Pinned by moderator

David Coulter

Read Before Posting

Posts in this community must meet 3 simple requirements:

1. You need to present a debatable motion or question

2. You need to present your position on the topic

3. You need to provide support for your position (namely in the form of evidence or logic) Note: links to websites may be used as supporting evidence, but members must not be required to follow the link; you must (at very least) provide a synopsis of the information presented in the link. 

For additional rules and guidelines, please review the +READ ME FIRST++ section found here:

Thanks, and enjoy!
Jennifer McCrary's profile photoR.M. nalwade's profile photo

Brian Walters

General Debate  - 
I recently had a discussion with someone about CEO to Employee pay ratios.  It has always been my belief, to build a strong and profitable company, you have to manage from the Middle down and the Middle up.  The person on the Top makes all the big decisions, the people on the ground provide the facts and the “reality,” and the people in the middle develop an agreed upon plan of action, implement it and assure that it operates and adjusts to keep all parties happy and the company cash strong.

In an infographic I stumbled across today, Forbes top 100 of 2013 seem to back up my claim:

Fortune 100 sorted by Profit
Average CEO to employ pay ratio: 163 to 1
Average Employee pay compared to industry: 4% above
Average Profit:  $5,114.71
Average Employee Satisfaction: 69%

Top 10 
Average CEO to employ pay ratio: 249 to 1
Average Employee pay compared to industry: 7% above
Average Profit:  $22,143.70
Average Employee Satisfaction: 68%

Top 9 (minus Walmart) 
Average CEO to employ pay ratio: 162 to 1
Average Employee pay compared to industry: 8% above
Average Profit:  $22,859.78
Average Employee Satisfaction: 68%

Top 25 
Average CEO to employ pay ratio: 156 to 1
Average Employee pay compared to industry: 7% above
Average Profit:  $14,878.64
Average Employee Satisfaction: 68%

Top 50 
Average CEO to employ pay ratio: 189 to 1
Average Employee pay compared to industry: 6% above
Average Profit:  $9,571.65
Average Employee Satisfaction: 69%

Fortune 100 - Top 10 -Sorted by CEO Ratio
Average CEO to employ pay ratio: 497 to 1
Average Employee pay compared to industry: 2% above
Average Profit:  $6,435.11
Average Employee Satisfaction: 63%

Top 25 
Average CEO to employ pay ratio: 354 to 1
Average Employee pay compared to industry: 2% above
Average Profit:  $6,030.81
Average Employee Satisfaction: 69%

Top 50 
Average CEO to employ pay ratio: 254 to 1
Average Employee pay compared to industry: 3% above
Average Profit:  $ $4,703.77
Average Employee Satisfaction: 69%
We compared the CEO income of each Fortune 100 company to their average worker's salary to reveal who’s ratios are most extreme.
Brian Walters's profile photoJ. Randolph Steele's profile photo
+J. Randolph Steele baby steps.  Keep in mind that most of these companies are investor driving, so you do have to provide ROI.  This info, to me, shows that the money can be spread around and investors can still get plenty of that.  

The most interesting part of this was the profit average increase when Walmart's Duke's 1033 ratio, -1% employee pay, and 53% satisfaction was removed.    
Add a comment...
And gun restrictions are bad why?  While you're reading this article, know this about Utah:

Subject/Law                           Long guns Handguns
State permit to purchase?       No                 No
Private sales are legal. No waiting period.
Firearm registration?                No                 No
"Assault Weapons" law?         No                 No
Owner license required?           No                 No
Spring, Texas • A man who recently lived in Utah has been charged with killing four children and their parents was dressed as a delivery man when he forced his way into the family’s suburban Houston home and held the kids at gunpoint until their parents arrived, police said Thursday. A day after the slayings, investigators slowly built a picture of Ronald Lee Haskell, 33, who was the slain couple’s ...
Ken Johnson's profile photoEverett Anderson's profile photo
+Tim N The facts I cited appear in a chart in Wikipedia, but are verified by other sources. The Gun Ownership percentage by state numbers are from a nationwide survey conducted by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in North Carolina.

The gun murder rates are from the FBI.

The conclusion is obvious: States with higher rates of gun ownership do not have higher rates of gun murder.

Either provide evidence to the contrary or concede the point.
Add a comment...
While reading and commenting a a certain post over whether it not happiness is relative, I began to question whether or not human emotion is measurable. Some could say it is, such as Some could argue that it isn't- human emotion is complex, and often not very understandable. stated that it IS in fact quite possible to measure human emotion, and quite accurately, if we only developed the correct instruments to do so. They said, and I quote, "The key to measuring emotion is the ability to develop measurements based on solid knowledge of human psychology, physiology and evolution..."

