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
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Hornet

Reward Points:34
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:34
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

I just did.

Personally, no I wouldn't be able to tell in a split second whether someone has a gun.

Police are better trained though.

By armed I mean holding a gun or reaching for something when they are told not to move.

1 point

Police are trained to identify a weapon from an imitation firearm or other object.

So you would be ok with police shooting anyone who they thought did something illegal?

1 point

Ok fair enough.

He should be able to, but he shouldn't need to.

1 point

What?

I'm saying unless the criminal poses a threat to anyone they shouldn't be shot.

1 point

When it's an unarmed criminal.

A police officer cannot be the judge, jury and executioner.

2 points

Technically, I would say no, as the definition of murder is 'The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.' Since the military's job is to kill I'm pretty sure it's not illegal for them to kill enemies (unless they are surrendering or unarmed).

Morally though, I would say yes, as a lot of wars are caused by a disagreement about something, be it religion, culture, etc. If an ordinary citizen killed someone because they disagreed with them, it would be murder. If someone killed someone to gain access to their resources it would be murder.

I'm not against the military, as it is essential in some circumstances, but I do think the west has made the Middle East a worse place, but then doesn't understand why terrorist organisations thrive there. If a foreign army bombed your country, killing thousands of civilians and then just leaving once they had 'won', it's no surprise some people there have a hatred of the people who took everything from them.

I'm not justifying the actions of terrorist groups, but we have more to do with it than we care to admit.

1 point

But specifically concerning monogamy, why is it wrong?

You might not be into it, but if it doesn't effect anyone else it's not a problem.

It's the same as being gay, a cross dresser, etc. Just because it's not your personal preference, doesn't automatically mean it's bad.

1 point

If everyone involved in the relationship is aware and ok with the relationship involving more than just 2 people, why should they be stopped?

It's not harming anyone if everyone involved is fine with it.

Of course cheating is not the same as this, as one partner hasn't agreed to it.

1 point

If god is all knowing and all powerful, why would he need to make changes?

He should never make mistakes if he creates everything he should know how everything should work.

1 point

I've literally never heard that in my life.

I'm from UK by the way.

Hornet has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Democrat
Country: United Kingdom
Religion: Atheist
Education: College Grad

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