Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative

like 0

What do we mean when we say "Real Republicans"? If the argument is that they should be conservatives (economically), follow the Constitution, and be non-interventionist, then I think there is no question that the current GOP no longer fits this description. However, why is that the definition of a "Real Republican"? Yes, this was the definition of a Republican during World War One, the interwar period, World War Two, and perhaps for a bit after that. But the GOP has existed since the antebellum period. Why should we decide that the "Real Republicans" were the Robert Taft types and not the Abraham Lincoln types? If we are to accept the latter as our measure of a "Real Republican" then I think the current batch of Republicans (save Ron Paul) are very much "Real Republicans." A few criteria modern Republicans should fit if they are to be "Lincoln Republicans": Pro-centralization of government, protectionist, nationalistic, racist, little regard for individual rights, militarist, interventionist/corporatist in economic policy, and, in general, fascist. Let's see how they fit. Centralization of Government: The Republicans have long claimed to be "federalist" when it came to state's rights, that is, they are in favor of them. But how true is that? Republicans currently support national bans on abortion, homosexual marriage, medical marijuana (and illicit drugs in general), flag burning, stem cell research, and other things (depending on your Republican-of-choice, Mike Huckabee supports a national smoking ban, for instance). Also, we can look to immigration, where the Republicans all agree this is an issue for the federal government - despite this not being prescribed for the federal government in the Constitution and thus in the realm of the states. And what Republican (save perhaps Ron Paul) believes in the right to secession? Protectionist: Despite their claims to the contrary, almost every single Republican is a protectionist to one degree or another. Only Ron Paul supports real free trade - which is the simple, unilateral elimination of all trade barriers and tariffs. Republicans support sanctions/embargoes on Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq (after Gulf War 1), and various other nations, in spite of the fact that it impinges on the freedom of US citizens regarding trade. Republicans support fake free trade agreements like NAFTA (which is really just a tariff union), the WTO (which "manages" trade - sort of how socialism "manages" the economy), and all sorts of tariffs and barriers. Many Republicans are taking a "hard-line" on China - which means they want to put up all sorts of barriers to trade until the Chinese do what we want. Is all this really what free traders would do? The answer is no, and the Republicans who support this stuff are protectionists. Nationalistic: From their support of a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning to their worship of all things patriotism to their support of the President no matter what, the Republicans are moving into hypernationalist territory frequently seen in countries like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I don't think there is any controversy over whether or not the Republican Party is infected with nationalism to the extreme. Racist: The whole immigration debate seems to make my point on this one. "They're taking our jobs!" is the call. As if the jobs belong to you. But what complaints are raised when jobs go to other Americans (and by this, I mean white Americans)? The fear of the Chinese and Japanese making our things is out of control as well, but what of companies in Europe? Are there protests against them? And all the hype about foreign oil? It is always the evil people in the Middle East. But what they don't tell you is the number one exporter of crude oil to the United States is Canada. And the number one exporter of petroleum to the United States is also Canada. But the issue here isn't that the oil is foreign. And the issues with China are not that their products are foreign and their labor is cheaper. The issue is that they look different and they are making things. And Republicans don't like it. Individual Rights: Mr. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the first time in the history of the United States of America. And so, in following with tradition, the Republicans suspended it once again in the 2006 Military Commissions Act. The Republicans of the modern age also launched the War on Drugs - perhaps the most invasive and rights-destroying policy in the history of the USA. As stated earlier, the Republicans are also looking to ban various things that individuals have a right to do on a national scale. Republicans also support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which completely decimated property rights and freedom of association. Militarist: John McCain is a front-runner. Need I say more? The Republicans have gotten absolutely out of control with their "support the troops" and military spending. So-called "fiscal conservatives" also tend to be the ones to call for massive military expenditures. Republicans are war-hawks and try to compete in hawkish statements (leading to McCain saying things like it would be okay for us to stay in Iraq for 10,000 years). If you saw the last debate, there was a segment of probably ten minutes discussing if Romney is sufficiently dedicated to stay in Iraq, despite his constant rhetoric about staying "until the job is done." McCain got on him about not supporting the surge fervently enough. Non-interventionists like Ron Paul are laughed at, mocked, and generally considered to be RINO. Socialist/Fascist Economics: George W. Bush massively increase federal spending and the size of government. Even the Republicans admit it. They all claim to be for smaller government and "changing Washington." They then will go on to brag about how much they plan to spend on the military, police, border security, and the Drug War. The Republicans have claimed since Reagan that they wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, and it doubled in size under Reagan, it was increased dramatically under both Bushes (especially the latest with NCLB). They subsidize farmers, oil companies, and other "vital industries." They build and repair "infrastructure." They "privatize" Social Security not by letting you keep your money, but by putting it somewhere different than the Democrats want to put it. They support "tax reform" - which means tinkering with where the tax burden falls and, overall, raising taxes. They bail out companies that are "too big to fail" and support anti-trust to crush their more efficient competitors. They have supported price controls. They inflate and artificially lower interest rates. They spend, and spend, and spend, and spend. They regulate and keep big corporations untouchable. There are some, like John McCain, who hardly even try to hide their socialistic ideas. But do not be fooled by the others. They, too, are in support of bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes. The Republicans are not in favor of the free market - they are in favor of Big Government with Big Business. They are corporatists and/or socialists. Fascism: Above, I have described the general outline of what a fascist is. And what the modern Republicans are. This fits very well with what the early, Lincoln Republicans were and I think we should consider them the real "Real Republicans."

Morty

What do we mean when we say "Real Republicans"? If the argument is that they should be conservatives (economically), follow the Constitution, and be non-interventionist, then I think there is no question that the current GOP no longer fits this description. However, why is that the definition of a "Real Republican"? Yes, this was the definition of a Republican during World War One, the interwar period, World War Two, and perhaps for a bit after that. But the GOP has existed since the antebellum period. Why should we decide that the "Real Republicans" were the Robert Taft types and not the Abraham Lincoln types? If we are to accept the latter as our measure of a "Real Republican" then I think the current batch of Republicans (save Ron Paul) are very much "Real Republicans." A few criteria modern Republicans should fit if they are to be "Lincoln Republicans": Pro-centralization of government, protectionist, nationalistic, racist, little regard for individual rights, militarist, interventionist/corporatist in economic policy, and, in general, fascist. Let's see how they fit. Centralization of Government: The Republicans have long claimed to be "federalist" when it came to state's rights, that is, they are in favor of them. But how true is that? Republicans currently support national bans on abortion, homosexual marriage, medical marijuana (and illicit drugs in general), flag burning, stem cell research, and other things (depending on your Republican-of-choice, Mike Huckabee supports a national smoking ban, for instance). Also, we can look to immigration, where the Republicans all agree this is an issue for the federal government - despite this not being prescribed for the federal government in the Constitution and thus in the realm of the states. And what Republican (save perhaps Ron Paul) believes in the right to secession? Protectionist: Despite their claims to the contrary, almost every single Republican is a protectionist to one degree or another. Only Ron Paul supports real free trade - which is the simple, unilateral elimination of all trade barriers and tariffs. Republicans support sanctions/embargoes on Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq (after Gulf War 1), and various other nations, in spite of the fact that it impinges on the freedom of US citizens regarding trade. Republicans support fake free trade agreements like NAFTA (which is really just a tariff union), the WTO (which "manages" trade - sort of how socialism "manages" the economy), and all sorts of tariffs and barriers. Many Republicans are taking a "hard-line" on China - which means they want to put up all sorts of barriers to trade until the Chinese do what we want. Is all this really what free traders would do? The answer is no, and the Republicans who support this stuff are protectionists. Nationalistic: From their support of a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning to their worship of all things patriotism to their support of the President no matter what, the Republicans are moving into hypernationalist territory frequently seen in countries like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I don't think there is any controversy over whether or not the Republican Party is infected with nationalism to the extreme. Racist: The whole immigration debate seems to make my point on this one. "They're taking our jobs!" is the call. As if the jobs belong to you. But what complaints are raised when jobs go to other Americans (and by this, I mean white Americans)? The fear of the Chinese and Japanese making our things is out of control as well, but what of companies in Europe? Are there protests against them? And all the hype about foreign oil? It is always the evil people in the Middle East. But what they don't tell you is the number one exporter of crude oil to the United States is Canada. And the number one exporter of petroleum to the United States is also Canada. But the issue here isn't that the oil is foreign. And the issues with China are not that their products are foreign and their labor is cheaper. The issue is that they look different and they are making things. And Republicans don't like it. Individual Rights: Mr. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the first time in the history of the United States of America. And so, in following with tradition, the Republicans suspended it once again in the 2006 Military Commissions Act. The Republicans of the modern age also launched the War on Drugs - perhaps the most invasive and rights-destroying policy in the history of the USA. As stated earlier, the Republicans are also looking to ban various things that individuals have a right to do on a national scale. Republicans also support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which completely decimated property rights and freedom of association. Militarist: John McCain is a front-runner. Need I say more? The Republicans have gotten absolutely out of control with their "support the troops" and military spending. So-called "fiscal conservatives" also tend to be the ones to call for massive military expenditures. Republicans are war-hawks and try to compete in hawkish statements (leading to McCain saying things like it would be okay for us to stay in Iraq for 10,000 years). If you saw the last debate, there was a segment of probably ten minutes discussing if Romney is sufficiently dedicated to stay in Iraq, despite his constant rhetoric about staying "until the job is done." McCain got on him about not supporting the surge fervently enough. Non-interventionists like Ron Paul are laughed at, mocked, and generally considered to be RINO. Socialist/Fascist Economics: George W. Bush massively increase federal spending and the size of government. Even the Republicans admit it. They all claim to be for smaller government and "changing Washington." They then will go on to brag about how much they plan to spend on the military, police, border security, and the Drug War. The Republicans have claimed since Reagan that they wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, and it doubled in size under Reagan, it was increased dramatically under both Bushes (especially the latest with NCLB). They subsidize farmers, oil companies, and other "vital industries." They build and repair "infrastructure." They "privatize" Social Security not by letting you keep your money, but by putting it somewhere different than the Democrats want to put it. They support "tax reform" - which means tinkering with where the tax burden falls and, overall, raising taxes. They bail out companies that are "too big to fail" and support anti-trust to crush their more efficient competitors. They have supported price controls. They inflate and artificially lower interest rates. They spend, and spend, and spend, and spend. They regulate and keep big corporations untouchable. There are some, like John McCain, who hardly even try to hide their socialistic ideas. But do not be fooled by the others. They, too, are in support of bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes. The Republicans are not in favor of the free market - they are in favor of Big Government with Big Business. They are corporatists and/or socialists. Fascism: Above, I have described the general outline of what a fascist is. And what the modern Republicans are. This fits very well with what the early, Lincoln Republicans were and I think we should consider them the real "Real Republicans."

Politics

where-are-the-real-republicans/1/

The Republican Party was started by a coalition of Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free Soilers. Lincoln's previous Whig affiliation fit very well with the early Republican Party. The Republicans were very Clayite in the beginning and looked to implement the "American System" laid out by Henry Clay. The Republicans were by and large NOT abolitionists, but rather just wanted to keep slavery where it was already. This was not out of some love for the slaves, but rather because they would "take away white men's jobs" if they were allowed to move west. Lincoln, in particular, opposed slavery because he believed it increased the birth rates of those with African heritage and he wanted to see them wiped from American land. That is why he also supported things like deportation of all African-Americans back to Africa. Lincoln, however, supported a Constitutional Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever barred any federal "interferences" on the institution of slavery in the South. He was not an abolitionist and did not care about the slaves. The Republican Party was and is no less racist than the Democrats. Immigration is not a federal issue because the federal government is not explicitly given the power to regulate immigration in the Constitution, and thus the 10th Amendment leaves it to the States and to the People. Just the existence of a federal bureaucracy like the INS does not mean it is a federal issue. The fact that it exists does not change the Constitution. Do you argue that education is a federal issue simply because the Department of Education exists? Should healthcare be a federal issue, considering that we have a Department of Health and Human Services? Things they don't truly stand for? According to who? You? Do you make the Republican Party platform? Do you control all the Republican politicians? Point to specifics. Tell me what the Republican Party apparently does not support that I said they did. Free trade is a different issue. If you want to debate on that, I suggest a new debate so as to not clog this one. All I was arguing was that despite what many Republicans claim, they - as a whole - support protectionism in trade. The debate on China and foreign policy in general also is a different issue. I am just stating what the Republican Party supports currently and how it is similar to the early Republican stances. As to what a "real Republican" would do in response to the "threats" we face, I agree with you. And I think that is what they are doing. Two nations have been invaded and we are gearing up for a third (Iran) while greasing the wheels for a fourth (Syria). The tough-guy rhetoric is common among modern day Republicans and that was my point about militarism. Lincoln and the early Republicans were militarists as well. Thus, the Republican Party has not "lost its way" but rather has followed the traditions of Lincoln and rejected the Robert Taft/Ron Paul types.

Morty

The Republican Party was started by a coalition of Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free Soilers. Lincoln's previous Whig affiliation fit very well with the early Republican Party. The Republicans were very Clayite in the beginning and looked to implement the "American System" laid out by Henry Clay. The Republicans were by and large NOT abolitionists, but rather just wanted to keep slavery where it was already. This was not out of some love for the slaves, but rather because they would "take away white men's jobs" if they were allowed to move west. Lincoln, in particular, opposed slavery because he believed it increased the birth rates of those with African heritage and he wanted to see them wiped from American land. That is why he also supported things like deportation of all African-Americans back to Africa. Lincoln, however, supported a Constitutional Amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever barred any federal "interferences" on the institution of slavery in the South. He was not an abolitionist and did not care about the slaves. The Republican Party was and is no less racist than the Democrats. Immigration is not a federal issue because the federal government is not explicitly given the power to regulate immigration in the Constitution, and thus the 10th Amendment leaves it to the States and to the People. Just the existence of a federal bureaucracy like the INS does not mean it is a federal issue. The fact that it exists does not change the Constitution. Do you argue that education is a federal issue simply because the Department of Education exists? Should healthcare be a federal issue, considering that we have a Department of Health and Human Services? Things they don't truly stand for? According to who? You? Do you make the Republican Party platform? Do you control all the Republican politicians? Point to specifics. Tell me what the Republican Party apparently does not support that I said they did. Free trade is a different issue. If you want to debate on that, I suggest a new debate so as to not clog this one. All I was arguing was that despite what many Republicans claim, they - as a whole - support protectionism in trade. The debate on China and foreign policy in general also is a different issue. I am just stating what the Republican Party supports currently and how it is similar to the early Republican stances. As to what a "real Republican" would do in response to the "threats" we face, I agree with you. And I think that is what they are doing. Two nations have been invaded and we are gearing up for a third (Iran) while greasing the wheels for a fourth (Syria). The tough-guy rhetoric is common among modern day Republicans and that was my point about militarism. Lincoln and the early Republicans were militarists as well. Thus, the Republican Party has not "lost its way" but rather has followed the traditions of Lincoln and rejected the Robert Taft/Ron Paul types.