We have now come to the opposing argument- that human emotions are too complex to be truly measured. When you feel sad, or angry, or mad, there if course usually is a reason behind it. Most humans, however (with the exception of those who don't believe in emotions), often find that there is also some inexplicable cause to the reason behind that feeling. Some could argue that it's simply the fact that the small portion of our brains that we use simply doesn't recognize the fact that emotions are somewhat linked to hormones and different glands in our bodies producing them. But even then- why?

I believe that human emotions CANNOT be TRULY measured... Only to a certain extent. After all, there is a line where no human or machine can cross, defining that which we as the human race will be able to understand, and that which will remain a secret of the world we live in.

François Knoppel's profile photoMireya Jones's profile photo
+Mireya Jones, this really depends on how you define 'human emotions'. These discussions tend to lead to one side claiming (or simply feeling) that the very measurable biochemical mediation of consciousness by hormones (etc.) aren't real emotions.

Usually that is just a no true Scotsman-fallacy (because no alternative sufficient definition of 'emotions' is provided), but you could make a case for it with a definition of emotions that includes the concept of 'experiencing'.

So instead of 'being in a state in which your behaviour is changed in a certain way' the definition would become 'experiencing a state in which your behaviour is changed in a certain way'.

Such a definition would  move the discussion into the realm of trying to objectively define qualia. Your belief that emotions cannot 'truly' be measured is quite natural in that realm. I highly suggest looking into discussions on qualia:

The discussion on how to measure perceived redness (for instance) is much simpler and cleaner than how to measure perceived emotions, yet the arguments are pretty much the same in both discussions. I believe that having an understanding of the distinction between {photons of a certain wavelength activating certain neurons} and {the experience of redness} is the biggest eye opener in these discussions.
Add a comment...
A national debate must be started on voluntary black money declaration scheme which helps nation a lot..
Amber Petchey's profile photoBrooke Levington's profile photo
+kpkumar kolakaleti Can you elaborate the topic ,,, I'm not clear  and   +Gerald Peace yes you are right ...
Add a comment...
I've had a recurring debate with a certain moderator who insists that the meaning of the word "atheist" can include people who accept the possibility there might be a god. He correctly cites that "theism" is defined as a belief in a god or gods, but then states that atheism means only that one doesn't necessarily believe. I argued that he has just given the definition of agnosticism, the position that one simply doesn't know whether God exists. He claims that there is such thing as an agnostic atheist, a hybridized phrase that he seems to feel is akin to "moderate conservative", or any other moderated position.

My opinion: I disagree. I have never heard anyone use the word atheist in any other way than the actual dictionary definition, which is "denial of, or disbelief in the existence of God".

If you deny the existence of a thing, you are saying it does not exist. Using the phrase "agnostic atheist" is equivocation. The phrase is not substantially different than the single word "agnostic". My opponent has retorted, "in case you didn't know, words can have more than one meaning". I find this to be disingenuous, at best. The implication that a word as specific and exclusive as "atheist" has multiple meanings is preposterous.

Atheists deny the existence of God, period. Agnostics consider themselves uncertain, or undecided. Atheists do not. Most atheists state flat out that there is no God, and the ones who deeply analyze the question conclude that the probability that God exists is so low as to be beneath consideration, utterly dismissable. In either case, they are affirmatively asserting non-existence.

My position is that if you believe there theoretically might be a god, you are agnostic, not atheist. Is there anyone out there who disagrees with that, other than the afore-mentioned moderator?
Alex Quirk's profile photoMichael McCarthy's profile photoRyan Scott's profile photo
Scientific consensus wouldn't do it, it's too loaded a conclusion, I have an interest in new testament history and religion has completely poisoned that field.

Personal revelation would probably do it, the revealing of very obscure but verifiable and useful knowledge, something like that. 
Add a comment...

Jason Reynolds

General Debate  - 
Is the internet making us stupid.

I claim that for the majority it is. It is to easy to find like minded people that will support you in any believe that you have no matter how crazy it is such as

Now I know that is an extreme, but even in this forum where we demand proof I constantly see people voicing outrageous concepts that are not supported by any know concepts.

I am not saying that it has to be this way, but why should I have to change my views when I can easily find others that support them is becoming the common call of the internet.

There are several studies on the internet that support just about anything you wish to believe. Most of these studies where done using bad statistical data from either a small group or a select group that supported the idea. They have take deductive reasoning and are trying to pass it off as inductive reasoning.

