I agree with a lot of what you said. It has been quite definitively proven there is no causal link between playing violent video games and being violent.
I think that being more independent is good. I'm not sure people have become more independent with all of this growing government and entitled attitudes.
There must be absolute certainty when calling for the death penalty and the crime must be rather egregious.
Thanks for the good wishes! I need revenge on whiteflame. He beat me last time. :)
If we are going to mention mental suffering, let me ask you this: what if the family of the victim wants the death penalty? What if it would put their mind at ease? Would you support it then? In that circumstance, it would help mitigate the wrong doing as well as offer a punishment commensurate with their crime.
Eh, I would say that intelligence helps with comprehension. You brought up gardening as a form of intelligence. I would say that is more of menial labor that anyone can do if taught.
I don't know what statistics you are referring to, but I'll take your word for it that rehabilitation can help stop a cycle of crime. I feel that while it won't solve the problem, but it would definitely help. I have seen statistics that once weed was legalized in Colorado, more people smoked weed. That is why I believe that punishment is important. It helps prevent some crime.
Yeah, I think that leaving animals to eat someone is quite a bit gruesome... also scary movies probably wouldn't work. I know that video game violence can desensitize us. I think that applies more to hearing about it in the news, not actually killing someone, yourself.
The conscience of the executioners is a big concern. That is why my method puts a blank in one of the guns. You never know if you contributed to the killing.
Mental suffering was referring to the victim's family suffering as you stated. The basis for you saying punishing one person wouldn't be justice for a murderer.
Intelligence and reading comprehension are related.
Mental suffering cannot be quantified. How do you prove that one person suffered from the loss of a relative more than another or at all? Kinda tough.
Are you saying that if an activity was made legal that more people wouldn't do it? Not one? Because that is what a deterrent is.
"I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question."
That suffices for the rude to Alec and word choice question. You could have just said no, but you questioned his intelligence/if he even read it(which you quite obviously know he did).
I don't know how you would bring mental suffering into the question when you mention the victim's family. That isn't something that can really be quantified.
Eye for an eye isn't always precise. They used to cut off a thief's hand.
Punishment and rehabilitation are important. Punishment is a deterrent, which is good. No one wants to go to prison. Rehabilitation is also good if it works. I see no use in keeping people in prison on the taxpayer dime if they could be productive.
It is quite easy to sense emotion through comments. Word choice is a big giveaway.
Not sure exactly when it changed, but you were definitely less sassy. Don't be rude to Alec.
Your comment #8 is saying you don't believe the death penalty is a punishment that is appropriate for murderers. You say more lives were affected by the murderer. I'm not sure that this necessarily means that we shouldn't attempt to give as much justice as possible, though. An eye for an eye, correct?
There isn't really a statistic for Franklin to manipulate in terms of you being racist. Either you are or aren't. A lil racism never hurt anyone. ;)
Fraudulent would mean the statistics in question are entirely made up, while manipulated would mean that you try to misrepresent the facts by using different definitions/only look at part of it. Statistics can be fraudulent. I have a little more faith in the FBI than to believe they just randomly made their crime statistics up.
An interesting proposition. Murder is rather a cruel and unusual thing. However, then you have to determine what kind of torture would be allowed based on the crimes.
It gets a little hairy constitutionally speaking. Cruel and unusual punishment isn't allowed, which probably includes painful deaths. On a personal level, I could agree in some cases.
I enjoyed your arguments. You did a fine job! I would recommend specifically citing passages from an online Bible if possible. Judges get a little angsty about that.
Do you just like getting thrashed publicly? The reason that black crime isn't reported on is because it is "nothing new". Another gang shooting or drug dealer arrested has no spice to it.
