-
+ New Debate
- Debate Clubs
- Debate News
- About
- Support Us More
frame
Best Content of All Time
-
Should debate.org members switch to debateisland?
The opinions and polls sections of DDO are broken, nobody can use them, so yeah. People can only use forums and debates currently. DDO is basically a giant bug.In the debates section, I've seen some pretty terrible ("Black rape victims who complain should be forced to work in the sex industry"), and stupid ("morality= survival truth" and basically everything by vi_Spex, "is it gay for a guy to wear girl clothes"). The debates section is extremely low quality.I also rarely see any debates getting voted on. Infact the majority of debates get abandoned before the voting period. The ones that get into the voting period? They usually don't get votes and when they do it's usually by the debators friends who they had waiting to vote for them, or they just get removed instantly because "I don't like how you did this little little little little little thing blah blah blah" and alot of the times, people won't even try to win debates by arguing and doing research but instead by getting their friends to vote for them as already said, or reporting opposing votes.I used to be friends with someone who organized vote bombings all the time. Also, the most viewed debate on the entire site is a troll debate about a tv show character.Most of the activity on the site comes from the forums section. Forums that aren't just spam and games such as Philosophy lack activity. In more active forums that aren't just spam and games, it's usually the same exact people in them.
And you know about what I said about whiteflame? In general, the moderation is corrupt. Head moderator airmax will ban people for very small things while allowing active trolls to roam freely.
Debate.org is dying, and now many top members are abandoning their accounts. It went from actual discussion to a bunch of trolls and spammers.
However there is still one thing good about debate.org: The account deactivation screen.
-
The earth is flat
I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.
and 13 others. -
Israel or Palestine?
I support Palestine on this issue.
Both sides committed war atrocities, not only Palestine.
People argue that Palestine was never a state, therefore Israel did not take any land. But the Native Americans also never had a state, does that justify Europeans taking their land?
The British ruled over Palestine and the Arabs. Jewish immigration into Palestine was met with tolerance by the Arabs, although there were some tensions. The Jews still lived peacefully with the Arabs however. The Arabs then tried to break free from British rule. The Jewish people supported Great Britain causing the Arabs to lose. Then Great Britain gave over the Palestine issue to UN. UN agreed that Palestine should be split between Palestine and Israel.
This is flawed because Palestine includes Jewish communities as well as Islamic. In Jerusalem, 50% of the population was Jewish, while 50% of the population was Islamic. They were peaceful with each other. The Arabs were also tolerant with each other. But when the split occurred, the tensions between Arabs and Jews increased, causing less tolerance.
This is also what happened to India. The Hindus and the Muslims both occupied India, and were both fighting for independence, but the British split the communities. This didn't stop the revolution from happening, but it caused less tolerance, and eventually the splitting of the lands into Muslim and Hindu countries.
An Israel state was not needed. Palestine was already tolerant of the Jews. Jerusalem was shared with both religions. They lived as neighbors peacefully. Splitting the land caused less tolerance, more war, and the decrease of Palestinian occupied land.
The Arabs wanted freedom and the Jewish people went against them, supporting the British. The British split up the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic people into separate institutions so that they are less unified. Then they take the Arab's land while the Arabs were being tolerant, and cause more war and less tolerance, and give it to the Jews.
and 3 others. -
Let's Talk Critically About Sexism
Headlining our debate on Sexism in the United States is the Oxford Dictionary's definition of what "Sexism" means and this will set the tone for the debate to follow:
Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Followed by Merriam Webster:
Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
In my honest opinion I think the meaning of the word is an indication of where this is going. While I admit openly that there have been and currently are disparities in equality between Men and Women in the United States...I don't think the inequalities are biased heavily or more heavily against Women. There's a quiet, hushed side of this equation that has remained unnoticed and shunned for the majority of the History of the U.S.