I truly believe the internet can be used to increase a persons intelligence and general knowledge. I have researched several ideas that I have seen on the internet and have developed my own conclusion from a wide source of facts. This has allowed me and other like me to learn more than we ever could without the internet.

I do believe the internet is causing people to have the ability to retain more information and to correlate ideas together easier, but the fact is we are not reaping the benefits from this the way we should. Instead we squander this new found aptitude on reinforcing false ideas.

Here is an article on the science behind how the internet affects our minds.
Larry Pepper's profile photoFrançois Knoppel's profile photo
+Jason Reynolds Reynolds.  I can agree in only a small portion of what you are saying.  Your examples might be correct in say, the Taylor Swift Community where everyone there Loves her and all agree almost everything she does is fantastic.  But your "Groupthink" idea does not follow in the "Versus" Community.  I personally have learned, (even if "facts" are not really "facts).......learning about how people with different ideas than mine think or believe.  The internet does give anyone reading these different ideas at least the knowledge of what people believe.....even if the "facts" are not really "facts".  I believe discussions, even in forums like "Versus" allows the reader to learn and become aware of various ideas good or bad.  THIS is not making the reader stupid.  The internet ultimately expands our knowledge of what others believe and then it is up to us to try to filter out the truth from the outrageous.    
Add a comment...

pm tang

General Debate  - 
A few day earlier, while I participate in a debate (see below), +Ed Zaleski states Google wields more power than many standalone nations as it controls information. If it continues to do so, it may qualify as its own virtual nation. I thought it is very interesting and I wonder indeed, can a virtual nation be form. Can Google or any other social media eventually become virtual nations? 
My thought is why not? The social media exist in virtual world, have virtual territories and followers. 
How Should Journalists/Bloggers Respond to the 'Right to be Forgotten'? There was a lot of concern when the European Court of Justice ruled that… - Levi Pinder - Google+
Millie Weston's profile photopm tang's profile photoVikkiRene Kittles's profile photoMatthew Strain's profile photo
pm tang
+Millie Weston internet is no different from the real world. They have the same people in them. The fact is, in internet, people thinks they can be whatever they can be and sometimes this can be scary. 
Add a comment...
I am currently particularly interested in the exhausted debate of nature vs nurture. This seems like an over discussed topic but I still feel like the diversity of arguments is compelling. Personally, I sway mostly toward nurture particularly because of the ideology 'in freedom we find sin'. For a more detailed argument check out my blog!!

Kind regards,
Conrad Polska's profile photoMillie Weston's profile photo
I believe the Jesuits, big on education, have a saying, "Give me the boy and I'll show you the man."  Here's one vote for nurture.
Add a comment...
My position, the greed and over consumption of convenient, cheap food among people of so called "developed" countries unfairly forces large groups of  people not only in "developing" countries but throughout the world into poverty. Competition within the food industry forces food prices down which in turn forces producers to reduce costs including labor costs to the point of forcing laborers into near and actual poverty. Higher food prices and regulation of the fast food industry could help reduce hunger and malnutrition in the world by increasing income among the people who produce and deliver food and reducing food waste.
Jason Reynolds's profile photoGalen McKibben's profile photoAlbert Margaux's profile photo
+everett sheets +Jason Reynolds There was a time when it made sense for the government to help build this country's capacity to produce food (agricultural subsidies) and develop energy and other resources (oil subsidies, mining subsidies). That time has passed. If producers had to carry the actual costs of production including fair labor costs and very real costs of consumed resources and damage to the environment, the prices of food and energy would go up substantially and the rate at which the rich are getting richer would go down. We are out of balance. Major contributors to the problems our economy faces are out-of-date policies which are kept in place because the rich and powerful have too much sway over politicians.

The issues are not as complicated as many would like to make them. Just look around. In the state where I live we are surrounded by super-fund sites. The owners of production who created the damage are long gone, taking their profits with them and leaving the mess behind for you and me to clean up with our tax dollars. The frackers are poisoning my water for their profit and our economic system/government enables them with subsidies and a failure to hold them responsible for the actual long-term cost of making that profit. Our system is broken and the owners of wealth and power do not want it fixed because of their greed.
Add a comment...

About this community

Please Read the Category labeled "++READ ME FIRST++" before posting. GLOBAL | ENDURING | IMPORTANT | SERIOUS | FUN | DEBATE Violence, climate change, religion, piracy, pornography, the 1%, the bottom billion, liberty, equality ... Every day the big questions that shape our world are played out in the news. And +Versus is where we can come together to try to make sense of it all by threshing it out.
theres,according to me, no god.
1) no 1 has ever him(/her)
2)no sayings about where he lives
Brian Bunch's profile photo
I am an atheist but I am almost compelled to debate you because your premise is too flawed. 
Add a comment...