I would have figured it was a joke if you weren't taking the argument you are. Babies don't say anything btw, so don't know where you were going with that
Yeah, did you see his comment below? Apparently he just wants free wins, not an actual debate. He should have snuck something into the description if he wanted to pull that kind of crap
Mad cuz bad? I would have preferred a civilized exchange of ideas, yet you have blatantly lied and acted in a rather barbaric manner. You quote me as saying that gay=urges. Then you quote me as saying nature is the urges part, which is why I attribute homosexuality to nature. So, in what way did I flip flop?
If I misread anything you said, I would attribute that to your incorrectly spelled words, missing commas, etc.
I stated that you talked past me. That is because you defined homosexuality in a different way, which I acknowledged. Had you understood that, you wouldn't have lashed out in anger for no reason.
Not a straw man. I think you're really talking past me here. We aren't talking about labeling people as gay. We are talking about people actually being gay (same sex attraction=gay). You said that a way to know someone is gay is to see them commit "same-sex actions" or for then to tell us. Then you conceded that straight people can commit these same-sex acts. People can also lie, so these examples you provided are inadequate. My position is that nurture plays a very large role as to whether or not they act on these urges, but nature causes the urges. Urges are what makes someone gay.
But the thing is..... I'm not making claims about anyone.
I'm not saying I know anyone is gay without having evidence. However, you're making the claim that being gay is 100% a choice (despite what you said earlier). You're saying that until they CHOOSE to tell someone or commit the act, they are not gay.
Being gay has nothing to do with actions. Someone can have same sex attraction and not act on it. Someone can be straight and commit same sex acts. What is your actual disagreement here?
I feel as though there may have been some confusion as to my stance. I don't claim to know people are gay. I claim that they know, which makes it real. This is what makes them gay, not our knowledge of theirs acts and feelings
Ok... but whether or not we know has nothing to do with reality, Yes? My point has been: someone is gay if they are gay. Our knowledge of the fact is utterly irrelevant. Do you find fault with that claim?
No, they could be true. I think based on personal experience, we could say that one or both of those is highly unlikely, though. However, being gay isn't an abstract concept that has never been proven before. What is your issue about a truth existing that we aren't aware of? I'm not aware of anyone starving in my state right now. Does that mean that no one is starving? If someone is trapped in a well, but no one knows about it, is no one in that well? Of course they are.
Like let's pretend you have a schizophrenic fellow. He hears voices constantly telling him to do stuff, but he doesn't listen to them. He is still schizophrenic
Yes you can be gay without expressing it. Being gay means you are attracted to someone of the same sex. Even if they do not act on those feelings, they still exist. I don't see why you have to act on feelings to validate their existence.
You can support the Republican party on a philosophical level. You can find it the better of the two parties but still not vote for them.
I mean, even if there was no men, a guy could still be gay. He wouldn't be attracted to women. He would think he didn't have any desire for a mate, but those hidden feelings would exist. Same with repressing the feelings. Even if you dont show your attraction or try to deny it, it still exists. I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues
He reads about every fifth word, then fills in the rest with what he wanted you to say.
What makes the kkk "right-wing"? They supported democrats, who are left-wing.
I agree with a lot of what you said. It has been quite definitively proven there is no causal link between playing violent video games and being violent.
I think that being more independent is good. I'm not sure people have become more independent with all of this growing government and entitled attitudes.
There must be absolute certainty when calling for the death penalty and the crime must be rather egregious.
Thanks for the good wishes! I need revenge on whiteflame. He beat me last time. :)
If we are going to mention mental suffering, let me ask you this: what if the family of the victim wants the death penalty? What if it would put their mind at ease? Would you support it then? In that circumstance, it would help mitigate the wrong doing as well as offer a punishment commensurate with their crime.
Eh, I would say that intelligence helps with comprehension. You brought up gardening as a form of intelligence. I would say that is more of menial labor that anyone can do if taught.
I don't know what statistics you are referring to, but I'll take your word for it that rehabilitation can help stop a cycle of crime. I feel that while it won't solve the problem, but it would definitely help. I have seen statistics that once weed was legalized in Colorado, more people smoked weed. That is why I believe that punishment is important. It helps prevent some crime.
