A Malaysian jetliner crashed in Ukraine near the Russian border, killing all 298 people on board. If this was a deliberate act, how does it affect the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? Is it a game-changer? Continue reading
Two weeks ago, PublicSquare.net hosted Steven Mosher from the Population Research Institute and Robert Walker of the Population Institute. Viewers had a chance in a special segment to submit their questions to the guests.
The concept of overpopulation… Continue reading
The biggest story this week is the situation in Iraq. While the group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, advances toward Baghdad, Iran is joining forces with its Shia neighbors in Iraq to oppose the terrorists. This week, President Obama announced that he’ll be sending in 300 American military advisers. What are we missing about this situation? Continue reading
Four years after U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq and five months after al-Qaeda re-took Fallujah, the city of Mosul has fallen into al-Qaeda’s hands. Baghdad appears to be the next target. The government of Iraq doesn’t appear to be capable of defending itself against the terrorists, so should the U.S. intervene? If so, how far should we be willing to get involved? Continue reading
As of this writing, the world’s population stands at 7.1 billion people. The growing number of people on the planet has been blamed for many of the world’s environmental problems, not to mention poverty, hunger, disease, and other causes of human suffering. But Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute objects to these arguments and says that the world in fact is not overpopulated. He debated the issue with Robert Walker of the Population Institute. Daniel Mushala of PublicSquare.net moderated.
We often hear figures that 95, 97, even 98 percent of scientists believe that climate change is happening and that greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity are to blame. But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterpise Institute, disputes these figures and argues that there is no such scientific consensus.
Ebell explains his argument and is answered by James Stillwell, a climate policy specialist at the University of Maryland.
The debate marks the first in PublicSquare.net’s Scholar’s Mate series. Watch on our YouTube channel or on our website.
The biggest story this week is the kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls. Last month, the terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped hundreds of girls from their school and threatened to sell them into slavery—all because their education, they say, is a sin. The U.S. has sent advisors to Nigeria to help find them, but will it be enough? How far should the U.S. go to bring the girls back to safety? Continue reading
Last week our guest debater’s discussed the Oklahoma botched execution where last Tuesday’s execution of Charles Warner went terribly wrong. The legal injection process normally takes mere minutes while in Warner’s case it took over half an hour and was eventually pronounced dead from a heart attack. The Public Square decided to ask the question, was the French guillotine a humane form of capital punishment?
The French used the guillotine for the death penalty until 1977. It was originally used as a universal way to conduct executions despite class differences. The guillotine concept was created in order to provide the quickest, and least painful death possible. The guillotine blade fell at approximately 21 feet a second which meant it took 2/100 of a second for the execution to occur.
Our debater’s Scott Greer from the Daily Caller, Journalist Gregory Clay, and Don Owens a Communications Consultant discussed which form of Capital Punishment would be most preferable to them.
“The guillotine can be scientifically tested. In a split second of pain everything is done. I think as an American Society, we are so hesitant to use older methods. We like to stick a needle in someone’s arm and watch them die. It’s almost like we want to take the death aspect out of it,” Greer said.
The death penalty has never been an easy subject to talk or agree upon. What makes it right for someone to decide how someone else should die?
“I think when we get to the point of guillotining people, we have approached an incredibly slippery slope. Saudia Arabia still beheads people,” Owens said.
Greer fired back in the debate with the response that the guillotine is easily one of the most humane forms of punishment. He asked Owens what he would choose if it was his own execution. Would he want an immediate death or a lethal injection with the possibility of prolonged pain and suffering.
“I think if I had to choose I would choose two things. One I would choose to live in a just country where they didn’t torture people and two I’d ask the state to bring in a physician to ask what they thought was more humane, lethal injection or having your head cut off,” Owens said.
Clay jumped in at the last moment and declared that if it was his choice, he would definitely choose lethal injection.
What do you think? Comment below and tune in next week for a brand new debate.
This past week our debater’s focused on a sore subject for a majority of the general public; Benghazi. While the blame for this tragic event has shifted to multiple figures and causes, answers are still being demanded. The ultimate question, 2 years later, does Benghazi matter?
Joining us this past week we had Scott Greer from the Daily Caller and Gregory Clay a Journalist and Don Owens, a Communication Consultant to discuss the matter on Public Square.
Greer stated that the Benghazi incident unfortunately has a “shelf life” for the future 2016 election. Labeled as a “smoking gun” it is uncertain whether or not the incident will affect the future Democrat runners.
“Th next election the Republicans are going to slam the Democrats on the Benghazi incident. Hillary Clinton was in charge of that situation, it is going to hit her the hardest,” Clay said.
The upcoming presidential election will be wildly focused on the accomplishments and failures of the present President and his party.
“I think using the Benghazi incident for future elections will be an unwise decision. There are many other issues available to target that would be a better use of the political parties talents. I believe it will be ineffective, No one pointed out the multiple attacks on embassy’s during Bush’s administration, why is this going to matter in the long run?” Owens said.
A smoking gun? Irrelevant to future elections? A injustice to the American people? Share your thoughts below and tell us what you think of the Benghazi incident.
The big story this week was the rapid fall of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. On Tuesday, NBA commissioner Adam Silver announced that he would ban Sterling from the NBA for life, fine him $2.5 million, and lobby for the sale of the team. Now everyone agrees that Sterling’s racist views are abhorrent, but some worry about overreaction. For instance, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said this week, “If it’s about racism and we’re ready to kick people out of the league, OK? Then what about homophobia? What about somebody who doesn’t like a particular religion? What about somebody who’s anti-Semitic? What about a xenophobe? In this country, people are allowed to be morons.” So does the punishment fit the crime, or is Cuban right that we’re headed down a slippery slope? Continue reading
