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.

It worked in Nazi Germany. Didn't it?

The US wanted to end the war quickly, the alternative was a mainland invasion of Japan, which could of potentially cost hundreds of thousands of US casualties. Which where much more important to the US than Japanese civilian casualties. They targeted mid sized industrial cities. At least they did not nuke Tokyo!

1 point

Right, and if the executive branch is somehow able to do that... then the executive branch's limitations needs to be a little revamped. Either that, or more fucking limitations need to be added.

1 point

Or is it that Putin is better than Obama? Hmmmm..... I mean mentally superior...

That's a fishy comment if he's "outmaneuvering Obama..."

In which case... Obama is... NOT the leader we need and is either a coward or just stupid in comparison to Putin. I think I have a side. I also think that if you can prove that, I have pretty good reason to believe he's dividing rather than uniting, since your side now seems very credible.

But I still agree with your side now. You have me converted.

1 point

Gratitude has no requirement of, or relationship with, belief in free will. Since gratitude is a choice, it is governed by how we make choices. IMO free will is an illusion that people have about choosing. Not that people do not make choices, but many are not aware that concrete cause and effect thinking governs the process. Ever heard someone say "Given the same choice again, I'd do the same thing." The mix of factors in the decision caused the decision in the first instance.

1 point

Why did they need to bomb the city? They could have taken out military targets separately, like the Japanese did with Pearl Harbour. The nuclear bomb was part shock tactic, part experiment. It wasn't a sound decision.

Japan was looking for a way to surrender without losing face, anyway.

2 points

Have we become a lynchmob mentality in this nation and no longer follow the rule of law?

No. And that is why it is wrong for a cop to sentence someone to death on the street.

Only a fool keeps bringing up the fantasy of a Theocracy. NO ONE WANTS A THEOCRACY AND AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN A THEOCRACY! Freedoms of a community to have school prayers, etc. does not force anything on any child. No child is forced to pray. It is just a symbol of a nation expressing it's Christian heritage. But of course arrogant insecure atheists must censor other's freedoms to express their faith. There should be school choice where everyone can choose where to send their kids if they SO FEAR HEARING A PRAYER. Close the children's ears, that is the motto of those on the left.

Misdirection. This debate is entitled:

"Can a Godless Nation prosper from absence of moral absolutes?"

My answer that that is no, but that doesn't mean what you think it means. The implication you're going for with this debate is that a nations piety and recognition of moral absolutes causes them to be more prosperous. I offered examples of non-godless nations with moral absolutes that have themselves failed to prosper to combat this. Basically, I skipped your fluff and jumped straight to the heart of the matter. My point is that neither a nations piousness/godlessness or moral absolutes/subjectivism has zero bearing on their prosperity, and to reveal this debate as a loaded question.

And I've done that, so I suppose I'm done here ;)

1 point

From: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-secret-to-a-successful-thanksgiving- free-will/

Google “successful Thanksgiving” and you will get a lot of different recommendations. Most you’ve probably heard before: plan ahead, get help, follow certain recipes. But according to new research from Florida State University, enjoying your holiday also requires a key ingredient that few guests consider as they wait to dive face first into the turkey: a belief in free will. What does free will have to do with whether or not Aunt Sally leaves the table in a huff? These researchers argue that belief in free will is essential to experiencing the emotional state that makes Thanksgiving actually about giving thanks: gratitude.

Previous research has shown that our level of gratitude for an act depends on three things: 1) the cost to the benefactor (in time, effort or money), 2) the value of the act to the beneficiary, and 3) the sincerity of the benefactor’s intentions. For example, last week my 4-year-old daughter gave me a drawing of our family. This act was costly (she spent time and effort), valuable (I love the way she draws herself bigger than everyone else in the family), and sincere (she drew it because she knew I would like it).

But what if I thought that she drew it for a different reason? What if I thought that she was being coerced by my wife? Or if I thought that this was just an assignment at her pre-school? In other words, what if I thought she had no choice but to draw it? I wouldn’t have defiantly thrown it back in her face, but I surely would have felt differently about the sincerity of the action. It would have diminished my gratitude.

This belief in the ability of others to freely choose different courses of action is the essence of belief in free will, and it is the reason why the researchers hypothesized that there would be an intimate relationship between this philosophical disposition and experiencing gratitude. They decided to test this hypothesis in four studies, first investigating whether people who are higher in their belief in free will also tend to experience more gratitude, and then whether manipulating people’s belief in free will would change the amount of gratitude they feel for acts of kindness.

Indeed, the more participants believed in free will (as measured by this) the more they tended to experience gratitude (as measured by this). To manipulate participants’ belief in free will, the researchers borrowed a methodology from previous work that has participants write or read anti- free will sentences, pro- free will sentences or neutral sentences. For example, participants in the anti-free will condition would read and summarize sentences such as “Science has demonstrated that free will is an illusion” or “Everything a person does is a direct consequence of their environment and their genetic makeup.” Participants in the pro-free will condition would do the same for sentences such as “I demonstrate my free will every day when I make decisions” and “Ultimately people cannot blame their actions on anything other than themselves.”