Politics

where-are-the-real-republicans/1/

You continue to attempt to bait me into debates which are not within the spectrum of the question. If you want to debate immigration policy, education, healthcare, and the lack of democracy in the creation of Party platforms, I would be happy to - in different debates. The question at hand is whether the current Republicans are true to what Republicans should be, in reference to their history. That is the topic I will stay on. That said, I do not think you have looked deeply enough into the issues of racism I have pointed to. The issue with immigration has a serious racial undercurrent, whether you want to admit it or not. Again, the current legal paths to immigration are favorable to those living in a well-developed area (Europe) or those who are fairly well-off (mostly Europeans). It takes so long that those in a fairly good position are much more able to wait than those in areas like Africa, Asia, and Latin America where the issue is horrible poverty and they need opportunities sooner rather than later. Furthermore, when speaking on illegal immigration, they always talk tough on border security (where Mexicans are the vast majority of illegals), whereas overstays on visas (which make up about half of all illegal immigration [1]) is basically ignored. The Republicans also have a position on trade which often takes a sometimes-racist, always-nationalist tone. The Republicans worry most on the cheap labor in Mexico and Asia, but have no objections to jobs moving inside the country (generally to whites). Their feelings on foreign oil are very clearly racist - the Middle Easterners are not to be trusted, but mum's the word on the Canadian oil we receive. Not to mention the Republicans' support for the War on Drugs, which is obscenely racist. The difference between the punishment for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is case-in-point. The disparity is 100 to 1, as the punishment for five grams of crack is equal to that of five hundred grams of powder. Blacks are by and large those who use crack, and while recently Hispanics have become the largest users of powder cocaine, originally it was most prevalent among whites. Crack sentences are also on average 43.5% longer than those of powder (121.5 months and 84.7 months, respectively) [2]. As for the Republicans supporting self-reliance, that hasn't been true since the days of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. Modern Republicans, almost all of them, are supportive of the New Deal programs and even the Great Society programs. Look at Mitt Romney - he is actually left of Obama on the issue of healthcare (while Obama will provide insurance for any who can't afford it and wants it, he will not force anyone to buy insurance like Romney proposes to do to everyone). Besides Ron Paul, none of the Republicans are talking about actually ending welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare. They all just want to run them "more efficiently" - that is, their bureaucrats instead of the Democrats' bureaucrats. The Republicans may oppose increasing the minimum wage (sometimes), they certainly aren't talking about ending it. When McCain came to the town I live in, he actually proposed a guaranteed minimum income scheme and increasing unemployment insurance. The Republicans, as I stated earlier, have increased the size of the Department of Education significantly and none dare suggest that education should be privatized. The Republicans are for big government at home too - don't be fooled by rhetoric. And, again, this fits well with the Lincoln Republicans who were very much in favor of bigger government. 1 - <URL>... 2 - <URL>...

Morty

You continue to attempt to bait me into debates which are not within the spectrum of the question. If you want to debate immigration policy, education, healthcare, and the lack of democracy in the creation of Party platforms, I would be happy to - in different debates. The question at hand is whether the current Republicans are true to what Republicans should be, in reference to their history. That is the topic I will stay on. That said, I do not think you have looked deeply enough into the issues of racism I have pointed to. The issue with immigration has a serious racial undercurrent, whether you want to admit it or not. Again, the current legal paths to immigration are favorable to those living in a well-developed area (Europe) or those who are fairly well-off (mostly Europeans). It takes so long that those in a fairly good position are much more able to wait than those in areas like Africa, Asia, and Latin America where the issue is horrible poverty and they need opportunities sooner rather than later. Furthermore, when speaking on illegal immigration, they always talk tough on border security (where Mexicans are the vast majority of illegals), whereas overstays on visas (which make up about half of all illegal immigration [1]) is basically ignored. The Republicans also have a position on trade which often takes a sometimes-racist, always-nationalist tone. The Republicans worry most on the cheap labor in Mexico and Asia, but have no objections to jobs moving inside the country (generally to whites). Their feelings on foreign oil are very clearly racist - the Middle Easterners are not to be trusted, but mum's the word on the Canadian oil we receive. Not to mention the Republicans' support for the War on Drugs, which is obscenely racist. The difference between the punishment for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is case-in-point. The disparity is 100 to 1, as the punishment for five grams of crack is equal to that of five hundred grams of powder. Blacks are by and large those who use crack, and while recently Hispanics have become the largest users of powder cocaine, originally it was most prevalent among whites. Crack sentences are also on average 43.5% longer than those of powder (121.5 months and 84.7 months, respectively) [2]. As for the Republicans supporting self-reliance, that hasn't been true since the days of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. Modern Republicans, almost all of them, are supportive of the New Deal programs and even the Great Society programs. Look at Mitt Romney - he is actually left of Obama on the issue of healthcare (while Obama will provide insurance for any who can't afford it and wants it, he will not force anyone to buy insurance like Romney proposes to do to everyone). Besides Ron Paul, none of the Republicans are talking about actually ending welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare. They all just want to run them "more efficiently" - that is, their bureaucrats instead of the Democrats' bureaucrats. The Republicans may oppose increasing the minimum wage (sometimes), they certainly aren't talking about ending it. When McCain came to the town I live in, he actually proposed a guaranteed minimum income scheme and increasing unemployment insurance. The Republicans, as I stated earlier, have increased the size of the Department of Education significantly and none dare suggest that education should be privatized. The Republicans are for big government at home too - don't be fooled by rhetoric. And, again, this fits well with the Lincoln Republicans who were very much in favor of bigger government. 1 - http://www.csmonitor.com... 2 - http://www.usnews.com...

Politics

where-are-the-real-republicans/1/

As one sits back today and watches our so called Republican Party sell our nation down the river we as American citizens and Republicans just sit back and let this garbage continue. How is it possible to call john mccain a republican? he is a socialist are the American people so blind It seems as though the party has tucked there tail between there legs and ran. Do the Republicans have any guts? To me it seems as though they do not they would rather let communism to re-enter this country hell while you are at it you might as well just take the big leap and vote for the extreme communist CLINTON it is time for the party to stand up for what they truely belive in I dont give a damn about the whole war hero thing so what that does not give you a pass to the white house. Keep being stupid america where going to kill ourselves at this rate

watchman

As one sits back today and watches our so called Republican Party sell our nation down the river we as American citizens and Republicans just sit back and let this garbage continue. How is it possible to call john mccain a republican? he is a socialist are the American people so blind It seems as though the party has tucked there tail between there legs and ran. Do the Republicans have any guts? To me it seems as though they do not they would rather let communism to re-enter this country hell while you are at it you might as well just take the big leap and vote for the extreme communist CLINTON it is time for the party to stand up for what they truely belive in I dont give a damn about the whole war hero thing so what that does not give you a pass to the white house. Keep being stupid america where going to kill ourselves at this rate

Politics

where-are-the-real-republicans/1/

You have made a few good points in your debate but you forget one thing my friend all of the people you have mention where not and are not republicans. Lincoln was a wig not until he realized he could not be elected did he switch parties You speak of racist the dem party is the most racist party I know who can say there for the man of another color and see him achieving something only to try to take it all away because he or she became more successful than they where. You say immigration is not a federal issue? Why then do we have a federal institution (ins) (ice) to try to manage this issue? All your statements of what the republican is at this time is not what they truly stand for. You speak of free trade in the term that it is a thing america should strive for! you speak of china as it is a good nation!they are one of our biggest enemies they are trying to kill us every day or can you not see it. When we put up trade barriers we usually get our way . And as for Ron Paul he does have some great points but the more you want to sit and have a dialoag with you enemy the longer they have to establish the weapons and the bolder they get. You speak of war so what thats just part of life deal with it. We might not have all this bull going on if we had turned afganistan into a desert just plain flat sand we could have call it sand box of the east or something. A real repulican would not tolerate the bs that goes on nowadays he would kick butt and take names.

watchman

You have made a few good points in your debate but you forget one thing my friend all of the people you have mention where not and are not republicans. Lincoln was a wig not until he realized he could not be elected did he switch parties You speak of racist the dem party is the most racist party I know who can say there for the man of another color and see him achieving something only to try to take it all away because he or she became more successful than they where. You say immigration is not a federal issue? Why then do we have a federal institution (ins) (ice) to try to manage this issue? All your statements of what the republican is at this time is not what they truly stand for. You speak of free trade in the term that it is a thing america should strive for! you speak of china as it is a good nation!they are one of our biggest enemies they are trying to kill us every day or can you not see it. When we put up trade barriers we usually get our way . And as for Ron Paul he does have some great points but the more you want to sit and have a dialoag with you enemy the longer they have to establish the weapons and the bolder they get. You speak of war so what thats just part of life deal with it. We might not have all this bull going on if we had turned afganistan into a desert just plain flat sand we could have call it sand box of the east or something. A real repulican would not tolerate the bs that goes on nowadays he would kick butt and take names.

Politics

where-are-the-real-republicans/1/

To say the republican party is no more racist than the dems is unbelievable. the dems as i stated before are the primary ones always fighting for segregation and it pretty much still stands today among that party. Now you have made some understandable points that hold true to the republican party today but you understand and know that that is not what the republicans truly stand for. Who would dare try to say Pres George Bush is a republican! A true republican is a group of people who let the down trodden work out the problems with letting them think that government is there to help them out. They give a hand up not a hand out. They believe in getting up in the morning and busting but to accomplish a goal of success in life. Being economically smart not wating on the unemployment check. You cannot today tell the difference between dems and repubs because they both believe that government is the way out that is just dumb. How many times do you have to pass legislation to build a fence. You say basically we should have open boarders? may i remind you of how rome really fell? because they had let cheap and next to nothing labor come in and build and create everything while they sat on there rear and got fat. When it came time to defend what was theres they couldn't because they had basically forgotten how. I know that is not a great description but it holds basically true. You also say that immigration is not a federal issue! It I believe is and should be it involves this whole country no matter what boarder. I do argue that education is a federal issue and also that is what is wrong with it. Health care a federal issue? are you kidding? that is just ignorant You ask do I make the party platform? Do I control the republican politicians? I answer these questions with a big no but that in itself is the problem. We as the people should make the platform for what we believe in as republicans. Today one cannot do that because the party has run away drunk with power. And yes the tuff guy talk does run through the republican party. What has a dem done except willing to sell america to there enemies.

watchman

To say the republican party is no more racist than the dems is unbelievable. the dems as i stated before are the primary ones always fighting for segregation and it pretty much still stands today among that party. Now you have made some understandable points that hold true to the republican party today but you understand and know that that is not what the republicans truly stand for. Who would dare try to say Pres George Bush is a republican! A true republican is a group of people who let the down trodden work out the problems with letting them think that government is there to help them out. They give a hand up not a hand out. They believe in getting up in the morning and busting but to accomplish a goal of success in life. Being economically smart not wating on the unemployment check. You cannot today tell the difference between dems and repubs because they both believe that government is the way out that is just dumb. How many times do you have to pass legislation to build a fence. You say basically we should have open boarders? may i remind you of how rome really fell? because they had let cheap and next to nothing labor come in and build and create everything while they sat on there rear and got fat. When it came time to defend what was theres they couldn't because they had basically forgotten how. I know that is not a great description but it holds basically true. You also say that immigration is not a federal issue! It I believe is and should be it involves this whole country no matter what boarder. I do argue that education is a federal issue and also that is what is wrong with it. Health care a federal issue? are you kidding? that is just ignorant You ask do I make the party platform? Do I control the republican politicians? I answer these questions with a big no but that in itself is the problem. We as the people should make the platform for what we believe in as republicans. Today one cannot do that because the party has run away drunk with power. And yes the tuff guy talk does run through the republican party. What has a dem done except willing to sell america to there enemies.

Politics

where-are-the-real-republicans/1/

Brain size does not constitute intellectual capacity. Try again.

Aerogant

Brain size does not constitute intellectual capacity. Try again.

Science

whites-are-on-average-smarter-than-blacks/1/

By your logic, elephants would be gods teaching humans, but they are not because the size of the brain does no relate to intelligence, just like the size of a computer does not relate to its information capacity. Please do your research better, instead of researching through your delusional lens. If the stars and the night sky can get along, so can we. The fact that you cannot, makes you darker than the people you segregate out of the sheer fear of indifference and losing your unique racial profile.

Aerogant

By your logic, elephants would be gods teaching humans, but they are not because the size of the brain does no relate to intelligence, just like the size of a computer does not relate to its information capacity. Please do your research better, instead of researching through your delusional lens. If the stars and the night sky can get along, so can we. The fact that you cannot, makes you darker than the people you segregate out of the sheer fear of indifference and losing your unique racial profile.

