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
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS SymphoniC

Reward Points:23
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.
97%
Arguments:26
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

I love you. Surely there can't be anything wrong with that.

1 point

More like, there is something wrong with you if you think that there's something wrong with happy people.

1 point

How do you think Obama became president? A lot of his speeches, the way he talks, etc... employs hypnotic techniques. There should be an entire article written on this lurking on the internet somewhere.

1 point

http://www.terrafugia.com - both plane and car.

As fascinating as this may be, it certainly doesn't make all cars and planes, car-planes at this present time. Therefor is irrelevant to the debate, which is focused on the here and now.

An evil scientist could conceivable make a man like "the thing" from the fantastic 4, he is essentially both rock and man.

Conceivable or not, this argument unfortunately relies on fantasy to make it's point. This debate is about the claim that "All inanimate objects are atheists," not about "All humans could be made to be animate and inanimate objects which are atheists."

that does not mean the other doesn't have that same property unless exclusively said other wise.

Yes, and with this same logic, if we fail to exclusively say that humans have heads (which is a property of a human), then doesn't that mean that the entire human race automatically lacks their heads and this makes us unable to think... and with no brain to the point of you being unable to reply to this post as well as to the point of this being a matter of you're unable to believe your own argument, we do after all need our brains to believe, according to you, do we not?

A brain isn't necessary to disbelieve, only to believe.

Allow me to counter.

According to Merriam Webster's dictionary,

Disbelieve -

: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe

: to withhold or reject belief

I want to emphasize your point, as it's valuable to the point I'm about to make. A brain is necessary to believe. A brain is necessary for anything/anyone to dictate whether or not a belief is worthy of being held. You admit that a brain is necessary to believe and that means it also must be capable of having a belief in order to withhold or reject it... in order to disbelieve, by definition. Would you be willing to change definitions and replace them with meanings of your own in order to continue these points? Let's hope not. You would have to rewrite the entire dictionary to make your points valid. This all means that inanimate objects are not athiests nor are they Christians, or Catholics. Hmm maybe they're Buddhas? They must be enlightened, more so than us. Perhaps we should become rocks and learn from their ways.

1 point

Ah... neat. I just might declare you an ally... hrm... and I don't know why.

It's amazing how perspective changes can transform hostility to friendship. This just goes to show that even the worst of enemies can end up becoming the best of friends.

Well it does frustrate. Could you please be blunter so I don't have to guess at half of your thoughts from here on out?

I'm aware of this. Yes I could be blunter. I'll also point out that less is sometimes more. So be prepared for me to take a vague approach in a more appropriate fashion.

Nothing. I just explained why the book is incorrect, unless the entire thing is riddled with 'maybes' and 'possibles' and 'ifs' so that there is leeway for it's theme to be proven incorrect without the writer looking like an elitist.

It is simply mathematically impossible for everyone in every way no matter what in the entire world to be breakers of rules, codes, and ethics. Mathematical probability will have that at least one out of our six billion people will, at the very least, be the exception to the rule, proving the book wrong. I don't think that there is only one exception to this 'rule' the book points out, because then I would be saying I was the one exception, but I think you get my point anyhow even though I explained it twice.

Fascinating. It might be fair to say that this argument challenges every Psychology book in existence. If there was at least one exception to what those text books explain. Would you immediately write them off as false and risk losing an opportunity to gain beneficial knowledge?

1 point

the statement 'a man of my own heart' sounds purposefully inserted for a dramatic effect. If not, what was the purpose for stating it?

To imply that in spite of the cutthroat arguments, I acknowledge our similarities.

Implying I'm a dumbass now or am I just being presumptuous?

When I used the word dumbass, I directed it at no one.

You speak English in the most subversive, mesmerizing way you can, which frankly puts me at a disadvantage since you seem to only reply to me late at night when I'm tired and not long away from going to sleep.

Thank you. I put a lot of effort into being able to use language the way I use it, but it's not my intent to frustrate. The way I use language is at an imperfect stage of development for now.

One book from one person's perspective is not going to change my mind

If that won't, then what will?

