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 Gypsee

Reward Points:237
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

Sure. If immigrants don't have access to public welfare then they shouldn't have to pay taxes.

That sounds fair. But if they do pay taxes they should have access to what they paid for.

Gypsee(237) Clarified
1 point

Now here is my position on gun rights and all the thing discussed:

1. Terrorists attacks : clearly whether guns are legal or not nothing can stop an insane man from killing a bunch of people. So, I disagree with people who say that making guns illegal will reduce the number of terrorist attacks.

2. Banning car: No. I actually would to add that even though gun and car are equally dangerous,a car's original function is transportation while the original function of a gun is to protect or attack. The essence of a gun is violent. So, I will correct my statement. Even if I do feel Uncomfortable while driving and aroUnd cars, that fear is based on my unpleasant experiences. Not everyone shares those experiences. But I don't think that whenever someone used a gun to protect or attack it was ever a pleasant experience. At least I hope not was not.

3. Banning guns: I believe gun rights rights is a bit outdated but a lot of people hold on to that right and I live around those people. They want safety and I do to. If they want a gun and live in a society with me, I must know that these gun owners are vey qualified for me to not be scared shitless when I see them pointing a gun. Whether they are pointing it at me or another person next to me, I want to know that that person knows what they are doing. They know how to shoot to kill or to hurt or to warn. I don't want to hear that some guy shot someone who was unarmed or shot him by accident or didn't know the gun was loaded. Taking a life is such an irreparable damage, if you ever intend to do it you better have a really really good reason. A good reason isn't intuition or instinct or that every feeling of impending danger. a good reason is based on facts and logical reasoning. Something that when under pressure is hard to do but when trained properly it is possible.

Gypsee(237) Clarified
1 point

Same here. As long as my freedoms are not at risk, I will nicely stay in my corner.

I also want to keep it safe. we all want the same things. We just don't agree on the way to achieve it. our global objectives are the same.

But anyway, the reason I am skeptical about guns is close the reason I am uncomfortable around cars. The way it can so easily take a life scares me. It can most of all take a life by accident. I mean I won't say that regulating guns will necessarily reduce terrorist attacks. I actually don't believe it will. It you want to kill a lot of people a gun is not necessary. But what bothers me, is the stupid fatalities caused by guns. Or how easily guns can legally land in the hands of sociopaths.

This father was explaining to his three children that guns were not to be played with. He shot the gun once to show them the danger and I suppose he forgot that the gun was still loaded. He pointed it to his daughter and pulled the trigger. Killed his little girl. it's stupid things you know that happen that can be avoided if there were more regulations.

I understood recently that some things are cultural. Gun rights is an purely American thing. When I think of guns I think of Cowboys. there is something romantic about gun rights in the US. We are Cowboys at heart and taking a gun from a Cowboys just takes away his essence. I get that.

But here is what I believe will make me feel safer in my community. I personally won't trust myself with a gun unless I have extensive training. I want a body fitness test, vision test, a psychological test, a quality shooting test ( similar to the one FBI and military does), and maybe a simulated experience test. I also want to pass that test every 5 years.

How can I feel safe around gun owners who can't make a precise shot or who have reckless or impulsive tendencies?

This goes for police officers and anyone who owns a gun: I want to know that they will think before shooting and know exactly what their intentions are when they pull the trigger.

In that case, I actually might feel a lot safer and freer to walk around the streets. I feel that this type of regulation better protects my right to life and ensures that I won't take someone else's right.

Gypsee(237) Clarified
1 point

Ok so we are putting the last two attacks as exceptions because I think they were gunless.

Anyway, yes I mean they get guns illegally in the UK.

Gypsee(237) Clarified
1 point

The same way they do in the US.

Although, weren't the last attacks gunless?

Gypsee(237) Clarified
1 point

Hmm, I would have to think about that but I wouldn't say it's impossible. And actually, In Europe they have electric metro systems.

We already had this discussion. And no there isn't today a single country that doesn't use fossil fuels.

Let's stay on topic though. I genuinely love talking about this with you but I've already given a borderline response and I don't want to increase my chances of being banned.

1 point

It is about the inconsistencies of liberal ideas. FromWithin did mention limits on alcohol and driving in his text. He did it to point out that liberals fight for unregulated driving and alcohol consumption but want gun control.

He pointed out liberal hypocrisy and bullshit of them wanting to regulate gun for the safety of others.

Basically, ( FromWithin is welcome to tell me if I misunderstood ), if liberals truly fight for the safety of others they should fight for regulations on alcohol consumption and driving. That is what o believe the point he was making.

It isn't insane for me to respond to what FromWithin was saying in his description.

1 point

Ohh FromWithin you managed to finally cross a line with me. :-(

I am not forcing. Why on earth would I want to force you ? I mean listen, if having a gun means freedom for you then fine. But as the other person without a gun, who lives in your society, as an American who worked hard and contributed to the development of this country , I have an equal voice. I was born and raised here. My father fought for this country. My grandfather too. I will too. It is my home and it isn't wrong to try and make it feel more safe. I won't force. It is idiotic to even believe that I can force my thought onto others. If that is possible, that means that the person is completely stupid. I can try and convince people to join my fight but if they disagree, fine. But this is as much my home as it is yours so, no ! I will stay here.

1 point

Hi! I am. Well I am a socialist here. In Europe I would be a centrist.

Well, what a great question :) actually , I am looking to be hired with a company who want to implement the Hyperloop. It's hasn't been done yet but there many projects in development. I will let you read about it. It is a really cool reading. The movement is basically based on electromagnetic force.

1 point

I am not suggesting anything yet. I am just trying to understand how you made the link between the three before I defend my position.

Your link is that they are all sexual behaviors and that they are or have been illegal. Yes?

This is not entirely wrong. It is a bit imprecise but I understood what you meant.

Now do you agree that the law is to protect people's freedoms and rights?

If you do then, making pedophilia illegal makes sense. When there is no mature and conscious consent, sex is rape. Older men sleeping with kids is therefore rape. Rape is stepping onto someone else's freedom. Active pedophiles are rapists and are committing a crime.

Rapists. Again when there is no consent you are stepping onto someone else's freedom.

Homosexuals. As long as it is two consenting adults, their fornication isn't stepping onto someone else's freedom.

So your argument of making any homosexual act illegal because it is an abnormal sexual behavior is invalid. The law isn't there to ban weird sexual things. It is there to protect everyone's rights and freedoms.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: yes
Winning Position: No
Winning Position: The advantages women think there are of being a man
Winning Position: Existence precedes essence
Winning Position: Land of the Free? Bullsh*t

About Me

"Through history's rivers of blood she regenerates"

Biographical Information
Name: Lola 
Gender: Female
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Religion: Agnostic
Education: Masters

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