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.
Climate change, its getting ridiculous how little is done to prevent it when you've got mounds of scientific proof showing its going to be a huge problem.
Yes. There are many, many scientific evidences to show that problem is indeed human-made. These anthropogenic factors are causing abnormality in the speed of earth's changing climate, causing impacts to our health, the economy and ecosystem, and will continue at an irretrievable level.
Today's choices are going to significantly affect the risk that climate change will pose for the rest of society.
This should no longer be a topic of debate but a topic for action.
The Progressive Elitist that push the Climate Chaos propaganda don't mind burning fossil fuel to jet around the world so what might you have to say about that ?
The point is to lower it as much as possible. It is not a good thing to keep burning fossil fuels, its by far the biggest problem we have and your points here are illogical and irrelevant to the issue. The point is not to assign blame but to do something about it, so stop being defensive.
You realize you're doing nothing more than repeating yourself? Your entire argument is "you do it too, therefore its okay" that doesn't make sense. Pull your head out of your conspiracy theorist's ass, climate change is a problem that needs to be solved.
Who the fuck is "the Elitist"? I'm assuming you mean people against burning fossil fuels and the answer there is yes, people are always looking for alternatives but then you have people that for some reason don't see climate change as a problem not doing anything and worse still impeding on others' ability to do so. When was the last time you saw the owner of an oil drill driving a Prius?
Will the Progressive Elitist whom claim Climate Chaos is a problem stop burning fossil fuels? How might have they arrived in Paris for the Climate Chaos Summit there ?
Islam. It's getting harder and harder to say, "Not all Muslims are bad; go after the Islamic fundamentalists and assholes that are under that banner." Just recently, two guys tried to stone a couple of transgender girls. No matter what you may think of those whole transgender issue, no one deserves that.
It does. but when anyone brings up examples of Islam having loads of bad ideas or their adherents doing fucking disgusting things (such as ISIS seemingly trying to continually one up themselves on how big a piece a shit one organization can be), the general Muslim population comes out to say how those aren't true to the religion. Even though, a large percentage of Muslims believe in really stupid shit. I'm just wondering if the world would be a better place if it didn't exist, at all.
The same could be said about any religion though. I mean, yeah the Qur'ran has some violent passages in it, but so do the Old and New Testaments.
My point is, the religion is only violent if you go to it with violent thoughts. Some Islamic countries (due to geopolitical crap and all sorts of complicated factors) have had extremely violent recent histories, and so the culture in those areas becomes one steeped in violence. That's not because they're Islamic, otherwise all the other peaceful Islamic areas and good Muslim people wouldn't exist.
There are folk using Buddhism to justify their awful violent acts too, but we don't blame Buddhists for it because that's not fair.
I'm sure they would disagree with me. I'm also sure that the Westboro Baptist Church would disagree with me when I say that their interpretation of the Bible is flawed, and that they're (consciously or not) using a religion as a tool for hatred.
Get out of here with your false empathy for transgender people. Christians have also brutally beaten and assaulted transgender people in the very country you live in.
I made the allegation so, yes, me. It is a subjective opinion and I never claimed otherwise. Nevertheless, it is not entirely unfounded. You claim that the biggest issue facing the world today is radical Islam and use the suffering of transgender people at the hands of people who happened to be Muslim as well as bigots to justify that claim, all the while completely neglecting to draw an equitable threat assessment with Christianity even though Christians have also killed transgender people. If you were not using the deaths of transgender people as fodder for your own bigotry against Muslims, then you would have said religion in general is the greatest issue facing the world. Which you did not.
