I have done a ton of these and I haven't had one argument AGAINST incest or Hiroshima yet. Time to spike the old diet cola I think...
It is possible to present a logical argument justifying the bombing of Hiroshima. It's sort of surprising to me that so many people here seem shocked that anyone would even try. I guess it's a generational thing. ETA: (Not that I'm suggesting the arguments in these hits are logical. Just saying that if you're not a meth-addicted monkey, it's possible to present one.)
One of my exes was Japanese (not Japanese-American, but like a former native of Tokyo) and she asked me if I had cried when I read about Hiroshima -- I asked her if she had cried when she read about Nanjing. She reacted surprisingly poorly...
Oh yeah, I should have qualified that as insane and really disturbing affirmative responses. I gleefully click pass on any coherent argument, someone quoted low birth defects among siblings (?) as a reason for incest, and while suspect, that fit the rules just fine. I just feel that I missed a step where respondents were directed to answer in haiku format. Only ten more to go for my quota, woot!
I mostly pass any argument as long as it's on topic and mentions any argument that might be construed as being in one position or the other. Most of them are utterly insane, or usually written by an 11 year old (or both). I only fail stuff that is completely unrelated or have a series of insults.
I finally managed to make my avatar small enough to load the animated version. And now you can barely see what it is. Ah well... Giving up for now.
Question: Does cross-racial adoption have negative effects on the adopted child? Review the following argument: Title: I disagree with the statement. Body: Because, I as a child, feeling same with others child. we really need love in our life. we need love to grow up, to be a better person by advice our parents. The first non asinine response i've seen. This kids doing it right. haha
Forgive me for one more post on the debate hit but: Q: Should marijuana be legalized? A: No. cannibalism is a gateway.
LOL, this is the last one i'll post. Then i'm done. Question: Should women be allowed to serve in equal combat roles in armed forces? Review the following argument: Title: The argument that some women are physicaly capable of serving in combat and therefore should be allowed to is a fallacy. Body: I have the physical ability to rape and murder children but that does not mean I should be permitted to do so. putting women in combat roles alongside men will lead to numerous complications, including increased pregnancies, stds, favoritism, inequality arising from men trying to either protect or exploit women, women performing sexual favors to get out of work or punishment, not to mention women are more susceptible to infections and stress fractures.
Actually women are less vulnerable to infections than men, due to having more efficient immune systems. Women also tolerate sleep deprivation better. And starvation. And pain. All true, verifiable medical facts. (pretend you're hearing 'The More You Know' PSA theme music now)
Wow! I'll have to remember this one for my next random argument. Oh yeah? Well just because I have the physical ability to decapitate someone doesn't mean I should be permitted to do so! Priceless!!! I hope this doesn't end up as a resource for some poor debate team..
No entirely true. It depends on the type of infection. Obviously woman are more susceptible to UTI's than men.