First Sean Penn and Now Perez Hilton.Gay people look it’s not always about you and gay marriage.
My question is: Why the hell is he even a judge in the first place?! Kelly Monaco, Kenan Thompson, and Holly Madison were bad enough but Perez Hilton being the judge of anything is beyond ridiculous (and I thought beauty pageants were trying to be taken seriously). Of course Perez Hilton is going to give a question about gay marriage- I knew that before he even opened his mouth. I don’t think Miss California should be criticized for her answer (although I believe it could of been articulated much better).
Anyways, to answer your question, anyone who feels passionately about one certain thing is always trying to start a debate about it because it is the only thing they know how to argue. All Sean Penn knows how to do is be ultra liberal, so he is going to push his liberal opinion on anyone who will listen. Neither man is the brightest crayon in the box so it makes them feel intelligent to push their views on everyone else. They thrive off the fact that people disagree with them. Not only that, they desperately want people to disagree with them in order to gain attention. People who moderately disagree with them (such as Miss California) are going to be slammed at the first chance they get. In my opinion, it’s all about self esteem- they desperately need to be validated.
I like Rudy and Ron, but today I got a pretty good impression of Thompson. Rudy is going to get the nomination anyway, so it’s important to support him throughout the whole process. He shall beat hillary billary.
That all the republicans except Ron Paul and mabey Hucklebee are liars and dangerous thinking people.
So, I’m working on a case for the Jan/Feb ‘09 LD topic, which is:
The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court to prosecute crimes against humanity.
However, I’m confused in a couple of places.
Does the resolution state that the International court would prosecute countries (e.g., saying the U.S. could submit to the court) that have committed crimes against humanity, or is it saying that the court would prosecute people who have committed crimes against humanity?
And,
Would crimes against humanity be violent crimes, like murder and rape? Or would they be crimes against large groups of people, such as mass genocide?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
You might also want to go to the American Bar Association website. Since the ABA and the U.S. Government were major players in early drafts of the treaty until the U.S. decided to walk away, they should have some information on it.
Basically, the purpose of the International Court is to handle criminal cases against individuals. (I don’t know how you could prosecute a country.) The jurisdiction includes things like genocide, war crimes, and other major human rights violations. Ordinary, civilian on civilian crimes are not in the jurisdiction of the court.
The reason for the change in the U.S. position was the fear that U.S. citizens could get referred to the court. When the court was originally discussed, nobody seriously considered the possibility of a referral against a major country but as it got closer folks realized that the more international conflicts that you were involved in the greater the chance that your civilian and military leadership could be referred for war crimes.
It is always nice when someone agrees with one of your questions/topics.
Although I find it a pleasing change when you are not always agreed with…do you?
I agree with most of the comments…I just feel that if users took a little more time to discuss other peoples views and not become abusive then the debate can go on with enjoyment to both parties.
If it is, it is only up to a point. It sets up an excellent dynamic, for healthy debate,
and then it goes and spoils it, with it’s ridiculous system of reporting/violations for things like "chatting???" and saying things that as few as 2 people can have removed, should they disagree with the poster. This aspect of it all spoils what would otherwise be an excellent site.
edit; That Ginger’s a real charmer, isn’t she?
i think that you need to join a club or something
Who do you think won the 2nd presidential debate? Obama or McCain?
In my opinion, Obama did.. by a landslide.
I have a debate tomorrow and i have to fight for the fact that junk food is a part of our diet. please give me pointers on why you think junk food is a part of our diet.
Remember the five food groups. Fats is one of them.
I believe both candidates agreed to two more debates before Penn; but have not seen them as yet publicized.
one is wednesday. don’t know about the other
I would like them to be real and they need to be appropriate to share in class.
Some Ideas??
i like the right to vote debate.
really any topic is ok, teenagers are pretty well informed these days. the war, health care,
or something fun like music.
This is a mock-up round of a debate concerning the morning lectures that start at 9:00AM. It turns out ti be more of a kritik, talking about these lectures lead to boredom, boredom leads to people playing GTA during lectures, and how that leads to overall anarchy.
Duration : 0:9:27
Read the rest of this entry »