Climate change and the spread of the barbaric Muslim religion, aided and abetted by the west's politicians. The vast majority of the citizens of Europe do not wish to have millions of Muslims dumped on top of them, but outside staging open rebellion they have no choice but to sit passively by as their eye-wateringly stupid politicians swamp the various E.U. states with the dregs of the failed Muslim nations of the near and middle east. Women being raped, literally by the 100s in European cities including Cologne in Germany, women being molested in swimming pools all over Germany, recently arrived Muslim gangs mugging and pick pocketing in towns and cities. The liberal politicians such as the dim wit Angela Merkel have gone to ground and only issue statements expressing their disgust at the crimes and anti social behaviour of the Muslim perpetrators. They should apologize to their respective nations for their gross stupidity and stand down. It is indicative of the west's liberal politicians to encourage the influx of those whose numbers include terrorists, criminals and then react as though the crimes they commit have nothing to do with them. The Mayor of Munich sent a coach load of Muslim immigrants to Angela Merkel's office with the message that they could not handle the huge number of Muslims swamping the city. While Merkel lies farting in bed the people of Germany, and indeed most of Europe,have to try to live with the dire consequences of her blind madness. I hope Obama is taking notes.
Climate change for sure. But the real barrier to being able to effectively act on climate change is money in politics. Alot of the problems that we face could actually be addressed and even resolved if we had a political system that wasnt run by big money interests.
They dont control the environment they control our impact on the environment. We prevent government subsidies going to fossil fuel companies and exporters do lessen our dependency on foreign oil, and we instead invest that money in subsidizing green energy. By doing that we promote the growth of the renewable energy industry and create millions of new jobs in the process.
Staying in the weekly leader board and accumulating lots of points. Sre global warming is a problem, but if I can get lots of points and be number one on the weekly leader board, then, who cares? It would have all been worth it.
Jolie is absolutely right. I hereby pledge I'll do more to upvote your comments everywhere, to make sure this extremely important global issue is resolved. We can do it, people.
This is just an Australian topic, but I'd say transport. We have a huge trucking industry here, but totally neglect rail as a mode of transport. It's wasteful, environmentally damaging, and costs lives.
The change would be simple, build a comprehensive rail network, but I'm uncertain how precisely to get the trucking industry on-board with this.
"Why should I make the effort or others, when I can't expect others to make the effort for me?" Just simply that that idea not getting recognition in public as every life form.
All life forms are that quoted idea, but its not getting publicly voiced is the world's problem.
In Ancient Rome, people paid money to watch men kill each other, violently, for sport. According to the Holy Bible, if a woman is raped by a man and refuses to marry him, we should stone her to death.
I'm not saying that you can't get morality from biblical texts, merely that a degree of moral relativity is important (and I'd also argue that morality between generations certainly isn't degrading, though I'm curious to know what source you're basing that off).
It's my opinion that morality is in decline with every generation. I can't really provide a concrete basis for that opinion, but I'd say you shouldn't have to look much further than pop culture (i.e. TV, movies and music) to see how far things have fallen. There's always this need, it seems, for pop culture to "push the boundaries of society". I see that mentioned all the time (most recently with Bowie's passing), but it seems to me the end-game to all this "boundary pushing" will be a society without boundaries. That's a scary thought really.
If morality was declining shouldn't we see statistics backing that up?
I mean yeah, I understand what you are getting at regarding media. Pretty much every generation finds the next generation to be a bunch of boundary pushing hedonist children hell-bent on destroying society.
But we as a species are better educated than ever before. We are less violent than ever before. We are less poor than ever before. We are more interconnected than ever before.
Pretty much the only macro-level set of statistics I can think of that would back up your assertion would be environmental in nature, and I don't think that's what you were referring to when discussing a moral decline.
So if you can't provide a "concrete" basis, can you provide an asphalt basis? Or perhaps hard-wood? :P
"But we as a species are better educated than ever before."
I don't know about that. I've seen some grade school textbooks from the 1800's and was a tad embarrassed personally. Just because we have iPads and Kindles now, doesn't mean we're more educated. In fact, it's almost as if the more technology and conveniences we invent for ourselves, the further dumbed down we become (think Idiocracy).
The revelation that Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts and that over 90% of US abortions are "convenience" abortions (see guttmacher) is pretty solid evidence to me that we're definitely in moral decline.
I don't know about that. I've seen some grade school textbooks from the 1800's and was a tad embarrassed personally. Just because we have iPads and Kindles now, doesn't mean we're more educated. In fact, it's almost as if the more technology and conveniences we invent for ourselves, the further dumbed down we become (think Idiocracy).
