CreateDebate


GeneralLee's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of GeneralLee's arguments, looking across every debate.
GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

It's not a secret. And you shouldn't abuse a bug. So stop doing that, it's kinda pissing me off.

1 point

"In regards to a woman having sex with multiple partners, you said...."

Thank you for proving me right. I never said that it doesn't affect the guy. You just inferred that.

"You didn't actually, you sidestepped it."

No, you did. You turned it into some messed up debate about the freedom of speech.

"I don't even know how to respond to this."

Just like I really don't know how to respond to you saying that mark is kind without any proof.

"These two sentences seem contradictory."

Nope, mark is having people gang up on me. That ain't kind at all.

1 point

On a quick google search, here is what I found.

1 point

"I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?)"

Yes I do. Referring to an earlier post:

No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again.

After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

After Miller failed, he further synthesized his experiment in order to try to prove evolution.

I believe I said your action was lazy, not you yourself. And even if I had called you lazy, was I supposed to somehow just know you worked 84 consecutive work hours?"

LOL. Man, let me tell you, the price of college tuition has exploded in the past 20 years. According to Times Magazine, the price of college went up like 700%. I try to get money anyway I can...within the bounds of the law of course (I don't run moonshine......).

"The Miller Urey experiment shows us that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials, so we already know that life can form from inorganic matter."

But the Miller Urey experiment shows us that life can't form. Again I refer to my three points:

One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half.

Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life.

Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that?

"I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable."

Doubt it, I bet you feel uncomfortable reading the Bible. Yet I can read Darwin's Origins of Species without breaking a sweat. Remember the questioning of Jesus by Pontious Pilate:

John 18:33-38

33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

If you were truly seeking truth, then I assume you would already be a Christian.

"Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated."

Really, didn't some famous scientist say that to believe in Christianity was "unthinkable"; so he wouldn't even study to see if it could be true? Wasn't that Hawking?

"It raises the question "who created god?". To which you and other creationists reply "Well, god doesn't need a cause. He has always been there". This is just special pleading, otherwise we can say that the universe has been here forever. Equal argument."

You use this argument anyways when you try to explain where the matter from the Big Bang came from. Scientists say it just was "always there".

"This is equivocation on your part. You're using the term ape and pig as if they are singular species. Ape refers to a group of primates. I have already said before that humans have a common ancestry with every single other species."

So this proves evolution how?

"The results of the experiment show that organic molecules can form from inorganic material"

Yes, but that doesn't mean life can form.

"As for the Lithium problem, what makes you think that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are related?"

Without the Big Bang theory, there is no theory of evolution. So if you are willing to give that up, you might as well convert to Christianity.

"Remember where the scientists are all in agreement that the conditions for early earth in the Miller Urey experiment were likely wrong? Did it ever occur to you that if they had simulated the correct conditions, that a high enough amount of amino acids would have formed?"

So then why don't they just do that? Why don't they just simulate those "right" conditions?

"Do not confuse abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The latter of which has far more evidence and is amongst the most comprehensive of theories in science."

All right, since I'm running out of time tonight, I'll give you that for now. But I want to return to this point later.

No, some bacteria use right handed amino acids."

Well, that's all fine and great, but you still haven't touched on the fact that all life nowadays uses left handed amino acids, and right handed ones are lethal.

1 point

"the majority of women have positive feelings about one night stands"

They do?

According to Professor Campbell, although women do not rate casual sex positively, the reason they still take part in it may be due to the menstrual cycle changes influencing their sexual motivation.

Yeah, that's positive feeling alright.

"Secondly, I think it shows your sexist and low opinion of women when you say that casual sex "destroys" women, while the men walk out unscathed."

I did? Show me where I said that! And don't not reply to this argument either. Show me where I said that! If there is one thing I can't tolerate, it's someone who will falsely accuse someone of something they are not guilty of.

I already covered the third argument below, so I will move on to the last. Mark has more kindness in his finger than I have in my whole body? On day one, I disagreed with one of his arguments and he immediately declared me an enemy. It wasn't even a strong disagreement, but NOPE, I'm an enemy anyways. Wow, he's sure kind. Got a heart of gold. Not even iamdavidh is that "kind", and we've fought for hours. In fact Mark was my first enemy declaration ever. And I have never even debated with the second enemy declaration, so I assume Mark told him to do that. So keep telling yourself lies; you are just delusional.

1 point

It ain't a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree"? It ain't Merry Christmas, it's Happy Holidays? They say, "Oh, you offend atheists when you say things like that, so we will censor the freedom of speech and say YOU CAN'T SAY THOSE THINGS!"

Or how about abortion? The can say that it's just a bunch of cells you are killing. There nothing wrong with that, but when I try to hold up a sign with a picture of an abortion, I have to take it down because it "offends" people?

Don't play dumb. It just makes you look dumb.

1 point

"The United States is not a police state, it is also not a socialist country. To say it is to either of those statements is to vastly exaggerate the issue. Small steps towards becoming a socialist state or a police state does not equal automatically becoming one."

I didn't mean that we are socialist, I meant we are becoming socialist. Small strokes felled great oaks.

"And then it goes on to say that the student put some book cover on another book (I assume school book? If its not a school book then its legal) saying something about god or the bible. The school should have the right to prohibit certain book covers, including religious ones, from being on school books."

And yet I've seen ones promoting Islam or Hinduism and that is somehow OK??? Why is Christianity book covers bad, but ones of other religions OK?

"They are only minor variations in opinions. They have the ballpark figure correct, they are not ambiguous. Now, if one state said the speed limit was 20 and another said 120, then that would be ambiguous and make zero sense. Do you think they just made up a number that would be safe for interstates?"