Since my rational is extremely simple due to my mentality, this simply doesn't happen to me when I debate. I can get angry and emotional and such, but it doesn't change my focus.

That would be agreed with if the focus of your arguments didn't contrast from intelligent debating to personal attacks, even if you were to gift me with the blame.

1 point

The very nature of the comment 'A man out for my heart' is dramatic, at least, if nothing else. If not, explain to me what it's nature was.

For one, you seem to have either misread that original quote, or distorted it. The original quote was "A man after my own heart."

For two, thank you for pointing out a minor error that I made. What I really meant to say was, "A man of my own heart."

For three, it was merely a statement made. Should all statements that everyone speak or type out be considered dramatic?

Smartass. Thanks for being polite and deliberately not speaking a language I understand despite all my efforts to treat you nicely.

I'd rather be a smartass, than a dumbass. I appreciate and accept your compliment. Also, last time I checked, I speak English and only English. What language is that you understand again?

I admit, I am suffering slight amnesia since it was late last night, but I remember enough to know that you implied that I said something that I did not.

I got little sleep at all over the past two days, so I can relate.

At least it's a more polite and fair ruthlessness then running around somebody's words and speaking in a totally different language just to throw them off. The more you seem to admit to not understanding this, the more it seems like you have no code of honor when it comes to this sort of martial art.

To be more correct, we're both at an equivalent as far as manners and ruthlessness... except for the excessively LOUD all caps words and the profanity. I have no code of honor? I'm going to ask you, have you ever read the "48 Laws of Power," if you haven't then you should read it, it will reveal a harsh wake up call to you about any code of honor in general. Everyone breaks codes, rules, and ethics to achieve some sort of power in society. The more you don't realize this, the more blind you appear to those around you.

I think it's about a specific country in consideration for what the writer intended.

Allow me to solve this entire issue altogether and send him a message and find out for you what he/she intended.

If you haven't cursed at somebody in frustration just because you're an adult, married man, then I pity you.

I'm 22, unmarried, I have a girlfriend, and I cuss all of the time. I get frustrated at times too. This is why I'm a hypocrite. Everyone is in some way or another. But when you lose your temper in a debate, you lose control. Your ability to think logically and rationally dwindles, because your "fight" or "flight system is in effect, so instead of thinking logically, you're thinking emotionally and all of this obliterates an otherwise wonderful mental excercise... or debate.

1 point

A plane may also be a car, because their definitions are not mutually exclusive.

Very true, especially when categorized under "transportation". That's not exactly the issue we're looking at, the real issue here is, is that idea still able hold up if you try to consider rock and human being the same thing? They both exist on planet Earth, no? So they must be the same thing. Sure, a plane can be driven on a road, and car can fly in the air temporarily... albeit under strange circumstances. But they're not the same thing. Here's why, because these have wings to aid in it's flight, and those completely lack them. This is what keeps plane separate from car, their actual physical construction. This is also what keeps a rock separate from a human being. To sum all of that up, all inanimate objects totally lack the physical property that we know of as a live brain with the ability to process information... which is fundamental in anything being able to believe or disbelieve, which is fundamental for the definition of atheism to hold true. Are you an inaminate object? Well, not yet.

There is nothing which contradicts the definition of atheism in calling a non-believing non-human an atheist.

I just did.

1 point

Then why be dramatic?

If we were talking in person with this same debate, my tone of voice would be quite calm. No dramatism here my friend.

Then tell me bluntly what you meant and think instead of asking me to read your mind with this metaphorical shit. It's after midnight for Christ's sake! Do I really have to read Aesop's Fables to understand what you're really saying?

Only if you want to.

I think it's apparent that your mind has taken a totally different direction then mind considering you read one thing I wrote and then thought another thing.

How so?

At least you can admit to your ruthlessness. I'm more honorable in the 'you hit me, I hit you back harder' way.

Ahhh, "you hit me, I hit you back harder", those words bleed with ruthlessness.

What annoys me is you imposing your train of thought on this entire debate.

Then you shouldn't be debating... because that's the point of arguing your point in a debate.

