Argue FOR something that you are typically AGAINST.

Undone · 10-13-2002, 02:58 AM

So many crimes are dependent on drug usage that I think more should be done to make sure that users and sellers get more punishment. Instead of tax dollars being wasted on treatment of individuals who are potentially dangerous to society, I believe that the three strikes format of justice is appropriate.

10-13-2002, 03:08 AM

When you give tax breaks to the wealthy, you give more capital for them to invest in their companies, enabling more jobs and higher salaries. Besides, it's not fair to take away money from people who worked very hard to earn it.

Samsa · 10-13-2002, 03:10 AM

i want 2 sex u up u sexy bitch i am so hot 4 u

10-13-2002, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
i want 2 sex u up u sexy bitch i am so hot 4 u

?

Skye · 10-13-2002, 03:16 AM

It is women's biological role to bear children. An unexpected pregnancy is God's will and must be accepted as such.

jared · 10-13-2002, 03:16 AM

every movie should be pg 13 so it will gross more money

Samsa · 10-13-2002, 03:16 AM

i dunno sorta sleepy sorry. ummm. somethin i'm against...

man recylcin is fucking stupid no one wants 2 recycle who cares the earth is here to use i love waste dumps recycled products are nasty and cost money

10-13-2002, 03:26 AM

The drinking age in this country should be lowered to 16 because if American teenagers are by far some of the most responsible, mature individuals on the face of the planet.

I mean if that was ever in doubt, just take a look at Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. These were two outstanding American teenagers who even carried day-planners to school on that fateful day at Columbine.

But by far the biggest reason that the drinking age should be lowered to 16 is that the roads would be much safer. If all 16-year olds had unlimited access to beer, I would relish the thought of driving on a Friday or Saturday night.

10-13-2002, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
The drinking age in this country should be lowered to 16 because if American teenagers are by far some of the most responsible, mature individuals on the face of the planet.

I mean if that was ever in doubt, just take a look at Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. These were two outstanding American teenagers who even carried day-planners to school on that fateful day at Columbine.

But by far the biggest reason that the drinking age should be lowered to 16 is that the roads would be much safer. If all 16-year olds had unlimited access to beer, I would relish the thought of driving on a Friday or Saturday night.

I think you missed the point of the excercise, Mr. Clever.

10-13-2002, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros

I think you missed the point of the excercise, Mr. Clever.

Actually, I think you missed the point Mr. Sandberg.

I argued for lowering the drinking age to 16, which is something I staunchly oppose.

My argument was no more tongue-in-cheek than that dipshit who posted the argument about 3 Strikes and Your Out being a good law to apply to drug offenses.

If I really did miss the point of the exercise sir, I'd be glad to try again.

10-13-2002, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
My argument was no more tongue-in-cheek than that dipshit who posted the argument about 3 Strikes and Your Out being a good law to apply to drug offenses.

If I really did miss the point of the exercise sir, I'd be glad to try again.

Well since she started the post, I think she knows more about what was intended than you do.

10-13-2002, 03:43 AM

Sandberg, what are you getting at?

Undone obviously knows what she meant in starting the post. The obvious assumption is that when she said to make an argument for something you are normally against, she meant to form an arugment for something you are normally against. Right?

So, seriously, how did my post fail to conform to the standard she set by making an argument for something she is normally against.

Her argument was pretty weak. But it was funny as hell. It was tongue-in-cheek. Yours was also funny. It was tongue-in-cheek.

How was my post not an argument for something I am against?

KrazeeStacee · 10-13-2002, 04:02 AM

There is nothing wrong with close minded and biased people, they---

I can't do this, its just not working.

tear stained glass · 10-13-2002, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazeePumpkin
There is nothing wrong with close minded and biased people, they---

I can't do this, its just not working.

NOW WHO'S BEING CLOSE-MINDED AND BIASED, HUH????

KrazeeStacee · 10-13-2002, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tear stained glass
NOW WHO'S BEING CLOSE-MINDED AND BIASED, HUH????

lol, nice.

