There actually have been studies about this whether or not it causes violence. People have linked school shootings, bombing(attempted and successful), and other related shootings to violent video games. I actually had/continuing to have a debate similar to this very topic. Check it out if your serious about this. Just so you know the percentile of people playing violent games is 97% of America's male population. I'll let you decide if you think this a good or bad influence on how people act. I also have played these M games. Guilty. This also gives an interesting insight. I know that one of the main defenses for video games is that its not safe to play outside anymore and that it is a social activity. I also know first hand that video games are/can be addicting psychologically and studies have been made to prove it. Look it up if your curious. Personally, I find all these defenses of video games as people trying to find a good reason for something they know can be/is bad but can't think of anything better. I mean seriously. Apart from the fact that you can talk and play with friends what redeeming value do video games have? Almost all M games are M because they are violent and provocative. I don't think this is something good for people to be "learning" about. There are many other things way more redeeming than video games. I know I am preaching to the converted but just think about it. I mean no offense to anyone, just to voice my opinion.
Oh heck no! Allowing people to have guns on campus is like going to Syria and saying go ahead and use chemical weapons. Its asking for more trouble than necessary. There would not just be one kid who brings a gun, starts shooting, and gets killed by one of the guys who brought a concealed weapon because it is now allowed. No, this would turn into full on gang wars between people with more shootouts than ever seen in history. Yes, there may be schools exempt but that IS the analogy for asking for bad things. "Lets put a bunch of people in a certain area and allow all of them to carry concealed weapons." That just SOUNDS bad let alone when it actually happens and half of the school just got killed because no one knew who the one actually trying to kill them is and just start shooting. A bunch of panicking people with guns, one who wants to kill them ad no one knows for sure who it is. Sounds like the mafia game gone real life situation. Now while, yes, it would be nice if people would not panic and not just shoot who they think it might be. The sad reality is that people DO panic and they are human. We can't change that. I consider myself optimistic but you also have to be realistic. This is one of those things where it would be nice if we could but it shouldn't while humans are still imperfect. A good compromise would be to have increased security training, staff, and maybe even build the police stations closer to the schools
I would have to say that it would depend but as a general rule, yes. There could be certain circumstances where wild allegations are made and discredit a company which should not be okay. On the other hand, we all have the constitutional right to free speech so in general, we should be allowing it. There are exceptions but that is the case with all rules and so we must focus on the main idea.
Investing is risky, but it may be worth it. I personally would not because of the fact that Obama is at the helm and I have no faith in him keeping us afloat as we are going to be losing 14 billion in GDP every year for the next 14 years because of his reforms but in a more economic sense now would be the make it or break it point. Either invest now and see your returns from the economic recovery or you will lose it all if the economy cannot recover and tanks again.
Isis is Pro and Al-Qaeda is Con. I am going to go with ISIS. They are much more radical than the Al-Qaeda but just with fewer resources and less ability to directly attack the United State. While 9/11 was Al-Qaeda they were merely the ones with the ability to do it. If ISIS had the chance they would start launching nukes just to kill of the U.S.
I go for Capitalism only because it says "most". The actually most just is pure Socialism, but as that is impossible to implement for several reasons, Capitalism is the next best choice. It allows for a middle class to exist as well as upper and lower. Socialism in practice results in a very small elite and almost everyone else as lower class. While in Capitalism there is still a lower class, it is far better in Capitalism as it actually possible to reach middle or even upper class. Position in life is not mandated by government, but controlled by you and those around you who are affected in the same way, as in by you and others. Looking at the American system, it is a mix of Socialist and Capitalist ideals and is what makes it so unique. As of the last couple decades, we've become more and more Socialist to try and fix the downfalls of Capitalism, and while still far from perfect, it is better than any other system so far.
This would be awesome I know some people have already done this but through a complicated set of separate debates that require judges to go through 3 different ones just to vote on a separate fourth. Having an actual template for team debates would be awesome. Being able to debate as a sport online would be pretty awesome. I said awesome 4 times now. AWESOME
I still want guns but automatics are too far. Guns are great. They are for protection, hunting, and just for fun. Now you can do all of these things without automatic weapons. As the other side said, criminals use automatic weapons. They have no other real needed use besides to kill people or cause fear. If only criminals had automatics then finding the criminals is much easier. We do not NEED automatics.
I am a guy and believe that girls should be able to play the same sports as men. Girls who want to play football should have a pretty good idea of what they are getting into. The only problem I would see with football is that even in the movie Blindside (great movie; if you have not seen it, you are not living) the coach tells him, well, yells at him, that you hold him right at his nipples. See where that could be a problem if a girl is on the boys team? That would lead to many a lawsuit after about sexual harassment and that would suck for both parties involved. Now, a good split down the middle would be to make girls teams which I believe they already do. Anyway, if there is not a team, why not start it?
Free speech should be responded to, but violence is never the answer to such. Answering someone's free speech with violence is only throwing gasoline on an already burning fire. It will only cause more problems and escalate the level of antagonism. To answer free speech with violence in a governmental sense, it would depend on such free speech I suppose. If a dude walks around the street cursing at everyone driving by then that is when you arrest him. Even in this case, however, the "violence" is saved to paid pros.