Science

whites-are-on-average-smarter-than-blacks/1/

No it doesn't. You're lying through your teeth and your hatred. A child can speak like any wise man provided they gain the right information. I've seen a 10 year old non-white kid speak on Plato's level. I've seen and spoken to many non-white intellects who have managed to escape from the gender illusion and the color illusion to pursue the multi-faceted brain. Color is just aesthetics; it's just another personality of the Universe. Every different race of humanity can do something another race cannot do, biologically. There are children smarter than adults in all races - there are midgets smarter than people with regular heights in all races - there are words of wisdom recorded after years upon years that stand today from all races, which is to say that all races; all colors; all ages; all cultures can achieve the highest level of intelligence. Everything you say now will be unfounded hyperbole solely based on your hatred and delusional cries that you refuse to consult, and so you will lose this debate for being the lowest form of humanity. You can paint your heart gold - it doesn't change the fact that it's the blackest heart beneath it all; constricted in its flames built on your fear towards indifference. It must be difficult to accept that you are normal - instead, you play god like a pharisaic tool that spent too much time pointing fingers instead of using those fingers to build a future for everyone. The solar system does not discriminate against its planets. The planet does not discriminate against its creatures. The mind does not discriminates against its people. Man - only Man - has the sole weakness to take it upon themselves to make everything else suffer around us just because we never learned how to let go and accept the world is bigger than ourselves. Every day I look up at the sky, and I see the beauty of black and white - it profoundly disturbs me that after all the wars, the pain and the misery we have caused through intolerance and negligence towards accepting others for who they are no matter what we believe, that the last thing that we consider is that we are the problem - that we were always the problem - that every animal; every insect; our children; our mothers; our fathers just watch us destroy our own world with a brain that has the potential to make this world into something far better than what it is now. That it's really that hard to stop your hatred and your ruthless behavior towards your own men - that's it's really that hard to comprehend that everything you do is a double standard because by threatening your own men, at the same time, you do not want to be threatened - your hatred being the worst type of hypocrisy out of the entire history of mankind. Wake up. There's a reason why the people you hate have achieved more than you ever have. You're going nowhere, while they continue to prove day after day that they have what it takes to change this world like any other colored man. Your own people have deceived you and raised you for what? To carry their own hatred through you because they have no decency or integrity left in them to understand that contrasts truly make this world as beautiful as it is.

Aerogant

No it doesn't. You're lying through your teeth and your hatred. A child can speak like any wise man provided they gain the right information. I've seen a 10 year old non-white kid speak on Plato's level. I've seen and spoken to many non-white intellects who have managed to escape from the gender illusion and the color illusion to pursue the multi-faceted brain. Color is just aesthetics; it's just another personality of the Universe. Every different race of humanity can do something another race cannot do, biologically. There are children smarter than adults in all races - there are midgets smarter than people with regular heights in all races - there are words of wisdom recorded after years upon years that stand today from all races, which is to say that all races; all colors; all ages; all cultures can achieve the highest level of intelligence. Everything you say now will be unfounded hyperbole solely based on your hatred and delusional cries that you refuse to consult, and so you will lose this debate for being the lowest form of humanity. You can paint your heart gold - it doesn't change the fact that it's the blackest heart beneath it all; constricted in its flames built on your fear towards indifference. It must be difficult to accept that you are normal - instead, you play god like a pharisaic tool that spent too much time pointing fingers instead of using those fingers to build a future for everyone. The solar system does not discriminate against its planets. The planet does not discriminate against its creatures. The mind does not discriminates against its people. Man - only Man - has the sole weakness to take it upon themselves to make everything else suffer around us just because we never learned how to let go and accept the world is bigger than ourselves. Every day I look up at the sky, and I see the beauty of black and white - it profoundly disturbs me that after all the wars, the pain and the misery we have caused through intolerance and negligence towards accepting others for who they are no matter what we believe, that the last thing that we consider is that we are the problem - that we were always the problem - that every animal; every insect; our children; our mothers; our fathers just watch us destroy our own world with a brain that has the potential to make this world into something far better than what it is now. That it's really that hard to stop your hatred and your ruthless behavior towards your own men - that's it's really that hard to comprehend that everything you do is a double standard because by threatening your own men, at the same time, you do not want to be threatened - your hatred being the worst type of hypocrisy out of the entire history of mankind. Wake up. There's a reason why the people you hate have achieved more than you ever have. You're going nowhere, while they continue to prove day after day that they have what it takes to change this world like any other colored man. Your own people have deceived you and raised you for what? To carry their own hatred through you because they have no decency or integrity left in them to understand that contrasts truly make this world as beautiful as it is.

Science

whites-are-on-average-smarter-than-blacks/1/

intelligence is proportion to brain size. african americans have smaller brains than whites. they also have lower IQs. IQ tests are debatable, but it's still evidence. to be fair, whites are not as smart as most asians. whites are known to have a wider rage of intelligence, but overall be less intelligent. hence, more genius whites, and more retarded whites. ---- "general consensus among scientists as published in the Wall Street Journal in 1994 titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" shows a consensus among scientists that average IQ are as followed in America. Blacks 85. Whites 100. East Asians 106. Further studies done and published in science journals show IQ to be overwhelmingly genetic. Minnesota Twins Study by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, the most famous twin study done, shows that identical twins separated at birth are significantly more similiar in IQ than fraternal twins raised together with a genetic correlation of .80. Cranial size studies show published in the science journal Intelligence 1997, 25, pg 15 shows the average cranial size as followed. Blacks 1,267 cm3. Whites 1347 cm3. East Asians 1364 cm3. The link between cranial size and intelligence are strongly established in several scientific studies published in journals. "Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. So why are Asians smarter? More specifically Northeast Asians? The scientific theories among scientists today hold the notion that the humans that left Africa 110,000 years ago into colder climates of Europe and Northern Asia required more thought and planning to obtain food than that of Africa. And that Northern Asia had more drastic temperatures than that of Europe. It's evolution at work. The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ African Americans was 85; Latino 89; White 103; Asian 106; and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations that have been systematically..."

linate

intelligence is proportion to brain size. african americans have smaller brains than whites. they also have lower IQs. IQ tests are debatable, but it's still evidence. to be fair, whites are not as smart as most asians. whites are known to have a wider rage of intelligence, but overall be less intelligent. hence, more genius whites, and more retarded whites. ---- "general consensus among scientists as published in the Wall Street Journal in 1994 titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" shows a consensus among scientists that average IQ are as followed in America. Blacks 85. Whites 100. East Asians 106. Further studies done and published in science journals show IQ to be overwhelmingly genetic. Minnesota Twins Study by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, the most famous twin study done, shows that identical twins separated at birth are significantly more similiar in IQ than fraternal twins raised together with a genetic correlation of .80. Cranial size studies show published in the science journal Intelligence 1997, 25, pg 15 shows the average cranial size as followed. Blacks 1,267 cm3. Whites 1347 cm3. East Asians 1364 cm3. The link between cranial size and intelligence are strongly established in several scientific studies published in journals. "Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. So why are Asians smarter? More specifically Northeast Asians? The scientific theories among scientists today hold the notion that the humans that left Africa 110,000 years ago into colder climates of Europe and Northern Asia required more thought and planning to obtain food than that of Africa. And that Northern Asia had more drastic temperatures than that of Europe. It's evolution at work. The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ African Americans was 85; Latino 89; White 103; Asian 106; and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations that have been systematically..."

Science

whites-are-on-average-smarter-than-blacks/1/

"Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44."

linate

"Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44."

Science

whites-are-on-average-smarter-than-blacks/1/

elephants have bigger brains, but they are bigger overall with their bodies too. brain size matters more in relation to how big the body is. in that regard, humans are higher up on the food chain than other animals. i've cited scientific information. con has cited none.

linate

elephants have bigger brains, but they are bigger overall with their bodies too. brain size matters more in relation to how big the body is. in that regard, humans are higher up on the food chain than other animals. i've cited scientific information. con has cited none.

Science

whites-are-on-average-smarter-than-blacks/1/

yea.. the proofs in the pudding and in the title... we shall see >.> we shall see. inB4 icwutudidthar?? <.<

frenchmoosetwo

yea.. the proofs in the pudding and in the title... we shall see >.> we shall see. inB4 icwutudidthar?? <.<

News

who-was-not-on-first-when-what-was-supposed-to-be-pitching-for-todays-big-game-with-tomorrow/1/

-My opponent has negated simple facts well but as the title reads: WHO was NOT on first when WHAT was supposed to be PITCHING for TODAYS's big game with TOMMOROW. Based on this title along side the video we can truely say that what i stated in the title is true. Since i am pro i am for this statement- -The keyword there would be NOT- -Now to make it as clear as possible... Who is supposed to be on first as you stated.. the video also states that tommorow is a pitcher and tommorow is a catcher and that what is on 2nd..: Who = first what = 2nd tommorow = catcher yesterday = pitcher, If these are true and constant then there truely is no way that WHO could be on first while WHAT is pitching because as the video states WHAT is a 2nd baseman and the true pitcher is YESTERDAY who will be throwing to TOMMOROW. Since i am pro i am for the fact that WHO was NOT on first when what was pitching for todays game with tommorow because this is impossible based on what the video was stateing.- -It would be impossile based on the video for WHO to be on first with this set up because this set up for the team does not exist-

frenchmoosetwo

-My opponent has negated simple facts well but as the title reads: WHO was NOT on first when WHAT was supposed to be PITCHING for TODAYS's big game with TOMMOROW. Based on this title along side the video we can truely say that what i stated in the title is true. Since i am pro i am for this statement- -The keyword there would be NOT- -Now to make it as clear as possible... Who is supposed to be on first as you stated.. the video also states that tommorow is a pitcher and tommorow is a catcher and that what is on 2nd..: Who = first what = 2nd tommorow = catcher yesterday = pitcher, If these are true and constant then there truely is no way that WHO could be on first while WHAT is pitching because as the video states WHAT is a 2nd baseman and the true pitcher is YESTERDAY who will be throwing to TOMMOROW. Since i am pro i am for the fact that WHO was NOT on first when what was pitching for todays game with tommorow because this is impossible based on what the video was stateing.- -It would be impossile based on the video for WHO to be on first with this set up because this set up for the team does not exist-

News

who-was-not-on-first-when-what-was-supposed-to-be-pitching-for-todays-big-game-with-tomorrow/1/

I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate. I shall negate the resolution. Since my opponent affirms the resolution, all I must do is negate one part of the resolution to negate my opponent's entire argument. According to the video, who is/was on first base, since he is the first baseman. Negated. According to the video, what is/was on second base, since he is probably the second baseman. Thus, the video gave no proof to support the chance that what can pitch. Essentially, what was not supposed to be pitching. Negated. Since today and tomorrow are catcher and pitcher, respectively, I guess you can say that they have a game with each other whenever they're active during the baseball game itself. However, the video gave no reason to suggest that there was going to be a "big" game. Negated. I have negated the resolution. Thank you.

studentathletechristian8

I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate. I shall negate the resolution. Since my opponent affirms the resolution, all I must do is negate one part of the resolution to negate my opponent's entire argument. According to the video, who is/was on first base, since he is the first baseman. Negated. According to the video, what is/was on second base, since he is probably the second baseman. Thus, the video gave no proof to support the chance that what can pitch. Essentially, what was not supposed to be pitching. Negated. Since today and tomorrow are catcher and pitcher, respectively, I guess you can say that they have a game with each other whenever they're active during the baseball game itself. However, the video gave no reason to suggest that there was going to be a "big" game. Negated. I have negated the resolution. Thank you.

News

who-was-not-on-first-when-what-was-supposed-to-be-pitching-for-todays-big-game-with-tomorrow/1/

I thank my opponent for the response. I will now present sound logic that can bring the affirmative response into doubt and consequently give the debate to the negative side. I shall say that WHO was on first when WHAT was supposed to be pitching for TODAY'S big game with TOMORROW. According to the video, WHO was the first baseman. Thus, it would make sense for him to be on first when WHAT was supposed to be pitching for TODAY's big game with TOMORROW. It is logically possible that WHAT can be a relief pitcher, and not just a second baseman. TODAY cannot necessarily pitch all nine innings, and it is logically plausible that WHAT is the relief pitcher and plays second base while TODAY pitches the first several innings. Thus, it would make sense that WHAT is supposed to be pitching for TODAY'S big game with TOMORROW. Even with the changes, it is logical to claim that TODAY has a big game with TOMORROW, since TODAY is the starting pitcher and TOMORROW is the catcher. I have negated the resolution. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.

studentathletechristian8

I thank my opponent for the response. I will now present sound logic that can bring the affirmative response into doubt and consequently give the debate to the negative side. I shall say that WHO was on first when WHAT was supposed to be pitching for TODAY'S big game with TOMORROW. According to the video, WHO was the first baseman. Thus, it would make sense for him to be on first when WHAT was supposed to be pitching for TODAY's big game with TOMORROW. It is logically possible that WHAT can be a relief pitcher, and not just a second baseman. TODAY cannot necessarily pitch all nine innings, and it is logically plausible that WHAT is the relief pitcher and plays second base while TODAY pitches the first several innings. Thus, it would make sense that WHAT is supposed to be pitching for TODAY'S big game with TOMORROW. Even with the changes, it is logical to claim that TODAY has a big game with TOMORROW, since TODAY is the starting pitcher and TOMORROW is the catcher. I have negated the resolution. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.

