DWYP 1 Archieves ( Merged )

[Duke]

[DWYP1.1] - demoncaterpie vs. Uncle Kenny - Genetical Engineering

You guys know the deal.

Demoncaterpie will have the first post in this debate.

Get it on!

 

[Duke]

[DWYP1.1] - Skywalker vs. kaid - Genetic Engineering

Skywalker has the opening argument.

Lets keep this fight clean.

Get it on!

 

[Duke]

[DWYP1.1] - JTB vs. Viewtiful Jon - Should the US have open borders?

JTB you shall have the opening arguing in this here debate.


Get it on!

 

[Scav]

I didn't say the Democrats would react by moving to the left. They're moving to the center, in order to pick up the many alienated Republican votes. A recent example is Stem Cell research, for which the President was widely criticized for his stance. Contrary to what right-wing talk radio would have you believe, Bush's "increasing legislation of morality" angered many conservatives, including Nancy Reagan.

The 100 hours legislation was definitely more towards the center, ranging from improving Homeland Security to raising taxes on oil companies.

It is indeed comparable to Europe, but not to continental Europe. In 1997, Tony Blair completely changed the political landscape in Britain. He moved the Labor party to the center, broadening their appeal, and ended eighteen years of Tory control. He may have been criticized in recent years for his foreign policy, but revitalizing a dead party, serving as the longest British Prime Minister in history, and turning British politics on its head after 2 previous very unpopular Prime Ministers.

And say what you like about the Brits, but compared to the rest of Europe, they are thriving. Germany, France and Italy not only stopped growing in comparison to the US, they started losing ground, even during the US recession. A big part of this is tied to far-to-the-left labor policies. As proven by the 2005 riots in France, having two opposite sides of the spectrum doesn't "average out." It just means you have two ineffectual forms of government at the same time.

The whole point of moving to the center, and broadening the base, is to be less divisive. Having a magical "new party" opposite the Republican ideologues is the surest way to divide the country further.

What we need are cross-cutting policies like stem cell research and the environment. Saying a centrist party won't get anything done because they are "too much like Republicans" is nonsense. I would rather the Democrats continue the trend toward "centrist and sensible" than descend back into the strident partisanship of the past decade.

And as a final aside, saying there's no guarantee that they'll change anything is not an argument. There's no guarantee that your mythical next-party would change anything either. Simply saying "the best party for the United States is the party that would be able to enact change" does nothing to solve the problem.

You are begging the question, my friend.

 

[Deleted member]

An institution cannot be called legitimate when it purports such a double standard of promoting equality and human rights abroad while actively discriminating against its own citizens - it destroys the governments credibility. This, along with other factors such as Guantanamo etc, is why the United States no longer has moral authority to coerce other nations on human rights issues.

It surely can be called legitimate. Can it be called fair? You say probably not, and then I point to the polygamists in the crowd who cry the same as you. Why are you ignoring this? You cannot have it both ways. Just because homosexuality is now more generally accepted, that still doesn’t mean you aren’t in the same boat as those who have different sexual preferences when it comes to this issue. If you try to make the US government legitimate in your terms, you have to acknowledge the fact that others will still call it illegitimate.

Also your argumentation creates a tyranny of the majority - under your interpretation, genocide, apartheid, and all forms of brutality would be acceptable if it recieved majority approval. Even though you may not expressly argue these things, remember judges it is not what we do, but rather what can be justified due to our actions - you even try to hold me to this standard later on in the debate with your slippery slope arguments.

First of all, are we allowed to speak directly to the judges like that? Anyway:

You call it a tyranny, I call it being utilitarian. But you might say that for it to be truly utilitarian, then gays should be allowed to marry. Right, that would make sense. But allowing gays to marry will spark much of what I mentioned before, causing the attempt at being utilitarian to become cancelled out, due to the outrages of the straight community. Because remember, opening up the definition for marriage must encompass everyone with your arguments, DOH. It’s sad, but it’s true.

If you would read my argument, it's not about nature vs. nuture, but rather whether homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon. At the point in which homosexuality has been documented among other species and a natural part of their existence, then its occurence within humanity can not be declared unnatural - therefore, it is a natural occurence that society should accomodate for.

I did read your BLOCK of an argument.

naturally occuring phenomenon

Root word: Nature.

You’re saying that homosexuality is natural, not nurtured. Why are you denying this? It makes no sense. I’m not saying either. But you cannot actually tell me that you aren’t saying it isn’t about nature vs nurture. Again, you’re hearing what you want to hear, and believing what you want to believe.

There is an incredible flaw in your logic - thus the reason why this kind of slippery slope argumentation is ridiculous. If gay marriage is legalized, there is no independant warrant as to why we would allow incestuous marriages, or interspecies marriages, or polygamous marriages.

You would HAVE to allow them because then you would be contradicting yourself.

Firstly, incestuous marriages are inherently detrimental to society because of the negative effects of inbreeding (and in the case of gay incest, the incredible minuteness of the situtation would justify there being a psychological reason as to there being something wrong with the girl who wants to marry her sister - the chances of gay siblings are marginal at best, and having two gay incestuous sibilings would be even more of a minority that it's not a significant enough impact).

Irrelevant. They could sign a document them forcing them not to procreate, but still enjoy the social benefits of marriage. (Forcing them not to allow kids would inherently anger Joe Hillbilly and his lovely sister as well.)

Yes, gay incest is probably pretty **** rare. But it’s probably happened. Anyway, incestuous marriages are not detrimental to society. How are they? If they aren’t having kids, there’s no problem. Why can’t I say that gay marriages are detrimental to society?
Legalizing gay marriages will cause so much internal conflict within the US that I, at least, don’t see it as being that constructive.

Secondly, pets and inanimate objects are not people and therefore have no legal standing - marriage is a legal issue about rights and benefits; when only one party has legal standing and the other is standing on 4 legs or its hinges...pets and doors don't get married, because sentient or cognizant of the situation and cannot sign a contract.

If people can leave their entire will (house, riches, bonds) to their CATS, (yes, this has happened. Woman dies, leaves her entire fortune to her cat(s).) they can get married to them. Only in the US.

Thirdly, legalizing gay marriage sets a definitive brightline as to what constitutes a marriage - a union of two unrelated people. This nullifies any of your potential impacts because gay marriage reaffirms the ideals of commitments between two persons, negating polygamous and interspecies marriages.

Why does it have to be two? Why does it have to be unrelated? Why does it have to be PEOPLE? Questions that will be asked.

You see DOH, the US is an extremely litigious society. That is to say that if someone has an opportunity to sue someone just for the money, they probably will.

Coffee cup not labelled properly. A fine example. I’m willing to bet that once the marriage laws are open, people will take advantage of that and attempt to sue the country for inequality or some other lame reason like that, ruining it for straights and gays who just want to get married. And they can’t say no, because they just allowed the gays to marry, which would be a double standard on top of the previous double standard.

Call my argument a slippery slope, but it is inevitable. Slippery slopes are not inherently flawed – they are mainly for sophistic purposes. Yes, my arguments are hypothetical, but so are yours, if you really look at them. You can’t be that optimistic that allowing gays to marry will be all rainbows and sunshine.

Also remember Delorted doesn't offer a reason why gay marriage itself is inherently bad, just hypothetical impacts that have no interal link from gay marriage to the negative impact itself.

It’s not inherently bad. I don’t think homosexuality is wrong. Why would I say you are a freak, or a bad person, or anything of the such? I’m no bigot, I’m just saying the detrimental, and imminent effects of legalized gay marriage.

In the status quo, inequality runs rampant as people are denied equal protection under the law on something as trivial as their sexual orientation.

Ugh, my god how you contradict yourself.

Third, look at the positive impacts; legalizing gay marriage not only answers one of the most pressing issues of our country, but reaffirms our beliefs in equality and protections and benefits afforded by the law.

Here’s your bias again. Legalizing gay marriage is not one of the most pressing issues in the US. I can think of countless others.

Global warming?

Terrorism?

Racism?

GUN CONTROL? Violence in schools?

These take precedent way before gay marriage.

Also, gay rights are critical to resisting all forms of social oppression and avoiding the next holocaust.

What a load of sensationalist bull****.

 

[psicicle]

To address the issue of the origin of life; Evolution does not address that at all, that is probably a job for biochemistry. Evolution is driven by the natural selection of life already present. However, I can address that post.

(this is my own speculation)

Ultraviolet radiation does not reach through every inch of the world, organic molecules could have arisen in areas such as caves, cracks and, most likely, in the depths of the ocean. Energy is supplied in all of those places by geothermal forces as well as indirect sunlight.

