CreateDebate



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.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic


RSS Grenache

Reward Points:2856
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.
93%
Arguments:2897
Debates:73
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
Grenache(2856) Clarified
1 point

You make a compelling argument. In essence I guess Trump wants Lady Liberty to win the Miss World Pageant instead of simply being a sizzling hot runner up.

1 point

The reference below predates Trump but it's the most recent international comparison of military spending I could find and was itself a fact check confirmed essentially true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/

1) So basically, the US already spends as much on military as all the next (7 or) 8 nations in line combined. It's unfathomable that we are cutting domestic spending across the board just so our military spending can then eclipse the top 9 to 10 nations all combined.

2) And it utterly castrates the argument that our military must be badly out of date when whatever everyone else is buying is clearly just a tiny fraction of what we keep buying year after year.

3) And, strategically, it places the US on a collision course with it's own people not unlike how decades of Soviet Union massive military spending put it on a collision course with its people, too, until ultimately the Soviet Union got broken up and ceased to be a global power for a while. Frankly, this smacks of a plan to destroy the last superpower by following the path of the demise that took down it's top competitor.

4) And finally, it suggests that the top arms supplier on the planet is afraid enough of the things it keeps selling to everyone else that instead now it wants to go nuts trying to protect itself.

1 point

I don't need to ban you. I'm not afraid of any argument you make.

1 point

Sliding around on the political spectrum happens to all countries given enough time, but just because the opposite ends are communism and fascism doesn't mean every nation is on a path to one or the other. The fact that relatively few nations in the world fall squarely on either of those is good proof it is not inevitable.

Your criteria for determining intoxication is bogus, nor did our few conversations about wine go to the details you claim. You're just making excuses to keep using the smear.

And you say our opinions of your sainthood don't bother you, but you're the guy who bans pretty much everybody else who refuses to drink your Koolaid. When you're putting your hands over your ears and yelling "na na na I can't hear you" you're admitting you're bothered by all of our counter arguments.

1 point

Your alarmism and smearing doesn't work, nor does this backhanded dig at moderates. Ultimately the extremism you accuse them of is pretty similar to your own extremism. Should we conclude then that you're evil?

1 point

I think deportation is extreme. But what I don't think is extreme is prosecuting them under any and every law on the books - illegal assembly, trespassing, hate speech, suppression of free speech, violating the freedom of religion of those they object to, harassment, noise, inciting violence, etc. The do plenty worthy of getting the book thrown at them.

1 point

Although I'm not sure I know the whole story (nor probably does the general public) I do believe in fair and consistent application of laws and his case certainly sounds like he did plenty deserving prosecution. And I don't think publicity itself is an automatic to get off. If that were true then no one high profile could ever fairly be convicted of anything under the sun.

2 points

You earned it Nathan!

...............................................................

1 point

1) It worked.

2) If the Japanese (or any Axis power member) had gotten them first then make no mistake they would have used them on us.

3) Someone somewhere in the world was going to use them first. If the US had not someone else would. A couple cities had to get obliterated somewhere around the world no matter what so the horror could be established and trigger deterrence.

4) Without detonating nuclear weapons we never would have seen the birth of Godzilla!

1 point

Unless you want the simple life of a farm cow knowledge is always more beneficial than a lack of knowledge.

And even if you intend the Biblical route on this and will conclude the tree of knowledge brought only suffering then I'll counter with all the BS behind the creation and meaning of that story.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Yes
Winning Position: Your thoughts on Trump speaking out against anti-semitic attacks
Winning Position: Yay hot peppers!
Winning Position: Patriots
Winning Position: No
Winning Position: What are the most useless Christmas gifts?

About Me


"You're on a debate so don't be surprised when people want to debate you"

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Education: Masters

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