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


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS J-Roc77

Reward Points:73
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:896
Debates:12
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
J-Roc77(73) Clarified
1 point

Neither of your options are the most common form of homicide in America.

The question asked wasn't that one but whatever.

1 point

Well kinda in that they are referred to by their geological location and date like the 1906 San Fran earthquake. Of course not all quakes are referred to in this manner, prolly because they don't all have as much damage associated with them to be considered historical in this way. I guess you mean "should earthquakes have names", like "earthquake Paul has caused problems in location X".

1 point

If in instances where an inequality was forcibly enacted that resulted in the detriment of one group for the benefit of another then yes restitution or assistance ought to be owed. For instance Jamaica is asking for debt forgiveness from many of the institutions that have played a role in cementing their situations due to unequal trade that was set up during slavery and so on. 1 2

1 point

Straw-manning evolution doesn't make your stance any more believable. You are attacking a construct that isn't representative of the sciences stance.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenisis. Evolution has to do with the diversity of species.

If I see someone with a bullet hole, see the gun that was used, see the powder burns etc but don't know who pulled the trigger I can still see the evidence that suggests someone was shot. Your stance says despite all the evidence someone was shot, that conclusion can't be right because we don't know who pulled the trigger. Your stance is untenable. Your stance ignores what evolution actually says and you just make something up that is irrelevant.

You appear to be a troll or a crazy person. On the off chance you are neither; If you really want to discuss evolution try starting with something actually claimed by evolution and is relevant instead of your made up straw-man. Here is a link for you to start. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

2 points

Straw-manning evolution doesn't make your stance any more believable. You are attacking a construct that isn't representative of the sciences stance.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenisis. Evolution has to do with the diversity of species.

If I see someone with a bullet hole, see the gun that was used, see the powder burns etc but don't know who pulled the trigger I can still see the evidence that suggests someone was shot. Your stance says despite all the evidence someone was shot, that conclusion can't be right because we don't know who pulled the trigger. Your stance is untenable. Your stance ignores what evolution actually says and you just make something up that is irrelevant.

You appear to be a troll or a crazy person. On the off chance you are neither; If you really want to discuss evolution try starting with something actually claimed by evolution and is relevant instead of your made up straw-man. Here is a link for you to start. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

1 point

Well 'solves' is an overstatement but still pretty cool. There is no quantity shown for how much of this ethanol would have to be created for 'solving' global warming; can production/storing/reuse/ overcome the C02 output and reverse the rise of CO2 to avoid costly changes? It really look like more of playing with the 'fast' carbon already in the atmosphere as it is proposed as well, reusing the carbon already in the atmosphere rather than putting new carbon in.

That being said it is certainly not off the table for reducing the amount of new carbon being put in the atmosphere. Carbon capture as an idea isn't new but this is one of the processes that has more appeal to business than other carbon capture/sequestration methods because the end product is usable. Other studies have had similar success but with an intermediary product as the end result. It's still early on so a few tests replicating/refining the work will have to be done before its cemented in as a viable route.

J-Roc77(73) Clarified
1 point

The first things fromwithin says is "First of all, you can not lump all religions together...." clearly this implies separation and not unity. The rest of his post devolves into acts of 'othering' warranting my statement even further. Clearly religion gives us another category to divide us even further than before.

1 point

Sure. It is a bit of a balancing act though and not an on/off switch. Some negatives appear too great to be overcome by an act of heroism redeeming a person. Of course it is a matter of perspective, hero to some might not be hero to all.

But a hero with flaws can give hope and is easier for others to relate to. A 'hero' with flaws shows that it does not take some iconic bastion of heroism to make a positive change but that every day people can do these acts too.

1 point

Couple ways to take this debate.

1) Are Americans (more than the average amount by some odd measure...population density?) more paranoid than they should be?

2) Are Americans more paranoid than other populations?

The "yes, what a bunch of kooks." answer makes me think the debate is asking the #1 above. I found this that kind of suggests not but I don't think their measure is really comprehensive enough for a solid answer.

Quantifying the overall paranoia level seems a bit of a subjective and overly generalized task but there is sure plentty of subjects that groups of Americans are overly paranoid about.

So in that vein I would slightly agree that Americans on average are more paranoid than need be on many topics rather than overall. Its how media works within the populations, it plays to sensationalism and false or irrelevant equivalencies. US paranoia has been discussed for years since it is deep within the US culture. More recent writings have touched on this too.

0 points

As illustrated by FromWithin; religion divides us. An 'us or them' mentality.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Cyborg Beetles
Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: Canada's election
Winning Position: Can man be moral without god?
Winning Position: Nye

About Me


"30's something guy. I have an interest in argumentation and philosophy. Here to test some ideas."

Biographical Information
Name: Jo Lo
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist

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