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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Feminism Still Exist in America?
Feminism sounds good by definition, but because of the crazy social justice warriors it has gone out of control. As a girl, I personally feel like we don't need it, but I would still like to hear other opinions.
No they shouldn't exist because feminism is cancer. Their ruining our country. The first and wave of feminists were actually good, because they fought for real equality, like voting rights. Nowadays, they just abuse men, and try to ban Father's Day. They pretend that the wage gap is a thing, and try to blame men for everything. So I say that we don't need feminism because men and women already have equality.
No, absolutely not. I'd like to see someone give evidence of specific rights afforded to men, but not women. Oh wait, I can think of some; being in prison a significantly longer time and at a significantly higher rate and being the subject of discrimination by feminists. Women, on the other hand, can accuse men of rape without evidence with the accused still receiving consequences, and, in some places, are paid more than men.
I agree that the 3rd wave of feminism was a mistake, but that doesn't mean we don't need to get rid of feminism entirely. There IS a wage gap, and that has to change. Women are still subject to prejudice in the army, and the US has a sexist, abusing President. While countries like Iraq and Afghanistan need feminism a lot more than the US does, feminism still has a part to play in America.
NEWS FLASH! This is still America! (Until Trump and the religious right turn it into a Christian Iran)! We have the right to have gun agendas, abortion agendas, choice agendas, feminist agendas. When the right has torn up that "piece of paper" we call the Constitution, you can do away with ALL the agendas, ALL the Amendments, and we can live under autocratic rule. THAT will put U.S. under the 7 Mountain agenda of the Dominionists and Evangelists of the right wing. Then women will "toe the line", we will be "house checked" to see if we are living under Biblical directives, be forced to attend the winning church of the U.S. (After they kill off the Catholics, Methodists, Mormons ... or whichever they decide is NOT the REAL religion)! Enjoy the privileges of Iran ... Christian style. Oh, and only trusted members of the church will have the guns. :-(
(Until Trump and the religious right turn it into a Christian Iran)
Where did you get that all right-wingers are extremists?
When the right has torn up that "piece of paper" we call the Constitution
I'm sorry, what right-leaning colleges are barring leftists and liberals from speaking? I haven't heard of any instances. But, I have heard of left-leaning colleges bar conservative speakers like Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro. Secondly, the Republican party supports gun rights. It's you leftists trying to take away the Second Amendment.
It's you leftists trying to take away the Second Amendment.
Not take it away, bring it back to its original intent. The founders who wrote the second amendment certainly didn't foresee a day when a single man could hold in his hands the firepower equivalent to an entire regiment of soldiers of their day. The weapon of their time, the weapon they had in mind when the second amendment was written, was the muzzle loading musket.
You'll be able to 'bear' as many muzzle loading muskets as you can carry, providing of course you belong to a well regulated militia.
That's where this is going to end up because guns nuts can't restrain themselves. They've abused the 2nd amendment for far too long and the sane majority has had enough. Weapons technology continues to advance and if they aren't stopped they'll all be walking around with WMD's pretending they're looking for a deer to shot.
Not take it away, bring it back to its original intent.
Please tell me what its current intent is.
was the muzzle loading musket
The Second Amendment wasn't written solely for the musket. I'll agree with you that they didn't have the foresight to know what kind of weapons we have today, but I'd like for you to point out one place where the Second Amendment says "musket".
providing of course you belong to a well regulated militia
No, this is wrong. You don't have to belong to a militia to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment allows citizens to own guns to form a "well regulated militia".
It is simply arguable what their intended language means.
No, not really. The Founding Fathers debated every sentence of the Constitution, and they chose to leave what there is today, in. How can the people form a well regulated militia, if the people cannot keep and bear arms?
I'll agree with you that they didn't have the foresight to know what kind of weapons we have today
If it really was their intent to give the people the right to protect themselves against tyranny then they would recoil in horror and trepidation at today's state of affairs, where the proliferation of guns has actually caused precisely that which they were trying to avoid.
actually caused precisely that which they were trying to avoid
No, it hasn't. The Second Amendment was written to protect against tyranny. Where are we being tyrannized? Let me remind you, the left supports gun control.
Well, for a start you are being brainwashed into the notion that 30,000 completely unnecessary, preventable deaths per year is an acceptable price to keep paying for something which has clearly been a mistake.
Read some Orwell. You will discover that tyranny often comes bearing gifts.
Well, for a start you are being brainwashed into the notion that 30,000 completely unnecessary, preventable deaths per year is an acceptable price
I haven't been brainwashed. To be fair, it seems you've been brainwashed by the left into thinking that gang crime has nothing to do with the number of gun crimes. 30,000 deaths is an arbitrary number and I'd like for you to find this number anywhere on an unbiased news source, with gang crime and suicide removed because that truly represents American homicide by firearm.
