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 Monty

Reward Points:1
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.
86%
Arguments:16
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

Marriage is a social construct that is ultimately failing, you should not wait for marriage to do the dirty. However you should develop an emotional (or spiritual, depending on the person you are) partnership with your chosen individual.

1 point

Have you ever heard of Little Hans, that is some really scary shit.

1 point

1) No and any true christian should be absolutely unsure about that, infact they should spend no time on its thought and only spend time on the love of God and his teaching.

2) Around 1.5 years ago when I first learned about stoicism, however the stoic definition of god is far older and VERY different from the Judeo-Christian God. (in short everyone is God and everything in existence is God).

3) If you think God has emotions then you think he is bound by his creation and that he is on a similar level to you. Even your own Pope, apparently most of those who have existed, states that God cannot be thought of in terms of human knowledge, he I the vicar of Christ on earth and should be thought of as telling the truth, unless you are arrogant enough to state that either he is wrong or that I have an wrong interpretation of his exact theology.

4) If you claim that I have no manners only to then go on and insult me that is not very logical. Unless what I was saying was Blasphemous Blasphemy and you have a god-given right to insult another human being, which would then make you very arrogant indeed.

I can imagine your reply will be more of the same inane insults and repetitions of previous posts so if you would be so courteous to answer my question as I have been to you:

Do you believe that you will "get in" to heaven?

(if you have listened or thought about anything I have said, you will know its a trick question. If your a follower of God that is)

1 point

I know its REALLY hard to get your head around at first but there is ALWAYS a biological reason, be it faulty associations made in our childhood locked away in our subconscious synapses (nice bit of Freud there), or outright tumors or lower levels of hormones/neurotransmitters. And I completely agree regardless of whether you have a tumor on your brain or your a psychopath and cannot physically feel empathy or have any other biological reason for you actions, you still chose to do it regardless of societies morals. There will be thousands of men in the US alone who are sexually attracted to children but have the self control to do nothing as they know it is morally wrong. If you believe Bowlby or Freud apparently all men are attracted to all children with slim jawline and big eyes, but that's a hell of a diversion from the US prison system.

2 points

The US prison system does need some serious reforms, obviously is not the worst in the world but it still needs change. Most prison systems still focus of punishment rather than rehabilitation even though almost all of the top flying psychologists and more importantly sociologists have been telling them to use both in 2:8 ratio (Anthony Giddens). While it is very important to intimidate and ward off potential criminals with the possibility of the death sentence or extreme fines and sentences there is still an underlying failure in peoples thinking that would allow them to become criminals, some criminal activities such as prostitution, assisted suicide and the selling, possession or consumption of drugs need to be legalized as they are considered more as forms of deviance from culture than detrimental to it.

The fact that the re-offending rate is so high points to the fact that A) The criminals environment outside of prison is crime inducing (not much the PRISON system can do about that) B) That current forms of punishment are inadequate for their specific crimes C) Prison is no longer feared D) Current forms of rehabilitation are not working or aren't used enough.

What do you guys think?

1 point

Zimbardo didn't just find out that the cause was de-individuation in the prison officers he mainly believed that it was due to what are known as IN and OUT groups, a remnant of our primal past. There is always a reason for criminal activity, for example in pedophilia it is often believed to be the case of tumors pressed on the brain usually near the prefrontal-cortex (personality), I might be able to find the case of the "pedo-teacher"-

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ health-and-families/features/a-40-year-old-developed-an-obsession-with-child-pornography-then-doctors-discovered-why-a6893756.html

-Those charged with assault have (on average) higher levels of testosterone and lower levels of a neurotransmitter "Dopamine". If the reason isn't biological then it would be caused by faulty socialization or faulty cognitive processes, basically the same thing. However like you said there are some obvious things that need to be legalized or decriminalized like drugs and the oldest profession in the world. If you can stand a relatively drunk Australian watch this, hopefully you might find it interesting.

skip to 1:40 if you want https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjeq3NYUw2M

1 point

I'm not an atheist and your not a christian, you act the exact opposite of the way you are supposed to and say the exact opposite but i'm conscious of the fact that in reply to this you will scream something about hell and that I know nothing. Do us a favor, if all your going to do is insult and repeat the same thing over and over again all the while refusing to debate PLEASE DON'T JOIN A DEBATING WEBSITE.

1 point

You say that I walk according to my lust, yet you have never met me or seen me or the philosophy that I follow. I bet you haven't even heard of Eclecticism or stoicism yet you scream out unintelligent judgement and prejudice like every other religious fanatic who knows less about their own faith than a run-of-the-mill Atheist does. Learn some humility.