GIVE ME A REASON THAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT THE WORLD AND NOT A PARTICULAR COUNTRY THE CREATOR HAD IN MIND.

WOW! You almost broke my computer screen with all capitalization. That was a close one, I sure am relieved. My reason for you is simple, and I'm sticking with it and repeating it once again for you because it seems that you may have missed it. Because the debate starter didn't specifically specify "United States", or Canada, or Turkey, or Atlantis for that matter. So why shouldn't it be about the police forces of the entire world? Sure you think it's too difficult to deal with when generalizing it... but maybe someone like me wants to come in and get really in depth and go far down the ladder of abstraction to the point of absolute specificity. Again if this is too much for you, then don't too it.

Where is your reply to that behind all of you wishy-washy, senseless metaphors? Stop hiding and twisting and turning and start debating, you coward!

If you haven't caught it by now, then you're blind.

Asshole.

That's real mature. And you're telling me to grow up?

1 point

You edited your argument after I disputed it. So I figured I would pay my respects and dispute the rest of your argument. It's only fair.

My falsehoods are false and true at once because you and I are two different people with two different perspectives.

I actually agree with this.

There is no description. Considering a debate about world police is almost totally chaotic and manageable by few, how can you convince me this is about your train of thought and not mine?

There is no description, you're right and all we have to go by is, "The police is given too much power." That's why we should treat that title as the description itself, otherwise we all may as well invent our own descriptions, and debate about something that isn't even fully concrete in meaning. Why on Earth do this? When nobody is even on the same page as far as the meaning of the debate topic, then we really shouldn' even bother debating it, don't you at least agree with that?

They still have differences, on the other hand. In flavor, species, texture, grow cycle, and like you said, color. It seems to me like you're favoring one color of apple while I'm trying to look at all apples in general in relation to other equally groups of apples.

Yes but they're both still apples, and that's the way I'm looking at it at this present time within the given argument that the apple metaphor began with... very much like you.

I said 'possibly', which is a more defined word then 'if'.

Also, sarcasm is not acknowledged among the internet because there is no tone on the internet. I suspect that you were being sarcastic about your argument over evolution, but you'll have to clarify.

By merely using the word sarcasm in reply to a sarcastic comment I made, you've already acknowledged my sarcasm, haven't you?

I tailor all of my comments for you. It's only polite.

I also tailor all of the comments I make for you and that also doesn't mean it should be expected. However the last half of the statement about you being polite still looms in the dark shadows of your crude use of profanity towards me, which really doesn't offend me either way.

So, are you saying you want to be rude by asking me to go back and view some other conversation you had with someone else? Because you wrote only 1 comment in this conversation before the one where you referred me to another one of your comments.

What's rude to one person could be polite to another. I'm really referring to all of the comments I've made at this point. Not just one. If you like puzzles you'll certainly like putting the pieces of this one together.

I'm only rude to you when you're rude to me.

It sure is a vicious cycle isn't it?

What qualifications do I have for narcissism, sir?

I knew it would come to this. I can't pass this up. Enjoy. Everything listed below in bold are directly quoted from you, and everything below listed in italics are the symptoms, or qualifications of Narcissism.

What makes you think I care about your heart?

Lack of empathy.

I will not tolerate you acting like you're so important as to ask me to read other comments of yours that are not tailored to argue against me. If you're going to assert that evolution is also a fairytale, then we're done talking; I have no time for brainless fools.

An exaggerated sense of self-importance

AND

Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

AND

Grandiosity

stay on the same page with me

Requires excessive admiration

Unless you're going to blow my mind by telling me to go back to that one comment of reference in our discussion as opposed to a more likely reference to another comment in another discussion with someone else, then stow it.

Has a sense of entitlement

At least you can admit to your ruthlessness. I'm more honorable in the 'you hit me, I hit you back harder' way.

Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends (especially taking advantage of my words)

What annoys me is you imposing your train of thought on this entire debate.

Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

Fuck you

Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

You see? You're a narcissist.

SymphoniC has not yet created any debates.

About Me


"You don't want me to influence you too much, or do you? Yeah we wouldn't want that."

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: In a Relationship
Political Party: Other
Country: United States

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