- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
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.
To begin with, I do not think that religious groups would want to change their own traditions of the word marriage for others who they may feel have mistreated the word.
Next I would like to ask why they would spend two million pounds on a word when people in other countries can 'only see God in the form of food they are so hungry'. Two million pounds would buy a lot of food.
Finally I would like to ask another rhetorical question, why on Earth would they want to replace a word that has united people together for more millenia than I know of?
This brings me to a conclusion that any religious group is unlikely to want to change a 'holy' word.
Comparing someone in the modern world, where discrimination is illegal and women have equal rights to men, reminds me of the slave trade. Slaves were considered as an ornament and discriminated against. The unfair idea that in the modern day this should be brought back is preposterous.