CreateDebate


The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

To start off what you're saying is bigoted and wrong, but that's besides the point. These 'Muslim masses that slink around their rat infested ghettos' are due to America's foreign policy. Ever since oil has been discovered in the Middle East in 1908, powerful nations have done everything they can to destabilize the oil rich countries and exploit that resource. It goes back to the coup that the CIA has admitted to that ousted Mossadegh and installed the pro-western Shah. The 'unwashed muslims' never asked to be invaded and plotted against, they have done nothing wrong besides have a resource that everyone wants. Before oil was discovered the muslim population in America was 10,050 after it was discovered that number was 4.5 million, and this is due to the reason that their countries have been destroyed by the US all for oil. Now you're referring to muslims as 'potential terrorists' but you for got to add HOW and WHY these terrorists came to be. After years of bombings, war, and devastation how can you not expect a fierce retaliation? Between 2003 and 2013 175,000 civilians have died in Iraq due to the US involvement that was for 'freedom' when in reality it was for OIL. Many terrorists born in war torn countries have seen their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters annihilated due to 'miscalculations' that America makes. It's only logical for the terrorist to be angry at America for invading and occupying his/her own country. I have no respect for any religion but I respect one's right to belief. You're calling Islam an 'alien religion' because of your narrow mindedness and bigotry. You're right about the tragedy that took place in Manchester, it is very heartbreaking that 22 people have died any many more have suffered but the same can be said about those who have stayed in their country and died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 300,000 INNOCENT CIVILIANS have died in these countries. But you don't want to acknowledge that. 22 is nothing compared to 300,000.

No, by Americans I mean those who respect the Consitution and do not want activist Justices to force their ideology on every State.

You obviously share the same views as the morons who called Trump supporters Deplorable and irredeemable. It's sick to see the extremism in this new age Democrat Party.

If all Americans don't swallow the extremism of your narrow political correctness, then we are judged and labled all those things you just mentioned.

Judgmental closed minded intolerant non inclusive people like you are very dangerous to this nation's freedoms.

If we don't believe Gay marriage should be forced on every State, then we are deplorable, irredeemable, sexist, racists, etc.

How does it feel to be so intolerant of other's beliefs?

luckin(136) Clarified
1 point

I provided the basis earlier. You have either ignored it or failed to understand it. Given the nature of your questions, I should assume the latter.

You provided a basis. Like I said earlier, it wasn't solid. As previously mentioned, your basis could be taken how you mean it which is also how I take it, but it can also be taken how Hitler took it

You can believe that something is healthy, but that does not make it so.

This concept is what I've been trying to get at. I agree with you when you say that morality is objective, but the problem is that your standard is flawed

This also isn't true,

It isn't true or it doesn't make sense?

What is the objective standard for health?

I'm not sure if there is an objective standard, but I would imagine there would be no sickness or pain or aging

You have attempted to redefine well-being to include me removing your limbs in order to improve it.

I'm not redefining anything. Like I said before, life based on opinions are the logical conclusion of your standard that you provided

Is it your opinion that drinking poison improves health?

Its not my own personal opinion, but I would imagine someone misconstruing the word healthy to mean that

1 point

What you're saying is selfish and egotistical. Until we realize that life isn't this special, purpose-filled dream that we fill our heads with we are not going to get anywhere. If one wants to end their life because of the suffering that one endures they should have the option of doing that. Death is inevitable, it's going to come eventually and families are undoubtedly going to suffer; so why should one more person have to suffer? Suicide should be a right that every human being should have.

1 point

SUICIDE IS 100% MORALLY RIGHT. I say this with an extensive knowledge of being around people with insurmountable odds. There are people in this world who are suffering in the most indescribable ways. Hunger, torture, rape, disease, cancer, paralysis, psychological pain and etc. Who are we to say that someone can't end their life. Today in America we're arguing for so many personal freedoms however minuscule they might be; but why should we exclude this freedom? Because we don't like talking about it? Because it's not 'politically correct'? Because we're not the perfect utopian society that we're brainwashed into believing? If our government acknowledged the right of taking your own life, suicide would be much cleaner and less disruptive. There is no argument against suicide. Why should you let someone suffer day after day, second after second because you don't believe suicide is not morally right?

1 point

With no solid basis for a standard for morality

I provided the basis earlier. You have either ignored it or failed to understand it. Given the nature of your questions, I should assume the latter.

what constitutes human flourishing and well being is extremely subjective

This simply isn't true. Your position forces you to claim that your well-being suffers no more by me removing your limbs than if i left them alone. This is illogical. Well-being is no more subjective than health. You can believe that something is healthy, but that does not make it so.

They were both doing what they thought would be helpful to human flourishing and well being

Which is why I brought up the witch doctor compared to the modern physician. They both do what they think will be helpful to health.

The problem is that you claim that the standard is objective but then give a standard that in itself needs an objective standard

This also isn't true, so I will ask you to elaborate. What is the objective standard for health?

