Hahaha...I'm pretty sure most Chicanos have more important things to worry about than attacking gays who decide to get married.

Look at California. There are plenty of Mexicans and plenty of gay people there, yet I haven't seen any lynchings.

Yeah that's partly what happened with blacks in California with prop 8. So how about we hold off on this plan until we get a supreme court decision that guarantees gays the right to marry. Sound good?

This is the first one of your debates I have agreed with Joe. You've stumbled upon a great idea. I have one addition though:

Since illegals apparently hate Mexico (they'd do anything to leave after all), we should get more Mexicans in the U.S. Now all we have to do is find a large number of Mexicans who want to live in the U.S. Any ideas where we could find that Señor?

Yeah...I guess I keep making the mistake of arguing against you seriously. You'd think I'd learn after 2 years.

You are looking at this at way too small a scale Joe.

More people means that you can produce more. Maybe in the short term a large influx of people could lead to some extra unemployment, but eventually the economy will return to it's long run equilibrium and natural unemployment.

The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator of the economy. In other words the economy will have to be doing well for about a year before jobs catch up.

The 13 trillion dollar debt (not deficit, the deficit is about 1 trillion) is a big issue, however it can't be addressed until we get the economy back on track. Who you should be blaming for the debt are those presidents that continued to run a deficit when our economy was expanding. Clinton did it right: he ran a surplus when we were doing well. There was an initial, relatively small downturn within the first year of his presidency, but after the economy recovered he should have begun running a surplus. What did he do? Continued running a deficit, exacerbating the situation and fucking us over now that we are both in a recession and have a tremendous debt.

I would be happy to debate you on any number of topics, go ahead and pick one. You are generalizing far too much. There are illogical liberals and logical ones, just as there are illogical conservatives and logical ones. Basing someone's intelligence on political views is...well, illogical I guess.

There is always about 5-6% of natural unemployment because of both frictional and structural unemployment, however the additional unemployment we are currently facing is because of business cycles. What Obama and other Democrats have tried to do is use expansionary fiscal policies to get us out of this recession quickly. This entails running a budget deficit: or in other words increased spending and lower taxes.

Although you might find welfare payments unfair, they do help to stimulate the economy by giving money to people who will likely spend all of it (when you're on welfare you don't have any room to save). The advantage to policies like progressive income tax and unemployment benefits is that it is an automatic way to work against business cycles. During times when the economy is doing poorly more people get unemployment benefits and less people are in the high tax brackets, meaning that the government is automatically expanding the economy. During times when the economy is expanding, less people need unemployment and more people are in the upper tax brackets, meaning that the government has automatically started running contractionary policies. In short: the government runs a deficit when the economy is doing poorly and a surplus when it is doing well....and that's what we are doing.

Your economics logic sucks. If more people meant less good jobs, then right now we'd be the poorest people on earth. More people means we produce more. How much the jobs pay is determined mostly by the amount produced.

More people, means more being produced means more real wealth, but about the same wealth per capita.

I could go on about other inconsistencies but I think at this point we know who's really illogical.

Classical micro-economics yes, however, before the 1930's no one really attempted to explain macro-economics basically at all. I'm not saying age has anything to do with its accuracy, I was just pointing out that these aren't new ideas.

Haha, not quite Sara. This idea is actually about as old as macro-economics itself, which really got started around the time that Keynes published The General Theory. In other words about 80 years old.

Well I'm sorry if that's how it sounded, but that is far from what I meant.

His policies, which were supported and voted on by other democratic leaders and probably crafted by economic advisors played a large role in helping expedite the recovery of our economy.

Happy?

He certainly hasn't helped the debt, however, were it not for his actions the economy would never have recovered and government revenue would be much lower than it will be, meaning we'd be in an even worse situation, because we'd still be in debt, but the government would be earning less money to pay it off with.

During times of economic recession, the government needs to run a deficit in order to stimulate the economy. This is all that Obama is doing. During times of economic expansion, the government should run a surplus and this is what Clinton did. Bush on the other hand is the person who you should put a lot of the blame for our current debt on. He ran a deficit while the government was expanding.

As soon as we are back to full output, and the unemployment rate is back to its natural rate then Obama will stop running a deficit and begin running a surplus and paying off our massive debt.

Well unless we're talking about the fact that he fixed the whole economy. That actually seemed to work out pretty well.

Joe I do seriously hope you were drunk when you created this (but it did make me smile).

Not really.

Communists have committed crimes, but other than that atheists actually have been pretty damn well behaved.

Social contracts are what we agree to in order for society to function. We give up a small amount of freedom to help everyone in society. We are fortunate to live in a society in which we can choose the extent to which we do this, and we are free to express our views on how this should be done.

Claiming that we put a gun to someone's head though is ridiculous. There are people who don't want to pay for public education, and probably people who don't want to pay for roads, but thankfully their not allowed to just opt out, otherwise our society would collapse.

There are better, very legitimate arguments for why we shouldn't have welfare (or at least reduce the amount provided) than just the whole "it's like stealing" thing.

Haha...sorry I'm not trying to let those people who have almost nothing to survive with die. I guess I'm just a bleeding heart.

I don't think your example is accurate. Allow me to give you a better one.

Let's say me and a group of 7 friends are walking and we see a little homeless girl on the street. 2 of the friends want to just leave but the other 6 decide that we should do something to help. So after a vote the group decides that we all need to help out. The two that didn't want to donate are a little bitter about it, however, but in the end we are able to help the girl with our combined efforts.

You see, the money that we are agreeing to donate isn't from other people, it is from us too. In addition your argument that only poor people vote for policies like this is BS.

You do realize that the economy has been improving for almost 6 months now, right?

Joe: love the comments but your debates are often retarded.

I know but some people choose not to (myself included) and this means less people participate.

Nothing would be wrong, I'm just saying that that's probably the reason. If you limit the people that can participate less will.

No one commented because you have to be part of your community to do so.

You see you've stumped me, but not because your arguments are convincing but that I actually don't know how to respond: there are way too many options!