News

who-was-not-on-first-when-what-was-supposed-to-be-pitching-for-todays-big-game-with-tomorrow/1/

17 year olds should be able to vote because it helps but notice teens need something to do before becoming an adult nobody wants to vote unlike teens . this is my first debate so have mercy please

prince42

17 year olds should be able to vote because it helps but notice teens need something to do before becoming an adult nobody wants to vote unlike teens . this is my first debate so have mercy please

Politics

why-17-year-olds-should-vote-and-why-not/1/

well hello everyone i believe that abortion is right because what if a women gets raped god for bid or purely gets pregnant and doesnt want the baby? do u even know how many young women die each year by commiting suicide because they cant handle a baby and the parents dont want to keep it. LOTS!!!!! i believe its the womens choice to have a baby and abortion isnt murder good day (:

p1mp1na1n7eazy

well hello everyone i believe that abortion is right because what if a women gets raped god for bid or purely gets pregnant and doesnt want the baby? do u even know how many young women die each year by commiting suicide because they cant handle a baby and the parents dont want to keep it. LOTS!!!!! i believe its the womens choice to have a baby and abortion isnt murder good day (:

Politics

why-abortion-is-right/1/

lol oaky I find your challenging me to this particular type of debate very ironic considering the fact that you call yourself a catholic. Though I am not christian I respect and honor the christian beliefs, and though I may not agree with all the catholic beliefs, i do believe that abortion is wrong, murder, and whatever else you would like th call it, but one thing is for sure, it IS NOT RIGHT! And I do not speak as a muslim, but as a person who values human life. "...what if a women gets raped god for bid" Oaky now I completely agree. What if a woman does get raped, then what? If she has that baby then he/she will be an everlasting reminder of the time she was violated. Its hard to imagine her taking care of the baby, loving it, feeding it, she might even give it up for adoption. And all because some pathetic, sick, pervert, couldn't keep his dick in his pants long enough to buy a hooker. Now this is a pretty f-dup scenario, but that still doesnt make abortion right. Though I can never imagine the feeling that a pregnant woman has I can imagine its not that pleasant, but I'm ,more then sure that there are women who have been raped but still had their child. Abortion is something that only people of the 20th and 21 century have known, but sexual assult has been going on forever. Did the women of the 9th century have abortion as an option? No, but I'm certian that there were many amoung them that still retained their sanity and had their children and still loved them unconditionally. The only reason we can't handle things like this today is because we don't have to. Technology has evolved over the past few centuries. Instead of riding a horse for a month to get from Va to Ma, you can take the train in less then an hour. Rather then boil a culdron full of water once a month, we can just hop in the shower every night, and rather then have our children like REAL men and women; like our ansestors, we can just abort them. Why the hell not!? All the pleasures of sex and none of the parental responsibility? [sarcasm] I'm not just talking about women, I'm talking the human race [and especially the American race] in general. What we don't realize is that its not that we can't handle these things, Its just that we don't have to. "...or [the woman] purely gets pregnant and doesnt want the baby?" Pure and simple, if you don't want a baby DON'T HAVE SEX! Or rather DON'T HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX! I know that one's sexual lust is hard to control. Believe me, I'm in high school and trying to not have sex is a B#TCH, but its worth it in the end. Believe it or not I am [planning on] remaining abstenant untill mairrage, and god willing, whoever I marry would have made the same choice. By doing this you bypass conplications such as, abortion, aids, herpies, and other std's. It aint that hard because, Jesus did it, Mary did it, my gradma did it did it, Mohammed did it, and aint nothing wrong with it. Though many of these people are religious figures, they are proof that it can be done, are they not? "do u even know how many young women die each year by commiting suicide because they cant handle a baby and the parents dont want to keep it. LOTS!!!!!i believe its the womens choice to have a baby and abortion isnt murder " First of all I'd like to state that it is not the right or desicion of the parents to decide wheather or not the the child of another lives or dies, wheather that person is their child or not. When you are bringing life into this world you cannot rightfully decide to rid yourself of it anyway. Thats not fair to the child, THATS NOT FAIR TO GOD! Overall all life is a blessing in disguise. Though we may pass it off as a burden you cannot be fully aware untill to see for yourself, want proof? Exibit A: Joan of Arc Joan's father wanted to rid the family of her before she came of age. Why you might ask, because he thought he couldn't handle it, that the family couldn't handle it, but you know what, they did, and the rest of the world was all the better for it. Imagine what would have happened had Joan's mother allowed her husband to kill the child. Not only would the family have suffered, but the rest of France as well! I mean come on, what the hell would France be without The Maid of Lorane Now don't get me wrong cause I know I'm kinda pushin the envelope a bit, but you can understand my point right? Though this child first appeared to be a burden she was a blessing in disguise, and though she was unwanted, her birth was delt with and everybody was happier for it. "i believe its the womens choice to have a baby and abortion isnt murder good day (:" I'd like to restate the fact that I HATE abortion, but if a woman was contemplating it then she should at least consult her partner first, it would be messdup not to. Thats like you and your girlfriend both bought a kitten together and she one day decides that she doesn't want it and kills it. You come home and ask "wheres my cat" and she replies "its dead. I killed it. Don't worry about it Well be better off without it." Come on what is that!? Two people took part in the cats development so TWO people should decide what to do with it. Oaky I can understand. Women have to go through hell and back to get the baby out of the womb, but weve got pain killers to help dull and or eliminate the pain, but I'm still sure that it still sucks to know that a small human being is coming out of you. That still gives you no right to just decide the fate of another human being, especially without first consulting the father. Overall I'm not trying to judge those who have had or supported abotions, I'm just expressing my opinion. In fact there are people I know who have had abortions and I don't love them any less for it, but when it comes right down to it it's still murder, and weather you accept it or not, it won't change the facts. I look foreward to your reply. :)

sonofzapp

lol oaky I find your challenging me to this particular type of debate very ironic considering the fact that you call yourself a catholic. Though I am not christian I respect and honor the christian beliefs, and though I may not agree with all the catholic beliefs, i do believe that abortion is wrong, murder, and whatever else you would like th call it, but one thing is for sure, it IS NOT RIGHT! And I do not speak as a muslim, but as a person who values human life. "...what if a women gets raped god for bid" Oaky now I completely agree. What if a woman does get raped, then what? If she has that baby then he/she will be an everlasting reminder of the time she was violated. Its hard to imagine her taking care of the baby, loving it, feeding it, she might even give it up for adoption. And all because some pathetic, sick, pervert, couldn't keep his dick in his pants long enough to buy a hooker. Now this is a pretty f-dup scenario, but that still doesnt make abortion right. Though I can never imagine the feeling that a pregnant woman has I can imagine its not that pleasant, but I'm ,more then sure that there are women who have been raped but still had their child. Abortion is something that only people of the 20th and 21 century have known, but sexual assult has been going on forever. Did the women of the 9th century have abortion as an option? No, but I'm certian that there were many amoung them that still retained their sanity and had their children and still loved them unconditionally. The only reason we can't handle things like this today is because we don't have to. Technology has evolved over the past few centuries. Instead of riding a horse for a month to get from Va to Ma, you can take the train in less then an hour. Rather then boil a culdron full of water once a month, we can just hop in the shower every night, and rather then have our children like REAL men and women; like our ansestors, we can just abort them. Why the hell not!? All the pleasures of sex and none of the parental responsibility? [sarcasm] I'm not just talking about women, I'm talking the human race [and especially the American race] in general. What we don't realize is that its not that we can't handle these things, Its just that we don't have to. "...or [the woman] purely gets pregnant and doesnt want the baby?" Pure and simple, if you don't want a baby DON'T HAVE SEX! Or rather DON'T HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX! I know that one's sexual lust is hard to control. Believe me, I'm in high school and trying to not have sex is a B#TCH, but its worth it in the end. Believe it or not I am [planning on] remaining abstenant untill mairrage, and god willing, whoever I marry would have made the same choice. By doing this you bypass conplications such as, abortion, aids, herpies, and other std's. It aint that hard because, Jesus did it, Mary did it, my gradma did it did it, Mohammed did it, and aint nothing wrong with it. Though many of these people are religious figures, they are proof that it can be done, are they not? "do u even know how many young women die each year by commiting suicide because they cant handle a baby and the parents dont want to keep it. LOTS!!!!!i believe its the womens choice to have a baby and abortion isnt murder " First of all I'd like to state that it is not the right or desicion of the parents to decide wheather or not the the child of another lives or dies, wheather that person is their child or not. When you are bringing life into this world you cannot rightfully decide to rid yourself of it anyway. Thats not fair to the child, THATS NOT FAIR TO GOD! Overall all life is a blessing in disguise. Though we may pass it off as a burden you cannot be fully aware untill to see for yourself, want proof? Exibit A: Joan of Arc Joan's father wanted to rid the family of her before she came of age. Why you might ask, because he thought he couldn't handle it, that the family couldn't handle it, but you know what, they did, and the rest of the world was all the better for it. Imagine what would have happened had Joan's mother allowed her husband to kill the child. Not only would the family have suffered, but the rest of France as well! I mean come on, what the hell would France be without The Maid of Lorane Now don't get me wrong cause I know I'm kinda pushin the envelope a bit, but you can understand my point right? Though this child first appeared to be a burden she was a blessing in disguise, and though she was unwanted, her birth was delt with and everybody was happier for it. "i believe its the womens choice to have a baby and abortion isnt murder good day (:" I'd like to restate the fact that I HATE abortion, but if a woman was contemplating it then she should at least consult her partner first, it would be messdup not to. Thats like you and your girlfriend both bought a kitten together and she one day decides that she doesn't want it and kills it. You come home and ask "wheres my cat" and she replies "its dead. I killed it. Don't worry about it Well be better off without it." Come on what is that!? Two people took part in the cats development so TWO people should decide what to do with it. Oaky I can understand. Women have to go through hell and back to get the baby out of the womb, but weve got pain killers to help dull and or eliminate the pain, but I'm still sure that it still sucks to know that a small human being is coming out of you. That still gives you no right to just decide the fate of another human being, especially without first consulting the father. Overall I'm not trying to judge those who have had or supported abotions, I'm just expressing my opinion. In fact there are people I know who have had abortions and I don't love them any less for it, but when it comes right down to it it's still murder, and weather you accept it or not, it won't change the facts. I look foreward to your reply. :)

Politics

why-abortion-is-right/1/

Well I was expacting a reply, but it looks like I got none. Im hoping your argument, If you do happen to take interest in the debate you challenged me to again, is good. PEACE:).

sonofzapp

Well I was expacting a reply, but it looks like I got none. Im hoping your argument, If you do happen to take interest in the debate you challenged me to again, is good. PEACE:).

Politics

why-abortion-is-right/1/

BECAUSE HE SHOULd

Fuzzybuddy2

BECAUSE HE SHOULd

Society

why-colton-should-die/1/

rude Colton is a person a very rude person with no emotion to anyone she rips the head off of little kids doll s and eats moldy cheese and killed millions of people.

Fuzzybuddy2

rude Colton is a person a very rude person with no emotion to anyone she rips the head off of little kids doll s and eats moldy cheese and killed millions of people.

Society

why-colton-should-die/1/

Colton is a teenage boy, he is 14 and inconsiderate to other beings. he is basically another Hitler. He wants to wipe out three countries starting with Australia. I propose we stop him and his madness! He has killed as I said before millions of people and that number increases day after day. Vote for me and I will make sure I will take him down.

Fuzzybuddy2

Colton is a teenage boy, he is 14 and inconsiderate to other beings. he is basically another Hitler. He wants to wipe out three countries starting with Australia. I propose we stop him and his madness! He has killed as I said before millions of people and that number increases day after day. Vote for me and I will make sure I will take him down.

Society

why-colton-should-die/1/

i think its bang out f order for men to want women to look like them skanks off porn having sex just so make money they are sick and the men that want girls to look like that are weird they should love the person they are with no matter what they look like and for who they are its mental.

jay92

i think its bang out f order for men to want women to look like them skanks off porn having sex just so make money they are sick and the men that want girls to look like that are weird they should love the person they are with no matter what they look like and for who they are its mental.

Entertainment

why-do-all-men-want-women-to-look-like-the-girls-off-prono-movies/1/

im not even talking about watching it im talking about selfish men who want to make other people jelouse by using there girlfriends its not right they should just love them for them

jay92

im not even talking about watching it im talking about selfish men who want to make other people jelouse by using there girlfriends its not right they should just love them for them

Entertainment

why-do-all-men-want-women-to-look-like-the-girls-off-prono-movies/1/

yes im sorry for the fact i miss typed it as you can tell im new lol so what i was ment to say is fair enough to the fact that if there girlfriend is good looking then fair enough but its the fact i know a few people that only go out with there girls because they are good looking so i just think its not right. you should love them for them and not look for the girls that look like the girls out of pron because they are the girls that upset you. there not all the same as im saying but its just the fact ive met a few in my life and they are not cut out to be exact what you expect.. and im sorry for the way i talk but i cannot help it because im from london and dnt beleive in talking in full words chavvy yes i know but oh well

jay92

yes im sorry for the fact i miss typed it as you can tell im new lol so what i was ment to say is fair enough to the fact that if there girlfriend is good looking then fair enough but its the fact i know a few people that only go out with there girls because they are good looking so i just think its not right. you should love them for them and not look for the girls that look like the girls out of pron because they are the girls that upset you. there not all the same as im saying but its just the fact ive met a few in my life and they are not cut out to be exact what you expect.. and im sorry for the way i talk but i cannot help it because im from london and dnt beleive in talking in full words chavvy yes i know but oh well

Entertainment

why-do-all-men-want-women-to-look-like-the-girls-off-prono-movies/1/

yes i would like to end it here but i would just like to point out; this is my first arugment i am dyxlexic so i'm not quite sure if i spell things write. i'm opnly on here to learn can people please stop calling me and my girlfriend fake and yes that picture is real

jay92

yes i would like to end it here but i would just like to point out; this is my first arugment i am dyxlexic so i'm not quite sure if i spell things write. i'm opnly on here to learn can people please stop calling me and my girlfriend fake and yes that picture is real

Entertainment

why-do-all-men-want-women-to-look-like-the-girls-off-prono-movies/1/

Violence - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. - Oxford Dictionary of English I'd first like to point out that almost all video games condone some sort of violence. It could be something as small squashing a bad guy in a Mario Brothers game or as large as killing 17 zillion zombies in Dead Rising Three. It makes no difference. It's violence. So when I refer to "video games" in general, violence is inferred. Although, now that I've explicated it, I suppose it's not inferred anymore.... Hmmm. Anyway, I think that there are a couple of different reason why the focus of some people is predominantly on "violent" video games. 1. For some people, video games are a form of release. A great number of individuals sit in a classrooms or offices for most of the day, forced to do things that don't really interest them. For many of these individuals, playing a video game may be the only way to escape the deadly monotony of day to day life. A video game allows you to express yourself in ways that you would never be able to in real life. For example: If your boss at work has gotten on your last nerve and you decide to punch him/her in the nose, you're going to face some serious consequences! The easiest to imagine would be losing your source of income and therefore sustainment. This would obviously have a large affect on you (and probably your boss as well). Now, you could have easily vented the frustration you feel at something other than your boss. You could go workout, punch a punching bag, squeeze a squeezy thing, or you could cause destruction in a video game. Punching a person in a video game doesn't cause a change in the status of your job or your bosses health. You're allowed to do whatever you want to do! You're allowed to be whoever you want to be! If you were one of the monotonous individuals, why wouldn't your primary focus be freedom, a.k.a. video games? I see this as one explanation for why so many people focus so heavily on video games. 2. There are also those who see video games as a negative rather than a positive in people's lives. They're the ones who are concerned that the violence found in video games is seeping out into the lives of the masses who play them. These people see a connection between how their children are allowed to behave in video games and how their children decide to behave in real life. If you though that keeping such violence out of your child's imagination could be achieved through keeping violence out of video games, why wouldn't you be focused on doing just that? Wouldn't you feel the need to make the world aware of the problem you see with video games? Perhaps you wouldn't (I don't know you personally so I don't know your convictions), but hundreds of others would, and they do every day. I believe that this is another reason why people spend their time engrossed in video games. Not necessarily playing them, but understanding and protesting them.

