 2 weeks after the test anyway. And if they are to memorize then it should be usefull info like how to do your taxes, cook your own food, raise a family, establishing relationships, manage your finances, and working at a job. Something relevant to them after they leave the simulator that simulates nothing repitition of random chunks of mostly unapplicable knowledge to the real world.

Maybe not absolutely free like they charge for dorm and stuff but tax should pay professors, and i think in a free country, if a man wants to learn but cant due to his socioeconomic status, that its not a free country anymore when people are born into prosperity or desparity. The cost should absolutely be drastically reduced to like 1/10 the ammount it is now.

Depends on the person. I think debating is a creative outlet for myself to express my opinions and discover my opinions about topics ive never thought about wherein the debates can inspire critical thinking and rhetoric skills. Since i dont come here to belittle people, no , i think debating can be used to inspire higher level thinking if the individual puts it to good use.

I dont care whos on the bill but dont put a women on the bill just for the sake of putting a women on the bill. The only other reason id oppose this is that we would have to recant all current 20 dollar currency with AJ on them and then what? Recycle them? Idk but itd take years to get those out of circulation since people can hold onto money for a while and to print all those new bills would be overhaul on the treasurey and the whole things just seems unnecessary