Well I see where you're coming from but that human DNA is specific to only humans, hence it's classification as human DNA, not human and chimp DNA.

And the reason organs are not human are because they are not alive by themselves. Even if a laboratory is keeping a heart alive, it is not a self-sufficient organism.

That's a good point. I guess it's something we'll probably never know. I mean, all we can do is observe animals. We can't really communicate with them to understand them as well as we do humans.

So then you agree. A chimpanzee is not human. It is only 98% human, which is my point exactly. the other 2% is what makes us human.

And a single organ is not an individual human in the same sense that a single antenna is not an entire television. Or one down feather is not a complete down feather jacket.

Other animals can have their own forms of emotions. Just look at dogs! When their owners come home, they are visibly happy and when their puppies die they are visibly sad.

A human being is an organism of the species homo sapiens. All you need to have to be human is human DNA. I mean, it's what separates us form every other species, right? And it proves that no computer can ever be human. Ever.

Reason. Common sense. Scientific insight. Things like this enable me to pick out the pure myths. Then there are stories that I don't know if they are real or not, but these are typically just historical contexts that I can't prove wrong or right.

I am allowed to believe in both God and the Big Bang. It just so happens that I believe the creation stories are mythical in their nature. Nobody important ever said "the Bible is 100% fact," except for maybe a few Popes throughout the ages.

I never said the Bible is 100% true and science must back it. I believe the creation stories and much of the beginning of the Bible to be merely stories meant to make people understand the power and awesomeness of God, not to tell them how the Earth began. They had no idea how it began back then.

Even the "American culture" is not one set culture. The human population is so huge and people are so different. There is nothing that every human being shares, personality wise, not even the will to live! (Suicidal people)

I understand how life is capable on Earth. I don't mean to boast, but I've taken AP Physics and AP Biology, as well as a year of honors Chemistry and Honors Biology freshman year- I'm well versed in the sciences (And I hope to go into medicine or mechanics!) Therefore, I'm fairly certain I know how there is life on Earth.

But we don't know why life is here! God always was and always will be. He is a complete enigma and a mystery to the human race. Any attempt to explain who He is and why He did the things He did is impossible.

Yes. I have looked at it and I fully understand the concept of global warming and greenhouse effect (not as much as somebody who studies it, but as much as the average person.)

I understand that the environment is slow on fixing itself. It takes thousands upon thousands of years for minuscule change. But it really shouldn't take too long to fix the economy and get us 180 degrees from the recession. We're on our way there, but I think we have some work to do. Of course, I promote multitasking. ;)

"Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years."

I'm not saying that's normal, but I'm certainly not saying it isn't. Why is it that once scientists predict something based on past data, the same must occur in the future no matter what? The data can suggest an outcome, but it's never 100% fool proof. Maybe the prediction was another 20,000 to 30,000 years, but in reality it was supposed to be 10,000 to 15,000 years. We don't know. Sure, I agree we are speeding it up slightly, but I honestly don't think human beings have caused as much effect as before our time, what with volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, and the countless amount of animals with flatulence issues. :) lol

Well we do need to grow cotton and such, but the environment is not as fragile! The economy can collapse easily, but the environment fixes itself over time (yes, many many many years, but it's not like the economy can miraculously get better without our intervention).

I prefer physical books and I'm sure we will always have them, but I agree that e-books will take over. I mean, they take up less space, they're easier to read (with a light up screen), and it's something a lot of people will prefer with technology becoming more and more popular.

"I feel the environment is much more important."

I guess in the long run, it is- especially after every major government on Earth collapses. lol. But since the environment has been known to fix itself over the centuries and the economy affects more people right now, I think we should work on that first. Besides, as I stated on the other side, you need money from the economy to help fix the environment. ;)

Don't you need money to fund things like saving the environment? There, argument finished.

I'd love it if every nation abolished ALL forms of warfare. But the truth is that nuclear weapons can be a very good way of protecting the free world. Korea and Iran don't use the nuclear weapons the (might) have because they know that is they do, their countries would get annihilated by the hundreds of nukes we have. And even if we were able to abolish them, do you really think North Korea and Iran, for examples, would follow suit? No! They would surely attack us!

