- 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.
Nope. If you are a poor black you are screwed because of the history of racism in this country. You have no positive role models, the government wont help, the only way out will be drugs, and your life will be ruined.
There is a simple way to fix this. Force children to go to school, and make sure the schools are good enough for them to realize the value of education so they can get good jobs.
Black people are not genetically lazy, inferior, etc. They are just disadvantaged because of our history. We are closer than ever, and I believe maybe under this trump administration, schools will be improved in black neighborhoods and the next generation will finally emerge.
This is pathetic. That professor is an idiot. They are immigrant who came here illegally.
If he were telling people not to be disrespectful to them in their essays or not to call them derogatory terms, that would maybe be understandable considering it is his class. But this type of censoring is plain stupid.
Okay I can see both sides of the argument. I think you guys are using the wrong word. It isn't "intelligence" you should be measuring, but self consciousness and ability to empathize.
Whales, dolphins, elephants, gorillas, and dogs all grieve when their family members die. Rats, on the other hand, either can't tell or don't give a damn. They are not affected; or at least it is not as obvious as when, say, an elephant mother loses her son.
Whales also grieve, so I am questioning your decision to eat a whale. I don't think it is a big deal because in many cultures they have a different need and tradition, but that whale might have had a family who is missing them.
I know it sounds like it is out of a disney movie but it is true; many animals, especially large mammals, feel empathy and grieve the deaths of their families. They love just like we do. That's why I think it is immoral to eat them.
However, I don't think there should be a crack down because it would be very hypocritical to attack another culture's traditions before looking at what is wrong with our own.
Allow me to explain. The Founding Fathers made checks and balances to minimize the damage if we elected a tyrant. Over the course of our history, we elected a few really good presidents, and loosened up the checks on the executive branch, leaving the gate ajar for a tyrant with just the right know-how. Electing Donald Trump would be a wake-up call, and politicians who couldn’t give two shits about restraints on government power will suddenly scramble to figure out how to restore them.
A Trump presidency would be like a vaccine. A vaccine delivers a small dose of dead or disabled virus to the patient, so that the patient’s immune system knows how to counter the real deal. Some people have likened Trump to Hitler, but what they’re missing is that Trump is a weakened version of that virus that was Hitler. Hitler was brilliant, and Trump is fucking stupid. And I don’t think he’s playing dumb like Mrs. Clinton sometimes does. He’s genuinely idiotic. Trump is the harmless, disabled version of a tyrant that will boost our immunity to real tyrants.
In anticipation of a stupid president, Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) has introduced H. R. 6179, a bill that would take away the President’s ability to launch nuclear missiles without the approval of Congress, unless the US is attacked first. I think it goes without saying that this bill would be more likely to pass with a Trump presidency.
With a Trump presidency, we will be forced to have serious skepticism of executive orders. Congress didn’t like it when Obama abused his executive orders. Could you imagine what a shitstorm it would create if Trump acted the same way?
With a Trump presidency, Congress might reconsider the 1954 Bricker Amendment, which would have prohibited the President from signing international treaties that violate the Constitution, but failed by 1 vote.
With a Trump presidency, everyone, young and old, will be checking online daily about the latest happenings in our government. Grab a piece of paper and list all the things you know Obama has done or said in the last six months. Now do the same for Trump. Clearly, lunatics make us stay more up-to-date on current events, and if we had a lunatic president, people will be more involved in how they are governed than they have ever been.
With a Trump presidency, we might dramatically revisit the way we do democracy. The two candidates that came out on top this year are not there because people like them, but because the way our democracy is set up encourages voters to vote for their second least favorite candidate. Trump being in the White House might force us to replace our First-Past-the-Post voting system, in which whoever gets half-plus-one of the votes wins, with something like approval voting, where voters go down the list approving or disapproving of each candidate, and the candidate that the most people approve of wins, or STV, where voters rank the candidates in order of preference, where if your first choice doesn’t win, your second choice is counted, then your third choice, and so on, ensuring that your vote will matter no matter what.
Like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would like to be a absolute monarch if possible, except she’s actually smart enough and Machiavellian enough to do so. Sure, she might know a thing or two about running a country, but she’s the one presidential candidate that has been able to set up a shell company of the DNC to pay mentally ill people to incite violence at Trump rallies, secretly obtain townhall questions in advance, work with her party’s National Convention to rig the primary against Sanders, and illegally dictate to PACs. Given she has the audacity to do all that, what other powers will she claim for herself?
With a Trump presidency, people will flock to mend to holes in the wall that protects the American people from the wishes of powerful individuals. Mrs. Clinton will only widen those holes so she can squeeze her policies through, which might be good policies; still, she leaves the gaps open for smarter versions of Trump to gain power in the future.
Electing a President is like playing Russian roulette. A lot is left up to chance. But if we elect Donald Trump, we will suddenly decide that it would be more prudent to play with foam bullets than lead ones.
Unless the United States ceases to have a President, we will inevitably get a horrible president somewhere down the line. By electing a “good” president, we’re delaying that inevitability by another four years. If we elect Donald Trump, it might be a rough four years, but it would give us the knowledge and experience to shield ourselves from future, worse incidents. So would you rather take a papercut now or a stab wound in 50 years?
I definitely agree with you. There are so many things wrong with the current system, and there is nothing that anyone is doing about it. How can a candidate get away with rigging elections in the primaries? How can someone become president without winning majority vote? Why is it so hard to vote? Why is there money in politics?