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

Paul Ryan

Contest: 2016

Party/District: R -

Experience: Candidate U.S. Vice President 2012, Representative U.S. House of Representatives 1998-present

Residence: Washington

Family: Married, Children:3

Education: BA Economics and Political Science Miami University

Website: Click Here

Position on the Issues

• Supports spending caps

• Supports balanced budget amendment

• Supports lower corporate tax rate

• Strong Affordable Care Act (known as "Obamacare") opponent

• Supports defense spending

• Supports voluntary Social Security privatization for young workers

• Supports ban on internet tax

• Supports replacing foods stamp program with block grants to states

• Supports oil drilling in ANWR

• Does not support federal regulation of greenhouse gases

• Opposes farm subsidies

• Pro-life

• Supports Right-to-Life laws and amendments

• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment

• Does not support gay hate crime laws; does not support gay adoption; believes states should be allowed to define marriage

• Supports 2nd Amendment Rights

• Supports sanctions on Iran

Priority Issues according to Project Vote Smart:

"Since I have entered Congress, I have been fighting to make Social Security & Medicare solvent & financially sound for future generations, while protecting current seniors' benefits. As a member of the House Ways & Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over revenue matters, I have helped deliver significant tax relief to spur economic growth & create jobs. I also serve on the House Budget Committee & the Joint Economic Committee."

Courtesy of http://www.livefreeordiealliance.org

1 point

Joe Biden

Contest: 2016

Party/District: D -

Experience: U.S. Vice President, candidate U.S. President 1988, 2008, U.S. Senator 1972-2008, Attorney 1968-1972

Residence: Wilmington

Family: Married, Children:4

Education: JD Syracuse University College of Law, BA History, Political Science University of Delaware

Website: Click Here

Position on the Issues

• Generally supports reduced spending on defense

• Supports some tax increases on high-income earners

• Supports federal stimulus

• Supports federal regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

• Supports tighter gun control

• Supports individual mandate to purchase health insurance

• Pro-choice

• Supports same-sex marriage

• Supports a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants

Courtesy of http://www.livefreeordiealliance.org

1 point

What gives...Are they copying CD? Good news is they can't... But what are you pitching here Harvard?

Jace(2448) Clarified
2 points

Given the considerable number of Americans who do not vote in elections, our elected officials arguably are not the most representative of our population at large. Generally speaking, I think the two-party system is a significant cause of many of our political issues as well as our low voter turnouts. Every issue becomes polarized when there are only two parties, and those polarized views tend to cater towards the extremes leaving many Americans without an option that actually represents their views.

I would also lend credence to the notion that many Americans are quite moronic, though I would extend that rather equitably to humanity in general.

Jace(2448) Clarified
3 points

I would suggest that those labeling your politics are somewhat ignorant. For all that some will decry our economy as being increasingly socialist we are considerably more capitalist than other nations, and more importantly there are capitalists in both parties (i.e. being a capitalist is not an especially partisan attribute).

Your notion that the extraordinarily wealthy worked harder than everyone else is somewhat laughable in my estimation. A not insignificant number inherited their wealth, their work positions that allowed them to accrue their wealth, and the knowledge base (e.g. stocks, bond metrics, etc.) that empowered their success. For those who secured their own wealth, hard work was certainly an element but the results may simply be the product of luck or more aptly directed effort rather than a greater amount of effort itself.

1 point

Let's take Copernicus for example, reality shows little signs that the Earth revolves around the sun. Only a dreamer could envision a universe that is contrary to reason.

Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, and scientist who identified the concept of a heliocentric system on the premise of objective reason and the evidence available to him. He hardly "dreamed" it up.

Only a dreamer would question reality in the first place.

How does that follow? Negation is predominantly an act of deconstruction, not creation.

Name one human that is not emotionally attached, this a quality that makes one human in the first place.

You are misrepresenting my argument. I never indicated that a person ought to be entirely emotionally unattached, but rather that a legitimate researcher gives preference to reason and evidence over their emotional attachments/desires.

To indulge your tangent, however: Emotional attachment is not what "makes one human"; genetics is. Further, there are human beings who do not experience emotional attachment; such people are frequently pathologized under diagnosis such as antisocial personality or dissociative disorder.

1 point

If one wishes to discuss other weak willed groups such as alcohol and tobacco abusers then they should do so under separate cover as they do not form any part of this debate.

Poor decorum. If you have an issue with my form of argument, have the decency to address me directly rather than backhandedly attempting to undermine my post.