America has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world and you are genuinely asking me how you are being "tyrannized"? Are you aware that America houses just under a quarter of the prisoners on the entire planet???
The proliferation of guns has created a demonstrable culture of fear and violence in America. Who exactly benefits from such conditions if not tyrants?
I haven't been brainwashed.
But it is obvious that you have been.
To be fair, it seems you've been brainwashed by the left
My views about guns have absolutely nothing to do with my politics and everything to do with the fact that there is a serious problem with society if it cannot function without its members being armed to kill.
It's not tyranny, though. Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government or rule", and oppressive is defined as "unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, especially on a minority or other subordinate group". Non-description drugs, for the most part and in most states, are illegal. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. are illegal. Secondly, there isn't an amendment protecting any form of drug.
But clearly there is, or America would not be home to one quarter of the entire planet's prison population.
Again, the drug war has contributed a sizable amount to the American prison population, and it isn't purely because of guns.
I don't care who the tyrants are. If someone is raping my poor defenceless ass I am more concerned with getting them off me than knowing who they are.
How can you press charges if you don't know who's raping you? You have to point out the specific tyrants so we can fight them together.
Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government or rule"
So telling other people what they can/can't put into their own bodies is not oppressive? Gotcha. Lol.
Again, the drug war
So hang on a minute. On the one hand you say the drug war is not tyrannical, but on the other you are trying to use it to explain why America has one quarter of the Earth's prisoners?
Your reasoning simply does not follow. For starters, illicit drugs are illegal everywhere, not just America. Secondly, you are creating a sense of fear in anybody who decides they want to try drugs, hence only proving my point that there is tyranny.
In fact, since drug addiction is a medically recognised illness, then you are treating sick people as criminals. And that is not tyrannical?
You are writing so much BS that you are actually getting lost in it. The only person I know who does that is bronto. Hi bronto.
So telling other people what they can/can't put into their own bodies is not oppressive?
It's not oppressive if you're breaking the law. It is oppressive if you, say, jail people for protesting when you're allowed to under the First Amendment.
So hang on a minute. On the one hand you say the drug war is not tyrannical, but on the other you are trying to use it to explain why America has one quarter of the Earth's prisoners?
Putting people in jail for illegal things is not oppressive.
For starters, illicit drugs are illegal everywhere, not just America.
What's your point? Yes, drugs are illegal elsewhere. It turns out, Nixon actually attempted to do something about it. No, maybe it wasn't a good decision, but that doesn't mean it didn't make sense.
Secondly, you are creating a sense of fear in anybody who decides they want to try drugs, hence only proving my point that there is tyranny
Drugs. Are. Illegal. If you don't want to go to jail for something illegal, don't do anything illegal. Simple.
In fact, since drug addiction is a medically recognised illness, then you are treating sick people as criminals. And that is not tyrannical?
Then rehabilitate them. I never said anything about drug addicts, so please stop putting words in my mouth. If they're sick, rehabilitate them. If not, lock 'em up.
You are writing so much BS that you are actually getting lost in it. The only person I know who does that is bronto. Hi bronto.
Yeah, I get that a lot. But, I'm not bronto. I'm who I am.
Ahaha! So if I made a law up that, say, you couldn't be Jewish, it wouldn't be oppressive if I put people in jail for it? Gotcha. Lol.
Now, who else can I think of who had that point of view?
Putting people in jail for illegal things is not oppressive
It is the law itself which is oppressive so your argument is circular and based on the false premise that the law cannot be used as a tool of oppression. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc... for evidence to the contrary.
What's your point?
Clearly, my point is that you cannot blame the disproportionate number of American prisoners on the fact that drugs are illegal in America. Hence, your referral to the drug war was a red herring.
Drugs. Are. Illegal.
Just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean the law which makes it illegal is not tyrannical. Literally, a six year old child could understand this, which further evidences that you are another bronto puppet account.
Another nice red herring, bronto. You are working hard tonight.
Not bronto. Also, instead of reading the article you provided, I researched what actually goes on because of the Drug War, and I agree with you on the premises that the Drug War is unconstitutional when violating the Constitution. But, if the police have a viable reason to search you, it doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.
Yes you did, bronto. You said that something cannot be oppressive if it is illegal. That was your entire argument.
1. Still not bronto, I'd like to see your proof for me being them. 2. I worded it incorrectly, then. What I meant was specifically having drugs and/or using drugs is illegal, and saying imprisoning people under these circumstances is not oppressive.
So are you admitting that you are just going to continue arguing regardless of being presented with evidence that you are being unreasonable?
I researched what actually goes on because of the Drug War, and I agree with you on the premises that the Drug War is unconstitutional when violating the Constitution
OK, so let's forget the fact that you think your anecdotes are more relevant than my article and simply reach the understanding that the war on drugs is oppressive.
Still not bronto
False.
I'd like to see your proof for me being them
You must get this silly idea out of your head that you have to explicitly state something in order to make your meaning clear to others. For example, it would be silly for me to state that you are not very intelligent, and then two sentences later deny the claim that I think you are stupid.
So are you admitting that you are just going to continue arguing regardless of being presented with evidence that you are being unreasonable?
I've agreed with you, haven't I? We've found some common ground?
OK, so let's forget the fact that you think your anecdotes are more relevant than my article and simply reach the understanding that the war on drugs is oppressive.
Sure.
False.
Present me with evidence that I am bronto.
You must get this silly idea out of your head that you have to explicitly state something in order to make your meaning clear to others.
Okay, so we'll start a fund and make it religion. Does Bronto-puppetism sound good to you?
I've agreed with you, haven't I? We've found some common ground?
Yes, but I still don't understand why you refused to read the article I linked. Presumably when you say you "researched", what you mean is that you looked for and found other articles which say the exact same thing. Why not just take advantage of the time I spent finding the first one for you?
Present me with evidence that I am bronto.
I do not have any. I am basing my decision on the fact that he has a multitude of puppet accounts, deflects the point in an identical manner when arguing, and has similar difficulties admitting when he is wrong.
Your most recent couple of posts suggest I might be wrong, so if this is the case then I apologise. I would not want to be mistaken for bronto either.
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, 1788
You say it doesn't mention muskets which were the arms of that era, and of course it doesn't, but do you see any mention of AR 15's there?
No, I don't. I do see mention of "arms", which means guns.
And what exactly would you guess an educated man in 1787 would have in mind when he wrote the word "arms" meaning guns?
Previous, current, and future guns. Do you really think an educated man, as you've stated, wouldn't have noticed the technological advancement of weaponry? Also, you understand that there were assault weapons pre-Constitution, correct? Things like the Belton flintlock and Girandoni air rifle that could fire multiple shots with a pull of the trigger were assault weapons, and the Founding Fathers loved them. Not only that, but artillery was even legal then. So, tell me again, why does the 2nd Amendment only apply to muzzle-loading muskets?
Previous, current, and future guns. Do you really think an educated man, as you've stated, wouldn't have noticed the technological advancement of weaponry?
Come on. The people who amended the constitution to provision guns did so based on (their) present, not future conditions. They did not have the ability to see into the future. Indeed, if they did, they would presumably not have penned an amendment which technically legalises personal use of nuclear weapons.
The people who amended the constitution to provision guns did so based on (their) present, not future conditions.
But they were aware of the ongoing technological advancements in weaponry. Let me remind you, George Washington fought against one of the most advanced armies in the world; Great Britain. He witnessed the weapons they used in action, and so he and the other Founding Fathers had those weapons in mind as well.
Almost nothing you said is anything I have said. I never said ALL right-wingers are extremists. (There ARE a few [enough] of them IN POWER), to be dangerous.
I never said RW colleges are barring leftists. I think a college, whether left leaning OR right, should consider barring dangerously radical speakers from EITHER side. If I were President I would not allow Hitler to "have a national platform on OUR TV to spread his hate. The President of a college should have the same right when the person is EXTREME. Secondly, I don't know of any but EXTREME Democrats that do NOT support the Second Amendment, or do not support gun rights. You rightists spread those idiotic rumors as the NRA has convinced you that you MUST! We want REASONABLE background checks, we don't feel a bunch of alpha males (or females) actually NEED a weapon of war! Semi-automatic hunting rifles, non-assault shotguns, even handguns (that are unlike Uzis) are fine. Things that are "sprayable" are really just ego machines!
Please, I don't mind you being childish and designating me an "enemy", but don't take words out of my mouth that were never there!
You said Trump and the Christian right, which is effectively the whole right-wing.
(There ARE a few [enough] of them IN POWER), to be dangerous.
Any examples?
I never said RW colleges are barring leftists.
And neither did I. I said 'LW' colleges bar right-wing speakers from speaking.
should consider barring dangerously radical speakers from EITHER side
Well, it turns out every left-leaning college that's barred a right-winger from speaking (aside from that cretin Richard Spencer), they've never been extremist.
We want REASONABLE background checks
There are already EXTENSIVE background checks, even to get a handgun.
we don't feel a bunch of alpha males (or females) actually NEED a weapon of war!
Only a select few people have the licenses necessary to own automatic weapons, and it takes a hell of a lot of tests to obtain one.
Things that are "sprayable" are really just ego machines!
No easily-obtainable weapons are full-auto, all of them are semi-automatic.
Please, I don't mind you being childish and designating me an "enemy"
I forgot that I had done that to be honest.
but don't take words out of my mouth that were never there!
I never took words out of your mouth or put any in.
It should. Not the shit show that modern leftist stand by, not the third wave feminism. I believe we need people like Christina Hoff Sommers. Even though women do have so much more than we did back then and we technically don't really need it, there are some areas where women could use some support.
