- 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.
I believe that violent video games are just that, games. I just don't understand why people say that they ruin children's minds and are the cause of all these problems in society.
I can testify as evidence that I am a perfectly functioning adolescent who has no increased aggression from playing violent video games since I was five. If anything they made me a better person.
It said look kid, if you go steal that car and start running over cops eventually you're going to get six stars and the national guards going to blow you up with a tank.
Nothing that I can think of puts that message across better than violent video games.
Robots definitely. If you think about it, all organisms are just organic robots. So when you say which life form will prevail in an odd sense both sides are the same answer. Maybe not the metal ones that go "Danger Will Robinson!!" But the ones that have existed for millions and millions of years.
But that is exactly why Obama stands out. Just because every other politician uses negative strategies it does not mean that Hilary Clinton should too.
She knows better, everyone knows that. The fact that she tried to be nice to Obama with everything smiles and respectful, but as soon as she starts slipping behind in the primaries she just switches to the same old political hooplah.
I think Hilary is showing her true colors. And right now they seem to be her as a two-faced politician that would do anything to gain power. Whether it's cheating, lying, insulting or any other old political tactic that has been the norm for almost half of my life.
Isn't this why the American people have become fed up and are now switching over and voting for the Democrats? The American people are so desperate for change that running a clean campaign should be enough to become president if the people truly believe you can make it happen.
No, for one it's not a science. There is no evidence to support any of it's claims. The only way I would accept any reference to creationism in my Biology class would be "Ok class, this is a perfect example of what you should not believe in, and heres why."
I wouldn't mind if it was it's own elective,but to make it state tested curriculum as a science is moronic. Plus I don't think half of the people in my school could be taught two contradicting lessons in one class, their heads just might explode.
I believe not only Hilary Clinton is being disgraceful, but the media in general. With the exception of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. People are using anything these days to drag Obama down. First he is somehow Muslim, that doesn't work, and now people dropped that and instead of saying he is somehow Muslim he instead just has a crazy FORMER preacher. It is outrageous the way people are twisting things around and then spewing out into the general public like it's an undoubted fact.
Clinton tried being nice but because that doesn't seem to work she is becoming desperate and trying anything to gain an inch of ground, whether she loses he dignity in the process or not.
In America I believe that we are fatties. The majority that is. So statistically yes, the people that make it on television are generally the in shape pretty ones.
If you want to think of it this way, people in America's perception of skinny is just in shape. People say I am skinny, but in actuality I am just tall and in shape. Like any other animal us humans have the ability to look at a person and judge "Wow that chicks hot." Because we are created to mentally judge the best traits for reproduction in the opposite sex.
So the reason why men are attracted to women with larger hips is that they are more likely to successfully birth a child. Plus if a women is skinny we might also be attracted to them because say we are out in the plains a long, long time ago you would think "Damn, that girl can make better offspring and she can has the ability to run away from a lion!"
I think it just works out so that the pretty, skinny people are the ones that the public want to see in a bikini, and not Rosie O'Donnell.
I think there are too many variables for this argument. For example I think 99% of people would agree that people like Hitler should not have the ability to kill 6 million Jews because he felt like it.
Then again theres the argument that people should be able to do whatever they want. Which leads to the before mentioned example. Maybe you should be able to do what you wanted as long as it does not heavily affect people around you. Like, I should be able to walk around school nude because it's my choice, it shouldn't matter if it is frowned upon by society. Yes, too many variables. I am just going to stop now before I write something too long.
Darwinism is not based on the competition between the same species. Thus I believe you are a wee bit misinformed. Being the same species we are all equal. We are the same, just because you can be darker or shorter it does not change the fact that we are the same mentally and anatomically. Humans have the same traits as one another so acting like one person's rights as a human can be rebuked as an effect of Darwinism is well, acting like the church, and not what Darwin proposed in his theory of natural selection.
Plus, our constitution, not the Bible, states that every (human) man is created equal.