Amit Tiwari

General Debate  - 
Are we really here to decide what right and wrong?
And if not y there seems a limit to everything we see do experience in this world? Who r we to frame rules which restricts someone's speech movement joy feelings ideas and thoughts.

Why it cant be live free and let others also live free.
Amber Petchey's profile photoYin Huang's profile photo
As +Paul Roberts says, it is to protect people.

What I consider a grievous "sin", you may think nothing of it - like religious rules applying to non-religious people.

Ethics are determined by the vast group of people, based on the morals of the time.

Once upon a time, racism was acceptable - indeed, the done thing, in fact. Not being racist was to be wrong.

I'm glad this has changed. 
Add a comment...
Is loosing sometimes more appealing , convincing n realistic than winning??? Is it really that level of happiness matters more than achievements.

Going to old regime imparts me view that triumphs and achievements can only earn u respect. Everybody lives his\her life in more or less satisfactory manner whether one has potential or not 
Larry Pepper's profile photoPaul Roberts's profile photo
I remember a few years ago watching the olympic gymnastics.
There was a girl from a poor eastern European country I dont remember which, she came last in the finals. She was crying tears of joy and pride for just making the final, her family couldn't afford a ticket to watch her compete.

On the otherside was an american girl who was crying tears of pain and dissapointment, she had finished 2nd.

For some it is more about the journey than the result.
Add a comment...
Charles Murray once said that Men are good at abstract thinking. But I think its a slew of preconceptions that some of the querulous minds still have. Women were either deprived of education earlier or their work wasnt given any importance. #philosophy
Vibhooti Chauhan's profile photoParthiban T R's profile photo
See the first thing is woman are not weak in abstract thinking, whatever the science has proved, its just the absolutes not the facts. Secondly, abstract intelligence can be developed through teachings, however some people have greater abstract intelligence than others.
So you are right that teachers should have abstract intelligence but in current education system (in india) its lacking in both man and woman. 
Add a comment...

nidhi agrawal

Ethics & morality  - 
Is happiness relative??

Some parents are not happy with their son scoring 90% marks in exam whereas some parents are in cloud nine even if their son just passed the exams.

Should there be some BENCHMARK to measure happiness??

One is working hard and yet is suffering from expectations of more and his lazy counterpart is enjoying life.

I am not restricted in academics. In other areas too you might have observed the same.
Mark Dignam's profile photomanish jha's profile photopm tang's profile photo
+Sara jawaid even in your example happiness is relative with person.. Happiness may be relative w.r.t. person or w.r.t. thought.
Add a comment...
In my search for alternative healing and medicines. I have come across this binaural beats and isochoric tones, that use sound frequencies to work with your brain and get relief for specific requirements. I was very skeptical but as I look through this channel I see so many comments of people saying this is actually working for them, from stomach pain to full on cancer treatments. Does anyone know anything about these, do they work, is there any scientific justification from this. At first I thought no way, but the more I thought about it the more sense it made. Don't drugs and medicines effect our brain also? Would love to hear some thoughts on this as an alternative medicine.  The more I looked into it the more I changed my view. Our brain is just a machine, that is constantly influenced by its surrounding environment, from a scientific view this makes perfect sense even if science does not support it yet, afterall isn't the magic of today the science of tomorrow. What do you think are soundwaves through the use of binaural beats and isochronic tones an effective alternative healing method?   As I said all the comments are supporting that these have actually worked in removing pain, and more. Your Thoughts?
Yin Huang's profile photo
Until it's subjected to double-blind studies, it's worthless as "medicine."

I see so many comments of people saying this is actually working for them, from stomach pain to full on cancer treatments.
Many people also believe in the magical curative powers of prayer healing and drinking strychnine.

A wondrous "treatment" that works on a wide variety of less-than-visible ailments (stomach pain, various forms of cancer, etc.), and only works on such ailments is generally, at best, merely psychosomatic. In short, it's a fancy placebo.
Add a comment...

Han SooNeul

Politics and Public Policy  - 
Obama vs. Boehner the Final Showdown!

So for those of you that havent heard our ever wise Speaker Of the House has decided to sue President Obama. For what reason?