Except you are excluding the information it took to create said iPads and Kindles. You are taking the seductive approach of decrying the state of many individuals (particularly in certain parts of this country) and comparing it to other contemporary examples, which makes it seem like we live amongst idiots (think Idiocracy). But the problem is that you are not looking at it from a macro level. I highly reccomend doing some research on the Flynn Effect.
Lastly, that "revelation" was debunked. The footage used has already been proven to be edited, the people in question have already admitted that they edited it, and every legal inquiry has found nothing. I recommend more thoroughly research an individual instance before you try to claim that an incredibly small number of people somehow indicates that our entire species is in moral decline. It's like pointing to the Spanish Inquisition and determining that all of humanity must have been evil in the 15th century. Not only is the "sample size" in question nowhere near sufficient to represent billions of people, but the nature of the event isn't representative of any larger group outside of the organizational body they directly belonged to (in your case it would theoretically only represent Planned Parenthood, whereas in mine it would represent either Spain under Ferdinand II or the Catholic Church).
The grading system has now become more strict with higher expectations as well in some countries of America, where the minimum mark required raised from a C to an A from the past to the present.
How many people do you know who could create an iPad or Kindle from scratch? How many people do you think even understand how silicon chips work, or how computers really think? In general, or at the macro level as you say, I bet no one has even the faintest idea about these things.
Really? Are these videos are fake then? Can you prove it?
How many people do you know who could create an iPad or Kindle from scratch?
A decent amount, but that is more a matter of where I live than anything else. But that's the thing: I am talking about macro-level intelligence across the entire species, while you are talking about micro-level intelligence in individuals. If you compare an average lay-person now to a Grandmaster of a craft from centuries ago, I could get what you mean. But if you compare the average person now to the average person then, or whatever a grandmaster equivalent now would be to a grandmaster then, the contemporary individual would simply have larger, more comprehensive education and access to more information.
In general, or at the macro level as you say, I bet no one has even the faintest idea about these things.
But that simply isn't relevant to a macro-level discussion. The "unwashed masses" never have the faintest ideas regarding what the educated elite of any given time are doing; that's hardly a new state of affairs.
Really? Are these videos are fake then? Can you prove it?
Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts
Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods
This isn't the first time groups have used edited video footage to deceptively try to take down a group (see: the ACORN "Scandal") and it won't be the last. There's a reason Planned Parenthood has been cleared by every investigation (that I know of, at least) done by both Republican and Democratic groups.
But even if it was true, you still ignored the greater point regarding how that wouldn't say anything about the over-arching moral trends of the time.
I may have to stand corrected on the videos then - I didn't catch the $30-$100 "profit" before (which obviously isn't much of one). If it were true (that PP was profiting from baby parts), then it would be indicative of moral decline if it weren't stopped - but the initial outcry suggests it would've been stopped if it were true, so that point is probably moot right now.
Being pro-life however, I still find even donated baby parts as being immoral - but that's because I see abortion as immoral. I see it as murdering babies. It's no different to me, for instance, if PP were to go into an orphanage and "donating" child parts from kids they deemed unadoptable. To you that's probably extreme - but that's exactly how I see it.
Please define for me what you mean by "macro-level intelligence". Obviously our species doesn't share some telepathic link with one another, so I took it to mean the average, overall intelligence, but did you intend something else?
I may have to stand corrected on the videos then - I didn't catch the $30-$100 "profit" before (which obviously isn't much of one). If it were true (that PP was profiting from baby parts), then it would be indicative of moral decline if it weren't stopped - but the initial outcry suggests it would've been stopped if it were true, so that point is probably moot right now.
But I still don't understand how, if it was true, it would be indicative of a greater moral decline outside of that particular group. Can you elaborate?
Being pro-life however, I still find even donated baby parts as being immoral - but that's because I see abortion as immoral. I see it as murdering babies. It's no different to me, for instance, if PP were to go into an orphanage and "donating" child parts from kids they deemed unadoptable. To you that's probably extreme - but that's exactly how I see it.
And based on your concept of when life begins, that makes perfect sense to me.
Please define for me what you mean by "macro-level intelligence". Obviously our species doesn't share some telepathic link with one another, so I took it to mean the average, overall intelligence, but did you intend something else?
I mean overall, but not necessarily average. For example: As a species, our understanding of thermodynamics or theoretically physics are, obviously, leaps and bounds above what they were 100 years ago. While an 18 year old working on a farm out in Iowa probably won't know much of anything about either (just like an 18 year old serf working on a farm out in rural France wouldn't), our knowledge of such topics as a species has still improved.
I suppose if you want to use average, you could, simply because the upper end of the spectrum keeps going up so steeply, while the low end of the spectrum isn't any lower than it has been in the past (and, by nature of public education as a whole, has actually gone up).
Obviously this won't really seem right if one is only judging contemporary individuals, because, as I have agreed, many people just seem to be complete idiots. But I don't think that perspective really tells us much on any sociological or historical level, beyond perhaps within this country over a very short recent amount of time.
"But I still don't understand how, if it was true, it would be indicative of a greater moral decline outside of that particular group. Can you elaborate?"
Well like I said, if they were selling baby parts for profit, then it would indicate moral decline if no one stepped in to stop them. If it were allowed and accepted by society, then IMO that would indicate a loss of morality outside of that group. There was such an outcry when people did think it was going on though, that I believe if found to be true, it would've been stopped. Does that make sense now?
"Overall" - ok understood, I've just never heard of it referred to as macro-level intelligence before. What I'd say to that though, is no one person retains all human knowledge. Every person falls somewhere in that intelligence spectrum, but no one mortal person occupies the entire spectrum. So if you take your average person of today and pit them against their earlier counterpart from 100+ years ago, I think the modern person would look very silly by comparison.
Also, we don't receive an education one species at a time. We receive it individually, so I still maintain we're not better educated now, than we were in the past (as 19th century textbooks show). The education average kids were receiving back then, in grade school, would challenge many average college kids today.
In addition to claiming we're better educated today, you also stated we're "less violent than ever before". The 20th century was the most deadliest and violent one in human history, so I believe we're more violent now than ever before (see Stalin, Hitler and Mao).
Well like I said, if they were selling baby parts for profit, then it would indicate moral decline if no one stepped in to stop them. If it were allowed and accepted by society, then IMO that would indicate a loss of morality outside of that group. There was such an outcry when people did think it was going on though, that I believe if found to be true, it would've been stopped. Does that make sense now
Indeed, thanks for the clarification.
"Overall" - ok understood, I've just never heard of it referred to as macro-level intelligence before.
Can't say I've heard it referred that way very often. Just made more sense then other options I had thought of.
What I'd say to that though, is no one person retains all human knowledge. Every person falls somewhere in that intelligence spectrum, but no one mortal person occupies the entire spectrum. So if you take your average person of today and pit them against their earlier counterpart from 100+ years ago, I think the modern person would look very silly by comparison.
In what sense, particularly?
Also, we don't receive an education one species at a time. We receive it individually, so I still maintain we're not better educated now, than we were in the past (as 19th century textbooks show). The education average kids were receiving back then, in grade school, would challenge many average college kids today.
This fails to take a variety of things into account: Primarily, attendance. While some individual children may have been more educated than some individuals now, school attendance is incredible now compared to a few centuries ago, for all demographics. In that sense, societal education has improved. Most textbooks now also have updated information based on our improved species wide education, as well, which obviously reflects on the quality of education the children who read them receive.
In addition to claiming we're better educated today, you also stated we're "less violent than ever before". The 20th century was the most deadliest and violent one in human history, so I believe we're more violent now than ever before (see Stalin, Hitler and Mao).
I could easily provide more. As for the 20th century, the first half was indeed the most violent by nature of new technology, but the second half (and the time since then) has been unprecedentedly peaceful.
"This fails to take a variety of things into account: Primarily, attendance."
Attendance is irrelevant. So what if more are attending school today, it's the level of education that I'm discussing, not the numbers of people getting an education. You're putting quantity over quality. If you put a 19th century 8th grade history or mathematics exam in front of an 8th grader today, do you honestly think their scores would reflect better today than they did back then? Why the need for common core standards today?
