How would one measure that?

Ethics and morals have been replaced by greed, lust, and a desire to excape all the suffering in the world.

That has always been the case. Yet we survived. Our life expectancy has increased, many previously "incurable" conditions can be fixed with ease. And we did all of these even with a bunch of drunk doctors...

You do realize that if it wasn't for oversight, a lot of these Drs. would just continue on, right? No system is perfect, but that does not mean it does not provide some merit.

People do and say anything.

Which is why methods of verification such as burden of proof exist.

Have you seen your doctors diploma/the dentist's degree or do you just accept them as legit because they hung a shingle out front.

Well, I actually do vet my doctors a little. And if asked to provide their diploma and other credentials, I'm pretty sure they have to. And there are organizations keeping an eye out on them. And these organizations can be verified.

Do you just selectively choose that which you wish to be false?

No, I like to do research. This isn't a hard exercise to conceptualize.

If it is the mainstream

What, like God, who the majority of people in this country believe in? Nope.

I can't remember the last time I saw someone support death with such enthusiasm...and smileys.

It is possible for an innocent person to be found guilty. As long as this is the case, no punishment that cannot be compensated for should be used.

There is no proof that it reduces crime.

There is no proof that every person who has committed murder will do so again, so it may not be necessary in the interests of preventing more murders.

It doesn't bring the victims back.

You want justice? Find a way to make the criminal benefit the community.

I've checked out debate.org, and if this site dies off completely, I'll probably go there. But I prefer the informal nature of this site, and I actually like that its smaller and less busy.

This site IS highly suceptible to trolls, but it goes through its phases. Maybe an upswing is in the future, maybe not. I'm kinda liking how easy it is to be on the leader board right now though.

The burden of proof lays in the hands of the person that doubts it to be true.

So...anybody can say any old thing, ANY THING at all, and we just have to accept it as true if we can't automatically disprove it. That is idiocy.

If this is not the case then everything must be false as with the pre-mentioned Monday/Tuesday example.

Considering that the example forgets the fact that both calenders and dictionaries can prove it accurate, this example is poor in the contexts of this debate.

In this case, the evidence is widely available for perusal. One does not necessarily have to present the evidence themselves if it can be found by other means.

While I do concede that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, a proposition without some variety of evidence readily presented could be many things. A lie, a misunderstanding, a guess, etc. Without some semblance of evidence, it is impossible to determine which of these things it is. While one shouldn't say it is definitely false, there is, as yet, no reason to solid reason to believe it is true. And yeah, such propositions are dismissible.