But don't you think that the internet is the great equalizer? So what if a super PAC lobbies for one person or another, in the end it doesn't matter. Young people tend to be rebellious and that's what we need to shake up the status-quo.

I think those youth who are civically aware would make no worse a choice than an adult. If adults make better choices, why did W get elected? Besides, many adults shirk their civic duty and we need more people involved in the election process. Why not get the youth involved at an earlier age?

How young? I agree they should be allowed to vote at a younger age. In fact voting should be done online so that more people would participate in elections. Below a certain age, kids just aren't interested and they are very impressionable. A cleverly crafted internet campaign could persuade young voters to vote for someone that they otherwise wouldn't if they knew all the facts. Generally though, they should be able to vote at a younger age. In Canada, the voting age is 18. I think 16 or 17 would be reasonable.

It's a no-brainer that solar power is the energy of the future. The Alberta tar sands is an environmental disaster no matter what the oil companies propagandize about. I'm confident that if we North Americans stick to our position on this and push for more research into solar energy we will be miles/kilometers ahead of all the other nations.

I'm only arguing this side because there is at least one positive thing that has come from religion; change. Yes, if it weren't for religion we may not have the scientific knowledge we have today. It was the ancient Islamic astronomers who collected so much information about planetary motion and disproved the Greek model which was based on ancient Greek religion that placed earth at the center of the universe, that later Christian astronomers based their knowledge on it. Albeit, the Christians still believed Earth was at the center of the solar system, it wasn't until later that that notion was challenged. More importantly, these church supported scholars could not have made as much progress in scientific studies if they'd studied in the private sector. While the Religious leaders sanctioned scientific research in order to give legitimacy to there religious beliefs, the scientists were only seeking the truth, whatever it came to.

Even when Isaac Newton first published "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" the church still believed he was doing God's work. Little did they know how liberating this new way of thinking was going to be. After all, it was the oppression of religious doctrine that brought out rebellious thinking. That's what oppression does.

Like all previous Presidents, Obama has inherited some challenging issues. He just happened to inherit a huge debt, a messy war, and a global recession. Obama's ability to deal with these things is only as good as the advice he is getting. Don't forget, he also inherited the government infrastructure, which takes more than four years to change. In this case, it may take eight years to make any real headway. The important thing to remember is that things would have been bad no matter who got elected. All the signs were there before; don't kid yourself, the Republicans saw it coming. The thing about having such a bad old President then electing a new President, is that our expectations are so much higher.

This is an interesting debate because all who believe in god do so without questioning why god has to exist in the first place. I think the human mind is so complex that in order to quell our angst we have created a greater power that we believe protects us from all the bad in the world. A long time ago I was exposed to religion and as a child believed the bible stories taught to me at Sunday school. Later on I began to not buy into the bible so much as just believe there was a supreme being. Now I think the most rational thing to believe is that the religious texts are partially correct in that there were influential spiritual speakers who gathered a great number of followers because they had charisma, so much so that we speak of them even today. Humans have always been attracted to charismatic leaders, because if they are delivering the right message at the right time, we will begin to idolize them. I'm not saying that these leaders didn't exist or lied, just that they have been terribly misquoted and when their messages are boiled down to the essences, they are probably telling us things that most of us intuitively know in our hearts about what's right and wrong. If it's wrong we feel uncomfortable, if it's right, barring all religious propaganda, we feel comfortable with it. We don't need a god to tell us when we are wrong, we just have to listen to ourselves and be honest with ourselves.

All the promises of eternal damnation or eternal peace in the after life are meant to modify human behaviour. We need to see that heaven and hell are right here in this plane of existence and personal choice will dictate which way our lives go and therefore the lives of those we hold sway over. A better world needs better individuals.