Your statement makes zero sense. There is an obvious safety difference between 20 and 120. There is no safety difference between 65 and 75. No, they don't make up the numbers, but they plan for speeding tickets. See, tickets are a huge source of income. So they set up speed traps in order to make money off them. For example, I have a highway that's 65 MPH. For about 1/4 mile, it drops to 55 MPH for no reason then goes back up to 65 MPH. And every time I go by there at night, there is a cop sitting there without fail because they know they will make money off the ticket. They can raise the limit to 75, but they make too much money off the tickets to do that.

"You're willing to take away a woman's rights all for the veil of protecting them."

Rights based off of what??? The Constitution? Which is based off of what? What is the basis for your moral theory?

In regards to morals, how does it compare?"

Morals start off as being something small, then corrupt and turn into something destructive.

1 point

Russia never signed the treaty. That's why they were our enemy during the cold war years. But what I do not understand is, why can't we ask permission from the other nations that signed the treaty to use the nuke to stop the oil well? It makes sense to me. Lets say we have two people Bob and Jim. Bob gets a contract offer from Jim to do some work. Later, Bob doesn't want to do that work. Bob asks Jim if he could be relieved of his contract and Jim agrees. Since both parties agreed, no legal infringement was caused. So I don't understand why we couldn't do the same thing. Sure it's a law, but if everyone including those who made it says it's OK, then we should have been able to do it. Like all laws, they can be modified or repealed to fit a certain situation.

1 point

" No, that wasn't their goal...they did an experiment to find out if organic compounds could result from inorganic material."

No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed.

"Look up the dictionary definition of the word, you are being delusional. I do not think I am guilty."

Yes, but the definition of moron is "dull witted". It's comparable to delusional.

"Copying and pasting large chunks just so I can refute it is lazy."

I suppose it would seem so, but I just finished 84 consecutive work hours (72 hours in the previous week alone). I didn't necessarily have time to arrange my argument properly on the website, so I wouldn't necessarily call myself "lazy". Now I am typing my arguments into Microsoft Word and pasting them to the website from there. That way, you won't have to worry about this type of situation any more.

"We already know that it happened, we just do not know how."

Believing in something for which you don't even know how it happened? And you call me crazy?? Wow, you got issues because you said you belief was based off of fact not faith. Without that "how" you are relying on faith. You are no longer trying to prove evolution false, as in your first argument; but trying to prove it true contrary to science (which supports my "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god" claim).

"This is an infinite regress problem. It does not answer the issue."

Why not?

"Um, no. Evolution does not tell us we evolved from apes."

What? Did you just claim that??? Then why this? All evolution does is claim that we evolved from apes.

"It does? Perhaps I missed it, please show me where."

Ah, I misread. It says the conditions are not accepted.

"all you do is abandon them after being proven wrong and look for new things to bring into the conversation."

Sounds like something you did. Like with my argument on Polystrate fossils, or statistical probability for evolution. In fact, there is tons of questions that evolution can't answer. Like The Lithium Problem. According to the Big Bang, there should be 66% MORE Lithium-7 in the universe. Or what about Missing Antimatter? The Big Bang created more matter than anti-matter. This imbalance doesn't fit any evolutionist theory. Yeah, like I said, you believe in evolution despite the scientific contradictions.

And now, to fix your complaint with my copy/paste argument, here is what I propose in my own words.

One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half.

Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life.

Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that?

1 point

So then what did Russian do when they used four nukes to stop their oil spills? Break the treaty and not care?

1 point

Yeah, including not having to work for food or housing, getting all the food stamps you want, committing crimes and getting away with them, stealing cool stuff from people, and calling other people racist while doing the exact same thing.

0 points

LOL. That's funny. But I don't think all religious people are nuts. Just a whole lot of them.

1 point

"I'm not aware of any law that would enable the U.S. to simply ask permission to break a treaty."

You are acting like a treaty is some sort of law. It isn't. Think of it as more of an understanding between nations. If Russian launched a nuke at us, would we hesitate to fire back because of a stupid treaty? Of course not! And we can ask the nations that signed the treaty if we could use a nuke for this purpose since a treaty is not a law.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

"This would be like the government regulating free speech to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt."

But they already do that.......would this prove my point 1 about the US becoming more socialist?

1 point

"A true scientist comes up with a theory and tries to prove it false."

Then why are all scientific experiments, such as the Miller Urey experiment, attempts to prove evolution true?

"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge"

The scientific aspects of evolution are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of evolution in order to make man as a god. That might as well be posted on every evolutionist website, since they do everything that they can to push God out the door science or not. So no, you didn't refute it; I'm not satisfied.

"Ad hominem attacks now? I feel special."

"MarkML0528 said:

"This guy is delusional"

Ad hominem; I feel special too. You know, you shouldn't accuse other people of things you are guilty of...

"Yes, you are correct. Creation.com is not a reputable site, therefore your argument implodes in on itself."

This is an example of a straw man argument. You are attacking Creation.com rather than the argument they present. Now I don't have to answer your "Where did I use a straw man argument?" question because you just used one. Look at that, I took care of two posts with one.

"Oh, well then why did it happen outside of a laboratory experiment a few billion years ago? How else did we get here?"

First question: Prove it!

Second question: God created us.

"We'll go along with what you say, that pigs are our closest ancestor according to DNA. How does this disprove evolution? We still share a common ancestor with apes, as well as any other form of life."

Because evolution tries to tell us as fact that we evolved from apes when we may as well have evolved from pigs.

