- 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.
I say no because for one we wouldn't know what the government would consider suspicious and even if we as people and the government find a way to set a standard of suspicious who says they will keep their word?
And than even if a person looks suspicious who says that they are doing anything of harm to dome one or anything.
It is better to be fatherless than to have a father because than if you did have the father and he never really did, or help you in any way, you would hate him forever. While being fatherless you have the liberty to think if he was alive he would do this for me, expect this out of me, this would be something he would be proud of, and you might end up doing as you think he wants.
Other wise you might see his face and he might be watching television and you look at him in disgust, ad say thing like you are you my father? What wrong have I done to you that you treat me this way? You are always here and yet you do nothing for anyone but yourself.
It would be better than to be fatherless that way you are able to say this is what he would do for us.
Yes, because who knows if they will turn on you and than one night that you less expect it they will try to kill you because its on their mind that you know the truth and the truth cant get out and they need to get rid of all types of clues even of those they love just incase they try to talk to someone.
I say the common good because of the type of forces that you can make as a whole group. like that person that says that by not voting they are not making a difference and when you look at the whole the population or percentage is bigger than of those who did vote. So if you want a good to be down and win you need more than yourself to win by looking for others with the same views.
I say that Shakespeare’s work shouldn’t be continued in high schools because for one the type of writing is an older version in which students these days are not familiar with any more and when his stories are read not even the third of the reading makes sense to the students and teachers have to take a few extra hours of teaching to explain just for students to get a very huge view of what the story is shaping out to be in their heads. another point is langrage the thou and thy and all the term analogy that Shakespeare used in the time was used and now that same type of writing or speaking doesn’t make sense to people anymore and withal these new words that teenagers come up with it will only get harder for them to understand the true meaning of the text.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!