You drew a comparison between obesity and leprosy, in a rather transparent effort to associate obesity with stigma and ostracization (the irony being that history revealed those who treated people with leprosy badly were ignorant, ill-informed, and prejudiced). Your sole premise for condemning the obese has been to identify obesity as a self-destructive practice which imposes costs upon others. This is entirely non-unique to obesity, which is demonstrated by the introduction of other self-destructive habits (rendering their introduction entirely relevant to this discussion). Pointing out the underlying prejudice advanced in the premise of the debate prompt is both a legitimate response in a debate forum, and relevant to informing the debates which follow.

The gluttons are grotesquely fat because they are irresponsibly selfish and feel that society should make accommodation for their self imposed unsightly and totally avoidable condition.

You have advanced two unfounded assertions here. The first being that obesity is categorically and singularly the consequence of individual choice. The second being that those who are obese hold those expectations of society.

We all have to contribute towards the expense incurred by service providers as they have to modify or enhance their businesses to cater for these modern day lepers.

This assumes both a socialized health care system and the existence of accommodation/non-discrimination laws, neither of which is inherent in a conceptual debate (you failed to specify any context for your premise). Arguably, your objections are less against obesity and more against a socialized system the forces you to pay for or accommodate it. I presume you are also opposed to paying for those who contract cancer, liver failure, or other diseases since these are commonly attributable to some form of abuse or another.

With minimal effort any genetic pre-condition towards obesity can be identified and then successfully countered by a healthy lifestyle.

Please do feel to provide any evidence to substantiate this view.

Those with an underlying medical condition resulting in overweight should be exempt from ridicule, but they account for a tiny proportion of the wobbling wonders.

And how exactly do you suggest we discern between the two types of persons?

Genes are not destiny.

Prove it. Your entire argument hinges upon the assumption of free will, which is itself an utterly unfounded claim increasingly undermined by scientific research into the determinants of human thought and behavior.

Obesity is becoming a plague which will be exacerbated with the misguided use of euphemisms by the self appointed, sanctimonious champions for this preventable disease which is regularly accompanied by mental retardation, reproductive anomalies and/or other problems.

I do not disagree that obesity is a significant problem in many societies today, nor that certain defenses of those living obesity are blind to individual accountability. Neither of these is a reasonable basis from which to ignore the nuance of the issue, as you do.

Fact;- almost all ''OBESE'' people are the architects of their plight.

Fact: You have offered absolutely no evidence beyond your own opinion to demonstrate this. You are woefully ill-informed on the matter, lacking even an elementary knowledge of confounding variables such as food deserts and the broken food systems that have played a hand in the rise of obesity.

3 points

The fact is you still have not provided original source material, so we have no idea how they are assigning costs. You utterly failed to counter my point regarding why their conclusions might be suspect, seeing as the three conditions can be concurrent and also share some of the same disease risks. These concerns are underscored by the fact that the study was conducted by an anti-obesity organization which directly benefits from distorting results to represent obesity as the most costly of the conditions.

Furthermore, your source actually undermines your claims when it quotes a professional as stating that "[...] there are other people who look slim and healthy, yet the salt and fat content of their diet puts them at risk of stroke, heart disease and other risks from high blood pressure"... which indicates the issue is one of nutrition at least as much if not more so than one of caloric intake.

You are also blatantly dancing around my points regarding access to nutrition, which is highly class based. There are entire neighborhoods and communities that lack both geographic and financial access to nutritional food, which leaves non-nutritional but high-caloric foods as the only real option. This phenomenon is known as a food desert; look it up if you are not familiar with the concept. This issue is more about the rise of dysfunctional food systems than it is about individual choice, though the latter certainly still matters.

Rodger Rabbit, the only way they have a chance is to pull a rabbit out of a hat. The Republican party so far doesn't have a sane candidate except for Trump (lol).

What wrong doing did the Clintons do? The Republican party was on a witch hunt and came up with no witches. The Clinton sex sandals were dropped thanks to Larry Flynt. He said he would buy any photo of any Senator or Congressman that had some one besides their wife in it.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/12/21/livingston.html

Let's take Copernicus for example, reality shows little signs that the Earth revolves around the sun. Only a dreamer could envision a universe that is contrary to reason. Only a dreamer would question reality in the first place.

Name one human that is not emotionally attached, this a quality that makes one human in the first place.

