CreateDebate


Kite626's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Kite626's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

One year later, and still you hold activity on this website lol

1 point

It's common sense for me to not find better of self, through simply joining a religion i simply am better. It's as though you say those who are without religion are bad people. I understand the christian faith, but if you paid attention to the question; "would i join," i state no. Reasoning that an establishment has no way to better human being. You're emotionally involved with your side far too much, to make rational notice of a differing statement. It's not that hard to allow people to be good without joining a bandwagon.

1 point

Not at all, i don't believe in something being an absolute truth for many reasons. Most importantly i know firsthand it's invalid. Another big reason being that i find it odd that anything you can simply say, "hey, i'm now bla bla bla." holds low credibility in terms of it being true. Anything you can simply join, is something that is easily not questioned in depth.

1 point

As soon as your joke was only a joke in your mind, and wasn't to others. Typically when the majority of people wouldn't laugh.

1 point

They didn't become anything, we created, sustained, and evolved their reason of duty. We created them with the need to protect ourselves from ourselves. It worked at first, so we sustained the need for them. But the flaw in that method of produce security arises when you realize the nature of the concept. How do we think it's possible to deligate people to be eligible for protecting us from us. When we the public don't protect those who enforce. So they eventually evolved from protecting us, to protecting themselves from hostile people. So no, 1 they have been like this. 2. we made them become as so. 3. they have no choice in which they are protecting.

1 point

I agree in a conceptualized aspect. In my opinion time itself allows existence to remain eternal. Without the flow of time nothing would exist, due to the fact we age etc. Space is an area in which an object is held. Space itself surrounds everything, including time. Without space, time wouldn't maintain itself.

Kite626(714) Clarified
1 point

I'm starting online courses for this upcoming fall for associates. I agree college is needed. I plan on going to corperate. I'm saying that it seems like this was more quick, short and long term. I'm going to start out 11 an hour as well.

1 point

If a good is to exist, he must know. If it wasn't so, you and I would technically be gods. If you think about it, the perception of god is almighty. The only difference between us and a god is flawlessness. If he is an unknowing being, we would technically be gods.

1 point

So from my understanding you're younger? You stated how wisdom comes with age. That's an unwise perspective. You misconceived the cause of wisdom. Time doesn't create wisdom, experiences within the time do. Its also unwise to perceive intelligence as something that can be gauged. The mental apptitude of someone is incomprehensible. Yet you seem to have comprehensively gauge at least 2billion people. Assuming is unwise, and according to your outlook, you are young. Your reasoning is irrational.

1 point

What if that information was a form of manipulation? Reading something doesn't make it true. I'll put it in analogy of what google plausibly is.

lets say I create a program ran through a Bluetooth headset. On this headset I allow people to ask questions, and my information is automated response to voice recognition. Lets say you ask me whether or not god is real. Then I present the automated responses. If my intent is to dissuade the populace I would lie and let them here what pleases them. Which is the same concept of google. People find the Mayan calendar to be bullshit, yet we listen to the all knowing google. People ask for the future weather, climate and more. I think Mayans tried predicting and answering questions through and omnipotent power too. We treat google as a god, our tribute to this god is money for the internet, making us unaware, and them more powerful.

1 point

I read most of the perceptions that were posted. You guys have a different outlook to determine your conclusion. There is something called the deep web, which is the full access to surf the web. We are only granted to 3% access. Meaning, the information and knowledgeable answers we gain are from people. What I'm getting at is that the information provided could plausibly be a manipulated lie to control introspective perception. I think true brilliance comes from free thinking, without the interruption of 3rd person opinion. Most view google as an all knowing omnipotent guru. Its not about whether we are becoming lazy, or quick witted. The question is; "who is making the web operational, and is there a way to find out absolute truth of society?" so yes I believe google manipulates and deludes one's perception.

2 points

Pretty much, that's how I see things. No true complexity in the question.

Kite626(714) Clarified
1 point

You're right, when you base it off the premise that my statement only has one interpretation. I don't observe the obligation of a purpose. The question is seeking meaning within life. life has no meaning, unless you find individual purpose. Which we all eventually find out our own purpose. life holds value only when we have purpose. The question can't be answered in an individual perspective. Due to the fact we all find perceive a different version of value, what life could mean. Something we all have is purpose and we all live. Basically saying, "A meaningful life is a life that holds purpose." Any other hypothesis is in and individual perspective, meaning people answer this question thinking their meaning is life's meaning.

1 point

Is your statement directed towards my outlook? If so i don't see the relevance in your point.

1 point

thanks .

3 points

The purpose of life, is a life with purpose .

1 point

Jesus !

1 point

Clarify this a bit more. Are you saying you don't understand solitary confinement? And if so why or why not?

1 point

Epictetus grew up a slave and he philosophized the stoic belief. Not once did he not feel free.

2 points

It can't be justified but it can have more of an advantage. No matter the reasoning the outcome remains. War can not be justified but it can be rationalized. Such as the huge amount to die, resorts some issues on economical supply on a demand. Also America fueled both sides of the war with oil, helping with debt. Saying something is justifiable indicates there is a right and wrong. I do not believe in right and wrong, it's only a perception. We are all equal mortals sharing land, no one can determine absolute right and wrong. So no war cannot be justified but it can be rationalized.

2 points

You need to read some book written by Epictetus. Freedom resides in everyone no matter the situation. They can control is physically but our minds will always be ours. "Though my ankle remains shackled, my mind lives elsewhere."

1 point

I'm not dictating them, I'm questioning them. When did I give an order? Do you not understand a debate? You also just changed what makes you support a war. First it was , "assets" and "liberty." Now you say life preservation. How can genocide conserve life..so your solution to an issue is destroy the cause?

1 point

"Liberty." You mean that there was bloodshed of countless lives to sign a document? There is no liberty for the dead, yet you agree with it in order to feel self-freedom? You can put what ever reason behind the act, but the act remains the same. That's like saying you support murder for the right reasons.

1 point

I do have a right, especially on a debating website. Nor do I troll. Also every war was based on the intent of obtaining an "asset," and an "religious," notion. You also contradicted yourself by pointing out hitler which wasn't even a war. Where is the liberty and having people you never knew existed die. Liberty isn't tangible, war is just a front for the stabilization of a countries populous. To answer your question, no it wasn't wrong nor was it right stopping hitler. It was the humane way, yes. You should also leave emotion out of an argument, you lose sight of the point.


1 of 29 Pages: Next >>

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