- 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.
From what you described, you make atheists sound horribly like psychopaths simply because we don't believe in God. Normal humans have conscience and empathy, that's why we don't go killing people off. It's in our genetic code from generations of evolution, we empathise with others and get benefits off ourselves as well. Oh, sorry, about it, you're not an atheist, you wouldn't understand Darwinism
You say that money can only buy temporary, materialistic happiness, but isn't happiness in itself temporary? Isn't happiness simply nothing but brief moments as well? So what's the difference between feeling happy over a new handbag I bought with money compared to the happiness of having a friend? It's all just briefly anyway. So please explain where the difference lie
Disney princesses don't make good role models because: firstly, it's just a story. Secondly, it's a pretty crappy story at it where everything and everyone will sooner or later bend towards the favour of the princess, so long as she sticks long enough, she'd always get her happy ending, no matter if the reader or the princess herself wants it or not
As bystanders, we indeed have no right to deny the love between LGBTs and so forth cannot deny their right to marry and form a union, but shouldn't someone be thinking on account of the child they might have? Perhaps they can live on with society looking at them from a less than pleasant light, but can their children live up to it? A child can't possibly handle all the bullying and discrimination the child will face outside. It doesn't matter if the would be organic change or even government approval, that child will still live with the thought of being different from others. On account of the child, perhaps LGBTs should keep their relationships private, though informal.
I mean no offence to LGBTs.
If you define murder by ending one's life and further explain life as something which possess the characteristics of life, i.e. reacting to stimuli. An embryo develops enough brain for sight at the third week, and at the eighth week, sympathetic nerves have developed. The line between abortion and infanticide is drawn while the embryo has yet to develop an awareness towards its surroundings and a clear sense of pain. Therefore, it is advisable on account of the embryo that it is removed from the parent's body in the first fourteen weeks
I think the whole point to the legal age for sex was to have as low a level of health risk as possible on the body of a minor. A girl who's six or even five can't possibly have sex with a man who's nineteen, even thirty, as that might cause the child as much distress as having develop possible sicknesses later. On the point of maturity, some might say that as long as both sides achieve their common goal of "ecstasy" it would be good enough sex. Perhaps the aftermath of a hot night should be taken into consideration when the woman is impregnated. That's why there's a legal age for sex, because the authorities trust people around the age of fifteen or above to make the right choices.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!