|
|
Most Recent Comment on Debate Response |
|
I think you need to go to contact us at the bottom of the page and ask how to do it. I did this last week and was helped to move my question. read more...
|
on 24 Jan 2008 21:54:48 |
|
|
|
Most Recent Debate Response |
|
The debate is interesting as both are based on legal issues and law breaking.
Which has the most effect on society?
I... read more...
|
on 27 Jan 2008 16:55:51 |
|
|
 |
|
Sophie1's Best Debate Response |
|
I tend to agree that marriage is outdated in today's modern society. I don't think that we should have yearly options but a secure legal framework for unmarried couples to protect them any any children... read more...
|
on 09 Jan 2008 13:19:02 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
| 1. |
The debate is interesting as both are based on legal issues and law breaking.
Which has the most effect on society?
I think that probably the question of illegal immigrants is more problematic as it effects more areas of life and society.
Illegal immigrants cost the country a lot of money but without figures it's difficult to say how much compared with evasion of car tax.
Pressure is put on the job market, social services and tensions are strained within society.
Car tax evasion is wrong and does have many associated problems. Many uninsured drivers are illegal and under age. Many accidents are caused by those who evade their payments and innocent people are penalised.
For the effect on society and the economy overall, I believe that illegal immigration is the more serious issue here. read more... |
| |
27 Jan 2008 16:55:51
|
|
|
| 2. |
Britain already has a well defined attitude towards citizenship.
In America it seems to be much more controlling and creates a false view of what it is to be a citizen.
It's probably a good idea to have more information and even courses for incomers to Britain to help them understand our culture and language but flags in the classroom and false sentimentality wouldn't work here.
We also have the question of Northern Ireland which is why I presume the header says Britain not UK.
The indigenous Irish for example have their own issues regarding their culture and place in the UK and this couldn't work for them Viv a vis the rest of the UK, nor should we expect it too.
Agreed that America is an example to avoided as in reality it doesn't work there either in the positive way the image is portrayed to the outside world. read more... |
| |
27 Jan 2008 16:45:32
|
|
|
| 3. |
I believe that all children should be wanted and planned but I don't think that forcing people not to have them can work.
How would the forcing them work?
One way would be compulsory sterilisation which is contrary to human rights. Any society that introduces enforced sterilisation is bordering on something dangerous.
It needs to be asked; who would make the rules and implement them? In the wrong hands this sort of legislation is very dangerous and repressive.
Agreed that people shouldn't have children they can't feed or love but to force them not to is another issue.
People need educating and better opportunities not institutionalised enforcement which then leads to other repressive methods in other areas of life. read more... |
| |
27 Jan 2008 16:36:03
|
|
|
| 4. |
No the death penalty isn't necessary at all.
It's necessary to make sure we never re-introduce it in Britain.
There's no evidence that having a death penalty stops people from committing crimes. Countries like America, China and Russia have the death penalty and still have high crime rates.
There's always a risk that an innocent person will die by mistake and that makes capital punishment wrong.
It's morally wrong to take even a criminals life. I can see why people who have suffered have argued for the death sentence but that's not a reason to implement it. Like any other form of punishment , capital punishment can be abused and has been.
Capital punishment can't be compared with real necessities such as food, water, warmth, light and heat. These are the things that are necessary for life the death penalty isn't. read more... |
| |
24 Jan 2008 21:49:17
|
|
|
| 5. |
It can never be morally defensible to kill one innocent person.
The fact that that person is innocent and in this case was clearly so rests the case against killing them.
The other people here had to choice not to riot and accept the law. If they chose not to they should have taken the consequences of their own actions.
The sheriff acted wrongly and should have upheld the law as he was sworn to do. He had no right to break the law and pander to the mob.
Mob rule is illegal in any country and should be treated as such and dealt with.
This case was a terrible example of the state laws of the US and should have been dealt with by the federal government and taken out of the hands of the state.
No-one should ever be used and sacrificed like this. read more... |
| |
24 Jan 2008 21:41:21
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
hi there... how are you?
|
by xtaz4evax on 07 May 2008 13:58:26 |
| You can shout at him/her, if you log in/register. |
|
 |
|