Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 2260 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 88% |
Arguments: | 1022 |
Debates: | 330 |
The title is the winning argument in itself. There is no way that you can treat everybody equally because some people are accustomed to being treated differently, and for that reason you have to respect differences and adapt to what others expect
I don't think that any President who doesn't win a war for America will be remembered especially well. The same applies for a lot of countries after they get bored of their current leader.
For example, a lot of Prime Ministers in England are remembered badly or not at all, but Prime Ministers such as Winston Churchill, who was the PM during World War Two, is remembered with respect and will be for his 'good speeches' and comfort he provided. I don't think that's especially exceptional for a head of state, though. Many people in the conservative party are good speakers, but I doubt they will be remembered as much as iconic, successful war leaders, such as Winston Churchill.
I had such a variety of options there. 'I like worms' - which I don't - and 'I hate birds' - which I don't are great options - thanks.
It is also a pretty weird debate. I think though, if the saying is accurate, then you should sleep in late. If I were a worm I would be sleeping in late - then I could do all sorts of interesting things when I was alive; I wouldn't be able to do anything if I were dead, would I?
Although, I think that I would rather be the bird than the worm in the first place.
The only problem is that some people couldn't afford to test their stupidity, so maybe a smaller fee would be better. True, it wouldn't determine if they were extremely stupid or just having a laugh, but it would still show some results for the people that entered the money. If someone did decide to save up to test on $100 then that is really stupid, for they would have had time to think it over - but if you were that stupid maybe that wouldn't be the case, the writing would be a bigger barrier.
Why shouldn't we be able to focus on two things at once? Almost any person on the planet, no matter what their gender is, can focus on two things like watching television and talking at the same time, and why shouldn't we be able to do that? Admittedly, if people talk too loudly it cannot be done but if not the details can be comprehended as well as the conversation.
|