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:254
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.
Gypsee(254) Clarified
1 point

Are you suggesting that common behaviors are automatically just or legal? That doesn't sound right.

I am not suggesting anymore than what I wrote. The fact that it is regularly done makes it not uncommon.

What I do believe is that the same way we, the people, established limits to our freedom of speech, we could establish limits to our freedom to defend ourselves.

1 point

Ahhhh yeahhh. To some extent agree with you. I do believe that when debating, who you are should be not part of the debate. We aren't disputing identities we are disputing arguments.

For all I know you could be a pro life communist playing the devil's advocate. Does it matter in the context a debate?

2 points

Should we assume there are similar endings to other Constitutional amendments?

Nooo, it should not be assumed. It should be discussed. Like we are doing now.

The Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms. BUT the right is “not unlimited.”

None of our "rights" in the Constitution are unlimited.

I AGREE that if the right to guns is going to be limited in order to protect people then it should be limited fairly, using evidence. So, in order to do so the limit should be backed by evidence. Now maybe depressed people aren't the most dangerous. Maybe delusional people won't have a tendency to shoot a gun.

My point being it isn't unusual to put limits to our rights. We do it all the time...

2 points

Opinion is based on sentiment rather than shared reality.

Opinion is often relegated to the rank of false knowledge. But, it seems that opinion is actually not the opposite of knowledge, but its preamble. Before you know that fire burns, do you not feel its danger? You can see it is orange and feel the heat but you will only only know if you touch it.

You don't know fire burns. Ignorance

You believe fire burns. Opinion

You know fire burns. Knowledge

The utility of opinion varies but in the case of fire opinion could lead one to touch fire with caution.

In relations to food (I did choose to defend carrot juice), if most people in your restaurant believe your food tastes like horse crap, their opinion has meaning and importance because your job is to please most taste buds.

2 points

I'm still not sure where you are heading at but I'll shoot in the dark...

I understand that psychopaths are almost impossible to "detect" with one mental exam.That would require regular psychological sessions.

But what a "mental" exam could test for is cognitive functioning for example. An exam can screen for psychotic symptoms like hallucinations. A psychological exam can even test for impulsive tendencies and measure to what extent will someone listen to authority.

To rephrase your statement: You want me be to give you an example of how a criminal can pass the mental exam. Well my response is why on earth would I give a criminal the possibility to legally own a gun? He or she lost that right when they committed a crime... A criminal can't legally own a gun. I assume you knew that so that only means I misunderstood your argument. Could you elaborate your thoughts please?

1 point

...well in order to pass any test you need criteria... What exactly are you disputing here ?

Gypsee(254) Clarified
1 point

Depends on the criteria and what exactly the psychological screening is looking for...

1 point

Could you add more detail to the situation please? What is being tested for exactly? What are the criteria?

It isn't so absurd to have to pass a mental exam to get a gun... Doesn't the military, FBI and police officers have to pass all sorts of mental and physical fitness exams to be able to be on duty and manipulate a weapon? Why can't we require civilians to do the same?

For example, the police department in their psychological tests evaluate impulsiveness and response to stress. Is it absurd to require that police officers know how to properly think before they act (aka pull the trigger)? Why should civilians be exempt from that sort of psychological evaluation?

1 point

Aren't there more mass killings with guns in the US than in France?

Gypsee(254) Clarified
1 point

Olala...I'm not trying to be smart. I don't need to. I'm simply asking you to not just give me a sentence and links because I know I'm going to spend time to answer you and you won't.

But thank you for proving me wrong and giving me more than a sentence. I will get back to you with my argument but before I have a question: are communists part of antifa ?

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: No
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