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.
First of all, this thesis is 23 years old, and written by a 21 year old college student. I read the actual and I found that the thesis is about educated black people spending time in predominately white schools and loosing touch with their black roots. Very human - think about it.
You might understand the basis of the paper if you weren't so hell bent on gifting us with these hit pieces that intend to arouse fear in ordinary people.
I do think that as many nontruths being used in this election, that if a TRUTH like this were a threat it would have been used by now with bells on.
You always use these bits that somehow sneak under the very powerful radar of mainstream media.
I think that your method is manipulative.
Please do not complain about down votes or ask that no one blast you - I am offended by your method.
What flavor of cake would you like, since you want to eat it too? Chocolate or vanilla?
I agree Jamais! What has Michelle LaVaughn Robinson's thesis, written in 1985 by a very intelligent young black woman have to do with her world today? I daresay had she written it today it might be a bit of a different take, but possibly not as a 21 year old!
I like Michelle Obama a lot. She seems a bit more comfortable in her role as the possible First Lady and she is a gracious, outspoken woman. I think she'll be a very popular woman if her husband wins the Presidency which I pray he does.
You should pardon the expression but all the experience and exposure (GHWB) didn't mean a rat's ass in the GW Bush administration. I'm hoping for a fresh look and a new start and I, for one, will throw experience to the wind when it comes to Barack Obama. I believe he has the foundation for success as President. After all my thinking I've finally come to terms with his nomination.
I love you guys! That's a very well thought out response. What the hell does Michelle's thesis writen God knows how along ago have to do with Obama becoming president? Nothing!
Now if you can just extend that logic and say, "What the hell does being a creationist have to do with being president?" Nothing!
There's overwhelming evidence to support the theory of evolution, and next to none to support creationism. Therefore, one who believes in creationism has trouble drawing conclusions from available evidence.
Yes, there's overwhelming evidence to support the theory of evolution but science has not been able to explain the most critical piece; how does one species become another? They haven't seen it in action and they haven't been able to reproduce it in the laboratory. This is why it is still considered a theory. Maybe if they're allowed to use stem cell research or something they'll be able to create a new species in the lab. it is interesting to note that they have been able to cross breed animals but the results are sterile and can't reproduce in order to continue this new animal.
Anyway, I digress. The statement that "one who believes in creationism has trouble drawing conclusions from available evidence" leads to the conclusion that the only scientist that are able to draw conclusions from available evidence are those scientist that do not believe in creation. And I hope that you will agree with me that this cannot be the case. Therefore, if there are scientist that can draw conclusions from the available evidence and who also believe in creation, then Palin should not be handicap for believing in creation and should thus be perfectly capable of drawing conclusions from the available evidence.
One species becomes another through gradual change, the same way that all evolution occurs. Macroevolution and microevolution aren't seperate processes, they are simply names given to evolution over differing time periods. It's documented in fossil records and evidentual through DNA analysis; look into human chromosome number 2 for a fantastic explination of why other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and we have 23. It can't be reproduced in the lab currently as the time scale required for this to occur is so large. To talk about "creating a new species" shows that you misunderstand evolution.
Evolution is absolute irrefutable fact, and I totally agree that someone who believes in creationism can not be entrusted to make important decisions that require analysis of data and factual information.
At point in time the notion that the heavens revolved around the Earth was irrefutable fact. The same goes for the world being flat. Years from now, when archeologist are digging in the internet, they may find your comment and say, "Look! This guy believed in evolution! Smirk! Snicker!" ;)
I wonder how many creationists are captain of nuclear subs! ;0
In her senior thesis at Princeton , Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on 'crime and hatred'."
Moreover, she stated that whites in America were 'ineradicably racist'"
In truth the thesis reveals no "militant racism." The phrases "crime and hatred" and "ineradicably racist" appear nowhere in the thesis. You really should've done more research on this one before posting it Joe. It's just another obvious smear.
First off, Michelle is clearly a man. 25 years ago was a long time, but ,lest you forget, He said that for the first time in his life Michelle(Mike) wa sproud to be an American. That IS NOT A SLIP-UP!That is how it feels!!!
I loved her essay. It shows intelligence and a willingness to question authority. I went to a very rich private school on scholarships for a couple years, and I was very poor. It sucked. I can only imagine how bad it would have sucked if I had been poor and black, so the essay was very understandable from a young-hardly-even-a-woman yet, student. She obviously doens't feel that way now. That's the difference between adult thinking and young people thinking.
And the school is right to withhold it because Republicans would crucify an infant for saying reparations, (so long as the infant was born prior to crucifixion.) Who knows what they'd do to Michelle.
I'm curious to see what essays Cindy wrote when she was 21, essays on cooking perhaps, something she saw on TV, and had someone copy for her word for word...
I'm just wondering if we should be concerned about this. Don't blast the messenger, just state your position on the implications. Do you believe it? Do you care? Should we care?
I'm not sure yet. If she's like Hilary (determined till the bitter end), then I'll be scared. But if she's more kick back, yeah, that's cool. I really don't know enough about her to make up my mind one way or another.
The point of this debate is to show how easily the tables are turned. Both sides have some media outlet to smear the other candidate.The supporters of the candidate being smeared come up with well thoughout arguments to debunk the smearing crap. The supporters of the ones doing the smearing are like, "Hey, this is important! We need to have a congresional hearing about this." Once you see what's going on you begin to chill because you see the illusion for what it is.
