DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Is Sam Harris the End of Faith religion, terror, and the future of reason book worth reading?
Debate Information
The new atheist movement has come under a lot of fire across the political spectrum. With 331 pages and living in an infodemic where people are on information overload. Can we rationalize the effort to read this book?
My opinion is that like most you can separate the wheat from the chaff. I think there is less mistakes and therefore the book is better than Christopher's Hitchen's book God is not Great.
Here's an example of the best of the Book. Page 57
"If perfect coherence is to be had, each new beliefs, must be checked against all others, and every combination thereof, for logical contradictions. 11 But here we encounter a minor computational difficulty: the number of necessary comparisons grows exponentially as each proposition is added to the list. How many beliefs could a perfect brain check for logical contradictions? The answer is surprising even if a computer was as large as the universe .... it would still be fighting to add a 300th belief to the list." 12
I haven't fact checked this but this is amazing content if true. This mathematically proves not only humans are illogical but it is impossible for us to be Vulcans. I really think this paragraph alone makes the book reading.
This goes hand in hand with the book Thinking Fast and Slow in how we are mentally lazy, have many biases and heuristics, and suffer from ego depletion. The reason why humans are so illogical is we simply don't have the raw processing power to be logical. This is why the infodemic, disinformation, and information overload are so terrible.
That being said be sure to cross reference what Sam Harris has said. Otherwise you are taking what Harris said on faith. One flaw of my argument is Sam Harris takes the concept I quoted above from a book Labyrinths of Reasons I haven't read.
All in all I think there are many valuable lessons and their books are worth reading that can be taught from the new atheist movement but there are human in the end and therefore illogical. On the other hand there are better books that have many of the same concepts without the bigotry.
I'd read some CCDH and SBM articles first, Skeptics Guide to the Universe, Mistakes were Made but not by me, and Thinking Fast and Slow first.
Generally speaking if you have the time best to fact check as you go rather than take in a whole bunch of ideas and then try to go back and fact check them afterwards.
@Dreamer it is no big deal to make an effort or to rationize to read any book. And there’s no such thing as information over load. We know this because only a very small percentage of our brain is ever filled up with info . It’s just that people who are prone to being religious are very week and they can’t stop there brain from wandering all over the place. So there mortally scarred of reading complicated facts and reason and logic because they can’t get there shite together to digest the information. So it’s always a matter for them to accept the easy answer. Which is God and it’s made easy for them by preachers telling them simple sugar coated crap that has nothing to do with the truth.
And being so lazy and simple mindered they just suck that easy lieing crap up like a milk shake.
So of course there not going to read the book even though they should. Because it over turns all the crap that they want to believe like being special and going to heaven.
My opinion is that like most you can separate the wheat from the chaff. I think there is less mistakes and therefore the book is better than Christopher's Hitchen's book God is not Great.
Here's an example of the best of the Book. Page 57
"If perfect coherence is to be had, each new beliefs, must be checked against all others, and every combination thereof, for logical contradictions. 11 But here we encounter a minor computational difficulty: the number of necessary comparisons grows exponentially as each proposition is added to the list. How many beliefs could a perfect brain check for logical contradictions? The answer is surprising even if a computer was as large as the universe .... it would still be fighting to add a 300th belief to the list." 12
I haven't fact checked this but this is amazing content if true. This mathematically proves not only humans are illogical but it is impossible for us to be Vulcans. I really think this paragraph alone makes the book reading.
This goes hand in hand with the book Thinking Fast and Slow in how we are mentally lazy, have many biases and heuristics, and suffer from ego depletion. The reason why humans are so illogical is we simply don't have the raw processing power to be logical. This is why the infodemic, disinformation, and information overload are so terrible.
That being said be sure to cross reference what Sam Harris has said. Otherwise you are taking what Harris said on faith. One flaw of my argument is Sam Harris takes the concept I quoted above from a book Labyrinths of Reasons I haven't read.
All in all I think there are many valuable lessons and their books are worth reading that can be taught from the new atheist movement but there are human in the end and therefore illogical. On the other hand there are better books that have many of the same concepts without the bigotry.
