You're making an appeal to authority, a fallacy.

Like every scientist, Newton believed in things that were untrue. For one, Newton thought the universe was static in position and infinite in span; modern science has proven these beliefs false. More importantly, Einstein and others showed that Newton's Laws are not universally applicable. Newton was also an anti-trinitarian. Should we tell all Catholics and many Protestants, "Newton rejected the Holy Trinity and he invented calculus, therefore if you don't reject the Holy Trinity too you must reject calculus and the laws of motion"?

Next, the limits of our certainty in no way verify the existence of a god. What does a lack of knowledge verify? Absolutely nothing. Fortunately, the human race has been endowed with minds brilliant enough to always push forward into the uncertainty. If everyone shared your thinking, we would have been satisfied with the Sumerian Pantheon.

If something cannot come from nothing, then God must be real! How else could Christian apologists be able to spontaneously deduce logical proof of God with absolutely no logic or evidence? (Sarcasm)

Minecraft is awesome. You can build whatever you want on an infinitely large map, explore, and play online. There are multiple levels of complexity and plenty of things to figure out, which is intellectually stimulating.

AC3 is jingoistic, repetitive, and there'll be another one exactly like it next year.

Either you're trolling or you're severely infatuated with sensationalism. China is not "the land of the future". You overlook that the average citizen of China is very poor and will continue to be very poor for generations to come. Even if it surpasses the US in GDP, it will still remain an impoverished country with a low standard of living, unbearably high pollution, and rampant corruption. Large numbers of Chinese citizens will continue to emigrate to the US and Canada and it is unclear when, or if, China will acquire a workforce educated enough to produce high-tech goods, as the US does. What you don't realize (perhaps deliberately) is that the US has one of the highest standards of living in the world (4th in the world based on HDI). China is ranked 101 out of 165.

You say "get the jobs back in our country". The US doesn't need to manufacture low quality goods. A shift from agriculture and manufacturing to the tertiary sector is a common consequence of economic development. Besides, the US manufactures plenty of other things, like airplanes, that the Chinese really wish they produced instead.

I wouldn't rely on drug addicts to prove the existence of imaginary places.

After mice, dolphins are the most intelligent creatures on earth.

Definitely not:

1) I hate seeing people kiss in public. Brief pecks don't bother me usually (although it did in schol), but making out does. I know I'm not alone.

2) It is not conducive to learning. School's must maintain and educational environment and kissing and other signs of affection work against this. I'm not saying kids should have no freedom, but there is obviously a limit.

3) It gives teachers too much personal information about their students and they will involuntarily have to witness their students' promiscuity.

4) Students who do not do skanky things will be either pressured into conforming to this bad behavior or they will feel insecure.

We have local and national levels to think about:

1) Local officials aren't paid very much. If we removed salaries for these people altogether, no one would run local governments. No one is going to dedicate themselves full time to a career if they aren't paid. Unless, of course, they already had a lot of money...

2) We have to pay national officials, otherwise only the wealthy would run for office. Middle class and lower class individuals would never go into politics if they weren't paid. They simply would not be able to support themselves or their families. This would mean that the only people who would go into politics would be the very wealthy, the people with enough money to support themselves for years (sometimes decades) without pay.

Both cases result in common people being booted out of government, a product that would be harmful to democracy and transparency.

States without clear distinctions between religion and government are inefficient and become easily trapped under the weight of their value rigidity.

Before reading, I disagree with the part in which pedophiles should be executed. They should be arrested if they have sex with children, but not executed. Also, paedophilia is defined as sexual attraction towards children. This is upheld by the description of the debate. Pedophiles probably don't consciously chose to be attracted to children. It doesn't seem like that choice would be logically beneficial towards them in anyway. However, the difference between them and homosexuals is that no immorality results from homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about consensual sex between two adults of any sexual preference, but there is a great deal of immorality in the act of sex with a young child. Young children do not possess the mental capacity or neurological development to realize what they want and what is good for them. Any sexual relations they may have, seemingly consensual or not, would merely be a mask of underlying sexual exploitation. By any reasonable ethical theory, the act of having sex with a young child is immoral-- be it deontology, virtue, consequentialist, etc. Even if the pedophile is not engaging in sex, his desire to commit immoral acts diminishes his standing as an ethical person.