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.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Nomoturtle

Reward Points:716
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.
95%
Arguments:686
Debates:38
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

That was hilarious. Good job journalists, time to go.

0 points

It's the furthest thing from natural.

Furthest thing from natural? What's unatural or wrong with liking the culture you grew up with? Indeed I agree there is nothing god-given or superior about any nation, but what problem do you have with people liking - or, dare I say, enjoying living in - their arbitrary nations?

I'm not an American. You declared sterotypes too soon.

Put matter-of-fact-ly, the Earth is the property of whomever says it is, as there is nobody to tell anyone otherwise. Nations are the result of such a system. And it's not just the land you're a part of under a nation, but the culminations of the lifes work of the people that devoted their time to build the country before you as well. Building Infrastructure. Art. Ideology. Law. Values.

it has nothing to do with the topic. It's an attempt to form an inductive fallacy

I'm not using an inductive fallacy. You simply fail to see the connection between ones country being conquered and the safety of ones self and family. Perhaps because you've never experienced it.

No it isn't

Yes, I suppose you know my thoughts better than I, but just in case you're mistaken I'll reiterate.

Like you said, armies are exploited for greed and power and aquisition and destruction and atrocities. I agree with you. What you aren't taking away from this is that that is the exact reason it is necessary for any nation to be capable of defending themselves; from other militaries under the whims of other nations. If the barrier (a combination of military and international relations) for a nation to steal from or conquer is too low, then why wouldn't they do it? Solve issues of scarcity in one move and do so for a profit. No scarcity? Increase standards of quality of life and there is again! Or bypassing the material world entirely, what about ideological wars?

All countries investing in their defence helps keep peace by deterring all other countries from breaking peace. Beyond that should be descalation and mutual disarmament, but there can never be a total removal of the military from the world. It would end in catastrophe. Yes, owning a military force opens up the possiblity for corruption and exploitation. That is a secondary issue. I would hope we would not live in a world where we cut off our arms to prevent arthritis.

I'm sorry my argument is not the same as yours and that I'm getting on your nerves. While I think your reasoning is incomplete and your conclusion wrong, you don't annoy me in the slightest. Maybe you have some greater wisdom I'm missing here, I don't mind talking about it.

1 point

I'm sure it does.

1 point

I take it you couldn't be bothered to look yourself. You called me inhuman for supporting choice regarding abortions. I treated your argument seriously and didn't resort to attacking you. I can't say the same for you.

I called you out as a hateful person because you appear to see yourself as exempt from responsibility for your part in making this site what it is. I dislike hypocrisy. You've made more ad hominems, caps arguments, and inciteful rhetoric posts than even the parody accounts on this site.

Nomoturtle(716) Clarified
1 point

You're talking about a perversion of the military through the whims of the state. I'm not denying that this happens. But people do not join the army wanting to be the state's bitch.

I'm talking about the necessity of a military as a matter of defense and peace, along with some of the reasons one might support that cause. Were the army in a country to be disbanded they would be open to attacks by any vector. Soldiers have an essential role in the guarding a nation against foreign actors that may want to attack just as you describe.

Shut the hell up. That is a stereotypical appeal to emotion and one of the predominant reasons why you're an idiot.

I don't mean to twist your heart, I consider it fact. We live our lives on the backs of the dead, from the recent past back to the origin of life. We are the descendants of those that were not killed, defended by soldiers. And soldiers are essential to remain that way. Rape, theft, and murder - while condemnable - are irrelevant when you're all dead at the hands of some mirror nation. That is what I mean by the bigger picture.

2 points

I remember being insulted by you numerous times. Look up our history on some of your old debates if you've forgotten, or truly believe I'm lying. I can't blame you for forgetting, after all, I'm just one among hundreds you've insulted in fits of CAPS LOCK RAGE. I imagine you'd have to see for yourself, else you'd call me a fool and a liar the same way the left calls everyone racist and bigotted. Oh, too late. That was the first thing you typed.

I think you're a tribalist, just like the left you despise. You've already lumped me in with your 'them' and 'you people'. It's remarkable that you've not changed your attitude towards even a neutral party a single bit in the last 4 years.

