thats simply not always true.

i don't care if you exercise 6 hours a day, if you only eat fast food, you will not be healthy, fast food is lacking in key vitamins and nutrients required for a healthy life.

i don't eat fast food, am over weight, but because i eat healthy, i am healthy. oithers mnay not be as lucky as or, but others are not as food/health educated as i.

i see that i did not make myself clear in my first post, i thought that in the first post you are merely supposed to list your points, as vaguely as possible, and then let the negators fall into the trap( at least thats how my debate teacher taught us)

and when i said phenomena, i gave an example as to which kind i was talking about, but besides that.

never mind my initial post, if i could delete it and just use my second one i would.

just use my second one. debate that.

i wasn't disputing your definition at the time.

supernatural is in no way equivalent to preternatural, as you rightly said, preternatural, is like...a ghost, almost. its their in it, yet it isn't their, out of it. it is one of those things where the sum of the parts is lesser than the sum of the parts

i didn't mean to post thois many, i just didn't see them when i posted them.....i will figure out how to delete them when i get back home and do so!

are you aware of the great distinctions between apples and oranges?

so should we call apples and oranges, and all fruit of the like, treebearing citrus, and treebearing sweet fruit, oranges? should vans be called buses. should their only be the word speek to show that somebody voiced something, should it only be run, instead of barreled, or dashed?

language may be found in many places, but that is not the debate. all because humans are, or are not preternatural doesn't mean every one of their traits are! it just means that they have one or two traits that sets them above all else.

which in tyhis debate is reasoning, and by extension, responsibility

are you aware of the great distinctions between apples and oranges?

so should we call apples and oranges, and all fruit of the like, treebearing citrus, and treebearing sweet fruit, oranges? should vans be called buses. should their only be the word speek to show that somebody voiced something, should it only be run, instead of barreled, or dashed?

language may be found in many places, but that is not the debate. all because humans are, or are not preternatural doesn't mean every one of their traits are! it just means that they have one or two traits that sets them above all else.

which in tyhis debate is reasoning, and by extension, responsibility

are you aware of the great distinctions between apples and oranges?

so should we call apples and oranges, and all fruit of the like, treebearing citrus, and treebearing sweet fruit, oranges? should vans be called buses. should their only be the word speek to show that somebody voiced something, should it only be run, instead of barreled, or dashed?

language may be found in many places, but that is not the debate. all because humans are, or are not preternatural doesn't mean every one of their traits are! it just means that they have one or two traits that sets them above all else.

which in tyhis debate is reasoning, and by extension, responsibility

are you aware of the great distinctions between apples and oranges?

so should we call apples and oranges, and all fruit of the like, treebearing citrus, and treebearing sweet fruit, oranges? should vans be called buses. should their only be the word speek to show that somebody voiced something, should it only be run, instead of barreled, or dashed?

language may be found in many places, but that is not the debate. all because humans are, or are not preternatural doesn't mean every one of their traits are! it just means that they have one or two traits that sets them above all else.

which in tyhis debate is reasoning, and by extension, responsibility

(your argument is soo lonely.)

i agree with you completely(~) this is something that realy should be done, though i feel that this maybe should be done in conjuntion to a portion size as well. if you only have 4 fries it isn't bad for you. etc.

the only problem i see is, where do you drawl the line for what is fast food and what isn't.

at mcdonalds you get attrocious food fast, while at subway,pollo tropical, and miami subs, the food is of a better quality, but how do you decide the quality, is it based on nutritional value of a certain food item. what if it is ordered with no mayo or cheese? is the price reuced?

and what about non fast food, for the sake of my post, slow food restaurants. if a slow food restaurant has un healthy food do they pay the same tax? or is this just a vendeta against the poor? (whoops did i just say that)

and saying that fast food and madicare correlate is bs. fast food and low education/moral/all sorts of other factors play into it. if a rich person eats mcdonalds every day and they dont have medicare do they still pay the tax? now this tax is unfare! why should i pay for the government to provide medicare by paying taxes on fast food.

its a viscious cicrle.

i think you are opporating under the wrong definition of the word. supernatual implies that it is one withbut stronger, like a superchanrged engine, but preternatural and natural is comprable to apples and oranges.