"Prove that scientists support it? Okay."

You do realize that you own post says that it is no longer widely accepted right? Looks like you just shot yourself in your other foot.

Now back to on topic, enough with the straw man augments! Are you going to provide a rebuttal for my post concerning the Miller Urey argument as being proof that evolution is false or not? If not, then I do not think you have a rational enough mind to handle debate.

1 point

"Thirdly, I think it's hilarious you want to get the government involved in what goes on behind the closed doors of its citizenry's bedrooms in a vain attempt to protect women,"

Like laws against prostitution??? I don't think you even realize what you are saying.

1 point

"I like how you copy and paste material from a different website as if it were you who wrote the whole thing."

LOL, broken "Here's Why" link. Fixed that now. Thank you for brining that to my attention. I copied and pasted because you complained last time I just slapped ya with a link, so I took the time to give you the important bits in order for you to condense your reading. Because the actual web page is like, 100 book pages long. :)

"Because all you're going to do is run for cover to your creationist website and ignore any and all scientific evidence I propose."

Who's ignoring who you fucking retard? I posted material that showed that the Miller Urey experiment was wrong. All you say is, "It's disreputable" like some twisted text bot. And that's another thing. Off all the obvious logical fallacies, you would think the straw man would be one you wouldn't use. But nope you use it anyway like for you it's somehow "exceptable".

And, IF IT'S DISREPUTABLE, IT SHOULD BE EASY TO REFUTE!!!!! Like those sites that say things like "9/11 was a government conspiracy". Those are extremely disreputable, yet because they are, it's all the more easier to refute.

But no, you can't refute it, because you know you are wrong! . And another thing. You still need to prove it's disreputable! And don't weasel out of it by saying, "You need to prove it's not disreputable" because that is a fallacy. You can't prove a negative any more that you can prove evolution, but you already proved that with your straw man arguments.

"you've been brainwashed by creationists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of creationists pseudo scientific claims".

No, I think you have been brainwashed by evolutionists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of evolutionary pseudo scientific claims. See, these are my favorite type of accusations because they work both ways.

"but that is irrelevant"

No it is relevant because it could never happen naturally outside of a laboratory. Thus does not pertain to actual evolution. You see, you use the word irrelevant like you do not know what it means.

"But it is in fact truth that gives relevance to "relevance," just as "relevance" becomes irrelevance if it is not related to truth. Without truth, relevance is meaningless and dangerous."-Author Unknown

"How do you know a pig is our closest relative?"

Because a pig is what they use for medical testing. Your own website even admitted that pigs are used for rare organ transplants. Looks like you shot yourself in the foot.

"The Miller Urey experiment is not false, it is supported by scientists."

Then fucking prove it!!! All you did was say, "It's a disreputable source". You didn't actually give any evidence to actually prove your point.

You know, I think there is a word for that.....oh yeah, delusional; the same word you seem to be obsessed with like it's some "magic" argument winner.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
3 points

You are on the wrong side. I think, judging by your post, you want to be on the Not! side of the spam issue.

1 point

"I do not know about polystrate fossils. Could you explain them in more detail?"

For example, a tree trunk goes down many yards through multiple layers of earth, or "millions of years" of earth. The tree should not have existed in particular layers. It goes against everything evolution claims. Like human fossils being found next to dinosaurs. Care to explain those while you are at it?

"Eventually, one of the E coli's population exploded because it developed a mutation that allowed it to not only break down the sugar into energy, but the other non sugar compounds in the incubator into food as well."

You only told half the story. What you "forgot" to tell is that the altered organism is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the E. Coli less fit in an environment without that specific solution. I would hardly call that evolution.

"DNA already verifies that we have a common ancestor with other animals simply due to the similar strands of DNA in all organisms."

Do you know what animal our DNA is closest to? A pig! So tell me, how do you know we evolved from an ape when a pig is our closest relative? Looks like neither the fossil record, nor DNA is on your side.

" Must I refer back to the Miller Urey experiment where inorganic materials managed to form into organic compounds such as amino acids?"

HA HA HA! Did you seriously just reference that?? Modern scientists reject (I repeat) REJECT that experiment because it actually shows that abiogenisis is NOT possible. This shows you do not know what you are talking about. Even an amateur grade schooler wouldn't reference that. Here's why.

The Miller-Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below.

Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine. The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, "The total yield was small for the energy expended." The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (-CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

And, scientists cannot even explain the presence of O2 in our atmostphere! The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earth’s putative primitive atmosphere was then widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen. They believed this because laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by oxygen. Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the "fact" of chemical evolution is used as "proof" of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O2 in the earth’s early atmosphere rely heavily on speculation. The fact is, They still don’t know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose.

It was believed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of much more complex life units called proteins—the basic structure of all life. Although widely heralded by the press as "proving" that life could have originated on the early earth under natural conditions (i.e. without intelligence), we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred.

In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.

But I must digress. Thank you, THANK YOU for giving me the debate. By being so crazy as to actually cite the Miller Urey experiment, you just lost the argument. Because I'm going to cite it throughout the rest of the debate. LOL!

1 point

"What you don't understand is that the U.S. making steps towards becoming a police state does not equal socialism."

Technically they don't, literally they do. What you are saying is basically, "Just because I am standing next to this radioactive plutonium cell with no protective gear on doesn't mean I'm going to get cancer." That statement would be true, yet at the same time laughable. All police states are socialist. Not once in the history of the world has a police state not been socialist. They just go hand in hand.

To my knowledge it is not illegal to simply possess or read a bible in school.