10-13-2002, 04:12 AM

George Lucas' Star Wars "prequels" (The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones) are just degrading the memory of the original trilogy. There is no need to explain the backstory - not seeing it added to the mythic quality of the original films. Also since these prequels are drenched in digital FX it totally negates any stylistic continuity between the two films. The end result is that these "prequels" are just a big cash cow to rape the childhood memories of many Star Wars fans.

(PS - this is how deep I am. I'm really shallow. sorry.)

hellothere · 10-13-2002, 04:47 AM

I believe that when there is a threat to our country and we feel the need to use force we should protest. That only makes sense. I mean I would rather get gassed by biological weapons or blown up then try to find the people that have done this and take them away from power. I mean what we should do is compare every military campaign that we try to Vietnam. This way we have a chance of getting heard. If I compare every campaign to Vietnam and one takes a long time then eventually I wll be right. I wil protest and be for human rights blah blah blah. Man I can not even argue the other side...............

10-13-2002, 06:37 AM

We need to abolish the death penalty in this facist country of ours, because it is cruel and unusual punishment.

What kind of society do we live in where we cut short the lives of convicted murderes before their prime.

What kind of message does it send to people when we execute convicted murderers. This could not possibly have any deterrence value on society at large.

Even if someone murders say 168 innocent people - that person does not deserve to be executed because he is a human too, and there is doubtfully such a thing as free will.

The death penalty is just plain wrong. If you don't see that, you are a sadistic fool.

Samsa · 10-13-2002, 06:42 AM

because even convictedmurderers have souls or conscious beings that you more or less destroy when you kill them. and. i don't know. there's that saying that when you take a life you destroy a world. you're destroying a universe when you kill someone. you're killing a soul. that's why it's wrong.

10-13-2002, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
because even convictedmurderers have souls or conscious beings that you more or less destroy when you kill them. and. i don't know. there's that saying that when you take a life you destroy a world. you're destroying a universe when you kill someone. you're killing a soul. that's why it's wrong.

At the risk of sounding like Rhino, I thought the point of this thread was too argue for something you against. Your response did not meet that criteria.

At the risk of starting a flame war, that paragraph you just wrote sounds a little too idealistic considering the world we live in today.

So Tim McVeigh destroyed 168 universes. At that point, why does it matter if we kill his soul. And does someone like that truly have a soul?

How can you have a soul and yet commit pre-meditated murder?

If you do have a soul and commit such a heinous act then I have no problem killing your soul.

To me the best argument against the death penalty is the fact that it is disproportionately given to indigents and minorities.

Also, the possiblity that an innocent person recieves the death penalty is pretty frighteneing.

This is a decisoin for the people of each state to make. If the Supreme Court takes away the right for states to make that decision it will be the worst decision since Roe v. Wade.

Not that I'm against abortion rights, just that I think the Court's reasoning was bullshit in Roe - there's no constitutional right to an abortion and it should be up to states to decide such important matters like abortion and death penalty.

Samsa · 10-13-2002, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces

At the risk of sounding like Rhino, I thought the point of this thread was too argue for something you against. Your response did not meet that criteria.

At the risk of starting a flame war, that paragraph you just wrote sounds a little too idealistic considering the world we live in today.

So Tim McVeigh destroyed 168 universes. At that point, why does it matter if we kill his soul. And does someone like that truly have a soul?

How can you have a soul and yet commit pre-meditated murder?

If you do have a soul and commit such a heinous act then I have no problem killing your soul.

To me the best argument against the death penalty is the fact that it is disproportionately given to indigents and minorities.

Also, the possiblity that an innocent person recieves the death penalty is pretty frighteneing.

This is a decisoin for the people of each state to make. If the Supreme Court takes away the right for states to make that decision it will be the worst decision since Roe v. Wade.

