Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS EldonG

Reward Points:102
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
1 point

I have yet to see the support for no restriction abortions, but I've seen plenty of the left say no.

Vulgar sexual talk is vulgar. Parents get outraged over vulgar sexual talk. Talk of actual sexual harassment? That's not just vulgar.

3 points

I was born human, and humans are natural omnivores. I'll go with nature on this one.

1 point

Let's be clear, here - he was supposed to kiss her in the show, and pressed her to rehearse the kiss. She finally gave in, and he tongued her. Ok, that was bad...but fuck, he stole a kiss. The tongue...does that make it criminal? The "groping" picture is in terrible taste, but she's wearing body armor, and though he's gesturing, he didn't touch her.

WTF? If doing things in bad taste disqualifies him, I bet we need to get rid of over half of the assholes.

1 point

Dang, but ain't thet a purty pig? Don't thet mouth jest make ya wanna...NSFW...

1 point

Best to divest pretty seriously - the national debt is about to skyrocket, and make the dollar plummet to around one yen.

1 point

Because it's dangerous to critical thinking. Like any religion, or any belief system that doesn't encourage regular, critical examination of what you believe the facts might be, it has a dogma it insists is true. This particular dogma has parts that would embarrass a modern fantasy author for their outrageousness, and submits as the ultimate moral authority a genocidal mass murderer.

That is definitely not good for a sane society.

2 points

No, but what they've actually become is almost more sad. Public schools, with the TAKS test, have become mind-numbing factories to produce human worker-bots.

2 points

See: Daniel Dennett.

Philosophy, in a rather pure form, is alive and well. It relies on good science, but is not science, itself.

1 point

Let me start by saying I detest age of consent laws. Some people are responsible and have understanding long before others...some thirteen year-olds are more adult than 60 year old men. It's rare, and usually due to unfortunate circumstances when a kid has to grow up too fast, compared to someone who was born fortunate and never had to be responsible, but our world has all kinds.

What I've always thought would be better would be some sort of test, starting with showing some level of self-reliance, and then knowledge and understanding of the cultural expectations, and the possible results. This feels impractical, but somehow more appropriate to me.

Obviously, for some, like Roy Moore, I'm not sure he'd ever qualify.

If we have to set an arbitrary age, somewhere after puberty, but before full adulthood seems as good as we can get, I suppose. That's a big range - the brain matures a lot during puberty, and experts have said that usually happens around 13, so that might be a practical minimum, if frightening for modern society. Schooling has become more important, and why the ages of 16-18 have become common - not a bad thought - and I certainly wouldn't want it pushed up, to where we allow for alcohol, 21. That's too high to begin with.

1 point

Umm...sure, if and when Sauron ever rises in the east, with his army of orcs.

First of all, Tolkien was more subtle than that - the good guys are not pure good. They have flaws. The real world is even more subtle - there is no pure good or pure evil, and promoting such a thing is an exercise in idiocy, and actually dangerous for society.

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here