- 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.
Oh hey, you finally found the right debate topic, good for you.
The Democrat Party and people who vote for them support NO RESTRICTION ABORTIONS of viable babies up to birth for any reason!
I support life of mother abortions, but those who vote for Democrats SUPPORT ALL ABORTIONS!
Wow, love me a straight up and inaccurate blanket statement, you clearly have not talked to many democrats about what they believe. Every single democrat I know (and I know a lot) does not believe the "no restrictions" abortion. The ones that are pro choice have varying beliefs about when it is alright and when not. I, for one, am still developing details of my opinion due to the fact that I don't feel I have earned enough about it in order to confidently state my specific opinion.
However, I currently believe in generally pro-choice. I think it should definitely be allowed if it was rape, and for life of mother, but I also believe if they are not financially or mentally, or in whatever way, prepared to raise a child then they shouldn't have to especially if it was an accident. Forcing teens to keep their baby just because they "weren't careful enough" leads to a lot more problems. They'll likely end up homeless, or get into a bad relationship just to have help to keep from homelessness, or have a malnourished child because they couldn't afford to take care of it, or they'll abuse the kid, and for any of those the kid will either suffer or be put into the already overflowing foster care system (and they'll have a hard time with that too), or if they don't raise the kid then they'll just put the kid up for adoption which has its own issues.
Bottom line, If they won't be ready for parenthood, why the fuck would you want to force them to raise a kid for at least 18 years that isn't ready and doesn't want to be a parent? The only way it's possible to be a great parent is if you love your kid and want to be their parent. The world is already full of people whose parents don't want them, no point of bringing in more.
I never said everything in the Bible is untrue, or that it isn't based on truth or anything like that. I'm just saying it's not a reliable source for fact. No matter what anyone says, the details of religion are not provable. Like nobody can prove what prophets saw, whether they saw God or not. I personally do believe in God, and most people do. My only point was to not act like one could ever convince someone to believe using their scriptural evidence, because it only counts as evidence to the people with the same beliefs.
Whew gagging at the smell of testosterone fogging up the debate There's no way to argue logic with religion. You argue logic with logic and religion with religion. Religion is subjective, even if you think you're right, because guess what? Every religion thinks they're right and there's no way of proving any of them without using religious sources, so you can mention it and say it's what you believe, but you can't expect everyone else to agree with you because it just doesn't make sense. The only concrete fact about the bible, for example, is that it was created a very long time ago by many men who edited and cut out whatever they wanted from the material and chose what ultimately was part of it. And on top of this, it was translated into a ridiculous amount of languages hundreds of years before it even got written in English, AND there are tons of English versions as well.
"The autographs, the Greek manuscripts written by the original authors, have not survived. Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the manuscripts that do survive." Like, the original text isn't even with anyone to show how accurate translations are.
Bottom line, don't try to fight religion with evidence-based logic or vice versa?
I find it genuinely impressive that you managed to write 4 "arguments" that only included 4 sentences that at all actually talked about guns.
If you want to know my opinion on other subjects like abortion and drunk driving as you so fallaciously brought up in this debate, I'll meet you in the relevant topic. Otherwise, there's no purpose in trying to debate a topic that you refuse to actually talk about.
Translation: I can't have logical discussions with morons (I can't fight stupid), so I'll be here when you wanna actually talk about the subject at hand. Which is whether guns should be legal, btw, in case you forgot.
It is, and I'm pro choice. But it seems most people in this country are trying very hard to stop that from being true. I'm in the oh-so-wonderful land of the free, the U S of A. Where we think guns are a great idea and that sperm just have to hit a uterus to be full humans and it should be counted as murder if you get rid of it from that point forward.
My dude, you are dumb as a brick. That's not even socialism if you actually tried to study what they practice versus what socialism means. They are pretending it's socialism but it is a dictatorship, just as Germany was when Hitler pretended he would have communism and make the country better.
Yeah wow, ok. So yes important contribution, it's actually 125 less deaths than the over 38,000 deaths. Thanks for the update.
But yeah, sorry. I meant to include the CDC in my list. Except use this link for reference since it actually has the recent stats. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!