Not that I'm against abortion rights, just that I think the Court's reasoning was bullshit in Roe - there's no constitutional right to an abortion and it should be up to states to decide such important matters like abortion and death penalty.

it's. you're thinking of soul in a strict sense. i don't know if it's like religious or if it survives the body. i mean i guess i try to not know but i think in reality i'm horribly pessimistic and deep down believe the soul dies with the body. and yeah. people have souls like. serial killers. i guess that's why they scare me so much because i seriously doubt they have a 'soul' whatever that is, htey seem lik ea vacuum or a soul-sucker or vampire or something

but timothy mcveigh had a soul. i can't. i know it sounds crazy. believe me. i know how neurotic it is and weird it is to like be more upset over him than 168 people . but part of the beign upset over him is being upset over what he did, which was the horrendous murder of 168 people. it's. i don't know. http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...109478,00.html

it's just. i don't know. it's a person and how can you kill a person? vengeance is just ridiculous. your whole reasoning relies on vengeance and vengeance is animalistic and completely irrational and not necessary. how can you kill a person? that's all. what fucks it up is. i wish i knew more about the inner workings of serial killers. they seem so empty and even without a past but. yeah. i wonder.

10-13-2002, 07:18 AM

Then you should read one or more of the many wonderful books that have been written about the inner workings of serial killers.

I've always been fascinated with how they could do such horrific things to their fellow human beings. At least I've been fascinated with this since high school. The sicker their crimes, the more it fascinates me. Not because I'm sort of sicko (I hope) but becomes the sicker the crime, the more unimaginable the thought process of these people.

I can't think of titles of books, but there are several out there.

Samsa · 10-13-2002, 07:22 AM

i don't want to. it would turn me into a nihilist in a second. or. i dont know. maybe some people are born without souls

Undone · 10-13-2002, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros

Well since she started the post, I think she knows more about what was intended than you do.

I'm afraid Rhino's got more of the idea Ace --of course sarcasm is encouraged on Netphoria, but in this post I thought the argument should be stated perfectly seriously as if assuming another role. Then it would have been really cool if someone that actually DID believe that argument, or something similar to it, argued against that person's post. For example, if slunk made a post arguing for a first strike of Iraq, and the Omega Concern argued against it. But I guess I should have said that in the first place.

Undone · 10-13-2002, 05:22 PM

Also, I should have emphasized that research would typically be a good part of this thread. I know I honestly don't understand the drug war and guess I should try to "know thy enemy". Another thing that should be interesting is the perception of what "the other side" thinks about your issue. For example, although hellothere totally fucked up the post by using such predictable and overbearing sarcasm, he/she is showing his/her perceptions of the anti-war movements.

10-13-2002, 02:58 AM	#1
Undone Apocalyptic Poster Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,335	Argue FOR something that you are typically AGAINST. So many crimes are dependent on drug usage that I think more should be done to make sure that users and sellers get more punishment. Instead of tax dollars being wasted on treatment of individuals who are potentially dangerous to society, I believe that the three strikes format of justice is appropriate.

10-13-2002, 03:08 AM	#2
Mr. Rhinoceros Posts: n/a	When you give tax breaks to the wealthy, you give more capital for them to invest in their companies, enabling more jobs and higher salaries. Besides, it's not fair to take away money from people who worked very hard to earn it.

10-13-2002, 03:10 AM	#3
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	i want 2 sex u up u sexy bitch i am so hot 4 u

10-13-2002, 03:16 AM	#5
Skye Demi-God Location: Thetford Mines, Quebec Posts: 379	It is women's biological role to bear children. An unexpected pregnancy is God's will and must be accepted as such.

10-13-2002, 03:16 AM	#6
jared Apocalyptic Poster Location: sacramento, ca, usa Posts: 2,193	every movie should be pg 13 so it will gross more money

10-13-2002, 03:26 AM	#8
Boner Posts: n/a	The drinking age in this country should be lowered to 16 because if American teenagers are by far some of the most responsible, mature individuals on the face of the planet. I mean if that was ever in doubt, just take a look at Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. These were two outstanding American teenagers who even carried day-planners to school on that fateful day at Columbine. But by far the biggest reason that the drinking age should be lowered to 16 is that the roads would be much safer. If all 16-year olds had unlimited access to beer, I would relish the thought of driving on a Friday or Saturday night.

