- 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.
A tip if anything is a sign of merit to your service, even if it was insignificant as signing up a guy to join a social gathering club. I wouldn't be burdened or concerned so much on this issue. It isn't at all inappropriate to give a tip to a stranger, it's if anything supporting the "cause." Accept it or deny it and move on.
If you are speaking about tipping in terms of being a waiter then its pretty essential. Being a waiter means you get below minimum thus, tips are actually a part of your paycheck.
What you should consider is if it was a sufficient tip but you don't need too because it was an accidental tip so its positive if anything else. Now if he gave a $2 tip after he had a bill of $50 then that would be indecent of him (I usually give tips around 10% of the bill.)
What? Understand that the concept of porn isn't anything of a illegal premise on a broad spectrum. If your just referring to the porn the common 18 or 40 year old watches to beat his meat too, then it's nothing illegal. Sure, it could be immoral in your book but such partisan view isn't applicable to everyone.
The title of this debate certainly is strange as if it implied that porn is gradually being "banned." Child pornography is already illegal so I don't really see anything else that needs to be censored or removed in the porn world in legal context.
Well even if you disprove their deity can't they just reshape their ideas again so that it becomes valid? A step back, can't a deist design such a broad deity that it would be pretty much impossible to disprove (i.e. since god is (god) he is everything and also nothing, he isn't a physical being but a thought like the "mandate of heaven." But, that is just a brief makeshift example.
Everyone does deserve assured safety but, in the natural context no one is going to be safe from what the world brings us. Torture, rape, etc. might be the human infringements we do but, we will always be in fear and insecurity to what isn't human. Countless disasters occur that aren't from us humans and we can only pray we bought some good insurance.
Hence, it wouldn't matter if everyone is granted safety because in the end no one is guaranteed safety and will be subject to uncontrollable events, things we must brave through.
But people interpret the bible differently so how is a denomination or any branch suppose to assume one branch is right? Essentially, maybe a branch isn't going astray from the bible but just seeing it in a different perspective but, people will state they are wrong because it isn't how they interpret it. My understanding is that as long as you believe in the holy trinity your a supposed Christian.
In bettering my understanding on this matter:
If there is a fundamental standard in being a Christian, couldn't other groups see that standard differently otherwise? Or is what your mentioning just from what your branch of Christianity states and not the general mass (the other thousands of Christian denominations.) Jehovah Witnesses believe they are Christians in their own sense of Christianity, does that make them wrong? (http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-
How can we born good or evil if we born not knowing what GOOD or EVIL is. We are born ignorant and if you consider ignorance to be bad or good it really is subjective to a situation. No one can be born good or bad because they haven't develop personality or displayed good or bad traits yet, its when we live and get conformed by our surrounding when we show our colors.