Getting rid of minimum wage laws would not raise wages. It seems as if getting rid of the minimum would cause competition between businesses in making the best wages out there, but I'm sure most businesses and companies would actually lower wages to what they are overseas to make more money. Minimum wage enables the government to ensure that any hard worker in America can live off of the money. Of course, it doesn't ensure the same for families or people who barely work though...

I don't really see too much of a problem with a national school system that regulates curriculum and the like, but I still think there should be local school systems simply out of practicality. There are just too many schools in America to all be in the same system centered in one place, unless there are other secondary school systems throughout the nation.

"The national curriculum should not include any material pertaining to the origin of life or the history of life, i.e., evolution and creationism/intelligent design should not be addressed."

I believe these subjects should be taught together. If you think about it, most children, like myself, go to some sort of catechism or Sunday school, which would only teach creation. I think every child should be taught both and make up his or her own mind on the matter.

Finally, I find your remark about how "private schools do not work and cannot serve as an alternative to public schools" very offensive. I just graduated from a private school and I must say it's a better education than what I would've gotten at my public school, which is overcrowded and full of vanity and materialism. My public school gives students very short classes and too much free time throughout the day. My schedule, for the most part, was 40 minute classes, with 8 classes a day and double period labs. We only get one lunch period, until senior year when we no longer take gym and health (but my school was so big on sports and clubs and stuff that gym was a joke any way. I skipped every day junior year.) So even though we got out a month earlier than public school, we technically got more time for each class than the public school students. Not to mention, since our school is a college prep school, we didn't waste time with electives and such, but had math, science (bio, chem, and physics), English, world language, history, and religion (lots of philosophy, morality, and history of Church. Not so much Church teachings.)

Why do things happen by chance then? Why is there randomness in the world?

"As the Beatles said: "Money Can't Buy Me Love.""

I agree.... but money can certainly but you lust ;)

Just because there were several people that were successful without a college education, does not mean college is not worth it. Almost every person that is that successful without college is famous for writing novels, acting, singing, etc. The average person will not be that famous and thus we all kind of need higher education to be able to get jobs. It looks really good on a resume. :p

"Where do you go from there?"

That's it. Once somebody accepts that there is an initial force, he has to realize it is a supernatural being (because it cannot logically be a natural being) and a god or gods will follow suit. Thus "initial force = god/gods".

Okay, so let's say it was an accident- how did the accident come to be? There really is no explanation for why the universe began without factoring some supernatural being.

We don't need to know anything about the initial force that created the universe- that's why there are many different religions out there. We just need to understand that there was some initial force.

The beginning of time. How did it all start? The Big Bang, right? Okay.... Explain how the Big Bang came to be. Oh right, a very dense piece of matter exploded and created the universe. But wait, how did that piece of matter come to be? There was nothing before it. Oh, that's right. God, the being who always was, created it, fully intending for it to explode and make the universe. Duh.

Religion seeks an explanation for why things happen. Science only answers how things happen.

i.e. How did the Earth form?

-Well, after billions of years the dust that composes earth eventually clumped together and condensed to form a planet. Some of this dust also made the sun.

How did all of this matter come to be?

-Billions and billions of years ago, at the beginning of time, there was the Big Bang, where an extremely dense piece of matter that held every atom in the known universe- the size of a pinhead maybe. All of the energy there caused it to explode and from there, galaxies and solar systems were born.

Where did the small piece of matter come from? or Why did the Big Bang happen?

If you can logically come up with a scientific answer to this, then you are absolutely amazing. How can everything come from nothing? Unless.... God made it! The spiritual being that always was and always will be created everything that never was and will cease to be!

I have never understood why people cannot accept that religion and God exist simultaneously with science. Science explains how things happen, but religion seeks the explanation of why these things happen- something science will never be able to do.

Look at the famous composers of the past or any other musician who has ever had a strange life but amazing music. The first thing that comes to mind about these people is their music. After this, we think about their lives.

Yes, I think the Earth is warming right now. But that doesn't mean it is only warming and it will never cool down again unless we change. I think this is a natural occurrence, since global temperatures go through warm ages and ice ages. No matter how much we may be speeding this up, I feel like the Earth will fix itself like it always has. Maybe that means a mass extinction- we're overdue for one by now anyway.

