- 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.
If the assumptions are made that democracy is the preferable form of government and that the dictator is tyrannical and harmful, then the assassination of a dictator is not the solution to the problem.
It is important to note that not all dictators are bad for their countries. For example, Stalin, despite being ruthless and cruel, made the Soviet Union into a superpower that helped defeat fascism and has provided continued economic benefits all over Europe and central Asia to this day. Killing Stalin wouldn't have really solved anything.
Despite Stalin's strength as a leader, it was ultimately the failings of the system that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Killing the leader doesn't change the country, the solution to dictatorships is a re-structuring of government. In Russia, the collapse of the soviet system did not cause the death of their premier, just as the death of the premier would not cause a change in the system.
Humanity is a myth. Humans are animals on this planet just like cats and dogs and bugs. Therefore, they must follow the same rules the achieve the same objectives of survival and reproduction. Instinct will drive people to do whatever is necessary to achieve these goals even if that means going against what people consider to be "humane." There is nothing special about humans that holds them to a different moral code than animals.
Listen, I saw David Blaine change a cup of coffee into quarters. If that's not an amazing occurrence, I don't know what is. That totally beats Jesus' water to wine thing. Just goes to show ya that you don't need Jesus to have amazing things happen.
Plus, it's not fair to say that all amazing occurrences today are just tricks, and when Jesus did it it was magic. For example, if you saw a street performer change water into wine before your eyes, you would think it was a trick, but when someone else tells you that a guy a long time ago did it, its magic? or a miracle?
The point I'm trying to make is that Jesus isn't real, and any "amazing" things that people say happened either a: didn't happen or b: were tricks. It is certain however, that they weren't magic or somehow done by the power of "god"
Being a man is awesome. You don't need to make babies or have periods, you're less likely to be mugged or raped. You are usually a little bigger and stronger than the average woman. You don't have to make the decision whether to stay at home and look after the kids or get a job to support them. Men's traditional gender roll tells them that they are supposed to get a job, whereas women need to decide to be a self-empowered woman and get a job in the workplace or follow their traditional gender roll and take care of kids.
The only bad things about being a man is that you almost always lose in child custody cases, and you are eligible to be drafted. Besides that, life is a lot easier.
You are wrong on so many levels it is astounding.
"if we were in control, then we can squash this Nationalized Health Care thinking"
The national health care push is an internal democratic movement that is supported by the majority of the US congress. Just because there are similar health care models abroad, doesn't mean that its their fault for it or that taking over them will get rid of it.
"the rest of the world want to force their views on us, I say we do unto them before they do unto us"
What exactly are you talking about here? Can you cite any specific examples of how foreign governments have exerted influence on us recently? I think you may have this backwards because in the last 10 years, the US has been exerting far more influence than it has been exerted upon. Like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US, in the most clear fashion, is trying to make their governments like ours. You can even look at the number of English speaking people around the world and especially in Europe. In Europe, English is the most popular language despite the plethora of other languages on the continent and the relative minority of native English speakers.
Clearly the influence you are talking about goes contrary to what you think, and beyond that, a global, Napoleonic/Hitler-esque take over would do nothing to solve any of the problems you are talking about.
It is true that the poor do need help, but it is just as much their job to be able to make what they can of the assistance as it is society's job to provide it. If they continue to do things that they know to be harmful and wasteful, they fail to keep up their side of the bargain and therefore leave the government no obligation to keep up its side
I think it would be unfair to tax people based on mental handicaps because people who are handicapped haven't made the decision to be like that. Its not fair that you tax someone more just because, through no fault of their own, they need more medical assistance. If it IS their fault, then taxing them more makes perfect sense (ie: smokers, drinkers, and the overweight)
I think it is unfair to make the claim that poor people tend to be unhealthier and more prone to smoking, alcoholism, and obesity. There are plenty of people who are very well off financially who are still alcoholics, smokers, and over weight. There are also plenty of poor people out there who are in good health. It seems like a slippery slope argument to say that poor people will drink and smoke more and will therefore need more health care and shouldn't need to pay more because they cant afford it. Even if this was the case, a higher tax on alcohol and tobacco products would only create more of an economic incentive for those people not to throw their money away on those products.
Yes, the point of health care is to provide for those who need it, but that doesn't justify people going out and creating those needs at the expense of the system. If someone decides, on their own, that they want to pick up a smoking habit or do something that is clearly unhealthy, why should I be responsible for paying for it? It would be like me making the lifestyle decision to buy a Ferrari, and then expect everyone else to pay for my incredibly high insurance cost. Its simply not fair that I need to pay for someone else to be reckless with themselves.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!