There is life now, even though some UV radiation continues to penetrate the ozone layer. Bacteria and other microbial life forms are guaranteed to be present in the Antarctic, where there is a hole in the ozone.

 

[Digital Watches]

Firstly, to claim that the country's politics will become more centrist by allowing one party to stagnate towards the middle while the other moves farther and farther right is ludicrous. You claim that the Democratic party will gain more voters from the moderate right, but you forget that this also means that anything too far left of a centrist view will be incredibly underrepresented. Nevermind that there's no way actual policy will be influenced by a centrist party opposing far-right policies unless they're in power for incredibly long periods of time, which is unlikely a party that's already faltering due to the increasing amount of "morals voters" coming to the polls.

A powerful left-wing party will draw out voters the same way a far-right one did, and, in the same vein, force the Republicans to shift more to the center in order to gain votes (Like the Democrats are doing now, but less so, since right-wing voters are already out in droves), which from where they are right now, is a good thing.

And then there's Europe. To call the riots of 2005 a result of overly divisive politics is a gross misunderstanding of the factors involved. I agree that France is stagnating rather than thriving, but like many riots in areas with high unemployment, these riots were obviously the result of poor handling of the working class, and some have been saying discrimination. Also, to say that we could follow the Labor Party's example in Britain is incredibly inaccurate, as this would require a complete restructuring of our politics. Now, I for one think that a lot of Europe's parliamentary systems work a lot better than what we currently have, but that's not what we're arguing here.

Working within the system we currently have, the power of the branches of our government is allegedly based on a system of checks and balances, relying on forces with opposing interests preventing each other from gaining too much power. Political parties currently have no such system, as the Democrats are acting more and more in the interests of the Republicans' agenda as they shift more to the right.

What we seem to be arguing is as to whether the Democrats coming into power would be the best scenario given today's political atmosphere. Given that the Republicans have been in power for the last six years, and that we both disagree with their policies, both those set for the future and more importantly, those already in place, I think we're both arguing that the party best for the United States is the one that will be most "able to enact change," as you put it. As far as change goes, to claim that the Democrats are capable of opposing the conservative agenda - which already has a strong foothold and a legion of supporters - despite all their recent patterns, because of some massive internal revolution, which will somehow singlehandedly change the entire politcal atmosphere by usurping the Republican hold on moderate conservative voters while alienating the left wing is inherently fallacious, and much more circular and unfounded than the proposition that a strongly left-wing party would change the shape of politics for the better by representing the interests of the liberal population, thereby causing more of them to vote and forcing the Republicans to gain a broader appeal.

 

[Digital Watches]

(Small grammatical fix)

which is unlikely a for party that's already faltering due to the increasing amount of "morals voters" coming to the polls.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

The abortion debate in itself, is a very complicated one that deals in a great part with science.
Since so much science is involved in this topic, I will start by defining some of the more commonly used and misconstrued terms.

Arbortion- According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has defined abortion as "the expulsion or exraction of all (complete) or any part (incomplete) of the placenta or membranes, with or without an abortus, before the 20th week (before 134 days) of gestation.

Late-term abortion- An abortion conducted between the 85th and 134th day of a pregnancy (second trimester).

Partial-Birth abortion- political term which refers not to abortion at all, but to the killing of a premature (third trimester) baby who is considered to have a remote chance of survival outside the womb.

Fetus- In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
fetus. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetus

Gestation- The period of development in the uterus from conception until birth; pregnancy.

Prenate- an umbrella term for the zygote, embryo, and fetus. It's not a scientific or commonly used term, but I find it a useful and relatively neutral shorthand.

Opening Statement

I believe that laws should not take away freedoms where no obvious harm is being done. Throughout this debate I plan to prove that abortion is not harmful to any person, and is in fact safer than carrying a fetus to term and bearing a child. I also plan to prove that abortion is in no way immoral.

Hopefully my oppent will take a secular case agianst abortion. Since there is a seperation between church and state, I do not feel that religious views should be used in this debate.

Given that abortion does not violate anyone's rights and does no substantial harm, and actually performs some limited positive good, there is no good reason to make abortion illegal.

Before I get into proving my above statements I want to clarify where I stand morally in this debate.

I do not beleive that abortion should be a person's first-line method of birth control or method of gender determination.

I do not beleive that promiscuity or sexual irresponsibility (male or female) is a good thing or that either ought to be encouraged.

I do not beleive that teenage sex or pregnancy is a good thing.

I do not beleive that abortion is or ought to be considered a casual event or that it should be undertaken without reverence and respect for the "life" or "potential life" that is being ended.

The majority of abortions occur before the fourth month begins, and there is effectively no such thing as an elective abortion in the fifth month or later. No competent doctor would advice it, no intelligent mother would risk it.

Consequently, I will not argue for the legality or morality of "abortion" after the 20th week. I would go as far as saying that abortion after the 20th week could be condidered an immoral act and should be illegal--except in cases of genuine necessity.

What are cases of genuine necessity you may wonder? When a baby is already dead, or cannot be prematurely delivered due to deformity or injury of the womb or birth canal.

Is abortion MURDER?

Literally speaking, Muder involves the violation of a law. Abotion was not treated as "murder" in any American jurisdiction that we know of, even before the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade struck down the state statues that made it a crime.

The definition of abortion is based on the scientifically-established fact that a developing human organism cannot survive outside the womb before this date (20th week) and therefore, premature birth is not even an option. In reality, before the 24th week the chance ofa baby's survival outside the womb is almost nil, but doctors use the 20th week as the cut-off because there have been some rare cases of survival at that early a point, but none before, and the degree of organ development that is necessary for survival even to be feasible occurs between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation.

Until the 20th week, the cut-off date for an actual "abortion" to occur (the only period in which the the word "abortion" is properly applied to in medical terminology) , there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity. This is a condition regared universally as a state of "death" in adults. You cannot really "kill" and adult in this stage, you can only "unplug" them. Such an act would not be disrespectful of their human existence becaue that existence has already ceased, and only a body remains.

This is the same as killing a fetus before quickening (when the fetus becomes truly neurologically active, in the fifth month). It is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human--in contrast with animal--brains, begins to develop. This is when the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist, in at least a primative state.

Therefore, an idividual human cannot exist when a medically-defined abortion occurs.

Abortion's Positive Points

First, abortion is a notable benefit to society. The harm to a society that is caused by an excess of unchecked population growth is severe and well-documented. The ability of societies to check population growth without legalizing abortion has proven nearly non-existent: there are few countries in which abortion is outlawed or stigmatized that are not suffering harshly from overcrowding, with all the attendant economic, criminal, or political troubles. In contrast, most nations that allow the procedure are maintaining stable poplations with nearly zero growth. Abortion is at best a great benefit to mankind and at worst a necessary evil.

Second, abortion is a great benefit for the individual women. The risks of death or permanent disability cartainly must be greater for a woman who carries her fetus to term and bears a child, permaturely or not, than for a women who aborts before the third trimester. The social and economic ruin that can ensue from an untimely motherhood is a serious harm as well, and although this could be aleviated by recourse to adoption, free medical care for pregnant women, and public welfare for women unable to work as a consequence of their pregnancy, these solutions are not as simple as they seem.

"Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures in terms of morality and morbidity, and it is much safer than continuing the pregnancy through childbirth. In the first trimester of pregnancy when most abortions are performed, a woman is twenty times more likely to die from continuing the pregnancy through childbirth than from a first trimester abortion. At any stage of pregnancy, a woman is ten times more likely to die from continuing the pregnancy through childbirth than from an abortion."
*Statement of the court (majority decision), Hope Clinic c. Ryan, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division), 955 F. Supp. 847; 1998 U.S. Dist.

An act that causes no involuntary harm and produces some benefits for individuals and society in general should never be outlawed. Thus abortion, (Pro-Choice) is the correct choice for the United States of America.

**Some sources
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/abort.htm
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pro-choice-abortion.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice

 

[Hamsterpie]

Because the topic did not specify if the borders are open to immigration or trade, i will argue the (in my mind) more controversial: immigration.

America is a nation of immigrants. It was founded by immigrants, grew because of immigrants, and has its own culture due to the wide ethnic diversity experienced in few other places in the world. Immigration is a vital pillar of American society. Allowing people to come to this country, and sharing the opportunities that we as Americans enjoy isn't just a good idea. It's the right thing to do.