What the liberal media hides from you. Here read these:

http://www.10news.com/news/student-suspended-for-bringing-bible-to- school-files-suit

http://www.adherents.com/misc/school_houston.html

"The crimes you references are violations of someone elses rights"

Defined how? Playing the devils advocate, I argue that laws against murder hinder someone's right to kill another person. And as for speeding, that is just as ambiguous. For example, highway speed limits in my state are 65. In a neighboring state, they are 75. So you are saying risking people's lives varies from state to state?? It doesn't make sense. You only think it's endangering someone. It has yet to be scientifically proven.

"Having sex with multiple partners, so long as they are consenting adults, violates NO ONES rights."

Wow, that was a bold statement. I do not think you fully understand how much that destroys a women. Because you are a heartless guy, you have no clue what sex does to women.

When women have sex with a guy, they bond with him. This bond is extremely strong, like super glue. When the heartless douche has his fill of sex and breaks up with here, he basically destroys her. So much so, I think it is a crime against women and should be outlawed. Read here:

http://phys.org/news133617019.html

http://www.icr.org/article/4776/

" think this is a minor problem because how can sex before marriage, sex with multiple partners, or cheating on your spouse, cause the destruction of the entire nation?"

It's because destruction of morals is a domino effect. It starts out with sex, then leads to other bigger problems. After all, how could one little cancer polyp destroy an entire body?

1 point

"I don't have to name a country, that's irrelevant. What matters is the message we would be telling the world. "We're the United States, and we don't give a fuck about nuclear treaties."

And what is Russia saying every time they use a nuke? "We're Russian, we don't give a fuck about the US authority." What's the point of this if we never actually enforce it? And what if we asked permission of the countries we signed the treaty with? Then we would NOT have been violating any treaty. Again, this was just a terrible political move on Obama's behalf. Even Democrats agree with me on this one (read Newser comments for verification).

1 point

Sorry, it was the end of the day and I wanted to reply to JustIgnoreMe before I logged off.

1 point

"The three sites you referenced are not reputable sites."

I say they are. You need to prove it. If you think they are not reputable, then refuting them should be easy.

1 point

Doubt it, I think you pretend to have knowledge on a subject you know next to nothing about.

As far as bacteria, nothing new is added; it just uses DNA already there.

And another thing. Why haven't you evolutionists found any missing link fossils. I've seen many human fossils, and I've seen many monkey fossils. But I haven't seen any missing link fossils. So where are those?

And what about Polystrate fossils (fossils which extend through "millions of years" of layers E.G. tree fossil)? Explain those.

"You however have chosen to lie about your education"

Half lied, there's a difference. I'm a three year student in Computer Science. LOL

No, you haven't come close to backing me into a corner. Especially on statistical probability. I say it's statistically impossible.

Supporting Evidence:

http://www.icr.org/article/155/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/tj/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v1/n1/look-at-some-figure

And yes, I'm sorry for the delay. Just been busy, busy, busy. College is kicking into gear, and I work from 7 to 7 on weekends. Not as much debate time as I had during summer break.

1 point

For being 14, this guy is a genius. You better become a brain surgeon with all that knowledge you have, or at least a nuclear physicist.

1 point

" In fact, it specifically references the flu virus combining with animal virus"

Exactly, nothing NEW is added; only COMBINED.

"If so, I think we can move on to their arguments which seem to be statistical occurrence of bad mutations over good"

Which, in itself, is a good point. For example, if I took a bunch of gears, steel, plastic, and quartz and put it into a box and shook it for 1 billion years; it's not going to turn into a watch. That's what is called statistical impossibility.

And that is the thing. Evolution could NEVER happen. It is just too statistically impossible.

Supporting Evidence (since I don't know how to do it fancy at the bottom of the post ;)

http://www.icr.org/article/155/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/tj/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v1/n1/look-at-some-figures

1 point

"I also like how you can't adequately explain your position, but you must defer to me reading a website."

Simple, you can't just say something, you have to back it up. If I say "My car can fly", I must prove to you that it does. Just because I say something doesn't mean it's true. Without proof words are meaningless.

1 point

Because criminals are never armed???

First you want to take away the public's guns. Now you want to take away guns from the police? It doesn't make sense.

I'm just glad my state has carry conceal. I don't need to rely on the police. ;)

1 point

"I presume that your referring primarily to the use of the term jihad in the Quran....etc. etc."

I suppose, but Islam is far more violent and over-reactive than Christianity. For example, turn on the news and watch as our ambassador gets violently killed over a movie trailer. Or Yahoo! search about how South Park made fun of Mohammad and Muslims were given permission to kill the writers of South Park if they met any. Christians never killed ambassadors because that country made a movie trailer making fun of Jesus. Nor did they threaten to kill the writers of South Park when they made fun of Jesus many times. So yes, I find that Islam is inherently violent.

"Moreover, you missed my primary point in bringing up the violence within Christianity and by Christianity towards others which is that very undemocratic practices have co-existed with Christianity and been justified in the name of Christianity by those who considered themselves to be Christians."

I don't think violence in itself makes a country "undemocratic". So just because there has been violence associated with Christianity doesn't make them "undemocratic". Second of all, my point was it was non-Christians persecuting true Christians. Because it was Church of England (a bunch of popes trying to get rich and powerful) persecuting Pilgrims (actual believers) I don't think the same principles apply. And I doubt that these corrupted religious leaders actually considered themselves to be Christian, so no; it was non-Christians using the name of Christianity to persecute actual Christians.

"Furthermore, literal and conservative interpretations of Christian doctrine deny equal freedoms to people based upon race (slavery), gender (rights of women), and sexual orientation (rights of homosexuals); these principles are in direct contradiction to the principles of a democratic society."

