keek21

A lot of the argument seems to be a more philosophical one, the idea that because guns aren't sentient that they can't kill. They are a tool for killing, they do the damage, they are the weapons that propel small metal pellets towards people and cause damage.

If someone was at the beach and got killed by a chunk of rock falling off a cliff, what would you say killed them? If you say the rock that fell off the cliff then that equates to the bullet, if you say the cliff killed him then that equates to the gun. But if you were to say the sea killed him then that would equate to the person pulling the trigger, but I bet damn near nobody would blame the sea for eroding the cliff...

But by that very same logic, if you way that the moon kills people then you may be able to compare that to the electrical impulses in someone's brain and say that electricity killed them. Murder does require intent, but you killed them with the gun. If you stood there and started moving your finger without holding a gun then the person doesn't die so the gun clearly plays a crucial part in the murder.

It would make sense to convey it as a percentage because there is more information and its still very easy for people to comprehend percentages.

I'm mixed because I believe that these type of events do happen that we can't explain with our current understanding of the universe. However it is not divine and there is technically an explanation but we haven't found it yet.

The ones that seem the most accurate are the ones who say the most vague codswallop and then at some point in your life there is something that remotely relates to that vague statement and the gullible people will think that means these fortune tellers have some divine power... its unfair that these people take your money and not necessarily lie to you, but sell you a false truth

Most people here seem to be talking about the religion, however there is also a race of people who originate from Judea who are white. So the question is somewhat vague.

Equity would require the exact opposite of freedom. In the most free societies you see a larger disparity between the behaviours of certain groups. This evidence would suggest that for a community to achieve equity it would require extreme authoritarian rule and mass oppression.

I don't agree with equity on the basis that it fights sexism with more sexism, racism with more racism, transphobia and homophobia with heterophobia (or whatever you would call the oppression of straight people). If you truly wanted fairness then you'd treat everyone equally (equality).

There is also the evidence that shows that the freer a society is the more disparity there is between groups. This would suggest that for equity to be present you would need to be in an extremely authoritarian state and most likely have to experience a lot of oppression, and I don't like that idea.

Equal rights are where they need to be, in law everyone is equal, and have equal opportunities. Equality of outcome will never happen without an extreme authoritarian influence and mass oppression.

It isn't NEVER right, Dignitas do a great job at ending suffering for people who desperately want that

"Life's a climb, and the view is shit" - Me

I love watching Seve Ballesteros clips, and to me, he was the greatest ever

Zionsim is an ideology whereby there is a Jewish state, where the majority of the inhabitants are Jewish. The reasoning behind this ideology's inception was that anti-semitism was rife, and the Jews didn't feel safe in Europe. Where is the logical place for a Jewish state? Their holy land and their homeland, Judea.

I think if you don't want Jews to have a place where they can feel safe then you must hate them.

The universe is most likely not infinite, it is just too large for us to comprehend so it is easier for us to think of it as infinite

Aggression is not always wrong, violence isn't always necessary but sometimes can be useful

Its not the reason that God doesn't exist, but God doesn't exist

I think it can be, but will never be

Completely depends on the context

Make it mandatory and the people who object will vote for the worst candidate possible and the people who don't vote because they don't understand politics will skew the vote.

Money rents happiness

A lot of players experience extreme fatigue after chess tournaments, classical games can last 8 hours. Then you have to do that almost every day for a month (in some larger tournaments)... chess can be just as exhausting as any other sport

I think there's no reason not to be taught about anything, as long as there is an explanation as to why it is wrong.

In the sense that you have to put on you "customer service face", yes. But you are only pretending that they are right, more often than not they are wrong.

Waste of time when its going to get messed up again the next time you see it...

I think we should always offer and if the date was my idea I always go with the intention of paying for the whole date.

I chose to write this

Though climate change has accelerated due to human intervention, you can clearly see throughout history that the climate naturally fluctuates, hence ice ages happen and cease to happen

I don't think it serves a purpose anymore

I think that vaccines should either be mandatory or life should be made very difficult for unvaccinated people. You should never be allowed on public transport and any job where you interact with people should be unavailable because getting vaccinated is not about you.

I think true evil is causing harm for the sake of causing harm, so I would argue that money is almost never the reason for evil

I don't think its dead yet, but I think its dying because its too easy to find a free stream online now

Without patriotism Russia would have already gained full control of Ukraine

Humans evolved as carnivores, as can be seen by our digestive system.

Sweet and tangy does not go with pizza. Pizza is for meat and cheese. Any self respecting Italian would want you deported for even suggesting that pineapple could go on a pizza. It is a mockery of an excellent cuisine.

In some places its considered a relative of science, in others a relative of philosophy.

Typically in America it was more thought of as a branch of philosophy and the approach to psychology was more speculative and theoretical, and dealt with concepts such as consciousness and self.

Whereas in Europe there was a more scientific approach, where psychologists and physiologists would examine mental processes such as sensory perception and memory under laboratory conditions.

If psychology is something that interests you then I'd recommend "The Psychology Book" It was published by DK and details the history of how psychology grew and evolved from its inception and even before it was its own dedicated subject.

