argument argue about share argue how
argue for

pros and cons   against

Highest Reputation   Most Comments   Most Cred
elwoodlaw (83.67)
Krista17 (78)
spazol (74)
Katzwinkel (69.39)
juszczak (68.66)
Buscia (65.31)
DClary (65.15)
egorz13 (63.54)
mynameismac (62.24)
lunaras (62.24)
Katzwinkel (133)
allonzo1 (61)
Uklamok (56)
froggerus (53)
blaiselukasiewicz (53)
juszczak (51)
otm_shank (40)
JackCNewell (39)
egorz13 (35)
spazol (33)
Newest Comments (all)   Highest Reputation (all)   Random Comments
An argument against

Since i am a solo practitioner and do not have daily contact with a group of spirited professionals, i do not have an outlet for my questions and comments about today's events. So, after all of these years, i'm back. one recent event was such an affront to me that i needed to ask a question about leadership. Perhaps one of the most studied and analyzed personal ability or trait is leadership. So, i will not make an attempt in this posting to define it. All i want to do is to ask a question. This question is not framed to discuss the merits of any topic other than leadership. The question simply is directed at discussing leadership and the lack thereof. For the purpose of adding framework to the discussion, i suggest that leadership is like visible light. it is not good or bad. it is just either there or it is not. a person, on the other hand, can be a good leader or a poor leader.

President Obama campaigned on the issue of ending the war in Iraq. after it was ended, the President was recorded on video countless times saying two particular statements. the first was, "i promised i would end the war and i did." the second was, "For the first time in over a decade there are no US troops in Iraq." He elicited resounding cheers from the crowds after making these statements.

over the past weekend, President Obama said that he was puzzled by all of the questions about the removal of all troops from Iraq. he went on to say,"it was not my decision to take the troops out of Iraq." he basically then said that he was simply following through on commitments made prior to his entering the office."

Remember my argument has nothing to do with the wisdom of any events in Iraq. I am simply asking if the President is exhibiting leadership of a lack thereof. i chose against because i believe that the President has exhibited no leadership with this statement, and that he is a poor leader.
by allonzo1

An argument for
i heard that can get you a job faster than

i heard that is the worlds largest resume search engine
by isoldmydomains

An argument for

I hated reading it in school, at first. But then I got into it and it was a really good book, and very scary. I forget when he wrote the book, like 1920 something? And he predicted, or told, a story about a lot of things that happen today... which is scary, like I already stated, but overall, a good book. The ending wasn't all that great though, but it didn't leave me hanging for a sequel, so that's good.
by crocodileman88

An argument against
Admit it Liberals. Sara Palin is a smart women. You don't like her, and you are just afraid of her.

Sarah Palin is RETARDED and the only reason conservatives like her is because she likes to shoot guns, she is for guns, she shoots animals and is for homeland defense. I'm for all of those things, and I have liberal views. Another reason she is stupid is because she is rallying all these conservatives and giving them the idea that guns are the way to go no matter what. Not reall. So if you don't get your way, you're going to pull out a gun and intimidate people? Yeah, real brave.
by crocodileman88

An argument for
The Legalization of Marijuana

Notice how noone on this topic has gone against the legalization of mariijuana? That is a good thing, because marijuana is not a dangerous thing. No study has ever shown that someone has died solely by marijuana. Related deaths to marijuana have other drugs mixed in or alcohol. (Which is an intense experience by the way.) Anyways, if marijuana were to be legal, we could tax it, but that's definitely not the issue here. The issue we face is having all these people locked up in jail for having a little bit of a natural plant in their pocket. Wow. If that's the case, would you arrest someone if they started picking dandelions? You can make wine out of dandelions, why aren't they illegal? Plus that's even more dangerous than stumbling upon a marijuana plant and saying "hey I think I'm going to try smoking this and seeing what happens. Or just buying it from somebody. Sure the effects are strong, but usually you get scared of driving or anything that can cause harm to you. Alot of people like to just relax and hang out and laugh and have a good time. Good job, government, you have made something illegal that is harmless. Maybe you should take a look at those dandelions eh? Here is a recipe for dandelion wine. Wow anyone can make it and get drunk? That's pretty stupid if you are letting anybody go through with this. Point is: Legalize weed, and focus on something more important like, say, the economy?

by crocodileman88

An argument


An argument


An argument


An argument


An argument


An argument against
Same Sex Marriage

Marriage benefits many groups such as individuals, religious people, and society. However, the question of how to define marriage should depend entirely on the benefits derived by society. Traditionally (all over the world and throughout history), marriage has been society's response to and provision for children and family. It defines the ideal relationship in which children are to be created and raised. Ideal for whom? Ideal for society. With the responsibility for caring for children placed squarely with a married couple the chances of ill effects for society decrease. Also, with that expectation in place there is (debatably) some deterrence effect for irresponsible reproduction.

There are many potential respones to the above.

-If you say that marriage has nothing to do with children, then I would ask you if all relationships provide the same, or any, benefit to society.
* If all relationships (hetero, homo, mulitple parties, incestual, etc.) provide the same benefit to society then why is society bothering to create special privileges or status for any of them. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove marriage altogther than to allow same sex marriage? Why spend any time on any of it if the benefits will happen regardless of the relationship a person embarks on?
* If not all relationships are equal, then what criteria would you use to permit marriage for some but not for others?

- If you say that not all marriages produce children, but yet we still allow them, then I would respond:
* You can't guarantee to catch anything when you go fishing, but you will certainly not catch a fish if you drop your line in the bathtub. Go fishing where the fish are. By fish I mean children, in case you were confused.
* The cost of the onerous invasion of privacy required to verify that children are produced or intended (not to mention the impossibility of such a task) would very much outweigh any benefit society gains by having marriage.

Ultimately, modern society doesn't care who you love, who you're committed to, or who you are having sex with. That doesn't mean, though, that society has to stop encouraging those relationships that provide benefit to all of us or that it has to encourage all relationships equally whether they provide a benefit or not. Is it a perfect system? No. I think it's still the best system though. I would also be in favor, in an individual rights/libertarian sort of way, in making it easier for people to direct the course of their lives (e.g. by being able to more easily direct who is to make decisions for them while they are incapacitated, better allowance for inheritance issues, hospital visitation).
by egorz13

An argument against
Plastic Baby Bottles

It's not a breast
by juszczak

An argument for

Facebook updates have helped Frogger strengthen his third-person writing skills.
by froggerus

An argument against

by froggerus

An argument for
The United States needs to devise a better strategy for dealing with terrorists

A really important issue to discuss. Thanks for bringing it up.

Just to provoke discussion, what is wrong with this definition? I pieced it together just from all notions of 'terrorist' in public discourse?

"A member of a group unaffiliated with any U.N.-recognized government or army who uses direct assaults on civilians (instead of soldiers) to invoke fear for use as a weapon for political ends."
by Krista17

argue   for
© 2009 13 Guys Named Ed, LLC   •   About   •   Feedback   •   Sitemap
against   argues