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
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS MisterT

Reward Points:9
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.
71%
Arguments:9
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
9 most recent arguments.
1 point

"Most kids pick up most of their habits or personality from their parents."

Is that why all the gay friends I have come from straight parents?

1 point

I'm sorry, coming from someone as intelligent as yourself, how is that even remotely related to the debate?

2 points

"in rural areas, where there are very less electronic gadgets and so people there are pretty much less obese than people living in urban."

Although that may be true on some level, the causes of obesity in urban areas is more than pure laziness. An increasingly unhealthy lifestyle, with the indulgence of junk food has often been seen as a significant factor in obesity.

Also, it depends on how you deal with the term "lazy". For some, the convenience brought about by technology may make our lives easier and tasks being completed with less effort. In that sense, there may be some laziness generated.

However, the trend, especially in the working world is that as technology improves and machines are taking over more processes in businesses, us as employees often have to work harder to ensure that we are growing efficient as well. Hence, we could potentially see the fact that people needing to work harder due to the emphasis on efficiency as an area in which we have to become more hardworking instead of being lazy.

0 points

Furthermore, there needs to be some form of control in the end. We can't entertain the possibility of 15,16 year old teenagers having absolute freedom to consume alcohol.

1 point

"How about their parents? Parents have more effect on their children than government."

By retaining the alcohol laws, it does not mean that the parents play no part in ensuring that their children drink responsibly. The two are not mutually exclusive in the first place. As the previous poster has pointed out, even with current laws in place, there are still some who disregard the laws and continue with underage drinking anyway. This is where your "communities, parents and self-control" comes into play.

Having laws put in place is a legal manifestation and reinforcement to the message of drinking responsibly that communities and parents should relay to their children in the first place.

"If alcohol laws are so effective, why won't there laws before the 20th Century?"

We are talking about different time periods, different social conditions. Just because there wasn't a need for alcohol laws in the past does not mean that there is no need for alcohol laws in the present.

"When you paint the picture of anarchy with children dying in the streets due to alcohol poisoning..."

The crux of my argument is essentially the fact that by repealing the laws, there is an increased ease at which teens are able to consume alcohol without consequences legally.

2 points

"How can you prove that the teenagers will go to school drunk? Most adults don't go to work drunk."

Most would agree that maturity grows with age and experience. It is not totally illogical to suggest that teenagers may not make decisions that are as good as adults.

"Wouldn't it be better for children to drink at home where their parents can teach them how to drink responsibly?"

Assumptions on two counts. Firstly, that teenagers will drink at home. I would think that most teens would rather be drinking with their friends rather than under the scrutiny of their parents.

Secondly, would parents be bothered or capable enough to ensure that their children are sufficiently informed about drinking responsibly? For families where both parents work, they are potentially leaving their children alone for significant pockets of time when parents cannot check on their children.

-2 points
1 point

Really, attacking me on my username? You can't be serious.

"If one isn't for something than they must be against it."

Wouldn't you think that this argument is way too simplistic? Just because someone does not take part in an anti-smoking campaign does not automatically make him a supporter of smoking. Just because one does not go out of the way to intervene in a crime in action does not mean he condones it.

Other considerations must be made: the risks of his involvement, the necessity of involvement are but 2 of the factors that may deter someone from interference.

"You do not wish to deter crime and so you must support it."

Again, way too simplistic an argument. That's akin to saying just because someone is not good therefore he is evil. You are placing people on extreme sides based on a single action (or lack thereof) without considering the possible repercussions of interference on the bystanders at all.

1 point

"To do any less than this is to promote crime."

How is this reasonable? You are equating the lack of action, an inherently neutral response to promoting crime which implies active support for the said crime.

Furthermore, if we are talking about legal consequences to deal with keeping silent as a crime itself, that goes against the fact that in order for something to be considered a crime, it has to fulfill both the actus reus and the mens rea. Keeping silent, at best could only be considered under the actus reus as a fault of omission but there is no guilty or criminal intent behind the act of simply keeping quiet.

MisterT has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


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