Nor is pissing people off a good way to honor the civilians, firefighters, and police officers who died that day.

I could easily see the NYC skyline looking very nice with new towers and I hope to see them once they open. Maybe, I'll actually go into the city, or maybe I'll just go to Atlantic Highlands, NJ. Beautiful look over the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook. I went there on 9/11 after the towers had fallen. Very sad seeing all of the smoke. :(

But I would prefer the new towers because their aim is to honor those who died that day and show that we will not give up without a fight. Rebuilding the same things would only show the terrorists that they really pissed us off and now we have to waste time by redoing what was done already.

No, we all have the necessary anatomy to have sex and procreate. Rape is a spin-off of sex and is an invention of man.

Well yeah, but I'm just saying that in that case, it could still fluctuate.

No. I said some animals are prey and some are predators. We are predators at heart. We can also digest plants for when meat isn't readily available, but I believe we are predators first and foremost. Why else would we have evolved thought, thumbs, carnivorous teeth, etc? If you have the necessary anatomy to eat meat and you can eat meat, then eat meat! I'm not going to give up something that I was made to do. :)

Animals are not human beings. They do not have rational souls and are on this earth because some of them are prey and others are predators. We just happen to be special animals, with logic and reason, that are predators.

It's all relative. I'm sure anybody would shell out more dough for a sibling or parent than a random Chinese man or French woman. So a life is worth different amounts depending on who is appraising it.

No. I'm just pointing out that eating a vegetable is destroying life just as much as eating a steak. I have no problem with vegetarianism/veganism, but I see them as unnecessary. Human beings are the master species and we have control over this world and it is our job to take care of it AND ourselves. Meat is essential to many people's diets, like mine, where I want a lot of protein. Sure, you could get these things in other foods, but we have the power to digest meat, just like a cougar or a bear.

Besides, don't you realize that I don't care if an organism can think? Remember our little debate about abortion? :)

Plants have a nutritive soul and they react to different stimuli, like light, wind, and temperature. They can also grow in different directions depending on these factors and most are grown against gravity, in fact. They may not be sentient, as animals are, but they can still "feel" and react.

I believe the Earth is warming, and possibly faster than ever recorded. But I also believe this is mostly a natural occurrence. Scientists have confirmed that temperatures before the last ice age were about 4C higher than they are now. Although we may be increasing at a faster rate now than ever before, I have not seen anything about how long the rate of global warming will remain the way it is now.

"Humans have no major role in the warming climate. The earth has been warming on its own."

Agreed, but I think it's important to preserve aesthetic beauty in our nation and we also need land for farms and resources. We can't just develop on everything.

Yes, animals are alive, but so are plants! So suggesting that meat is murder would also say that vegetables are murder. Therefore, we shouldn't eat any food and we should remove ourselves entirely from the food chain!

This was a well thought out argument with no spelling or grammar mistakes that I can see. I would like to know why it was down-voted because this is really starting to bother me and it bothers everybody on this site who puts effort into his or her arguments.

I know for a fact, being recently 16 and having a 14-year-old brother, that politics is possibly one of the most boring topics around at that age. A young teen is not going to research the candidates and find the best policies for the nation. True, some will (like I did), but the vast majority will not. They will vote for the candidate that they like better of whom their parents told them to vote for- this is not a choice of the voters then, it is an extra vote for someone else or a faulty and uneducated vote. Just look at student council elections! In grammar school and high school, who wins the student council elections? More often than not, it's the popular kids who have no intention of doing anything good for the school, but just want to have that prestige over the rest of the student body.

I really don't think a 16-year-old will look into the policies of a candidate, but would rather vote for the candidate that his or her parents will vote for, vote for the candidate who's more popular in school, or vote for the candidate purely in a superficial way, kind of like the way I choose a team for the Superbowl (which one lives closer. :P But other people base it on uniform color lol).

