-
+ New Debate
- Debate Clubs
- Debate News
- About
- Support Us More
frame
Best Agree Content
-
The Difference Between Science and Religion
As I said before, science and religion both share a mixture of beliefs and understanding and an understanding of why they may believe some of the things they understand. It's not beliefs and understandings (or misunderstandings for that matter) where the differences lyes; it's what those beliefs are based upon which is where they lye.Now, in order to answer the question about the difference between religion and science one first needs acknowledge that there are two different kinds of religions collectively; Theistic and Non-Theistic and that there is a multitude of different branches of sciences. And a number of religions will share a mixture of differences as well as similarities with several different branches of sciences.
-
What's more offensive to you?
I fail to see how entities expressed as nouns can be offensive. Something you can say can be offensive; something that just exists cannot be offensive, and it is a part of nature.
-
Are Men more logical than Women?
Men and women are equally capable of the same level of intellect if given the chance. Girls mature faster than boys do, but that is not to say they are naturally smarter. Bringing fake rape accusations into this scenario is unnecessary and degrading to women who have suffered sexual trauma. People who make these claims are shameful and many real feminists do not agree with them. Modern day feminism is about day to day life, as opposed to legal rights, however the right to chose is being taken away. Rape victims as young as eleven are forced to give birth to a child while men who admit to rape get off without any charges with relation to sexual assault. And yes, I am aware of men being assaulted too, this does not mean that the suffering of either party is diminished. Why do I bring rape into my argument? Well, to begin with, you did. And the same people who claim women are incapable of being intelligent are the ones who deny healthcare. Sexism has no borders. You support women or you do not.
-
save the masses
@maxx
It didn't appear like there was a side to take here... You asked a question, I gave an answer...
Did you intend a specific group to answer like evangelicals or something? You should have mentioned it... Sorry...
-
Should Youtube silence the right?
@MayCaesar
Vimeo, dailymotion, Metacafe, veoh, twitch, crackle, LiveLeak, and 9gag are all ones you may want to try, and I'll bet some of them will be more lax with their rules. The more popular these sites become, the more content will be shared there. Then we'll get to have this same discussion about one of those sites. That's the pattern. -
Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
@Plaffelvohfen
>1: Oh really?? Got anything to back that up?? As usual, probably not...
To back what up?
>2: I would even go further and say that there is 2 "person", not one... It doesn't change a thing as the number of bodies is not the issue...
I count 2 bodies. Both bodies are the issue.
>3: A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...
All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.
>B ) People have abortions in their bedrooms now, really??
I would not be surprised. But interesting that you, a dyed in the wool liberal, doesn't know the bedroom analogy.
>What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant,
I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.
>the only relevant fact is what is it doing?
I reject that as ad-hoc nonsense.
>The answer to that question is: The baby is using another person body, that is undeniable...
That depends on what you mean by "using". But I will note that the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.
>The question then becomes a matter of consent, does the woman continuously consent or not, to her body being used?
Abject nonsense. You cannot invite a person in, where their life and or safety depends on you, and then change your mind where it results in the person's death.
What about a doctor operating on a patient? Can he quit mid operation because it is his body performing the operation?
>That's the only thing that matters... And that choice to consent or not, is hers alone to make...
You want that to be the only thing that matters. But that is certainly not the only thing that matters. The inalienable rights of the baby matters too.
>So, here's a challenge for you, if you can actually demonstrate that A) the right to life, infers B ) a right to use someone body without their consent...
Easy. I cannot morally or legally leave a person to drown if I find him shipwrecked in the ocean. I cannot abandon flying a plane with passengers because I change my mind. I cannot go and take back a kidney I donated to someone if taking it will result in their death. Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women.
>Then I would have no choice but to actually change my position on this, as this is my strongest argument... No one has been able to, yet... Up for it?
It is actually a very weak argument. My guess is you will dodge the analogies.
You may have a slight case in those instances where the woman did not invite the baby in, but even then, the babies right to life trumps the woman's right to choice.
Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.
1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?
You are going through these mental contortions to avoid the clear logic of the matter. You simply want to be able to be rid of the baby. That is all.
Your strongest argument is, "because I want to". There is no logic on the side of abortionists.
-
Abosulte Morality does not work with Theism as well as Atheism
The notion of absolute anything relies on acknowledging the ultimate authority of certain entity. The problem is, what theists see as the ultimate authority, atheists do not.
