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.
Why are you making a drama debate when I was polite with you and admitted that I need to do better? At least you are nice enough to let me post. I said I was going to do better and I meant it. :(
What makes it justified is that it is true. This is not the personal attack that you think it is, and even if it were it would be requited, not because you did or did not do something to me. It would requited because it is accurate.
To ask the question "Is this person wrong" is not an attack, it's an objective question with an objective answer, and as far as I've seen the answer is, yes you are wrong. No you do not know what you are talking about.
I'd say, debate with her and you'll have your answer, but to save you the trouble, and to uphold my word in the description, I'll find direct quotes and link to them showing she does not know what she is talking about.
I refer you to argument one, she said:
"I misunderstood what you said. I read the whole thing now. I agree."
What this shows, is one of many of her misunderstandings that indicate she will argue on, even when she does not understand. With that in mind, what's to say she ever understands? I'd also like to point out some incriminating words she used specifically. "I read the whole thing now". It's as clear as day that she made the mistake of responding to an argument, either asking questions, or making assumptions, when she did not even first read that argument. Someone who knew how to debate would not make that mistake, at least I like to think so.
Next I take you to a debate she titled herself. It's in fact the very debate I just showed you.
What draws attention to this debate, is that it is titled in a manner that asks a simple question, a question that has one answer that can easily be searched, with no need for discussion. In the description... there is nothing, so we only have to go off of the debate's title.
It's a small mistake, asking "does" when you mean "should" anyone could make it. However when confronted about said mistake, here she first disputed by saying
"No, I am asking if the fetus does have rights. I feel that the fetus is a person." using the words "I feel" clearly indicating she made this debate as a way to get opinions, but disputed me because she was upset. The argument I linked to, was my second argument, her second argument follows, and it says even more about how she feels, and how this is her opinion, yet she refuses to accept that the debate was titled incorrectly.
This went on for some while, me pointing out her flaw, her denying it to even be a flaw, until she got upset with my refusal to play along, and banned me. I was since unbanned, so I won't be able to prove that part, but it happened out of anger at being told she's wrong.
I've show arguments that show SitaraMusica does not know what she is talking about, and I've shown a debate. The last thing I can use to back up my claim that she in fact does not know what she is talking about is how on a majority of her "yes or no" debates, the sides are labeled counter to what the debate site places them as. The site placing them, yes on left and no on right. She often switches these, the reason being very clear to me, that she is biased. So biased in fact that she will often make her position clear in the description, or in whatever link she was going to refer to being put on the side with which she agrees. This bias, and lack of respect for the proper orientations of the sides, added to the evidence in her arguments and debates, tells me pretty clearly... SitaraMusica does not know what she is talking about, and mind me for using circular logic, but to even suggest she does, shows even more lack of knowledge in what she is talking about.
Andy, this is the third person who has independently posted somthing like this in the last couple of weeks. Why don't you ban her? You have banned her before and she should never have been allowed to just to create another account to get round it. You know she is too stupid to get past an IP ban. Why don't you just do it? Is this really want you want your site to be like?
I'm not vying to have her banned, I feel even the ignorant deserve a voice, i just also feel they should take it upon themselves to do something about their ignorance, rather that spouting it with reckless abandon.
How I formally feel is that no one should be silenced. How I personally feel is that ignoramuses need to know when to be silent.
Well the fact that you keep posting nude indecent images of unborn children on this site suggest that you are a sexual deviant.
However, to reiterate, I took back what I said about you deservng to be rape - it was poorly worded. I clarified by saying you deserve a good hard slap around the head. If you don't understand that then that's your issue not mine.
Of course you're not a rapist.... I said it knowing that no one would believe it and of course no one did believe it. It is like calling you a light bulb. No one actually would think youre a light bulb.....
It doesn't suggest anything of the sort, nor is anything of the sort required. 'Born' refers to a status as well as an action, returning the child to the womb entails removing that status.
Yes it does. Childbirth is when a female releases various amounts of fluids , hormones , goes through contractions and other bodily mechanisms ...A child can't be born without those things occurring, so to say the child would be "un-born" by simply putting it back in, would mean to reverse childbirth.
It is not murder so long as it is legal. Murder is a very specific legal term referring to unlawful killing. You could call it immoral killing, but calling it murder is factually incorrect except in jurisdictions where it is illegal.
Compare the term 'criminal.' While I don't see it done frequently, people have been known to use the term in regards to conduct that, while immoral, is not actually illegal. This is the same type of misuse as your usage of murder. 'Murder' and 'Criminal' both deal with the letter of the law, not personal moral codes.
I understand you attach more emotional emphasis to the various forms of the word 'murder' than you do to the various forms of the word 'kill,' and that you're using the term specifically to emphasize your view on the matter- but it's still factually incorrect.
Unless the mother's life is in danger or the baby will die anyway.