First of all, there is no where in the New Testament that states slavery is OK. Second, even the slavery mention in the Old Testament stated you had to free the slave after seven years of work giving him provision and funds necessary to make it on his own. Third, the "rights of women" argument is disputable. For example, some people (even atheists) argue that abortion kills children. And lastly, I argue that homosexuality is immoral, therefore shouldn't be a right. After all, laws against murder hinder someone's right to kill someone. As ridiculous as that example was, I hope you see my point in that you need a standard by which to back morality.

"You state that “not once is government affairs mixed in with Christianity (with the exception to obey your government)” which is flagrantly false. Christianity has a strong presence in U.S. government"

LOL, no silly. I don't mean that Christianity isn't mixed with government affairs, I mean that government affairs aren't mixed with Christianity. For example, the Bible doesn't give any instructions on how to run a country allowing man to set up a country any way he wants. The Bible doesn't tell you how to run a country, that's mans job. Our Founding Fathers set this up this country using Christian principals in order to maximize freedom. After all, you want to see how well a atheistic rooted country works? Go to Russia and see how well they have been doing.

1 point

"Again, thank you for being mature."

LOL. Don't thank me. Thank a combination of Markml0528 and Srom. I've been learning to be more mature/honest in my responses. Markml0528 especially has been teaching me a lot. ;)

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

"Islamic terrorists are just as much a part of Islam as Christian terrorists are a part of Christianity."

True, but here's my question.

The Bible does not say to kill anyone or commit any acts of terrorism for any reason whatsoever. The Quran explicitly states to kill and terrorize. So, since Christian terrorists are directly violating the Bible, should they literally be classified as Christian? I know they claim the name of Christian, but that doesn't actually make them Christian.

For example, I could change my profile to say I'm a Democrat. But if I don't follow the policy of the Democrat party; I'm not actually a Democrat.

1 point

Yes, you see, the website was having major problems when I made that post. To get an idea of how messed up CreateDebate was that night, see here:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Wassup_Up_With_This_Double_Down_vote_No_ Up_vote_Stuff#arg287685

1 point

I thought this guy was a pothead or something. Didn't we come to that conclusion in another debate?

1 point

Hell yes! There were so many cliques (or as I call them, cults) in my school that I actually wish they either working or something. They got bad grades, some of them flunked out, bullied other kids, and did atrocious acts to some of the girls. Those types of people don't deserve to go to school.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

True, but name me one country that would have been pissed that we broke this treaty in this specific circumstance.

Like the news article said, Obama had just received his Noble Peace Prize (still trying to figure out what for). I think it was more of a political move than a practical one.

1 point

Yes, finally, I found someone on CreateDebate who understands morale absolutes. It seems like everyone on here is a moral relativist.

EDIT It should say SUPPORTED not Disputed! Darn website...

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

"for it contains no color. It only absorbs light."

So....you actually mean it contains all colors? White contains no colors because it reflects all colors. Black contains all colors because it absorbs all colors. If you took Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow paint, and mixed them together, you would get white?????? Of course not, you'd get black.

What you are thinking of is light in terms of production, not reflection. There's a difference, but not to worry. I've personally made this same mistake myself tons of times. ;)

So, technically, yes; white is the most pure color because it contains absolutely no colors at all.

1 point

HA HA HA! I wasn't necessarily trying to add credibility to my argument, I was merely showing that it has been done before, so I hit the "Clarify" button. LOL. That explains a lot.

But back to the subject, my original source was the Associated Press. I do not have time for archive searching at the moment, so on a quick Google search, here is a news website that also quotes it:

http://www.newser.com/story/89023/lets-nuke-the-oil-spill-literally.html

1 point

Ah, I see. Well sorry for all of this confusion. I have changed my password into something more than just password101. And yes, sadly, that was my password. But not any longer. Thank you for helping me to clear this up.

But on a side note, like Youtube, Yahoo!, and other such websites, I do think down voting an argument enough makes it disappear; or at least censored. And since no permalink is added to an argument with the "Clarify" option, I can see how it can disappear without any trace.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

"It says you down voted on your points history on your profile..."

Hmm...Maybe I should lock up my computer instead of leaving it on. Or change my CreateDebate password, because I don't remember doing that.

" Down voting an argument doesn't make it disappear."

But I've seen it happen twice. Once with Srom and once with Micmacmoc.

1 point

Let's just hope that never happens............LOL.

1 point

"You down voted one of my argument on this debate."

That wasn't me!!!!

"You down voted Nummi into negative 1. Here"

I supported his debate, why would I downvote???

"You also down voted BenWalters. Hos post also has zero points now."

Yeah, that was me all right. I admit to that. But he called me racist in that post, but don't worry about that; we have that settled now.

"This is a retarded way to down vote arguments. You want to down vote someone for having a good argument simply because you're jealous of how many points they have? If you're going to have this mentality, please grow up. Do not down vote simply because you're jealous of how many points they have. Down vote them if their argument fundamentally does not make sense, it is illogical, or if they're fabricating information."

Eh, I just don't want the post to "magically" disappear, so I make sure it has sufficient points before downvoting. UNLIKE YOU!!! In THIS debate, you helped spam down vote a post I had made that showed that the Russians used nukes FOUR times to stop oil spills. Guess you couldn't provide a rebuttal, so you down voted, and now the argument is disappeared. Real mature.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

"First of all, I will ask for a source for that claim. Looking on CNN, I can find this article, which talks about the origins of the film. Now where does it attribute this the al Qaeda. Secondly, I found another article which said that the attacks in Libya were done by members of al Qaeda."

