Xander's Waterfall
Controlled? Pussy? I swear to god, all of the guys in this debate must be campaigning for the longest dry spell ever. Ladies distribute themselves where they damn well see fit. We aren't property or tradeable or exchangeable- this is like me demanding your testosterone, it's stupid.
Allow me to rebut. I am a liberal lady, and my lady-parts aren't property- they're a part of my person, which isn't property either. Treating ladies like cargo isn't going to get anyone laid- not that YOU would know ANYTHING about not getting laid.
Yes- he immigrated from Africa. My babysitter when I was younger was French-American, and preferred to be referred to as such, though racially (social construct, I know) she was black. one should be classified by most recent descent IF that's what they prefer. it would be easier to not have to fight over race, though, and make more meaningful distinctions- perhaps ethnically? I suppose then you would have lots of small ethnic groups in areas with indigenous population in a relatively intact state; Western Europe an America would probably bleed together into a sort of Euro-merican ethnicity, with sub-groups within,
Hey. Whoa. Resentment!
What's more, liberals are pretty much always (as a group) way younger than conservatives- which makes us way more attractive.
ALSO, what is this "their" women bullshit? "Oh, yeah, I took Jane-the-Sweater from Bob the other day. Man, he was pissed, but what a perfect fit!"
Ladies aren't a resource, and we can sleep with whomsoever we feel- whatever political party they are affiliated with.
If you're in any position to -dar, then it's pretty accurate. then again, I only gaydar on those I have good reason to believe are gay- the ultra conservative, super sensitive friend who always checks out guys asses, for instance, or the girl who seems to take every opportunity that presents itself to make out with other girls. Those people? Probably bi or gay. Otherwise, ehhhh, whatever.
Man, this is why you should stick around. I don't agree with a bunch of stuff you say, but you have the BEST witty commentary.
Also, how do you do bold/italics? I don't want to look like an idiot trying to figure out the necessary punctuation in debates, and you seem to know.
Neither Gore nor Monckton have any business discussing climate change, as neither are scientists. Also, if someone refuses to accept data, you just CAN'T argue with them.
Examples:
Comprehensive sex education lowers abortion, unplanned pregnancy, and STI rates, without lowering age of first sexual action. But it "destroys families!"
Evolution is a clearly documented phenomena, and makes perfect sense when looking at other even more clearly documented phenomena. But "God created the world!".
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it reasonable!
It's neither/both! Homosexuality, I would say, is a normal behavior as behaviors go but there's probably some sort of genetic disposition somewhere somehow. Being gay, though, has more to do with a community- The Gay Community. Many people identify as heterosexual but have homosexual behaviors, because they don't associate with the gay identity. So, really, it's all semantics!
I wish REAL boobs did this this prettily....
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Nope! Because there is objective evidence about climate change and the role of CO2 in it. Also, if global climate change is a threat, then we'll know soon enough!
Intelligent design however, is mostly just ridiculous! Any being patient enough to design cells and genetic material COULDN'T be ADHD enough to let the dinosaurs go.
A Powerful Position! (Hell yes, it's capitalized!)
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
This is true, but that's what the media is for! Also, peaceful protest, etc. I could understand needing an oath like this in a country where the government was more shady, but even then, the threat of an unruly, armed mob is more than the threat of a disciplined army ordered to do questionable things.
This is terrifying. This is really, truly terrifying. The idea of having an army that will not obey orders is far more unsettling to me than the idea of an army under the control of a tyrant. Undisciplined troops can do far more damage than those tightly controlled, even by someone with terrible intent.
Then, most of these apply exclusively to American citizens, which is really unfair, and reeks to me of dangerous nationalism (in the words of my AP World teacher, patriotism on crack). They're all for protecting the rights of Americans, and only Americans. when it comes down to it most war crimes are not upon the subjects of the fighters, but the citizens of their opponents. There are notable exceptions, yes- but it's not our rights we need to worry about.
"We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union."
Well DAMN. Let's just bring back the Confederacy. Black, Asian, Hispanic? Rights REVOKED. Female? REVOKED. Poor? REVOKED.
Then again, those militias will save us! Oh, shit! Just kidding, they'll actually just kill people without due process and install their own military government, However, they have the RIGHT to do so.
This is such bull. Good intentions, but BULL.
SERIOUSLY? C'mon, someone left a sixty page top secret document in a copier? Pft. Biological weapons are too effective to be used- we couldn't nuke Canada, because we would be fucked. We can't use bioweapons, because we would be even MORE fucked.
