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.
Normally, I would agree with you, as that issue is realllllly out of hand. But this one at least was set up as a perspective debate, and seems to be close enough to an actual debate topic.
As always, religion. Shiite against Sunni, Muslim against Jew, against Christian, Christian against Christian (or which-ever considers themselves "Christian"). Bible against Qur'an and vice-versa. God against Allah (and again, vice-versa), "Bible -thumpers" against "gays", against "mixed marriages, against....them....! Century after century, MY "god" is the only REAL "god", and I'll kill to prove it!
Sorry, I just can't go along with those breeding grounds of hatred! Hmmm, No, actually I'm NOT "sorry".
Obviously, you know me better than I know myself. I was convinced that I hate war, that I hate racism, that I hate those who care for themselves but don't give a damn about human beings (or animals) who cannot help themselves, that I hate those who think those who believe in another "god" (or NO god) should be considered unfit human beings. Hmmmm, guess you are right, I do have a lot of hatred. Mine, however, doesn't accept destruction or cruelty even in the name of "god"
And you hate God because He will not immediately bow to you and end all the things you hate now, so you can proclaim how marvelous you are for hating evil. It's you who is evil against God, destroying yourself in your sin and encouraging others to do the same. Teaching others to hate God the way you do will bring extra punishments in Hell.
Honestly I hate to complain about this so much but it's religion. Think about it religion is the reason the middle east is so screwed up and the reason they hate almost everyone else. It wastes resources such as money since most churches are exempt from tax. It has wasted billions of man hours which could have been spent on more important things. Our society would be a lot more advanced and unified if it were not for religion. Thats all religion is basically.
Religion has assuredly manifested in horrendous capacity throughout human history, and as an anti-theist I would much prefer we evolved beyond our need for it. However it is rather a stretch of the imagination to claim that religion is the reason the Middle East is facing its current problems. Euro-American exploitation and intervention over the last hundred years has considerably more to do with current affairs in the region, and those actions were predominantly driven by energy and economic (even if religion was used as a justification). Source
I agree that religious institutions ought not to be tax exempt. I also agree that some of the money that goes towards them could be better directed, but the same could absolutely be said of governments and many other social organizations. Moreover, while I think that the benefits of organized religion are non-unique they are still beneficial in some ways sometimes and to ignore that is to reveal your prejudice on the matter.
I do not disagree that we could be more advanced without religion, but I view it as a necessary handicap to our species over the course of our evolution. The majority of our species has needed it to reconcile themselves with reality (albeit through denial), and while I think it is true it has held us back it may very well be the only way we could have survived our burgeoning consciousness early on.
In short, I would question some of your generalizations without fundamentally disagreeing that religion can be problematic and inefficient.
I will opine nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons aren't destroyed, they will destroy us. It is important that all nations come together and make the decision to get rid of all nuclear weapons.
No if nuclear weapons don't exist there will be nothing to stop Russia from invading the USA which would have happened haden't we had nuclear weapons. Matter of fact nearly every country would turn into and expansionist
No if nuclear weapons don't exist there will be nothing to stop Russia from invading the USA which would have happened haden't we had nuclear weapons.
There is the fact that the Russian economy could not afford it, or that their military is nowhere near sufficient for an easy invasion, or the global coalition that would be created the instant they attempted anything of the sort. Europe and the U.S. would team up so fast it would make Putin's head spin.
Matter of fact nearly every country would turn into and expansionist
Two issues with this. One, it assumes that everyone in the world is a conqueror who would immediately start killing their neighbors if they could. Two, it assumes that everyone's economies could handle the massive costs of war, particularly expansionist war.
you can depending on how and over what distance it is launched. if intercepted in the upper atmosphere the gamma rays produced interact with the ionosphere and create a very strong electromagnetic pulse. as far as i know, the only effect this has is frying electronics
Obviously you have no idea about the amount of "junk" already in space. They would all have to be launched far enough to go intergalactic and we would have to hope that none of them hit anything, or was hit BY anything, that would do serious destruction to anything in "Gods Universe" (if you must).
