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.
If we understand the problem and why it happened, we can move to fix it, and the person themselves will change, most likely, due to the fact there part of the story was understood, and throwing someone in jail doesnt solve anything, it just cramps our prisons up, they get out, they most likely fall back to crime
if I'm a serial killer you can understand me all you want I'm still gonna kill people. And jail does solve things at least while your in jail. Also i ask you this, if you recognize my side of the story how does this make me wanna change? Nothing is being done to stop me; action speaks louder than words
This is really instructional material coreball and written well for an adjustment. It's nice to see that some individuals still comprehend exactly how to write a top quality post
When we dish out justice, there's a chance someone might end up dead.
When we dish out understanding, there's a chance two or more people end up hugging.
The planet is overpopulated. We need more deaths in order to fix stuff like global warming, starvation, homelessness, etc.. Therefore, we need more justice ;)
i guess thats true in a brutal, fucked up way haha. also who gives a shit about hugging if one of them is gonna turn around and kill someone soon after. Ultimately justice means equality for all while understanding gives those who have done wrong an edge.
No..., you do not understand. I too can make cute videos with whatever message I want and throw statistics around with out references or use broad generic references that can't be verified.
Now..., what I'm proposing is NOT so radical. If the world population growth is lowing down to the point where the world's human population actually starts to decrease, then all I'm proposing is that we speed up that process. That's all. All I care about is making my rush hour traffic commute a pleasant one. ;)
I gave a video containing lots of evidence from sources that exist in the real world, like the birth rate of countries.
And you ignored the entire lot, didnt even try to disprove it. Because it wasnt comfortable for you. It is that comfort zone we have to fight as good debaters. Because it is that which is bias.
Then, you said i dont understand. Unlike my video, you gave no evidence to back this theory up.
"Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself."
1. You said that I did not understand before I said that you do not understand.
2. I don't have to "disprove" anything that you said because that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that there are too many people on my rush hour commute. That is a subjective thing. Ergo, no proof is needed AND the fact that you do not understand that remains a fact, not an Ad hominem ;)
3. As far as I'm concerned, an Ad hominem argument is where I point out that it is pointless for me to give you facts and figures because you are not capable of realizing that when you down vote me:
a. You too lose a point.
b. It means nothing because I have in excess of 20,000 points (not 20, not 200, not even 2000). If you are incapable of realizing that I fart in the general direction of your down votes, then how can you understand higher math? ;)
I think you should really try to understand what the other person is saying instead of focusing on being right.
But hey..., that's just me..., that's how I roll ;)
2.) Subjective arguments are illogical and thus wrong from the outset anyway.
3.) You dont get to make up your own definition for ad hominem.
Simply saying that if i take a point away from you, you will do it to me, means that you will never learn anything. It does not mean you are right, if anything it means you lack humbleness or the facility to evaluate the evidence ive given you against your own evidence.
Accumulating points this way is a loophole in this system. I have debated in a formal setting outside by the standard rules and believe me, there is no point accumulation for later. That is just some craziness.
They say insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome. You using your points to attack instead of logic is exactly that.
I understand the lack of evidence and inadequacy of your description. Both things debating is supposed to teach you.
They say insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome.
And yet..., you keep down voting me and losing points in the process ;)
I don't down vote. The rules are that if you down vote someone, you yourself lose a vote. The idea is to only down vote someone when they really piss you off. The goal of this site is to get people riled up and you keep on down voting so I must be doing something right in spite of your assertion that i'm wrong ;)
As far as being humble..., it's hard to be humble when you have in excess of 20,000 points ;)
I don't need to evaluate your evidence, I just need to observe my environment on my way to work. There are too many people out there ;)
I never thought id have to ban someone, but if your not going to debate by the official rules, which are actually usefull, then you arnt allowed in here.
He uses statistics pertaining to exponential growth.
Anyone who is a population scientist should know humans dont grow exponentially.
The remaining fears are over non-renewable resources expiring. Which is inevitable and not to do with the amount of people. Its just an ideology based on thinly veiled depopulationist ideology.
so we are at what now? 7 1/2 billion people? if 3 billion of those people had 2 kids each, that would raise the number to 10 billion people, probably more, and then more will be born, and more, and more, and more, until we collapse our resources and die
Once you made an argument saying just because something is that way now doesnt mean it will continue to be. It is called a thin end of the wedge fallacy. This is the same here.
No, i will not assume that 3bn of those people will have 2 kids each because the international population stats show that most countries dont even have that.
The population growth is 1.1% per year.
"In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[5]"
I think justice is more fun. There's a chance that we may get to bludgeon a hooker. Understanding, getting into your emotions and shit, that's just too much work.
An adult mind is capable of distinguishing right from wrong in most of all cases. If intentional flaw occurs, justice should be the answer. If an accidental flaw occurs, a 75% understanding, 25 % justice would be understandable.
It's important not to take justice to an extreme level where there is no understanding, but the same is true the other way around.
I like your theory, but this would just lead to a situation where everyone claims not to be working under their own intentions, (the nazis at nuremberg all claimed just to be following orders) and deliberate acts are disguised as accidents.