"I could easily provide more."
And would they also be from the same guy? All three of those articles you cited were ultimately sourced to the same man: Steven Pinker. One man's opinion, cited 3 different times, does not make 3 different sources. Also - in all three of those articles, not once was abortion ever mentioned. Worldwide abortion numbers are roughly 40 million per year (since 1980). That's well over a billion people in just the past 30 years alone. There's simply no comparison to any other time in human history in terms of violence and evil.
Attendance is irrelevant. So what if more are attending school today, it's the level of education that I'm discussing, not the numbers of people getting an education. You're putting quantity over quality. If you put a 19th century 8th grade history or mathematics exam in front of an 8th grader today, do you honestly think their scores would reflect better today than they did back then? Why the need for common core standards today?
But quantity is entirely relevant. A 19th century 8th grade history or math exam would be presented to the rich few who could afford such education, which would mean most of their lives are spent at that point learning. I am talking about species wide education, so of course attendance is entirely relevant. If more people today are educated than before, than we as a species are more educated.
Attendance is irrelevant. So what if more are attending school today, it's the level of education that I'm discussing, not the numbers of people getting an education. You're putting quantity over quality. If you put a 19th century 8th grade history or mathematics exam in front of an 8th grader today, do you honestly think their scores would reflect better today than they did back then? Why the need for common core standards today?
Of course there isn't, because abortion is something else entirely. If you want to derail this conversation and end it, then stick with abortion. That's an entirely different topic, and I'm pretty sure you know it, even if you do consider it evil.
"A 19th century 8th grade history or math exam would be presented to the rich few who could afford such education"
Maybe in reference to the 17th or 18th centuries, but not the 19th. Someone around my area was recently selling a "school bus" from the 1800's on craigslist. It was this old, rickety horse-drawn enclosure on a sled with a heater in the center. Not exactly how the rich would've traveled.
"because abortion is something else entirely"
To you perhaps, but not to me. I see it no differently than murder. You don't want to talk about it, that's fine. But that's the chasm between our two viewpoints here - quite impossible to reconcile I'm afraid.
Maybe in reference to the 17th or 18th centuries, but not the 19th. Someone around my area was recently selling a "school bus" from the 1800's on craigslist. It was this old, rickety horse-drawn enclosure on a sled with a heater in the center. Not exactly how the rich would've traveled.
Wait, you think that the 19th century poor could own enclosed sleds?
To you perhaps, but not to me. I see it no differently than murder. You don't want to talk about it, that's fine. But that's the chasm between our two viewpoints here - quite impossible to reconcile I'm afraid.
Of course it's impossible, because it is using an orange to disprove a comparison of apples. Yes, it is still a fruit, but that doesn't make it relevant to comparing two statistics of the same category.
"Wait, you think that the 19th century poor could own enclosed sleds?"
Did I say anything about the poor owning an enclosed sled? I said it was a rickety old wooden 19th century school bus. If you really believe it was only the rich who received an education back in the 19th century, then that only supports my argument that modern education is not what it used to be.
First, provide a source that shows that high class 19th century was better than modern 19th century education.
Second, provide a source that backs up your perception that poor children were able to attend anything more than a couple years of school, much less K-12.
Again, I'll raise the point of the Roman Gladiators. Is there anything we have in pop culture that comes remotely close to the immoral, senseless, terrible act of making people brutally murder each other for sport? Is there anything we do in modern society that is as decadent and wasteful as the Roman Orgies?
Declining morality is a popular bone to pick with morality, especially with songs and movies that often focus so heavily on sex, but Mozart wrote a song about his incestuous scat fetish (true story, www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2012/07/05/mozart-dirty-letters n1651332.html?ir=Australia [I know, using huffpost as a source is pretty tacky, but it's verified]).
In Hamlet, Act III Scene II page V, this exchange is had:
Hamlet: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
Ophelia: No, my lord.
Hamlet: I mean, my head upon your lap?
Ophelia: Ay, my lord.
Hamlet: Do you think I meant country matters?"