Then again, let's consider what one failed launch might do to THIS piece of the universe. THAT could be devastating.
The rise of suicide and its beastly bedfellow depression (anxiety is close behind). The solution would probably be an overhaul of modern society's construction for environmental factors are arguably a primary cause for their escalation. Very lamentable; there are many hearts in need of healing.
I could spend the rest of the week writing you a 500 page essay on that clarification question. I'm not going to. I'm instead going to give the a speech made by George H.W Bush. Tell you that the financial system is completely rigged and depressions and recessions are now scientifically studied. The major world banks can now artificially create them throughout the world as they please. These include names such as Kissinger, Rothschild, and Rockefeller. On top of that, the United nations is full of dictators all waiting for the opportunity for a one world government. Which is pretty much suicide for the entire human race.
But your statement was a one world "government", not a globally powerful financial system. I do not disagree about the power of the major banks, but they have not shown any sign of establishing an actual global government, nor would they since they would disrupt the financial order that has been quite beneficial for them. As for the U.N., they lack any power that would lead to the establishment of a one world government, and the dictators you are referencing hold even less.
Nah, you clearly missed the point. Money buys politicians you may not know this, but the guys in charge of your country are bought and paid for. They do what ever they are told by corporations who give them money for their campaigns. One of the biggest in America is offshore banking cartels. Nearly every politician in the united states for example is following an specific agenda coined and written by very powerful people. As for major banks not showing any sign of establishing an actual global government I'd ask you to do some research and maybe read some of the books these kooks have written.
The U.N has already started writing global laws and has its own army. It has its own court system and it's full of dictators. Saying they have no power is a far cry from the truth. However, it is people who are attending Bilderberg meetings who are the most troublesome.
No offense meant, honestly, but it is hard to have an actual debate regarding things such as Bilderbergs, considering such a huge amount of it is speculation and conspiracy (don't mean that term in a negative sense).
I agree, but when a few dozen of the worlds power elite come together for secret meetings where publicity is scrutinized I tend to think something is happening I should probably know about.
To think that power elites have never conspired for world domination behind closed doors and never would is a fools wish.
I do not doubt that power is thoroughly consolidated into the hands of an exceptionally small number of people. However, I do wonder at how cohesive and cooperative this power infrastructure is; the extent of division of interests could well be the differentiation between a single world government and a collection of government. I also wonder if this power is cohesively consolidated to such as an extent to be particularly remarkable in juxtaposition with the rest of human history where governments have existed.
Given that government has always been a geo-politically constrained concept I wonder as well at the accuracy of even describing such consolidated power in the terms of government (singular or otherwise). It seems to me that there is a need for semantic distinction between the geo-political world government and the non-geographic power infrastructure that has arguably always existed behind geo-political governance.
If I may also ask: What exactly do you find objectionable about a world government? And do you really think there is any chance that the masses will throw off such a system?
I do not doubt that power is thoroughly consolidated into the hands of an exceptionally small number of people. However, I do wonder at how cohesive and cooperative this power infrastructure is; the extent of division of interests could well be the differentiation between a single world government and a collection of government.
It's much easier than you think. Hitler tried to dominate the earth and form a one world government by force. That doesn't work. Instead you play by the rules and progressively do it under the cover of night. What they do is they take the most ridiculous thing that everyone is sure to reject, dumb down the population and propagandize the entire operation, tell you every reason it's good leave out every reason it's bad to do this, and use mainstream news and entertainment to further this cause (like gun control and the conflict between guns saving lifes and stopping crime vs random shooters shooting unarmed civilians) as well as mafia style hits and threats to dangerous opposition such as the doctor that was curing autism (cover up: A happy man doing good work shoots himself off a bridge into a river. No gun found just a bullet wound and a quick assumption of suicide) or another example; Edward Snowden exposing the NSA's illegal unwarranted spying of American citizens.
"You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word. - Al Capone
Now, ill give you an analogy for the interests part of this comment.