Here is where I found the claim. True it isn't probably a reliable source, but I just wanted to see the trailer not learn it's origins. I probably should have done better research.

"Finally, why the f@#k do I have religious prejudice?"

Here, this debate; it seems like you have a personal bias towards Muslims. Sorry for coming on a little strong there, but for reasons I don't want to make public, I got some beef with Muslims. So I apologize for overreacting.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

I will agree to disagree for now, but we are getting into a whole different debate. I need to get back on track. Starting with this.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

What? When? Are you sure one of my allies wasn't stalking me? Not all of my allies are listed on my page.

1 point

Maybe a problem with the HTML? Maybe Andy was working on the site and forgot to restore it?

Here is where the problem could be located?

http://i50.tinypic.com/1479es.png

1 point

Yeah, where's Andy? He's going to be in for a surprise when he wakes up in the morning.

1 point

But you were already famous.......

1 point

The rest of the world's isn't. Me, Srom, Saurbaby, Cuaroc, Hellno, ect. We all experience it. It's real man. REAL SCARY!

1 point

Exactly, so don't down vote his arguments (but for a different reason). If you and your allies team up and spam down vote him so much it's like -5, then I (or anyone else for that matter) can't read his arguments. I personally only downvote an argument that is +2 or more, but never less than -1.

1 point

Wow...you were a Christian? What denomination were you? And what caused you to lose your faith?

1 point

How do you trust your allies? And why? Because they have the same opinion as you?

Is that the only reason? Have you read what some of your allies have written? They're insane!

They are violent and corrupted. Do you want to be that way too? Are you OK with believeing in lies and then joining with those sorts of people? If you are OK with that, then go ahead, but understand we cannot join you.

I want truth and peace for this earth. I am tired of oppression and violence. Knowing who to trust in these hard times is difficult, but can you trust your own beliefs? Why?

I think you keep forgetting that an argument works both ways. And another question, "What is Truth?"

1 point

He is a Christian dipstick. I'm pretty sure he knows that I'm not poisoning his mind. And if you looked at his post below, he already knows about and uses Answers in Genisis. Geez, and you call us irrational....

1 point

"I don't think you understand your bias."

I can say you don't understand your bias.

"You do not want evolution to be true. It's not even a matter of evidence or logic.

You don't care if it's true, and you don't want it to be true. It would offend you if it was, wouldn't it?"

You do not want Creationism to be true. It's not even a matter of evidence or logic. You don't care if it's true, and you don't want it to be true. It would offend you if it was, wouldn't it? It'd shatter your world view and force you to realize you are held accountable to a higher deity.

REMEMBER: And argument works both ways.

"I'm not going to explain this shit to you on a debate that isn't about evolution."

Ex-fucking-actly! I was just giving Srom (a fellow Christian) some advice you dipstick! Thank you for butting in and now butting out. Geez....

1 point

"I literally vaporized your arguments on the evolution debate, to which you didn't respond to."

I'm working some heavy overtime this week (12 hours/day shifts), give me a break.

"Depends what your definition is of irrefutable proof. Mountains of evidence from independent fields of science that all point to the same theory and in most cases strengthen it, along with absolutely zero evidence that would suggest evolution is false, is proof for me. That might not be proof for you."

Yeah from people biased for evolution.

"You pre suppose the condition that evolution is still an unproven theory"

You are pre-supposing that creationism is untrue. I don't think you realize you are still in the same boat here buddy.

"no evidence for the existence of God. "

Really? Have you not seen the stars in the sky, the birds in the air, the intricate workings of our own bodies? That's evidence for a God if I ever did see one, but we can argue this in our other debate. I have about four hours free tomorrow, so you can get the reply you have been waiting for from point one. I just hate jumping from debate to debate, though.

1 point

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I am very happy now.

But as far as the argument goes, I respect your stance, just on the opposite side. Me (I?) and Jace are debating the issue right now. Were kinda at a stand still, though. I think we agree to disagree.

1 point

True that! When South Park made fun of Mohammad, the Muslims said that any of their followers could kill the writers of South Park. Yet South Park has made fun of Jesus many times and the Christians don't get all violent about it.

1 point

Ha Ha Ha! Sorry man, I posted that at like, 11 PM. I must have missed that. True, these are terrorist acts; but may I ask could these be terrorist organizations using the name of Christianity, and not actually being Christian? The Bible does not condone or justify any of these atrocities. To say that they are actually Christian, in my opinion, would be incorrect since they do not follow the teachings of the Bible. Whereas the Quran explicitly states that the Muslims are in a state of holy war.

1 point

"Are you joking or trolling?"

You do realize I can use the same argument against you.

"I'm not going to respond to you though, because you have already shown yourself to be insane on other debates."

A person who is insane never considers himself to be insane. So my question is, how do we know that you are not the one who is insane?

"I have also done research on evolution. It makes logical sense."

You have provided me a link to a lot of good theory, but you still haven't provided me with any irrefutable proof that evolution is true.

"I'm afraid you have not done the research, or you are just trolling me."

Yeah, I just couldn't resist the Dilbert cartoon. But my original claim still stands:

How can you criticize Christians for being "blind believers" when evolution is still an unproven theory, and you have to accept it by faith?

I have never had an evolutionist answer this question satisfactorily.

1 point

If I am not intruding, may I ask which candidate has views most similar to yours?

