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
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS KelsoH

Reward Points:26
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.
72%
Arguments:20
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

Before Canada allowed gay marriage (with a clause that specifically allowed religious ministers to abstain from the practice), they took gay marriage to the Supreme Court of Canada. Instead of mandating that gay marriages were a legal right under the Charter, they said that it was up to Parliament to make the decision. Interestingly though, lower courts ruled the other way in some provinces, mandating that it was a protected right.

People should realize that judges are human beings like us and they are just as conflicted over the constitutional "right" to gay marriage like we are. There is a saying that is very applicable here: Hard cases make bad law.

As for prop 8, when this gay marriage was debated in Canada in 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin was pressured to hold a public referendum. In his speech in parliament, he succinctly described why a referendum on gay marriage would be a terrible idea:

"The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this - not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter. [Canadian version of the Bill of Rights]

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority."

On minority rights cases, it is unacceptable to have the majority decide what's right for the minority. Gay marriage as an issue should have been over when the court ruled it as a constitutional right. Allowing people have a referendum to overturn a court decision on a minority rights issue defeats the whole purpose of having the judiciary rule to protect the right in the first place. If we let the public just do this whenever they so choose, we would not have legal abortion right now, for example.

2 points

Do you respect racist people? Let me guess, no?

Why should I respect people who absolutely refuse to respect others? That's the whole fucking basis of respect--you have to earn it. By being a homophobic prick, you lose your right to my respect.

1 point

The problem with being a "conservative" is that there is no core ideology to which you can call conservatism. Seriously, it's amazing how libertarian-leaning people and social conservatives can exist in the ideological spectrum.

People often speak with pride about the conservative ideal of "less government." But from my experience of "right wing" governments, their governments really don't lead to any significant shortening of government, and generally they lead to terrible priorities that increase the worst aspects of statism. Conservative governments often increase "tough on crime" policies, legislate morality into public life and move revenue away from social programs towards military spending. The one major benefit from a right wing government is that you often get pretty good tax cuts, but that's really about it. There's little evidence to show historically that conservatives are any better with public finances in the longterm than liberals are.

1 point

Prayer does dickall.

Sorry people, but your act of praying is nothing short of being delusional.

5 points

Listening to Forty Six and Two while suiting up right before the start of a massive paintball game reminded me of how awesome they are.

3 points

There are only two forces I can think of where people are led to killing because of their beliefs: Nationalism and Religion. Both are evil forces that must be stopped, or at least, kept to a minimum.

2 points

I wouldn't live there because of the danger posed, I wouldn't live there because it would simply SUCK. There is nothing there. Most astronauts were amazed at the utter lack of anything there and the cold unwelcoming feel of the moon.

"We came all this way to explore the moon, and the most important thing is that we discovered the earth."

— William Anders, Apollo 8 on the delicate beauty of the earth from the moon.

2 points

I think what's missing from this argument is the age of the child and the situation. If the child is aware of death and the implications of heaven, etc., then a different approach must be taken to that of a very young child with little understanding of death and heaven. In the younger children, I would tell them all will be well. If the child is older... I would tell them they are loved and appreciated, and whatever happens, they will be remembered wherever they may go. Perhaps a focus on the truths of the world they are in now is the most appropriate unless they really press on the heaven aspect of death.

1 point

Yes, and I'm really just avoiding going to bed by creating this group.

1 point

I think you are completely right. Look at it this way in the perspective of the child.

If you tell the child there is a heaven and you're right. Everything works out great and he died peacefully with that knowledge. If you tell the child there is a heaven and you're wrong. The child dies peacefully and will never know your lie.

On the flip side, if you tell him the truth(?), then the child will die scared either way, and if he DOES end up in heaven, you would have needlessly made his death scary. If there isn't a heaven, you still made his death terrible by telling him that.

Atheist or not, the only answer through logic is to lie (or tell the truth?!) to the child by saying heaven exists. No matter the truth, it's win-win for the child.


Tied Positions: No, it's not late enough vs. Yes, I really should be

About Me


Biographical Information
Name: Kelso 
Gender: Male
Age: 34
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: Canada
Religion: Atheist
Education: In College

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