You formulate a gang of brothers who are hell bent on taking over the world. You realize that having a street presence is a bad idea and is small time. So you and your group get educated and you follow all the rules. A great way to find like minded people while weeding out the strange and undesirables is to form a fraternity, one that employ the greatest of secrecy and in turn anyone that attends this fraternity ends up with time usually ends up somewhere in a seat of power. Be it the chief of law enforcement, a judge on the supreme court, a senator or a president. Once a large majority of the power structure has been infiltrated you can start passing from the top down your dictator rule. A great example of this is Obama's "executive order" which allows for this first time in American history to bypass the entire political system to ordain bills directly from the presidents desk. This is commonly referred to as dictatorship.
From there we look at the European union. While divided territories the European Union is a "united" area. Much like states or provinces. It was never this way before, but somewhere down the line it turned into a super state. The plan thus far has shown that they want three of these. The north American union (evidence: the amero has been pushed for quite awhile. There is a mostly untalked about highway that is being built from the prairie provinces of Canada through the heart of the united states and into Mexico providing the infrastructure of the union) has been proposed for a while now and the last would be the Asian union.
These three unions makes it very easy for a world leader to dictate on the pyramid scheme of power. All the shit rolls down hill and no one knows just what the guy in the other department has been ordered to do let alone what the guy above them is doing.
Like a company it's all straight forward business once it's achieved.
The only way this is remarkably different from the roman era or any other in history is that it's being done mostly with the pen and a play on peoples emotions a fears and very, very secret. The best analogy possible for this is if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water it will sense the danger and jump out, but if you put a frog into a luke warm pot of water and gradually increase the heat it will have no clue and will die promptly.
Given that government has always been a geo-politically constrained concept I wonder as well at the accuracy of even describing such consolidated power in the terms of government (singular or otherwise). It seems to me that there is a need for semantic distinction between the geo-political world government and the non-geographic power infrastructure that has arguably always existed behind geo-political governance.
It's very easy, very little would probably change only your president would now be 1 step lower than the world leader and the counsel underneath him would look a lot like the united nations does today.
If I may also ask: What exactly do you find objectionable about a world government? And do you really think there is any chance that the masses will throw off such a system?
You can of course, What I find objectionable about a world government is that power corrupts. You see It from the highest echelons of power down to the street thug. The more power you have the more corrupt you can possibly be. Not only that, having read the books of some of those people who are seeking this power, they intend to reduce the population of the world down to 500 million people. So a mass genocide would be inevitable. Martial law and big brother forever present and the inability to ever challenge such a power staggering not to mention the RFID chips they want to implant... good god... if you do something they don't like you're not allowed to buy or sell anything, all land would be owned by the government/banks (which it already is... you cant buy or build a house and it be yours... no money... no house)... it's just bad all around...
the chances you can derail it before it happens is slim. It takes a well informed, intelligent collection of people who are capable of critical thinking. Saddly, most people are dumber than a door knob or outright reject that their are people out there lobbying for global domination. Can it happen? Abso-friggin-lutely. Has the population shown much effort? no... a great example is the TSA... If americans would have boycotted flying because of them they may have saved the entire country 160million dollars in tax money a year or more.
You misunderstand me entirely. I recognize that clandestine control is more practicable than overt dominance. Nor do I reject the possibility of thorough consolidation of power into a singular coherent decision making body that operates behind the scenes. What I am critical of is whether we have actually reached that point of singular cohesion yet, or if background interests remain in fractured competition with one another. Given the lack of transparency to background operations, it seems that neither of us could actually possess the evidence to draw an accurate conclusion one way or another.
Exercising excessive authority hardly renders the presidency a dictatorship, since control remains nowhere near absolute which is rather a requisite to dictatorship. The term also generally implies an abusive or cruel government (versus a monarchy or oligopoly, say), which I think is a bit of a stretch to make in this case. Moreover, if you genuinely believe that a single background world "government" is calling the shots then the presidency is necessarily not a dictatorship on account of its lack of actual power and control. Alternatively, you believe that the background governance has not so consolidated its power as to constitute itself as an actual world government yet. You cannot really have it both ways.