I'd read some CCDH and SBM articles first, Skeptics Guide to the Universe, Mistakes were Made but not by me, and Thinking Fast and Slow first.
Loved that your post wasn't just links, but had some content.
I haven't read the book. I'll comment on the quote you provided.
"If perfect coherence is to be had, each new beliefs, must be checked against all others, and every combination thereof, for logical contradictions. 11 But here we encounter a minor computational difficulty: the number of necessary comparisons grows exponentially as each proposition is added to the list. How many beliefs could a perfect brain check for logical contradictions? The answer is surprising even if a computer was as large as the universe .... it would still be fighting to add a 300th belief to the list." 12
Harris' view that one could logically review beliefs and then discard bad ones, is at odds with his view of free will. Harris doesn't believe in free will and believes all actions and thoughts are ultimately caused by nature and we are not able to make any choices that are outside of what nature 'determines' for us. So, it seems odd to talk about determining logical contradictions, when it is Harris' belief that you will believe what nature says you will believe and you can't change the course of belief that nature has determined for you. With such a view, how can you know you made a truly logical choice, or if nature 'willed' you to make that choice. Logically, by Harris' logic, he can't know if he made the logical choice - because he never had any choice in the matter to begin with.
Claiming religion leads people to do immoral things, would also be illogical in Harris' world view, if he were consistent on the illogical things he believes. Simply put, you can't talk about moral responsibility of anything if you don't have free will to make your own choices, as Harris argued in his debate with William Lane Craig. Craig, spanked Harris in this debate, pointing out Harris' logical and moral inconsistency.
Here is my general view on books by popular individuals. If you feel that their argument is difficult to understand/accept without going deep into the weeds, then it is worth reading the book in which they go far deeper into it than they can in their public appearances. However, when the argument is fairly basic and easy to understand, then reading a book might be a waste of time.
For example, to understand Friedrich Hayek's argument, you really want to read "The Road to Serfdom". His argument is very complex, rests on a number of suppositions that, in turn, require quite a bit of grounding - and the conclusions are very far-reaching and not obvious from the suppositions at all. When I read his book, my brain worked on overdrive, and I had to take regular breaks. It was a very intense and thought-provoking read, and I still, years after, come back to individual chapters every now and then to reexamine the arguments. William McNeil's "The Rise of the West" is an even more challenging read. If you hope to read this book all at once, then, unless you are a professional historian with decades of experience of reading hardcore texts on history, you will likely fail and give up midway through. If you do manage to finish this book, your understanding of history will be phenomenal.
On the other hand, Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" was a big disappointment. Reading it, I was not intellectually challenged at all, she did not say anything that I would not already know she would want to say, her logical reasoning was very sloppy, and the whole book ended up a reiteration of the same point in various ways - the point which was very loosely grounded in reality.
I suppose, there are also books which are not particularly sophisticated, but which allow you to look at various manifestations of the same phenomenon, so you can appreciate the universality of the phenomenon. I would include Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" into the list of such books: the point of the book can be summarized in a paragraph, but reading the book is still useful.
Sam Harris' argument against religion and in favor of rationalism is fairly basic, so I do not feel that his book would add much to it. It is worth noting that the bizarre idea that morals can only be rooted in god is largely an American phenomenon, and this idea has not been taken by many seriously historically, nor is it taken seriously in most other countries. So Sam's argument targets a very particular audience that is deeply confused on this issue, and someone who is not this confused likely will find Sam's points to be self-evident. It takes a pretty high level of delusion to seriously think that the idea that murder is wrong cannot be arrived at without belief in a creature from a fantasy book, and, perhaps, people with that level of delusion would not be able to get Sam's argument anyway. My experience of debating with people in the US who root everything in god has been quite poor... Sometimes it feels that we are speaking different languages. They seem to not be able to understand basic English sentences when they go against their presuppositions, so Sam would do better offering them some mushrooms instead.