Yeah, I think that leaving animals to eat someone is quite a bit gruesome... also scary movies probably wouldn't work. I know that video game violence can desensitize us. I think that applies more to hearing about it in the news, not actually killing someone, yourself.
The conscience of the executioners is a big concern. That is why my method puts a blank in one of the guns. You never know if you contributed to the killing.
Mental suffering was referring to the victim's family suffering as you stated. The basis for you saying punishing one person wouldn't be justice for a murderer.
Intelligence and reading comprehension are related.
Mental suffering cannot be quantified. How do you prove that one person suffered from the loss of a relative more than another or at all? Kinda tough.
Are you saying that if an activity was made legal that more people wouldn't do it? Not one? Because that is what a deterrent is.
Oh, I just saw that and thought it seemed out of place lol. Seemed pretty standard. Religious freedom and all that
Buzzfeed news... lol
"I don't think you understood what I said if you got that out of it or maybe you didn't read it and asked me this question."
That suffices for the rude to Alec and word choice question. You could have just said no, but you questioned his intelligence/if he even read it(which you quite obviously know he did).
I don't know how you would bring mental suffering into the question when you mention the victim's family. That isn't something that can really be quantified.
Eye for an eye isn't always precise. They used to cut off a thief's hand.
Punishment and rehabilitation are important. Punishment is a deterrent, which is good. No one wants to go to prison. Rehabilitation is also good if it works. I see no use in keeping people in prison on the taxpayer dime if they could be productive.
It is quite easy to sense emotion through comments. Word choice is a big giveaway.
Not sure exactly when it changed, but you were definitely less sassy. Don't be rude to Alec.
Your comment #8 is saying you don't believe the death penalty is a punishment that is appropriate for murderers. You say more lives were affected by the murderer. I'm not sure that this necessarily means that we shouldn't attempt to give as much justice as possible, though. An eye for an eye, correct?
Propaganda isn't necessarily false. It is information that only gives a one-sided perspective on things.
Why have you been so moody lately?
I think the "no trolling" rule might come into effect here
There isn't really a statistic for Franklin to manipulate in terms of you being racist. Either you are or aren't. A lil racism never hurt anyone. ;)
Fraudulent would mean the statistics in question are entirely made up, while manipulated would mean that you try to misrepresent the facts by using different definitions/only look at part of it. Statistics can be fraudulent. I have a little more faith in the FBI than to believe they just randomly made their crime statistics up.
I feel like some of these might be traumatic for the executioner.
An interesting proposition. Murder is rather a cruel and unusual thing. However, then you have to determine what kind of torture would be allowed based on the crimes.
It gets a little hairy constitutionally speaking. Cruel and unusual punishment isn't allowed, which probably includes painful deaths. On a personal level, I could agree in some cases.
I don't think you should be banned, but I would also say the same for wylted.
What are you referring to with regard to manipulating statistics? Any specific examples?
I enjoyed your arguments. You did a fine job! I would recommend specifically citing passages from an online Bible if possible. Judges get a little angsty about that.
He has pretty decent knowledge of grammar, yet makes inflammatory and incoherent arguments. He acts like this on purpose to get people angry.
He is a troll. Unless you are trolling him back, don't waste your time trying to reason with him. It'll save you a few headaches/hours
Do you just like getting thrashed publicly? The reason that black crime isn't reported on is because it is "nothing new". Another gang shooting or drug dealer arrested has no spice to it.
But as I said, nowhere in the description did you say this was about conscious thoughts. You never defined "determined"
They are either gay or not, but they don't know it.
I would have figured it was a joke if you weren't taking the argument you are. Babies don't say anything btw, so don't know where you were going with that
Yeah, did you see his comment below? Apparently he just wants free wins, not an actual debate. He should have snuck something into the description if he wanted to pull that kind of crap
But it WAS determined by their genetics at birth, so... no...? Not a free win. Nice try, though. :P
Boy! You are going to pretend that your opponent has to prove a one-second-old child can make a conscious decision about being gay?
