sophie✧˖ °☾’s Comments (group member since Sep 11, 2025)

sophie✧˖ °☾’s comments from the The Debate Club group.

I'm really not even understanding why this is being put up for a debate right now. Like what @Hazel said, Sex is the biological makeup of a human being, and it would be completely pointless to argue otherwise. Do y'all remember the cell structure that we all had beat into our brains in school? And the chromosome structure in all of those cells? Now imagine those chromosomes in every single cell in your body. To change each and every one of those cells would be almost impossible, not to mention would take a VERY long time to do, even in terms of science. Not to mention the testing that would require and the time needed for the things that go along with that.

Sydney wrote: "ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "what i'd actually be interested in hearing is how do you all classify pagans? those of you who may be less educated, are there any stereotypes you have about paganism? i thi..."

I agree! I also believe that pagans are classified as those who do not believe in the true God (at least according to my beliefs), but I don't think that they should be treated any different as those who believe similar or the same as I do. I'm a bit struggling to like talk about this bc i don't know how to say it politely, bc i dont mean to say "I think your god isn't real bc of what i believe in" so im sorry if it comes across that way, it is not my intention.😭

Sydney wrote: "@tessie I don’t necessarily agree, even though most of the traditions we now know are based on catholic traditions that doesn’t mean the origins of that Celtic festival are erased. The Celtic peopl..."

The Catholics didn't necessarily "put another holiday on top" of the Pagan holidays. They did created these similarities so that it would be easier for the pagans to convert to Christianity. We can see the best examples of this with Roman monks coming to convert the Celts to Roman Catholic. The Celts weren't the smartest kids on the block, so to make it easier for the Celts to convert to Christianity, they made it simpler and sort of combined ideas of paganism and Christianity. They would use simple pagan ideas and shape them so that they fit Christianity.

I've always been intrigued by the idea of Paganism. I'm a Christian, but I do enjoy learning about paganism, and really until a few months ago, I wasn't even aware that there were still people practicing this religion. Since this is a discussion, I will be sharing MY OPINION of this idea. For the sake of the discussion, I will be excluding Hinduism, due to the fact that it can be interpreted as monotheistic, polytheistic, and henotheistic.

I think the idea of paganism is such a nuanced and broad term that cannot be truly validated or invalidated. Since it refers to any religion that isn't Abrahamic. I think that it can often be confused with polytheism, which does have overlaps with paganism, but are not synonymous with each other. But since the topic isn't about polytheism, I will just state that I think that paganism can be a true religion, but is slightly too broad of a term for me to form an educated opinion on.

sara wrote: "if you were in court, would you want 12 random people to decide your fate?"

The point of jury duty is to be randomly selected. Lets say you're on trial for murdering someone on the first degree. Would you rather have a group of your peers being on the jury, 9/12 of them are your enemies, and 3/12 of them are your closest friends? As I stated before, jury duty is an exercise of the 6th amendment (the right to a fair trial), or would you rather have people who have no idea who you are, therefore no bias, or people who hate you decide if you're going to jail or not?

according to uscourts.gov, jury duty is a civic duty in which jurors listen to a testimony, review evidence, and render decisions in civil and criminal trials. Most U.S. citizens who are 18 or older may serve on a federal jury.

I understand why jury duty is necessary, as it is a away to exercise the 6th amendment. I think if the states did not make it mandatory, then nobody would go. It would become a volunteer act, and then the numbers of those who take part in jury duty would dwindle significantly.

Rural respondents are more likely to report volunteering compared to urban respondents (https://www.census.gov/library/workin...), therefore, the places where jury duty is mostly necessary wouldn't have the people necessary to complete these trials, and could possibly lead to necessary trials not being carried out.

And you don't think that other countries have already looked down upon America? Countries have been doing that since we started the revolution and before then. I ask the question, what poilitcal leader hasn't done horrible things in their past? What person of power hasn't had a history? I am not defending his previous actions, as a woman why would you think that i would? All Im saying is that I believe that even though I might not agree with every decision that he makes, I stand behind a majority of his policies.
The President does not have power to create laws from thin air. The power of legislation resides in the legislative branch and must go through a grueling process of deciding if the law is constitutional. The role of the President is to enforce and implement laws into the country. However, the President can issue executive orders, which are more of directives than actual laws and they cannot override federal law.
A law starts as a bill, or an idea that came from citizens or advocacy groups. Then the bill is introduced into the legislative branch aka Congress, which is comprised of the house of representatives and the senate. The bill goes through a committee review, where changes can be made and then sent back. The bill can be brought to the floor and if a majority vote is passed it is moved to the other chamber and the process repeats. And if necessary, will go through another committee again. Finally, the president can either sign or veto the bill. Sign to have it put in action, or veto to reject it. And even if the president rejects it, it can be overridden by Congress by a 2/3 vote in both the house and the senate.

Have you ever noticed in movie interviews, the interviewer asks the actor what their opinion on the character they're playing is and the actor swiftly dodges the question? The interviewer asks, "How can you play such a horrible person?" and the actor says the most vague thing they can think of. This is a tactic that actors who often play immoral people in films use when asked this very question. The actor has to separate the person from the from the belief system to play the character. This is also an important aspect in politics and political leaders. You have to separate the person from the politics. The president may have done some things that I don't agree with, but then again you have to realize how to discern him as a person from the policies and promises that he makes. And this goes for every political leader for that matter.