My point is this:
1. Men have historically been held accountable, responsible, liable and reprehensible more heavily than Women.
2. Men are on the receiving side of more discrimination, prejudicial treatment, stereotyping and bias than Women are.
3. The benefits of being a Man are far outweighed by the benefits of being a Woman in our Country.
My supporting evidence is as follows:
1. The Legal System:
a. Being a Woman in the U.S. means that you are in a supremely better situation when it comes to criminal defense. Studies confirm that Women are treated absurdly better than Men in Criminal Court with Men receiving 63% longer sentences on average than Women for the exact same crimes. Women are also twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted than Men. The Gender gap is SIX TIMES larger than the racial disparity in Criminal Court. Not to mention that domestic violence by Women against Men is virtually an invisible crime.
b. From 1927 to 2012 it was not legally possible to be raped as a Man. Reporting non-consensual intercourse with a Woman as a Man to Legal Authorities was met with threats of punishment for false reporting. Men in the U.S. are historically required to pay child support EVEN WHEN THEY ARE THE VICTIM OF A JUDICIALLY RULED STATUTORY RAPE.
c. Gender Disparity is undeniable in the Judicial System with Family Courts being the poster child for Bias against Fathers. With such a high rate of divorce in the U.S. it's no wonder that the Family Court System is overflowing with custody proceedings and although studies show that only 4% of all custody matters in Family Court are contested by the Father, of those 4% (Roughly 96,400 Fathers/yr) a vast majority of the time the Courts award custody to the Mother.
d. In the U.S. it is a legal requirement that ALL Males at the age of 18 register for selective service. Failure to do so is a Felony, is actively punishable under law, will prevent you from voting, owning property or getting a job in the U.S. There is no such requirement for Women nor has there ever been.
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22457-studies-show-judicial-bias-against-dads
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/
2. The Education System:
a. Being a Male in school means that you are more likely to drop out. The Education System does not tolerate the predisposition of the Male instinct, boys are judged with undue harshness and with prejudice.
b. In the view that has prevailed in American education over the past decade, boys are resented, both as the unfairly privileged sex and as obstacles on the path to gender justice for girls. However, a review of the facts shows boys, not girls, on the weak side of an education gender gap. The typical boy is a year and a half behind the typical girl in reading and writing; he is less committed to school and less likely to go to college.
c. There are four times the amount of Scholarships specifically designed for Women only as opposed to Scholarships designed only for Men.
d. In the U.S., 60 Women will attend college for every 40 Men.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/4x-scholarships-women/
3. The Economy:
a. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate for Women is 20% lower than for Men. Instead of addressing the issue, the government actually gives businesses owned by Women special preferences in obtaining Government contracts and offers tax-payer backed small business loans for Women only.
b. In the workplace, you will find mentor programs, specialized training and fast-track options that are exclusively for Women while no such programs exist for Men. This is mainly due to the presumption that Men have an upper hand in the economy while none of the evidence supports it.
c. Men are pressured into studying "high paying/high return" majors such as engineering, finance, CS etc. because they are expected to support a family and earn enough to do so.
4. The Social World:
Lastly, the word "Coward". This is a prime example of Sexism in the United States. Have you ever heard a Woman referred to as a "Coward"? You most likely never will. The term is exclusively used to describe a Man who lacks the courage to do something he should do.
Picture this:
A Mother is driving her Mini-van down the highway with her child inside when she loses control after one of her tires runs flat. The Mini-van flips over uncontrollably and comes to a stop upside-down. The vehicle catches fire and the Mother, fearing for her life, crawls out and cannot get near the vehicle without setting herself aflame. After several attempts she backs away from the vehicle due the the sheer heat and her child dies in the fire. Is she a "Coward"? Of course not. But if it were the Child's Father...well that's a different story. Say the Father tried but after realizing he would be fatally burned decided to run away from the vehicle, leaving his child inside....yep...he's a Coward. This is Sexist Culture. "Women and Children first".