I mean, what the hell does Michelle's thesis writen God knows how along ago have to do with Obama becoming president? Nothing!
Now if you can just extend that logic and say, "What the hell does being a creationist have to do with being president?" Nothing!
Now go back and look at the tactics being used in those debates and who is using which tactic. It's quite funny really. The part that amazes me is that I keep telling people, I'm not for either side, and they just don't get me or what I'm doing or anything.
I'm so glad I could be part of your experiment. Told you - manipulative.
If you ever turned a table, I would be just as quick to debunk some wacko story about McCain. I don't see you drop those about McCain.
Ok let me extend some logic here. One's views on how we came it be, has quite an impact on me. I want a president that sees things for how they are, that faith and science are not the same.
Michelle Obama's view circa 1985 on how white schools change black people - impact not so much.
If you're for both sides, why have you never posted an article about McCain or Palin (there must be thousands with the controversy surrounding Palin at the moment) with a headline such as "should we be concerned about this?"
For example, should we be concerned that Palin rejected rape kits for raped women because it contained emergency contraceptive? Should we be concerned that when she gets into power she will fire and hire people based on her alliances with them rather than their ability to do the job in hand? How about the fact that she will cause thousands of families heartache by legislating against abortions/stem cell research/contraceptive policies, yet when her own daughter becomes pregnant (ignoring what she was taught about abstinence, just like many other teenage boys and girls) it suddenly becomes a "personal family matter."
Don't claim to be for either side without presenting a fair and balanced critique of either side.
And a thesis, if taken in the wrong light, can have a lot of grounding on a person's character, regardless of when it was written. Had the article for example been "Why I hate Jews; circa 1985" that would be a pretty big deal, and even with something such as this, anything can be a big deal if it is presented in the right light and spun in just the right way. If you want to appear balanced and fair, start posting some articles criticising McCain/Palin.
Also, in my view, being a creationist has a lot to do with being president and how you analyse and use the available facts, and I will hopefully add my argument to that debate later today.
The reason I haven't posted much on the McCain / Palin side is that the issues you have mentioned do not interest me. My number one concern is terrorist. Therefore anything that hints about a candidate having ties to terrorist will spark my interest. Since I'm well aware of my hypersensitivity regarding this issue, I cannot trust my own judgement. So I ask others to give me their point of view so that I may be able to evaluate it and compare it against my point of view.
BTW, I'm starting to get more concerned about this Gov. bail out of Freddie etc. You should be happy because this financial mess (if mishandled by the Bush administration) may hurt McCain through association.
Why should one be required to comment on his own debate? I started one asking what might happen if we could somehow manage to freeze water, but since I don't have an advanced knowledge of chemistry, there's no way I can possibly give an informed opinion.
Tom, I could be dead wrong of course but I thought we managed to freeze water eons ago! I was taught and reminded again on this very site, that it helps the debate greatly if the creator starts it off and gets things moving, so to speak. I just took a look at your debate on water and I don't think you got the type of answers you wanted. When you create, you kind of lead the pack. If it's a question you need answered and have no knowledge of content you can always state that in your debate description from the moderator's panel. That helps for people to know your interest is legitimate...at least that is what I believe.
I think there is no reason to examine her. I don't think the significant other of a potential candidate is relevant. I know lots of my others have had opposing views from me.
Your opening a can of worms with that one. Any candidate can potentially be wrapped around the finger of anyone. Even someone we don't know about. I am less worried about Obama being wrapped around his wife's finger, and more worried about him being a puppet for international banking cartels.
She is too outspoken, too ugly, too mannish, too racist, too tall, too much in her husband's business. She is not running for president . She thinks she is. Bush, Mcain and Palin's spouses are nowhere they should be: part of the landscape. By the way, I voted for Obama, NOT Hellmice.
I think it would've been best if Barack Obama just slapped her. While she has every right to speak her mind, she had no right to expecting herself not to be attacked, because she put herself out there in a candidate fashion.
LOL, I don't think he had the balls. First of all, Jessee Jackson probably scared them deep within him and second of all, if Palin can take down a moose, she should be able to pulverize him.
Why should he have slapped her??? One doesn't go around slapping people and most especially not our possible next President and First Lady! Being an outspoken woman should not necessarily give anyone free rein to attack her. Ask a question, yes. Ask her to explain herself, yes...but attack? NO! I could be wrong here but wasn't it Barack who told the media to lay off her because that whole thing got so much media attention and feed-back that it was taking the focus away from what mattered most...and that is what the candidates have to say?
Meh, she's obviously one of those "Da white man is keeping us down" type people. But i really don't care about that in the campaign... she's just the first lady, and Barack ain't gonna let that woman talk out of line.
She's actually a perfect first lady though... since she's ugly as fuck. I mean, Laura Bush was plain, but not ugly... that's a problem. Maybe why Bush failed so badly.
Jackie Kennedy was hot as fuck... and JFK failed (BOOM! HEAD SHOT). So, Obama will probably not fail based solely on the fact that he has shitty taste in women.
Insanity! Michelle Obama is soo hot. Apparantly you haven't seen her legs, I'd love to have those wrapped... nevermind.
And Laura is not plain by any stretch, and I mean stretch because she looks like someone pulled the flesh on her face until it was forced into some kind of joker-like perma-grin.
The ugliest first lady ever was Barbara Bush. That includes all the way back in history before they had things like make-up and teeth, so then Bush Sr. would have to have been a much better president by your first lady theory.