Yes, terrorism still has the same meaning it did 50 years ago. But today, more has been added on to what a "terrorist" is. To the typical modern American, a terrorist is no longer just one who uses violence or the threat of violence to get his point across or to scare or hurt others. To modern America, a sense of racism and racial profiling has entered the picture. Now, a terrorist is, in most cases, your typical radical Islamic man. What used to be a word that I can see being tossed around like many words are tossed around today (i.e. gay, slut, etc.), is now a word that if somebody labeled you as a terrorist, surely you would take offense and see it as a truly horrible thing to say. It has become one of those words you wouldn't even call your mortal enemy because of all of the baggage attached to it. This is why the word "terrorist" is not the same word that it used to be.

I say, don't f@#& with nature. :) I think we are made the way God intended and that we were all made the way we were for a reason. And if you don't believe in God, then replace it with nature. ;)

If the baby endangers the mother's life, then yes, a late-term abortion is justified. Other than that, absolutely not. I don't care if your baby is going to have down syndrome or will be missing a limb or organ! That baby is a human by almost any body's standards and aborting it at that point would surely be murder! I don't like abortion at any point, but getting one that late most likely means that the mother does not want the baby because it will have a defect. If this is the case, that woman should not even be trying to have a child because she is an immoral and selfish person.

I've always loved the movie Jarhead. Really amazing movie about Desert Storm and the like. Awesome shots, especially in the burning oil fields. And it really went into the lives of the soldiers, especially the main character. Duh. :)

Okay, you successfully pointed out that I didn't know the context of this quote, why Einstein said it, or even his personality for that matter. But I feel that the portion that was given should have been up for interpretation. So I may not have understood this part the way he intended for me to interpret it, but I still hold my beliefs. :)

Finally, a famous quote (that I have never heard before) that backs up my sentiment perfectly! Religion and science go hand in hand. I've always believed that science answers the question "How does it happen?" and religion answers the question "Why does it happen?"

I think most young people on this site are more mature than half of the young voters in this country. :D

I knew way too many people who voted based on charisma, appearance, race, or because somebody else told them to. It was really sad...

Maybe I'm just saying this because I'll be registering to vote later on this month or next month. :)

I think by the time you're 18, you're more mature than you ever have been, obviously. Although not all 18-year-olds are mature enough to vote, a good portion are mature enough. And the ones that are not usually don't vote anyway, so it all works out. The thing that's always bothered me, however, is how 18 is such a magical number. I don't see how somebody who is 18 years, 1 month is more mature, legally, than somebody who is 17 years, 11 months. It's as if suddenly, you turn 18 and a whole new world opens. I think there should be a big thing once you get a high school diploma or something. I still had to get working papers to work (this is a side note), even though I already graduated. But I don't turn 18 until the 20th... =/

"Organ donation upon death should be mandatory."

Well it is mandatory unless requested otherwise in some places, like Belgium I believe. So in that case, it's a great idea. But I think we should at least have a choice. It makes the actual donation that much more precious, sincere, and important.

"My soul won't transcend to some higher plane..."

As much as I disagree with that part, I do agree that after we die, our bodies are just going to lie there and rot. But lets go ahead and discuss the afterlife some other time, shall we? :)

I would give any and all organs as long as I can have an open casket wake and people won't say "Where the hell is his face?" :) But after a wake service, I'd gladly give any organ for science or for another person, even my face.

There are problems with every form of government and society, I'm sure. Capitalism is great because it allows people to actually work for their money and understand the value of it. Socialism could be a problem for the same reason because the poorest people in society would then be getting, in a way, government hand-outs and would not appreciate them. Suddenly, they realize they don't need to try as hard and the former upper class is working harder to maintain stability in society. Then they realize there's no point in doing this and society collapses.

Now, if we were all robots or if we all actually wanted to work together without laziness or greed or jealousy, then yes, I'm sure socialism could definitely work. In fact, I think it could work on a much smaller scale in some cases.

Debating online gives me time to think about what I'm going to say without looking like an idiot and research a multitude of topics easily. Also, when I get really pissed at people, there is a 0% chance I will charge at them and try to hurt them. :)

I really like the idea and I'm sure if it picks up more steam, I'll be using it more and more often, but I don't know about everyone else. I'm not sure how many people would join and I'm also not sure if it would last for months to come. =/

I recently read an article in Popular Science about how using the computer will actually make you smarter, depending on how you use it of course. They did a study and found that people who use computers regularly, to search for things on the internet for example, had greater brain activity while surfing the web than people who have never used a computer before, showing how they were actually becoming smarter from computer use. Of course, bad posture and carpal tunnel syndrome are negative side effects, but you can get those from other activities other than going on the computer.

"This sounds reasonable to me. But, of course, embryos are incapable of feeling pain."

I have to strongly disagree with this. An embryo can feel pain as early as eight weeks, when it first develops brain activity and a heartbeat. And even before this, the mother can feel pain by realizing that she just gave up her own flesh and blood. I've heard stories of would-be mothers feeling extreme guilt or sadness from aborting a baby at any point during the pregnancy.

Okay, maybe that wasn't the best answer. Honestly, I've never thought about why the things I believe are wrong are in fact wrong. They just all seem wrong and I'm sure most people feel the same way about their own morals, but I've been thinking about this more throughout the day... We do the right thing because we don't want to cause pain. And when we do want to cause pain in others, it's out of spite and we may feel bad about that later on. Our morals revolve around the Golden Rule, "Do onto others what you would have them do onto you." If you don't want somebody to do something to you, then don't do it to them.

I believe it is wrong to take innocent or defenseless life. Typically, that would be for God to decide and I don't think we have the right to take away the life of another without a consequence. But let's just say God didn't exist, for the argument's sake. Even then, most people would feel bad for killing another, especially when he or she didn't deserve it and/or couldn't protect him or herself. I believe this is the basis of all of our morals: would you feel guilty or bad for doing that? The only time killing another human being is justified is when it will benefit society as a whole. This is where capital punishment enters the picture (take a life, lose your own). As for wars, I would LOVE to see a world in complete peace, but there are evil people out there and the only way to stop them sometimes is by fighting them and their armies.

"An embryo is not a human, it is a potential human."

Saying it is a potential human means that it may become a human and it may not, but it all depends on actions and factors, etc. An embryo WILL develop into a fully-formed human being, who may be missing a body part unfortunately, unless it is miscarried (or aborted).

Because it WILL BE a fully functional human being, granted there is no miscarriage nor mental or physical dysfunction. It is not the same as a gamete, which may or may not become a zygote and will die without another gamete being joined. As soon as that sperm cell goes inside of that egg and forms the first few cells of a fetus, it is destined to be a baby. It is technically alive, according to science, and there is no way you cannot consider it a human being. What else would it be? Does is gradually change its species and eventually morph into a human? No, it starts as a human and develops to become more and more recognizable.

Vegans don't kill humans for no reason other than the fact that they don't want a baby! Well they might, but that's not the point. Human life is sacred ans special. So sorry for not specifying that we were discussing human life. I kind of thought that was a given. We are the only organisms on Earth, as far as I know, that have a rational soul, that we can think logically and reason as a species.

"In this case I would say killing that hollow shell of a person is acceptable for the same reason killing an embryo is acceptable."

Well then we are never going to agree on this issue. :) Because I am opposed to the direct killing of either, unless necessary.

Once again, 1 million is a huge number, but I truly believe it is nothing in comparison to what it could have been and what there has been in wars of the past.

"Countries need to establish Democracy on their own."

If it were that simple, then yes, let them run wild and eventually tame themselves. It doesn't even matter if a nation has a democracy or a monarchy or a dictatorship to me, as long as the government does not oppress its people or abuse its power (or terrorize the world).

Well life does begin at conception. End of story. "a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. They undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations." -Wikipedia

Let's see... A zygote is a cell that is comprised of water and carbon-based molecules, among other things.

It has genetic information, more importantly a complete set of human DNA.

It has a metabolism- it "eats" the yolk of the egg for energy.

It has homeostasis because it is maintained by the mother's body temperature.

It grows and it's cells divide.

It can respond to stimuli, more and more as it grows.

It doesn't reproduce yet, but hey... neither does a child, which is clearly alive.

And natural selection refers to the species, not the individual, and is true for all species anyway.

So how is it not alive?

True, making abortions illegal would not stop all of them, but it would surely stop some. So many women get abortions and then soon realize it was a mistake to do so. And it is a mistake. It's destroying life, as explained above.