Three studies supported the authors’ predictions, showing that participants who had been exposed to the anti-free will statements reported experiencing less gratitude when a) thinking about past experiences in their lives for which they felt grateful, b) when they read a hypothetical description of an act of charity, and c) when they were the actual recipients of a favor from an experimenter in the lab.

Importantly, these effects were driven by how sincere participants thought benefactors’ motivations were. The more they thought that benefactors “didn’t have to do that” the more gratitude they reported.

Of course, none of these studies have a thing to do with whether or not we actually have free will, the effect simply depends on our belief in its existence. And this belief predicts more than just gratitude. Other studies have shown that people low on this belief are more likely to cheat on experimental tasks, to be more aggressive and less helpful and show increased conformity. Thankfully, only 2% of the population reports not believing in free will, and hopefully none of them will be sitting around your Thanksgiving table. But if so, just pass the potatoes the other way.

All that Skyping makes the keyboard sticky ;)

What are we getting from the news? Sensationalized, hyped up, entertainment. I still remember getting up to get some pop-corn before sitting down to watch the Ferguson riots on the news ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT2v64Ykxc0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT2v64Ykxc0

The last one was great and I haven't seen a truly bad Marvel Studios film yet.

Ultron is one of the best Avengers foes. RDJ has said it uses the best villain plot he's seen, and that guy might know what he's talking about.

The trailer gives me tingles.

I wish we had different new characters to look forward to other than Scarlet Witch and quicksilver, but hopefully they will surprise me.

What are we getting from the news? Apparently not question marks...

Do some journalists report the news with a bias(?)

Yes. And more than that, we are increasingly seeing the companies that pay their checks take a general bias and enforce it on their product. And that appears to be what the public wants anymore. Disturbing

Do we prefer the news that reflects our own bias(?)

Yes. This just tends to be human nature, for better or worse (definitely worse).

Do we really want the new, or are we just seeking ways to confirm our bias(?)

That depends on the individual, but confirmation bias is wide spread, now doubt.

Perhaps trying to force gratitude where none exists might have such a requirement, but gratitude itself does not. Gratitude doesn't cover JUST the actions of others. It can cover "good fortune", beauty, proximity to unique experiences or just plain being alive.

3 points

Let's look at the situation in Fergusson another way:

Let's pretend Brown was not African American. Let's say he was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, middle class male, who was open carrying his AR-15 based on a false interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Let's say he got into an argument with a shop owner, then left, was stopped by a cop, who shot him SEVEN TIMES.

I would be willing to bet that you, and every other uneducated "conservative" would be talking about "constitutional rights," and "big government," and blaming "Obama" for it. You can bet the Fox News Entertainment would be showing pictures of Brown singing in the church choir and graduating high school. They would be talking about the dangers of a militarized police force, and how it's wrong for the police to shoot civilians when they haven't showed any hostile intent to a hostile act.

The NRA, various "Tea Party" soviets, and different "militias" would be involved (just look at what happened with Cliven Bundy, who wasn't even shot, and just wanted to use government land on the taxpayer's dime for free). The Africa American community in Fergusson doesn't have white billionaire donors who want to use them for political gain. The African American Community only has themselves. Not even the media is on their side.

-Bear in mind that in this scenario, the protagonist is actually CARRYING A WEAPON.-

Now, let's pretend Brown wasn't African American. Let's say someone told you an unarmed citizen was shot SEVEN TIMES by a militarized police officer, and the citizen never was charged with a crime. Let's say that after that unarmed citizen was shot, the police in the city denied the press their first Amendment right to free press. Let's say that same police department arrested people for peacefully demonstrating....

Do you see? Where are the "conservatives" that are so worried about the Constitution that they never read? This is real police-state fascism, and you "conservatives" are silent on it BECAUSE THE CITIZEN WAS BLACK. Be honest about it at least! The right wing is racist.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to point out that your argument is composed entirely of emotional appeal, misused langua and insults. And you call me the fool.

I am personally pro-life, as in I would not want a child of mine to be aborted. I also would not want a daughter of mine to be forced by the government to have a baby she is not ready for. This is one of the most personal decisions a person can make. Not a government. I thought you were a freedom lover.

1 point

Harry potter is clearly better. For instance Dumbledore planned his own death 18 or so years before it happened. He gave harry so little clues that only he and his two mates would understand, with some thought that is. My point? Harry Potter is a good, complex read and lord of the rings is about a little person carrying a ring to a far away place (lol) with a wizard (Gandalf) who isn't very impressive at all.

Potter has also sold many millions more than lotr in such a little amount of time. How many decades has lord of the rings books existed? How long has potter books existed. No competition when you think about it.

Potter rules hands down!

3 points

Where to begin with this....