"An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750
journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available
could not have reviewed them all"
Of course information overload exists. We are being bombarded by message from media conglomerate according to Merchant of Cool documentary.
To watch Sam Harris' podcast is to exclude another podcast. To read his book is to not read another author. 300 pages takes about 15 hours for me to read. People with learning disability could take 60 hours to read.15 hour is a large time commitment.
One interesting fact in Sam Harris' book is the blood libel qanon is from the 12 century. I thought it was something new. A lot of these "new" conspiracy theories are old wine new bottle. Another note is the Inquisition didn't end until 1800's at the end of the renaissance era. I always thought of the Spanish Inquisition as a medieval event.
I'm going to finish Sam Harris' book and then I will listen to the podcast. An hour long w/o registering I wonder how long the full episode is.
This is where I am in internal conflict with woke. Often there is an element of truth to racial/ethnic stereotypes, yet we aren't supposed to stereotype. Therefore, the values of truth and anti-discrimination conflict.
"In the 1950s the neurological diseasekuru was discovered in the South Fore. The local tradition of ritualcannibalism of their dead had led to an epidemic, with approximately 1,000 deaths from 1957 to 1960."
"Killing of a sorcerer – tukabu – was a ritualistic form of
vendetta; it included crushing with stones the bones of the neck, arm,
and thigh, as well as the loins, biting the trachea, and grinding the
genitalia with stones and clubs."
So much for the liberal stereotype of indigenous people of being pure and good, the racist stereotype of the noble savage. Seems institutionalized mass murder of witches is not unique to Christianity. Religion hybridizes I wonder if this how the killing of witches started.
Here's the problem with this book and why I don't know if I should bother to finish.
On page 92-93 Sam Harris states "Christians generally also believe that that Jews murdered Christ."
No source or anything, I don't think this is true about Christians. Only 26% say yes in 2004. Though this is still a disturbingly high number, not exactly 1-2% fringe.
@Dreamer Sam Harris is "worth reading" if you desire to die in Hell in nihilism, but if you desire life eternally with peace and purpose, trust in Jesus as your Messiah and read this Book...begin in the "Gospel of John."
@Dreamer Though men like Dawkins, Ra, Harris,
Gervais, Hitchens and a plethora of “worldly intelligent” men like them
possess some intelligence in a specific field of study, these men are
truly liars, idiots and borderline insane concerning Truth and evidence
of design and the evidence mandating a Designer relevant to our
supernatural World. These men are “the fools” of Eternity and anyone
that pays them allegiance makes them self as much a fool as they. They
are the tools and servants and useful idiots of Evil.
@Dreamer Though men like Dawkins, Ra, Harris,
Gervais, Hitchens and a plethora of “worldly intelligent” men like them
possess some intelligence in a specific field of study, these men are
truly liars, idiots and borderline insane concerning Truth and evidence
of design and the evidence mandating a Designer relevant to our
supernatural World. These men are “the fools” of Eternity and anyone
that pays them allegiance makes them self as much a fool as they. They
are the tools and servants and useful idiots of Evil.
Matthew 5:22: But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[a][b] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
That's you ricky condemned to hell. The fool who didn't obey his master and shut his mouth around smarter people. Proverbs 17:28
Continuing to fact check. Harris claims we are given two incompatible lists of the ten commandments. We already know there are bible contradictions. Is Harris correct though?
Harris claim: Exodus 20 and 34 give two different lists of ten commandments. Yes, seems Harris is correct. Not even the ten commandments are safe ground. Wow, I knew there was flaws in the Old Testament but this is ludicrous. Many parents require children to memorize. In fact I tried to memorize and felt bad when I couldn't.
"‘Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it."
25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.
26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.
“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”"
Even if apologist can somehow defend this contradiction, it is confusing at the least.
@Dreamer There is no greater display of "faith" than that of the moronic atheist who believes that all present in nature arose from nothing which exploded. Atheism is a lie and its proponents and adherents are servants of Satan and a metastasizing boil on the butt of America.
RICKEY'S QUOTE REGARDING ATHEISM: "Atheism is a lie and its proponents and adherents are servants of Satan and a metastasizing boil on the butt of America."
