I’m not saying that common religion is impossible. I’m just saying that it isn’t necessary, because this argument is about whether or not we need a common religion for mankind to unite. And if you want to say that, say it in the argument. We don’t need a second debate here in the comments.
Capitalism is better than any other economic system developed so far. While pure capitalism would be a terrible idea, you can never have a completely pure economic theory. Capitalism is as good as it's going to get.
First of all, children should certainly obey their parents. Second, it's not a very common thing anymore for mothers to obey their husbands, is this the '50s or something?
That doesn't make any sense. Even if Trump turns out to be a good president, he's never going to be supported by everyone. No president has ever been 100% approved.
Trying to argue that Harris would be better when she didn't win the election and Trump hasn't even entered office yet isn't going to work. Maybe wait until Trump has been in office long enough for us to draw conclusions.
You're operating this debate on the basis that destruction is inherently bad and protection is always good. The entire basis of your argument doesn't make any sense.
I don't quite understand why anyone would try to contest this view. No one should ever be accused of being a terrorist without good reason. However, I do think you shouldn't just say the USA and Europe, you should just say "people" in general, because while some American citizens may be Islamophobic (mostly stemming from the 9/11 attacks), anyone can be Islamophobic, not just Americans and Europeans.
For all of those who would say con didn’t accuse me of white supremacy, it reads loud and clear, “All Lives Matter was a useless f###ing counter movement with no real goals, made just to soothe white egos. I’d bet that whatever you’d propose instead of reparations would be about the same.” Con clearly said that what I’d propose instead of reparations would be similar to All Lives Matter, which con clearly expressed as a “useless f###ing counter movement with no real goals, made just to soothe white egos.” I have no idea where that profanity came from. I was just trying to have a good debate, and I’m sorry if I came off as a “douche bag” as the one guy who has voted called me, but I’m not meaning anything wrong. I think profanity is wrong by itself for a civilized debate. borz_kriffle, seeing as how no admins have responded, I’d just like to move on, and I hope we can agree to disagree.
Best.Korea, the idea of slavery reparations isn't that the government pays them, it's that other American citizens (whites who are apparently responsible for slavery) have to pay them.
Someone should vote on this.
I apologize for missing my last argument, I will continue to participate.
Ok.
Good point.
Any commies want to debate?
What even is this debate supposed to be over?
How did this debate turn into such a train wreck so quickly? It had potential.
Somebody should vote on this.
Good point. Thanks for the advice. I’ll try harder next time to put better definitions.
What?
Somebody should vote on this.
Somebody should vote on this.
I’m not saying that common religion is impossible. I’m just saying that it isn’t necessary, because this argument is about whether or not we need a common religion for mankind to unite. And if you want to say that, say it in the argument. We don’t need a second debate here in the comments.
Somebody please vote...
Anybody going to vote?
I don’t mean to be rude, but what are your responses supposed to mean exactly? They’re almost completely incomprehensible.
Makes sense. Buchanan was the Great Procrastinator who saw an impending crisis and just threw up his hands in defeat.
That's why I'm excited about this debate.
Anyone want to debate on this with me?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Christian God cruel at times and not cruel at other times?
Good luck. I know this is a controversial subject, but I agree with you. I hope you do well in this debate.
Capitalism is better than any other economic system developed so far. While pure capitalism would be a terrible idea, you can never have a completely pure economic theory. Capitalism is as good as it's going to get.
This is debate is way too advanced for me.
Why would free will not exist?
Just saying "they sure are" isn't convincing.
That's the point. I need a win
Why is it taking you so long to answer?
Destruction and protection are not comparable.
First of all, children should certainly obey their parents. Second, it's not a very common thing anymore for mothers to obey their husbands, is this the '50s or something?
I don't think it's going to be that bad. In this country, it's very hard to do something like that without being stopped.
That doesn't make any sense. Even if Trump turns out to be a good president, he's never going to be supported by everyone. No president has ever been 100% approved.
Trying to argue that Harris would be better when she didn't win the election and Trump hasn't even entered office yet isn't going to work. Maybe wait until Trump has been in office long enough for us to draw conclusions.
I think you're winning this debate so far.
You're operating this debate on the basis that destruction is inherently bad and protection is always good. The entire basis of your argument doesn't make any sense.
Strangest debate idea I've ever seen.
I don't quite understand why anyone would try to contest this view. No one should ever be accused of being a terrorist without good reason. However, I do think you shouldn't just say the USA and Europe, you should just say "people" in general, because while some American citizens may be Islamophobic (mostly stemming from the 9/11 attacks), anyone can be Islamophobic, not just Americans and Europeans.
I’d be willing to debate others about Woodrow Wilson, if anyone likes.
Thank you for your feedback.
For all of those who would say con didn’t accuse me of white supremacy, it reads loud and clear, “All Lives Matter was a useless f###ing counter movement with no real goals, made just to soothe white egos. I’d bet that whatever you’d propose instead of reparations would be about the same.” Con clearly said that what I’d propose instead of reparations would be similar to All Lives Matter, which con clearly expressed as a “useless f###ing counter movement with no real goals, made just to soothe white egos.” I have no idea where that profanity came from. I was just trying to have a good debate, and I’m sorry if I came off as a “douche bag” as the one guy who has voted called me, but I’m not meaning anything wrong. I think profanity is wrong by itself for a civilized debate. borz_kriffle, seeing as how no admins have responded, I’d just like to move on, and I hope we can agree to disagree.
Not all people may be migrants, but all migrants are people. Unless you’re talking about migrating birds or something.
Good point.
Wylted, I'm not sure what you mean. If someone's only argument is that they would personally benefit, they wouldn't do very well in the debate.
Best.Korea, the idea of slavery reparations isn't that the government pays them, it's that other American citizens (whites who are apparently responsible for slavery) have to pay them.