I agree with you on the life is in danger part, but not necessarily 'the baby will die anyway.' If a person has a terminal illness and is all but guaranteed to be dead within a year, it's still murder to kill them, isn't it? Why would this not be applicable to a fetus, unless we're assigning a level of rights to them that is somewhere below human rights?
It is not murder so long as it is legal. Murder is a very specific legal term referring to unlawful killing. You could call it immoral killing, but calling it murder is factually incorrect except in jurisdictions where it is illegal. Just because something is legal does not mean that it is acceptable. Slavery was legal and it is wrong. Hitler killed the Jews and it was wrong. Saudi Arabia violates the rights of women, and that is wrong. I agree with you on the life is in danger part, but not necessarily 'the baby will die anyway.' If a person has a terminal illness and is all but guaranteed to be dead within a year, it's still murder to kill them, isn't it? Why would this not be applicable to a fetus, unless we're assigning a level of rights to them that is somewhere below human rights? Thank you. I disagree on dying with dignity though. People have the right to end there suffering.
Just because something is legal does not mean that it is acceptable. Slavery was legal and it is wrong. Hitler killed the Jews and it was wrong. Saudi Arabia violates the rights of women, and that is wrong.
I am not arguing whether the action in question is acceptable or not, or any statements regarding whether the conduct in question is immoral. I am merely stating that the term 'murder' in the English language is fundamentally a term of legal classification. It can still be considered unacceptable and immoral- but whether or not it is murder is simply a yes or no question based on legal status.
Thank you. I disagree on dying with dignity though. People have the right to end there suffering.
Remember that "read before you respond" bit I'm always harping you on? I'm not talking about willful euthanasia- I'm making a comparison to a fetusl, which is unable to even be aware of the incoming abortion. If somebody has a terminal illness and will die anyway, but has not expressed an interest in dying with dignity, either by suicide or euthanasia, wouldn't it still be murder to take the decision out of their hands and just kill them?
I am not arguing whether the action in question is acceptable or not, or any statements regarding whether the conduct in question is immoral. I am merely stating that the term 'murder' in the English language is fundamentally a term of legal classification. It can still be considered unacceptable and immoral- but whether or not it is murder is simply a yes or no question based on legal status. Fair enough. I agree. Remember that "read before you respond" bit I'm always harping you on? I'm not talking about willful euthanasia- I'm making a comparison to a fetusl, which is unable to even be aware of the incoming abortion. If somebody has a terminal illness and will die anyway, but has not expressed an interest in dying with dignity, either by suicide or euthanasia, wouldn't it still be murder to take the decision out of their hands and just kill them? Okay, I agree. I misunderstood you. My bad.
You believe abortion should be legal, you've said it on several debates. You insured that it was with the clause of it being dangerous to the mother, but ultimately it'd be legal, yet you claim you are pro life.
What can be taken from your argument, pulled out to specifically show that what you said to Atrag is false, is this direct statement.
"I only support abortion"
Note: I'm not misquoting you, I'm simply leaving off irrelevant information. It is important to note politically that you only support abortions under a specific clause, the clause being danger to the mother, it is however true to simply say, you support abortion. Thus you support abortion, and are pro-life.
I used to be prochoice until maybe a month ago when I saw a baby born at 15 weeks. He was very human and I realize that I was wrong about abortion. I only support abortion if the mother's life is in danger or the baby will die anyway. Thank you for being honest about leaving out information. Stay awesome.
I do not understand. Why force someone to have a baby? I get it, you should be responsible for your actions, but forcing an apparent unfit mother to have a child would not be rational thinking. If the mother is obviously unfit to have a child making her take care of one would not only be irrational but inconsiderate to the unborn child. Her care for an unwanted child will most likely be 'subpar' which may involve negligence and abuse. Of course you can call child services but you would first, need to know if the child is being abused, and how the child is being abused. With CPS mental abuse is normally missed. By mental abuse I mean comments, gestures, etc., that would effect the child's self image and character. Comments may consist of; "I did not even want you", "I hate you", "If I could have I would have gotten rid of you before gaining weight and loosing my life". All I am saying is that forcing an unfit mother to conceive a child is irrational. You might hit me with "adoption" but as I said that is being inconsiderate of the child. When a child finds out that his parents are not really its parents can cause serious emotional, authoritative, distrusting, etc., problems for the child. Of course an abortion would prevent any of these said things from happening. Why un-legalize it.
Why force someone to have a baby. If someone does not want a baby, they need to use contraception or close their legs. With CPS, mental abuse is normally missed. Sexual abuse is missed too. My father raped me and CPS did nothing, even when he admitted it. Face it: The elite do not care about people like us. Forcing an unfit mother to conceive a child is irrational. I am not forcing women to conceive children. I fully support healthcare, contraception, adoption reform, and so on. What I do not support is abortion. I understand if the life of the mother is in danger or if the baby will die anyway, but otherwise, no abortion.