1 point

The thing is, I wasn't shifting the debate. I am merely questioning the grounds on which you called my backup statement to view. You said, "In what way is the United States becoming socialist?" I provided you with information. Now, instead of providing a rebuttal, you are merely trying to bring my argument into a negative light with which you can use it to your advantage. I am merely questioning the grounds on which you are doing it. So, my question still stands, How does this make us a more free and democratic country? And don't dodge the question. I provided the back up in my first argument, now it's your turn for the rebuttal.

All right, now on to the fun part. Why would laws for this be a violation of our freedom? It's illegal to murder someone, it's illegal to speed, it's illegal pray and read the Bible in schools. Why don't we just top off the list with this?

And why do you think this is a minor problem, and why wouldn't this cause the downfall of our nation?

And why are you asking which debate this was?

1 point

"You know how long Genesis is?

30 pages. You think that's enough to describe the history of the universe and how life formed?"

Well, considering God created everything in seven days, I suppose 30 pages is more than sufficient.

And another thing. Evolution is still an unproven theory. What you don't understand is you believe in evolution by faith just as much as a Christian believes in God.

Supporting Evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhbtCWHj1g

Enjoy! ;)

1 point

"I am not saying that I wasn't wrong.

For fucks sake ..."

But neither are you saying that you are wrong.

Look, all I want is you to at least admit that my argument wasn't racist. That's all. No beating around the bush, no "I didn't come out and directly call you racist" cover up, just a "No your argument wasn't racist." That's it. Like I said, I respect you stance, I just don't like the "racist" accusation.

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

Now now, I wasn't trying to attack you; just getting the full story. But would you care to explain the belief that you are trying to justify?

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

Now, are you using your links as a justification of something? If so, I can bet the argument is self defeating.

1 point

Ah, I see. The evolution vs. Creationism debate is extremely complex. I suppose I would start with this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

That should help some.

1 point

Ah, I see. So how do you handle elections? If you don't vote party, then I don't see how your vote has any weight. And if you don't vote.....well that's for a different debate.

1 point

1. You do realize that Muslims aren't a race of people, right? Muslim is the term given to the followers of Islam (a religion). So no, we aren't racist for discriminating against them.

2. What in the world are you trying to say? Here is the best I could do:

More than 90% of the total terrorist group in the world is from a single religion. We must think over it and stop acting like we are not racist, or clear up any ambiguity with that religion and ask, "What's wrong with you guys?" Because there is seriously something wrong, either written or understood, by you guys that's creating the whole problem.

I mean seriously, did you flunk out of first grade? Do you even know what you are talking about? I doubt it. You can't even type what you are trying to say.

"Did you really think I was so stupid that I wouldn't recognize a run-on sentence?"

-Grammar Nazi

1 point

Yes, but when the quran says to kill anyone who won't convert; you don't think that's going too far? The problem with you argument is it's false "Christians" killing other true Christians. Yes, I can see where you might be confused with thinking it's a fallacy, but the fact of the matter is I don't see very many Muslims killing other Muslims because they won't agree with their particular "state-church". And the fact that the quaran says to kill anyone who won't convert kinda sums up the whole group.

"Christianity does not have a monopoly on democracy, and Christians are not the only ones capable of pursuing it (nor of destroying it)."

Technically, yes. But the problem is all other religions that aren't Christian are set up around bureaucratic dictatorships. Christianity is made to give people as many freedoms as they possibly can have by setting up an absolute standard of morality. Not once is government affairs mixed in with Christianity (with the exception to obey your government). So in the founding of our country, Christianity had the strongest influence of anything else in the history of the world. That's why no other country came close to the freedom we enjoy today, because no other country was ever rooted in Christianity. After all, didn't our Founding Fathers start out every meeting with a word of prayer?

GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

True, but just because another person made the same mistake doesn't mean it's correct. If I said that 2+2=5, and found someone who agreed with me; would that mean 2+2 really equals five? Of course not! It's just that now two people are incorrect. And to be fair, you're going to bring a guy who misspells every word and writes his posts as a huge run-on sentence as an educated debater?

The reason, though, that I nit picked the issue in the first place is because Democrats tend to play the race card whenever they can't win an argument rationally. I wish you never played the race card in the first place. Whenever people start shouting "racist", it usually shows a weak mindset. Especially when they are not even talking about an actual race.

1 point

"In what way does the 1st thing make this country socialist...?"

In what way does it makes us a free democratic country?

"I do understand how cheating on your partner (spouse) could cause problems, and I even consider it immoral myself. As for the guy sleeping with three women, I would imagine I and most other people frown upon it, but I don't see it as immoral really. It's their choice. So long as both adults are consenting, I don't see a problem with whatever they choose to do sexually."

Why don't you see it as immoral?

"And about getting me to shut up, I was at work. I had enough time to sign in and see what you responded but I didn't have time to respond yet."

Yeah, yeah; it's just that I saw another Democrat use "you're not posting fast enough" on one of us (interestingly on a debate that you were on) and couldn't resist.

1 point

Sorry for the delay. I've been a little caught up in this "Innocence of a Muslim" movie trailer thing going on in the news. But do not fret. I shall repost. Just give me a second to collect my wits in order to better provide an educated rebuttal.

1 point

Dude, Srom. I'm your ally. I asked you for help in a debate yesterday. If that don't make you feel welcome, then I don't know what will. So don't be so depressed buddy.

1 point

Here's something interesting. According to CNN, the "movie trailer" was actually a short film made by Al Qaeda in order to stir up anti-American hatred. LOL BenWalters can't even get it right he is so blinded by religious prejudice.

1 point

" But that doesn't mean everyone else is innocent."

Including those who offend/insult Christianity? It seems you are pro-Muslim here. But when it comes any other religion that isn't Muslim, then you are free to insult like there's no tomorrow. Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.