Rickey's many boils on his pseudo-christian butt have all exploded because he cannot address the FACT of his serial killer god named Jesus commanded the murdering of innocent INFANTS AND SUCKLING BABIES!
"This is what the lord Almighty says: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; BUT SLAY both man and woman, INFANT AND SUCKLING,ox and sheep, camel and ox.” (1 Samuel 15:3)
I also see where feminism and anti-racism diverge from Sam Harris. Harris believes that recreational drugs including marinjuaa are illegal for religous reasons where feminism for racist reasons. Either way both agree the laws are illogical.
Alcohol is more dangerous, sheesh I wish I read this years ago. Who knows if it would have sunk in. I had no idea alcohol was addicting.
Then, Harris disappoints. It is well known prohibition had some success and cut down on drinking.
Harris spreads the myth that prohibition increased drinking.
Just be-careful reading this book, there is both good information and misinformation. I do give Harris the benefit of the doubt most mistakes are common myths.
Ricky doesn't even respond to the content of the posts, just makes generic inflammatory comments.
Listening to people like Alex O'Connor or Richard Dawkins recently, I came to appreciate just how much poorer many other intellectuals' arguments are. I used to devour podcasts involving Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Peter Boghossian, Konstantin Kisin... Nowadays it is not very interesting for me to listen to them, because in comparison their thinking feels so stale and inflexible. Very often, when Sam's opponent makes an argument, before he even starts to respond, I already see a couple of obvious fallacies in the argument - and then Sam just proceeds to completely ignore them and make a very inconclusive reply, often not even addressing the argument directly. For instance, someone once suggested that Sam cannot claim without justification that misery is worse than pleasure - and instead of pointing out the obvious, that the very definitions of "misery" and "pleasure" suggest that ("misery" is almost literally defined as an undesirable state, and "pleasure" as desirable), Sam went down a biological rabbit hole, tripping up a number of times. His opponent then said that there are absolutely unpleasant states that are good for humans, such as the muscle pain when exercising at a gym, and Sam had nothing of substance to say in response, instead switching to arguing that his argument does not apply to every single case, but just in "general".
All too often I listen to Sam, Konstantin or Jordan replying to someone, and thinking, "Out of all the responses you could pick, you picked... this?" They are not very sophisticated thinkers (Jordan pretends that he is, but most of the time he just produces word salad that, when distilled, comes down to a very basic argument that he could have made in 5% the time). They are good to listen to when running or eating dinner after a hard day at work, when you want to just relax and listen to some interesting discussions - but to really learn something and improve one's thinking, I would look elsewhere. Alex O'Connor, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Brian Greene, Freeman Dyson, Roger Penrose, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek - these are the guys I go to when I want to be really intellectually challenged and wrestle with ideas which my intuition is inclined to reject.
Friedrich Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" or Richard Dawkins' "Selfish gene" are going to do much more for one's intellectual development than all the podcasts, debates and books by Harris and Peterson combined ever could.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think they're great.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Which is God and it’s made easy for them by preachers telling them simple sugar coated crap that has nothing to do with the truth.
And being so lazy and simple mindered they just suck that easy lieing crap up like a milk shake.
So of course there not going to read the book even though they should. Because it over turns all the crap that they want to believe like being special and going to heaven.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I haven't read the book. I'll comment on the quote you provided.
"If perfect coherence is to be had, each new beliefs, must be checked against all others, and every combination thereof, for logical contradictions. 11 But here we encounter a minor computational difficulty: the number of necessary comparisons grows exponentially as each proposition is added to the list. How many beliefs could a perfect brain check for logical contradictions? The answer is surprising even if a computer was as large as the universe .... it would still be fighting to add a 300th belief to the list." 12
Harris' view that one could logically review beliefs and then discard bad ones, is at odds with his view of free will. Harris doesn't believe in free will and believes all actions and thoughts are ultimately caused by nature and we are not able to make any choices that are outside of what nature 'determines' for us. So, it seems odd to talk about determining logical contradictions, when it is Harris' belief that you will believe what nature says you will believe and you can't change the course of belief that nature has determined for you. With such a view, how can you know you made a truly logical choice, or if nature 'willed' you to make that choice. Logically, by Harris' logic, he can't know if he made the logical choice - because he never had any choice in the matter to begin with.