The role of the authority in virtually all Greek philosophies, which gave birth, in some shape of form, to all modernly dominant philosophies, was played by facts: if something has been deducted to be a fact, then certain objective truths can be derived from that fact. On the other hand, if something is not a fact, then it inherently depends on the individual point of view and, hence, is subjective.
Theists consider God or Gods to be the ultimate authority. But from the atheist point of view, were God/Gods to exist, they would still be merely a part of the world, and hence subject to any facts existing in this world. Just because the God/Gods believe in a certain set of morals does not make them authoritative, because the requirement of them being derived from facts is not met.
As such, theists are not really wrong when they talk about absolute/objective morality; they just recognise a different authority from what modern philosophies recognise. They are wrong, however, in that the vast majority of them do not make this distinction, so they think that they can use the word "objective" in the factual sense - which they cannot. But the most educated theist scholars do seem to be aware of this distinction. -
What do you think about Democrats?
@WordsMatter
I am neither Democrat nor Republican; I dislike both parties, and I am not aware of a single modern party anywhere in the world with views of which I strongly sympathise. I liked the Pirate Party in the EU parliament until it started collaborating with authoritarians, and I like the economical views of People's Action Party in Singapore, although I cannot stomach their sociopolitical views.
Not sure where this sentiment comes from that only a member of one of these two parties can strongly dislike the other party. I do not need to be a Republican to see that Democrats as a whole are quickly losing their minds, considering what bunch of candidates they have this time around - and I do not need to be a Democrat to see that Trump has hijacked the Republican platform and is quickly pushing it in the protectionist-isolationist direction.
Still, the Republicans appear the saner of the two, and even Trump himself is not all that bad, mostly refraining from meaningful action - as any president should. The Congress was intended to be the real power in the country by the Founding Fathers, and the role of the President has always been nothing more than to execute the will of the Congress and, in other regards, stay out of its way. The president was never supposed to be the agent of change. Trump wants to be one, but as a very experienced CEO understands that more often than not it helps to pull back and just observe. The bully in him conflicts with the CEO, and the CEO wins over surprisingly often.
-
What do you think about Democrats?
I am sorry I just can't get on board with any of the social programs that democrates are proposing right now.
Lets look at medicare for all. Lets forget about the companies and thousand of employess that would lose their jobs. Lets consider the fact that medicare does not cover a lot of things that private insurance does. Also they tend to pay a lot less and are slow to pay doctors. This would probably make a lot of the better doctors move to private pay as from what I have been told has happened in other countries which leaves the best care available only to the rich.
Then there is obama care or the "Affordable Care Act" that was not affordable for many who needed it and becausevthey couldn't afford it of course it was a good idea to charge those people $2000 dollars a year. Also to help pay for it they added a higher precentage rate on student loans. This still didn't pay for it so the country had to barrow money adding to the national debt.
I am not completly againsr health care for all I just haven't seen a comperhensive plan that not only benifits all the people including the doctors and doesn't break the backs of the tax payer.
Then there is the attack on corporations. When will people realize that the more money a corporation has to put out whether it is in taxes or cost of goods the more adjustments they will make. Those adjustments may come in a decrease of staff and wages paid out to the price of the goods they put out.
I also can't agree with paying for everyones college education or thier debts. At least not without a good way to pay for it and a plan of who's depts should be paid off. If we are going to pay for people to go to college shouldn't we only be supporting the kids that make good grades and actually graduate. I personally don't want my taxes going to pay for a kid that goes to college and spends their time partying and barely or not passing classes and never graduating. Maybe if they introduce a plan that forgives the loans after they have graduated with good grades and they come up with a reasonable way to pay for it.
Really I don't want taxes raised for programs that do not consider the whole picture.
-
Is free speech a human right?
The freedom of speech should be a human right but un fortunately in many countries it is not.
In the USA it is a constitutional right. A right that should be protected with rigor.
Although as dee stated there are circumstances where that right is abused. I don't necessarily agree with all those rulings but people need to realize that speech based on lies, false witness or rumor should be regulated.
Speech that icites violence is a case by case determination. For instance a military commander leading a charge is inciting violence but in this case is probably appropriately. On the other hand groups like ANTIFA who preach violence against anyone who disagrees with them is not ok, making them no better than the many religious terrorist groups who incite violence because they have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't follow thier doctrine of belief.
