frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


          
+ NEW DEBATE

Best Persuaded Content

  • Should the school day be extended past its current boundaries?

    @WhyTrump  Yes!  Another point I meant to cover.  How many college aged kids know how to balance a checkbook?  Know what a 401k is?  Have you ever watched some of the videos where people ask people elementary questions and they can't answer them.  We are forcing kids to learn everything we think they need, and then those who struggle in certain areas are discarded and left to fend for themselves.  I suck at math, but excel at literature.  My mom homeschooled me and made sure she focused on my reading instead of math.  Of course I learned the basics, but name an everyday job where you need use linear inequalities?  That was the reason I failed the math ECA 3 times.  I beat the literature one the first try.  We need to focus on teaching kids what they need to know for what they excel in and get them ready for the future.  
     
    agsr
  • Opinion | Is Putin Getting What He Wanted With Trump? New York Times

    Putin is certainly getting what he wanted, but not from Trump.  Ironically, he's getting it from the Democrats.  All Putin wanted was to sow the seeds of dissension, and paralyze our society and our government.  The whole notion that Putin actually plotted to get Trump elected is ludicrous.  To start with, Putin would have had to have had a better idea of what the electorate was going to do than EVERY pollster in the US.  Up until about 2 days before the election EVERY pollster reporting that the election was going to be a blowout for Hillary.  And what would they have been getting in Trump?  Trump said he wanted to try to work with Putin, but by all accounts, Trump was a political maverick unconstrained by conventional political wisdom.  Hillary, on the other hand, was quite predictable.  She had extensive ties to Russia and Putin both as Secretary of State and through the Clinton Foundation.  Putin already knew he could work with Hillary.
    aarongCuriousGeorgeagsr
  • Were the atomic bombings necessary?

    @Erfisflat, vegetation regrowth isnt indicative of nuclear disaster issues.  As a matter of fact, in places like Chernobyl, there was aggressive vegetation and animal growth post explosion in 1986.  
    While extend of long term impact  on health of Japanese based on nuclear bombs is debatable, this brief note from 27 years ago in Ny times is not a comprehensive conclusive evidence.
    melanielustbillpassed
  • Were the atomic bombings necessary?

    agsr said:
    @Erfisflat, I only wish that nuclear weapons wouldn't exist.  Nuclear power is really dangerous, and it was unfortunate that it was used against Japan.  Arguably it saved many American lives, but at the same time messed up health of many generations of Japanese.
    You sure? 
     
    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/01/us/hiroshima-study-finds-no-genetic-damage.html

    They were claiming that nobody would be able to live there for 1,000 years. Vegetation regrowth started weeks later, and the Japanese started rebuilding right away.
    billpassed
  • Were the atomic bombings necessary?

    Japan did give those reparations,well an amount to our country was given and USA helped Japan economically boost during the cold war making it one of the best prospering economies at that time.

    Manila was declared an open city twice. The first time, Japan didn't listen and bombed it. The 2nd time, Japanese soldiers tried to declare it but the Americans didn't listen and also bombed it.

    The damages they inflicted on our economy, culture and country will never compare to two bombings on just two cities. Torture is worse than death. Bombs kill women but they don't rape them.

    It was explained to us that the Japanese were mad on why almost all Asian countries had major influence from foreign countries outside of the continent. Japan was very quiet for years until they wanted all foreign influences out by acquiring the same foreign forces. Even their slogan "Asia for Asians" won't convince me their brutality was necessary.

     I find the bombing necessary to stop them to really put a halt to any more possible plans they might have had. Clearly Japan didn't listen nor turn to stop when their soldiers were killed in battle. I find it funny few could scold Japan for their brutality but when Japan was in awe everyone scolded the Americans for retaliation calling it biblically unnecessary. This wasn't the Americans war sure but what Japan had invaded and taken weren't theirs either. Their extremist idea of eliminating foreign influence to preserve culture isn't what our country needed. We were about to have independence but they extended it thanks to their invasion.

    That's all in the past now anyways. I have nothing against present Japan.

    billpassed
  • Were the atomic bombings necessary?

    @Erfisflat

    Your source isn't very credible - the author seems to be open about trying to rewrite parts of history. Some of the quotes are also unprofessional, some are quite disturbing. For example:

    "send me lots of money so we can spread this message far and wide...." so it seems like he's just doing this in a desperate attempt for money? correct me if wrong
    "Second, direct your anger at the Japanese. We are the victims, and they are the aggressors. Make yourself feel important again by bashing Japan at every opportunity. Japanese people are inherently evil, and basically subhuman. They were never bombed, and if they would have been they would have deserved it." That right there is textbook racist and pretty awful to say.

    "Go to a library. Take a book at random. Skim it. Then, decide how that book is either for you or against you. If it is for you, quote liberally and out of context. If against you, do the same." ..said when he was describing how to get more information.

    I also looked up the author and he isn't a professor or anything, just a former student at MIT. That's a good school so credit for that but he also believes that Idaho doesn't exist.

    I actually tried to find more reliable sources that would support your argument (I still don't agree with you but I'm interested) but I just can't. Do you have any?
    billpassed
  • Should you ever tell someone they are overweight?

