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.


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


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

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
None

RSS HarvardGrad

Reward Points:174
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:347
Debates:8
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.

Sure but most college team owners are billionaires. So is it that reasonable to suggest that the athletics dpt. is the schools most essential commodity?

Explain exactly how a newborn can choose to not die consciously? What is the fundamental difference between instinctual choice and conscious choice in the context that you offer?

There are, of course, many instances of animals that take actions which kills themselves - usually to preserve their kin (their own genes, or their colony, etc.), but also sometimes out of sadness.

Please site these instances that are depicted in such a way in which you have described.

To try to say they have to have the same level of knowing is to try to create an impossible comparison (your own rhetorical strategy).

It's perfectly reasonable to presume that the animals are not too much informed about the laws of physics, at least enough to know the tactic one should take in order to kill itself (sort of like certain birds flinging themselves off of cliffs). Jumping off of a cliff to kill yourself requires that you know fundamental physics, and in an animals head (reasonably presuming) when faced with such obstacles they instinctually think "danger danger!"

So in the event that they just jump intentionally it would be more plausible to postulate something other than [the animal] thinking "I am tired of this life, It's best I just end it".

Now, can you say how any of this relates to what rights animals and humans do or should have??

It was you who falsely asserted that animals destroy themselves knowingly, as in, they have the ability to understand the outcome of a suicidal action- and I would love to see an exemplar cited elaborately.

2 points

But college teams makes schools billions of dollars without anything in return (except hopes of being recruited).

Take the NCAA, for example, as an industry they make more money than the NBA. They exploit their players for millions in profit and not even so much as give them a parallel equivalent to .01% in return.

If you want to meet people I would suggest social clubs or events that invokes socialization. Perhaps interpersonal discourse will suit you best.

Which is not a plausible assertion. You cannot tell from a look that it is a real Bigfoot.

I said a creature such as bigfoot... I also said 'assuming' are you ignoring my words intentionally?

Understandable does not mean it is your "best bet"

In certain case, one of which I illustrated on, [forgery] may be your best bet.

This is driven by ego, not the search for the truth and reality. If the forgery is discovered (very likely) you would create the opposite of your intent.

The first part of you statement is irrelevant, the second part ignored my scenario's reasoning. If I say "hey I saw bigfoot in X forest, here's his hair and a blurry pic!" And all of what I said was entirely made up; then someone actually goes out there and finds [bigfoot] in X forest, you will be known as the person who discovered bigfoot. There could be no opposite effect.

My key point was knowingly. You are the only one in conflict with scientist when you say that humans understanding evolution any why it would be disadvantageous t destroy their young, is equivalent to an animals understanding.

Also when you say 'suicide' pretending as if an animal is thinking 'I hate my life' like a human would think. The rhetorical strategies doesn't help your argument. Please be honest when you cannot hold a position instead of backing it up with rhetoric.

You are again invoking someone else as a validator for a point. Develop some intellectuality and back up your assertions with reasoning of your own.

Furthermore, he was just as wrong as you, though he understood my point quite well. He is just pretending there is not a distinction between knowingly destroying yourself, and doing so unknowingly. The animals that commit suicide aren't thinking "gee I hate my life," like humans.

As I requested before, refrain from interposing on my arguments given that half of the time you do not make any sense- which is likely due to you understanding or a lack thereof. And you wait for someone to dispute me, then you add on so you can have a sense of security (or up-votes). Funny thing is, most times your security fails and consequently so do you (as in this case, and more recent cases).

No, you obviously offered a tacit conecession- which I believe is honorable, and I respect you for that.

I understand and I agree with you. My contention was the lack of charity his position received. This isn't my view, I just reillustrated his view to exemplify how his position isn't entirely erroneous.

Displaying 8 most recent debates.

Winning Position: What if all CD users met up?
Winning Position: Why did humans start to eat meat? We're Herbivores!
Winning Position: Yes

About Me


"I am a realist/narcissist/pessimist with and IQ of 177 and ADHD. I will end my life sooner or later."

Biographical Information
Name: Stephen XX
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States

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