Immigrants don't steal jobs. They create jobs, through the extra demand of the goods and services that they require, and because they are shown to be more entrepreneurial than native born americans, start businesses that in turn create jobs. In a 1989 study, the department of labor concluded that they have little or no effect on the employment of native born americans.

 

[Scav]

You’re misinterpreting and misreading my arguments all while failing to make an argument of your own. I’m still waiting for you to make an argument towards what party we need, beyond the fact that it is liberal and nonexistent.

First, you’re jumping to conclusions. The road is ultimately for both parties to move towards the center, but that won’t happen all at once. It will start with the Democrats, and ultimately the Republicans will be forced to as well. Once again Britain is an example of where this has occurred, as the Tories have had to move to the left in order for anyone to even look at them.

I don’t want any powerful left-wing or right-wing party in power. Ideas are great, but ideologies are dangerous.

And I fail to see how my Europe analogy is inaccurate. The 2005 riots occurred due to complex reasons, yes, but the stated reason by rioters was poor conditions for the working class. Why is it impossible to get a job in France for a Muslim? Because of labor laws that essentially guarantee employment for life. This creates a breeding ground for racism, and highly discourages employers from hiring. Likewise, the leftist tendency to revere other cultures simply because they’re different, rather than the conservative drive to assimilate, adds to the problem. But once again, you misinterpreted my point with bringing up the French riots – I mean to have it illustrate how far-left policies are as damaging as far-right, and simply having a pendulum swing between them in the hopes that it averages out is a very pessimistic (and antagonistic) way of governing.

I also don’t see how following the Labor party’s example requires a restructuring of American politics. Are you saying that our system prevents a party from fundamentally redefining itself in a short span? Because that happens in the United States every 36 years.

You said

In much of Europe, such parties already exist, but not in America, where everyone's afraid of losing the Christian right.

Ok, which countries? What parties? How has this improved their standing in the past decades? I don’t even know if you mean a 3-party system, or simply a bi-partisan system where the two sides are diametrically opposed.

In regards to your final paragraph – I’m arguing that the Democrats are the best political party for America right now. This is due to many factors, not the least of which is electability. I’m not really sure what you’re arguing, beyond saying we need a far-left Liberal party that isn’t the Democrats. But then, you said that it’s not a third party, since third parties are unelectable. As a result, I’m still not sure what your argument is, yet alone how it answers the debate question.

We don’t need a fundamentalist left-wing party to draw votes away from the Republicans. That is already happening, because a fundamentalist party eventually consumes itself. The Republicans are no longer able to support their “moral majority” because the majority no longer agrees with them, due to their increasing marginalization on many topics. The biggest losers in a party system with two fundamentalist parties are those at the center – and that’s most of us.

Centrist Democrats are already drawing votes away. The 2006 election may have been a vote for “Not Republican,” but that’s still a vote against Republicans! Their foothold is hardly invincible. It’s not even menacing. I don’t want a party that mobilizes liberals the same way Republicans are mobilizing far-right conservatives. I want one that mobilizes the center, the real moral majority, in addition to the wings. The Democrats have taken the first steps towards doing that, and winning in 2006 was a huge part.

 

[McCloud]

Apologies for the delay; let's get down to it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to open this debate with the question: What's wrong with gay marriage?

The answer? Nothing.

The simple fact remains that a marriage is defined as a "legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."

Nothing wrong with that. A marriage is also defined as a union.

Same Sex Marriage follows all protocols set forth by the definition of marriage: it is a union between two people who intend to be each other's domestic and sexual partners. At the same time, it does not violate any unalienable right of a human being.



Let's examine the various arguments that are often presented when discussing gay marriage:

Argument 1: It's not natural.

Not much that is done today is natural. I'm not offering that as any justification, but I'm somewhat sure that it wasn't natural for humans to piss through a white porcelain circle.

Argument 2: God/Religion/Diety deemed it wrong.

All right. So he/she/it did.

Separation of Church and State. Excuse me sir, you're going to have to leave your religion at the door.

Argument 3: Marriage is purely for man and woman in order to procreate.

Says who? Refer to #1 if one claims nature; #2 if one claims religion.

Argument 4 (my personal favorite): Marriage is a sacred institution, and allowing gay marriages would only corrupt it.

Sorry, but marriages have been corrupted long before the issue of gay marriage became hot. People have married for tax cuts, money, clothes, jewelry, a bet. If one should choose, Las Vegas offers Drive-Thru Marriages somewhere. In-n-Out in 5 minutes flat.

That's all for now, I just wanted to get something in so that this debate would start. I'll go into more detail later.

 

[Rici]

I'm not even sure is my opponent is still alive .


i didn't kill him.. i think

 

[Deleted member]

So how is everyone's debate going?

 

[Jazzy Jinx]

Wait, I'm debating?

Demoncaterpie has the right to the first post but... HE ISN'T ON!

Oh well... I guess I will just chill out for now.

 

[demoncaterpie]

I do have school you know.

I'll post soon.

 

[ti83pop]

Well....mines pretty one sided....seeing as how I have the only post....and two competitors who haven't posted. Which is likely the only way I'll win.

 

[JTB]

I’ll just start with a short and sweet argument, just to kick off the debate.

What is it that attracts Mexicans to the United States? The economy is one major factor that causes a Mexican to immigrate, whether legally or illegally.

Outflow from Mexico to the U.S. — “the push” — will continue at high rates until the Mexican economy can provide sufficient work opportunities and decent standards of living to a far greater percentage of its population. The most optimistic assumptions hold that the outflow will continue for another generation.

Let’s imagine you live in Mexico. You have begun to raise a family, but lack the necessary funds to do so. You do have a job, but the amount of wages you earn is not enough to provide for your family. Now, you know in the United States, there are more jobs that pay more than your current job. So, what are your choices?

1) Stay in Mexico, earn below average wages, and live a life of poverty.
2) Or, immigrate to America, become employed at a job which pays average wages, and live a normal life.

Now for a different point of view. Today, we are currently fighting a war in the Middle East in which the majority of the American public disagrees with. The war has made President Bush very unpopular in the eyes of many. Now, what if once the war ends, Bush begins his closing of the US-Mexico border by beginning to construct the wall. Would Americans follow his policy, or argue against it? We can answer this question with another example.

Say that you are a part of your high school’s football team, and although your team is among the best, your coach (or whoever calls plays) isn’t very good. At every game, your coach continuously chooses the same play over and over, and it fails every time. After the first game, is the team going to listen to him the next game, or speak out against him? If the team wants to win, then obviously they will speak out against the coach.

The ambassador had a say on the reality of the wall being constructed as well.

The draconian measures necessary to “seal the border,” e.g. national identity documents for all, serious punishment for employers of undocumented aliens, use of military force on the border, 100 per cent inspection of all cargo, etc., is unlikely to be acceptable to the American public and important political and economic interests.

In closing, the US-Mexican border should remain open. Mexicans depend on immigrating to the United States in hopes of a better way of life, and it would be inhumane to take that away from them. Also, the reality of President Bush to follow through his plan of constructing a wall that spans the entire length of the border is very unlikely, and is bound to be spoken out against by the American public.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/

http://www.mexidata.info/id350.html

 

[Eor]

I am against the "war in Iraq" largely because it was based off of false pretenses. WMD's were not found, the whole situation was basically thrown at the American public as something that was just going to happen because it needed to be. The government gave us very little information on why this was happening.

Lists of evidence to support Iraq having WMD

1. In 1998, UN weapon inspector Scott Ritter resigned from his post, hoping that it would serve as a "wake up call" that America was not doing it's job. In his own words, "Iraq is not disarming." (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/27/iraq.ritter.01/)

"If they continue down this path, there will be a compromise solution, the special commission will be compelled to close files prematurely and the end result will be that Iraq will be allowed to maintain the weapons of mass destruction"

"This is a resolution. Its laws are clear. Iraq is in violation of the laws. The Security Council (including the United States) must be willing to enforce its laws,"

Remember, UN weapon inspector.

2. David Kay, who lead the Iraq Survey Group after the 2003 invasion, said "At the minimum, they kept alive Iraq's capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons" (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2003/n10052003_200310052.html)

3. Robert Gallucci said: "If Iraq had [uranium or plutonium], a fair assessment would be they could fabricate a nuclear weapon, and there's no reason for us to assume we'd find out if they had"

4. Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission from January 2000 to June 2003, said that "Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm." He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html)

5. UNSCOM, in their quarterly report after the war, say that the following list is the total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq

* 50 deployed Al Samoud 2 missiles
* Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
* 2 large propellant casting chambers
* 14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
* Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
* Some 122 mm chemical warheads
* Some chemical equipment
* 224.6 kg of expired growth media
(http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/S-2003-580.pdf)

6. Although this was only recent, studying of 12 hour long audio tapes reveal Saddam discussing how to hide weapons from security inspectors, and that the United States might be the target of a terrorist attack. (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996)

And right now, it seems like Bush is holding out this so called war

I'm confused by this statement. I am guessing this was a mistake on your part, that you might have switched what you were planning to say in the middle. Because, as it is, it sounds like you are arguing that this is not a war at all. It very clearly is one.