Matt_L

Violence - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. - Oxford Dictionary of English I'd first like to point out that almost all video games condone some sort of violence. It could be something as small squashing a bad guy in a Mario Brothers game or as large as killing 17 zillion zombies in Dead Rising Three. It makes no difference. It's violence. So when I refer to "video games" in general, violence is inferred. Although, now that I've explicated it, I suppose it's not inferred anymore.... Hmmm. Anyway, I think that there are a couple of different reason why the focus of some people is predominantly on "violent" video games. 1. For some people, video games are a form of release. A great number of individuals sit in a classrooms or offices for most of the day, forced to do things that don't really interest them. For many of these individuals, playing a video game may be the only way to escape the deadly monotony of day to day life. A video game allows you to express yourself in ways that you would never be able to in real life. For example: If your boss at work has gotten on your last nerve and you decide to punch him/her in the nose, you're going to face some serious consequences! The easiest to imagine would be losing your source of income and therefore sustainment. This would obviously have a large affect on you (and probably your boss as well). Now, you could have easily vented the frustration you feel at something other than your boss. You could go workout, punch a punching bag, squeeze a squeezy thing, or you could cause destruction in a video game. Punching a person in a video game doesn't cause a change in the status of your job or your bosses health. You're allowed to do whatever you want to do! You're allowed to be whoever you want to be! If you were one of the monotonous individuals, why wouldn't your primary focus be freedom, a.k.a. video games? I see this as one explanation for why so many people focus so heavily on video games. 2. There are also those who see video games as a negative rather than a positive in people's lives. They're the ones who are concerned that the violence found in video games is seeping out into the lives of the masses who play them. These people see a connection between how their children are allowed to behave in video games and how their children decide to behave in real life. If you though that keeping such violence out of your child's imagination could be achieved through keeping violence out of video games, why wouldn't you be focused on doing just that? Wouldn't you feel the need to make the world aware of the problem you see with video games? Perhaps you wouldn't (I don't know you personally so I don't know your convictions), but hundreds of others would, and they do every day. I believe that this is another reason why people spend their time engrossed in video games. Not necessarily playing them, but understanding and protesting them.

Games

why-do-people-think-violent-video-games-is-the-most-inportant-thing/1/

As my opponent has not given any counter argument, I extend my original points from round one over to round two.

Matt_L

As my opponent has not given any counter argument, I extend my original points from round one over to round two.

Games

why-do-people-think-violent-video-games-is-the-most-inportant-thing/1/

I, once again, extend my round one arguments to this round.

Matt_L

I, once again, extend my round one arguments to this round.

Games

why-do-people-think-violent-video-games-is-the-most-inportant-thing/1/

Well, I suppose my opponent isn't coming back...

Matt_L

Well, I suppose my opponent isn't coming back...

Games

why-do-people-think-violent-video-games-is-the-most-inportant-thing/1/

I humbly ask you to vote Pro.

Matt_L

I humbly ask you to vote Pro.

Games

why-do-people-think-violent-video-games-is-the-most-inportant-thing/1/

i think it is stupid to evan think that

jasmine1999

i think it is stupid to evan think that

Games

why-do-people-think-violent-video-games-is-the-most-inportant-thing/1/

Really this is a sorry view to have. "Emos" do not deserve to get kicked in the "nuts" just because they are unhappy with their lives and project it in a less than normal way. Just because they are different does not give anyone the right to "kick" them or hurt them in anyway. "because they whine all the time and it pisses me off."- GAO Well honestly if it upsets you that much, move away from your local "emos". They have a right to whine but you dont have the right to assualt them physically or emotionally. I must admit i dont find the whole "emo" fad great but people will do what they want and i cant stop them and i certainly try by kicking someone in the scrotum.

Black.Nite17

Really this is a sorry view to have. "Emos" do not deserve to get kicked in the "nuts" just because they are unhappy with their lives and project it in a less than normal way. Just because they are different does not give anyone the right to "kick" them or hurt them in anyway. "because they whine all the time and it pisses me off."- GAO Well honestly if it upsets you that much, move away from your local "emos". They have a right to whine but you dont have the right to assualt them physically or emotionally. I must admit i dont find the whole "emo" fad great but people will do what they want and i cant stop them and i certainly try by kicking someone in the scrotum.

Society

why-emos-should-be-kicked-in-the-nuts/1/

Really what you believe doesnt make it right. It doesnt matter whether whining solves anything because that doesnt mean you can kick them in the nuts. "at times in my life ive had my as* kicked and every single time i learned from it."- GAO You know what its cool if thats the way you learn but people that are deeply depressed need attetion and care, they dont deserve to be physicaly harrassed! " its not my fault you dont get it cuz your a pansy humanist weenie"- GAO Thats really immature and an ignorrant thing to say. Poor debating on your part my friend. I conclude that this debate is pointless as my debatee is."Emos" do not deserve to get kicked in the nuts.

Black.Nite17

Really what you believe doesnt make it right. It doesnt matter whether whining solves anything because that doesnt mean you can kick them in the nuts. "at times in my life ive had my as* kicked and every single time i learned from it."- GAO You know what its cool if thats the way you learn but people that are deeply depressed need attetion and care, they dont deserve to be physicaly harrassed! " its not my fault you dont get it cuz your a pansy humanist weenie"- GAO Thats really immature and an ignorrant thing to say. Poor debating on your part my friend. I conclude that this debate is pointless as my debatee is."Emos" do not deserve to get kicked in the nuts.

Society

why-emos-should-be-kicked-in-the-nuts/1/

Wow your arguments and grammar our atrocious! You made no points in helping what you believe. I end with the conclusion that you need some help in compassion.

Black.Nite17

Wow your arguments and grammar our atrocious! You made no points in helping what you believe. I end with the conclusion that you need some help in compassion.

Society

why-emos-should-be-kicked-in-the-nuts/1/

i believe all emos should be repeatedly kicked in the balls because they whine all the time and it pisses me off. therefore by order of the voices in my head they must pay with the sacrifice of their scrotum.

Gao

i believe all emos should be repeatedly kicked in the balls because they whine all the time and it pisses me off. therefore by order of the voices in my head they must pay with the sacrifice of their scrotum.

Society

why-emos-should-be-kicked-in-the-nuts/1/

i am a firm beleiver that people should do what makes them happy dont get me wrong but whining solves nothing. at times in my life ive had my as* kicked and every single time i learned from it. thats what im proposing for theses people. its not my fault you dont get it cuz your a pansy humanist weenie

Gao

i am a firm beleiver that people should do what makes them happy dont get me wrong but whining solves nothing. at times in my life ive had my as* kicked and every single time i learned from it. thats what im proposing for theses people. its not my fault you dont get it cuz your a pansy humanist weenie

Society

why-emos-should-be-kicked-in-the-nuts/1/

to change a point care and love can only be givin to those who want it. an emo does not want it he wants every useless, lame-ducked, human being who like you seem to see through rose colored glasses at an issue like this. emos desurve punishment for leading us into a world where Goths and morbid people are seen as emos! who can sand for this but an emo, who cares not for others? I say down with emos and if they want to wine about their pointless lives they can kill themselves!

Gao

to change a point care and love can only be givin to those who want it. an emo does not want it he wants every useless, lame-ducked, human being who like you seem to see through rose colored glasses at an issue like this. emos desurve punishment for leading us into a world where Goths and morbid people are seen as emos! who can sand for this but an emo, who cares not for others? I say down with emos and if they want to wine about their pointless lives they can kill themselves!

Society

why-emos-should-be-kicked-in-the-nuts/1/

Recently, the controversy around human cloning has received a lot of news coverage; yet unsurprisingly, a clear and thorough examination of both sides has been lacking from the news media. Basically, human cloning is the artificial process of making a genetic twin of a person. This means a person could literally become the parent of their own twin sibling or the parent of anyone's twin. Scientists are either very close at being able to clone human beings, or scientists have already done so. Human cloning has already become illegal or restricted in a variety of degrees in several countries, thus scientific research has been greatly reduced throughout the world. do you support the ban or oppose it? we will be debate the reasons for and against human cloning I will be debating for human cloning rules: 1) God can not be used to defend case 2) use minimal amount of sentences to defend case, basically summarize your points in limited number of words...

oreostar

Recently, the controversy around human cloning has received a lot of news coverage; yet unsurprisingly, a clear and thorough examination of both sides has been lacking from the news media. Basically, human cloning is the artificial process of making a genetic twin of a person. This means a person could literally become the parent of their own twin sibling or the parent of anyone's twin. Scientists are either very close at being able to clone human beings, or scientists have already done so. Human cloning has already become illegal or restricted in a variety of degrees in several countries, thus scientific research has been greatly reduced throughout the world. do you support the ban or oppose it? we will be debate the reasons for and against human cloning I will be debating for human cloning rules: 1) God can not be used to defend case 2) use minimal amount of sentences to defend case, basically summarize your points in limited number of words...

Politics

why-human-cloning-should-be-allowed-or-banned/1/

In order to debate the potential of human cloning, we must first consider how it ties in to certain aspects of human society. One of these aspects is determining how human cloning will affect scientific research. The continuation of human cloning and its related actions could drastically increase our scientific knowledge of genetics and lead us to new discoveries concerning the human body and related issues. human cloning= technological advances, the study of health would also drastically improve. Cloning would provide better research capabilities for finding cures to many present-day diseases. ublic opinion on cloning is still vastly divided. Many religious groups are against cloning because they feel that it is wrong to mimic natural creation. They believe we should not take the work of god into our own hands. Others feel very strongly that human cloning is immoral and unethical because human cloning could destroy our age-old concept of "father"and "mother". If an offspring is cloned from a parent, the offspring would no longer actually share genetic traits, or alleles from both parents. Rather the offspring would be identical to that one parent from which it was cloned. I, on the other hand, believe that cloning should proceed into the future. I simply think that the advantages of human cloning far outweigh the disadvantages. Some advantages to human cloning include : - Infertility: In my opinion, if a couple is unable to conceive a child, then there are plenty of children in orphanages and foster care that could use a home and family. Adopting an orphan is much easier, cheaper, virtuous, and safer solution than trying to clone a human being, not including helping a child in need. Genetic Illness: If a person chooses not to have a child that is genetically their own because of a risk with passing on a genetic illness, then again adoption is a better solution for the reasons mentioned previously. -Vanity: Bringing a child into the world should not about our narcissism, vanity, or an attempt at indirect immortality, because we are all unfairly biased for ourselves and our genes. -Super Humans: Selecting the most perfect genetic donor in someone's opinion, whether it is Albert Einstein, Michael Jordan, or some other above average person, changes the norms of society. Imagine a world with fewer variations of people who are either super-geniuses or super-athletes. On the other hand, advances in science and technology would grow at an even faster rate and more people would be healthier. I judge this purpose as a sufficiently good enough reason for allowing human cloning; however, I am very suspicious of intentionally making a better race of people. Maybe I've seen too many science fiction movies. -Curing Diseases: The growing scientific field known as regenerative medicine, also known as therapeutic cloning, is allowing thousands of lives to be saved from cloning human cells, tissues, and even organs. Cloning human body parts guarantees a genetic match to prevent organ rejections and also does not require immunosuppressive drugs. However, this research is still in its infancy and requires a lot more time, effort, and money before it matures into saving a lot more people. If human cloning is completely banned, then this type of research would be stopped and a lot of lives would be lost. Therefore, this type of human cloning should also be allowed. _Body Replacements: One of the stranger reasons for cloning humans is for a complete body replacement. This is only science fiction now, yet it may some day be a possibility in the distant future. While it will always unethical to kill another human being to save another person, what if the cloned human body replacement did not have a brain and was intentionally designed that way from the beginning? What about replacing an aged body with a new body by transplanting the human brain? I'll leave these ethical and fuzzy questions to be answered by the reader.

oreostar

In order to debate the potential of human cloning, we must first consider how it ties in to certain aspects of human society. One of these aspects is determining how human cloning will affect scientific research. The continuation of human cloning and its related actions could drastically increase our scientific knowledge of genetics and lead us to new discoveries concerning the human body and related issues. human cloning= technological advances, the study of health would also drastically improve. Cloning would provide better research capabilities for finding cures to many present-day diseases. ublic opinion on cloning is still vastly divided. Many religious groups are against cloning because they feel that it is wrong to mimic natural creation. They believe we should not take the work of god into our own hands. Others feel very strongly that human cloning is immoral and unethical because human cloning could destroy our age-old concept of "father"and "mother". If an offspring is cloned from a parent, the offspring would no longer actually share genetic traits, or alleles from both parents. Rather the offspring would be identical to that one parent from which it was cloned. I, on the other hand, believe that cloning should proceed into the future. I simply think that the advantages of human cloning far outweigh the disadvantages. Some advantages to human cloning include : - Infertility: In my opinion, if a couple is unable to conceive a child, then there are plenty of children in orphanages and foster care that could use a home and family. Adopting an orphan is much easier, cheaper, virtuous, and safer solution than trying to clone a human being, not including helping a child in need. Genetic Illness: If a person chooses not to have a child that is genetically their own because of a risk with passing on a genetic illness, then again adoption is a better solution for the reasons mentioned previously. -Vanity: Bringing a child into the world should not about our narcissism, vanity, or an attempt at indirect immortality, because we are all unfairly biased for ourselves and our genes. -Super Humans: Selecting the most perfect genetic donor in someone’s opinion, whether it is Albert Einstein, Michael Jordan, or some other above average person, changes the norms of society. Imagine a world with fewer variations of people who are either super-geniuses or super-athletes. On the other hand, advances in science and technology would grow at an even faster rate and more people would be healthier. I judge this purpose as a sufficiently good enough reason for allowing human cloning; however, I am very suspicious of intentionally making a better race of people. Maybe I’ve seen too many science fiction movies. -Curing Diseases: The growing scientific field known as regenerative medicine, also known as therapeutic cloning, is allowing thousands of lives to be saved from cloning human cells, tissues, and even organs. Cloning human body parts guarantees a genetic match to prevent organ rejections and also does not require immunosuppressive drugs. However, this research is still in its infancy and requires a lot more time, effort, and money before it matures into saving a lot more people. If human cloning is completely banned, then this type of research would be stopped and a lot of lives would be lost. Therefore, this type of human cloning should also be allowed. _Body Replacements: One of the stranger reasons for cloning humans is for a complete body replacement. This is only science fiction now, yet it may some day be a possibility in the distant future. While it will always unethical to kill another human being to save another person, what if the cloned human body replacement did not have a brain and was intentionally designed that way from the beginning? What about replacing an aged body with a new body by transplanting the human brain? I'll leave these ethical and fuzzy questions to be answered by the reader.

