Keep in mind that it's taken on kind of a new meaning in English and the US, due to recent events.

Title says it all. Description says nothing of value :D

  This is an exercise in rationalization, a psychological defense mechanism (and CD tradition :P). Pick an opinion that we all know is competely indefensible, then find a way to make it seem legitimate. Extra points for making it completely appalling.   This is to illustrate that what seems like logic and proof can be twisted to prove anything, so your own convictions are no exception. We're all vulnerable to self-deception. Hopefully you might see parallels in how you argue something you know isn't true with how you argue your own beliefs, effectively reevaluating the latter.

Naturally this refers to the novel, which can be used as a cautionary tale for those at the bottom, or maybe a blueprint for controlling them. Let's hope it doesn't become the target of Guy Montag anytime soon. If it's been a while, here are the book's major themes:   Censorship, Surveillance Society & Police Power Newspeak & Doublethink National & International Conglomeration/ Centralization Nationalism Sexual Repression Cult of Personality

It's 2309 CE, and you've been commissioned to write a pedestrian article summarizing a period of history. Your subject is whatever period you think we best fit into now. If you think this is the Age of Psychology, start at the beginning of the 20th Century. If you think 9/11 started the next phase of history, start in 2001. If the Geneva Convention will be the major influence on our near future, start in 1948 with the Age of Globalization. Naturally, feel free to predict the future if you think you can. What trends do you think will stand out in the future that are too big to notice yet? During the Fall of Rome, most people, even Romans, failed to understand Rome was indeed falling, for example. I suppose this is an exercise in getting out of your own mind and looking at things in the bigger picture.

What do you think? Do people do good things for good reasons, or is there ultimately a selfish motive behind every act? And no, the title isn't grammatically incorrect ;)

It's come to my attention lately that there are new users popping up who seem to be here solely for the purposes of talking about their Christian faith. While I will happily defend their right to voice their opinions, I feel like their presence is cheapening the quality of the site. There are plenty of religious members who were already here who understand you need reason and proof to argue a non-religious debate. But these new ones will bring up scripture at every possible opportunity, as if this were a Bible discussion forum.   That's gotten me a bit fed up, so I'm wondering how appropriate you think religious debates are on CD.   NOTE: I will ban you if your argument relies solely on faith. Prove you can make a real argument about real life, thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkp1k4TNJNA   Apparently Denny's thinks it's time for a serious breakfast. I call this SERIOUS BULLSHIT. What do you think?

Currently, a new argument counts as one point. This isn't unreasonable, until we find reasons for posters making multiple arguments: "Sorry, forgot to say _____" "I agree! Nothing to add" Carrying out an extensive one-on-one discussion, such that few will bother to read the whole thing or vote on it   I dunno. Just my thoughts. Yours?

What would you like to tell all the users on CreateDebate? What could make the debates go smoother, or their lives easier? Any passive-aggressive comments to make at a particular user?