He hides behind his office, lets them make the decisions, then trys dumb down what's going on and tell the people of America what is happening.

I'd like to see why you think of him as hiding in his office. President Bush, being the President, was the first and major supporter of the war. He did almost everything he could to make the war happen, starting with his 2002 Address of the Union speech. Remember the "axis of evil"?

"Oh, but we know so little, we don't know what is really going on over there and we should trust our government to do what is right." .Things like this truely irk me.

They irk me too. But, I do not agree with that statement, and so there is nothing to really say about it.

Bush and his other members of the office obviously are waaayyy in over their heads and can't admit that. They are overwhelmed by their idiotic mistakes and can't reveal that they were wrong.

That's a downright lie.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article764622.ece
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=at9X1Z7oilgY

They have never appologized for themselves being WRONG. The main reason for going over there- wrong. But, they must keep their composure and they cannot seem like the ones who made the mistake. They're the government right?

Please stop patronizing everyone who disagrees with you as if they are mindless drones who do whatever the government says. Your first statement that I touched up on, the last sentence in that quote, and what looks like the first sentence in the next quote, are all you generalizing everyone who is against you.

"We must trust him, stop making fun of our president, that is unconstitutional!" This is possibly the WORST thing I have ever heard. It is used much less now, but a couple years ago, this was all that was uttered from the mouths of his supporters. No. We as AMERICANS have the right to critisize our president. When half of the world recognizes America and one giant redneck ignorant pile, we are obviously doing something wrong. We have the right to critiseze when thousands are dying and being wounded over in Iraq. There are many more than we know, but 3,000 itself should slap the guy in the face.

Not the subject of this debate. But, for the record, I agree that freedom of speech is not unconsitutional.

Wake up, this is not a "war" we can win, this is an inner struggle with Iraq, that we are making worse, and we are losing so much more than this so called war.

"A war is a violent conflict between two or more groups that involve large numbers of individuals" -Wikipedia

We are very clearly in a war.

But, that is not what we are arguing about. It is not what we can do for the future. It is whether or not we were right to go in there for the first place. The current civil war is the result of poor handling after we first went in.

For my closing comments, I will say this. Iraq is a country we invaded (on false terms). Yippee, we caught Saddam....that's great. He's bad, and needed to be taken down, but not in the way that we have done. Also, as soon as we caught Saddam, and Mission Accomplished was declared, we should have began to leave. No hang around and keep this thing going without any good enough reason to disable the cons. This "war" is one big mess and we are losing so much for it. Respect, power, LIVES. Please, somebody, give me a good reason to stay. I will probably find fault with it, but please, if you believe you can dissuade me, please try.

We are not debating about staying.

Alright, now for my arguments.

Iraq has at least 15 confirmed uses of WMDs. While none of these occurred later then 1991, there was evidence afterwards that Iraq was rebuilding.

"In 1995, UNSCOM's principal weapons inspector, Dr. Rod Barton from Australia, showed Taha documents obtained by UNSCOM that showed the Iraqi government had just purchased 10 tons of growth medium from a British company called Oxoid. Growth media is a mixture of sugars, proteins and minerals that provides nutrients for microorganisms to grow. It can be used in hospitals and microbiology/molecular biology research laboratories" -Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

There is also Scott Ritter, who, as already stated, resigned because he claimed the United States was doing nothing to stop Iraq from re-arming, and stated that "Iraq maintains the capability to launch a chemical strike".

After 1998, Saddam said that the UN Weapon Inspectors would never be invited back. Then, he issued a secret order that stated that Iraq did not have to back UN regulations because America broke international law (https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect7).

In January, 2003, Hans Blix stated that Iraq had not not "genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm" (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html)

Even after the war, when we discovered that WMDs were non-existent, David Kay announced that Iraq had massive capability to create them (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html)

But, as well all know, we found out the hard way that there were no WMDs. So, then, why am I listing all of this? Because there was proof. There was evidence. The Iraq War had a very defined Casus Belli, whether you wish to accept it or not.

There was no doubt of Saddam's strong dislike of us. His capabilites to produce them mean that he could have produced them, and that our invasion made positive that he would not. Which is the meaning of a pre-emptive strike.

Our own perseverance was only part of the reason for the war. Saddam's Iraq is well known for it's Human rights abuse, such as the following listed from Wikipedia.

* In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of **** as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".

* Two years earlier, two human rights groups, the International Federation of Human Rights League and the Coalition for Justice in Iraq released a joint report, accusing the Saddam Hussein regime of committing "massive and systematic" human rights violations, particularly against women. The report spoke of public beheadings of women who were accused of being prostitutes, which took place in front of family members, including children. The heads of the victims were publicly displayed near signs reading, "For the honor of Iraq." The report documented 130 women who had been killed in this way, but stated that the actual number was probably much higher. The report also describes human rights violations directed against children. The report states that children, as young as 5 years old, are recruited into the Ashbal Saddam, or "Saddam's Cubs," and indoctrinated to adulate Saddam Hussein and denounce their own family members. The children are also subjected to military training, which includes cruelty to animals. The report also describes how parents of children are executed if they object to this treatment, and in some cases, the children themselves are imprisoned.

* Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba'ath Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore, it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government.

* Iraqi citizens were not allowed to assemble legally unless it was to express support for the government. The Iraqi government controlled the establishment of political parties, regulated their internal affairs and monitored their activities.

* Police checkpoints on Iraq's roads and highways prevented ordinary citizens from traveling abroad without government permission and expensive exit visas. Before traveling, an Iraqi citizen had to post collateral. Iraqi women could not travel outside of the country without the escort of a male relative.

* The activities of citizens living inside Iraq who received money from relatives abroad were closely monitored.

* In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.

* In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

* In June of 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion.

* On March 23, 2003, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi television presented and interviewed prisoners of war on TV, violating the Geneva Convention.

* In March of 2003, Britain released video footage of Iraqi soldiers firing on fleeing Iraqi citizens near the town of Basra in southern Iraq.

* Also in April of 2003, CNN revealed that it had withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens in the 1990s. According to CNN's chief news executive, the channel had been concerned for the safety not only of its own staff, but also of Iraqi sources and informants, who could expect punishment for speaking freely to reporters. Also according to the executive, "other news organizations were in the same bind."

* After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total, and more are being uncovered to this day. While most of the dead in the graves were believed to have died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein, some of them appeared to have died due to executions or died at times other than the 1991 rebellion.

* Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock, and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other Middle Eastern nations.

* According to some reports, torture was used to improve the performance of the Iraqi soccer team.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam's_Iraq)

You remember those pictures of people beating Saddam's statue with their shoes?

They now have representational Government. For the first time, the Majority is the ruler of Iraq. They have a say in what is going on. Don't forgot the thousands of purple thumbs after their election day.

The Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone. Now, whether or not they are glad that we are still there, or what has happened because of botched policies that came in afterwards, is a diffrent debate.

I am not trying to claim that everything post-war Iraq is not related to this. However, the majority of reasons for the current unrest in Iraq is not because we invaded, but decisions after we were there.

America had every reason to go to war with Iraq. We had evidence for WMDs, liberated them from a tyrannical leader, and gave them representational government, letting them have a say in what goes on in their own world.

 

[Eor]

I posted. I had to re-read everything, as my decision to fill in was pretty much spur of the moment

 

[Sargent_Peach]

I really have seen some good posts/arguments, and it really is hard not to post. I'm really into the DOH and Delorted1 debate. Really good points, I'm very suprised.

 

[Digital Watches]

I think it's clear that the end result we want is the same: Politics that veer more towards the center, with less fundamentalists, on both sides, in power. Unfortunately, there are few examples of this in a two-party system.

However, it seems to be working out fairly well for Germany, which, although parliamentary, with multiple parties proportionally represented by votes, has in the last decade or so effectively formed into two major opposing coalitions: The CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union of Bavaria, A coalition that is effectively the Right-wing of politics there, slightly more off-center than the current democrats, but still fairly moderate by our standards) and the SPD/Green party alliance (SPD stands for Social Democratic Party. They started off quite far to the left at socialism, and are now considered Moderate-liberal, although still a bit left of America's Democratic party) which have effectively forced each other into becoming more moderate as a whole (With the spectrum shifted a bit left of America, but I think it can be agreed that that's probably a good thing, given the current administration's blunders.)