-
Dinosaurs are a children's fairy tale
Evolution pushers would have us believe that life started from a slime and, against astronomical odds gave birth to millions of different species changing into great lizards, a worldwide disaster killed off all of them, so we could never see them. Then, start the farfetched evolution process A SECOND TIME. If you honestly believe a single miner, farmer, ditch digger, foundation layer, etc. should never have found a dinosaur by now, you are gullible. Fairies, unicorns, Sandy clause, a spherical earth, your living in fantasy land. Only a pseudoscientist would look at a few old bones or teeth and dream up the likes of a T-Rex or the like.
and 10 others. -
Earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.
No you’re not.Erfisflat said:
I am looking for empirical scientific evidence using sound logic that evidences the globe earth, hereby referred to as GE. The same GE that is taught to us in preschool. No semantics, no trolls, just logic, and the scientific method.
You’re looking for people to provide you evidence that you can dismiss, with whatever speculative nonsense you can think of.
If you were looking for evidence, you would have disappeared from the internet 3 years and 2 websites ago.
-
God doesn't exist - Change my mind
Belief in God's existence is not based on rigorous logic, it is rather a consequence of traditions and folklore. You are correct in that there are no good arguments for God's existence - however, it does not mean that belief in God is impossible.
If you study mythologies and religions of various cultures, for example: Greek mythology and religion, Norse mythology, Christian religion, Islamic religion, Ancient Egyptian religion, Jamaican voodooism and Kenyan shamanism - you will see that they all contain a lot of stories that not only cannot be scientifically verified, but they often are even obviously exaggerated. For example, in the Norse mythology, Odin and his two brothers killed the giant Ymir and used his remains to create the world, mountains forming from his bones. You could ask: "How did they know this? Did they really believe in such an obviously nonsensical story?" The answer is yes and no. Vikings were not stupid, they understood very well that these tales were likely not true - however, they consciously integrated them into their world view, because the tradition demanded it, because they wanted to conform with the society they lived in, to abide by certain rules and beliefs, and following the Norse mythology was the best way to feel belonging to the society.
Islam was born as a tool for uniting people to facilitate smoother conquest of the surrounding lands, which was the primary activity of Muhammad: the resulting religion formed a core of the society and made sure that the people worked together towards the common goal. Similarly, Christianity was a product of a cult that was interested in taking power in Rome and uniting the society under the new ideology, and the belief in the single God served to facilitate those goals. Egyptian religion formed as an attempt to stabilize the society by attributing sacred legitimacy to the Pharaoh, preventing societal division and unrest. And in general, historians believe that religions and proto-religions, such as shamanism, were a response to the demand for stability in primal societies, including the demand to prevent violent struggles for power. Unity and stability were always the inherent factors facilitating religious development, and it is no different today.
When you take this all into account, you can see why religions and belief in Gods is so popular even today, despite all the advancements of science and philosophy. Religions will probably play some role for as long as a society exists. More individualistic people like us do not feel the need to conform with arbitrary traditions and beliefs, but collectives tend to look for banners to unite under, and folklore and religion are some of the most convenient banners available for this purpose.
-
The UN is, on balance, an institution worth retaining.
Looking forward to debating you as well, @WilliamSchulz. Certainly looks like you’ve set up a sizable and strong case!
Let’s begin by defining the bounds of the debate, starting with some basic definitions.
The United Nations: "an intergovernmental organization established on 24 October 1945 to promote international co-operation... The organization is financed by assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict."[1]
The UN is composed of a wide variety of specialized agencies, many of which I’ll cover in this debate, but for an exhaustive list, here’s a link.[2]
worth retaining: having positive value sufficient to warrant its continued existence.
Onto a bit of burdens analysis.
First, I’d just like to note that this is an equal burdens debate. It’s my burden to prove that the UN is worth retaining as an institution, and Con’s burden to prove that it is not. Voters are encouraged to compare the benefits of its being retained against the harms, and determine whether the continued existence of the UN is net beneficial. There is no specific threshold that needs to be met for this – we are simply comparing the benefits of a world with the UN and a world either without it or with some replacement.