When Hamlet says "country matters", he means "something sexual" ("country matters" was a commonly used phrase for this, because... Well, there's a particularly crass anglo-saxon word that is phonetically similar to the first syllable in "country")
The point I'm making (behind this veritable wall of text) is that society has been "pushing the boundaries" for as long as we've /had/ society. There is no end-game.
I agree, very few are moral relativists, because very few are atheists. An overwhelming majority of the world population are theists - but the trend is heading in that direction (moral relativism) I believe.
What's a "Moral Non-Cognativist"? You're not making up new words again are you?
I agree, very few are moral relativists, because very few are atheists.
The overwhelming majority of Atheists are not moral relativists. Those who are not Moral Realists tend to be Moral Non-Cognativists.
An overwhelming majority of the world population are theists - but the trend is heading in that direction (moral relativism) I believe.
No, but I am starting to think you are simply misusing moral relativism and meaning non-cognativism. A moral relativist would be one who believes they can change their morality to fit different situations.
Example: Someone steals from me, I say that is wrong. A few hours later I steal from someone else and say it isn't wrong.
A Non-Cognativist would hold that morality is a non-objective entity that exists in large part as an accumulation of individually and collectively held opinions. For example, I personally believe that rape is wrong. I have a long list of reasons why I believe that rape is wrong, and at least part of it (though obviously nowhere near the entirety of it) comes from being raised in a society that holds rape to be wrong.
And what do you mean "again"? What other word do you think I made up?
Non-cognitivism and moral relativism sound exactly the same to me. No doubt because I believe in objective morality, thus anything that's not objective, would have to be subjective (i.e. relative). In your example though (of a moral relativist), I can easily envision a non-cognitivist doing the exact same thing: they'd say that stealing from them is wrong (because it's their opinion that they don't like having their stuff stolen), but then turn around and steal from another (because they're of the opinion that might makes right, etc). In the end, it's not objective at all, but subjective (or relative to their person).
Non-cognitivism and moral relativism sound exactly the same to me. No doubt because I believe in objective morality, thus anything that's not objective, would have to be subjective (i.e. relative).
True, but you can agree that just because something is subjective doesn't mean that one can change it on a whim, right? I'm sure you have many very deeply ingrained subjective beliefs.
Non-cognitivism and moral relativism sound exactly the same to me. No doubt because I believe in objective morality, thus anything that's not objective, would have to be subjective (i.e. relative).
That's a bit of a misunderstanding. A non-cognativist's sense of right or wrong on morality would, unlike a relativist, be consistent: They would simply not believe that their consistent moral opinion is based on an objective standard. For example: I believe theft is wrong, largely in part because of my deeply held beliefs in Classical Liberal philosophy, including writings on property by people such as Locke and Hume. I could not simply disregard the beliefs that are a result of my entire life to this point simply because it would be convenient to me. A relativist could, however.
Do you truly believe that just because a belief is subjective, that means it is that changeable?
How will the Progressive Elitist who push the propaganda of Climate Chaos jet around the world without burning fossil fuel and leaving their carbon foot print ?
Climate change. I'm fairly certain that nothing will be done about it. It is a prisoners dilemma situation and the biggest victims will be poor people in coastal areas.
This problem could not have been designed more perfectly to be both technically solvable and practically impossible. Every individual country has a huge incentive (especially developing countries) to abandon any agreement and use fossil fuels. If everyone else follows the agreement, I can cheat since my contribution is so small compared to everyone else's.
The only way this will be solved is either through the threat of major sanctions and military force to keep countries from cheating or if technological advance makes carbon neutral energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Both of these seem unlikely. My best hope is fusion energy.
People talk about climate change and fossil fuel. You are not thinking it thru- it's the huge population that's key. If we cut the number of people to less than half, we could all drive SUVs and not worry a minute about co2. Would be very long time before it would do much.
People talk about climate change and fossil fuels because a reworking of our energy sector is far more likely and practicable than a degree of intentional self-inflicted mass murder the likes of which would make Roman decimations blush.
Another huge prob is slavery. People think we have advanced past it. We are really just slaves to the small number of elites we serv and who manipulate our money.