0 points

Wow, there is so many things wrong with your statement. Here, let me help. Originally, they were going to send a nuclear bomb down there and implode the well. But Obama didn't want to do that because it would "give an excuse for Iran to build 'peaceful' nuclear weapons". So no, Obama prevented them from taking immediate action.

1 point

And an uneducated moron who can't even type a sentence would know this how? ;)

1 point

True, most Grammar Nazis don't invalidate an argument. But I personally think all your sentence errors reflect badly on your authority. If you can't even type a sentence correctly, how can we trust you to make educated arguments?

For entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SFjP6rFmI

1 point

"As far as the decline in morality, I don't know if there is any more decline now then what has always been. What I do know is that the acts of immorality now are on a larger scale, such as Madoff, Enron, BP oil spill, etc."

BP oil spill was immoral????? It may have been bad for the environment, but immoral? Do you even know what that word means?

-1 points

Ha! I shut him up fast. I suppose that's the trouble with Democrats. They don't see that they are really just communist under a different name.

1 point

"Christianity does not have any innately democratic nature to it. For hundreds of years it was directly connected to monarchs and empires that were precisely the opposite of democratic (e.g. The Church of England),"

So, the Pilgrims, Puritans, and the Reformers weren't Christians? I think you have a misunderstanding of history. The Church of England was not Christian. It was corrupted and cruel. The actual Christians, the ones that founded America on Christian principles of freedom, are the ones you want to reference. Therefore, I do not believe that Christianity was the cause of empires opposite of that which is democratic, it is the Wolves in Christian clothing that you need to look out for.

2 points

Did Jew not realize I was pointing one out the flaws in your sentence? I mean seriously, how could you Nazi that you wrote a run-on sentence, misspelled words, and didn't use correct punctuation? Anne Frankly, I don't really respect the opinions of those who cannot even have the common decency to use correct grammar.

1 point

"there are majority Muslim nations which are democratic disproves your argument that Islam is "completely contradictory" to democracy."

Not really, I would call these "dictatorships with some democratic tendencies". With how the Muslim religion is put together, they can only handle a "supreme authority" government body. Whereas Christianity is put together in order to maximize freedom.

"If you want to argue the "majority of states" stance then I think you have to confront the reality that in recent history most states have not been democratic or republic including the majority of predominantly Christian states. The Islamic religion is not inherently contradictory to democracy any more than Christianity; it merely coexists in some countries with non-democratic forms of government just as Christianity does."

No, wrong again. It's the states dominated by Democrats that haven't been free. Just look at the state of Wisconsin. For the past 12 years it's had a Democrat for a governor. They had freedom taken away left and right. Now that Walker's in office, they have more freedom than ever. In fact I heard he even passed a law that allows carry conceal weapons. He gave Wisconsin another freedom, where a Democrat would just take it away. Whether you are for or against gun control, you can't deny that he gave Wisconsin a freedom.

"Furthermore, we have Islamic legal representatives who serve in their capacity arguably just as well as any other non-Muslim elected official."

I'm not as familiar with these as I probably should be. Could you provide information?

1 point

"Did you really think I was so stupid, I wouldn't recognize a run-on sentence?"

-Grammar Nazi

1 point

Link to information? Where's your proof?

1 point

Can you prove this? I would like evidence to back this claim.

1 point

All right, where shall I begin?

1. The allowance of tapping into any cell or landline phone to listen in on our conversations, the interception of any and all text messages, the interception of any and all emails, the unwarranted allowance of tracking devices on our vehicles (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/), the list could go on and on. I mean come on, the evidence is everywhere. Just open your eyes.

2. The tolerance of sex before marriage, the tolerance of sex with more than one partner, cheating on your partner becoming common (http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-men-cheat). In college, I overheard a conversation of a guy sleeping with THREE women behind their backs! Do you not see this??

1 point

All right then, let's go back to my original post, the one BenWalters called me a racist about.

"then as long as I believed that they would do a good job"

Yes, but there is a difference between you believing they would do a good job, and them actually doing a good job. With the ways the Muslim politics work, they are completely contradictory with that of the American system. That's why most Muslim countries are dictatorships.

1 point

It seems like it's doing a pretty good job. 1984 predicted that we would become socialist and Brave New World predicted a complete decline in morality. It seems like both became true.

1 point

Also, this is based on "maybe". Doctors only "think" they can't treat diseases. But look at how much medicine has progressed today. A disease that was a "Black Plague" and would have killed 4000+ people a 100 years ago is now easily treated today.

1 point

Labour reminds me of Democrats. ;)

1 point

I don't think you understand, discrimination is a good thing:

“Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths amongst women and affects over 1.3 million women per year. Breast cancer doesn't discriminate by nationality or race. Do you want to be like breast cancer? Well, do you? If you don't discriminate, you're acting just like breast cancer; you might as well just kill 400,000 women annually. If you think breast cancer is a bad thing and you're against the death of a half million middle-aged women then racism is for you. Remember: racism is not like breast cancer at all. ” -David Duke

1 point

" if anything, its helped keep me alive in my life."

Ah, so you are both psychologically and emotionally unstable? Even more of a reason to seek professional help and get off the drugs.

1 point

What do you mean? By support, do you mean we should support child labor? Be more clear when writing arguments.

1 point

Because they were ever in danger of being banned?? It's kinda 50/50 for me. Mobile phones in general are good. Texting is a waste of time, and a danger to everyone on the road.

1 point

Holy Crap! You exist??!?!? I haven't heard from you in ages. Nice to see you are back on CreateDebate though.


1 of 4 Pages: Next >>

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