Racism has been part of our history and woven into the fabric of our society since the 17th century. In the 1600s, the upper class aristocratic land owners created a racial hierarchy to justify slavery and maltreatment of certain ethnic groups for the sake of profits, exploitation, and usurpation of resources. It was, for example, believed back then, that Irish people were inherently lazy, and heathen (because they were Catholic), and thus "deserving" of being slaves; Native Americans, likewise, were considered "lazy, and savage," so it was okay to steal their land because they weren't "using their land right (meaning not cultivating the land in the exact same way the English colonists did);" indeed, they even said that African Americans were "stupid" and "prone to servitude." In other words, from the very beginning of the US, before it was even the US, when were were just colonial holdings, racism was used to created a stratified social system.

Throughout our history, that racism persevered, and it continues to persevere. There is still a constructed system of racial hierarchy in the US. It would be incredibly nieve to say that poor black people have the exact same opportunities that rich white people have. To this day, our prisons are full of a disproportionally higher amount of ethnic minorities than our society actually reflects (e.g.: for example, 60% of men in prison are black, when only 20% of our nation's population is black). This leads into my next point: law enforcement treats ethnic minorities differently than they treat white people; that's just a sociological fact; it isn't because non-whites are more prone to criminal behavior, it's because of this racial hierarchy created by the aristocracy, as well as classist attitudes used to justify an unfair, unequal, socially immobile society.

So, African Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, etc, are all treated differently by modern law enforcement. This is evidenced by the racial make up of our prison system, obviously. In addition to the racial makeup of our prisons, is the high amount of unarmed citizens of color that are killed, or injured by police.

So, with that in mind, you've got people in this country who have generations of exploitation, usurpations, and maltreatment on behalf of our white supremacist society. They were protesting peacefully for MONTHS before the verdict was read. Unfortunately, the CORPORATE media did not report on ANY of the peaceful protests that continued pretty much non-stop while the police denied 1st Amendment rights to the press to enter the area. It is the DUTY of the media to report on those things. While these protests continued, the police continued beating protestors, and wearing military gear; ALL OF THIS would have been something great for the media to cover, but they did not because these protests questioned the status quo, and white supremacy, and the corporate media has an interest in the status quo (no matter how "liberal" you think the media is, it ultimately is typically owned by a for-profit company, and thus, are part of the "conservative" interest).

People with a voice do not destroy store fronts. People who are included in the process, do not torch buildings. People who have options, do not flip cars. People who have justice do not throw rocks at police officers.

Most assuredly, you, FromWithin, are probably not even reading this anymore, and probably stopped after my first word with more than three syllables, but know this: we still have a white supremacist system, and your support of white supremacy, and the "conservative" support of white supremacy, does nothing to throw people off the racist trail. Most of the critiques I see of the protestors across the nation, are critiques that use old negative stereotypes like: depicting Brown as a "thug," depicting Brown as "lazy and on welfare," and saying things like "why don't they put this much energy into getting jobs," or my personal favorite, calling the protestors "uncivilized (because white people are so much more civilized)." ALL of these negative stereotypes can be traced directly back to the racism created by white landowners in the 17th century to justify enslaving African Americans, mistreating Irish people, and stealing the land of Native Americans. America is still very racist, and still very white supremacist, and denying this is playing a part in the racism in our society.

1 point

This is a false analogy.

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, but consentually. Bill Cosby date raped multiple women. Both immoral, but at complete opposite ends of the immorality spectrum: having an affair and raping women have different moral implications.

As far as the "liberal" bias of the "media," would you prefer that the "media" swept stories of rape under the rug? This is why many women think "conservatives" hate women. You're actually making a case for hiding stories of rape to save the face of rich famous people.

Just because Bill Cosby is black does not make exposing his rape allegations "racist." Racism is a system of advantage or disadvantage based on real or perceived ethnic differences. "Conservatives" are interested in maintaining the status quo, and part of the status quo is white privilege and racism, which is why people say "conservatives" are racist. That's to say nothing of the fact that the right wing has historically supported or out-right defended racism. It was the "conservatives" that fought against the civil rights movement, for example, and it was the "conservatives" in the 19th century that defended slavery.

1 point

Like I said, A FOOL! That unborn BABY is every bit a living human being as you & any Jewish person and it takes a fool to try and justify killing them with semantics.

1 point

Only a fool keeps bringing up the fantasy of a Theocracy. NO ONE WANTS A THEOCRACY AND AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN A THEOCRACY! Freedoms of a community to have school prayers, etc. does not force anything on any child. No child is forced to pray. It is just a symbol of a nation expressing it's Christian heritage. But of course arrogant insecure atheists must censor other's freedoms to express their faith. There should be school choice where everyone can choose where to send their kids if they SO FEAR HEARING A PRAYER. Close the children's ears, that is the motto of those on the left.

1 point

Tell he how you know clinton is not a rapist? Women came forward who said he raped them! You prove my point. The Liberal media protects Clinton and they demonize Cosby so that is why you follow them like sheep and believe what they want you to believe..

1 point

Watch the language being used. DHS only has to say the strategy is deployed and operational. Know what means ----- "setup and running".

That's all. Not "the border is secure". Its a scam. Don't be fooled. To actually secure the border would require at least two years. DHS will certify it in six months. Nuff said.


1 of 10 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.