Second, while we are certainly going to bring up past actions of the UN as part of our arguments, note that the resolution is about retaining the organization as a whole. As such, I am not required to argue that the UN in its current form is net beneficial, though I do believe that is the case. Part of the ground for my side of this debate is to propose changes to how the UN functions that would provide further support for its retention. My opponent is welcome to present the framework for a separate organization that should replace the UN, though bear in mind that the two must be mutually exclusive (i.e. the UN could not implement changes to make itself functionally equivalent to this other organization). The reason for this is that he would essentially be arguing that the UN as an institution actually should be retained, just in a slightly altered form. That would be an argument for my side of the resolution.
Third, it is part of the basic rules of debate that all of our constructive arguments are presented before the final round. I don’t mean to address any of the issues that Con presented in his opening round, but I can’t help but notice that he’s planning on presenting the entirety of his counterplan in the third round. Doing so would mean that I would only get 1 round to attack his case, while he gets 2 full rounds to attack my case. That's not just harmful for me, since it means any rebuttals I'd have for your case would remain unaddressed. I would rather have a solid set of argumentation on both sides for both of our cases, and as such, I would strongly encourage Con to present his counterplan in R2. If he wishes to simply argue over the net benefits of my case, he’s welcome to stick to rebuttals alone in the following round.
With that, I’ll start by focusing on the elements of the UN that have provided substantial benefits, focus on some key improvements that could be made in how the UN is run, and finally address the question of what a world without the UN would look like. I’ll save rebuttals for the next round.
I. Strengths of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
I’m not going to pretend that the UN has a flawless record with peacekeeping, which is something I’ll address in more detail later in my case. However, the UN has demonstrated successes as well. In Sierra Leone, the UN helped to “implement a peace agreement after the country’s devastating civil war… blue helmets disarmed more than 75,000 ex-fighters, including hundreds of child soldiers. The UN destroyed more than 42,000 weapons and 1.2 million rounds of ammunition.” Considering this war cost between 50,000 and 300,000 lives and displaced 2.5 million within the country, their mandates to protect civilians and to ensure that an agreement to end the war was effectively followed clearly saved untold lives.[3] The UN has been successful at resolving a number of international disputes. In Burundi, the UN is credited with helping the nation recover from decades of ethnic war.[4] That war cost 300,000 lives, and the recovery efforts were essential to ensuring that both sides continued to respect the ceasefire and disarmament agreements, as well as ensure the protection of civilians.[5]
These successes extend to Côte d’Ivoire (“to facilitate the implementation by the Ivorian parties of the peace agreement” and “to control a ‘zone of confidence’ across the centre of the country separating the two parties”[6]), Timor-Leste (“to support the Government in consolidating stability, enhancing a culture of democratic governance, and facilitating political dialogue among Timorese stakeholders, in their efforts to bring about a process of national reconciliation and to foster social cohesion”[7]), Liberia (“to monitor a ceasefire agreement”[8]), Haiti (mostly responding to the earthquake by providing security and distributing humanitarian aid [9]) and Kosovo (“to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo and advance regional stability in the western Balkans” [10]). “[B]y providing basic security guarantees and responding to crises, these UN operations have supported political transitions and helped buttress fragile new state institutions. They have helped countries to close the chapter of conflict and open a path to normal development, even if major peacebuilding challenges remain.”[11]
There is no doubt that the UN has reduced the loss of life in these countries, and the fact that they have a clear set of factors required for a mission to be a success, and they aren’t guided by unilateral, single nation interests sets them apart from every other effort at peacekeeping.
2. Just… So Many Agencies…
I don’t think there’s much question that many of the agencies under the umbrella of the UN perform extremely beneficial actions. I’ll highlight just a few.