Politics

why-human-cloning-should-be-allowed-or-banned/1/

I accept My school has recently given everyone in my year level and the year below iPads to use on class and overall I think it was a bad move. I would like to ask my opponent to please outline what sort of device/paperless system he this schools should adopt so as to know what more clearly what I will be arguing against. I look forward to my opponents opening arguments.

ObiWan

I accept My school has recently given everyone in my year level and the year below iPads to use on class and overall I think it was a bad move. I would like to ask my opponent to please outline what sort of device/paperless system he this schools should adopt so as to know what more clearly what I will be arguing against. I look forward to my opponents opening arguments.

Education

why-schools-should-or-shouldnt-go-paperless-and-let-their-students-use-their-devices-for-school/1/

The use of devices such as Ipads are Laptops in schools is counterproductive. It gives an easily accessible way of slacking off in class without it being noticed, therefore decreasing the amaount of learning that is don in the classroom. It's a lot harder to start playing Jetpack Joyride on a piece of paper. Also the use of devices promotes an anti-social environment. Students are more likely to be engrosed in whatever is on their screen and less likely to participate in healthy discussions in the classroom.

ObiWan

The use of devices such as Ipads are Laptops in schools is counterproductive. It gives an easily accessible way of slacking off in class without it being noticed, therefore decreasing the amaount of learning that is don in the classroom. It's a lot harder to start playing Jetpack Joyride on a piece of paper. Also the use of devices promotes an anti-social environment. Students are more likely to be engrosed in whatever is on their screen and less likely to participate in healthy discussions in the classroom.

Education

why-schools-should-or-shouldnt-go-paperless-and-let-their-students-use-their-devices-for-school/1/

i believe schools should be able to go paperless and let their students use their device for homework notes etc. through an app or something to avoid using it in a distracting way.

neiljj

i believe schools should be able to go paperless and let their students use their device for homework notes etc. through an app or something to avoid using it in a distracting way.

Education

why-schools-should-or-shouldnt-go-paperless-and-let-their-students-use-their-devices-for-school/1/

Why do you say women shoulnt preach?

aguilarjohn7

Why do you say women shoulnt preach?

Religion

women-should-preach/1/

Wow, will ill like to start off by saying thank you to accept this debate. As i see your a mature christian, and im very glad.On the way you put down your point of view. i am a Apostolic Christian Pentecostal, 3months ago i changed my point of view and said "women should preach". Now ill set my reason why i say Yes. first of all, Paul was talking in his 5 sences, he wasn't in the spirit, as we could see in this verse: 1Cor 7:10 But to the married I give orders, though not I but the Lord, that the wife may not go away from her husband. in this verse we could Clearly see that Paul specificly said "Not I but the Lord", now in this next verse he says: 1Cor 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.. He specifically said "I, not the Lord". What I'm trying to show you is he was sitting his point of view, his personal point of view, Not Gods point of view but Paul, he also says it version Basic Bible English 1Tim 2:12 In my opinion it is right for a woman not to be a teacher, or to have rule over a man, but to be quiet. He Said "In my opinion"... well that's he's opinion, I didn't get Baptist in the name of Paul, i Got Baptist in the name of Jesus Christ, So why should i do what Paul said to the church in Corinthians? Now, he also said: 1Cor 14:34 Let women keep quiet in the churches: for it is not right for them to be talking; but let them be under control, as it says in the law. He said "as it says in the law", What does the law say? Lets start off like this, first of all your a gentile not a Jew, so the law says that us gentiles weren't aloud not even to enter into the holy place lets see: Eze 44:9 For this cause the Lord has said, No man from a strange land, without circumcision of heart and flesh, of all those who are living among the children of Israel, is to come into my holy place. Ex 29:33 And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate [and] to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat [thereof], because they [are] holy. So if we go by the law Neither would you be able to participate, because we were unwanted because were gentiles, which. Paul him self says it: Eph 2:11 For this reason keep it in mind that in the past you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are looked on as being outside the circumcision by those who have circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; Eph 2:12 That you were at that time without Christ, being cut off from any part in Israel's rights as a nation, having no part in God's agreement, having no hope, and without God in the world. Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who at one time were far off are made near in the blood of Christ. Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who has made the two into one, and by whom the middle wall of division has been broken down, Eph 2:15 Having in his flesh put an end to that which made the division between us, even the law with its rules and orders, so that he might make in himself, of the two, one new man, so making peace; Eph 2:16 And that the two might come into agreement with God in one body through the cross, so putting an end to that division. Eph 2:17 And he came preaching peace to you who were far off, and to those who were near; Eph 2:18 Because through him the two of us are able to come near in one Spirit to the Father. Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer as those who have no part or place in the kingdom of God, but you are numbered among the saints, and of the family of God, Eph 2:20 Resting on the base of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief keystone, Eph 2:21 In whom all the building, rightly joined together, comes to be a holy house of God in the Lord; Eph 2:22 In whom you, with the rest, are united together as a living-place of God in the Spirit. So when Paul understood that he said: Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Now, where does the bible say, that preaching is about to sit authority? Isn't preaching, is speaking the word of God? Now the word is already written, what difference is there if a women preaches the word, isn't it the same word spoken the same, i meen is not the person who speaks it that has the power, it is what it says that has the power, even if a kid speaks the word, there is power because its the word of God. Now yes the bible says The man is the head of the women, but were all 1in Christ, and church ain't to seperate women from men, church is ro worship God, The bible says be in the Spirit, do men that think wen can't preach, is because there ain't in the spirit and to be the spirit is following the fruit of the spirit, 1Cor 11:11 But the woman is not separate from the man, and the man is not separate from the woman in the Lord. 1Cor 11:12 For as the woman is from the man, so the man is through the woman; but all things are from God. Now what happends in the beggining Gen 2:24 For this cause will a man go away from his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they will be one flesh. One flesh literally in the spiritually life, why do you seperate it in church? Now doesn't the bible say: Acts 17:24 The God who made the earth and everything in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, is not housed in buildings made with hands; Acts 17:25 And he is not dependent on the work of men's hands, as if he had need of anything, for he himself gives to all life and breath and all things; Acts 17:26 And he has made of one blood all the nations of men living on all the face of the earth, ordering their times and the limits of their lands. Were the temple now how can you avoid women speak in her temple? were all in one same blood, were all supposed to be in 1 same spirit, and i know while Women Preach Word of God, God well back them up because Its word of God not of men.

aguilarjohn7

Wow, will ill like to start off by saying thank you to accept this debate. As i see your a mature christian, and im very glad.On the way you put down your point of view. i am a Apostolic Christian Pentecostal, 3months ago i changed my point of view and said "women should preach". Now ill set my reason why i say Yes. first of all, Paul was talking in his 5 sences, he wasn't in the spirit, as we could see in this verse: 1Cor 7:10 But to the married I give orders, though not I but the Lord, that the wife may not go away from her husband. in this verse we could Clearly see that Paul specificly said "Not I but the Lord", now in this next verse he says: 1Cor 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.. He specifically said "I, not the Lord". What I'm trying to show you is he was sitting his point of view, his personal point of view, Not Gods point of view but Paul, he also says it version Basic Bible English 1Tim 2:12 In my opinion it is right for a woman not to be a teacher, or to have rule over a man, but to be quiet. He Said "In my opinion"... well that's he's opinion, I didn't get Baptist in the name of Paul, i Got Baptist in the name of Jesus Christ, So why should i do what Paul said to the church in Corinthians? Now, he also said: 1Cor 14:34 Let women keep quiet in the churches: for it is not right for them to be talking; but let them be under control, as it says in the law. He said "as it says in the law", What does the law say? Lets start off like this, first of all your a gentile not a Jew, so the law says that us gentiles weren't aloud not even to enter into the holy place lets see: Eze 44:9 For this cause the Lord has said, No man from a strange land, without circumcision of heart and flesh, of all those who are living among the children of Israel, is to come into my holy place. Ex 29:33 And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate [and] to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat [thereof], because they [are] holy. So if we go by the law Neither would you be able to participate, because we were unwanted because were gentiles, which. Paul him self says it: Eph 2:11 For this reason keep it in mind that in the past you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are looked on as being outside the circumcision by those who have circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; Eph 2:12 That you were at that time without Christ, being cut off from any part in Israel's rights as a nation, having no part in God's agreement, having no hope, and without God in the world. Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who at one time were far off are made near in the blood of Christ. Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who has made the two into one, and by whom the middle wall of division has been broken down, Eph 2:15 Having in his flesh put an end to that which made the division between us, even the law with its rules and orders, so that he might make in himself, of the two, one new man, so making peace; Eph 2:16 And that the two might come into agreement with God in one body through the cross, so putting an end to that division. Eph 2:17 And he came preaching peace to you who were far off, and to those who were near; Eph 2:18 Because through him the two of us are able to come near in one Spirit to the Father. Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer as those who have no part or place in the kingdom of God, but you are numbered among the saints, and of the family of God, Eph 2:20 Resting on the base of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief keystone, Eph 2:21 In whom all the building, rightly joined together, comes to be a holy house of God in the Lord; Eph 2:22 In whom you, with the rest, are united together as a living-place of God in the Spirit. So when Paul understood that he said: Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Now, where does the bible say, that preaching is about to sit authority? Isn't preaching, is speaking the word of God? Now the word is already written, what difference is there if a women preaches the word, isn't it the same word spoken the same, i meen is not the person who speaks it that has the power, it is what it says that has the power, even if a kid speaks the word, there is power because its the word of God. Now yes the bible says The man is the head of the women, but were all 1in Christ, and church ain't to seperate women from men, church is ro worship God, The bible says be in the Spirit, do men that think wen can't preach, is because there ain't in the spirit and to be the spirit is following the fruit of the spirit, 1Cor 11:11 But the woman is not separate from the man, and the man is not separate from the woman in the Lord. 1Cor 11:12 For as the woman is from the man, so the man is through the woman; but all things are from God. Now what happends in the beggining Gen 2:24 For this cause will a man go away from his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they will be one flesh. One flesh literally in the spiritually life, why do you seperate it in church? Now doesn't the bible say: Acts 17:24 The God who made the earth and everything in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, is not housed in buildings made with hands; Acts 17:25 And he is not dependent on the work of men's hands, as if he had need of anything, for he himself gives to all life and breath and all things; Acts 17:26 And he has made of one blood all the nations of men living on all the face of the earth, ordering their times and the limits of their lands. Were the temple now how can you avoid women speak in her temple? were all in one same blood, were all supposed to be in 1 same spirit, and i know while Women Preach Word of God, God well back them up because Its word of God not of men.

Religion

women-should-preach/1/

Cars are neat, I like them a lot and I've been fortunate to have had a few nice ones, but motorcycles have a long list of advantages over their 4 wheel cousins. In my experience, if you like bikes, there's a good chance you appreciate cars, trucks, boats and airplanes, too, not all to the same degree but a particularly nice example of any motor driven vehicle can bring on a smile. Eventually, though, most of us have to choose among the categories if we're going to invest our resources on one or two vehicles (or more) and when the choice has to be made, motorcycles have a lot to offer. Here's my personal list. It might vary from one person to another, your list might have items I haven't thought of, but I think these give you some food for thought. 1. You can fit 3 or 4 bikes into the space occupied by one car. Make maximum use of a small garage, buy motorcycles. 2. Motorcycles use less gas. 30 miles per gallon is on the low end and smaller engines can get triple digit mileage. 3. Motorcycles outperform cars. Sure, some exotic cars can keep up with a Hayabusa, but not many and the cost is usually 10 or 20 times the cost of the bike, or more. 4. You can rebuild a motorcycle if you're mechanically inclined, you don't have to do very much body work. Not being particularly skilled in body and paint, I appreciate this one. 5. Motorcycles cost less. Even classics and collector bikes can often be purchased for the price of a very plain used car. 6. Motorcycle riders are safer, they don't text on their phones while riding. 7. Motorcycle riding can be really cozy. If you want to be a little closer to your passenger, brake a little quicker for the next stop. ;-) 8. Motorcycle riding gets you out in the fresh air. Smell real pine trees, not the scent of a pine shaped deodorizer hanging from the mirror. 9. Motorcycle riding develops your coordination and balance. Brake and clutch levers for your hands, brake and shift gears with your feet, learn to balance at slow speeds, many drivers could never do it. 10. Best of all, there has never been a recall for unintended motorcycle acceleration. That's a start, how many more reasons can you add

coolkid1231

Cars are neat, I like them a lot and I've been fortunate to have had a few nice ones, but motorcycles have a long list of advantages over their 4 wheel cousins. In my experience, if you like bikes, there's a good chance you appreciate cars, trucks, boats and airplanes, too, not all to the same degree but a particularly nice example of any motor driven vehicle can bring on a smile. Eventually, though, most of us have to choose among the categories if we're going to invest our resources on one or two vehicles (or more) and when the choice has to be made, motorcycles have a lot to offer. Here's my personal list. It might vary from one person to another, your list might have items I haven't thought of, but I think these give you some food for thought. 1. You can fit 3 or 4 bikes into the space occupied by one car. Make maximum use of a small garage, buy motorcycles. 2. Motorcycles use less gas. 30 miles per gallon is on the low end and smaller engines can get triple digit mileage. 3. Motorcycles outperform cars. Sure, some exotic cars can keep up with a Hayabusa, but not many and the cost is usually 10 or 20 times the cost of the bike, or more. 4. You can rebuild a motorcycle if you're mechanically inclined, you don't have to do very much body work. Not being particularly skilled in body and paint, I appreciate this one. 5. Motorcycles cost less. Even classics and collector bikes can often be purchased for the price of a very plain used car. 6. Motorcycle riders are safer, they don't text on their phones while riding. 7. Motorcycle riding can be really cozy. If you want to be a little closer to your passenger, brake a little quicker for the next stop. ;-) 8. Motorcycle riding gets you out in the fresh air. Smell real pine trees, not the scent of a pine shaped deodorizer hanging from the mirror. 9. Motorcycle riding develops your coordination and balance. Brake and clutch levers for your hands, brake and shift gears with your feet, learn to balance at slow speeds, many drivers could never do it. 10. Best of all, there has never been a recall for unintended motorcycle acceleration. That's a start, how many more reasons can you add

