Debate: is life better today than it was in the early 1900's
Side: yes

being stubborn and aggressive is a dishonest debating tactic and you should avoid it in future.i will go with your demands and supply an answer as long as you finally get back to proper debating:I think that it was good that a full education was unattainable for most peopleTry not to get your feelings hurt when someone calls you out on your juvenile bullshit. You avoided answering a question, I told you not to do that because it's a shitty way to debate, and refused to indulge you until you had given a direct answer. Pretty simple. We can move on now. As for your question, I attended public school and it is far from perfect but thank god all children have the opportunity to attend it, and, if nothing else, learn basic literacy and math skills. What are the advantages of education being unattainable for anyone? How is it beneficial for society in general to have less basically educated people in it? How would he have died?The medical technology that is used to treat his condition were not available 100 years ago.at least we won't be over populatedI agree that population growth is a problem, but the alternative is not to encourage stillbirths via lack of medical care. Your hypocrisy is astounding; one moment you are lamenting the existence of abortion, the next you are promoting stillbirth and miscarriage as good things.No you would have just been taught the stuff you needed to know by your motherAnd what exactly would those things be? You are no authority on what people 'need to know', especially since you seem to set the bar extremely low, considering your apparent disdain for any education at all.My mother is not a scientist of any caliber so I doubt she has much to teach me in my field of choice.then you could have gone out make friends and have fun like a real personHow did you deduce that I have no friends and I do not enjoy my life, simply because I attend college? You truly are an amazing mind reader with an impressive ability to discern unrelated assumptions from any fact presented! Good now you got a life long meal ticketI'd rather succeed on my own merits. Also, your statement assumes that we would not be living hand to mouth, with both of us having to work. Considering the economic strata my boyfriend and I were both born into, this is probably what would happen.Good, one less mouth to feedAgain, hypocritical and callous. Are you not taking into consideration at all the suffering people endure when they lose a child, and how much of that suffering has been avoided today? Abortion results in one less mouth to feed but you won't quit whining about that. whats wrong with that, you'd be better off than the 2.03 million unemployed people (in the U.K)The idea of working in substandard conditions for a substandard wage so that I do not starve is not an attractive prospect.you would also have less responsibility to your husband.What do you mean by this?Too be fair I am male so all the sentimental feminine things you previously stated mean nothing to me.Also this is a large exaggeration of what actually happened.I like how being grateful that my family members are not dead is a 'sentimental feminine thing'. If the prospect of having one of your family members die an early, preventable death doesn't make you sad, it's not because you're male, it's because you're a sociopath. What a waste of resourcesThey are just as deserving of resources as any other person on the planet.Unlike the millions who won't be able to due to student fee rises(U.K)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11833545 This is unfortunate, but irrelevant unless they would have been better off 100 years ago. Doubt it.I have nothing against rights and freedom apart from the fact that it attracts immigrantsThe early 1900s saw one of the biggest influx of immigrants in American history. I realize things were probably fairly different in Britain, but I am largely arguing for the improvement in America, because I know more about this. It seems there are and were many other similarities between US and Britain, though.Or you could just kill them when you forget to use a condom.I sure could and I probably would, on the off chance that my birth control fails. I am grateful that I have this option. One less mouth to feed, right?Additionally, abortion was around in 1900, too and plenty of people took advantage of it. It's safer today, of course. An opportunity few countries getAn opportunity that is available in more places than it was a century ago.why is your own country that terribleWhy do I need to hate my own country in order to want o see the rest of the world?Good for you(I find it really funny how you assume this is what is going to happen as there are so many factors that could change your life)100 years ago I would haven no chance of getting anywhere close to my current goals. As it is, I am already on the path with school and internships. Plans may change but I'm already further along that I could have been.According to spell check "primotology" isn't a real wordHoney, that's because you spelled it wrong. You continue to ignore all the lives that science and technology has saved and improved and all the knowledge we now have about the world that we didn't have before. Yes, it is not ideal that these things exist, but they are only one side of the coin. The world was by no means a safer, happier, healthier place before they came along. To be fair everyone got treated like they had rights (in Britain) but it just wasn't forced.Wow. This definitely isn't true. http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/civil-rights-uk.html "It was not uncommon to see signs in Britain during the 1960s proclaiming, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”If this is what things were like only 50 years ago, what do you think things were like more than a century ago?rewarding the lazyAlso preventing citizens from starving.The increase of how much life costsThis is not a complete sentence. Please feel free to finish it so your argument makes sense.That will disappear when your country goes bustIf it will happen, it hasn't happened yet. We are comparing the 1900s with the present, no the 1900s with the future. Stay on track here.They grow up not being happy that they are alive but believing that they won't die until they are 70.Please show me the statistic that contrasts the rate of happiness among children today with the rates of happiness among children 100 years ago. I am not denying that people today could live better lives, but life was not magically better 100 years ago. It was less safe, less healthy, there was more discrimination and more restrictions. People tend to romanticize the past and that is what is happening here; you either are ignorant about or ignoring the terrible state of many peoples' lives. Modern day people use medication as a "get out of jail free" card meaning that they can smoke, drink and eat whatever and whenever they like.(i have repeated this because you didn't reply to it in your last argument even though you quoted it this is a dishonest debating tactic and shouldn't be used ever)My, what a short memory you have. To quote from the post where I did indeed answer this: "They also use it to not die when they get cancer and other disease, through no fault of their own. Even if people fall victim to vices such as smoking and drinking (which also existed 100 years ago, by the way, and people were far more ignorant about their negative effects) they do not deserve to be punished by a slow, painful death, nor do their families and friends deserve to suffer their loss."the choice of which shop we go to is going downhill as giant conglomerates monopolies the world market.You must be one of the gullible fools who believe that you have a range of optionsWhat makes you think I am only talking about places to shop? While it is true that places to shop are currently more varied, this is far from the only or the most important choices that have expanded for people today.In the 1900's people had a good sense of morals and beliefs if a child did wrong the parent would punish them, now they side with their child against the lawDo you think that crime was invented in the 1950s or something? There has always been rape, murder, thievery, spoiled children and immoral people, in any and every time period. The crime rates may be higher today than they were a century ago. It seems, at least in some areas, they were. If so, then this is an arena where the 1900s was indeed superior - however, the amount of innocent people that were saved through medical technology probably outnumber crime victims by the millions.Abortion you don't want a baby so you just kill itYep, that's the gist of it, except a fetus and a baby are not the same thing. Bodily autonomy is awesome, isn't it?Death in childbirth if you couldn't afford the medication you probably couldn't afford the babyHow much money would a person need in order to buy medication that hasn't been invented yet?Your country is a disgrace it took them 100 years to know how to take better care of its poor and they still have to pay for medication.This debate is not called: 'Has it taken America too long to care for its poor?' and I am not trying to say the system is perfect or that it ever was. Just that it is better than it was.Also, I am interested to see the sources that show how wonderful British impoverished people were doing 100 years ago. Your entire argument is not gong to work as it is your personal experience which nobody could prove and any other facts you have made haven't been supported at all, in fact you haven't quoted a single source in this whole debate.This is a dishonest debating tactic and you should avoid it in the future.Short memory at work again, huh? Look around a little harder, like at my very first post in this debate, among others. In the 1900s every country in the world had its ups and downs equallySource please? This seems extremely unlikely.In todays world the U.S is the best in everything and loves to tell everyone that that's how it is.Sure, fine, I'm not crazy about the attitude a lot of us have either. Doesn't change the fact that for our citizens, life quality and length has skyrocketed in the past century. Britain's too.