- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
No, I don't think that the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, because whose to decide what is and what isn't suspicious. Just because someone acts suspicious doesn't mean that they are going to end up being guilty of something. Most individuals who have gotten to the point where they are professionals at doing whatever they do, don't act suspicious at all. They normally know how to handle situations to where they seem as if they are innocent. So, just because someone is acting suspicious doesn't mean that they should be monitored.
I believe that is it better to have a lousy father than it is to be fatherless. I know from personal experience how it is to have a lousy father and no matter how much I dislike him sometimes for the things he does and doesn't do, he is still my dad and when I was younger and needed to be nurtured more so than I do now I needed him in my life. Without him I wouldn't be the person I am today, I wouldn't be able to better myself so that I don't become a lousy parent like he has. If I hadn't had a father at all, how would I know what to look for in a man so that I may find one who will be a worthwhile father to my children?
With out him I might make the decision of marrying or raising my child with someone who isn't going to actually help me raise them. Yes it may be a little harder on the mother having to support one more person, but her child will develop differently than one who lived in a household who had no father. It might shape how they show their emotions. They might be more in touch with some different or less than someone who had a father, even if he was a lousy father.
I always say it is better to have loved and lost, than to have not loved at all. No matter how lousy my father is, I still love him and that will never change.
Yes, I would turn my spouse in. Who is to say that if they killed once that they wont kill again. Who is to say that you aren't there next target. If they were to ever become paranoid about being caught they might just blow out your brains because paranoia makes you do crazy things. It would be hard to turn them in because you have a deep connection with your spouse but it's something you have to do for your own safety.
Most people will say that they would prefer to advance the common good, but if you think about it. Even if you are doing something for the common good, you are still doing it for personal pursuit. You are part of the "common" good. Even if you make something better for a town, if you live in that town you are making it better for yourself, thus making your original action of advancing the common good become a personal pursuit. There is no better endeavor, because either way you are helping yourself, although if its for the common good you are also able to help others advance, not necessarily in the same way you do but, in a similar way. If its for a personal pursuit you may not help others, and yes you get the better things, but if your house is nicer or your job is better, you may not be thinking about bettering the education of others. You can better yours by getting a personal tutor but, you may not be able to afford a tutor for your children so why not just better the education system for everyone so that the world can become "a better place."
I agree with this statement. I believe that it is saying that you have the freedom to react. If nothing is done to you, then you can't react and if something is done to you then you most likely will have a reaction to their action. Therefore you have the freedom to do with what has been done to you.
If I were voting I would vote for McCain. I think they both have very good arguments, and they want to do great things for the country. But Obama is probably going to be majorally voted for because of his race, not because of his views on the education system.
I feel that it is better to be well respected than the be wealthy. Even though being wealthy may earn you some respect but you have to think about it. If you lost all your money and became a middle class citizen or poor, are the people who were around you, that you thought respected you do you think that they will be there. Most of the time they wont. But if you are just all around well respected and you are poor or even a middle class citizen, at least you don't have to worry about people going around behind your back and trying to take your money, like some one is wealthy. No one can take your respect, like they can take your money.
I feel that it is better to be feared than loved, because even though you are loved you can be double crossed and hurt. If people are scared of you they wont even think about double crossing you. If you love you set yourself up to be hurt. If you are feared then people are feared than you wont get hurt.
I don't think that the surveillance is needed, No one actually sits in a room all day and watches the monitors to make sure nothing happens. If someone was actually watching the us all the time during the school day so that they could stop stuff from happening then the level of surveillance that we have would be acceptable. I can understand them having some security cameras around the school to make sure no one stays in the school after everyone else leaves, but the possibility of that happening is highly improbable. So the level of surveillance isn't needed.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!