Claiming religion leads people to do immoral things, would also be illogical in Harris' world view, if he were consistent on the illogical things he believes. Simply put, you can't talk about moral responsibility of anything if you don't have free will to make your own choices, as Harris argued in his debate with William Lane Craig. Craig, spanked Harris in this debate, pointing out Harris' logical and moral inconsistency.
Do you have any more quotes from Harris' book?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
For example, to understand Friedrich Hayek's argument, you really want to read "The Road to Serfdom". His argument is very complex, rests on a number of suppositions that, in turn, require quite a bit of grounding - and the conclusions are very far-reaching and not obvious from the suppositions at all. When I read his book, my brain worked on overdrive, and I had to take regular breaks. It was a very intense and thought-provoking read, and I still, years after, come back to individual chapters every now and then to reexamine the arguments.
William McNeil's "The Rise of the West" is an even more challenging read. If you hope to read this book all at once, then, unless you are a professional historian with decades of experience of reading hardcore texts on history, you will likely fail and give up midway through. If you do manage to finish this book, your understanding of history will be phenomenal.
On the other hand, Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" was a big disappointment. Reading it, I was not intellectually challenged at all, she did not say anything that I would not already know she would want to say, her logical reasoning was very sloppy, and the whole book ended up a reiteration of the same point in various ways - the point which was very loosely grounded in reality.
I suppose, there are also books which are not particularly sophisticated, but which allow you to look at various manifestations of the same phenomenon, so you can appreciate the universality of the phenomenon. I would include Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" into the list of such books: the point of the book can be summarized in a paragraph, but reading the book is still useful.
Sam Harris' argument against religion and in favor of rationalism is fairly basic, so I do not feel that his book would add much to it. It is worth noting that the bizarre idea that morals can only be rooted in god is largely an American phenomenon, and this idea has not been taken by many seriously historically, nor is it taken seriously in most other countries. So Sam's argument targets a very particular audience that is deeply confused on this issue, and someone who is not this confused likely will find Sam's points to be self-evident. It takes a pretty high level of delusion to seriously think that the idea that murder is wrong cannot be arrived at without belief in a creature from a fantasy book, and, perhaps, people with that level of delusion would not be able to get Sam's argument anyway.
My experience of debating with people in the US who root everything in god has been quite poor... Sometimes it feels that we are speaking different languages. They seem to not be able to understand basic English sentences when they go against their presuppositions, so Sam would do better offering them some mushrooms instead.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's you ricky condemned to hell. The fool who didn't obey his master and shut his mouth around smarter people. Proverbs 17:28
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.
26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.
“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”"  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
RICKEY'S QUOTE REGARDING ATHEISM: "Atheism is a lie and its proponents and adherents are servants of Satan and a metastasizing boil on the butt of America."
Rickey's many boils on his pseudo-christian butt have all exploded because he cannot address the FACT of his serial killer god named Jesus commanded the murdering of innocent INFANTS AND SUCKLING BABIES!
"This is what the lord Almighty says: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; BUT SLAY both man and woman, INFANT AND SUCKLING, ox and sheep, camel and ox.” (1 Samuel 15:3)
As shown, Rickey is still RUNNING AWAY from this biblical axiom in the post/link below!
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182489/#Comment_182489
RUN RICKEY, RUN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR DEPLORABLE JESUS AS
GOD WHO MURDERED INFANTS AND SUCKLING BABIES!
.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
***. It is well known prohibition had some success and cut down on drinking.***
Why don't you move to Saudi there's a total ban there ?
Alcholol is good for you in moderation is your solution to everything you don't like to ban it?
No doubt you'd love a nanny state where everyone has to be vegan and in bed at 9 in the evening.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra