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


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS NicolasCage

Reward Points:303
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.
94%
Arguments:368
Debates:4
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
5 points

If a man rapes someone they're not going to be let off because they're transgender. That's the most idiotic thing I've heard all day.

If you're worried about people's safety, try this one: a biological man who is a transgender woman is not allowed into the female toilet. She goes into the male toilet. She gets brutally beaten and probably raped herself for being a "freak".

You can't claim "oh, I'm looking out for people's safety!" when you're ignoring one of the fundamental reasons why people need these bathrooms.

Why shouldn't they? The constitution separates religion and the state, not marriage and the state.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Religion didn't create marriage. Marriage was created by the government, so why shouldn't they be allowed to say who gets married?

One of the government's priorities is equality for all citizens. Disallowing certain citizens from being married is restricting equality, plain and simple. It's a breach of human rights.

He's agreeing with you, you cretin.

..........................

I know of many married couples which consist of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. What's your point?

NicolasCage(303) Clarified
1 point

Says who?

......................................................................

2 points

If his plan is to let his country's healthcare system implode without establishing a backup then he's a moron and not fit to be president.

Letting Obamacare collapse without coming up with a suitable replacement will fuck over the entire country, not just the democrats.

NicolasCage(303) Clarified
1 point

"Alleged marriage?"

Is that when you're not sure that you're married, but someone's told you that you are, so don't know whether you're married or not?

It could definitely be argued that it actually emphasises your free will.

People are deterred from making certain decisions due to the rules of society, but when they do decide to do something, it's a lot more significant and is even further proof of free will existing.

Free will does exist. I could go outside right now and punch someone, but I'm not going to, because I have free will. The fact that I can actually imagine a scenario in which I could go outside and punch someone is proof of free will.

A more interesting argument would be "does society allow us free will?"

The reason I'm not going to go round murdering people is because I don't want to go to jail.

Another reason is because I believe murder is wrong... but, again, why do we believe this?

We believe it because society has conditioned us to see murder as wrong. I challenge you to explain to me why murder is objectively wrong.

"Because it's taking someone's life!"

Why is that bad?

"Because life is precious!"

Why?

I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here. The point is, free will does exist - however, it is restricted by our own society.

Think of it this way: either God exists, or he doesn't.

If God exists, then we have free will because He gave it to us.

If God doesn't exist, then we have free will because there is no God to restrict our free will.

We have evolved over millions of years to become intelligent creatures which can think independently. If God began the evolutionary process then He likely did so with the intention of us developing autonomy.

If God did not begin the evolutionary process, and does not exist, then nothing changes. We still have free will which has resulted from years of evolution.

God is an irrelevant concept when talking about free will; whether he exists or not, we still have free will. Nothing changes.

Displaying 4 most recent debates.

Winning Position: How effective is the ontological argument?
Winning Position: other things; some bad things
Winning Position: No, that's absurd.

About Me


"A loving child of three."

Biographical Information
Name: Nic Cage
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Agnostic

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