- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I completely agree. While i do think it is important to set a good example, that alone won't compel any nation to follow, as you already mentioned. I think we need to set a good example so we gain the high ground in our negotiations because if we don't set an example we can't honestly expect the other nations to reduce their carbon emissions if we don't ourselves.
A cap and trade system could work and it probably is one of the better ways to get corporations to actually do something to help combat global warming. The problem is that all the politicians are bought by at least one corporation and thus they weaken and warp any bill until it is useless for its intended and introduced purpose. Nonetheless, this doesn't mean that bills or actions to combat global warming are wasteful. It just takes longer.
Some people, not just on this site but everywhere, have mentioned that because we the US or other countries more inclined to fighting global warming can't actually force countries like china to reduce their carbon emissions it is a waste of our money and time to reduce our own since they will cut any gains we make.
While this may be true, it doesn't mean we can't continue to reduce our carbon emissions since at least there will be less. Leading by example is our only way to get other countries to adopt better techniques.
If the US or other western countries with the infrastructure and knowledge can actually take steps to seriously develop clean energy technology as well as more efficient processes we could develop the tools needed to solve this problem. These able countries will need to invest a large initial sum of money to get this working but overtime it will pay for it self as well as help the earth. Some countries such as china have said they will follow what the US does. If they are sincere i don't know but once the US and other countries create and adopt better technologies they will become more affordable and accessible to developing countries.
Of course if the US stays on its intended course policy wise our example will mean nothing since we haven't actually set a good example of how to fight combat warming. There are too many people who only think short term and are not willing to be pioneers in these better and cleaner technologies. Investing in clean technology, subsidizing clean energy, taxing poluting energy and industries and continuing even if it appears we are alone is one of the few ways to fix this. We can't ignore it and hope we could adapt to the changes in the climate. If we set a good example and are actually serious about this issue then other countries will eventually follow.
Internal issues are the greatest threat. One reason is that depending on the outcome of internal issues, external issues can change or at least the manner at which they are perceived and dealt with. For the United States only internal issues have ever stopped it from advancing socially and we are at the point that America needs to advance socially but the opposition and divide among internal forces prevents this from happening. Also internal issues generally influence a larger population within a country than external ones, except for a true invasion. The internal issues are under our control and thus all it takes is that all the opposing forces to learn to compromise and put the country before business or personal agendas.
I wouldn't phrase it that way because it is too general but i agree with the idea. I think the way animals are bred, raised, and killed is morally wrong. Anything that eats meat could be considered a murder and people can eat meat but that doesn't mean people need to eat meat.
The fact that humans don't need to eat meat yet advocate and support the mass production and killing of various animals is cruel and obsessive.
Real carnivores and omnivores can eat meat raw without getting sick. They also enjoy eating raw meat. They are not repulsed by the idea of eating a dead animal if they pass it.
The human anatomy is not specialized for eating meat it is just able to cope with it. That doesn't mean it is natural for a human to eat meat such as a hamburger or grilled chicken. http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/
Humans are willing to eat meat because once it's cooked it tastes good. Also humans generally don't catch their own pray and gut it and prepare to eat. They don't see the slaughterhouses. Infact humans are so far removed from the meat making process that they can't truly know how much of what they are eating is any certain type of meat or additional organic materials. They don't see the mass blood, sickness, weakness, or pain that is associated with slaughterhouses.
Killing any living thing without need is wrong and to induce suffering while killing that being is even worse. So yes meat is murder, because humans can easily survive without meat and are actually healthier when they do.
I agree with all the above. Abortion is a personal issue and i'm certain women don't choose it lightly for a multitude of reasons. But it remains a personal issue, that only the woman and her doctor can truly understand. Since almost every circumstance is unique no specific rule can be fairly applied that would limit against abortion. The forces that are against abortion do not speak for all of society nor does all of society believe or follow the full teachings of those forces and thus society shouldn't be constrained by rules and regulations that only that select force supports. A woman should not be forced to risk a great deterioration of her health, living standard, or life because some group of people believe that abortions are morally wrong. If she is forced to be obligated by this select group then how is she a free person?
I think a terrorist is an entity that uses fear and violence to get what it wants generally for political reasons. Thus I feel that any person, no matter their nationality or any government no matter its form can participate in terrorism and thus be considered a terrorist entity.
When i hear terrorist on the news or radio i think that it is probably being applied with bias solely to Muslim extremists and it has become a word with a double definition.
The man who recently killed the late term abortion docter i would consider a terrorist because he is trying to intimidate other potential abortion doctors because of his beliefs. Also shock and awe strategies could loosely be considered terrorist acts because their main strength is to terrorize and intimidate the enemy.
Mainly when i hear terrorist i think it is an over used word, commonly spoken by devout republicans, to describe any action they disagree with that also contains some form of violence.
In addition to what nichole said i think, that in online debating, you are able to present more detailed information. You can check the internet for facts and sources before you post. Also you have more time to organize your thoughts and prepare a better argument. While I don't think everyone will read your entire debate post just because you have it typed up you at least have documentation that everyone can see regarding what you said and thus you can create better counter arguments depending on how much their arguments attacked or ignored your post.
Honestly i don't think we have the choice to stop developing new technology. what i think we do have a choice in is what new technology we develop. new technology will always be developed but we can put our resources into developing technology that has a meaningful contribution to society and not just commercial militaristic interests.
I am assuming the God in question is that of the theist's God which is omnipotent and most good. In this regard i have to say i don't believe in God because i can't see why an all powerful God would allow such evil to take place in the world. Evil is often seen as a necessary product of human freewill yet if God were omnipotent then God could create a world in which evil doesn't exist and is not a product of freewill. A God who is omnipotent and wholly good would never allow the existence of evil in our world yet millions suffer from the evil of others everyday. a theist's God can't exist.