- 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.
"You don't have to believe something has a soul to believe it should have rights one way or another."
The logical possibilities are:
1. Animals have minds, even souls, and so should have certain rights.
2. Animals have minds, even souls but should not have certain rights.
3. Animals do not have minds, even souls but should have certain rights.
4. Animals do not have minds, even souls and should not have certain rights.
I'm sorry, which position are you arguing?
"What something is called has little bearing on what it is in many instances."
Yes, but what something is should have some bearing on what it is called.
"I don't understand, is this debate about animal rights or about what to call animals?"
It is about what to call animals if they have no soul. :)
I'll concede the rights part.
Use of this is contraindicated for those who have already achieved mentopause. Sarah Palin, for example, will not be needing this pill.
Otherwise, anyone who show signs of independent judgment are good candidates. Expect that a lot of liberals to be required to use Lybrel.
"So, your suggesting that the British Medical Journal is rubbish and the Mayo Clinic is far superior. OK!! Those are not flaws, but only Criticism."
The British Medical Journal simply publish a study other scientists found to be flawed. That's not me suggesting anything about the journal itself. And no, its not just criticism by these other scientists. Its criticism that the study is flawed.
Not scientifically valid.
No fucking good.
No truth to the claims it makes.
But hey, the Surgeon General works for the government as so is a scientific whore for some position you have yet to prove the government holds. But a scientist funded by the tobacco industry is beyond reproach,even if his study is flawed. Nice logic there buddy.
You amaze me. You simply amaze me. If you were to argue against yourself, you couldn't do any better than this.
Thanks for outlining the administrative structure of all these pertinent bodies. However, your reply was not pertinent to this question:
"Proof for the claim that there is a government position as opposed to a scientific position on this issue?"
Yes, you proved that there is a government. You have not proved there is a government position separate from the generally accepted science on the question of the harmfulness of smoke.
"How is the government destroying the tobacco industry? The anti-tobacco campaign in public places that they created and fueled by people like yourself."
The anti-smoking campaign is largely paid for by the tobacco industry.
"As part of a $206 billion dollar settlement, major tobacco companies like Philip Morris agreed to pay for advertising campaigns to educate consumers about the dangers of tobacco. Not only were they barred from advertising their own products or sponsoring events geared towards teenagers, they also had to contribute millions annually to support these anti-smoking ads in every state." 
Cigarette manufacturers engaged in a 50 year massive racketeering scheme that included falsely denying the adverse health effects of their products, falsely denying that nicotine is addictive, falsely representing that “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes present fewer health risks, falsely denying that they marketed to kids, and falsely denying that secondhand smoke causes disease.
Says one commentator:
"Like smoking, lying is a tough habit to break. Tobacco companies have been lying to the American people for decades about the harmful nature of their products "