- 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.
That's all well and good, but who's asking anyone to move out of these areas?
It is possible to prevent any further residential expansion in these areas whilst maintaining the area as a source of plantation, tourism, or whatever purpose it may best serve as.
Evacuation requires no consideration in the topic (luckily), with the exception of dealing with the impact of a high-scale natural disaster; the recent Japanese earthquake should suffice as a reasonable, if not perfect example.
These 'financial implications' are not going to be an issue, provided that population growth can be controlled in order to prevent an issue with locating a suitable residential areas. The natural disasters themselves would serve as a concern, but this idea hardly relates to the topic when you consider everything I've just mentioned.
Today's kids really don't seem to notice the term 'legal age' in regards to almost anything, and pornography is a big one in this case. The assessment of risk vs. harm in terms of child exposure to pornography has continued to tilt from right to left as years go on, and more and more parents are finding themselves less concerned about the modern day Internet's level of exposure to children.
A ban, in my opinion, isn't going to draw a dramatic concern from too many sources. Naturally there'll be your ethnic and religious groups, and probably a few in relation to departments of education and child protection, but it's important to remember that the child's perspective and reaction is the most important.
We are actually capable of regulating certain decisions, so as to preserve genetic diversity...
It is always an option, and if this ever does happen, we will be able to explore our own options and make decisive and well-thought-out choices.
One other point that I'll add here is that each country (assuming that this technology will be available globally, or at least a certain majority) will have its own way of dealing with this system. America may choose to allow no restrictions in choices, while Australia may decide to allow only a small amount of options; these are just examples and may not necessarily reflect actual decisions.
So, looking at it that way, the system will change communities around the world. These communities will, however, be categorized as countries, because like I said, each will have its own unique way of handling this technology.
I agree with you, to a certain extent. Here are a few points:
"...then the world would form itself into somewhat of a utopia."
I wouldn't call the proposed, futuristic world "Utopian", as there is no way that humanity can escape all problems in life.
" True, parents do make a lot of decisions for their children, but these decisions are mainly made to make sure their happy."
To make the child happy, or themselves...?
Are these decisions the correct decisions? Are they ethical? Are they made beyond reasonable doubt?
There is obviously a lot to consider about parental decisions in the first place.
I'll try to stress a big point here: if a parent is designing their own child in a way that is beneficial to the child (particularly in the long-term), then why does this call for such doubt? Surely, as human beings, we look to improve ourselves for the better world; not a Utopian world.. but a better one.
" If you were to choose the gender of your unborn child, then who is to say that it could possibly end up in same sex marriage?"
I'll ask a personal question here; do you have an issue with same sex relationships or marriages. I'm not making any wild suggestions here or anything, but this response of yours seems almost like an attack on the whole subject.
Nevertheless, getting to the point, this really isn't an issue, after all, the world isn't out to destroy same sex relationships or anything of that sort...
" I do not agree that it is the right thing, because it is as if we as humans wish to outmaneuver nature itself."
In several specific ways, humanity is already superior to the surrounding natural environment. Above our superior mental abilities, we are highly adaptable creatures and are capable of immense physical abilities.
And for the record, do you really think that our number one goal in designing our own children is to try and better nature in some sort of competition? I think not.
"If you have not noticed, when we tamper with nature, with cloning for example, nature has a unique way of ridding the world of the misshapen thing that nature did not create."
No, apparently I haven't, so please enlighten me.
"As far as living things go, leave them alone, as it may end up in the destruction of our world."
Sure, with that attitude we would be nowhere near our current technological status in the world at this time. Technology is good and bad, depending on where you look. Would you throw away the good, just to give up the bad?
The focal point of having teachers and students is to satisfy the need for education. Whether this involves young children, teenagers or adults, there are so many different types of students, but they are all in their places for learning purposes; to receive the educational benefit of their teachers. Why should abusive power be handed to teachers, when it is clear that their moral duty is not to control students but to educate them. Besides, the concept of "forcing students to do things they don't want to do" seems to be barging right through the point of control. While adopting this concept, we might as well be adding the title of "slave" to each and every student of the world.
