CreateDebate


DrawFour's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of DrawFour's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

This whole ordeal is like that South Park episode where they couldn't show Muhammad.

0 points

Christmas is a capitalist holiday. The meaning of it is to buy things to show those around you that you enjoy the company of, that you enjoy their company.

1 point

I didn't know that was still an issue.

I feel that since the competition isn't for anything, and everyone gets a grade regardless, that no one has anything to lose by playing with someone who physically out classes them. I mean if we're dividing people up so that they can compete better, why don't we just put all the bookish people in a separate class from the athletic people as well?

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

I was mostly picking fun at the stereotype that Christians believe homosexuality to be a choice.

2 points

I prefer ritz.

1 point

Twitter

FB

Reddit

1 point

Nationalism is dying out maybe.

3 points

I already dislike exchanging money in general, but when I give someone money, then they give me money on X-mas it just makes me wonder why did we bother giving anything at all.

I like the gifts for the sentimental value I guess.

1 point

I'd go with option b just because the prospect of climbing a sharp blade with a 50 foot drop at the end doesn't sound so appealing, and I'd be too soft to cut my own body intentionally.

1 point

Your opinions are not valid on legal issues. Take for instance the drinking age. It's different all over the place, and for a time it was 18 here in the U.S. It was then upped to 21, but the people who would have been legally allowed to drink that year were allowed to drink, even though they were under the legal drinking age, while people who were old enough weren't allowed, because the drinking age wouldn't allow them. Now nothing magically changed allowing these people to be able to responsibly drink, they were just legally allowed to make that decision, that is all that matters.

For the second point, you're talking about love as a requirement to marry, so i ask where are all of your protest signs for people who marry for looks, or for money? Their is hardly ever any love involved in those instances, yet that is perfectly legal, because they are within the guidelines. So i ask, if love isn't a requirement then why not change the guidelines to allow groups, since they aren't breaking any requirements by being in lust, like so many couples before them have.

For your third point, you're devolving to opinions again, which is something that can't be logically argued, so I'll leave that aside.

Final point of yours, wraps up with the age old 'this is an opinion' message. I'll say in the future, save it. I don't want to argue opinions, because that can go on forever, I only want to argue cold hard fact, and results.

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

All I have to say is what does that matter? It is in the time that they had committed the crime that proved they were unfit to live in this society, that they were unfit to live in this society. If we can't help them, then unfortunately that's it, they have to go. We can hold, and feed them, and waste resources hoping someone finds a cure to that kind of disposition. A cure might I add that no one is actively searching for. Or we can end their life, their suffering, and remove them permanently from the society that can not deal with them.

If I can use an example from a comic book, take Bizzaro superman for instance. In a Superman comic, Bizzaro was created, as a twisted version of Superman. He meant no harm, he was just hardwired to be different. Help meant, kill, kill meant help, etc, etc. Superman destroyed him because there was no other option. There was no rehabilitation, he wasn't necessarily a bad guy, and superman didn't want to do it, but it had to be done. Bizzaro could not live in a world where he was predisposed to do what we commonly accept as the wrong thing. People like that are unfit, and have to be dealt with for the rest of society's betterment.

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

If you are arguing for human rights, death is definitely the softer option, since death is the end, while life imprisonment might as well be torture.

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

Most likely, but as it was used as soon as it was called for, it's pretty clear that it was already created, and was probably in the process of having more created. Thus when the time came to use it, the only options were keep fighting, keeping suffering more losses, or use the bomb.

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

Default would be no answering the question... if the question was never presented however since the question clearly was presented, default then becomes not being in support, but by not taking a side of being opposed either.

My position states clearly that since, I'm not against kids having phones, but I'm not trying to go buy kids phones, that I don't care or don't find it to be an issue if they have phones.

1 point

What you replied does not directly relate to what I typed. I simply typed that the baby has not chosen to spite god yet. You replied that not all Christian denominations condemn gays, but that is without warrant since I also did not say all or even any Christians condemn gays.

So to reiterate, I only stated that Christians would have nothing to say about the baby, and I gave no reason why. You stated something that would require an assumption, but for you it was a false assumption.

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
0 points

Hey don't you dare kill that man... just put him in a cell for the rest of his life, with no chance of parole.

1 point

if a person is not able to be 'fixed' to fit in with modern society, they need to be gotten rid of, simple as that.

1 point

It depends on the sense the word is being used.

In the literal sense, as in is the answer wrong or is the answer right, the answer is either or. If it's part right, but missing anything important it's wrong, if it's adding anything wrong an unnecessary it's wrong.

In the sense that wrong and right are good and bad, then it depends on the person judging. Would you say it's right or wrong that a guy stole some food, to feed his family. The court systems say wrong, sympathetic people generally say right.

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

Well which bomb? If they were coming hard, and we were running out of supplies, and trying to end a war quickly, which other bomb could we have used to stop them?

1 point

Here's the thing. if a teen is of legal consenting age, the government that they live under has decided they are wise enough to make that decision, there for your point is invalid.

I asked what is wrong with marrying etc amount of people, you said there's less potential to love. I said what's wrong with it because since when is love a requirement for marriage? Look at all of the failed marriages in this country, or the marriages in other countries where love isn't even a deciding factor.

1 point

Detective Conan; Case closed.

I really don't know why, it's just generally enjoyable.

DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

From reading your argument it seems as if you're saying it should have been dropped, but not on the civilian populace?

1 point

What does 'meaning it' actually mean?

In any regards, I don't here enough to believe it's said 'too much'.

1 point

I can't wait to see it. The trailer looked interesting.


1 of 103 Pages: Next >>

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