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.
This argument had nothing to do with suicide. This is why you are a terrible debater. Besides, the American government had never given a single fuck about suicide rates of soldiers. Why now?
You are making the same arguments Democrats make. Criminals shouldn't be allowed to have guns, right? What is the answer? Do you ban guns or do you ban criminals from having guns? Transgenders on hormone therapy aren't battle ready. What do you do? Ban transgenders, or ban hormone therapy?
I am sure we have sent at least 100 trannies over there. Bring me the statistics on suicides in the military. Again though, you cowardly avoid the question I posed. Pussy.
No, I don't feel tough calling a cowardly pussy a pussy. Just stating facts. There is no reason to provide statistics, you don't actually disagree with me, you are just stupid. I can't fix stupid.
I just realized the title of your debate said transsexuals. I believe you are right about transsexuals. Trump did make the correct decision about them. But he also decided on people who aren't transsexuals, which you don't understand and that's why you will always be wrong.
There are people in this world without specific gender genitalia.
This does not make them 'transexual'
Correct. I was not talking about them. Dumb shit.
makes them a mutation of the general Human species...
Why are you bringing them up? You said that they aren't transsexual. I said transsexual. Why are you discussing people who I was not talking about even according to you?
You're lost in biology and semantics champ....
Lost in semantics? You told me that you believe that people in the world without specific gender genitalia are not transsexuals, then you tell me how you have included them as transsexuals. The only reason I would be lost is because you aren't talking about what you say you are talking about.
Biologically transgenders are male or female, not a mutation. You want to treat males differently than males. With your oversimplification it makes no sense.
1) For starters they're not 'transgender women', they are Males,
Males with a mental condition or impairment that needs to be addressed.
(Especially considering they're killing themselves off at an almost 1 in 2 rate, clearly a serious mental health issue, if not epidemic, in the trans community...)
2) Maybe, Probably, Yes.
I'm sure there are a lot of nutcases in the military, just ask your cross dressing, killer mate Colonel Russell Williams...lol What's your point?
You haven't shown that at all. In fact, you proved the opposite according to your beliefs. You are too fucking stupid to understand your own thoughts, so start there before you move on to biology.
There is no evidence. If he had commissioned research from his government into the costs of transexuals in the military, and then come to that conclusion, then I could respect his decision even if I didn't agree with it. As it is though he has had a bit of a chat with some generals then delivered a one liner on twitter about it. As with most things he says, it is a nothingness. What is there to agree with him? There is nothing - as is evidenced by the fact that Bronto is now randomly talking about high rates of suicide with transsexuals - which is probably not something that Trump has even considered when he delivered his one liner.
1 and 2 would be your interpretation, he could easily say that is what he talking about.
3 that's cute, saying they can, doesn't mean they should or will, other than 'cannon fodder', but only the ugly ones...
4 Bone density was ONE example, hormone treatment does NOT increase bone density, certainly not to the level of the average male bone density... lol, You are just wrong.
You still haven't answered why you would want two genders of soldiers,
one with the average ability to carry any wounded soldier off the battle field,
So in your world no one possesses the ability to learn and change their opinion....K.
Only a fucking idiot would come to that conclusion. Shame. The fact that you are determining what Trump currently thinks based on his future thoughts is also completely fucking stupid.
My point is trump's tweets might not reflect his executive orders...
Yeah, and your point is worthless since your accusation had nothing to do with your point.
Isn't this reasonable given one of your other rants against trump tweeting out details of military tactics....:/ lol
No, it is not reasonable to have the public determine what the military should decide. The military should be making military decisions.
You're basing what trump thinks on his tweets to the public...
How much of a narrow minded sheep could you be?
I say Trumps tweets don't necessarily reflect his executive orders, nor should they....
What's wrong with that? Going slow enough? Or do you want the pres to tweet everything he plans to do first....And Vice versa.....lol
The military should be making decisions based off the best interested of the people it protects, wouldn't the people, themselves, know their best interests, or have their best interests at heart?
Who makes the decisions then? Put it to a vote? Well...Trump...Voila... :)
Imaging things that aren't true didn't make you open minded.
say Trumps tweets don't necessarily reflect his executive orders, nor should they....
That wasn't your original argument. You claimed err can't know what he is thinking.
Going slow enough?