The formation of large scale unions and alliances might be the sign of background manipulation, but it is just as likely that it is the natural outcome of globalization and would occur without such background interference. This becomes rather a question of the chicken and the egg: which came first, globalization or the global "government"? Again, lacking much evidence it is hard to say either way and realistically the answer is actually both. And at any rate, I never disagreed that consolidation of power was not occurring. Further, that there exist multiple powerful conglomerates of nations underscores the possibility that background operations may be fractured along similar lines.
You also misunderstand my semantic argument about whether referring to the background order is accurate or not. That was not a dispute of the existence of that order, but a contemplation on the accuracy of referring to it with a term tied to geography when the order fundamentally lacks geography.
Problematic extent
What evidence do you actually have to suggest a great culling of the population that eliminates 93% of the population. Or RFID chips. It is less that I doubt their ability to do either, necessarily, and more their incentive towards either end. Obviously, I would not appreciate it happening to me but I rather fail to see why this is inherently problematic. Overpopulation is arguably a problem, people seem willing to concede their purported autonomy for convenience, etc.
Liberals, NWO, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, ISIS, NSA, IRS, Fascism in Europe, Socialism in America, Putins ego, Barry Obamas non exsistent balls, liberals... things like that
US liberals ;) but especially in Europe, Liberals are becoming more like the US liberals.
About Socialism: I talk about Bernie Sanders people.. i agree with him about getting rid of the "big guys" aka corporations but not on the "free" stuff thing.. i am a libertarian you know.
US liberals ;) but especially in Europe, Liberals are becoming more like the US liberals.
In what ways specifically?
About Socialism: I talk about Bernie Sanders people.. i agree with him about getting rid of the "big guys" aka corporations but not on the "free" stuff thing.. i am a libertarian you know.
In truth, Sanders isn't a socialist, he is a Social Democratic. He doesn't believe in abolishing capitalism or anything like that, and the programs he advocates for are not "free stuff", since people would be paying for it via tax dollars (which means the recipients would be in part contributing to it).
The biggest problem in the world right now are ingrown toenails. There are over a million people suffering from ingrown toenails in America alone! If Obama Care would cover this debilitating condition, the world would be better off.
rich people should stop spending money on themselves and spend more on saving lives and helping the poor who need the money they spend on stupid things like fancy food or expensive things that are useless!
They should start spending more money on me. What ever happened to altruism? If rich people would start spending more money on me, the world would be a better place...... for me.
Tobacco . It kills people and melts the ozone layer, thus causing sadness and large increases of atmospheric pressure. We'll all be crushed to dust eventually.
Sin is the biggest problem in the world, and it will be stopped when Jesus Christ forever removes it from His Creation and confines it in Hell. There will be a new heaven and a new Earth. God made it good, sin is destroying it, God will ban all sin and it won't defile His Creation again. Heaven and Earth will be united and pure God Himself bought the right to keep sinners in Hell forever by paying for them with His own blood, and He secured His right to pardon those who trust in Him by His resurrection.
It's not a sacrifice since he knew he would be revived and plus he's chilling in heaven unlike the billions of innocent people in hell being punished for the same sin god created in the first place.
I totally agree. I have little doubt that a charismatic man named Jesus once existed, that he was a good man with good intentions. It's the "Son of God" and "Savior" things I can't swallow. If he WAS the son of god, he simply went home a failure because that which he was allegedly against has continued to flourish, he was unsuccessful in selling his fathers "word" to the majority of those who existed then, or came later. He seems unable to save those who strongly believe in him, as in the Carolina church, or the innocent who haven't had the chance to even know him, as in Sandy Hook. He is the son of god to one religion, an important prophet to another...and they would destroy each other "in gods name".
I have to agree with Epicurus: "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent; Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent; Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil??: Is he neither able NOR willing? Then why call him god?