I could argue that the link you posted about muslims in America deals primarily with African-Americans who have converted to Islam, and that this demographic is radically different from the muslims marching and protesting through the streets of European cities. Primarily this difference has to do with the fact that those muslims who converted have already gown up and adapted to American culture (most importantly the significance of freedom of speech) and therefore wouldn't be a threat unless you're just afraid of the Islamic religion in general.

On the other hand I might point out that, unless there is a mass exodus of muslims to the U.S. it would take many generations for them to even become even as significant a minority group as Asian Americans, much less African-Americans or Latinos (not to mention the fact that Latinos are the fastest growing minority group, and are mostly Christian).

I could also point out that muslims growing up in the U.S. for multiple generations are (once again) far less likely to be similar to the extremists in Europe.

Maybe I could ask for some actual statistics about birth rates of different demographics since you didn't actually provide any, but instead relied on unsubstantiated stereotypes. None of the muslims I know have 6 kids in their family so until you give me some evidence I'm gonna have to call bullshit.

I could go on, but I don't think that's necessary. Instead I'm going to ask you to stop being so alarmist...I mean the world's gonna end in 2012 anyway, right?

Islam will never gain the same political power as it has in Europe, so I wouldn't worry. People in this country are ridiculously prejudiced against muslims so any muslim that wants to be taken seriously has to jump through hoops in order to show that they aren't like the extreme muslims we see in Europe protesting against freedom of speech.

I assumed that you supported laws against sweatshops and child labor, and this wasn't to what I was referring. These laws, though necessary from an ethical standpoint, don't necessarily help the economy.

What I am talking about is regulation of financial institutions, and an active counter-cyclical fiscal policy.

I wish I had a scanner because there is this great graph in my Econ textbook which shows the U.S. growth rate from about the last 200 years. I can't find a similar graph online, but if you want an idea of what it looks like imagine someone drawing peaks and valleys around a middle line, and as they move toward the present the peaks and valleys become less extreme. What the graph is meant to show is how more recent monetary and fiscal policy (mostly based on Keynsian theory) has had a "smoothing" affect on GDP growth. What this means is, in the last half of the century we have had fewer, and shorter recessions and longer periods of sustained growth (especially in the last 30 years). A part of this has to do with increased regulations on the market.

Obviously we should allow the market to operate freely in most cases, but there are areas where regulation is necessary, because financial institutions often times will take risks. Often times these risks end up having negative consequences on the economy as a whole, causing the volatile changes in GDP and rises in unemployment characteristic of the pre-Keynsian economy.

Here is a point I feel like I need to make very clear:

No one is advocating socialism

Socialism sucks: not only does it severely limit freedom, it doesn't work. The only redeeming quality is that it promotes equality, but the result would only be a society where everyone is equally poor.

What I and others like myself are advocating is a mostly free economy with some necessary regulations to protect against serious economic downturns.

I don't have a problem with your point of view: I can understand and respect it. What I don have a problem with is the fact that you right off those who disagree with you as somehow delusional. I promise that I have good reasons for the opinions I hold whether you want to believe it or not.

But that doesn't matter, just right me off as an elitist lefty liberal who has no idea what he's talking about.

I recommend a course on European history. The crusades were begun by Christians when they invaded Jerusalem and slaughtered the Jews and Muslims who were living there (Jews and Muslims living peacefully together, surprising right?) at the Seige of Jerusalem in 1099 (a.k.a. the first crusade).

In addition, did you hear the phrasing you used: "expel the infidels." Doesn't that sound eerily similar to what we hear from muslim extremist terrorists today?

Anyway, you are also mistaken about the nature of Muslims back then. They were expanding there empire, but they were not the violent extremists we think of today. In fact, they preached religious toleration, and (as I mentioned earlier) lived in peace with Jews and Christians in their empire. It was the Christians who were acting intolerantly, and had been killing jews by the thousands in Europe.

...and the Muslims. I'm sure that if you look deep enough, you'll find that there are others that object to homosexuality.

I agree, but you asked about Christianity. Just because others are oppressing homosexuals as well doesn't make it any better that Christians are doing it.

From the wikipedia article about the English civil war:

One of the first events to cause concern about Charles I came with his marriage to a French Roman Catholic princess, Henrietta-Marie de Bourbon. The marriage occurred in 1625, right after Charles came to the throne.[5] Charles' marriage raised the possibility that his children, including the heir to the throne, could grow up as Catholics, a frightening prospect to Protestant England.[6]

So religion once again did play a part.

...was caused by the leader of a very warped form of Christianity.

I would argue that any war fought in the name of a religion is a warping of religious texts. It says "Thou Shall Not Kill" in the 10 commandments and yet we see all of this violence. I'm not arguing that Christianity always leads to war, I'm merely disputing your point that atheists have committed atrocities (in the name of atheism) that are far worse than Christians.

The dutch revolt was caused by a number of issues, but the oppression of Protestants by Charles V and Philip II played a significant role.

Many of the wars I mentioned had numerous causes but in all of them religion also played a part.

The cold war was not fought because of atheism. This is one of the stupidest things I've heard you say yet. As I've stated before, the only atheists that killed were communists: I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand. I am strongly opposed to communism in general and especially opposed to the actions that were taken by Stalin, Mau and other communists who have killed in the name of their ideology. Their atheism was a symptom of their communism not the other way around. They all also believed in gravity, but this likely didn't influence their decisions to kill people either.

So once again: any non communist, atheist mass murderers? Didn't think so.

The muslims began some of the crusades, definitely not all. In addition the crusades as a whole were begun by Christians invading Jerusalem and killing Jews and Muslims. Read about it here.

I never mentioned the conquest of Alexander the great, I mentioned the Alexandrian Crusade.

The French wars of religion were civil wars fought between French Catholics and Huguenots (French Protestants). The main conflict was religion.

Almost all of these wars were fought either because of Christianity, or had Christianity as a cover for some other reason (like money or power).

Damn, what's with all the hate?

I promise we're not that bad.

I kinda like my Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends and family. I actually don't know all that many atheists so I'd probably be pretty lonely.

(You know that you don't have to copy and paste my whole argument into yours, right? I mean I literally just wrote it, and it appears on top.)

I find your first statement kind of funny because it, is both incorrect, and misses the point. As I just stated, the crimes committed by atheists weren't because of their atheism but because of their communist ideology.

Name for me a few wars begun by Christians.

