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 ;)