CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I had to pick yes, because based on this every one I know is a terrorist. With that said this statement should not be used to define American terrorist, but this just shows what the government is looking for as to who is gonna fight back when marshal law is in effect.
It is slated because Taliban and other Muslim radicals are on the far right of the political spectrum. I would be willing to guess that most conservatives would be (at least under this) a terrorist
By these standards , yes . Except for homeschooling and new world order like the illuminati . But I don't understand how supporting the constitution makes you a domestic terrorist
I am having trouble finding an actual DHS reference that uses such criteria.
Even so, considering terrorism refers to an action I would say I’m not a terrorist.
While this article claims that these are some indicators that the DHS uses to determine if someone is a potential terrorist, unless the “potential” part becomes “actual,” anyone fitting that description would not be terrorists.
Expressing an opinion, even if it’s threatening or unpatriotic is not illegal. It might get you some attention, but that’s with good reason a lot of times.
A person who chooses to live differently or dress a particular way is also not illegal. Again, it might get you some attention, but keep your nose clean and you have nothing to worry about.
Excuse me? Not all Christians are conservative. Im a centrist Christian. That means if two black lesbians wanna protect their marijuana plants with assault rifles, Im all for it provided that they are mentally stable. I also support the right to healthcare, contraception, due legal process, and a same sex couples right to get married or divorced. Every religion has good and bad people. Not all Christians wanna kill gays or bomb abortion clinics. Such violence is against my beliefs. Im sorry for how Christians act.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
You still have to logically agree that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I am seriously wondering if being gay is not a sin the Bible is wrong and there God doesn't exist. Correct?
This would seem to have tones of the argument from fallacy, though it's not it exactly; the 'argument from fallacy' fallacy is, essentially, dismissing a position in its entirety because the individual arguing for that position committed a logical fallacy. When a logical fallacy is committed, only the statement involving the fallacy can reasonbly be discarded.
For example, if I were to use circular reasoning in one statement when detailing my position, that would invalidate the statement involving circular reasoning. It would be itself fallacious, however, to dismiss the rest of my position based on that.
The Bible is an anthology of numerous works by different authors. If one book is assumed to be wrong, this does not necessarily discredit any of the others, except insofar as that book establishes premises or provides quotes that other books are founded on or use.
There are numerous cases where the Biblical take on something can be demonstrated to be wrong, but that doesn't in and of itself provide a rational ground for dismissing it in entirety. The idea that the bible must be entirely right or entirely wrong is a false dichotomy.
I dont have to do anything. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I will believe and do as I please, you got that?
So you think homosexuality is fine? Do you believe the Bible? Also it is not a no true scotsman fallacy when the Bible actually condemns it and you claim to be a Christian who thinks the Bible is infallible.
It is the no true Scotsman fallacy to say Christians cant support gay rights. The Bible does not condemn being gay. Save your religious hate for someone who cares. I am a Christian whether you like it or not. Let He who is without sin cast the first stone, so put down the stone, sinner.
The Bible condemns gay marriage in Romans 1:26 and many other verses. Christianity assuming Romans and all of the Bible is infallible condemns homosexuality.
I could say the same to you. Me supporting gay rights does not make me less of a Christian or a debater. Fallacy fallacy. Disagreement does not equal a fallacy.
I could say the same to you. Me supporting gay rights does not make me less of a Christian or a debater. Fallacy fallacy. Disagreement does not equal a fallacy.
It doesn't make you less of a debater but it does make you a bad Christian. Also say you are right and David was gay, David also committed adultery and murder by putting someone on the front lines. By that logic it is okay because he did that. So even if David/Ruth/ETC was gay (Which is rejected by everyone except gaychristian101). It does not mean we should act like those people. It is obvious from reading that it was talking about friendship. No one without reading that site would think anything else unless you told them that.
It doesn't make you less of a debater but it does make you a bad Christian. You have no right to judge me because you are not God. Dont tell me what to do or believe because that is against my rights. YOU are the bad Christian for judging. Judge not lest you be judged, sinner.
That verse was talking about hypocrities. You are taking it out of context. I am not in homosexual sin so I have the right to judge. Are you ever going to respond to Romans 1:26
Only God has the right to judge. God is the author and finisher of my faith, not you according to Hebrews 12:2. Being straight does not give you rights anymore than being gay does.
Do you care what God says? I find it disturbing, that one can show you what the Bible says about homosexual behavior, and you can say I don't care. How, then, can you call yourself a Christian?
What is the biblical basis for oppressing homosexuals? Even if one assumes that homosexuality is innately sinful, who of you are without sin and have any business casting that first stone?
Your logical fallacy is: No True Scotsman. Example: You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument. In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument. Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge. Conclusion: Support for gay rights does not negate my Christian faith. Reference: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
Religious people being held accountable for their actions is not persecution. You have no right to say who I can and cannot marry. If I wanna marry a consenting adult woman, you have no right to stop me. He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither.
