Investors should avoid 'sin stocks' regardless of profit potential.

Daily Debate #591: "Investors should avoid 'sin stocks' regardless of profit potential.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Peter Singer.

debates are a waste of time, i am pro this lets go ahead and commence that change my opinion style, debate

You're arguing *for* avoiding sin stocks then—let's go. Here's the reality: your portfolio's job is making money, not saving souls. Fossil fuel stocks funded the green energy transition. Should investors have missed those gains on principle? What's more moral, poverty or purity?

Topic: Debates are a waste of time i am (Pro) you are (against\

Wrong side assignment—you're *against* debates being a waste. But fine: debates sharpen thinking, expose bad ideas, and force you to defend positions you'd otherwise hide behind. Mindless scrolling wastes time. This doesn't. What's your actual evidence debates don't work?

nice, now we are talking, firstly, i believe that debates allow humans and generally biengs to attach meanings to words, in a way that is not precise or fruitful for the most obvious purposes evidence: Creationists, flat earthers etc, they have all been debating, nothing good came out of that, except maybe the humiliation of both parties, as willing to talk instead of build thinga

You're conflating bad-faith actors with debate itself. Creationists waste time because they reject evidence, not because debate fails—debate *exposes* that rejection. Real debates between serious people sharpen arguments: Darwin's defenders didn't win by staying silent. You're saying the tool is broken because some people use it dishonestly. That's like saying writing is pointless because con artists exist. Why should truth-seekers avoid the arena just because liars show up?