One thing that needs to be considered, also, is the fact that not all teachers are responsible with the limited power that they already possess when teaching their students. This link will give you an idea of what kinds of abuse I'm talking about. Yes, there are laws set in place to prevent things like student harassment, but they are already rather ineffective in several cases. If we are looking at giving teachers a full control over their students... well... we are looking at expanding this problem and its severity.
Will anyone agree with this debate? I'd think not... at least... no-one mentally sound would anyway... but nonetheless, there isn't a need for the domination of students by teachers to come into a 100% effect. The ends wouldn't justify the means in any case.
To be personal, and honest, we should be making this site as available as possible to any age group. We should be less concerned with age, and more concerned with content.
It is rather stereotypical to suggest that it is the majority of Teenage users of this site who are spamming, abusing other members of the community, and basically running a-muck in the various debates that are open to all. I neither suggest the same for Teens or Adults, because to be quite honest, we can't really tell the difference. I could call myself a 20 year-old and there could be no way of knowing if I really was. In saying that, do we declare, then, that age makes no difference on this site? You decide :P
Another thing to keep in mind is that (and this sort of goes on from what I was saying before) both age-groups are both conformative people and very much individuals, yet, more individual here than anything. We all have differences which separate us, and this is what truly makes something like Create Debate unique; the fact that it allows for a point of view to be shared and argued against, regardless of age, gender, race, etc. The unique nature of the site is what compels such interesting responses to one-another.
As a side note: I'll say that I'm 16, honestly. Believe it if you really want to.
Kinda, have you heard of respect?
Most people just throw the term around these days, but there's no doubt that millions of people have forgotted the pure definition of the term.
You fail to respect others, and you, in this way, paint the picture of society's downfall.
So, if society is failing, and you resemble society, then I suppose you fail in that sense.
Whatever, my point here is to show some respect or join a forum full of hypocrites; a place where you may be playing with even opponents (everyone but Qymosabi seems to be superior to you).
"look people have different opinions"
" know harry potter has romance in it and it has people coping with different feelings what i meant was that more people especially teen girls can relate more to the twilight saga than harry potter."
And do they?
Perhaps the focal point of the character 'Bella' is to relate to many teenage girls, but with a shirtless teenage guys running around... it is easy to interpret the movie very differently. The big question here is that does the moral of the film make a better difference than the techniques involving imagination (the clash between the two movies demonstrates this)? I argue that the pure magic of Harry Potter would win the contest anyway, but with the entire teenage-relation moral to the story of Twilight being used, and used, and used again, it compels thousands (if not millions) of others like me to just burn the thought of it all.
Incredible, you have made the least sense in this debate than I've seen in any other.
Let me be specific, you firstly said...
"The Twilight Saga Is More Real Becuase It Deals With How People Have Different Emotions And How They Cope With These"
...which is actually fairly relevant in Harry Potter as well. While it isn't the most stressed part of the series, it is present. Perhaps you should really watch some of the later movies in the series and see for yourself.
Okay, you then said...
"Harry Potter Is Just A Made Up World That JK Rowling Created."
Which is obvious, but you then made yourself sound retarded by saying...
"At Least Stephanie Meyer Created A World That is Real And Both Boys And Girls Relate To It."
So, you're either retarded or you're wrong. To me it doesn't really make a difference, because when you can't tell that vampires and werewolves aren't real.. there is a problem.
"The Twilight Saga Has Got Great Actors And Actresses In It So How Can You Compare The Actors In Harry Potter To The Twilight Saga When Both These Films Are Completely Diffferent."
The point of making a comparison is to show how each has been done and how effective/ineffective they were. If this isn't obvious, then you shouldn't make a call in these kinds of debates.