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.
If you were a WWII soldier, you may have used a condom over your rifle to prevent water from getting in that otherwise would've caused damage. That very same rifle later may have saved your life in the heat of combat.
Condoms don't have enough elasticity to do that job.
Not enough elasticity? What are you talking about? A leather belt or a length of rope can be used for a tourniquet, and neither has anywhere near the elasticity of latex.
Were you referring to tensile strength perhaps, and suggesting that a condom doesn't have the tensile strength to apply sufficient pressure for a tourniquet without snapping? Because twisting the condom itself can overcome some of that, and twisting several condoms together all of it.
Of course it was a predictable response. It was almost obligatory, given that we're on the internet here. I'd have had to turn in my geek card if I didn't use it!
In all seriousness though. A standard sized condom is perfectly capable of stretching far enough to wrap around the average thigh at its midpoint with room to tie it off and twist. You grossly underestimate how elastic they are. Of course, the tensile strength is likely to be insufficient if there is a lot of fat to compress in addition to skin, muscle, and artery. A large condom stretched and twisted would address this, however- as could two or more standard condoms twisted and tied together.
I would suggest that your lack of experience with condoms implies that your opinion regarding their usability in such a scenario is an uninformed one.
The most I could provide you are hospital records, but I have no access to that information. If you don't have any evidence to show me how the current stats are falsified then I'm brushing away your argument.
Pro-logos is a troll. I literally have nothing better to do with my time when I have time to get on CD (since no one really argues anymore) so I don't mind feeding him.
Just in case you were becoming seriously invested in his arguments.
You make very seemingly disingenuous statements all the time. One could say you love to be on the least preferred side, or one could say you really enjoy opposing others, even without a logical reason to. The majority of interactions I've had with you indicate that you're not sincere in what you type, which is general troll behavior.
That's a misconception. The term trolling got it's roots on the internet from the real world derivative, trolling for fish, or fishing. That's why in some circles, people will refer to trolling, as 'fishing'. That said, a fisherman, or real world troll, is not trying to hurt the fishes' feelings, he is trying to get their attention, baiting them in, to catch them. This translates to an internet troll being simply anyone who spends their time acting in a way different than they would normally, in an attempt to get a reaction out of others.
Uhhh.... Aids maybe? People in Africa die of aids all the time. Aids is sexually transmitted. If one has aids, and has sex with a condom (assume that it doesn't break) they would have therefore prevented a transmission of aids through intercourse. Again, aids kills. (Or just allows you to be killed easily.)
If you survive a stabbing, your body will heal. Aids does not just 'heal' as a wound would.
It kills a person by basically shutting down their immune system (the body' defense against infection) allowing any infection they get, from any potentially dangerous germ, to become fatal.
The exact specifics are unknown to me, but the general idea is that the virus hijacks the white blood cells, and instead of allowing them to create the chemicals that fight off the infection, they create replicas of the virus instead.
Technically I'm relating what I've read from generally reliable sources. If it's not logical to use information from others more researched than yourself, then how would the average man know anything, without being able to test it themselves?
Okay so before doing that, I'll ask. Will me citing the source of the defintion of AIDs, and me citing the source of how AIDs can kill, prove to you that the position I chose is right?
I simply ask because I find that when dealing with trolls they tend to have an answer for everything, or more likely an excuse ready.
Viruses tend to be specialists. They zero in on a few particular types of cells in the body and move in. The human immunodeficiency virus is best known for targeting the T cells of the immune system. However, it can also attack cells of the brain, nervous system, digestive system, lymphatic system, and other parts of the body.
The immune system is made up of specialized cells in the bloodstream that fight off invading germs to keep the body healthy. The "T" cells (also referred to as "T4," "helper-T," or "CD4" cells) are the brains of the operation. These white blood cells identify invaders and give orders to soldier-type cells, which then battle various bacteria, viruses, cancers, fungi, and parasites that can make a person sick.
Like all viruses, HIV is only interested in one thing: reproducing itself. Once it has attacked and moved into a T cell, it converts that cell into a miniature virus factory. Eventually there are so many new viruses in the cell that the T cell explodes, scattering the HIV back into the bloodstream. The virus then moves on to fresh T cells and repeats the process. Over time, HIV can destroy virtually all of an infected person's T cells in this manner.
With fewer and fewer "leaders" to rely on for warnings, the "soldier" cells become powerless. They can no longer recognize and fight off common organisms that would not present a problem to a healthy immune system. These organisms may be lying dormant in the body already, or may enter from outside. The immune system's weakness gives them the opportunity to wake up, multiply, and cause illness. Thus, we call these illnesses "opportunistic infections." People with fully functioning immune systems are almost never troubled by these particular infections -- but those with damaged immune systems are highly vulnerable to them.
Immediately dropping dead isn't the issue. This argument you're making is evidence of why I believe you to be a troll, but I digress. People who are sick, have their lives at risk. The disease doesn't have to kill instantly kill them to be considered deadly, it eventually kills them, which is why it's deadly.
That's a non argument... According to your logic, being shot in the head at point blank range isn't dangerous, because since their life was already in danger. The reason being shot in the head is more dangerous than your every day life, and contracting an STD is more dangerous, is because the way more significant risk of death.
Taking it back to the original point. Condoms protect your life by saving you from the diseases you could contract. They lower the risk, it may not be zero, but it's definitely significantly lower than without the condom. Life's surety isn't a yes or no scale, it's a 0% to 100% scale. The scale is tipped closer to 100% when wearing a condom during sex, as opposed to closer to zero when not. It's also important to note that the risks are relative to the choices you make. Life's surety being at around maybe 80% on the average day, is lowered when you engage in riskier activities, but the act of taking precautions against dying in those situations, raise the surety that you'll live another day by significant percentages. In the case specifically of engaging in sexual activity, the risk of contracting a life threatening diseases is unsure, but it becomes an assured 99.9% chance of not contracting a diseases with a condom, making a condom a more effective method of saving your life, than not wearing one.
According to your logic, since their is nothing that can lower the chances of death down to 0%, there is nothing that saves lives... Which in my opinion is a silly way to look at preventive measures.