Cars

would-you-rather-have-a-pro-for-car-or-a-con-for-motorcycle/1/

Everyone knows that in a crash motorcycle riders usually come off worse than car drivers. Riders avoid some problems, like being trapped in a burning or sinking car, but in general an accident that dents a car can put a motorcyclist in hospital. However motorcycle fear is often based on rumor or reports, not actual experience. It is guilt by association. Guilt by Association A friend once told me she didn"t like motorcycles as her brother was killed on one. When I asked how, she said he stopped at an accident, got off his bike, and was struck by a car as he walked over to help! I wondered, "Well, couldn"t the same have happened if he had been in a car?" This guilt by association ignores the fact that lots of people who drive cars also die. It is a "fixed attitude", that just associates motorcycles with danger. Like many other fixed attitudes, it is often reinforced by the media. It is hard to see the reality amidst the smoke of false fears, worries and imaginations. A motorcycle is safer than a car if it is less likely to have an accident in the first place But safety also depends on how likely you are to have an accident in the first place. I find motorcycles safer because one can better avoid accidents on them. In a car, I feel safe because I have protection, but on a motorcycle I feel safer because I have more options. A motorcycle is safer than a car if it is less likely to have an accident in the first place. That the careless can kill themselves more easily on a motorcycle is not denied. However what about competent riders? Competent riders are less likely to have accidents because they: See more Evade better Attend more Assume less Do motorcycles cause deaths? The death rate for riders is higher than for drivers, but perhaps that is because so many motorcycle riders are young men, who are still developing risk awareness. It seems a hard thing to say, but were they not on motor-cycles, perhaps they just would kill themselves in some other activity, as young men and risk go together. But here is a puzzle. If the risk of riding is so high, how can some people ride motorcycles every day for decades? Even with a tiny risk, sooner or later, their number should come up. Yet such people exist, and I know, because I am one. If the risk of riding is so high, how can some people ride for thirty years and live? Safe riders prove that safety is no accident, and that motorcycle riding is not inevitably dangerous. See more A rider"s field of vision is further and wider than a car"s A rider is usually higher than a car driver, and so has a better view. A better view means you see danger earlier, and can avoid it better. Riders have no car body around them to create vision blind sports. Just turning their head gives a clear all round view. A bike can also move left or right in the lane for a better view, if a truck blocks your vision. A car driver in contrast must remain on the steering wheel side. A motorcycle rider"s field of vision is further and wider than that of a car. When I drive a car, I feel I have a much more constricted field of view. The ability to see more lets you avoid more. If a person in a car three cars ahead stops suddenly, as a rider, I see it earlier, and have more time to make adjustments, to avoid a crash. If seeing danger first means avoiding it better, a motorcycle is safer. Evade better A motor-cycle has evasion options not available to a car A motorcycle is smaller than a car, and so less of a target to be hit. Being smaller, it also has more places to go safely. If the car ahead stops suddenly, the car behind must hit it. Highway pile-ups occur because cars in a lane have nowhere to go in sudden stop. However a bike can swerve to the side, or fit between two cars on a many lane highway. It can pull onto the safety shoulder if necessary. A motor-cycle has evasion options not available to a car. It can accelerate better out of a trouble situation. In nearly every situation, a motorcycle has more evasive choices, because it is smaller and more mobile. In terms of accident evasion, bikes are safer. Attend more When the body is right there, the brain tends to be right there with it There is something about traveling at high speed a few feet above hard ground that gets your attention. When the body is right there, the brain tends to be right there with it. By comparison, a driver is separated from the world by the car body, air-conditioning and comfort. Drivers are distracted from the road by: Coffee and food Talking on cell-phones Listening to the radio Talking to passengers Adjusting seats or windows Disciplining children Adjusting make-up Shaving Inattention is the main cause of road accidents Perhaps shaving is uncommon, but the others happen all the time. Studies show that inattention is the main cause of road accidents. You only have so much attention. Attending to one thing degrades your attention to another. Distractions reduce your attention to the road, which leads to accidents. Cars have many distractions, but on a motorcycle, it is just you and the road. Motorcycles are safer because they increase attention and reduce distractions. Driven to distraction One has visions of some driver talking on a cell-phone, while listening to and adjusting the radio, turning to look back at a child, with a cup of coffee in the other hand. My personal dislike is soccer Mums in big SUVs trying ineffectively to discipline rowdy children in the back seat while driving. Kids are the most effective distraction machines every invented. Its much better to stop the car and deal with them. Assume less Life insurance should be called what it really is - death insurance People driving large vehicles with life insurance think they are "safe". Life insurance should be called what it really is - death insurance. Then people would understand it better. Money cant replace life. You don't really have insurance (in the sense of replacing what you had). Car safety features cannot avoid the "nut behind the wheel" problem. Safer cars are no use if people are more careless. If drivers with anti-skid brakes just drive faster in the rain, what is the safety benefit? The accident rate depends as much on attitude as on mechanical safety features. Motorcycles create a better attitude, because on a motorcycle, you know you are vulnerable. No matter how big the motorcycle, what happens is likely to happen to you, personally. Motorcycle riders assume less, which makes a motorcycle safer than a car. The Anti-SUV mentality There are two approaches to avoiding accidents: The SUV mentality: Have accidents, but avoid the results. The Anti-SUV mentality: Avoid accidents entirely For every big vehicle, there is a bigger one America"s current approach is the first - buy cars so big you are unhurt in a crash. But for every big vehicle, there is a bigger one. If your Mercedes meets a truck/trailer combine, you will be crushed whatever your safety rating. Metal is not a cure for carelessness. While SUVs seem safe, studies show they tip easily, maneuver poorly, waste petrol, hog the road, make bigger targets, and overfill parking spaces. If we all drove in tanks, would the roads be safer? Whatever the metal around you, a bigger vehicle can always penetrate it. The SUV mentality tries to put a metal barrier between you and the world, so others (not you) pay the price of accidents. The result is a vehicle arms race, where everyone drives bigger cars. That big vehicles also cause more damage is ignored. If we all drove around in main battle tanks, would the roads be safer? SUV drivers would insulate themselves from the world, but that is not a good way to go. The goal is to avoid accidents, not to "safely" have them Motorcycle riders follow the Anti-SUV mentality, which is to avoid accidents entirely. The "strength" of a motorcycle is its flexibility, not its invulnerability. The goal is to avoid accidents, not to "safely" have them. I prefer the attentive but unprotected motorcycle rider any day over a careless SUV driver. The anti-SUV mentality is not only about saving petrol, it is also an attitude to life, a willingness to be responsible for your own acts. Bigger is better? Americans have a fixed idea that to ride a motorcycle you have to be big, strong and tough. Yet in countries like Italy, Malaysia or New Zealand, everyone rides: young and old, men and women. Young women ride motorcycles and scooters all around Rome. In Kuala Lumpur, everyone rides motorcycles everywhere. These countries dont have the same fear mentality regarding motorcycles as America does, and they don't see size as the solution. On a motorcycle, size doesn't matter. What matters is your ability to see risk. Conclusion Riding a motorcycle is safer than driving a car because riders see more, evade better, are more attentive, and assume less. The rider has higher stakes, but if they ride safely, are less likely to have an accident in the first place.

coolkid1231

Everyone knows that in a crash motorcycle riders usually come off worse than car drivers. Riders avoid some problems, like being trapped in a burning or sinking car, but in general an accident that dents a car can put a motorcyclist in hospital. However motorcycle fear is often based on rumor or reports, not actual experience. It is guilt by association. Guilt by Association A friend once told me she didn"t like motorcycles as her brother was killed on one. When I asked how, she said he stopped at an accident, got off his bike, and was struck by a car as he walked over to help! I wondered, "Well, couldn"t the same have happened if he had been in a car?" This guilt by association ignores the fact that lots of people who drive cars also die. It is a "fixed attitude", that just associates motorcycles with danger. Like many other fixed attitudes, it is often reinforced by the media. It is hard to see the reality amidst the smoke of false fears, worries and imaginations. A motorcycle is safer than a car if it is less likely to have an accident in the first place But safety also depends on how likely you are to have an accident in the first place. I find motorcycles safer because one can better avoid accidents on them. In a car, I feel safe because I have protection, but on a motorcycle I feel safer because I have more options. A motorcycle is safer than a car if it is less likely to have an accident in the first place. That the careless can kill themselves more easily on a motorcycle is not denied. However what about competent riders? Competent riders are less likely to have accidents because they: See more Evade better Attend more Assume less Do motorcycles cause deaths? The death rate for riders is higher than for drivers, but perhaps that is because so many motorcycle riders are young men, who are still developing risk awareness. It seems a hard thing to say, but were they not on motor-cycles, perhaps they just would kill themselves in some other activity, as young men and risk go together. But here is a puzzle. If the risk of riding is so high, how can some people ride motorcycles every day for decades? Even with a tiny risk, sooner or later, their number should come up. Yet such people exist, and I know, because I am one. If the risk of riding is so high, how can some people ride for thirty years and live? Safe riders prove that safety is no accident, and that motorcycle riding is not inevitably dangerous. See more A rider"s field of vision is further and wider than a car"s A rider is usually higher than a car driver, and so has a better view. A better view means you see danger earlier, and can avoid it better. Riders have no car body around them to create vision blind sports. Just turning their head gives a clear all round view. A bike can also move left or right in the lane for a better view, if a truck blocks your vision. A car driver in contrast must remain on the steering wheel side. A motorcycle rider"s field of vision is further and wider than that of a car. When I drive a car, I feel I have a much more constricted field of view. The ability to see more lets you avoid more. If a person in a car three cars ahead stops suddenly, as a rider, I see it earlier, and have more time to make adjustments, to avoid a crash. If seeing danger first means avoiding it better, a motorcycle is safer. Evade better A motor-cycle has evasion options not available to a car A motorcycle is smaller than a car, and so less of a target to be hit. Being smaller, it also has more places to go safely. If the car ahead stops suddenly, the car behind must hit it. Highway pile-ups occur because cars in a lane have nowhere to go in sudden stop. However a bike can swerve to the side, or fit between two cars on a many lane highway. It can pull onto the safety shoulder if necessary. A motor-cycle has evasion options not available to a car. It can accelerate better out of a trouble situation. In nearly every situation, a motorcycle has more evasive choices, because it is smaller and more mobile. In terms of accident evasion, bikes are safer. Attend more When the body is right there, the brain tends to be right there with it There is something about traveling at high speed a few feet above hard ground that gets your attention. When the body is right there, the brain tends to be right there with it. By comparison, a driver is separated from the world by the car body, air-conditioning and comfort. Drivers are distracted from the road by: Coffee and food Talking on cell-phones Listening to the radio Talking to passengers Adjusting seats or windows Disciplining children Adjusting make-up Shaving Inattention is the main cause of road accidents Perhaps shaving is uncommon, but the others happen all the time. Studies show that inattention is the main cause of road accidents. You only have so much attention. Attending to one thing degrades your attention to another. Distractions reduce your attention to the road, which leads to accidents. Cars have many distractions, but on a motorcycle, it is just you and the road. Motorcycles are safer because they increase attention and reduce distractions. Driven to distraction One has visions of some driver talking on a cell-phone, while listening to and adjusting the radio, turning to look back at a child, with a cup of coffee in the other hand. My personal dislike is soccer Mums in big SUVs trying ineffectively to discipline rowdy children in the back seat while driving. Kids are the most effective distraction machines every invented. Its much better to stop the car and deal with them. Assume less Life insurance should be called what it really is - death insurance People driving large vehicles with life insurance think they are "safe". Life insurance should be called what it really is - death insurance. Then people would understand it better. Money cant replace life. You don't really have insurance (in the sense of replacing what you had). Car safety features cannot avoid the "nut behind the wheel" problem. Safer cars are no use if people are more careless. If drivers with anti-skid brakes just drive faster in the rain, what is the safety benefit? The accident rate depends as much on attitude as on mechanical safety features. Motorcycles create a better attitude, because on a motorcycle, you know you are vulnerable. No matter how big the motorcycle, what happens is likely to happen to you, personally. Motorcycle riders assume less, which makes a motorcycle safer than a car. The Anti-SUV mentality There are two approaches to avoiding accidents: The SUV mentality: Have accidents, but avoid the results. The Anti-SUV mentality: Avoid accidents entirely For every big vehicle, there is a bigger one America"s current approach is the first - buy cars so big you are unhurt in a crash. But for every big vehicle, there is a bigger one. If your Mercedes meets a truck/trailer combine, you will be crushed whatever your safety rating. Metal is not a cure for carelessness. While SUVs seem safe, studies show they tip easily, maneuver poorly, waste petrol, hog the road, make bigger targets, and overfill parking spaces. If we all drove in tanks, would the roads be safer? Whatever the metal around you, a bigger vehicle can always penetrate it. The SUV mentality tries to put a metal barrier between you and the world, so others (not you) pay the price of accidents. The result is a vehicle arms race, where everyone drives bigger cars. That big vehicles also cause more damage is ignored. If we all drove around in main battle tanks, would the roads be safer? SUV drivers would insulate themselves from the world, but that is not a good way to go. The goal is to avoid accidents, not to "safely" have them Motorcycle riders follow the Anti-SUV mentality, which is to avoid accidents entirely. The "strength" of a motorcycle is its flexibility, not its invulnerability. The goal is to avoid accidents, not to "safely" have them. I prefer the attentive but unprotected motorcycle rider any day over a careless SUV driver. The anti-SUV mentality is not only about saving petrol, it is also an attitude to life, a willingness to be responsible for your own acts. Bigger is better? Americans have a fixed idea that to ride a motorcycle you have to be big, strong and tough. Yet in countries like Italy, Malaysia or New Zealand, everyone rides: young and old, men and women. Young women ride motorcycles and scooters all around Rome. In Kuala Lumpur, everyone rides motorcycles everywhere. These countries dont have the same fear mentality regarding motorcycles as America does, and they don't see size as the solution. On a motorcycle, size doesn't matter. What matters is your ability to see risk. Conclusion Riding a motorcycle is safer than driving a car because riders see more, evade better, are more attentive, and assume less. The rider has higher stakes, but if they ride safely, are less likely to have an accident in the first place.