You don't even understand when people answer questions you ask. Moron.
Or do you want the pres to tweet everything he plans to do first
I want this president to stop tweeting.
The military should be making decisions based off the best interested of the people it protects, wouldn't the people, themselves, know their best interests, or have their best interests at heart?
Absolutely fucking not. The middle class votes for tax breaks for the lower class out the upper class depending on their political party. Voters frequently go against their own best interests.
Who makes the decisions then? Put it to a vote? Well...Trump...Voila... :)
If his executive order ends up changing, he didn't make any decision.
I claimed, and I claim, you don't know what trump is thinking, am I wrong, Jesus?
"I want this president to stop tweeting."
Because you don't like what he tweets? Obama tweeted too? What about him?
You're honestly not smart enough to wrap your head around why one president should be allowed to tweet, but by certain peoples beliefs other presidents shouldn't?
Do you enjoy destroying your own argument?
"Voters frequently go against their own best interests."
That's only your interpretation, I disagree.
"If his executive order ends up changing, he didn't make any decision."
Huh?
If Trump makes an executive order, it is an executive order, if he chooses to change that execute order, it is then still an executive order, past, previous or whatever tense you want....
I claimed, and I claim, you don't know what trump is thinking, am I wrong, Jesus?
Yours
Yes. You are fucking wrong. Everything you have said ibn this entire debate has been wrong. You are wrong. You are incorrect. Everything you say is false. How many ways do you need to be told?
Because you don't like what he tweets? Obama tweeted too? What about him?
I don't see how comparing him to a shitty president makes his tweets better.
You're honestly not smart enough to wrap your head around why one president should be allowed to tweet, but by certain peoples beliefs other presidents shouldn't?
The president of the United States is tweeting government secrets. He needs to stop tweeting for the sake of the country. I don't care about his beliefs.
Do you enjoy destroying your own argument?
I have no idea. It has never happened.
That's only your interpretation, I disagree.
Well, you are a fucking moron, so that only makes me look better. Start agreeing with me and I will think I am wrong.
If Donald Trump writes his executive order based on what the people decide and not what he decides, he didn't make a decision. You are too fucking stupid to understand that fundamental concepts you discuss.
You must think everything I say is correct. Otherwise you are a complete fucking idiot. Plus, you disagreed with me, so it turns out you are a complete fucking idiot for disagreeing with someone you think is correct. So, either way you are a complete fucking moron. Or, you can revise your statement where you make the claim that someone who is always wrong agreeing with you is good thing.
1 and 2 would be your interpretation, he could easily say that is what he talking about.
Yeah he could easily say that is his interpretation. He could also say that he is jealous of their hair and normal sized hands - who knows? As it is now all we have to go on are his tweets.
3 that's cute, saying they can, doesn't mean they should or will, other than 'cannon fodder', but only the ugly ones...
Ok. They are allowed that was my point and yes I can guarantee you that because they are allowed does mean that that woman will be, and are, on the front line. Do I need to find examples for you to believe it?
4 Bone density was ONE example, hormone treatment does NOT increase bone density
The research I showed you...? Wtf...?
one with the average ability to carry any wounded soldier off the battle field,
Well "average ability" isnt important. We can judge actual ability in preliminary training. And of course, a male to female transsexual will on average be stronger than a female soldier so if female soldiers are allowed so should try - according to your logic.
The president of the USA, and all you have to go on is his tweets?
And what are you going on?
Yes, please, omg, I AM EXCITED FOR THIS...
It was a rhetoric question idiot. Of course there are women on the frontline. I dont need to find examples. Just google it yourself if you're really in such disbelief.
Did you even read the so called 'research' you provided, it proves women can not meet the same bone density as males through purely testosterone...
Yep. Therefore, "4 Bone density was ONE example, hormone treatment does NOT increase bone density" is false.
If you're prepared to foot the bill, instead of taxpayers, I am more than happy to stand back and laugh as 99.99999etc. of women fail....
What are you talking about? Paying to test potential candidates? The alternative is just to look at an application and say "naaahhh they are probably too weak. Next!". It just doesnt work like that.
You need to be on the receiving end of Serena William's fists. Then, tell me that women can't be as strong if not stronger than men if they are trained. Physical strength isn't even half of what is needed to be a real soldier. It's all in the character. strength in character is developed equally no matter the sex, ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation.