So you're inferring that it's okay to "murder" a fetus that has not yet experienced brain activity but will and at the same time, it's not okay to "murder" a comatose patient that has already experienced brain activity and never will again. I'm referring to brain activity as thoughts and feelings, not motor functions and bodily functions. Even so, a baby has its first brain activity as early as 8 weeks, along with a heartbeat! I still believe life begins at conception and that all unnecessary abortion is wrong, but I can at least tolerate an abortion up to, but not including, this milestone. I can't stand how there are abortions after this point just because of viability.

Of course, parole and prison breaks were hypothetical situations I derived to prove a point that the death penalty is permanent, which is a good thing. But since Democrats agree with the death penalty, let's leave it at that. :)

"Here's a scenario: We left Iraq alone. Saddam eventually falls out of power and is swept into the dustbin of history, like all petty dictators. Iraq eventually develops Democracy on its own, much like the rest of the world has. We as a country are fiscally sound due to not having wasted a ton of money. An inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided. Doesn't that sound like a better outcome to you?"

That outcome sounds amazing and I wish it were that simple, but how long would we have to wait for Saddam Hussein to die and stop killing his own people? And what if he had a son who took his place and was just as evil? I'm sure in a nation like Iraq, there would have been plenty of people willing to take Hussein's place after he died and would have been just as evil or even more evil. So an "inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided"..... by Americans. The same can be said about the Holocaust. If we never got involved, it's no big deal for us, but it we did get involved. Yes, Japan attacked us first, but we really had no other reason to invade Europe other than stopping the Nazis and helping the allies.

The funniest part of this debate, I just realized, is that you said you wanted them to debate you about that and nothing. I said I've already done it and I wasn't in the mood and got two people. Haha XD

"It is only alive in the strict biological sense"

Just like somebody in a coma, right? Aborting a baby can be compared to killing a comatose patient, but in a completely inhumane way only because his or her mother doesn't want him or her anymore. Now, indirect euthanasia is okay, as in removing any machines from the patient, but murdering the comatose is unethical, just like abortion.

"removes evil doers from society just as effectively"

Prison can be like a paradise for some of these criminals. So removing the death penalty could cause an surge of crimes because people don't have three square meals a day and a shower and bed. Regardless of this, keeping these murderers alive in prison always leaves the chance of parole, if available, or a prison break, which would be rare but still possible. I see the death penalty as the biggest deterrent for murder- kill and be killed. If the death penalty were removed, I'm sure people wouldn't hesitate to murder based on consequences because this would lead to a consequence of meals, showers, and beds, as opposed to death.

"How many would it take for you to draw the line?"

There is no line to be drawn- only comparisons to be made and scenarios to be though about. Scenarios meaning thinking about what the world or region would be like without the war ever have existed. Yes, one million people is a lot of people, but did they die in vain? Was it really that big of a loss in comparison to any war of human history?

Well I feel many of these women could easily give the children up for adoption, which is very successful. And I know a lot of people think anti-abortion stances are religious, but they don't have to be. I look at the facts and I never blindly follow my religion based on what religious leaders say, like the Pope. I see abortion as murder of innocent life because I truly believe the fetus is alive at conception. Gametes are alive as well, but they are not humans in and of themselves. When they meet and form a zygote, they transform into a single-celled version of a human being.

That's really ignorant and I thought you'd make a more clever argument than that... You're better than this. I, for one, am very pro-sex. ;) And I know that not all Democrats are tree-huggers...

I never said Democrats want abortions to occur, but they sure don't want them to stop. It's not as if Democrats go out and urge women to abort their babies, but I don't think women should be given the choice of an abortion unless there are certain circumstances, like endangerment of the mother's health or rape, as long as the abortion is early on, like in the first month or two.

And yes, we're finishing the war. Are you guys all happy? Because I sure as hell feel a lot more safe! Oh wait... no I don't. Oh that's right, I feel leaving the region entirely might spark a revolt by any remaining radicals and the nation might revert to the way it was in 2001! That sounds like a lot of fun.

Oh it's on like Donkey Kong. :)

The only circumstance where abortion is logical and ethical is when the fetus threatens the mother's health with an ectopic pregnancy, a cancerous uterus, etc. I also feel some cases of rape could call for very early abortions. However, life begins at conception. At this point, the zygote, still a single cell, has the same number of chromosomes as a developed human being and carries on the same life processes found in every living organism.