Not executing his Job faithfully

Not only is this a stupid idea ?(in my opinion) but its also very hypocritical! Has the speaker forgotten that Congress as a whole has lower approval ratings then the President? Has he forgotten that the Republican sector of Congress has an even lower approval rating that Congress as a whole?

Has he forgotten that upon entering office HIS REPUBLICAN PARTY made a vow that they would do everything in their power to make him a 1 term president? And that they would refuse to work with him?

Has he forgotten that it was HIS REPUBLICAN PARTY that shutdown the government not too long ago that shutdown the government to try and prevent Obamacare (ACA) a law that had been legally passed and reviewed by the Supreme Court from going into effect and sent a majority of federal worker (including my parents) home without pay and out of the job? Speaking of Jobs it was the same republican party that blocked correction THE Jobs Bill that Obama had created in order to help many unemployed Americans find work?

Has he forgotten that its his party that blames Obama for the current child immigrant situation down by the border? Yet when you look at Congress right now there is an Immigration Reform Bill sitting in the House Of Representatives that has already been passed by the Senate waiting to be reviewed by the Lower House? Oh and when asked by the President when it was going to be review He told the President There will be no vote on that bill this year

All these things that His party and Congress has and hasnt done AND HE'S SUING OBAMA????????????????????

Seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black. What do yall think?
Speaker John Boehner says President Obama has circumvented Congress with his executive actions and plans on filing suit against the President this month
Ken Johnson's profile photoHan SooNeul's profile photoVikkiRene Kittles's profile photo
+Ken Johnson inObama's case he wouldnt be that way if Congress hadnt rubbed of their shit on him lol
Add a comment...

Jacob Dewald

Ethics & morality  - 
Okay lets just separate Religion and politics from this debate....
as much as possible.

Abortion: is it morally acceptable?

I say it is not.

Any way you look at it you are preventing another human being
from being born, from living.

It doesn't matter when it happens, how fully formed
or unformed the child already is you are preventing another
person from living life.
Sara jawaid's profile photoUgo Cei's profile photo
+Ugo Cei How so? Well this girl, with dreams is now a mother. Has to bring up a child. Has to parent. Young, smart, with dreams and a carrier ahead. But oh look, there is a kid you gotta you look after. So life ruined, yes. Destroyed, yes.

Disagree? Alright fine, you disagree. I guess we are just two people poles apart. I did, and still will, never allow killing of human life. 
Each of us have their own way of looking at things. I have mine, you have yours.
I love humanity, I hate killing of human life.
I love my country, I am not a nationalist, but a patriot still.

Lets end this topic now. Hope we'll have another debate some day. On some topic other than abortion and pregnancy and fetus. It's making me sick.
Add a comment...

Levi Pinder

Technology  - 
How Should Journalists/Bloggers Respond to the 'Right to be Forgotten'?

There was a lot of concern when the European Court of Justice ruled that individuals had the right to force Google to remove links to pages featuring  "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" information about them. 

Robert Peston has received a notice from Google, that an article he wrote in 2007 about Stan O’Neal's departure from Merrill Lynch after "those colossal losses on inventories of sub-prime loans", is to be removed from European Google search results.

How did he deal with it? He wrote about it, and included a link to the original article - presumably ensuring that this "no longer relevant" information is still accessible (even if only indirectly) from Google. 

Stan O'Neal is currently experiencing the "Streisand Effect" ( first-hand - and I think that is a great response to these 'Right to be Forgotten' cases. If everyone can copy Robert's example, perhaps people will think twice before requesting Google deny people access to information about their previous activities. Then these pages featuring  "irrelevant or no longer relevant" information will simply fade into obscurity as all "no longer relevant" information does. The European Court of Justice/Google cannot grant you the 'Right to be Forgotten' - only time can do that.
Ed Zaleski's profile photoVikkiRene Kittles's profile photoMohan Khutale's profile photo
Add a comment...
Here's my argument,
Should homosexuality be publicised in a way in which it is made a big deal? Isn't no news good news for the LBG community? Wouldn't making a big deal out of a seemingly "controversial' subject that you don't want to be made a big deal hypocritical?
Check out my full argument at for explained ideology.

Amber Petchey's profile photoMichael McCarthy's profile photo
+Michael McCarthy , I disagree. The more people are aware of it, the more people accept it as a thing that happens. Awareness normalizes - see the acceptance of many mental illnesses, for example. Epilepsy, as a great one. Terrifying, if you don't know what it is - but you can assist and not be as affected if you do.

Humans are afraid of the unknown. Fear engenders hatred.

Alternative people don't want to be promoted as special - but we do want to be accepted as equal. And that means educating people. 
Add a comment...