I don't blame you for not remembering my positions, but I'll say it yet again. I don't believe what you say I believe. I think it's necessary to have both conservatives and democrats around for the sake of keeping each other in check. It's the least intolerant stance one can take. I'm not a member of either party, despite you lumping me in with the left. I don't even hate Trump.

Nomoturtle(716) Clarified
1 point

Yes. That is probably OP's point. And my point is that their reasoning isn't necessarily indoctrinated into them. Patriotism and Nationalism isn't something unnatural. Loving ones country and wishing to preserve it is not unatural. Protecting ones family is not unatural. While they're often responsible for kicking the beehive, the state doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with it. The core values are already there, only to be exploited by an actor, not wholly implanted. People still become soldiers in peace time, devoid of state interference.

That's a nice idea but history has shown us that it isn't that simple. Rather, when power is acquired by one particular country then that country (quite naturally) uses it to press further advantages for itself, usually at the expense of poorer (or less violent) nations

That's exactly my point though. To avoid being the victim it is essential to invest in defence. Those that don't are wiped out by those that do. Regardless of what happens with said military or nationalistic ideals that you prophesize, one must first survive.

For individual nations defense is a no brainer. But even in the big picture, one ideal scenario is to have all parties be armed such that more is lost in attacking than would be possible to gain. I advocate deescalation as much as possible, but there comes a point where there would be too little resistance to a takeover, which becomes all the more likely. A military is necessary for peace. And wanting your country to survive does not necessarily lead to supremacy.

1 point

On the grand scale of things your disdain for soldiers seems unfounded. Would you rather everyone in your country let the Nazis have their lebensraum? We're fortunate to have come this far, even if those that died getting us all here are turning in their graves.

Why do you think the military exists in the first place? It's as though you're completely unaware of the reality of nations on our planet. I suppose you think they're just around for the powerful to stay in power? Yes, the military can be manipulated to the desires of those controlling it. That does not void the purpose of the military, or the ambitions and values of those within it.

Had soldiers not died defending values your situation today could be vastly different. Germans losing WW1 meant their people - regular civilians that had little to do with the war - suffering forced poverty to the point of starvation. In the past conquered civilisations were killed and enslaved in massive numbers. Was the American revolution and the following civil war not also fought by soldiers simply chasing ideals? It is thanks to them that they no longer have slaves. The argument for becoming a soldier even can be as simple as not wanting your family to be on the wrong side of a boot.

Not all soldiers commit atrocities. Some do. I can only imagine why tbh. Maybe they're high on a power trip, egged on, lonely, dehumanising the victims, vengeful at the loss of their friends, or just lose sanity. Your 'no good men' reasoning applies to non-soldiers too, there are circumstances beyond verbal comprehension that can ellicit these behaviours in the best of us. Heck, for the soldiers that come back with PTSD, the cause is often them learning what they and others were capable of.

Us vs them? The 'us' is always the same, that's the point. The military isn't chasing the obviously variant 'them', but defending the 'us', typically those close to them.

1 point

You could call it the latter, but it's really patriotism isn't it? The belief that ones country is worth sacrifice. Wanting to defend traditions and ways of life against foreign influence; where in the past that meant defending your family against becoming slaves to a conqueror.

There are more sophisticated arguments to be made for 'national defense' however. Like if your country doesn't stand up for itself globally, are you confortable with leaving the spot open to exploitation by another actor? Having another country dictate what happens to yours with no say because you've no bargaining power to counter propose with.

Or what about some simple game theory? I'm all for gradual de-escalation and disarmament, but if a country has anything of value at all then war against it in order to sieze said value can be seen as an investment of sorts to foreign bodies. Serving in the military as a soldier means raising the cost of that 'investment' and dissuading invaision. Military is necessary because creation is difficult work, and stealing is easy in comparison.

Ideoligical stuff aside, it's also just a job. People need money.

2 points

FromWithin, with all I've seen from you over the years you're among the hateful and disrespectful on this site, and one of the reasons I lost heart in debate here long ago.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Ethics of marketing.
Winning Position: Alternate Personality Theory
Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: inaccurate
Winning Position: suggestion for CD
Winning Position: narp

About Me


"I am not a bot, I am a human."

Biographical Information
Name: Harry 
Gender: Chap
Age: 21
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United Kingdom
Education: Some College

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