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.

NO. Simple as that. Their.........just not normal. I hate sugar coating things to people. If a 10 year old kid is dying from a rare disease that scientist barely care about, I'm gonna tell the kid that he's gong to die. Yeah it's harsh, but sugar coating causes people to believe in lies.

30mins ago

PORN, ASS AND BOOBS! OLD LADY ASS, BLACK ASS, ASIAN ASS, EVEN WHITE ASS. HELLL ANY ASS IF ITS A WOMANS. And any tits only is its past C up.

53mins ago

If we were back in 2001 (My Birth Year), digital privacy would have just caught cancer. In 2010, digital privacy is on chemotherapy due to celebrities being hacked and China hacking everyone on earth. Once 2013 hit, digital privacy lost a battle with cancer. Snowden exposed the secrets of the NSA. China makes the NSA look like me (when it comes to hacking)

56mins ago
1 point

We appear to be expanding, our density is under the tipping point for a crunch.

You're talking about the actual state of events. The widely accepted truth, to be more precise, within the concept of "cosmology" based on the modified Einstein's equation.

I was referring to the situation after the hypothetical "Big Bang". It's supposed to have appeared out of a singularity. And according to "General relativity", such an object would be a collapsor, and would have no chance of expanding beyond its event horizon.

Ok, this can be sort of countered by saying that masses hadn't yet formed at that time. However, according to the Big Bang BS, massed formed shortly after the explosion - within 1 year. If we take the supposed "known mass" of the universe, than it's gravitational radius would be a lot more than 1 light year (about 30 light years).

R = 2GM/c

However, the argument about "non-formed masses" is actually irrelevant. Einstein's equation contains the matter energy - momentum tensor on the right side, and that is supposed to be the source of gravity.

So, even if the masses "had not formed" yet, the energy was there and it had singular density.

5hrs ago
1 point

I'm not anti religious, I'm live and let live, I have no problem with the religions. I just don't see the use of the debates centered around them, for reasons I explained.

However are you saying that you have an idea on better, new, or rehashed religious debates? If so, I'd love to argue on them, if you created them.

7hrs ago
DrawFour(1971) Clarified
1 point

Normal is standard, or like the majority. I seek to accomplish nothing, just stirring up something since the debates around here are dry. I'm thinking up one for gay people and bestiality as we 'argue'.

7hrs ago
1 point

Rape.

Rape someone....Anyone...even that tree....come here treeee....

7hrs ago
1 point

While I think there may be real issues to be dealt with, from all I can read the "improvements" the people who are backing the effort are looking for makes Scotland a socialized welfare state...that can't be good.

7hrs ago
2 points

I do not watch media that is politically biased, and not all media is "liberal." I have given you facts from history that existed before 24 hour news cycles (and after) and you've ignored them all. Many people in "the world" did not believe Hussein had WMDs. That's why Americans did not like the dissent from the people who questioned the claim. Remember the stupidity of "freedom fries?"

There is no evidence from credible sources that refute the scientific facts behind global warming.

I'm not wasting your time with "liberal" rhetoric. I do not being to a party not do I take a side. I have what's called an "education," and I understand facts. I have presented you with facts. Can you refute them without resorting to partisan taking points? I do not care about your left/right false dichotomy. Can you refute the facts I've presented? I doubt it.

7hrs ago
2 points

Western post-industrial society has broadly defined privacy as "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people," and "the state of being free from public attention." Or, in even more elegant terms: "the right to be let alone" as Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis wrote in 1890.

Yet, we are seeing the capabilities of digital technology make this definition increasingly unrealistic to achieve in reality. The Internet is permeating ever more aspects of daily life. Physical and virtual realities are merging together and we are seeing the characteristics of the virtual, including pervasive surveillance, being applied to the physical. To escape the light is becoming impossible. With cameras everywhere from mobile phones to nanosat mesh networks, sensors proliferating, chattering machine to machine networks and increasingly powerful processing analyzing it all, we seem to be entering into a new era, one where every object, person and action is quantifiable and trackable, perhaps even predictable. With all of it on an exponential curve up in capability and down in size and price. We are increasingly living on Quantified Earth. Privacy as we have known appears dead. Facing its death, we must ask: should we fight to hold on to the privacy we knew, or plunge headlong into radical transparency?