1 point

A major health hazard - yes

Lepers - definitely not.

Obesity is recognised in having the potential for a serious range of health outcomes and research has concluded that it is becoming inter-generational. Early obesity is a predictor of poor future health outcomes and of significant concern when it comes to their future need for provision of health services.

Cuaroc(5429) Clarified
2 points

Make some sense and i might reply

the past has clearly shown that you refuse to debate no matter what, and instead do Hogwash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! followed by some random rant irrelevant to the topic at hand.

1 point

The correct tedminology should be "hangers on" those who are trying to get some gain from being seen to believe when they are actually just as lost as most of humanity when it comes to religion.

"Believe in thyself" is a great motto.

1 point

You missed 2 ;)

1 point

I'm not to informed to engage political discourse, but I'm always called a republican because im a capitalist... Meaning, I think every situation causes for profitable gain, so my policy is to do only what makes lots of money.

I also believe that it is unconstitutional to take more money from the rich all because they worked harder for their money than the 99%. (Note: I am not saying the 99% doesn't work hard, they just don't work/think hard for aquiring assets that generates profit. Ask a poor person how many bonds/stocks/assets they own... Or if they know the metrics of bonds... Now ask a capitalist...

For the record note my preamble, secondly I will again clarify that I don't know if 'capitalist' commonly equated with 'republican'- towards me, however, it is.

2 points

Why do you think the Liberals on this site follow me around like a fan club?

True fans I imagine. You confirm all of their negative biases about Conservatives. This makes them feel more secure in their political opinions. Your inability to effectively articulate a Conservative position only strengthens the appeal for a liberal to argue with you. If anyone at this sight was on the fence and believed you were a Conservative, they wouldn't be on the fence for long, they would run left and with good reason.

1 point

Make some sense and i might reply....................................................... I never said I would not send my kids to another school. I did send my kids to a private school at a very great expense because I had to pay for the public schools as well. We went without to afford that school and parents should be able to have their taxes go to the school their children attend.

1 point

You are about as Conservative as Obama. Why do you think the Liberals on this site follow me around like a fan club? They fear the Conservative message being heard. This site clearly mirrors why Obama and Democrats hate Fox news. They hate the Conservative message being disseminated to the public and they will immediately attack it at every instance.

If they did not fear my message, they would ignore me. Keep trying to pretend my words are worthless and do damage to Conservatism.

1 point

It's not a Republican attitude, it is actual facts that 47% of Americans pay no federal taxes. Do you know what a Ponzy scheme is? How long do you think our Government stays solvent when more and more Baby boomers retire with less and less tax payers.

This welfare attitude in the Democrat party must stop. We are making it too easy for able bodied people to stay on the dole. It's insanity to give poor people free cell phones. That is the slippery slope of the Progressive bleeding heart movement. They do it purely for political reasons, NOT COMPASSION.

The GOP cares for the truly needy and disabled. The rest of them should stand in a food bank line!

1 point

The monster killed victor in the arctic? Tons of women and children in the villages? Etc? Fair enough, but I believe the monster didn't have a choice but to live such a lifestyle. I believe he is a representation of people who are forced to become violent by society, and therefore must live a violent lifestyle.

Thus, he and those he represents, deserve sympathy. I think it's that simple. I think no sympathy is deserved by society.

1 point

Thankfully there is still one news network, Fox news who shows all the lies and corruption from the Left and of course Fox always gets the highest ratings. Why else do you think Obama and Democrats hate Fox news? They are the only voice shining a light on all the Liberal lies.

I agree with you that it is very hard to counter all the Liberal biased media but you know what? Sometimes we have to hit rock bottom before even Liberals and charity cases wake up. Obama has shown for all the world what happens when an extreme radical Liberal gets elected. He and his administration has done more harm to the Liberal movement than anything in the past 50 years.

So you see, everything has it's time and then reality takes it down. Maybe you missed it, the GOP hammered Democrats in the midterm elections. Even with the Liberal media, the majority saw through the propaganda. Is this a turning point? Who knows, maybe we have to completely wallow in the gutter and clearly see the results of Liberalism before we get back to traditional America.

JustIgnoreMe(1509) Clarified
1 point

Yea - the joennie, jolie, Bettyjoe accounts are pretty easy - besides the Jo thing, very few people have been around for 6 years. (and the overall tenor of course)

1 point

Why do you think I have been trying to figure out how to get to Hell?


1 of 22 Pages: Next >>

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


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2015 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.