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.
True. I don't know what people who down vote hope to gain. Is it like, "You don't agree with me so I'm going to down vote you until you do." What's it all about? ;)
I agree, more importantly, downvoting is prone to abuse and either should be harshly limited in usage (No more than one downvote a day allotted, requiring more than 100 points prior to voting, and should deduct 10 points from the downvoter), or simply done away with all together. Many users will be forced to express their disapproval by actually typing out a response, rather than just hitting a button.
I have no problem with the down vote system but I will agree with one thing you said.... one should be required to have at least 100 (or some number) points before they can DV, that would discourage people from making fake accounts just to DV and I think Andy has said in the past that he is on board with that.
I am sometimes too thick to accept a disapproving argument. I can simply ignore it by assuming what is being said is stupid, or engage in sophistry which helps no one, certainly not myself. A downvote though, that's not so easy to reject. If I know someone disapproves of me, but I don't know why, I start to wonder. It makes me self-analytical, making me more likely to discover why I am wrong.
I am sometimes too thick to accept a disapproving argument. I can simply ignore it by assuming what is being said is stupid, or engage in sophistry which helps no one, certainly not myself.
I've never seen you do this. In fact, I think that most people here refrain from doing this most of the time.
A downvote though, that's not so easy to reject. If I know someone disapproves of me, but I don't know why, I start to wonder. It makes me self-analytical, making me more likely to discover why I am wrong.
Most people (myself included) will not do this though. I will usually message the person, (if they're not Dana) since me getting downvotes from someone other than Dana is a bit outlandish, and it's easier for me to figure out where I went wrong by talking to them. I feel that arguments will occasionally take the place of what would've been a downvote, and like I said discussion is more effective, and it's not like even a sizable fraction of people here message each other over downvotes, it ends there. I will sit and think over a response, but a downvote simply demonstrates that I got someone upset (normally Dana).
By downvoting a non-abusive comment you have just made my point. Thank you. Maybe you just downvote anything that doesn't have nude indecent images of children in it. :)
So? The lawd Jebus has decreed that you turn the other cheek and to forgive the transgressions of your neighbors. After all, you don't want to wind up in the ooky spooky inferno land.
It is NEVER okay to post nude indecent pictures of children. They are not your object to use. Fact. They have a right to their own body. fact. You don't own them. fact.
Go fuck yourself. People need to realize that abortion is murder. I have done nothing wrong in proving this fact. Leave me the fuck alone. After what you did, I do not have to speak to you.
I'm sick of you pervert. You think just because you want to make a point you can post nude images of children all over the net. You need to fucking stop.
"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
Cursing Atrag is still a transgression of your own. I can also quote the bible, atheist or not.
If he repent, forgive him does not necessitate Do not forgive him if he doesn't repent, and in the case of the scripture that I quoted, it seems to insinuate that your fellow man ought to be forgiven in any circumstance.
However, seeing that this requires a basic grasp on formal logic to understand, you probably had no fucking clue what I just typed and will probably continue responding in the form of platitudes and (off topic) one liners.
Yes it does. Forgiveness is by repentance only. You are not even a Christian so who are you to say what the Bible says? However, seeing that this requires a basic grasp on formal logic to understand, you probably had no fucking clue what I just typed and will probably continue responding in the form of platitudes and (off topic) one liners. Horseshit. I read the whole damn thing.
See? All you seem to be capable of doing is reiterating your central point, and throwing in a few one liners that you may not even understand yourself.
You are not even a Christian so who are you to say what the Bible says?
If the bible were unreadable nonsense to any non Christian, it wouldn't be useful at all, now would it? I used to be a Christian, if that matters at all. The scripture is translated in English, in fact, since I can also read and write in Latin, I actually have a better capacity to understand scripture than you do.
Horseshit. I read the whole damn thing.
You read over the Libertarian platform website, and called yourself a Libertarian, yet subsequently failed to recite even the basic tenants of the Libertarian party. For you, reading and comprehending are clearly worlds apart.
I explained how the Bible proves that forgiveness is by repentance only, but you ignored the facts. Luke 17:3 proves that you have to repent to be forgiven. I do not care what you say, I refuse to forgive Atrag until he repents of what he did.
Luke 17:3 does not say "only" in an implicit or explicit manner. This debate between us will only persist because you fail to understand the difference in validity between a statement and it's inverse, I will try to explain one more time, in the easiest manner possible, how your claim is not consistent with your reasoning.
What you are saying is that because the underlined quote is necessarily true, that the bold statement below must also be true:
Given:
p = your neighbor repents
q = you have to forgive your neighbor
Bear in mind that "~" = not (for example: "~p" means the same thing as "not p")
If p (your neighbor repents), then q (you have to forgive your neighbor)
If ~p (your neighbor doesn't repent), then ~q (you don't have to forgive your neighbor)
The bold statement is the inverse of the underlined statement. By definition, even if a statement is true, it's respective inverse is not necessarily true, for example:
"If it is typing this comment, then it is a human." (a fact) does not necessitate "If it is not typing this statement, then it is not a human.", since we know for a fact that you are a human that is not typing a response. We can infer that "If it is not typing this statement, then it is not a human.", an inverse of a true statement, is false. Therefore, the inverse of a statement is not the logical equivalent of the statement itself, and the statement itself is not the logical equivalent of its inverse.