Releasing your military policy decisions on Twitter before you release it to your generals is not a good decision. Can we agree on that?
Your first link is about paying for sex change operations, does it have anything to do with transgenders being banned from the military? Would you even know?
Your second link is about transgender people committing suicide because they aren't accepted. How does not accepting them into the military help with the suicide rate?
Their suicide rate is 41% before Trump's decision. That gives nearly a 1 out of 2 chance they will commit suicide, and with ptsd that rate would go through the roof. PTSD drops even the most emotionally stable people with no hormone manipulations to their knees in high numbers, much less a group in danger before battle.
It's military service. The people who sign up for it are well aware that there will be dangers. Setting up safe spaces and going to war don't make sense together.
The people who sign up for it are predominantly 18 year old kids. It has nothing to do with safe spaces. This is the military, not a social experiment.
"The reason given by the United States for its invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was to 'destroy the infrastructure of al-Qaida, the perpetrators of 9/11'. However, there is evidence that the invasion was planned two months earlier, and that the most pressing problem was not the Taliban's links with Osama bin Laden, but the prospect of the mullahs losing control of Afghanistan to other mujahedin factions in the Northern Alliance." (Pilger 2007, p376)
"Believing it was the presence of Osama bin Laden that was souring their relationship with Washington, the Taliban tried to get rid of him. Under a deal negotiated by the leaders of Pakistan's two Islamic parties, bin Laden was to be held under house arrest in Peshawar. The plan was said to have been approved by bin Laden himself and Mullah Omar. An international tribunal would then hear evidence and decide whether to try him or hand him over to the Americans. Under pressure from Washington, Pakistan's President Musharraf vetoed the plan. According tp Pakistani foreign minister Niaz Naik, a senior American diplomat told him on July 21, 2001 that it had been decided to dispense with the Taliban 'under a carpet of bombs'". (Pilger 2007, p376)
"When September 11, 2001 had finally ended America's affair with the Taliban, a US Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus, revealed that a captured member of al-Qaida described in detail a 'cover up [that] US energy companies were secretly negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline' and that 'multiple sources confirm that American law enforcement agencies were deliberately kept in the dark and systematically prevented from connecting the dots before 9/11 in order to aid Enron's secret and immoral Taliban negotiations'. Enron was a major bankroller of George W. Bush's presidential campaign." (Pilger 2007, p375-376)
PILGER, J., 2007. Freedom next time. 2nd ed. Great Britain: Bantam press.
Aww, it's so cute when stupid people cling to 9/11 being an inside job.
Sure Cartman. Jon Pilger is stupid. Not you. A fat sarcastic idiot on an internet debating site who refuses to acknowledge anything he doesn't like the sound of. Good call buddy. Your complete lack of research clearly outweighs his 57 years of professional investigative journalism.
You are a fucking retard. And you can thank America for convincing you that retardation is a matter of opinion.
Oh dear , you're getting rather desperate now aren't you ?
Yeah, desperate people are the ones who don't ignore every last piece of evidence shoved under their spectacularly ignorant noses. Good call. America needs more people like you, fighting the evidence with empty rhetoric and ridiculous personal attacks.
Oh sure Cartman. The thing I thought just happened, where I posted evidence, you ignored it and called me stupid, that didn't happen. It was actually the other way around. Good call, retard.
I asked you for evidence and you never gave it to me.
Yeah, that's what happened bro. I fell up the mountain and it's lucky your hand was there to save me.
Your population has been brainwashed and dumbed down to the point that you have the combined reasoning skills of a Limp Bizkit record. The level of stupid achievable with a bad education and a big ego is extraordinary. Almost as extraordinary as the level of compliance you can achieve by telling people, "Nah, honest. Everyone who disagrees is just jealous."
There are 2 things to look at. How it was done, and who did it. Thinking that you know who did it based on how it was done is fucking stupid. The fact that you keep denying this makes you fucking stupid. Therefore, you shouldn't be talking about someone else not having logic.
So, what have you looked at? You have looked at the evidence for bombs blowing up the buildings and ignored all other evidence. So, you have only looked at half the evidence there. As for who did it you have not looked into it at all. That's 2 things. You have looked at 1 out of 4 things. Therefore, you are ignoring 3/4 of the evidence.