Although it may be more costly to execute a prisoner, I see the death penalty as a way to rid society of those not worthy to belong in it. The death penalty should not be used lightly, of course, as if we lived in the Middle Ages, but should be used only on criminals guilty of first degree murder or crimes as evil as this. The way I see it, people guilty of first degree murder thought about their actions beforehand and planned to murder others prior to the incident. It is not a freak accident or a crime of passion- these people are inherently evil and have no respect to life. And with the advent of DNA technology, the number of people wrongfully accused of a crime has dwindled. There will never be a foolproof justice system, but we are closer than we ever have been.

I think if you compare Iraq now to how it was in 2001, the nation is much better off. They no longer live under an evil dictator, they finally have freedom and democratic elections (government of the people!), and the economy there is improving to stability. So we have done a lot of good there.

"Almost a trillion dollars" I agree that's a lot of money, but at least it wasn't spent in vain.

"thousands of American lives" This is nothing. I feel a sense of honor for each soldier who is serving now, who has served, and who has died for this country. I salute them and I think they are the greatest Americans, but compare this to any other major war in American history, and it is smaller than many individual battles! In wars of the past (not Vietnam), people didn't complain about numbers of dead soldiers, they praised these men (and now women) for their dedication and honor! And every war in our history has been greater, casualty-wise, than the Iraq war. The problem is that the media goes on air and says "This many people died this week in Iraq," which is constantly exaggerating the war. We are not dying that much over there.

"over one million dead Iraqis" This is truly sad, but think about how many of these people were on the other side of the war to begin with. Also, think about how many people would have lived in terror or died because of Saddam Hussein. I think one million dead Iraqis is better than an entire nation terrorized constantly by their leader or dying from radical Muslims.

I'm not scared at all. Just lazy. lol. I've debated about that concept at least two different times, as in two different debates.

Well, I tend to side with Republicans of course. :) I think the biggest qualm with Democrats is that they are so ready to abort babies but won't execute guilty murderers or wage war against an evil nation. Now, I've already discussed this before, so I'm not debating about that right now- get me another time. But Republicans tend to believe, at least the good old conservatives especially :), that abortion is wrong because it's innocent life being lost. The other cases are guilty life being lost. Just my opinion. You asked for the most sound logic and ideas, and this was a specific case in which Republicans have sounder logic. So stick that in your back pocket.

Individuals can definitely help to influence others to join in the effort, but one person or family cannot significantly lower greenhouse emissions or save natural resources on any scale. In order to conserve the environment, many people must get involved, all over the world.

I think this is more for primitive situations and times when food and reproduction are not readily available to all. As modern humans, we have no need to feed some people before others, since we can all make money and go to the local market or grocery store to buy food or even grow food in our backyards. Also, with such a large population, there is no need to deny anybody of reproduction. We all get our chances.

As much as some technologies are bad for environment and for nature, I feel that the advancement of technology will make devices more energy efficient and the human race can actually help the environment with technology. Of course, there are bad things associated with technology, like pollution, but if we stop advancing now, pollution will remain. If we continue to advance we can possibly reverse any carbon footprint we've ever had. Who knows where technology will go?

How can you say there is no evidence? I suppose you believe in the Big Bang (so do I). How do you suppose the Big Bang came to be? And don't say "random events". There is no way the entire Universe simply came to be without a Necessary Being. And what about miracles? Are they just by chance? God can be seen in so much around the world, so either you live under a rock or you just don't notice anything about how God is constantly here with us. Next time you go outside, look at the intricacy of the trees: how the branches intertwine and the colors are so vibrant. Look at the diversity of life and the delicacy of it. The balance of nature and the contrasts between night and day, alive and dead. To say there is no evidence of God is a HUGE fallacy.

I'm just going to say yes. Any questions about that?

I say, keep gay marriage OUT of religion. HOWEVER, allow it as a legal form of marriage. Shouldn't gay people be allowed to be happy(or gay...lol) as well.

The land was Palestinian land before Israelis moved in. After WWII, the UN decided to give land to Israel. This is unfair to the original owners of the land and it is unfair that a religious group is simply handed it's own independent nation.