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
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic


RSS TheDevil

Reward Points:6
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.
26%
Arguments:321
Debates:10
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
-1 points

YES! THANK YOU!!!!

I did promise to respond to the sources Nom provided. I will do so. But this is so much more information to devour. On what little honor is afforded to me as someone who frequents this cesspool of a website, I will read and respond to all of this. However, it will take more time. Again, I thank you.

-2 points
-3 points
1 point

No mention of the CDC. Why do I find your ignorance of what is inconvenient unsurprising. How about I start up another debate, ask whether people find the Center for Disease Control a more reliable source or a lobbying group such as the VPC?

What I do find surprising is this: This is not a "contradicory (sic) study" you deranged bastard:-

John Lott, an economist and guns rights advocate, argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns

Do you even fucking hear yourself? Read it again. Tell me what's wrong with this goddamn picture.

Do you see it?

This is not a "contradicory (sic) study" you deranged bastard:- yeah, it's just a reference to a study that concluded little snippets of information such as "media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories", or "[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police" or ""98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." You know, things that are completely contradictory to your narrative. Which means, as per your SOP, you skipped reading them on Wikipedia, because you're an ignorant fuck, and probably skipped reading them here.

1 point

"Monodirectional explosive" also happens to be a objective description of what a bullet fucking is. Little to no different than a directional IED, which you have insisted on record is what would be used by perpetrators of a mass casualty attack, despite your claims that you never said such a thing. These are objective facts, despite your intentional refusal to understand the words "monodirectional" or "explosive", simply because you are too immature to admit when you can't reason your way out of a logical corner.

You have defeated yourself. To insist otherwise is to either deny your own word, the link to which is provided, or to deny the English lexicon. What the fuck, that level of denial from you is only a short step at this point.

1 point

Amazing how anything that would shatter your ego and worldview can be immediately dismissed out of hand as "retarded" before it does too much damage and forces you to actually consider that you might be wrong. Wish I could do that with inconvenient information. Oh wait, no I don't, that would be fucking stupid.

1 point

And once again, you don't fucking read past the first sentence, and call me an idiot in the feeble attempt to justify your own ignorance. Do you ever think before you type?

1 point

The wikipedia article literally cites a contradicory study in the next section. You don't even need to scroll down. But reading that would be too inconvenient, wouldn't it?

The VPC is an anti gun lobbying group.

Since you're too god damn lazy to click on the link, how 'bout I tell you the source of the study I cited?

THE FUCKING CDC.

1 point

THEN WHY IS IT CALLED A BULLET NOT A MONODRIRECTIONAL EXPLOSIVE

Because "bullet" is easier to use in conversation. It explodes, ergo, it is an explosive. It is directed in one direction. One direction, mono-directional. Do you need a fucking Latin lesson?

1 point

Wouldn't have to if you'd bother to click a link and read four god damn paragraphs, or your own arguments, you intellectually lazy cunt.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Glad they can't see this mess
Winning Position: Scientists conclude parachutes no more effective than empty backpacks
Winning Position: A request to anti-gunners.
Winning Position: Sounds about right
Winning Position: If I had one wish...
Winning Position: I am a Scumbag, & So Can You
Winning Position: You know what we all need?

About Me


"Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name!"

Biographical Information
Name: The Devil
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Other

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