What America neads is a party similar to the SPD's coalition to replace the democrats. I believe that not only will enough people vote for them for it to be viable, but also, the end result will be a drive for the Republican party (or whatever replaces it, as long as we're changing parties) to move towards the center, as will, in time, the new party. Assuming that the Democrats will be able to shift the republicans by appealing to the less radical conservatives rather than any significant number of non-moderate liberals, I think, is less reliable, and also lacks such a clear precedent as Germany's current political situation.

To be clear: I am not advocating a 3-party system. I do think that a multiple-party system would work better, but I have no expectation that this will ever happen in the United States. I think that one of two things could happen should this theoretical American SPD arise: One possibility is that the Democrats will become the moderate right-wing party needed to oppose them, and the Republicans will, as you said, collapse, gaining too few votes to be effectively exist. The other possibility, and the one I consider more likely, is that the Democrats will disappear, not because they're the less respectable party, but because too many people are still irrationally behind the Republicans despite their actions, and the left will have a new party to support instead of them, all the while, as I've already stated, drawing out more voters and making a far-right party like the current Republicans less and less viable.

Either way, I hope that this is more clear to you. I think I've covered all of the issues you've brought up, including my alleged "lack of an argument."

 

[Zephyr]

I thought people who's debates were active weren't allowed to post in other threads? Whatever, I'm allowed to for sure because my debate's over. ^^;

Sarg, you're surprised at there being good points in the Debate Hall? Nice.

 

[ti83pop]

Well, I have some points to make, and I still am wondering: Do we get like a day extra? I might need it, I dunnow. Also, how do you quote a whole passage that has quotes in it?

This is why I wanted to go up against Delphiki, we weren't prepared with references...well, off to the internets to find some :-\. Finally, do remember the opening statement is a pretty daunting task seeing as how you have to poof stuff out of thin air, and the person after you rebutes (?) and critisizes....*runs off to look up if rebute is a word*
EDIT: I hope this debate turns out great Eorlingas. Experience vs. umm...a giant calculator + pop...wow, that was odd. Well, good luck again!

 

[demoncaterpie]

I guess I'll start off with the basics.

Imagine that it’s your day off, and you decide to go for a walk in the park. You start to get tired and decide to take a rest on a nearby bench. There’s really nothing to do, so you just sit back, relax, and look at the people walking by. Suddenly you see a child with no hair roll by on a wheel chair. You see a man talking to another man holding a voice box next to his neck. A homeless woman sits on the ground with no food. You see a girl with no arm, a man with no teeth, and a boy with a cold. It touches you’re heart. You wonder if there wasn’t something that could fix all this.

That thing is genetic engineering. Scientist now have the technology to change the very fabric of cells, DNA, and change them into anything they want. Need a leg? You got it. Want to cure cancer? It’s done. This is all possible because DNA is basically a blueprint, telling the cell what it will become. When you change DNA, you’re basically changing the very fabric of what that cell is. Now, scientist can be like architects, laying out the blueprints of all life, leading to a world of endless possibilities.

But it doesn’t stop there. All living organisms can benefit from genetic engineering. For instance, let’s say that scientist predicted that a huge storm was going to hit a particular orange farm. This particular storm would wipe out all of farmer Jed’s crops. But, thanks to the power of DNA architects, scientists can change the DNA of the orange so it become resistant to the storm, maybe even making the storm benefit the oranges. And to top it all off, they make the oranges taste better. Needless to say, farmer Jed is ranking in a lot of money, and the consumer now has delicious oranges for the season.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Anything is possible with genetic engineering. We can cure cancer, end world hunger, save endangered species, and maybe even find time to cure the common cold.

 

[demoncaterpie]

Well, I posted. Now I'll just wait for Uncle Kenny.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

I thought people who's debates were active weren't allowed to post in other threads? Whatever, I'm allowed to for sure because my debate's over. ^^;

Sarg, you're surprised at there being good points in the Debate Hall? Nice.

I think your not allowed to post in other people's debate thread. I'm sure you can post in other threads not affiliated with the debates.

Zephyr- I'm not so suprised at the points being good, as how well they were put together. I'm new to the debate hall, but I didn't expect there to be such well spoken (or written I guess) people on SWF. I mean it is really high level debate that I can appreciate. Lots of big words too !!!

I also read your debate, good job.

 

[ti83pop]

I guess I'm the reason why you're saying much and not all. Jk. I hope :-). Probably not. Well, Eorlingas, I'll have to reply tomorrow, I was ready yesterday and this morning, but I am really busy now, sorry :-\.

Good Luck All and May the Best Debator Win!

 

[Zephyr]

=( I'm not really as good as a lot of other people here. I could name a few right off the top of my head:

Delphiki, DoH, LoneJedi, CK, EE, Mediocre, there are lots more, I'm willing to bet.

 

[Tera253]

my computer has got to be once of the most ********, if not, THE MOST, ******** machine in existance. some stupid thing showed up and erase my entire thing when I was 2 lines away. anyways, I'll continue with my debate.
(EVERYONE COME HERE IF YOU WANT TO SEE TERA253 TALK IN 1ST PERSON!!!)
Polls in the late 1990s found that the topic of greatest concern for conservative Christians, and for many other North Americans, was that gays and lesbians might achieve rights and protections in law that had previously been reserved as special privileges only for heterosexuals. Perhaps the most improtant of these rights is... MARRIAGE!!! so, why do I, and others, think it is bad? where to start, where to start...

1. Gays & lesbians make poor parents.
The State of Hawaii and court petitioners representing the Roman Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claimed that gays and lesbians in committed relationships make inferior parents. The best way to assure that children get the best possible upbringing is to require spouses to be of different genders. Sure, it's not always possible, but there's a statement that will be repeated in different forms roughly 4-5 times throughout this 'essay': people are greatly affected by theri environment.

2. Children need to be raised by their biological parents:
Children are better off when raised by their biological parents. In a same-sex marriage, at least one parent would be genetically unrelated to the child. I am fully aware that this is not always possible because of deaths, divorces, etc. but, it sort of gives some inclination to the thought that homosexuality is not a trait, but a choice.

3. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents will most likely become homosexuals adults:
This is expansion on the pervious thought. From what I see, homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Children raised in families headed by gay or lesbian parents will be immersed in the gay lifestyle and be more likely to choose to become homosexuals themselves when they grow up. It's back to 'the statement'. those raised Mormon will most likely be Mormon. those raised Islamic willm most likely be Islamic (and killed if they say anything bad about it in Iraq) Those raise homosexual will most likely be homosexual. those raise by monkeys... will most likely act like a monkey, assuming they are ever discovered before they die.

4. Will same-sex marriage inevitably lead to Polygamy?
If same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygyny, polyandry, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes.
Prior to 1840, the only legal marriages in the U.S. were between one man and one woman. Then, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. LDS and the Mormons) introduced polygymy. This involves one man marrying multiple wives, and was legal in Utah before it was admitted as a state to the Union. In 1890, their President received a revelation from God to put an end to polygamy.

5. A child with same-sex parents will be subjected to hate:
Raising a child in a home with gay or lesbian parents in effect punishes the child, because they would be exposed to homophobia by the public. Hatred directed at the child's parents would spread to the child. It's like a racism, or more of a "decisionism". The Mormons are known well to be hated for the polygamy incedent(s), although it hasn't happened to real members of that church (this does not include splinter groups) in 117 years, there is still a hatred there. if homosexuality was ever to be abolished, there would still be hatred towards people of that background.

Now it's time to get a little religious, since according to a 2002 estimate, only 10% of the US has no religion, and only another 12% (24% total) is something other than Protestant, Mormon, or Roman Catholic.

6. Homosexual activity is a capital offense in the Bible:
There are at least a half-dozen references to homosexuality scattered throughout the Bible. All are negative. Leviticus 20:13 states that "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves." So,God wants to destroy them eh? well,apparently, he's not afraid to annihilate entire communities of them according to Genesis 18:20, which reads: "And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous."
There is a footnote letter by the word sin, which, in the footnote, simply reads: "Homosexuality" (all this is KJV) at the end of Verse 32, (same book, chapter) the Lord says: "I will not destroy [Sodom and Gomorrah] for ten's sake." 10 were not found, and the city was razed.

Along these same lines are two hand-in-hand statements.
7. Almost everyone agrees that homosexuality is immoral:
The vast majority of the faith groups in North America --over 1,500 strong-- condemn homosexual behavior as a serious sin, hated by God. We cannot reward such behavior by allowing gays and lesbians to marry.I my opinion...
8: Same-sex marriage is just plain disgusting.
The thoughts of a man engaging in sex with another man makes my stomach heave and skin crawl. It is disgusting. I feel the same way about two lesbians having sex. 2 women, how would that work? one time, a couple of friends of mine were having a talk with some people who were fine with accepting gay marriage, but didn't necessarily support it. my friend came up with a quirky comment that I never would have thought of. he told my iother friend: "Do you got a hot dog and a donut?" (I laughed). He had planned to illustrate the process of male-to-female sex. none of us did, (and if I had known I would have eaten them), but it got me thinking: Nobody in the world will respect our country if we allow this behavior to be institutionalized.

Summing it up...
9: Marriage has always been between one man and one women:
Every society down through history has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. We don't want to mess with something that has as old a heritage as marriage. If we did...
9. (again) Same sex marriage would be a radical change to society:
When same-sex marriages were considered in Hawaii, a conservative Christian organization filed a brief with the court in opposition. They said, in part, that same-sex marriage would introduce "a radical reform in the basic institution of marriage, jettisoning long-recognized cultural values and drastically redefining the fundamental structure of our society..." They stated that the government has a compelling interest in "the historical and time-honored protection of traditional marriage as the fundamental structure in Hawaiian society that advances basic societal goals and values."

And now, here's the most logical reason why people should not engage in homosexual activity, let alone marriage:
10. Same-sex spouses cannot bring children into the world by themselves:
The purpose of marriage is procreation. Same-sex couples cannot procreate by themselves. God also says in the Bible to "multiply and replenish the Earth" which means basically the same thing. So, summed up, here's my thesis that killed Zaklash Raykel Jamazzi*, not because she was lesbian, but merely because of it's stunning brilliance. (Note how I'm taking a slight humorous approach on this last paragraph. This is intended.)
If the whole world decided to engagte in homosexual activity, the human race would go extinct in one generation.
Therefore, there is one positive to this: everyone would know when the human race would be destroyed: in 1 generation. Fancy, huh?

Of course, if people still want to engage in homosexual activity, they could of course, just like people still drink and drive illegally, immigrate into the US illegally, take marijuana illegally, rob, cheat, steal. it's not like our government could physically prevent you from doing this. So, there you have it.: why not to do this. *winks*

~Tera253~

 

[Skywalker]

In its natural state, the ecosystem is uninterrupted and balanced, keeping the life cycles of wildlife in line. As we humans make advances in technology, such as the usage of factories in the early 1900s, that system tips slightly to one side, on the verge of collapse.

The disadvantages of genetic engineering such as lethal, genetically-engineered bacteria and ecological damage outweigh the advantages.

 

[Jazzy Jinx]

Though it would be nice to believe that all of those things could be solved and could come true, it isn't as simple as you specified.

Genetic Engineering is a new technology, and is very dangerous. It can only work when combining like DNA cells (oranges - oranges, humans - humans, etc.) so replacing legs and arms would take very rigourous experiments and would be in need of a like substance. People without the same DNA cannot use a leg or arm from somebody else.

As for genetic food, you have to understand that these organic substances are mutated and not original. Genetic Engineering ignores nature and for us and our children to eat it is an experiment in itself. Genetic Engineering tampers with the entire food chain.

Genetic Engineering is not a guranteed procedure. It doesn't always work and since this is the case, money must be spent for the wasted time and effort in performing it. Sure when it works, it is beneficial, but since it is still experimental, the outcome of the product can be random.

Not only is this wasted time, effort, and money, but if a failed genetical product is released into the market (i.e. an apple) then the consumer can be infected by disease.

 

[sheepyman]

Polls in the late 1990s found that the topic of greatest concern for conservative Christians, and for many other North Americans, was that gays and lesbians might achieve rights and protections in law that had previously been reserved as special privileges only for heterosexuals. Perhaps the most improtant of these rights is... MARRIAGE!!! so, why do I, and others, think it is bad? where to start, where to start...

Way back in the early 1800s, the greatest concern for conservative Christians and many other North Americans was that African-Americans might achieve rights and protections in law that had been previously reserved only for caucasians. Does that say anything? No, it doesn't. We have to go by the constitution when it comes to civil rights.

1. Gays & lesbians make poor parents.
The State of Hawaii and court petitioners representing the Roman Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claimed that gays and lesbians in committed relationships make inferior parents. The best way to assure that children get the best possible upbringing is to require spouses to be of different genders. Sure, it's not always possible, but there's a statement that will be repeated in different forms roughly 4-5 times throughout this 'essay'eople are greatly affected by theri environment.

Where is this essay. Did they do a properly credited study, performed by unbiased people? I doubt it. The Church claimed it. It isn't a fact. And a petition in Hawaii doesn't mean anything about what rights they should and shouldn't have.

2. Children need to be raised by their biological parents:
Children are better off when raised by their biological parents. In a same-sex marriage, at least one parent would be genetically unrelated to the child. I am fully aware that this is not always possible because of deaths, divorces, etc. but, it sort of gives some inclination to the thought that homosexuality is not a trait, but a choice.

Generally, Tera, adopted children are not raised by their biological parents. Homosexuals generally adopt children, so they weren't going to be raised by their biological parents in the first place.

3. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents will most likely become homosexuals adults:
This is expansion on the pervious thought. From what I see, homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Children raised in families headed by gay or lesbian parents will be immersed in the gay lifestyle and be more likely to choose to become homosexuals themselves when they grow up. It's back to 'the statement'. those raised Mormon will most likely be Mormon. those raised Islamic willm most likely be Islamic (and killed if they say anything bad about it in Iraq) Those raise homosexual will most likely be homosexual. those raise by monkeys... will most likely act like a monkey, assuming they are ever discovered before they die.

If it is indeed a choice (despite the fact that studies seem to lean toward it being a genetic trait): that doesn't mean anything. Lots of homosexual men have children because of societal pressure, and raise their children, which grow up to be completely heterosexual males, and heterosexual adults can raise a homosexual child. If it isn't a choice, then your argument holds no water.

4. Will same-sex marriage inevitably lead to Polygamy?
If same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygyny, polyandry, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes.
Prior to 1840, the only legal marriages in the U.S. were between one man and one woman. Then, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. LDS and the Mormons) introduced polygymy. This involves one man marrying multiple wives, and was legal in Utah before it was admitted as a state to the Union. In 1890, their President received a revelation from God to put an end to polygamy.

Back in 1840, the only legal marriages in the U.S. were between one WHITE man and one WHITE woman. If we were able to cut off the "white" part, then we can turn "man" and "woman" to "person" and "person". As for it leading to polygamy, that makes no sense. Why would it lead to polygamy? If both beings can consent to the marriage then they can marry. I think same-sex marriages enforce the idea of a marriage being a union of two people and two people only.

5. A child with same-sex parents will be subjected to hate:
Raising a child in a home with gay or lesbian parents in effect punishes the child, because they would be exposed to homophobia by the public. Hatred directed at the child's parents would spread to the child. It's like a racism, or more of a "decisionism". The Mormons are known well to be hated for the polygamy incedent(s), although it hasn't happened to real members of that church (this does not include splinter groups) in 117 years, there is still a hatred there. if homosexuality was ever to be abolished, there would still be hatred towards people of that background.

True, the child of same-sex parents will be subjected to hatred. Unfortunately, the U.S.A. is so biased against homosexuals it'll go to that length. However, this does not mean that their rights should be infringed upon. The wall of hatred must be torn down at some point, lest we leave it to fester and grow.

Now it's time to get a little religious, since according to a 2002 estimate, only 10% of the US has no religion, and only another 12% (24% total) is something other than Protestant, Mormon, or Roman Catholic.

Separation of Church and State. Remember it.

6. Homosexual activity is a capital offense in the Bible:
There are at least a half-dozen references to homosexuality scattered throughout the Bible. All are negative. Leviticus 20:13 states that "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves." So,God wants to destroy them eh? well,apparently, he's not afraid to annihilate entire communities of them according to Genesis 18:20, which reads: "And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous."
There is a footnote letter by the word sin, which, in the footnote, simply reads: "Homosexuality" (all this is KJV) at the end of Verse 32, (same book, chapter) the Lord says: "I will not destroy [Sodom and Gomorrah] for ten's sake." 10 were not found, and the city was razed.

And yet, the government cannot use that as reasoning against gay marriage.

Along these same lines are two hand-in-hand statements.
7. Almost everyone agrees that homosexuality is immoral:
The vast majority of the faith groups in North America --over 1,500 strong-- condemn homosexual behavior as a serious sin, hated by God. We cannot reward such behavior by allowing gays and lesbians to marry.I my opinion...
8: Same-sex marriage is just plain disgusting.
The thoughts of a man engaging in sex with another man makes my stomach heave and skin crawl. It is disgusting. I feel the same way about two lesbians having sex. 2 women, how would that work? one time, a couple of friends of mine were having a talk with some people who were fine with accepting gay marriage, but didn't necessarily support it. my friend came up with a quirky comment that I never would have thought of. he told my iother friend: "Do you got a hot dog and a donut?" (I laughed). He had planned to illustrate the process of male-to-female sex. none of us did, (and if I had known I would have eaten them), but it got me thinking: Nobody in the world will respect our country if we allow this behavior to be institutionalized.

What if I think heterosexual unions are "disgusting"? What if I think a white man and a black woman is "disgusting"? Just because an individual finds it gross doesn't mean that we can cut off another person's rights.

Summing it up...
9: Marriage has always been between one man and one women:
Every society down through history has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. We don't want to mess with something that has as old a heritage as marriage. If we did...
9. (again) Same sex marriage would be a radical change to society:
When same-sex marriages were considered in Hawaii, a conservative Christian organization filed a brief with the court in opposition. They said, in part, that same-sex marriage would introduce "a radical reform in the basic institution of marriage, jettisoning long-recognized cultural values and drastically redefining the fundamental structure of our society..." They stated that the government has a compelling interest in "the historical and time-honored protection of traditional marriage as the fundamental structure in Hawaiian society that advances basic societal goals and values."

Don't try to preach. Tradition and fundamental structure? When nearly 50% of Americans end up getting divorced anyway?

http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

And now, here's the most logical reason why people should not engage in homosexual activity, let alone marriage:
10. Same-sex spouses cannot bring children into the world by themselves:
The purpose of marriage is procreation. Same-sex couples cannot procreate by themselves. God also says in the Bible to "multiply and replenish the Earth" which means basically the same thing. So, summed up, here's my thesis that killed Zaklash Raykel Jamazzi*, not because she was lesbian, but merely because of it's stunning brilliance. (Note how I'm taking a slight humorous approach on this last paragraph. This is intended.)
If the whole world decided to engagte in homosexual activity, the human race would go extinct in one generation.
Therefore, there is one positive to this: everyone would know when the human race would be destroyed: in 1 generation. Fancy, huh?

Marriage is a set of legal documents that bring with them financial and other benefits. Denying homosexuals of that is discriminating against them. If it's to procreate, then why don't we enforce a law that would stop sterile men or women from being allowed to marry? Why don't we enforce a law that says "If a child is not produced within a year of marriage, then the marriage is null"? Because the government doesn't expect that. And if the bible expects it, it doesn't matter. Remember, there's separation of church and state.

Of course, if people still want to engage in homosexual activity, they could of course, just like people still drink and drive illegally, immigrate into the US illegally, take marijuana illegally, rob, cheat, steal. it's not like our government could physically prevent you from doing this. So, there you have it.: why not to do this. *winks*

~Tera253~

That just illustrates my point of how little homosexuals affect people around them. Furthermore, some homosexuals love each other enough to get illegal marriages, that don't count for anything. However, some of them want the legal rights you recieve from a legal marriage, and they deserve that.

 

[Eor]

Just so you know, you don't have to cite every source. I just did so because I didn't want someone to claim I was lying and ask me to prove it. Though, if you claim something that I don't think happened, then I will probably ask you for a source.

 

[Tera253]

My responses underlined

Way back in the early 1800s, the greatest concern for conservative Christians and many other North Americans was that African-Americans might achieve rights and protections in law that had been previously reserved only for caucasians. Does that say anything? No, it doesn't. We have to go by the constitution when it comes to civil rights. There's a difference between blacks and gays. blacks can't help if they're born like that. Gay people CHOOSE to be gay.

Where is this essay. Did they do a properly credited study, performed by unbiased people? I doubt it. The Church claimed it. It isn't a fact. And a petition in Hawaii doesn't mean anything about what rights they should and shouldn't have.

Generally, Tera, adopted children are not raised by their biological parents. Homosexuals generally adopt children, so they weren't going to be raised by their biological parents in the first place.
If it is indeed a choice (despite the fact that studies seem to lean toward it being a genetic trait): that doesn't mean anything. Lots of homosexual men have children because of societal pressure, and raise their children, which grow up to be completely heterosexual males, and heterosexual adults can raise a homosexual child. If it isn't a choice, then your argument holds no water. Alas, you contradicted yourself, there in Bold (I did that). Homosexuality can't be a trait that comes from a heterosexual. I would say that also for the other way around, but that's not possible unless both biological parents were having secret homosexual affairs.

Back in 1840, the only legal marriages in the U.S. were between one WHITE man and one WHITE woman. If we were able to cut off the "white" part, then we can turn "man" and "woman" to "person" and "person". As for it leading to polygamy, that makes no sense. Why would it lead to polygamy? If both beings can consent to the marriage then they can marry. I think same-sex marriages enforce the idea of a marriage being a union of two people and two people only. So do I, but one has to be a girl, the other a guy. True, the child of same-sex parents will be subjected to hatred. Unfortunately, the U.S.A. is so biased against homosexuals it'll go to that length. However, this does not mean that their rights should be infringed upon. The wall of hatred must be torn down at some point, lest we leave it to fester and grow. Maybe someday that will happen. However, apparently, there must be something people have against it, like it just being sick and wrong. people hated blacks because before they were freed, they were property. you'd be slightly pissed too if suddenly your dog had equal rights as you. this does not mean I am racist, and maybe this 'wall of hatred' will be torn down.
Separation of Church and State. Remember it. Indeed. but when these things are voted for, if the area is predominantly Christian, the people will let their religion influence them opn which side to vote on.
And yet, the government cannot use that as reasoning against gay marriage.
What if I think heterosexual unions are "disgusting"? What if I think a white man and a black woman is "disgusting"? Just because an individual finds it gross doesn't mean that we can cut off another person's rights. so, instead of just thinking to yourself "white man + black woman = gross, make your voice heard and go to a polling place when the time comes. apparently enough people think it's disgusting to prevent it from happening.And once again, it's a choice, just like drug addiction. are drug-addicts free? no, they've imposed being on the run and/or prison on themselves by doing what they did. gays have sacrificed marital rights to 'love' another individual of the same sex.

Don't try to preach. Tradition and fundamental structure? When nearly 50% of Americans end up getting divorced anyway? that and homosexual marriage are jsut 2 things that are tearing families apart. that and the average number of children per family decreasing.

http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
Marriage is a set of legal documents that bring with them financial and other benefits. Denying homosexuals of that is discriminating against them. If it's to procreate, then why don't we enforce a law that would stop sterile men or women from being allowed to marry? No, because, once again, that is something that cannot be helped. It's usaully some chromosome disfunction that came from parents or something anyways. I'm pretty sure that when a baby is first born, it's not thinking: "gee, I think I'll be homosexual when I grow up." Why don't we enforce a law that says "If a child is not produced within a year of marriage, then the marriage is null"? Because the government doesn't expect that. And if the bible expects it, it doesn't matter. Remember, there's separation of church and state.
That just illustrates my point of how little homosexuals affect people around them. Oh ho, all you have to do is accidentally find one in a bathroom. Then you'll see what they'll really do; and personally, being watched while I relieve myself is not something I find too pleaseing. Furthermore, some homosexuals love each other enough to get illegal marriages, that don't count for anything. However, some of them want the legal rights you recieve from a legal marriage, and they deserve that. I think there's a reason they say 'man and wife'.

Anyhoo, regardless of how badly I lose, (or how bad people think I am at this) I always like to contribute my 2 bits.

~Tera253~

 

[Eor]

Even after the war, when we discovered that WMDs were non-existent, David Kay announced that Iraq had massive capability to create them (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html)

My bad. The link is wrong. It should be this.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110091,00.html

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The Immigration and Nationality Act is the primary body of federal immigration law in the United States. It defines the term "alien" as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” It defines the term “immigrant” to mean every alien not falling within a set of “classes of nonimmigrant aliens” spelled out in detail by the act, for example: diplomatic personal, students residing within the US to attend school, athletes attending athletic events, ship and aircraft crew members; and others residing or staying within the United Sates on a temporary basis. The act classifies aliens remaining within the US on a permanent basis as immigrants without regards to an individual’s legal status. (wiki)

There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. 80% of those are males between the ages of 18-39. Mexicans working in the United States are a huge source of revenue for Mexico, sending home more than $16 billion in remittances in 2004, Mexico’s second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports, according to the country’s central bank. Don’t you see? This is our money we are losing.