UNICEF has a remarkable record of improving children’s lives.[12] The numbers are staggering, with tens of millions of kids vaccinated against polio, millions gaining access to clean water, massive educational outreach services, access to necessary nutrients, psychological support, critical health care and protection services, and much more. All of this in war-torn areas like Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria.[13]
The World Health Organization works in offices across 150 countries, connecting governments and partners to control a variety of infectious diseases and ensure safe food, water and air.[14] More specifically, the WHO functions as a central leadership organization for “shaping the research agenda and stimulating the generation, translation and dissemination of valuable knowledge… setting norms and standards and promoting their implementation… articulating ethical and evidence-based policy options… providing technical support, catalyzing change, and building sustainable institutional capacity… monitoring the health situation and addressing health trends.” As an actor in an international system, it has a unique advantage in all of these areas to engage with individuals, organizations and governments across borders and boundaries. And they’re tackling a great deal of problems that cross those boundaries and chiefly affect nations that can’t afford to combat them, like malaria, HIV, child mortality, maternal health, and poverty and hunger.[15]
The UN Development Programme works in 170 nations and territories to help poor countries develop to reduce inequalities and exclusion.[16] It has invested 130 initiatives in 70 countries, “partnering with government and private sector to leverage alternative finance, behavioral insights, data innovation, and public policy labs.”[17] These efforts have yielded substantial decreases in the incidence of HIV, malaria and TB in countries where these efforts would have otherwise been impossible. They’ve also sought to promote rights in a number of nations where LGBT communities lack basic protections.[18]
The UN Population Fund (UNPFA) and UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) both have a strong track record of improving the lives of women in numerous nations.[19, 20] The UNFPA is seeking to put an end to obstretic fistulas and female genital mutilation, to make pregnancy safer for women, and to promote their equality and physical safety.[21] Though these are daunting tasks, they’ve made great progress in “improv[ing] the health of mothers, slow[ing] the spread of HIV/AIDS, and mitigat[ing] the virus’s impact”.[22] The UNDFW has a strong track record across continents of ensuring peace and security, achieving gender equality and promoting the human rights of women, reducing violence against women, strengthening the economic capabilities of women, and reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS.[23]
And all of this is just 4 of the 15 agencies, not including any related organizations or sub-agencies. Again, I don’t think there’s any question that these agencies have done an incredible amount of good, bringing in employees and partners from nations around the world to solve a variety of dramatic problems.
II. How to Improve the Formula
1. A Standing Military Force
This will emulate the proposal summarized here.[24] While there is a lot of detail in this, let’s just focus on the major hits to simplify. This includes the formation of a standing army composed of approximately 12,000-15,000 members, ranging widely but trained by the UN directly. They would function under a single command structure, being directly loyal to the UN. The deployment can be authorized by the Security Council, requiring two vetoes in order to vote down a given action. I won't provide all the details here, but the reasons for deployment and training methods are spelled out in that link. The costs are $2 billion to start, $900 million annually, contributed by member nations, with larger shares of the cost covered by the Security Council.
As I’ve already explained, the UN's functionality, in large part, is peacekeeping. They play an important role in the national and international stability, stopping egregious rights violations. However, they could do so more effectively.
The army I'm proposing would make them more efficacious. At least two of the five pillars on which the UN stands – peace and security and development[25] – are facilitated directly by having a force they can directly deploy to assist in either facet. My case ensures that these soldiers would be trained and equipped sufficiently. They will have volunteered to enlist, improving dedication to each cause. They will be commanded and controlled better by a centralized leadership, and will be more likely to work with one another instead of for their own interests, as they will have trained and fought together for a mutual cause.
Realize as well that this is an army that functions solely as a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper, something that no individual country can reasonably claim. This means that, unlike the concerns with other nations, their entry wouldn't be construed as a declaration of war, or as meddling on the part of the countries behind the participating troops.
The need here is obvious. People are dying rapidly in genocides and wars, and the UN has to be responsive to that concern on a much more pragmatic level. The U.S. and NATO forces, in particular, both utilize such forces to respond to concerns both at home and abroad, and these forces play key roles in numerous conflicts.[26] It's important for nations to protect their interests, but all the more important for an international body like the UN to be able to act in a manner that can protect human rights from the most severe transgressions. Having this standing force makes them both more effective and more rapid in their responses.