Most people agree that chickens evolved from some other bird, so I think it depends on how you define the egg...

Some other bird (Bird x) lays an egg with a chicken inside. Is the egg a chicken egg because it contains a chicken, or is it still a bird x egg because it came from bird x?

Eggs definitely came before chickens but I'd imagine this question is more specifically about the chicken egg

I think the answer lies with how you define the egg. Because a closely related bird will have laid an egg containing a bird with a genetic mutation causing a chicken to exist. Now is that a chicken egg because it contains a chicken? (Egg comes first) Or is it an egg for the other species of bird that contains a chicken? (Chicken comes first) I would argue the latter

As long as they are used in a proper way (educational rather than propaganda) I have no problem. If the school were trying to force children to be religious then I would not like my children there.

From a scientific standpoint: a sound is a vibration travelling through air, and a tree falling would cause disturbances (vibrations) when falling through the air and when it hits the ground. Assuming that we know a tree has fallen, we know it made a sound

Unless you want to get into the conspiracy surrounding us being in a simulation then I don't believe there is a strong enough argument to say that what we experience isn't real.

Rene Descartes saying "I think, therefore I am" means that because we are alive that we know we exist, thus meaning a reality is there. The real question is how each individual's perception of reality changes and whether any one person can truly perceive exactly what reality is.

I think that everyone should be given a chance to survive, but communities work by the idea of you put stuff in, you get stuff out. If you are contributing a net loss to a community then you are a bad member of the community.

I think the essence of science is to try and explain everything, and I think everything has a reason (even if sometimes it is random chance). So whether we can answer everything with our current level of scientific understanding is clearly out of the question, I believe that if we continue our scientific pursuits then we can explain everything (provided that we don't go extinct).

I'm choosing my side based on how people act vs what the evidence shows.

I know people who act as if everything wrong with the world today is because of racism. A footballer kicked a cat and his teammate tried to make the conversation about racism.

I have personally read the Ministry of Justice's Policing and Crime reports and seen that the statistics don't prove racism. Everything they do is proportional to the area they police. I think the UK in general isn't really racist.

There are only 2 genders, there are only 2 sexes, they are very closely linked. Genders is typically more about the social stereotypes and sex is the biological situation. The idea that gender is malleable is completely false. There are typically masculine qualities and there are typically feminine qualities... and I suppose there are qualities that apply to both male and female, but still those are the only two that exist. The idea that you are not the gender that you actually are is gender dysphoria and it is a mental condition. I think that the way people are viewing gender now just proves how dangerous it can be when you let people with mental health problems choose how science works... if a schizophrenic person thought the radio was talking to them you wouldn't just nod along and tell them that the radio is trying to have a conversation with them so why is gender dysphoria any different?

The only potential argument you can make for this is that medicine keeps more horrid diseases in the gene pool. But then why should people be made to suffer through no fault of their own?

Its too much. I had a teacher that gave 3 separate pieces of homework in 1 lesson... then I had 4 more classes to go to that day. That was the day I decided I was not going to do any homework unless it took less than 5 minutes to do.

Homework contributes to the stupidly high stress levels that students go through, with some studies suggesting that high school students in the 2010's had the same stress levels as psychiatric patients in the 1970's.

Now I am an adult I will be telling the school my children attend that I have told my children that homework is optional and that if they choose not to do it then they will not be attending detentions.

The reason I am against is not because elderly people don't deserve respect, but that they don't deserve more respect on the basis that they are elderly.

Respect is earned and people forget that too easily. I've met too many elderly people that feel entitled to be treated better than most people because they are older and they have been downright rude. I have worked in customer service and I can tell you that they are the rudest demographic. It it my belief that everyone deserves your respect until they prove otherwise.

"For your country" Not "For the government". Putting your life on the line for anything is the ultimate bravery.

I think its a slightly different bond you will have with an adopted child than your own flesh and blood. I'm not against adoption but I think if you have the ability to procreate then that's the better option.

Anything alive on another planet is an alien. And although the universe is not infinite, we comprehend it as such because its impossible for us to understand a size that big. So if the universe is infinite that means that everything that can happen has happened an infinite amount of times.

Obviously the universe is not infinite and we don't know the probability of life developing on a planet so its impossible for us to know without seeing it, but I think there are bacteria in one or two of Saturn or Jupiter's moons.

When someone is a danger to others they need to be in solitary confinement. However, it does have mental effects on a person and is not ideal unless they are a serious threat.

It already has. Trudeau passed a law compelling speech in the name of political correctness. (That is why Jordan Peterson is famous) I think it is immoral to compel speech. I think its fine to ban words and I also think that if they are banned then they should be banned for everyone, but compelling speech is too far and if a law like that is to be passed in the UK then I'll be campaigning against it.

Equality of opportunity is VERY important! Its the goal of everyone to have the same opportunities. Equality of outcome is terrible because it would force people down paths they don't want to go down.

The most talked about topic of equality over the past ten years is probably gender equality, which is excellent proof of why equality of outcome is a terrible target. Scandinavia has the most Egalitarian societies in the world, and contrary to what researchers thought would happen, the biological differences between men and women were larger than in less free countries. This evidence shows that when you decrease the social difference you will increase the biological difference, so men and women will become less alike.