Ultimately, the real challenge is to promote economic development and poverty reduction in Mexico. This is a long-term issue, and most of the burden falls on Mexico, but it would happen much faster if the United States and Canada offered to help.

Need reasons for enforcement? You got it.

The Border Patrol's budget has gone from $151 million in 1986 to $1.6 billion in 2002. This has caused the cost of apprehending an illegal immigrant to go from around $100 per arrest before 1986 to around $1700 in 2002.

A study by Dr. Deborah Schurman-Kauffin, director of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, estimates that approximately one million sex crimes were committed by illegal immigrants in the period between 1999 and 2006. Of these, 70% of the victims were legal US residents.

The Center of Immigration Studies (CIS) has stated that many violent crimes in the United States are committed by illegal immigrants. Because of the immigration status of the criminals, law enforcement officials are often unable to accurately track and find many of them as they retreat back over the border where they are often untraceable and/or not extraditable.

There are other reasons besides money and violence. In fact, many illegal aliens harbor fatal diseases that American medicine fought to vanquish long ago. Diseases such as drug-resistant tuberculosis, malaria, leprosy, and so on, are among the few. Also, according to a Time magazine report (dated Sept 12, 2004), "They turn the land to a vast latrine, leaving behind revolting mounds of personal refuse..They steal vehicles..They poison dogs to quiet them." In addition to the obvious damage done to fragile deserts by hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens tramping through them are many other significant negative environmental impacts of expanded population.

Not long ago Time Magazine conducted a poll on American people to better understand how many truly feel.

• 82% believe that the U.S. is not doing enough to secure its borders
• 82% say that the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from entering the country
• 71% support major penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants
• 69% believe illegal immigrants should have greater restrictions to government services, such as driver's license, health care/food stamps, and attending public schools
• 68% say that illegal immigration is an extremely/very serious problem in the United States
• 62% favor taking whatever steps are necessary at the borders, including the use of the military, to cut the flow of illegal immigrants into the country
• 56% favor building a security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border
• 51% think the US would be "better off" by deporting all illegal immigrants, while 38% believe the U.S. would be "worse off"
Now as for the border wall.

For the current initiative there is a provision of about $1.2 billion as part of a $21.3 billion border security package for hiring more border patrol officers and new high-tech gadgets. Obviously building a wall will save many tax payers money over time. Do you remember America going through the “send a brick to congress” phase? There were literally thousands of bricks sent to prove a point.

Open borders is the furthest thing from a good idea.


Resources.

www.wikipedia.org
www.msnbc.com
Time Magazine

 

[sheepyman]

There's a difference between blacks and gays. blacks can't help if they're born like that. Gay people CHOOSE to be gay.

That remains unproven, and the majority of evidence is actually leaning towards it being a genetic trait.

Alas, you contradicted yourself, there in Bold (I did that). Homosexuality can't be a trait that comes from a heterosexual. I would say that also for the other way around, but that's not possible unless both biological parents were having secret homosexual affairs.

I certainly didn't contradict myself. You're stating that homosexuality can't come from a heterosexual. Wouldn't that mean a heterosexual passes its sexual orientation through its genes? Doesn't that make homosexuality genetic? And if it isn't through genes; if it's a choice, then the child will choose to be gay or straight on its own. It has nothing to do with the parents.

Maybe someday that will happen. However, apparently, there must be something people have against it, like it just being sick and wrong. people hated blacks because before they were freed, they were property. you'd be slightly pissed too if suddenly your dog had equal rights as you. this does not mean I am racist, and maybe this 'wall of hatred' will be torn down.

Even generations after slavery ended, racism was prevalent in a great many communities. Yeah, the people can want what they want, but no matter how much they want to kill a specific person, if the person hasn't done anything wrong, there's no legal way to have him executed. True, an extreme exaggeration, but a legitimate one nonetheless.

that and homosexual marriage are jsut 2 things that are tearing families apart. that and the average number of children per family decreasing.

If we don't ban divorce, we can't ban homosexual marriage by the same logic. Not only that, but what makes you say that homosexual marriage is tearing families apart in the first place? Homosexual marriage has the potential to bring a family together, not destroy it. Divorce is inherently the destruction of the union of two people, so it's far more threatening to standard family life. Yet homosexual marriage is the one being bothered with?

I think there's a reason they say 'man and wife'.

And that reason is outdated; ready to change.

 

[Tera253]

Once again, it's the magical underline.

That remains unproven, and the majority of evidence is actually leaning towards it being a genetic trait. science will always be changing, and this, like many other things people assumed to be fact, will most likely be disproven. scratch that. MIGHT be disproven. there's no proof on either side.


I certainly didn't contradict myself. You're stating that homosexuality can't come from a heterosexual. Wouldn't that mean a heterosexual passes its sexual orientation through its genes? Doesn't that make homosexuality genetic? And if it isn't through genes; if it's a choice, then the child will choose to be gay or straight on its own. It has nothing to do with the parents. Exactly. when I said heteros couldn't produce homos, I was talking genetics, hence the word trait. However, if it WERE a choice, it would be perfectly possible, like it is in the world today.

Even generations after slavery ended, racism was prevalent in a great many communities. Yeah, the people can want what they want, but no matter how much they want to kill a specific person, if the person hasn't done anything wrong, there's no legal way to have him executed. True, an extreme exaggeration, but a legitimate one nonetheless. That's what murder is for. You don't think that murders in the news everyday were done with permission from the government. And, yes you were right with the racism thing, and, even in some parts of the US, it can still be found. If people want to assume gays as a different race, then it can be considered racism. otherwise it's considered... I don't know if there's a word for it, but the meaning would be this: "feelings of hatred towards someone because of his or her actions." what is that word, dang it!?!

If we don't ban divorce, we can't ban homosexual marriage by the same logic. Not only that, but what makes you say that homosexual marriage is tearing families apart in the first place? Homosexual marriage has the potential to bring a family together, not destroy it. Divorce is inherently the destruction of the union of two people, so it's far more threatening to standard family life. Yet homosexual marriage is the one being bothered with?
So, if divorce is banned, gay marriage is legal? That would mean that since it's not banned, gay marriage is. Let's keep it that way, except have better guidelines for divorce. I'm not going to gett too deep into that, since that's off topic.

And that reason is outdated; ready to change.
For the love of everything good and clean, I hope not. *imagines: "I hereby pronounce you, wife and wife" or "man and man."*
wouldn't the US be a bigger laughingstock than it is already? (rhetorical question)

~Tera253~

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Let’s imagine you live in Mexico. You have begun to raise a family, but lack the necessary funds to do so. You do have a job, but the amount of wages you earn is not enough to provide for your family. Now, you know in the United States, there are more jobs that pay more than your current job. So, what are your choices?

1) Stay in Mexico, earn below average wages, and live a life of poverty.
2) Or, immigrate to America, become employed at a job which pays average wages, and live a normal life.

Would it not benefit the welfare of their family more if they pursued the legal road? How would the family survive any differently if their only means of income was apprehended and deported back?

Now for a different point of view. Today, we are currently fighting a war in the Middle East in which the majority of the American public disagrees with. The war has made President Bush very unpopular in the eyes of many. Now, what if once the war ends, Bush begins his closing of the US-Mexico border by beginning to construct the wall. Would Americans follow his policy, or argue against it? We can answer this question with another example.

Irrelevant. Two completely different issues. First of all, President Bush is backing a guest worker program to match immigrants with jobs for a set time period. He is not completely to blame. Secondly, when has it ever been the Presidents sole decision? The Senate is pushing the Secure Fence Act which was approved by the House in 2006. You see, Americans have spoken, and we want a fence.

Say that you are a part of your high school’s football team, and although your team is among the best, your coach (or whoever calls plays) isn’t very good. At every game, your coach continuously chooses the same play over and over, and it fails every time. After the first game, is the team going to listen to him the next game, or speak out against him? If the team wants to win, then obviously they will speak out against the coach.

Just because you dont agree with something dosent automatically make you right. The kids on the team only see whats happening on the field, or what they have heard from other teams. The coach may have information not known by many. (Now if its a crappy coach, then its just a crappy coach.)