You have admitted that there is no evidence the government was involved. You are even proud of it.
There are 2 things to look at. How it was done, and who did it.
There is one thing to look at and that's why you keep ignoring evidence that the official narrative is false.
Thinking that you know who did it
Cartman, you literally are a fucking retard. You are telling me al Qaeda did it because some planes hit some buildings, and I am telling you that is false. You are so overwhelmingly brainwashed and stupid, that you literally turn the facts around without even understanding that you are doing so.
There is one thing to look at and that's why you keep ignoring evidence that the official narrative is false.
I have looked at all 4 aspects of the evidence. You have looked at one.
Cartman, you literally are a fucking retard.Â
You think the government is responsible for 9/11 while simultaneously believing there should be no evidence that the government did 9/11. You are the fucking retard.
You are telling me al Qaeda did it because some planes hit some buildings, and I am telling you that is false.Â
No. You fucking moron. Who did it and how it was done are different. I just got through telling you that.
You are so overwhelmingly brainwashed and stupid,
You keep saying that because you think I believe in your strawman arguments.
that you literally turn the facts around without even understanding that you are doing so.
You have 1 fact and you think it applies to everything. That's retarded.
I have looked at all 4 aspects of the evidence. You have looked at one.
The (over a) decade I have spent researching 9/11 is not going to vanish because you think you are telepathic enough to tell me how much research I have done. You are shitposting nonsense because you are dumb as a fucking housebrick, and have nothing intelligent to offer a conversation.
You think the government is responsible for 9/11
False. There is evidence which implicates specific members of the administration. If you are too stupid to differentiate between 2,000 people and 2 people then that is neither my fault or my problem.
Read my lips: you are a fucking know-nothing retard with a big mouth.
"Curiously, according to motions from (Zacarias) Moussaoui unsealed in Federal court, he wished to testify before both a grand jury and the US Congress about the 9/11 attacks, claiming to possess information that the US government permitted the attacks to happen. That request has so far been refused." (Ahmed 2005, p204)
AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.
You claim to have all the fucking answers, been when you are pressed for evidence all you say is "bombs".
I am sorry that you have wasted over 10 years of your life falling to get to the truth of 9/11. I really am. I see why you are so angry. If I had researched something for over a decade and failed as miserably as you I would be super pissed too.
Yes Cartman. You've been "pressing me for evidence". It isn't like I've been volunteering evidence which you've been ignoring. It isn't like your replies are complete shitposts or anything like that mate. Lol.
I am sorry that you have wasted over 10 years of your life falling to get to the truth of 9/11.
I'm sorry you keep having to forcefully tell people what their own experiences are because you have no intelligent response to anything they say and are so exhaustively ignorant of the topic under discussion.
Indeed, it is hard to see how such a large number of war games and exercises involving key US agencies -- including the CIA, the NRO, NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FEMA and the DCANG unit at Andrews Air Force Base -- could all have been planned and/or implemented on or around September 11, 2001 by complete coincidence." (Ahmed 2005, p313)
AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.
You are right actually. It isn't like that at all. You haven't provided any evidence to your claims that I asked about. Fuck off. You are a fucking failure. Over ten years of fucking failure. You should be ashamed of yourself. You haven't volunteered any fucking evidence. You had to be asked for it, then you gave me information unrelated to your claim.
Well actually no. I'm not the one who ignores everything which disproves his idiotic (almost religious) beliefs and then comes back with, "But mah narrative".
Your retarded head is on my wall with the rest of the idiots who think aggressive rhetoric outweighs actual research.
You haven't provided me anything that goes against my narrative.
I think you might have a mental health disorder.
You have done 10 years of failed research.
If I know what happened and you don't, then how does that make my research a failure?
Oh, I see. You're just throwing random words around because you're an infantile, mentally ill retard. You spend all day and night on this site writing childish shitposts and you actually think someone else is the failure. Bless.
If I am the one who has done the 10 years of research, then you are not the one qualified to say whether my conclusions are wrong. That is in fact pretty much the opposite way that research works, my friend.
That's how you failed.
If I am the one of us that failed, why are you the one who keeps ignoring every piece of evidence shoved under his fat retarded nose?
Air traffic controllers routinely request fighter craft to intercept commercial planes for various reasons when problems faced cannot be solved through radio contact...
