Christian sexual morality and the level playing field.

 There is something tricky about Christian sexual morality that I am not sure everyone appreciates. People who complain about this morality assume that people's sex lives occur on a level playing field, and then ask "What are Christians objecting to?" But sex didn't occur on a level playing field when the Bible was written, so what sexual liberation would have meant was the freedom of rich and powerful men to use their positions of power for their sexual advantage, Wife has a headache? Go the the slave tent. Feeling a little gay today? There are some boys for that. Is there a level playing field now, so does that make Christian defense of traditional marriage obsolete? Not so fast. It may be better now, probably thanks to Christians, but men don't get pregnant, and people like Epstein, Weinstein, and (some won't like this) Trump exploit power for sex. You can add Clinton as well, to avoid the appearance of partisan bias here.

Is the argument from biblical prophecy a flat Tyre?

 Here. 

How to decrease illegal immigration

 If any law-abiding citizen of a foreign country could come here legally in a reasonable amount of time, then there would be far less need for illegal immigration, and therefore less illegal immigration. If America didn't defund efforts to assist foreign nations in creating a more prosperity and safety in the home countries, there would be less illegal immigration. If we invested in adjudicators to decide asylum claims quickly and efficiently, there would be less illegal immigration. As a matter of justice, our leaders need to stop lying about prospective immigrants, and cut out the bald assertions that they are all out of prisons or asylums, or eating pets. We also need to stop discriminating against prospective immigrants based on country of origin (no Haitians, but Afrikaners from South Africa are free to come.) I have trouble seeing illegal immigrants as criminals when we have such Jim Crow immigration laws. Don't unjust laws deserve to be broken?

In defense of abortion, by Nathan Nobis

An argument in defense of early abortion. 

Deductive arguments

 Actually deductive arguments does not need to be based on facts. It just has to he structured in such a way that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be. For example, it is a valid deductive argument to say "Abortion is murder, murder should be legal, therefore abortion should be legal." However it' going to be tough selling people on the second premise.

Free speech is free speech-like it or not

If you think it’s dangerous for Florida’s legislators to have the power to police speech in public school classrooms, then you should find it equally outrageous for Colorado legislators to try to mandate what pronouns parents can use with their own children in their own homes or journalists can use when reporting stories.

Hitler's Crib

 There are cases when what maximizes utility contradicts a principle. What if you are in a position to kill someone you know will do great harm to the world. What if, for example, you are transported back in time and are standing over Hitler's crib. There is a pillow handy. Do you smother him, especially if you think you are going to return to 2025 forthwith?