Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 12 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 94% |
Arguments: | 12 |
Debates: | 0 |
It is not tied down by the Apple software. Being on Android means it can be adapted and used in anyway you prefer. I have always found iphones to have been stuck with Apple software that you have to pay for etc.
The likes of just copying and downloading something onto it with ease is crippled by itunes and other inane software.
Also I have never understood how a company can release the same thing every year that has not changed it's look since the original ipod touch? They release it with the excitement of it having new features that they try to make you believe they invented when other phones have had them for years. Video Calling from a phone is not a new invention Apple. Only since the 4s have they had a very mediocre 8 mega pixel camera. I had that on my throw away camera from boots in the 90's!
I have never had one but have had to set up and use a few at my office and a thing I noticed is there is essentially now home screen, and I like to have my widgets on my home screen instead of just apps. I am not a close minded hater of Apple and do no think these people are sheep, I just do not know why people go for something just because of the name over actual performance.
It may be impossible to prove that a non existent being exists however I challenge you to answer the Omnipotence Paradox below.
"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" If he could lift the rock, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent, as the rock was not heavy enough; if he could not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with.
I find it an insult that to the human race that people do not believe that these scientists have found and explained reasons with proof that these natural disasters are a cause of NATURE. have a little more faith in us humans. You can be great without having a god to make you great.
I am against drug abuse in all forms and am from a family of smokers (although I don't smoke myself) I do however drink.
If you are going to ban smoking you need to ban a hell of a lot of other things. It is a choice for those people and a choice they have made. A long with other things we can choose to do which may or may not damage our health, drinking, over exercising, protein shakes, coffee. Passive smoking may be a big issue to some people, however I bet these people drive cars which cause a hell of a lot more dangerous pollution than the guy smoking outside the door of a restaurant.
Banning these things is not the answer, I know that smokers in the UK have decreased since smoking was band from indoor public places, maybe hiking up the prices and increasing Tax will make a difference but there is no need to ban them.
Living by the rules of some guys who were happy about being freed from us Brits only 300 odd years ago is not a good basis for any sort of country in my opinion. The right to bear arms is an out dated concept.
I will not get onto the God side of the things are true believers of religion will note that you are to forgive those who wrong you and by using a gun to enforce that you are not truly following the word of God. It is the complete opposite.
I digress. The fact that the gun is an inanimate object is not the point of this debate. A Gun in my opinion is what kills the person, as are all other weapons, as I suppose is the human hand. However a gun is just pouring more petrol on the fire and making it easier for the person to kill, and studies have shown that shooting someone from a distance is a more detached way than up close and personal with a knife or other close combat weapon which means that guns do make it easier and leave people with less responsibility for their actions.
You wouldn't give a pyromaniac a match and a canister of petrol and trust he isn't going to light it. So don't give man a, a naturally aggressive beast, an easier gun and not expect him to kill.
Knives are not just used as instruments dedicated for killing, they can also be used to cut meant and other foods /packaging etc. plus cars also have the use of transport...clearly.
There is no other purpose for a gun to exist other than to kill. Be it hunting or an American maniac shooting up public places. The same goes for any weapon of war...
|