As a matter of standard operating procedures, no approval from the White House is required for interception. On the contrary, interception occurs on the basis of established flight and emergency response rules." (Ahmed 2005, p267)
AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.
Don't you ever get bored of exposing yourself as an anti-intellectual buffoon with nothing remotely honest or intelligent to say?
But all your evidence has been examined by experts and dismissed as nonsense
Dermot, shut your lying mouth. We both know that my treasure chest full of expert proof that you are wrong is not quite as invisible and imaginary as yours is. Your posts are pointless because you are a lying imbecile who would not know the truth if he literally fell over it. You are a climate science denier and a general partisan nincompoop.
Quantum , why do you call others what you are as in a lying ' truther ' ?
Your ' expert proof ' is from a janitor who changed his story 11 times , a Mormon called Jones , a compulsive liar and a fraud as in the leader of Truth org and last but not least a Danish ' expert ' called Harrit who was caught lying on TV over his claims ; and who claims to have been peer reviewed ......
You refuse to acknowledge the truth because of your retardation and pal around with fellow holocaust deniers looking for the next ' big conspiracy '
Quantum , why do you call others what you are as in a lying ' truther ' ?
Well Dermot, I'm hoping they are intelligent enough to understand the irony in your baseless insistence that truthers are liars.
Your ' expert proof ' is from a janitor who changed his story 11 times
Your own posting history proves that we had a long detailed discussion over several days in which you were linked to 80+ academic scholarship studies from professors of various scientific disciplines, all consenting to the view that the official 9/11 narrative is false. (please see: http://www.journalof911studies.com))
Firing a spectacularly dishonest straw man argument at me only serves to show the public the complete fucking idiots who are on the other side of this argument.
Yes you're on the side that very few believe unless your a retard who takes the word of a fucking janitor a Mormon and a Danish bullshitter caught lying on TV ..... away with you loser
There are straight people who can figure out which gender they are that cannot pass the military evaluations. Transgender is labeled as a mental disorder (Gender dysphoria) by the field of psychology. It is relegated to childhood abuse, biological problems, and use of hormones by the mother during pregnancy. My point is, they are jacked up. Don't try to put them in military situations.
Allegedly we have the finest military in the world, and yet they've already been serving for many years either openly or secretly. No harm from their presence has been demonstrated.
So, I'd say Trump is a fool. Except, I believe the only reason this blurted out now, and without first running it by his own military commanders, is because he needed a distraction from all the other fires he has burning. In which case it means the decision had nothing to do with transexuals itself and everything to do with Russia and health care failures and tax reform failures, etc. Which makes it the incorrect decision on transexuals.
When on the field of battle all you need to know about your comrades is that they are dependable, will cover your back, act and react as well trained and courageous soldiers of good character should.
Such issues as their sexual orientation, ethnic background or religion pale into total insignificance in the heat of combat.
Once the aforementioned qualities have been established as congenital character attributes in those seeking to enlist in the armed forces all other issues should be consigned to the dustbin labeled;- prejudices and bias.
Transgender is literally labeled a mental disorder (Gender dysphoria) and prescribed drugs, treatment, and therapy. Do you want someone covering you in battle that can't even figure out what gender they are much less how to handle a combat situation?
You clearly didn't read my text in full or you are intellectually incapable of understanding it's clear message.
Transsexuals are people who have a gender identity or expression which does not correspond with the birth sex.
Transsexuals is not a mental disorder and those with the ''condition'' most certainly do not need drugs and therapy per se.
Providing they have all the attributes as detailed in my original post and their 'condition' does not impede them from fulfilling their duties on the battlefield then there is no logical reason why they should be banned from enlisting in the armed forces.
Many 'straight' heterosexual, ( such as me) service personnel have a range of mental issues (not me) which require ongoing professional psychiatric attention without endangering their fellow combatants.
Clearly you have a strong dislike for transgenders accompanied by an irrational abhorrence for the ''condition'' with which they were born. THAT IS NO MORE THAN THE WORST EXAMPLE OF RAW PREJUDICE.
Here is a simple question for you since you are completely incapable of understanding anything that isn't oversimplified: if a woman got through the same boot camp that a man did, would you let her into the military? I will assume that any answer other than yes is a no. You have been warned.
