Ehyeh

A man is someone with strength, a woman is someone with love. Any one who is full man or full woman, becomes unbalanced and out of tune with the flow of the river of life.

I'm the most powerful person in the world. Real power comes from control over the self, not others.

i look so dmn good today.

Id rather be bald than wear a toupee too, at least we can agree on that.

I don't think everyone can look attractive simply by keeping clean and wearing nice clothes. Some men just look bad no matter what haircut they have.

Some people just don't have the genetics to be attractive without some kind of surgery/makeup. This man in the video cant grow a beard, so its not like he can cover up his chin or anything. He would need medical intervention for his teeth too, i don't know what he can do with his hair either. Being unattractive as a young person can completely destroy someone's self image.

I don't think some women with skin conditions want you to see their genes, as it's a lose-lose for them. Fake if they wear makeup, and are ugly and undesired without makeup. They can't win.

What these people are saying would be like saying we should never get braces, because its "fake" from how they naturally were without medical intervention. Should kids be forced to be bullied for having goofy teeth, making dating significantly harder for them?

We may like to see peoples natural genes, but that doesn't mean we will get a better impression from them. Being ugly makes your life much harder. No sane person with self respect would willingly allow themselves to not care for their looks, as its a social and dating prison sentence.

Bullshit. Natural is only more attractive if you're naturally attractive. Guys say they don't like makeup on women, but in reality it does make most women look better if its not too noticeable.

This only applies to right libertarians. Left libertarians are a thing too, libertarian was originally a word coined for leftist thinkers but got hijacked by people who are right leaning.

Assuming what you say is correct, the environment changes genetics; genetics comes from the environment. Culture is part of one's environment. Although this isn't circular reasoning, how can you relate said cultures to being anything inflexible due to different genes (based on geography) when you've admitted peoples genes changes over their lifespan due to environment? Claiming a genetics argument before even knowing all the socio-economic distinctions is very assumptionary (based on what you've previously said). Any sincere researcher doesn't put an estimate on the likelihood of the IQ gap between black and white people being genetic or not, as putting an estimate simply isn't possible with the current data available. 

Even if we assume mental differences between average races exist, the mind is so vast and complex compared to every other study-able human organ; it is so willing to change (due to neuroplasticity). I'm unsure why you think you can deal with absolutes with it like you may be able to do with nose structure, bone density, or muscle composition between different races/ethnic groups. 

Oh no, is this the black rednecks theory? It seems so ridiculous to me that the culture from that time remained so intact with barely any changes. Yet other peoples cultures change constantly, huh.

Where does gang culture come from?

" It's why poverty doesn't have an effect on black violence. The richest blacks commit more crime than the poorest whites."

Do you have a source for this? 

Sowell argues the reason black people cause more crime is due to age discrepancies (which came up in my debate, and there is still a discrepancy even when we factor in age).

I'm also fine with abortion, so i guess that shows a bit of nuance of symmetry breaker i think i see  between abortion and vaccination. I don't exactly have any preferences about our debate, unless I'm misunderstanding? lol

I'll just open up our debate and give you an invite to it. Preferably id prefer you to do it since i feel like I'm not the best at giving good descriptions and the like, but  i can manage.

I agree that the constitutionality is clearer, but they kind of go hand in hand. People wouldn't support a constitutional right if they thought it was immoral. I'll see where it goes, and if its ok, I'll make arguments from both sides. I used to be anti-mandatory vaccination until I lost a debate on the subject! So it would be interesting to see if my opinions changed again. It's important to be open-minded, especially when it comes to topics like this, because they have a huge impact on people's lives; I don't take mandatory vaccination lightly.

That's fine as long as I gain knowledge. It's been a while since I've debated vaccine mandates, but regardless of whether the argument is centered on Covid or any other virus, my argument remains the same and consistent. Do you want to start the debate, or do you want me to do it? Do you want to focus solely on whether vaccine mandates should be morally mandated or whether vaccine mandates are unconstitutional? or perhaps both?

I'm joking, but I do support mandatory vaccination in certain cases, and I believe Covid was one of them at one point. Do you want to debate it?

I deny. How dare someone cough corona into my mouth. Should people not be forced into vaccination clinics, subdued against their will and injected with an antidote to cure their stupidity? If you disagree certain vaccines should be mandatory, lets debate.