No, it is not murder, because a fetus (especially a one-week-old fetus) is nothing but a blob of cells, a non-person, a non-citizen, and therefore has no rights.
However, the woman does have the right to the sanctity of her own body and the distinction, perhaps, could be made between assault and battery and/or domestic violence resulting in miscarriage and assault and battery and/or domestic abuse for the purpose of creating a miscarriage.
Now, if someone intentionally kills an obviously pregnant woman, say, third trimester, I could see calling that murder.
I agree with you! As i beat my wife, I only use a stick the width of my thumb!
Hey, wait a sec.... I have really small thumbs... Oh god, I'm a girl! SHIT, I'm straight!
I guess I just beat my husband with a stick twice as wide as my thumb, because I'm awfully small.
Shit. I'm not married.
ANYWAY, I beat people up with my thumbs. What?
Yeah, this is a good one. Also, perhaps, three-quarters of your age plus three? This isn't as effective for teens, though.
Perhaps the best strategy would be .85 (age) plus one?
Fourteen-year-olds could date thirteen-year-olds,
Sixteen-year-olds could date fourteen-and-a-half-year-olds,
Eighteen-year-olds could date sixteen-year-olds,
Twenty-year-olds could date eighteen-year-olds,
Twenty-five-year-olds could date twenty-two-year-olds, etc.
It works fairly well into adult hood- fifty-year-olds can date forty-three year olds. However, one might want to adjust for a larger interval with .75 (age) plus one, or two? However, I think that isn't the best solution.
OR, we could just, you know, use common sense.
I think that in our society it is unusually the male- just because that's the way it is, and we don't think about it. There are societal norms that we usually follow, which usually put the male into a power-position. Why do people ask who them man is in a gay relationship? Because the male is pretty much accepted as the person in charge in a relationship.
Wait, what? Your icon? Which, ohbytheway, is AWESOME?
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I think it sort of it. Especially with race, minority group can usually judge and stereotype as much as they like, but white people are "racist" for the silliest things. Jokes are very touchy- white people cannot make racial jokes, unless they are about some subset of their own race.
Hold the phone here. Are you saying that a woman needs permission to abort a child? That's ridiculously unfair. What if it's the product of a one-night-stand? What if she can't find the father, or doesn't know who the father is? Then can she just not abort, because she doesn't know? If the mother and father are in a close enough relationship, then she should be able to make the decision with him. However, if she's not close enough to include him in that decision, then they aren't close enough for him to force her to carry a child for nine months, along with all the social stigma attached to it.
men and woemn have differnt wants when it comes to sexual affirs: men want to impregnate as many women as possible, for as many offspring as possible, and women want to keep guys around to help raise their kids.
So, for the girls, guys are cheating sleezeballs who don't try to relate to you emotionally.
And, for the guys, girls are controlling bitches who care too much about what you do and all your shit and every girl you look at, after which they want to talk about their feelings and don't want to put out enough.
I think that this site is primarily filled with intelligent, liberal people- the kind of people that find reading to be VERY important, and felt so as teenagers. I attend an inner-city high school, where reading is much less important to many people than their next meal, their jobs, their families, where they can sleep, their gangs, a fight they’re going to be in, or even what clothes they want to wear. Many of my peers couldn’t sting together a grammatically correct sentence, and many can barely read- why would they enjoy something they struggle with when they have so many other things to worry about? When you can copy/paste homework, and be pushed up a grade even without the skills needed, many teens simply lack the ability to read for pleasure.
I don't know about other girls, but after an argument with someone I don't feel the need to jump their bone. Online debate allows you to get your words perfect, rather than fumbling and stumbling through your argument. Besides, once you've decided that your opinions differ enough for a heated debate, a hook-up would seem to be unappealing at the least- intellectual similarities are far more attractive than vast, gaping ideological differences.
I agree completely. Debating in a classroom is at best awkward and at worst a little frightening. I've walked into many classroom debates where I am the only person supporting my side of the argument- as a confident person with accepting friends, this isn't the social death it could be; however, on some issues I’m intimidated- sometimes physically- by my peers.
In a forum online, the heat and anger of real-time debates is somewhat lost; in composing a paragraph, uninterrupted, one finds oneself in a much better position to respond calmly, rationally, and calmly. For these reasons, one is much less likely to be personally attacked, or to attack others. We also do not know each other in “real life”, making personal attacks less painful and less pertinent than when they are levied by our peers.
Our lack of personal attachments makes for a better debate, as well; one does not have to fear losing friendships or social status or safety- mental, emotional, or physical- to a well-argued opinion.