I'm guessing people would have to defend both the Old and New Testaments?
I agree. It is a good change up from abortion and "does God exist" debates that are 30k characters
Yeah, I also find Germany very interesting. Mostly in the historical sense. Lots of fascinating leaders
What's with all of the Germany debates?
Long live the Empire!
Mad cuz bad? I would have preferred a civilized exchange of ideas, yet you have blatantly lied and acted in a rather barbaric manner. You quote me as saying that gay=urges. Then you quote me as saying nature is the urges part, which is why I attribute homosexuality to nature. So, in what way did I flip flop?
If I misread anything you said, I would attribute that to your incorrectly spelled words, missing commas, etc.
I stated that you talked past me. That is because you defined homosexuality in a different way, which I acknowledged. Had you understood that, you wouldn't have lashed out in anger for no reason.
I will leave it at that. Take care. :)
Not a straw man. I think you're really talking past me here. We aren't talking about labeling people as gay. We are talking about people actually being gay (same sex attraction=gay). You said that a way to know someone is gay is to see them commit "same-sex actions" or for then to tell us. Then you conceded that straight people can commit these same-sex acts. People can also lie, so these examples you provided are inadequate. My position is that nurture plays a very large role as to whether or not they act on these urges, but nature causes the urges. Urges are what makes someone gay.
I'm trying to start the Nixon gang. Coolidge and Teddy are good, too, though
But the thing is..... I'm not making claims about anyone.
I'm not saying I know anyone is gay without having evidence. However, you're making the claim that being gay is 100% a choice (despite what you said earlier). You're saying that until they CHOOSE to tell someone or commit the act, they are not gay.
Being gay has nothing to do with actions. Someone can have same sex attraction and not act on it. Someone can be straight and commit same sex acts. What is your actual disagreement here?
I feel as though there may have been some confusion as to my stance. I don't claim to know people are gay. I claim that they know, which makes it real. This is what makes them gay, not our knowledge of theirs acts and feelings
Ok... but whether or not we know has nothing to do with reality, Yes? My point has been: someone is gay if they are gay. Our knowledge of the fact is utterly irrelevant. Do you find fault with that claim?
Neither have you. Lots of voter fraud going on here -_-
You violated site policy. You cannot vote without having finished two debates (that weren't forfeited) or have at least 100 forum posts
No, they could be true. I think based on personal experience, we could say that one or both of those is highly unlikely, though. However, being gay isn't an abstract concept that has never been proven before. What is your issue about a truth existing that we aren't aware of? I'm not aware of anyone starving in my state right now. Does that mean that no one is starving? If someone is trapped in a well, but no one knows about it, is no one in that well? Of course they are.
They are still a murderer. We just don't know it yet. Someone can be gay without us knowing, too. I believe the phrase is "in the closet".
Like let's pretend you have a schizophrenic fellow. He hears voices constantly telling him to do stuff, but he doesn't listen to them. He is still schizophrenic
Yes you can be gay without expressing it. Being gay means you are attracted to someone of the same sex. Even if they do not act on those feelings, they still exist. I don't see why you have to act on feelings to validate their existence.
You can support the Republican party on a philosophical level. You can find it the better of the two parties but still not vote for them.
Haha. The best part was when he said he has good tastes in comedians right after that
I think that being gay is 100% nature. Whether or not they will act upon these feelings is more of where nurture kicks in.
I mean, even if there was no men, a guy could still be gay. He wouldn't be attracted to women. He would think he didn't have any desire for a mate, but those hidden feelings would exist. Same with repressing the feelings. Even if you dont show your attraction or try to deny it, it still exists. I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues
What are your thoughts? I'm having a hard time thinking of how someone could become gay through choice.