Could we even return to the post-industrial definition, or must we begin to look for a "post-Internet" definition?

I argue that the wave of technological change is making the choice for us, that we are heading with overwhelming momentum toward radical transparency. I contend that trying to hang on to past definitions of privacy in its minutia risks diverting us away from focusing on future power dynamics, core rights and freedoms.

Lastly I ask is it time to let go of the "right to be let alone" and start thinking more along the lines of "the rights to be expressive and tolerated?"

9hrs ago
1 point

What are you trying to describe with word normal? What do you want to accomplish?

9hrs ago
sinestauta(1) Clarified
1 point

Or you can pay 10,000$ to a company that specializes in cleaning online reputations. Or advocate for the right to be forgotten that IS being regulated in Europe.

10hrs ago
Cartman(6866) Clarified
1 point

I did answer your question. "They are both opinions". Look at the last line of my original argument. Next time read the whole thing.

10hrs ago
2 points

Initially, the idea of massive amounts of your data - for example your purchase or chat histories - aggregated by marketers and sometimes handed over to the government is a scary, Orwellian thought. But digital spaces and transactions are not entries in a private journal. Digital activities are actions in a public forum. Furthermore, individuals have stood to gain a lot from this transparency. From targeted ads and discounts to customized medical advice and free communication tools - we have traded a certain level of traditional privacy for convenience, and it is now economically unfeasible for most to opt out of this network - to forego daily reliance on Google, CVS rewards, or Priceline.com deals. Digital privacy is dead. Accountability measures such as Google Transparency reports or cookie tracking alerts promoting consumer awareness and civil rights can help guide this new framework for digital transparency.

10hrs ago
1 point

Water that freezes sucks the air from fire air explodes weak from oxygen in frozen water earth just endures

10hrs ago
1 point

Water that freezes sucks the air from fire air explodes weak from oxygen in frozen water earth just endures

10hrs ago
1 point

Water that freezes sucks the air from fire air explodes weak from oxygen in frozen water earth just endures

10hrs ago
1 point

I am an atheist who thinks the "anti-religion" stance (blanket condemnation of religion in general) is naive and that my fellow atheists should focus on improving how it's practiced, rather than thinking that they don't practice any form of religion at all.

12hrs ago
1 point

Hardly anyone likes having their most basic assumptions, or religious beliefs challenged.

12hrs ago
1 point

I do not feel that the relgion debate can be rehashed, in a new way that is.

I've said this several times, and I'm saying it once more for the relevancy of this debate. Nothing new is ever said, no new information has been found, and no one's mind is ever changed. It's the equivalent of asking a yes or no question of fact. The answer will always be the same if you're not trying to fool anyone.

For example "Do you believe in God" "Is the sky blue" There's only one way people are going to answer these questions, and not much can be said after that, nothing new or insightful anyway.

13hrs ago
2 points

Exactly. Most history, the vast majority of history, as long as it's done by actual historians, is legitimately researched and often peer-reviewed. It's like the difference between science and pseudoscience. The aquatic ape hypothesis is not real science, but gravity is real. I love history, and I love doing the research, but that's why I'm making a living of it.

13hrs ago
1 point

I love doughnuts, I would go so far as to buy and eat an entire dozen. The worst thing I could imagine actually doing to get doughnuts, since I love them, but am still pretty rational, is steal them if I was almost 100% sure I wouldn't get caught, and was also pretty sure no one would miss them.

As an example I'd often take a warm fresh one out of the batch when I'd make them at Dunkin' Doughnuts, since it's only one out of hundreds, and it could have potentially been one that just happened to fall on the floor, as some have been know to do.

13hrs ago
Rotbart(24) Clarified
1 point

No problem. I totally get it. These things happen in cyberspace. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some kind of hidden suggestion.

13hrs ago
joecavalry(34775) Clarified
1 point

Nor would I want to ;)

13hrs ago

1 of 16 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
©2014 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.