Essentially what you're doing is letting people redefine the terms

You have attempted to redefine well-being to include me removing your limbs in order to improve it. Is it your opinion that drinking poison improves health?

atypican(4771) Clarified
1 point

<~~~ Concedes defeat .

I don't think you can imagine smells tastes sounds or tactile sensations

I never made that statement, you spoke about imagining the difference and then I imagined and gave you what the difference was.

and as of imagining, tastes good/bad, sounds good/bad can be compared.

I think "comparing" is the word you were looking for.

NowASaint(1007) Clarified
1 point

You cannot imagine God, you can think about God....that is if your brain has not shut down completely..but even while you say you are imagining God and He is not real, you are still thinking about God....you are in denial, that's all, and it's in opposition to your own life.

NowASaint(1007) Clarified
1 point

I thing you can imagine cannot be God as God is God independent of your imagination. The thing you imagine and call "god" is not God who is there if you acknowledge He is God or not.

luckin(136) Clarified
1 point

How?

With no solid basis for a standard for morality, it is just our opinion. With your standard of human flourishing and well being, as good as both of those are, what constitutes human flourishing and well being is extremely subjective. That why I brought up Hitler and Mother Theresa. They were both doing what they thought would be helpful to human flourishing and well being. The problem is that you claim that the standard is objective but then give a standard that in itself needs an objective standard. Essentially what you're doing is letting people redefine the terms

1 point

Ellen Degenerated is a pervert, she loves abomination, she thinks she deserves to exist outside of Hell and she has one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell.

Ellen is pitiful at best, she need to repent of her perversion and get saved.

1 point

Technically I don't think you can imagine smells tastes sounds or tactile sensations. You SAYING that you can isnt convincing at all.

beastforever(225) Clarified
1 point

Mohammed is the God of the Religion of Islam what you got to say now ?

First of all, Outlaw60 says that the Manchester attacks were commanded by God

is the debate title.

Irrespective of which god or religion, the so called "god" let this happen. If you, say mohammed in particular, is the reason of this, (let's even assume this to be true even though it is horrendously false), if so, what are the "gods" of other religions doing here? or are you trying to prove that they too have the same motive? or is it just that they don't exist?

1 point

You can take a position naming good or evil realistically. When atheists name good or evil, they are being religious in thinking they have the right to exist outside of Hell.

Amarel(1523) Clarified
1 point

You believe in an objective standard but have no basis for what the standard is

You can scroll up and read various explanations of the basis for my standard.

The opinion stuff was the logical conclusion to what you believe

How?

luckin(136) Clarified
1 point

I never took a side. I do agree with you when you say that morality is objective, but I asked questions to understand a your view and saw a problem with what you said. The opinion stuff was the logical conclusion to what you believe. You believe in an objective standard but have no basis for what the standard is. That just makes it your opinion

FYI: Saying that you MIGHT not be able imagine this or that is different than saying something is unimaginable

taking a side which says "yes" for the question "can anything be "unimaginable"? " and then telling that I MIGHT not be able to imagine something for sure implies you do think things are "unimaginable".

Question: If your aim is to imagine a car and images of dinosaurs are all that pop into your head have you succeeded?

Of course not, but I can have a dinosaur in a car, or a car speeding away from a dinosaur..

1 point

I read it. You are failing to see that, while opinions differ, two opposite opinions concerning well-being cannot both be correct. Your opinion on the matter is in opposition to logic.

I'm annoyed because this is the opinion you started with, that morality is subjective. You asked me a series of questions in the hopes that I would contradict myself. And finally, when you failed to tease out a contradiction, you reverted back to "that's just like..your opinion..man". As though you never read or comprehended anything I have said. It's either dishonest or stupid and either way, I don't have time for it.

1 point

Healthcare is a legal right in most developed countries. This is not the case in the US.

luckin(136) Clarified
1 point

I'm just going to assume you ignored the rest of my post and are going with your own view

1 point

If you both can't be right, then pick a better standard than the flourishing and well being of a society

The fact that two opposing things cannot be right at the same time and in the same respect is a point in favor of my standard. That only means it is logically coherent.

It can also be said that 1+1=3, and while that may be your opinion, it is incorrect. If I counter that 1+1=2, the mathematical standard is made stronger by the fact that we cannot both be right

If you are going to continue to argue against my point with strictly illogical positions, I will declare my victory and be done with you. Perhaps you'll suggest we are both correct, but you'll be wrong. You can call that "just my opinion". There's no value in yours.

luckin(136) Clarified
1 point

If you both can't be right, then pick a better standard than the flourishing and well being of a society. As good as both of those are and as much as we both want that, you have no basis for what constitutes a flourishing society with a good well being. Just take the example of Hitler and Mother Theresa I gave. It could be said that both contributed to the flourishing and well being of society and it would just be our opinion against theirs

1 point

Are you basing the right for two people to be married on the anatomical differences of the human body? Your philosophy of "per natural orderly design" is a little bit infuriating, because it is a direct violation of human rights. You also sound very angry. Calm down next time before you make an argument. Be productive, not angry.


1 of 23 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]