2. Making the Security Council Accountable
The United Nations Security Council is an important part of the functionality of the organization as a whole, particularly the P5, a group of 5 nations that have a permanent seat on the council and retain veto power. As it is, these nations represent a rather outdated power structure that no longer resembles the world we live in to a sufficient degree. While the US, Britain, France, China and Russia are all undeniably powerful, it leaves out important powerhouses like Germany and India. Perhaps more importantly, it lacks representation from Africa and Latin America, effectively leaving them powerless to address any vetoes from any of these countries. It doesn’t help that the P5 nations often feel little to no need to pay their UN dues, which often leads the UN to lack substantial funding, particularly from the US.[27]
The fix for this is rather simple: give these countries reason to feel that they have some buy-in, and require that any retention of those seats be based on paying their dues on time. While these 5 countries could retain their seats and some measure of their power, other countries should be added to these permanent seats, including the G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan), as well as South Africa. Any veto would require at least 3 of these countries to take effect. All of these countries would only retain these seats so long as they pay their dues annually in full or contribute national resources towards UN efforts at similar financial cost.
III. A World without the UN
What, exactly, would a world without the UN look like? Without an institution that has such a large and diverse membership and a relatively strong history of support, there’s little chance that any other organization could fill that void.
If the goal is to create a new institution like the UN, that would be no simple task. The League of Nations, which was the first major attempt at such an organization, failed miserably as a result of minimal buy-in. And getting that kind of buy-in would be incredibly difficult. The end of World War II was a rallying cry that brought the major nations of the world together to build the UN.[28] Ignoring whether or not such an organization could actually take the positive functions of the UN and avoid the negative, just managing to bring in a wide variety of member nations and function on any meaningful level would be quite the undertaking.
If you’re looking at any other multinational group (say, NATO or the African Union), you’ll find that these are really only effective at representing a subset of interests, usually to the detriment of other nations. It is highly doubtful that nations in other regions of the world would treat peacekeeping forces and efforts from these countries as anything but an effort to benefit its member nations. So these would be functionally similar to individual nations acting: most of the purported efforts at peacekeeping would be anything but (i.e. efforts to garner resources or obtain a powerful position in the region), and local populations would be largely hostile to efforts at intervention.
That just leaves not intervening at all, which seems likely to happen in a lot more cases in the absence of the UN. That means allowing a great deal of civil wars and genocides to take place without response. I view that result as entirely untenable, and I think my opponent would agree.
Back to you, @WilliamSchulz.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_in_Sierra_Leone
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_Burundi
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Integrated_Mission_in_East_Timor
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_in_Liberia
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilisation_Mission_in_Haiti
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Administration_Mission_in_Kosovo
11. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/our-successes
12. http://unicefstories.org/about/
13. https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/index_94388.html
14. http://www.who.int/about/en/
15. http://www.e-ir.info/2010/11/08/what-are-the-main-functions-of-the-world-health-organization/#_ftn11
16. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/about-us.html
17. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/development-impact.html
18. http://www.undp-globalfund-capacitydevelopment.org/en/about-us/undp-impact/]
19. http://www.unwomen.org/en/about-us
20. https://www.unfpa.org/about-us
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Population_Fund#Areas_of_work
23. https://www.unwomen-usnc.org/progareasimpact
26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_deployment_force
27. https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/132/27343.html
-
NASA admitting to faking images
@Fascism I did provide a link showing NASA admitting they fake images, but you don't need their word to see it.
The continents grow, the continents shrink, the continents change color
Copied and pasted clouds
My question is why they would need to fake images of the Earth so blatantly if the Earth was truely a ball floating in outerspace, going around the sun faster than sound (Which should prevent us from hearing anything at all, but it doesnt cuz gravituh), specifically around a sun going around the galaxy at 66,000 MPH, specifically a galaxy moving around some magical singularity faster than light (which I thought was scientifically impossible)
-
Being an athiest doesn't mean they lack morality
Being religious doesn't necessarily mean you have morals either. Plenty of pedophile priests out there.
