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.

Start your own community!

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.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS JatinNagpal

Reward Points:798
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
Right Now

10 most recent arguments.

That's right.


it is a part of the woman.

It isn't really a part.

JatinNagpal(798) Clarified
1 point

Yes, that was were the first excerpt you referenced was heading. Seems that point actually did stretch further than you understood.

It heading somewhere that can be agreed upon doesn't mean that it can stretch well enough.

Why is that what is good?

That's been by a method of reduction.

And how is that even attainable?

By actions.

Desire is fundamentally subjective, which means there is no single desirability for good to organize around

Yes, it is subjective. No one said that there will be a universal Desire that is exhaustive and inclusive of everyone - that isn't a possibility.

which is requisite for your utilitarian assertion.

It isn't utilitarian, though. It's what you get if you mix Kantian and Utilitarian morals, and also somewhere between the absolutist and nihilist views. Just like it's always been.

Try finding my argument yourself.

I'd rather make your position derogatory than resorting to childish nicknames.

So, you've finally understood that it's best to ban those who disagree with you.

Also, in case it's intentional, I wonder why you think I'd be ashamed.

Even though I've said it already, (it's just annoying to see something so idiotic) I'm not defending your faith here. I was just addressing the question.

What's that?

You probably clicked the wrong argument.

Though I'd guess any reasonable person would notice that the argument it shows in the right column on this screen, you've surprised me enough in such things already.

0 points

Oh, sorry, I forgot for a while there that fighting irrationally is what you do.

It's evident from the reference that I had forgotten that.

I've been trying to explain that to him for a while, but he isn't smart enough to confront it.

JatinNagpal(798) Clarified
1 point

She clearly wants you to say that God authorised the government to give rights to the people.

-In what world is the entity of a human baby independent? Once the baby is born it becomes more of a dependent burden.

A financial burden for a while does not mean that it's existence is entirely dependent. It can now have independent experiences, and the sustainance of its life isn't then dependent.

Does medical technology that increases surviveability of premiture birth also decrease the time it takes to become human?

It prematurely actualises the potential.

But, if you understand that already, then yes, of course.

About Me

"Making the weaker side of the argument the stronger one. I'd rather battle giants than peasants."

Biographical Information
Name: Jatin Nagpal
Gender: Guy
Age: 17
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: India
Religion: Atheist
Education: High School

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