10-13-2002, 03:43 AM	#12
Boner Posts: n/a	Sandberg, what are you getting at? Undone obviously knows what she meant in starting the post. The obvious assumption is that when she said to make an argument for something you are normally against, she meant to form an arugment for something you are normally against. Right? So, seriously, how did my post fail to conform to the standard she set by making an argument for something she is normally against. Her argument was pretty weak. But it was funny as hell. It was tongue-in-cheek. Yours was also funny. It was tongue-in-cheek. How was my post not an argument for something I am against?

10-13-2002, 04:02 AM	#13
KrazeeStacee Immortal Location: Sherwood Forest Posts: 21,296	There is nothing wrong with close minded and biased people, they--- I can't do this, its just not working.

10-13-2002, 04:12 AM	#16
Ugly Posts: n/a	George Lucas' Star Wars "prequels" (The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones) are just degrading the memory of the original trilogy. There is no need to explain the backstory - not seeing it added to the mythic quality of the original films. Also since these prequels are drenched in digital FX it totally negates any stylistic continuity between the two films. The end result is that these "prequels" are just a big cash cow to rape the childhood memories of many Star Wars fans. (PS - this is how deep I am. I'm really shallow. sorry.)

10-13-2002, 04:47 AM	#17
hellothere Amish Rake Fighter Location: San Diego Posts: 3	I believe that when there is a threat to our country and we feel the need to use force we should protest. That only makes sense. I mean I would rather get gassed by biological weapons or blown up then try to find the people that have done this and take them away from power. I mean what we should do is compare every military campaign that we try to Vietnam. This way we have a chance of getting heard. If I compare every campaign to Vietnam and one takes a long time then eventually I wll be right. I wil protest and be for human rights blah blah blah. Man I can not even argue the other side...............

10-13-2002, 06:37 AM	#18
Boner Posts: n/a	We need to abolish the death penalty in this facist country of ours, because it is cruel and unusual punishment. What kind of society do we live in where we cut short the lives of convicted murderes before their prime. What kind of message does it send to people when we execute convicted murderers. This could not possibly have any deterrence value on society at large. Even if someone murders say 168 innocent people - that person does not deserve to be executed because he is a human too, and there is doubtfully such a thing as free will. The death penalty is just plain wrong. If you don't see that, you are a sadistic fool.

10-13-2002, 06:42 AM	#19
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	because even convictedmurderers have souls or conscious beings that you more or less destroy when you kill them. and. i don't know. there's that saying that when you take a life you destroy a world. you're destroying a universe when you kill someone. you're killing a soul. that's why it's wrong.

10-13-2002, 07:18 AM	#22
Boner Posts: n/a	Then you should read one or more of the many wonderful books that have been written about the inner workings of serial killers. I've always been fascinated with how they could do such horrific things to their fellow human beings. At least I've been fascinated with this since high school. The sicker their crimes, the more it fascinates me. Not because I'm sort of sicko (I hope) but becomes the sicker the crime, the more unimaginable the thought process of these people. I can't think of titles of books, but there are several out there.

10-13-2002, 07:22 AM	#23
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	i don't want to. it would turn me into a nihilist in a second. or. i dont know. maybe some people are born without souls

10-13-2002, 05:22 PM	#25
Undone Apocalyptic Poster Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,335	Also, I should have emphasized that research would typically be a good part of this thread. I know I honestly don't understand the drug war and guess I should try to "know thy enemy". Another thing that should be interesting is the perception of what "the other side" thinks about your issue. For example, although hellothere totally fucked up the post by using such predictable and overbearing sarcasm, he/she is showing his/her perceptions of the anti-war movements.