Another example of why equality of outcome is bad is if you look at affirmative action in America. Black students require lower grades than their white peers to get into colleges, and Asian students require higher grades than any other ethnicity to gain access to colleges. It requires racism to try and create equal outcomes... that is not how things should work.

Equality or opportunity is what we should be aiming for, and is what the West has. Equality of outcome (equity) is too far.

I'd say its a punishment really...

Anyone can wear them, but they look terrible on white people and they are so dirty I would not like to be near someone with dreads...

I don't think the act of whistling can be described as harassment. I understand that women don't want to hear it, that's why I wouldn't do it, but just because you don't want to hear something doesn't make it a crime for someone to do it.

In the same way as someone expressing an opinion you don't agree with, simply trying to censor them is a terrible way to go about it. Just because you don't like or agree with something doesn't mean that someone shouldn't be able to say it.

Ricky Gervais put it quite perfectly: "How arrogant do you have to be to think that you deserve to go through life with no one ever saying anything that you don't agree with or like?", and I believe this is something that falls under a similar umbrella: just because you don't like it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Cancel Culture is one of the worst things plaguing our online communities... it essentially means that rather than saying "this content isn't for me" and leaving the page you would rather try and get people's careers destroyed. Its petty and is a form of censorship. You are trying to stop someone being heard, that is an attempt at censoring them. I don't understand how trying to stop someone having a voice online can be seen as anything other than censoring

Terrorism is almost non-existent in the west thanks to increased surveillance. But then there is a level of privacy that you expect... I think there is a level that is too far but there is also a place for surveillance to play an important role in our safety.

Tax is more than just income tax... there is a general trend where people who are on Universal Credit tend to buy more taxable goods (alcohol and tobacco). So although those products have good reason to be highly taxed it means that proportionally the poorer you are, the more of your money is spent as tax.

We don't know how much of time we have experienced... (semantic argument) so to say he is the greatest of all time when football is still happening and the standard of elite football has been increasing is impossible to say. I would say he is the greatest up to this point in time but I can't predict the future so I cannot say if he is the greatest of all time.

I think this debate depends on how you define success. It could be economic success, it could be that you have found a great date, it could be that you are happy.

My opinion is that progress is success, and as long as you feel that you are progressing in some way then you are successful.

I disagree on the understanding that the American Dream is the idea that you can come from nothing and become a success.

I have a friend in Chicago who grew up in a poor area, his parents struggled to provide for the family of four. He couldn't afford to go to college and he wasn't good enough at sport to get his tuition paid for, so he decided to start his own business with his friend. After 9 years their company is now worth $80 million. That proves that the American Dream is still possible. I also happen to believe that the USA has the highest class mobility in the world, so this is not an isolated incident.

I don't believe there is anywhere else in the world right now where you would have the same chance to be a success, and based on that I believe that the American Dream is still alive.

Lots of Love,
A Brit

I'm not too sure on this one, I've gone with mixed because society, in general, has a collective understanding of morality and understands what is right and wrong. The only thing being that no matter how a society is set up there will be crime, even in lawless areas there will be a understanding of what you can and can't do. There will always be people who are going to break the rules. I think that in the better constructed societies there will most likely be less crime, but that is not how I interpret the question... I see the question more about the existence of crime rather than the rate.

They definitely increase the activity in your brain, but I'm not sure that its necessarily in a constructive way.

I think this question is very dependent on whether you see the glass half full or half empty. In the short term it can be terrible, grief and heartbreak are horrible feelings, but a necessary part of growing stronger in the long term.

My position is that I believe it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all because you can always learn from every experience... and as long as you take the right lessons from each situation then you will always be growing and becoming a better person.

Without tax the government has no money. The only reason I am not in the strongly agree category is because I don't believe that the current system is fair, specifically for lower income households. I like things such as sugar tax and higher taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol, that makes sense as sugar is causing an obesity pandemic and tobacco and alcohol are harmful so its trying to discourage their sale.

Being an atheist, this is a pretty straight forward choice... religion is dying out and people are living better lives than any civilisation in history. I don't think that is a direct effect of there being less religion but the increase in happiness is as a result of better science, and science and religion contradict each other frequently. For example: The Bible places an age of around 6000 years on the Earth, when science has proven it is at least a few billion years older than that.

Another point that I believe some religious folk would agree with (maybe the more relaxed followers) is that religion is more about the teachings and values than the idea of a God or other higher beings. Even as an atheist, I have many Christian values because I have lived in England my whole life and a lot of the generally accepted moral ideas for England came from Christian teachings.

So basically, if the question had been about religious values I would have been on the 'For' side, but because it specified "God" I am strongly against.

What's the point?

Clearly it has its negative effects, I've had a family member almost die due to alcohol. So from a health perspective it makes me think that maybe there's a case for alcohol to be illegal.

However, if it becomes illegal that means that drug related crime will rise and there are far more important things for the police to be dealing with. Look at how the Prohibition Era went in America: people just made their own alcohol... think about how much easier it is now to make a large network around illegal goods...