Almost every war in western history, because for the past 1,000 years almost everyone in Europe (and later the Americas) has been Christian.

But this isn't what you meant, right? You see I just did the same thing you did: I took all wars that Christians began, and then implied that Christianity was their cause. You obviously meant to say: "Name me a few wars begun because of Christianity."

I would be happy to:

The Crusades

The first crusade

The second crusade

The third crusade

The fourth crusade

The albigensian crusade

The fifth crusade

The sixth crusade

The seventh crusade

The Eighth crusade

The ninth crusade

The Northern Crusades

The numerous crusades against the Tatars

The Aragonese crusade

The Alexandrian crusade

The Hussite crusade

The swedish crusades

The European Wars of Religion

The French Wars of Religion

The first war

The second war

The third war

The fourth war

The fifth war

The sixth war

The seventh war

The war of the three Henrys

The war in Brittany

The war with Spain

Wars of Religion in Germany and Bohemia

The Schmalkaldic Wars

The thirty years war (one of the worst, killed 15 - 30% of all Germans)

The wars of religion in the Netherlands

The dutch revolt (eighty years war)

The wars of religion in England and Scotland

The Scottish Reformation

The English civil war

The scottish civil war

The Taiping Rebellion was the bloodiest civil war in history and resulted in the death of 20 million people. It was started by Chinese Christian Protestants over religion.

So there you go. It's more than a few, but it is not at all comprehensive, and could have been longer if I wanted to add more. I also did not include the numerous atrocities committed in the name of Christianity (killing of Jews, and witches) or the current worldwide oppression of of homosexuals in the name of Christianity.

So now I ask you: name even one war that was begun in the name of atheism, not just by atheists.

All atheists that have been mass murderers (like the ones you mentioned) have all been communists, whereas religious murderers have come from nearly every major religion, and have supported a wide variety of of ideologies.

Therefore, if you are an atheist, and not a communist then you're probably fairly peaceful.

I think it should be punishable by death.

What's the point in making a law that is unenforceable?

If there is a large enough spanish speaking population in the area, then it would probably make economic sense depending on the business, but I think a law would be unnecessary (except for maybe cases like pharmacies in which people may be seriously harmed.)

Joe now I know you're fucking around. You want to make life difficult on a very large group of people in our country so that you don't have to press one extra button?

"If we don't play God, who will?"

-James Watson (Co-discoverer of DNA)

Oh I can still consider you scientifically challenged, just not purely on the basis of your religion, or any other generalization. If you said, for example, that dinasours and humans roamed the earth together, and had no evidence to support this claim (The Flnstones don't count) I would still laugh at you.

Yes we can get into a debate about semantics, but if you ask him I can guarentee that he at the very least meant most liberals, and wasn't making a debate about why specifically some liberals resort to name calling.

Generalizing groups of people without much basis does tend to annoy me regardless of the side it's coming from, and I do think that it is a problem on both sides and would firmly stand against anyone who tries to make these generalizations, even if I do not fall into the catagory of generalization.

In this case the debate was more an attack on liberals than an actual debate, however, it was also mostly in jest because it was made by Joe, so don't think that I took it too seriously.

As for your question: because people are lazy. It's easier to assume that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant, or racist or uneducated or out of touch, than trying to consider that they may have a different world view than you, and that their view could be as valid as yours. This is the same with most generalizations, and is why I am so strongly against them.

See, I would never resort to name calling when I know that I have legitimate arguments to defend my positions.

Neither would I make broad generalizations about groups, because I know that in general they are not true. I don't call conservatives racists, or greedy. I am happy to debate any issue, however I know that name calling just makes me look immature.

Considering that's what basically every one of your debates are I kinda figured, but I'm sorta sick of people generalizing liberals so I figured this was a good a time as any to make a statement about it.

Why on earth do we keep getting these broad generalization over and over again. I don't care which side you are attacking, generalizations that deamonize your opponents are not helpful, and are in fact simple minded. Whether it's liberals or conservatives or independants doesn't matter. What's ironic is this debate is essentially complaining about name calling by labeling an entire group in a certain way: that's essentially name calling!

Joe, I have debated with you numerous times and I'm pretty sure I can't think of a gngle case where I name called in replacement for an argument. So according to you I must not be a liberal... does that sound right?

Well next time you're sick have the ambulance drop you off at a church and see what happens.

I'm not sure I understand this one Joe... are you saying that by warming the earth we are destroying some things, but giving oppurtunities to others? Cus that's kinda dumb.

Perhaps in you own delusional idea of reality, but the real world he would be countered by economists and politicians who understand why providing for those who are unable, for some reason, to support themselves and their family is beneficial to society. In addition, you would hear numerous personal stories of people who worked numerous jobs, yet still needed a little help to feed their kids.

As people who don't need welfare it's easy to argue that those people who need welfare are just freeloaders, but in reality they are people who need a little help to get by.

It's the same result they could come up with if special interests weren't involved, and there weren't people denying the overwhelming evidence of global warming.

See what clarity a little objectivity can bring to a situation?

Not if they did it in a smart way, like by spending money on alternative energy programs.

Anyway, in the long term Australia's economy will suffer more if the current warming trend continues.

For what is now the 10th time I will link you to Loving v. Virginia. Please do us both a favor and read this so that we can stop wasting time on the whole "marriage isn't a right" benefit.

Also your entire argument about licenses is a fallacy. You give examples of rights that don't require licenses and privileges that do require licenses making the assumption that everything must fall into these two categories. This is called excluding the middle. What if we took the right to own a gun, as guaranteed in the constitution? Gun ownership often requires a license and yet is still a right.

In short: your argument is bullshit.

I'm sorry but what are you talking about? Homosexual couples are denied marriage licenses. Clearly people are being given different rights.

If what you are trying to argue is that "homosexuals can get married, just not to someone of the same sex" then this too shows that people have rights that are not equal, but seperate. Allow me to explain: do you agree that men and women should be equal under the law? Do you agree that this means they should have the same rights? Assuming you said yes then how is it possible that a women is allowed to marry people that a man is not, and vice versa? There rights are considered "seperate but equal" but we know that seperate but equal is inherently unequal. This is the exact same issue that was being addressed in Loving vs. Virginia, because people had the same rights to marry within their own race, and therefore were considered to have the same rights.

You keep trying to frame this question in ways where you don't seem ridiculous in wanting to deny marriage to homosexuals, but everytime you come off sounding worse and worse. You are fighting a strawman anyway, because gays would be fine if everything was civil unions and marriage was left up to churches, but in the vast majority of states homosexual unions aren't recognized at all, and in the majority of those states that do recognize same sex unions the rights are not equal to those of marriage (for example if they move to another state, they lose whatever rights were granted by the state where they got the union).

It's like you can't rationally articulate why you don't think gays should get married but you just feel that they shouldn't and therefore are willing to go through this hilarious convoluted logic in order to justify your feelings.

We have had this same argument about a dozen times at this point and hopefully this time you will take away something useful and we won't see anymore of these dumb debates.

Well the entirety of the supreme court disagrees with you, but hey what do they know about rights?

What if you can't join the military for, let's say, health reasons? Then what?

Or what if the issue isn't that you don't have a job, but that you don't make enough money from your current job to afford healthcare for your whole family.

Or what if you have a kid who is uninsurable because of preexisting conditions.

But yeah other than those minor flaws, I guess the system is perfect.

Wow, a strawman argument of a legitamate position...what else is new Joe?

What the two sides should be are:

1) It is something the government cannot punish you for excersising (like the right not to get thrown in jail for speaking freely)

2) It is something that the government must protect (like the right to property, so people don't steal it from you).

My answer would be, both. There are certain rights that put limitations of the government, and others that sometimes require government intervention to ensure. This usually means spending some money (paying for a police force, judges, etc...)

Could you post the link again, it's not working for me. Thanks.

You get along fine by yourself? Consider this:

-Every day you eat food and possibly take medicine, that you know is safe because it is approved by the food and drug administration

-You know what the weather is going to be like because of satalites designed built and launched by NASA

-You check the time, which you know everyone uses because it is regulated by congress and kept accurately the the National Institute of Standards and Technology

-You drive a car that you know is safe thanks to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and drive it on roads built and monitored by local state and federal agencies.

-You then get to work and use the internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration

-During this whole day you do not get killed, carjacked or robbed because of local, state, and federal law enforcement keeping you safe

But of course you get by fine on your own, don't you Joe?

Let's face it, unless you go off into the woods to live, you are not taking care of yourself, so get some perspective and realize that there are a lot of things we need the government for, and those services require money; money that I am more then willing to pay to enjoy the quality of life I am fortunate enough to have because I was born in the U.S.A.

People aren't asking for handouts: they are trying to improve the lives of everyone, and that requires everyone to chip in...themselves included unless you assume that all democrats are poor, and all republicans are rich which is an absurd assumption.

Well, other than microbes that can digest plastic (as joe suggested) there isn't much we can do. The pieces are far to small, and the area is much too large for there to be a feasable solution for cleanup. All we can really do at this point is stop adding plastic to the oceans by doing a better job of recycling and stop dumping garbage in the ocean.

Hell if I know... the important thing is not the name however, but instead the evidence which undeniably points to a warming earth because of human activity.

Actually, what happened with the volcano is very different than the effect that CO2 has on our atmosphere.

When a volcano erupts it throws up a tremendous amount of dust and dirt into the atmosphere, which then reflects the sun's light. The same effect (more or less) can be achieved by painting ones roof white. Obviously car exhaust does not reflect radiation from the sun, but instead traps the radiation and re-emits it as heat.

Active volcanos that aren't erupting tend to actually spew CO2 into the atmosphere however, so in that way they do contribute to global warming, but not even close to the level that human emissions contribute.

I guess people like you are willing to take any fact out of context to try and prove your point though... watching all that fox news must have rubbed off on you.

Joe. How many times are you going to make me prove you wrong on this issue? There are a million things wrong with what this guy says, but let's stick to the graph that he claims shows a global cooling.

I am far too tired of repeating myself, so instead watch this video:

Since you chose to copy and paste your argument into a debate, I shall do the same with my reply:

Force themselves into a club where there not wanted?

How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple? Your argument, which you continue to repeat time and time again, is ridiculous, and you know it.

All gays want is equality, and if the government stopped using the word marriage but instead used civil unions that would be great. Look at this site that advocates equal marriage rights. It gives a number of scenarios:

We want the Flag of Equal Marriage to be complete, with all 50 stars lit up. We see three routes to marriage equality, as we define it:

1. Every individual state could pass a law allowing same-sex marriage.

2. The federal government could repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and allow same-sex marriage at the federal level, overriding all state-level bans.

3. The term "marriage" could be removed from state and/or federal laws, turning all "marriages" into civil unions in the eyes of the government. PLUS, same-sex civil unions would need to be recognized in all 50 states or at the federal level.

So here you're arguing a straw man "gays aren't being reasonable" argument.

Back to the whole "joining a club thing" and why it's bullshit. When African-Americans and other minorities "forced" their way into predominately white institutions, and clearly weren't wanted, should they have stopped?

In addition, marriage isn't a club. There aren't members only meetings where only married people are allowed to get into, and married people don't have to do anything for other married couples. Marriage is the legal (and often religious/cultural) union of two people who love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together. So allow me to repeat: how does letting gays marry affect, even a little bit, straight married couples? What gives them the right to deny those who want to pursue happiness with the one they love, legal sanction to do so?

If this is the best argument that you can come up with for opposing gay marriage, maybe you need to reevaluate your position and realize how ridiculous you sound (even more so than usual).

So basically he's an attention whore?

No wonder you seem to like him so much.

I never said your viewpoint violates the rights of anyone. No viewpoint on its own violates anyones rights, but in a democracy we vote based on viewpoints, and often times when this happens people have rights denied.

Are you saying that people like the guy in the article aren't actually intolerant?

And that's why people criticize you.... when you try to tell people things like this they will laugh at you because you would be so wrong that it hurts.

The only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time scale. Many small mutations over long periods of time accumulate to the point where the final species is distinct from the original. To help you understand this, imagine the process of human aging:

A baby never transforms into an old man through miraculous transformation. Instead it goes through a number of small, virtually undetectable changes, until the final result is something that is completely different from the original. If you looked at any two consecutive days, there would appear to be no difference, and in fact you would probably have difficulty determining which day came after the other. However, when these changes accumulate over time we get an old man.

In addition, I'm guessing that you are unaware that we have actually seen speciation occur both in nature and in controlled experiments... so here you're just wrong... it does happen.

And speaking of things you're wrong about:

All you have in the fossil record are fully formed and fully functional creatures; there are no transitional forms, none.

Actually, what we have in the fossil record are examples of more generalized forms from later periods of time changing into more complex organisms.... but don't take my word for it:

I love it when people like to paint either side as extreme and then put themselves in the middle. Fantastic.

What if we had approached the civil rights movement the same way? What if people hadn't been afraid to offend those who they recognized as being actually intolerant?

I'm fine with people having the right to express their viewpoints, but I have the right to criticize them, because criticism of someone's views does not violate their rights. Supporting policies that would discriminate against homosexuals? Well, that would infringe on a number of rights wouldn't it?

Well why don't you tell me what parts you disagree with, because: the first paragraph is merely statements of facts, which, if you would like I can back up with an incredible amount of sources. The second paragraph talks about the validity of evolution, which is indisputable (but if you would like to try, be my guest.) The third sentence is a challenge to you to provide some alternative to evolution by natural selection as to the diversity of life on this planet. I also stand by my last sentence, because I believe it to be the truth.

There is nothing incredible about evolution, and no "belief" is required. We see small mutations occurring over short periods of time, and know that these mutations are selected by the environment in which a species lives, and that these mutations can accumulate.

We also see substantial evidence of a gradual evolution from more general organisms to more complex organisms in the fossil record. The farther back you go, the more general these forms become. In fact, the fossil record is so extensive that we can trace virtually every important step in the evolution of most modern animals including humans.

Our fossil record is so good that scientists have actually been able to predict where fossils of a certain transitional form should be found, went to that place, and found the fossils they had predicted. Amazing, right? (By the way, the fossils were whale ancestors).

There is not one step in this entire process that could be considered "incredible" and your own incredulity of evolution is further evidence of your ignorance on the subject. I would suggest reading a book about it, or even watching a video (there are literally thousands on the internet). Perhaps then we can have an intelligent conversation about the subject, and I won't have to listen to your baseless claims about evolution.

How does allowing homosexuals to live their lifestyles openly hurt our society? Give me a single legitimate reason, and I'll concede the point.

First the evolution debate, now this.... maybe it's your brains that have fallen out.

This is dumb even for you, and you know it Joe.

I understand you just want to put up controversial debates, but come on... evolution? How about we debate gravity next?

When people use the term "Darwinism" it usually means (but not always) that they don't really understand the science of evolution. While it is true that Darwin did propose the basic concept of evolution (small mutations, selected by their ability to help an organism to have offspring, accumulate over time causing speciation) there are a number of other factors that contribute to evolution that Darwin didn't know about. This is not because he was dumb, but because there was no way to know at the time. Lucky for us, science advances our knowledge of the world, and we have now been able to fill in the gaps thanks to discoveries in genetics, archeology, and biology as a whole.

Darwin for example couldn't explain how traits were passed from generation to generation. We now know that this is from genetics, and with the study of genetics we have actually found certain ways in which organisms evolve which are not, in fact "Darwinian." Horizontal gene transfer is one example. I don't want to go into any great detail here, but essentially what happens is, genetic information is passed between two different species, as opposed to being passed from generation to generation. If you want a more detailed explanation here is the wiki article.

So in a sense, yes, evolution is not completely Darwinian... only predominately Darwinian in that:

1. Genetic mutations occur in species.

2. These mutations are sometimes beneficial to the survival of that species.

3. Those mutations which are beneficial allow members of the species that carry that mutation to pass the mutation onto their young.

4. These mutations can accumulate over time.

5. Eventually the accumulation of mutations will lead to more complex organisms.

This process has been observed over shorter time periods by scientists in both controlled experiments and nature, and observed over much longer periods of time in the fossil record.

All of these finds have been validated by the fact that we now have the ability to sequence DNA, proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) the fact that evolution is the absolute best explanation for the evidence, and, despite over 100 years of study, has not been shown to be invalid in even one instance.

So now I would like to ask you a question. How do you account for the evidence (fossils, DNA, morphology, embryology, observed instances of evolution etc...)? It sounds like you either don't understand the evidence, don't understand the theory or (most likely) both.

It would be better if we stopped arresting people for crimes that don't hurt anyone... like say possession of marijuana. There are more people arrested for marijuana than all other violent crimes combined (source) and legalizing marijuana would take away markets from violent drug trafficking organizations which would in turn mean less murders, and criminals associated with these organizations.

Problem solved, money saved.

Are you saying that because of his political views he was a bad person?

Is that how you feel about everyone who doesn't agree with you?

Remember my comments about you being partisan?

I would expect something like this from Joe, but I hoped you might be able to give a slightly more intelligent comment.

Well, considering we pay more on healthcare then any other nation, I'd say that reform will only help this problem.

Well the thing about our government is, you vote on the politicians that make the laws, so as long as people keep voting for people like Obama who support progressive taxes, changes like the ones you described, will only be a reality in the small frightened minds of people who irrationally fear healthcare change.

Yes, but the same doctors will still be performing the procedures.

Wow, it's funny how someone can take a completely harmless statement and turn it into something completely different then what I said. I actually wasn't arguing one way or another whether the government would do a good job managing healthcare, merely saying that your argument kinda sucked.

If you wanna talk about gambling though, I'd be happy to oblige. What's more risky: sticking with a shitty healthcare system that kills thousands and bankrupts millions in a time when we're trying to get the economy to recover, and millions are unemployed... or making a change to a system that will cover more people, and won't cost a cent to people making less than 350,000 dollars a year.

The reason it's called a public option is because it's just that: an option. Insurance companies are still going to be there, but those people who can't afford them will still get some care. How is any of this bad?

In an earlier debate you claimed that people like you who are in the middle class would be the ones screwed because an increase in taxes would mean that you would have to accept the public option rather than your existing healthcare because it would be too expensive. Unless it turns out you make more than 350,000 dollars a year, turns out that's incorrect. So let me ask you... what are you worried about?

Yeah... because those are all the same thing as healthcare.

Why not the people that sent someone to the moon, or defeated the Nazis or all the other great things we've done? Because it goes against your point? Well that makes sense.

I'm not saying that the government necessarily will do a good job managing the whole thing, only that your argument doesn't make sense.

Fortunately though, when it comes down to it, the same doctors will be performing these procedures, they're just getting paid by someone different.

From the video:

"At the Willamette Valley Cancer Center where Wagner gets her care, the Medical Director says the Oregon Health Plan has not kept up with the dramatic changes in chemotherapy...What we're looking at is today's treatment, but we're using 1993 standards. When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was fifteen years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs we have today."

The main argument made was not necessarily against rationing of care, but instead the those people making the decisions have not kept up with current medical treatments. Assuming this accusations is valid, it is certainly something we can learn from in our new healthcare plan.

I think what this story neglects to talk about is the other side... the people that 4,000 dollars a month ended up helping.

Look, obviously any healthcare plan is going to have sad stories... cancer sucks. The point though is to be able to put the available resources to help the most people possible. This means we may have to make some pretty grisly calculations... ideally we could give everyone every single possible treatment, but this is reality and we can't. Fortunately with the new healthcare plan what we can offer everyone healthcare in one form or another. For some people this may not be as good as there current healthcare plan, and if this is the case they can choose to remain on that coverage...no one's forcing people to leave their insurance companies, and in fact, this plan shouldn't even effect people's ability to pay for their insurance costs because those that are going to be taxed most are people that make over 350,000 dollars a year.

Edit: Just realized I probably posted on the wrong side...oops.

He loses money. An owner has nothing to gain by going on strike, unless his business is costing him more to run then he is earning, in which case going on strike still won't really help unless by strike you mean sell the business.

In the military there's a saying: "A good plan now is better than a great plan later." There are many reasons that Obama is rushing to push the healthcare bill through.

He knows that if we continue to stall a number of things will happen:

-People who can't afford healthcare will continue to suffer.

-Small Businesses that can't afford the high costs of healthcare will continue to go under, which will undermine economic recovery

-Insurance companies that do not want this bill to pass will continue to buy politicians (you would be amazed at how much they donate to political campaigns)

-We spend more than any other industrialized nation on healthcare, and if we hope to recover economically there is no way this can continue

In addition you claim that Obama hasn't read the healthcare bill, but let me ask you this: would you rather have the leader of the U.S. spend his time reading a 1,000 page bill or have one of his aids who is undoubtedly well trained in law to explain to him what is on it?

And if you're concerned about what is on the bill, how about you read it for yourself. It's not like they're hiding it or keeping it a secret. Honestly this is what the media should be doing, in addition to questioning those who are trying to pass the bill. It is the media's job to educate the public, not necessarily the governments. In this country we have a fairly open source government. You can read what is going on during sessions of congress, and usually even see them on tv. Obviously it's asking a lot of the average citizen to research this, but certainly not asking too much of the media.

The members of congress and the president are already on a federal healthcare option...I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

I support the push for health care reform, but I feel that rushing it through congress can only result in costly and ineffective results.

Here's what's cool about our system: if something doesn't work we can always go back and change it. Clearly Obama thinks it would be better to make tweaks to the system later rather then get caught up in a prolonged debate that would likely get us almost no where and allow the uninsured and the economy to suffer in the meantime.

Also, the reason for the debate has very little to do with the actual substance of the bill. That's why you hear these ridiculous accusations like death panels, because those who oppose it don't care about making good arguments, but only scaring people into opposing it by saying that it will destroy America.

To sum up: in no way does any of this prove that Obama falls into your generalization of a "professional politician" (and by the way, turns out you don't need the quotes, he actually is a professional politician).

I think money certainly has something to do with how well politicians, do because more money means more exposure (and on this same note the media certainly plays a big role in deciding which candidates have a chance in the primaries).

Looking at Obama, however, his original national recognition came from his speech during the 2004 democratic convention.

You then claim that money won him the election, but you fail to specify where the money came from. In this case it came from people sending small donations to fund his campaign. When you think about it, that's actually pretty democratic. He won on money, but that money came from the people.

As far as thinking that he has somehow forgotten about what it's like to be a real person, you seem to have this generalized view of politicians and want to fit every single politician into this generalization.

If you claim that Obama somehow forgot what it's like to be a regular person, then he must have some pretty impressive short term memory (don't forget how young he is for a president).

If you were to actually listen to Obama's speeches, instead of pigeonholing him as a typical politician, you would see that he clearly hasn't forgotten what it's like for the average American. Just look at his policies: he wants to cut taxes for lower and middle class families and raise taxes for those in the highest income bracket. He also wants universal healthcare available to everyone...not just those who can afford it.

Your claims are baseless, and your lack of evidence is revealing as to the weakness of your argument.

You do know that Obama grew up poor right?

You also understand that most of his policies are aimed at helping the lower and middle class?

Obviously in recent years he has lived a very comfortable life, but that has to do with the fact that he worked his way there from the bottom.

To argue someone doesn't know what they're talking about simply because of their current financial situation is silly, and misses the point.

Let's think about this for 2 seconds Joe. Why are most people voting against homosexual marriage? It's because they feel threatened that homosexuals marrying will somehow upset the sanctity of marriage. They have been told by their preists and ministers that god doesn't like homosexuals, that homosexuality is somehow immoral, and that the country will suffer if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Take Jake for example. He seems like a good guy, but he thinks homosexuality is immoral. This means that he thinks it's immoral to be born a certain way, and his only reasoning is a passage in the Bible. Were this something like a race, gender or disability issue you would not object to me calling him a bigot. In fact I think you're only objection is that there is such a large portion of the U.S. that holds this position, and therefore, I'm calling about half of the U.S. birgots, but name a time in history where half the U.S. wouldn't be considered bigots by todays standards? In fact usually it was more than half.

Don't get me wrong Joe, I'm not saying that these are all evil terrible people who want to kill gays. In fact I think most of them just have some misconceptions because they've been brainwashed by their respective religious establishments, and society as a whole. Surely you can imagine how difficult it must be for an open homosexual at school. And certainly you must see how socially acceptable it is for teenagers to make fun of the gay kid. What do you think the most common insult is among young males? "Dude don't be gay" or "You're such a faggot."

Most of the people who use these phrases aren't trying to be hurtful, or even homophobic but I think you can see how it reflects society's view of homosexuals.

Don't forget though Joe, that homosexuality used to be illegal.

I'm not sure what you're talking about me circumventing the system...this is a debate site and I am expressing my opinions on matters that I truly believe to be right. There are so many things that I say here that I would never say in the real world (for example most people I know, don't know I'm an atheist). Obviously from a practical standpoint I think that getting domestic partnerships and civil unions for gays in the short run is important to the long term goal of legalizing gay marriage.

What I disagree with is that it will cause some type of cultural war. If you look at the demographics for those who voted in elections like California's Prop 8, you'll see that the majority of younger voters opposed the proposition. This means that eventually those who support gay marriage will eventually "inherit" the majority. It's really only a matter of time.

As I said before, if the government gave everyone civil unions then I would be perfectly happy because everyone would be equal, and prejudice adoption laws wouldn't be able to stop homosexuals from adopting.

Joe, remember, just because the majority think something, doesn't mean they're not wrong. The majority weren't right about:

-Slavery

-Woman's Suffrage

-The legality of Homosexuality

-Segregation

So is it really that hard to believe that our society still has views that are bigoted?

I think creationists are dumb, for example and look how many of them there are.

Actually I would be perfectly fine if we just changed everything to civil unions. Then everyone would be equal.

I know that it's the pursuit of happiness, and marriage is definitely not guaranteed happiness (my own father divorced his first wife) but it certainly allows people to pursue happiness.

Certainly the attitude others have had to take is "who cares what others think", but they shouldn't have to. That's my point. You seem to just be opposed to change for no other reason then because it's change. I'm sorry, but I just can't understand that concept.

With what you've said about adoption, I think you've stumbled on a key part of this whole debate. Does the majority have the right to tell the minority how to live? You could argue that children are affected, so in this case, yes they do, except that every study done on the subject shows that those children raised by same sex couples are not hurt by the arrangement. This means laws are not being made on rationality but either religious beliefs or bigotry (do I smell a repeat debate). The supreme court of Alabama actually overturned the initial law as unconstitutional for the reasons I just named, but the people of Alabama passed an amendment (I believe, sketchy on the details) that made it impossible for unmarried people to adopt. This means that the issue won't be solved until homosexuals are given equal marriage rights.

Why should gays have to go through so much trouble to have a child when straight couples don't? This is one issue I completely don't understand because allowing gays to adopt would mean less children in foster care. How is this not a good thing?

And people wonder why I don't like religion.

I don't feel like doing the research so I'm only going to answer those questions which I know (or think I know) off the top of my head. There's a good chance I'm wrong on some of them, and if so please someone correct me.

A few states have decided to recognize gay marriages. Does the Federal Government recognize those marriages for tax purposes?

In those states which have legalized gay marriage, all married couples receive the same benefits regardless of their gender.

Do most states recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships?

Let me preface this by saying there are 6 states that grant (or soon will grant) full marriage rights to homosexuals: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire.

As far as civil unions:

New Jersey has legalized civil unions for same sex couples that grant rights very close to those given to married couples.

I can't think of any others right now, but there might be more.

As far as domestic partnerships:

Nevada recently passed a bill that would allow domestic partnerships to have essentially the same rights as a marriage.

Domestic partnerships in California have nearly the same amount of rights as marriages (I'm not actually sure on the differences).

Recently a law was passed in Washington that would make domestic partnerships equal under the law to same sex marriages.

Orogen passed a bill making domestic partnerships legal, and with the same rights as marriages.

Washington D.C. has domestic partnerships that are essentially equal in rights to marriage.

Hawaii, Colorado and Maryland also recognize same sex unions in one form or another, but not with rights equal to those of marriage.

So in case you weren't counting

6 states - Gay marriage is legal

1 State - Civil Unions between same sex couples are legal

4 states (and D.C.) - Domestic Partnerships are legal

3 states - Recognize same sex unions in some form

That means that there are 36 states in which there is absolutely no recognition of gay marriage.

(Okay, I cheated a little and used this wiki ariticle)

I mean, we all argue about gay marriage but what's the real issue here?

Equality regardless of sexual orientation.

Are we just fighting over the use of a word?

I don't think so. I think what we are fighting over is whether people who are born differently will be able to enjoy the same rights as everyone else. As far as the civil union thing, I think it's a step in the right direction, but we've tried separate but equal in the U.S. before...it didn't turn out so well.

Which rights are being violated?

Remember the Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What could be more fundamental to happiness then being allowed to marry the person you love?

What exactly is it that same sex couples are not allowed to do but if they were married all of that would go away?

Depends on the state, but in general I would say it's start a family. Some states have even passed laws making adoption for those who aren't married illegal. This means that gay couples in these states won't be able to really have a family until they are allowed to marry.

Can't you understand how demeaning it must be for those people who want a family, but live in a country that won't even recognized their right to that family?

So you're willing to admit now that we are causing global warming?

Regional temperatures are not an accurate reflection on global trends. If you want some idea how global temperatures have been acting in the past hundred years look at this graph.

I agree, and I was giving an example of what might be considered offensive.

My only point was that the whole Joker thing isn't really offensive at all.

You mean like this one?

40% of all the money I made last summer (I have school during the rest of the year). Is that more clear?

Last year I donated 40% of my paycheck to help send shoes I had collected over to children in Africa. So go ahead and take that 30%. I will happily give it up for those who need it more. (It should be noted, though, that I do not live on my own and therefore my expenses are significantly reduced).

I would also point out that a much larger percentage of that 30% goes to paying for services that you enjoy (such as roads, military, police, etc.) than goes to help those less fortunate.

We are all part of this society, and we cannot ignore those who are in need.

Another one of these "So..." debates. I thought you learned your lesson last time in the global warming one.

Well what if they structured it like the public school system. Everyone pays to allow everyone to send their kids, but if you want, and can afford it, you send your child to a better school.

It would be easy to do with healthcare. If you cannot afford your own, then use the governments, but if you are afraid about scary sayings like "ration your care." Then pay for your own, out of your own pocket.

The real issue is: healthcare is a necessity. If a nation can afford to ensure all of it's citizens then it should do so. We are the richest nation in the world (though not per person, I guess, but still pretty high up there), therefore we should make sure no one is too poor to see a doctor for necessary treatments.

Plus emergency only care ends up costing more in the end, because a pill today can stop an operation tomorrow.

Haha

Joe, denial is not just a river in egypt..................

If you can't provide a valid alternative theory about why the earth is warming, then yes, there is no point in you continuing.

While we're talking about fallicies, however, you created a strawman of my argument:

The earth is warmer due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have produced more CO2 recently. Therefore humans are responsible for the extra heat.

Close, but not quite. Allow me to correct you.

The earth is warmer due to more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which include CO2, methane and water vapor. Humans have caused CO2 and methane levels to increase dramatically (CO2: from 278 ppm in 1750 (Source), to 380 parts per million in 2007 (source; Methane: .7 ppb in 1750, to 1.7 ppb in 2007 (same sources)).

Looking at ice core samples, we can see that levels of CO2 this high have always been associated with both temperature spikes, and (looking at the fossil record) massive extinction events. In addition, there has never before been a spike in the levels of carbon dioxide this high.

In addition, the current warming does not fit with the cycle of warming and cooling that is observed in the ice core samples. This periodic warming and cooling is based on long-term changes in the earths orbit (known as Milankovitch factors). Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years.

We also know that all other factors that could be responsible for an increase in temperature, are in fact acting exactly as they always do. The sun hasn't strayed from it's steady eleven year cycle... there haven't been any tremendous volcanic eruptions or seismic activity that could be causing a change in the global temperature. In short, everything is normal but the greenhouse gasses, and, as I stated previously, the most significant factor in changing greenhouse gasses is human activity.

Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is humans are responsible for the extra heat.

In addition, you seem to think that we must have a definitive proof, however science does not deal with absolutes. There is always a chance that new data will come along and falsify an idea, however in cases like climate change that chance is less than a billion to one. What we have is known as circumstantial evidence. For example if you walked into a room, saw a dead body with bullet holes, and a man, covered in blood spatter, holding a gun with bullets that matched those found in the victim, and no one (other than yourself, the shooter and the victim) was around for miles, the only logical conclusion to make would be that the man shot the victim. You didn't technically see what happened, but there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt... and in fact people are sent to prison for life on much less.

In this way, correlation does not "prove" anything, but does constitute one piece of evidence in the "case" of global warming. A case which has long been settled by climate scientists, and only remains open in the public's warped view of the facts.

If you are still not convinced after having read this, then maybe I can show you one last piece of evidence that will sway your opinion: climate models.

Enjoy the video:

All the points you made are based on correlation and causal reduction, which are both argumental fallacies.

Not at all. There are numerous different reasons why scientists know that greenhouse gasses are the cause of global warming, and almost none of them have to do with the fact that there is a current correlation between temperature and CO2. My somewhat simplistic explanation of the science behind global warming was merely as a way to convey the basic ideas behind the theory.

First, we know that greenhouse gasses do influence the temperature based on the physical characteristics of the gasses themselves. Allow me to explain.

Our planet is made up mostly of Nitrogen (78%) a significant amount of oxygen (21%) with some other gasses such as water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide making up the remaining one percent.

Sunlight enters the atmosphere as relatively short wave radiation (visible and UV light) and when it hits the ground, it is emitted as long wave radiation (infrared radiation, a.k.a. heat). The gasses in our atmosphere allow short wave radiation to pass through relatively easily (this is why we can see through air).

Long wave radiation also passes readily through both nitrogen and oxygen, however, it is absorbed by the three latter gasses I mentioned (water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide). When the long wave radiation hit's these gasses, it causes them to heat up and warm the atmosphere.

This is, in general, a good thing because otherwise the long wave radiation would merely bounce off the earth and go into space, meaning that our earth would be a much colder place.

The opposite is true as well. If we have more of these gasses in the atmosphere then that means that we have more infrared being trapped, and the earth gets warmed.

All of what I just said is just basic physics, and is undeniably factual. None of it has to do with "correlation or casual reduction" as you implied.

Now that we have established that more greenhouse gasses cause the planet to warm, and we can both agree that humans are producing more greenhouse gasses then occur naturally we have to ask ourselves, could there be some other cause?

The answer is no.

In one of your earlier arguments with me, you sighted the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle. I have already shown you evidence that the movie itself is rife with intellectual dishonesty of the lowest kind, however, if you would like to contest that point I would be happy to oblige a debate on the subject.

One of the points the movie argues, however, is that the increases in warming over the last hundred or so years, has been primarily due to solar activity. They even use a graph which can be seen here. As you can probably see however the line representing solar output stops at around 1980. A little bit of research shows that the reason the creators of this movie decided to stop the graph at that point is because, while global temperatures continue to climb, solar output actually begins to decrease. Here is a full graph that shows what the movie conveniently left out.

The fact is, solar activity has remained on a fairly steady 11 year cycle, whereas global temperature has been increasing dramatically. This shows that solar output could not be responsible for the earths sudden increase in temperature.

Global Warming is the modern day definition of Pious Fraud, and how you can convince a crowd by persistent repetition and fear mongering, despite the lack of proper evidence.

I hope that you now see how wrong this statement is. There are mountains of evidence that show that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the increase in temperature. I could easily have gone on to talk about ice core samples that tie temperature to carbon dioxide levels for thousands of years, or I could have talked about climate models that have predicted with a great deal of accuracy how the earths climate will be affected by increased emissions of greenhouse gasses.

What I find most startling about your argument is that you provide no evidence to contradict any of my claims, but merely cry out that global warming is a hoax, and we are all being duped. If you know more than the thousands of climate scientists who are in agreement that we are causing global warming, then please share with us. Otherwise, maybe you should leave science to the scientists.

Actually it was Jake that said he knew a lot of smart people who don't believe in global warming. I just took him at his word.

Care to back that up with some facts?

I showed you my graph, now show me yours ;)