1 point

Mate the simple fact that you have a computer or laptop that you can reply to me on means that you are not living the way that God and your lord Christ has commanded you, you have luxury where others do not, DIRECTLY AGAINST THE TEACHING OF JESUS. You probably don't even know that hell wasn't even considered a physical place like heaven until Dante's Inferno in the 14th century, so when you talk of us burning in hell you don't even realize that you are committing a sin right there. Also the fact that you have arrogance to assume MY ARROGANCE means you would be judged poorly for pride and for harmful intention.

Even the very fact that you tell me that I will burn in hell is you attempting to know God's mind by passing judgment on his behalf, i'm not even a christian and I have a better understanding of your concept of god and of the faith built around it.

Samuel 2:3 Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him<--- actions are weighed

1 point

The institution of the police is heavily based upon the concept of a panopticon in which all areas of society can be monitored, a state of complete surveillance and therefore response would provide coverage for all area's of crime. On the subject of domestic violence preventative techniques such as psychological screening and an overt increase in rate and severity of punishment would drastically decrease DV, obviously you may want to couple this with education on the matter if needed. We are dealing with hypothetical arguments on a hypothetical matter, or are you so atheistic in your thought that your are a nihilist and will not accept hypotheticals? (serious question)

I get your point, I was under the impression that the motto had been internalized by the institution regardless of states and their own judicial system. As we live in a state of governance and not nature (regardless of whether you support Hobbes or Locke) do you not think that an institution which the public pays for, via tax, has the purpose/obligation then of protecting the public from and preventing crime? And if the protection of your life in your sole responsibility then social cohesion itself starts to break down (as you feel then no obligation to protect others thus bringing a Darwinian aspect back into society) and participation within society reduces, Anomie rises as a result and so does crime.

Why would you even bring up omnipresence (albeit sarcastically), is the answer so hidden. You start a recruitment campaign, you attempt to remove the anti-police perspective introduced by BLM, then you redistribute police assets according to their correct areas based on crime rates and on public perception whilst developing effective ways of reporting potential criminal activity.

Obviously you could say my argument is flawed, if the police were doing their jobs correctly surely then there would be no crime regardless the presence of guns. Again we are using hypotheticals (i'm not saying that the police will ever to their jobs perfectly but theoretically all crime would be stopped if the police "did their jobs completely and perfectly") however what is more likely in reality, the Police being able to do their job perfectly or the removal of guns from a percentage of the American population, I say the latter. If the potential for crime was brought down to a threshold that the police could deal with and plan for effectively then crime then crime would be significantly reduced. The prohibition of the use of guns in specific areas would help achieve this.

The city dweller may be even more trustworthy however what are the reasons for a city dweller to use a gun? There are no natural predators that need to be killed or warned off, there is a higher density of officers per square km in urban areas so (assuming they do their jobs and the SCP works) you would be safe from public crime, so for what reason then would you need a hand gun or sniper rifle, recreation? If so then surely designated ranges would be the right way to go rather than owning a firearm.

When you say that if the law abiding citizens wont have guns to defend themselves against the burglar that does then that disregards the fact that by proxy the burglar with also have their gun confiscated. The main constitutional reason (that I'm aware of) to own a gun is due to the second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms", the right to own a firearm is so that you can fight an oppressive state, however seeing as the American government is now (Supposedly) geared towards eradicating any form of oligarchy, so why is there a need for an armed militia which in the digital age couldn't do a thing to prevent modern tyranny.

If you had used the analogy of Martial Arts originally then I wouldn't have called it stupid, however the analogy is still flawed as you attempt to compare an item originally created to kill with a series of limb movement originally created to kill. Martial arts have since developed into more behavioral practices, while since their creation guns have been developed to fulfill their purpose to an even greater extent, they have not developed into a relatively safe form of spiritual behaviorism. Original use is far from irrelevant, especially when the item or behavior has not developed away from it.

To say that the American political system protects you from my "Level of stupid" (without knowing a single thing about my intelligence, if I have any, morality) is then an unfounded presumption as the two final presidential candidates were Trump and Hilary, quite clearly a testament to the stupidity of the American system. Please don't be so controlled by ego (Freudian meaning not the common place) as to assume that I am stupid as I don't agree with you, or do you believe you are a paragon of intelligence because you've watched a load of Ben Shapiro videos? (P.s before you go down that rout I called your trampoline analogy stupid not you).

Monty has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Name: Samuel Montague
Gender: Male
Age: 25
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United Kingdom
Religion: Other
Education: In College

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