This why the dictation of Luke 17:3 "if a happens, do b" does not mean "if a doesn't happen, don't do b".
There, I've spent well over half an hour to make this as clear as possible. If you respond with a few one liners, or a restatement that you "deny" my claim, I'm probably not going to be expend this much patience with you ever again.
I have more: Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
That verse says to forgive people if they repent. I will forgive Atrass if he repents, and not one moment before. You will never change my mind, so stop trying. I do not have to forgive Atrass.
I'm not arguing against that, what I'm saying is that this does not mean "don't forgive people if they do not repent", and this does not mean "only" if they repent.
I will forgive Atrass if he repents, and not one moment before. You will never change my mind, so stop trying. I do not have to forgive Atrass.
Oh well, I couldn't "change your mind", even when I presented a syllogism. Serious question:
Were you dropped on your head when you were a kid?
I ain't no blue state cowboy. See what you are doing? You are releasing all of your bottled up rage against Atrag over me with a barrage of "Fuck you"s in response to a comparatively tame comment, you ought to forgive him.
No. I refuse to forgive him. I do not have to forgive him. I will forgive him when he repents. The more you try to force me, the less I will listen. You will never change my mind, so stop trying.
I'm not trying to force you (not like I can from behind a computer screen), but it seems like it would benefit you to let go of the grudge. Always live in the present moment, the past only exists as a memory (memories being thought), and is therefore only abstract.
Go fuck yourself. I do not give a flying fuck what you think. You are a lying piece of statist fucking trash. I do not care if Andy bans me for saying this, so fuck you.
ah good now we are seeing your satanist side. Fits with the fact you are very unchristian (hateful unforgiveness is unchristian. fact) Andy won't ban you I suppose. You could leave though.
Yeah well someone that posts child porn online and says theres nothing wrong with it is the sort of person thats good at recognising "abuse" I suppose.
A woman should be allowed to kill a child that has a parasitic attachment to her uterine wall and that has yet to take its first breath yes. I am a feminist.
I believe that the unborn baby has the right to live unless the pregnancy is ectopic, you wanker. The beginning of life is a completely different issue, you whiney little fuck.
Go fuck yourself. Fuck you for saying that I deserve to be raped. Fuck you.
You know, I actually looked through Atrag's arguments on his profile, several pages worth, and didn't find a single one that suggested you deserved anything of the sort. Are you just being inflammatory, are you misremembering events, or did I just not go back far enough?
I'm back. Atrag said: "So the two times you were raped you don't feel you deserved it just a tiny bit? I can certainly understand someone giving you a good hard slap when you start with your bullshit rude and irrelevant comments... Maybe raping you is a bit far but I can certainly sympathise with some kind of assault."
You are an advocate for rape of certain individuals that you disapprove of, and it has already been established that Atrag did not say that you deserve to be raped. You're going to have to provide proof that he called you a "rapist", since that has not been debunked yet.
I'm not asking you to repeat that, I already understand this. What I'm saying is that it is hypocritical to claim to that you will forgive Atrag when he apologizes, but at the same time refuse to forgive him under any circumstances (from when you said "never").
For sure it is leading to people not giving their rebuttal opinion. If someone has something to say that goes against the given opinion they can just downvote it without saying what they didn't like.
Neither the down-votes or the up-vote features are productive to this site as they currently are. They are used mostly as a tool to show popularity on a subject and a user, not on the contents of an argument. One should be required to post the reason why they voted so that everybody can see whether stupidity, popularity or intelligence was the bases of their vote.
As to how the current system works, it works like political elections. People merely vote for the one that is ahead in the polls and for those whose opinions resemble their on, not on the content of the argument. Until a change is made I expect down-votes and for the popular to be up-voted. When in Rome.....
Is it because the down voter didn't like the person?
Is it because the down voter lacked a viable retort?
Or was it a simple misclick?
If a good argument receives several downvotes or if a bad argument receives a lot of upvotes, then it could leave readers confused and/or ignorant of the truth.
Since most upvotes/ downvotes lack explanations for why they are given and because upvotes/downvotes do not show the true or definite value of the post/argument, the system is flawed and useless.
There should be some kind of mechanic built-in to this debate site for people who use weak arguments, fallacies, or ignore their opponent's points and attack them personally; those are all cheap ways to debate, and really just amount to arguing. To not have a system is to implicitly give equal respect to weak, sophomoric arguments as what is given to truth-based, logical arguments. Not all arguments are equal, some of them suck.
While I agree that there should be some kind of system that rewards solid, logical arguments and punishes weak arguments (or at least exposes them as weak), the power to punish/reward debaters should be in the hands of the debate creator, or a neutral moderator who works for the site.