Cars

would-you-rather-have-a-pro-for-car-or-a-con-for-motorcycle/1/

1. Motorcycles are dangerous. There are around 4000 deaths per year by people riding motorcycles. Source: <URL>... 2. Cars can fit more people in them then motorcycles. 3. You can store stuff in your car. 4. Some cars can be cheaper or as cheap as a motorcycle. (Of course I must be honest, it won't be the best car ever.) 5. You can lock your car. This means that your car won't be stolen as easy then a motorcycle. Also, again, you can put stuff in your car to keep it safe. 6. You don't have the wind blowing in your face when while your in a car. I don't know about you, but when I ride on my motorcycle at high speeds the wind can be annoying. 7. After a while of riding a motorcycle, your back can hurt, whereas in a car, you are pretty much sitting up the whole time. 8. You can talk to people in the car, either in person or Bluetooth. 9. You can hear your radio/Bluetooth in your car better. 10. Cars go faster. Many cars go faster than most motorcycles. This is important if you need to get somewhere faster. 11. Fewer people are able to work on motorcycles, whereas many people know how to work on cars. Good topic dude, also most of my sources are on experience. Thanks.

z1

1. Motorcycles are dangerous. There are around 4000 deaths per year by people riding motorcycles. Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 2. Cars can fit more people in them then motorcycles. 3. You can store stuff in your car. 4. Some cars can be cheaper or as cheap as a motorcycle. (Of course I must be honest, it won't be the best car ever.) 5. You can lock your car. This means that your car won`t be stolen as easy then a motorcycle. Also, again, you can put stuff in your car to keep it safe. 6. You don`t have the wind blowing in your face when while your in a car. I don`t know about you, but when I ride on my motorcycle at high speeds the wind can be annoying. 7. After a while of riding a motorcycle, your back can hurt, whereas in a car, you are pretty much sitting up the whole time. 8. You can talk to people in the car, either in person or Bluetooth. 9. You can hear your radio/Bluetooth in your car better. 10. Cars go faster. Many cars go faster than most motorcycles. This is important if you need to get somewhere faster. 11. Fewer people are able to work on motorcycles, whereas many people know how to work on cars. Good topic dude, also most of my sources are on experience. Thanks.

Cars

would-you-rather-have-a-pro-for-car-or-a-con-for-motorcycle/1/

Hello, I would like to start off with saying that a motorcycles do not have a greater vision field, due to that if you are wearing a safe helmet, you can't see past too far of your left or right. Also, if you aren't wearing a helmet, if you fall off your motorcycle, you are sure to get a head injury. Now, to the issue of evading. If you swerve too much, you can possibly lose control of the wheel. Also, you could possibly roll over. People that are good drivers in the car do not get distracted by the things you listed. Of course people in motorcycles don't have those things to worry about. People in motorcycles, however, might get distracted by an itch, too tight of a helmet, an untied shoe, or even something falling out of their pocket. Even though motorcycles don't have all the distractions of a car, they do have their own distractions. Now, also, I've seen motorcycle drivers drive crazy before, but I do have to say I've seen just about as many people in cars drive as crazy as some of those motorcycle drivers. Their are good drivers, and their are bad. Thank you, and your turn.

z1

Hello, I would like to start off with saying that a motorcycles do not have a greater vision field, due to that if you are wearing a safe helmet, you can't see past too far of your left or right. Also, if you aren't wearing a helmet, if you fall off your motorcycle, you are sure to get a head injury. Now, to the issue of evading. If you swerve too much, you can possibly lose control of the wheel. Also, you could possibly roll over. People that are good drivers in the car do not get distracted by the things you listed. Of course people in motorcycles don't have those things to worry about. People in motorcycles, however, might get distracted by an itch, too tight of a helmet, an untied shoe, or even something falling out of their pocket. Even though motorcycles don't have all the distractions of a car, they do have their own distractions. Now, also, I've seen motorcycle drivers drive crazy before, but I do have to say I've seen just about as many people in cars drive as crazy as some of those motorcycle drivers. Their are good drivers, and their are bad. Thank you, and your turn.

Cars

would-you-rather-have-a-pro-for-car-or-a-con-for-motorcycle/1/

Con has forfeit this round, therefor I will just tell you again, cars are better than motorcycles.

z1

Con has forfeit this round, therefor I will just tell you again, cars are better than motorcycles.

Cars

would-you-rather-have-a-pro-for-car-or-a-con-for-motorcycle/1/

Dear people, vote pro!

z1

Dear people, vote pro!

Cars

would-you-rather-have-a-pro-for-car-or-a-con-for-motorcycle/1/

Please vote pro.

z1

Please vote pro.

Cars

would-you-rather-have-a-pro-for-car-or-a-con-for-motorcycle/1/

Each round, both debaters will post a new yo moma joke. Joke 1: Yo moma so fat that every time she turns around it's her birthday.

BobTurner

Each round, both debaters will post a new yo moma joke. Joke 1: Yo moma so fat that every time she turns around it's her birthday.

Funny

yo-moma-joke-contest/6/

Same to you! Joke 2: Yo mama is so fat that when she sits on the toilet it starts saying, "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,get your fat *** off of me."

BobTurner

Same to you! Joke 2: Yo mama is so fat that when she sits on the toilet it starts saying, "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,get your fat *** off of me."

Funny

yo-moma-joke-contest/6/

Yo mama so fat when she steps on the scale Buzzlightear popped out and said, "To infinity and beyond."

BobTurner

Yo mama so fat when she steps on the scale Buzzlightear popped out and said, "To infinity and beyond."

Funny

yo-moma-joke-contest/6/

Racism is OK as long as ts levelled against somebody who truly comes with the radius of recievola? As in, its ok to diss a bloke if the diss has enough substance to it. E.g: Oi! You BLACK nobber, you. Racist or not? Yes, if the guy at the receiving end is WHITE thus rendering the insult false. If the blokes black aleady, thennit makes no sensse to call his antagonist a racist for just commenting on something about him, brnging out to light a basic statement pertaining to his genetic makeup, i.e the colour of his skin is BLACK.

Bill_O_reilly

Racism is OK as long as ts levelled against somebody who truly comes with the radius of recievola? As in, its ok to diss a bloke if the diss has enough substance to it. E.g: Oi! You BLACK nobber, you. Racist or not? Yes, if the guy at the receiving end is WHITE thus rendering the insult false. If the blokes black aleady, thennit makes no sensse to call his antagonist a racist for just commenting on something about him, brnging out to light a basic statement pertaining to his genetic makeup, i.e the colour of his skin is BLACK.

People

you-black-negro-why-is-that-statement-racist/1/

Hello Bill O'Reilly, pleasure. There is a simple answer to that question: connotations. A statement can be an observation, but if it carries a negative connotation in society than it will be intrepreted as racist. For example, if I was to call a mentally handicapped person "retarded" (I would never do such a thing! :) ) it could be seen as an insult, even though it is a true statement. It is because the word "retarded" carries a negative connotation. It's the same reason why we don't use the word "nigger" anymore, as it's something that is no longer socially acceptable. So, in your example, "Oi! You BLACK nobber, you." This statement is inherently racist due to the fact you are, first of all, insulting someone based off of their race, and second of all, seemingly judging them off of their skin color. Keep in mind, I absolutely agree that this statement is not racist: "you are black," however, additions have the possibility to make it seem racist. That's all I have to prove as the negative. Definition of connotation: "The associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of "home" is "a place of warmth, comfort, and affection." [1] <URL>... ;

TheNamesFizzy

Hello Bill O'Reilly, pleasure. There is a simple answer to that question: connotations. A statement can be an observation, but if it carries a negative connotation in society than it will be intrepreted as racist. For example, if I was to call a mentally handicapped person "retarded" (I would never do such a thing! :) ) it could be seen as an insult, even though it is a true statement. It is because the word "retarded" carries a negative connotation. It's the same reason why we don't use the word "nigger" anymore, as it's something that is no longer socially acceptable. So, in your example, "Oi! You BLACK nobber, you." This statement is inherently racist due to the fact you are, first of all, insulting someone based off of their race, and second of all, seemingly judging them off of their skin color. Keep in mind, I absolutely agree that this statement is not racist: "you are black," however, additions have the possibility to make it seem racist. That's all I have to prove as the negative. Definition of connotation: "The associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.” [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... ;

People

you-black-negro-why-is-that-statement-racist/1/

The morning after pill should not be banned from young adolescent girls. If restrictions are passed against teenage girls buying pregnancy prevention medication; then these young women will have to go to more extreme measures in ensuring that pregnancy will not be an issue for them. Let's face it most young adults don't share everything with their parents especially things that they feel will get them into trouble. These girls will feel reluctant telling an adult that they are pregnant. Why not allow them to safely prevent something that will no doubt change their lives forever.

Fullova_Simon

The morning after pill should not be banned from young adolescent girls. If restrictions are passed against teenage girls buying pregnancy prevention medication; then these young women will have to go to more extreme measures in ensuring that pregnancy will not be an issue for them. Let's face it most young adults don't share everything with their parents especially things that they feel will get them into trouble. These girls will feel reluctant telling an adult that they are pregnant. Why not allow them to safely prevent something that will no doubt change their lives forever.

Society

young-teenage-girls-should-not-be-restricted-when-buying-the-morning-after-pill./1/

I disagree the morning after pill is not giving teens the OK to have unprotected sex. It's an option to have for just in case something goes wrong; if teens are old enough to engage in sexual intercourse then they are also old enough to know when to buy the morning after pill in a responsible manner. Now if teens have an STD then they shouldn't have unprotected sex with many partners nor should they think that the morning after pill is a cure for a sexual disease. The argument stands to protect women's right for unwanted pregnancy's not a reason to have unprotected sex out of a whim; especially since condoms and birth control are available for people of all ages.

Fullova_Simon

I disagree the morning after pill is not giving teens the OK to have unprotected sex. It's an option to have for just in case something goes wrong; if teens are old enough to engage in sexual intercourse then they are also old enough to know when to buy the morning after pill in a responsible manner. Now if teens have an STD then they shouldn't have unprotected sex with many partners nor should they think that the morning after pill is a cure for a sexual disease. The argument stands to protect women's right for unwanted pregnancy's not a reason to have unprotected sex out of a whim; especially since condoms and birth control are available for people of all ages.

Society

young-teenage-girls-should-not-be-restricted-when-buying-the-morning-after-pill./1/

The morning after pill can only be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.Each day girls wait their chances of becoming pregnant increase.The Morning after pills do not cause birth defects in women who are already pregnant;the morning after pill when taken causes estrogen levels to rise within the female body giving mixed signals to the sperm trying to fertilize an egg that the female is currently on her period thus killing the sperm off.According to Princeton University"The most serious of these side effects are extremely rare and do no long term damage besides it would be considered by women who choose to use emergency contraception to be a price worth paying for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy" Article source: <URL>...

Fullova_Simon

The morning after pill can only be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.Each day girls wait their chances of becoming pregnant increase.The Morning after pills do not cause birth defects in women who are already pregnant;the morning after pill when taken causes estrogen levels to rise within the female body giving mixed signals to the sperm trying to fertilize an egg that the female is currently on her period thus killing the sperm off.According to Princeton University"The most serious of these side effects are extremely rare and do no long term damage besides it would be considered by women who choose to use emergency contraception to be a price worth paying for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy" Article source: http://ec.princeton.edu...

Society

young-teenage-girls-should-not-be-restricted-when-buying-the-morning-after-pill./1/

By making the morning after pill easy accessable to teen. Is saying it ok for them to go and have unprotected sex .which Opean door for them to get STD. the morning after pill is there to fix problem and undo the wrong. But the morning after pill doesn't cured STD.

thompson123

By making the morning after pill easy accessable to teen. Is saying it ok for them to go and have unprotected sex .which Opean door for them to get STD. the morning after pill is there to fix problem and undo the wrong. But the morning after pill doesn't cured STD.

Society

young-teenage-girls-should-not-be-restricted-when-buying-the-morning-after-pill./1/

Accoring to this article by Ezine " use of morning after pill raises the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. In such a pregnancy, the embryo gets lodged in the fallopian tubes rather than in the womb" whenever an argument comes up about the morning after pill it alway about the positive aspects . What about the long term and short term side effects that comes along with it. Article Source: <URL>...

thompson123

Accoring to this article by Ezine " use of morning after pill raises the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. In such a pregnancy, the embryo gets lodged in the fallopian tubes rather than in the womb" whenever an argument comes up about the morning after pill it alway about the positive aspects . What about the long term and short term side effects that comes along with it. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com...

Society

young-teenage-girls-should-not-be-restricted-when-buying-the-morning-after-pill./1/

You are saying that it is no problem for a 11 year girls to walk into a pharmacy and purchase this pill why would 11 years old girls need to buy these pills ? Because in the first place they shouldn't be sexually active. At what age do we draw the line . The price of the plan B is $50 where is a 11 year old girl going to get that amount of money from if they are not telling their parents or don't need their consent . Don't you think because of the available of the pill now that more girls younger than age 11are going to start having sex? <URL>...

thompson123

You are saying that it is no problem for a 11 year girls to walk into a pharmacy and purchase this pill why would 11 years old girls need to buy these pills ? Because in the first place they shouldn't be sexually active. At what age do we draw the line . The price of the plan B is $50 where is a 11 year old girl going to get that amount of money from if they are not telling their parents or don't need their consent . Don't you think because of the available of the pill now that more girls younger than age 11are going to start having sex? http://m.cvs.com...

Society

young-teenage-girls-should-not-be-restricted-when-buying-the-morning-after-pill./1/