    This is an interesting topic of debate.  On one hand, telling someone that they're Fat or Overweight is considered rude and is seen as being mean or hateful.  On the other hand, remaining silent about someone being fat can create an atmosphere of acceptance for something that is unhealthy and there are 2nd and 3rd order effects for that. 

    We can all agree that there are people out there with health disorders that account for their weight, unfortunately this is the exception to the case and never the majority.  Genes play a role in our body weight but the role is a tiny fraction of the overall contributing factors to someone being overweight.  The simple fact is that the vast majority of people who claim "I can't control it" are lying to themselves and whoever they're telling that to.  An inability to control what you eat and how much is the equivalent to an inability to study sufficiently to be prepared for a test...both are a pure result of poor choices and lack of willpower.  All of this is said with the understanding that there are few that truly do have a medical condition that prevents them from controlling their weight.

    Comparative example: Recently we've made it a crime to smoke in public places, so smokers are restricted to certain areas for their habit and most likely rightfully so.  Smoking is an extremely unhealthy choice and in this context it's simply unhealthy to the person committing the act.  In our Society...we shame smokers, we use them in video advertisements...showcasing their pain and suffering as a means to convince others not to smoke.  We use graphic and vivid images of smoking related diseases to further promote the idea that Smokers are people who make very VERY poor decisions and no one should aspire to be like them.  Mind you, this social atmosphere of Smoker shaming is NOT focused on what smoking can do to other non-smokers...but instead on what smoking does to the person who is smoking.

    Now take into account Over-eating, poor diet, junk-food lifestyles, obesity...have you ever seen Fat people restricted to their poor eating habits in certain areas?  Have you ever seen a video advertisement showcasing the horrible diseases and conditions that are a result of obesity?  Do we use graphic images of obese people, highlighting heart diseases, stroke, diabetes, gout, cancer, breathing conditions?  No...we don't.  Why not though?  If I had to take a wild stab at the answer...I'd say that it's because people would be in an uproar over their feelings being hurt at seeing videos or images like that because they're just offensive. 

    Welcome to the social construct of "Reverse Shame".  In situations where people SHOULD come together and cast something down as being wrong, unhealthy or destructive in nature...instead we remain silent...for fear of being shamed for not respecting other people's feelings.  Obesity isn't the only area where this happens.  And if you don't read either of the three articles concerning the issues of obesity, take some time to read the first from phillymag regarding using shame properly.

    http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/10/12/solve-americas-obesity-problem-shame/

    http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/03/study-theres-no-such-thing-as-healthy-obesity/
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/01/06/is-healthy-obesity-a-real-thing-not-likely-study-says/#55eddbdd765e
    https://www.dietdoctor.com/the-real-cause-of-obesity





    fntsyguyagsrale5islander507melanielust
  • Does "under God" belong in the pledge?

    @CuriousGeorge, Well we're at the new age issue then...people's feelings versus the facts.  I'd consider myself a very reasonable person by any measure and reasonably speaking...the reason the Founding Fathers established our Freedom as a "God given right" is the same reason that most European Countries declared that the rulers of each country were blessed by God...it simply makes it near impossible to contest.  I mean...at the time...who in their right mind would go against the "All mighty" and his ordained leaders of the world? 

    So likewise, in turn, the United States' Freedom and Sovereignty were established as "The will of the All Mighty".  I don't honestly see how it could have been any other way at the time.  Can you imagine any group of self-respecting people at the time claiming to be free from the rule of Britain simply because they "Thought it was better that way"?  You can't rally a nation to rise up against tyranny, oppression and the strength of an Army with "Natural ideology"...it's never been done.  While it makes sense and is reasonable to propose realistic ideas and reasonable cause as the motivator to fight and most certainly sacrifice one's own life...people won't do it.

    I'd honestly like to see a social experiment where two sides were pitted in competition with each other to see who can execute an uprising first.  One side would be religious idealists and the other would be Scientists devoid of religious belief.  Both groups could be subjected to equal discrimination, oppression, tyranny and injustice and the goal would be to determine which set of principles were more likely to justify and therefor be the proximate cause of an uprising against said maltreatment.  The issue of course would be that no one in the groups could be from the United States as they would be preconditioned (Biased) to believe that they are entitled to freedom from tyranny and oppression.

    My point is simply that the Founders of our great Country were brilliant Men, they used the most powerful driving force in the World to justify their actions  Instead of proposing that Britain had treated the Colonies in an unethical manner...they suggested that Britain and more specifically King George III was against God.  Due to the very nature of the vast majority of Colonists being Christian...that was not acceptable and served as more than enough reason to rally as a Nation against those that would defy God's laws.

    Pretty smart huh?
    islander507CuriousGeorgeWhyTrump
  • Is Poverty a 'State Of Mind'?

    @agsr I mean they did.  The army camp wasn't far away and they got all the water they could ever want.  The pipe literally ran under the village and you could see it in a ditch close to them.  They also lived near the city which had some rich folks there.  Some of them may have chosen that life, but otherwise they knew.  
    WhyTrump
  • Does "under God" belong in the pledge?

    @agsr My bad, it was trying to suppress modern American communists in the 50s (who were generally atheist), not modernists in general. Here's a good article about it:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/opinion/one-nation-under-god.html
    agsrnatbarons

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch