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
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS ThePyg

Reward Points:6759
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.
87%
Arguments:6158
Debates:115
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

Pornography is not the same as sexual immorality.

What is your definition of "sexual immorality?"

1 point

there would likely be various agencies with various ways to obtaining their opinions. It is to the discretion of the populace to judge what is trustworthy and what isn't. Not perfect, but more trustworthy than something like the EPA which is funded through stolen money.

1 point

A major problem is that it's a powerful monopoly on the business of "protecting" the environment. People naturally believe that the environment is safe when the EPA approves of a product or action because they hold little reason to question the public sector.

There's no accountability when the EPA makes a mistake or continues a dangerous method. Instead of people actually wondering what is and isn't safe, they see the EPA as their only reassurance that the environment is in good hands. They wash their own hands of the responsibility of protecting their environment.

The same could be said for the FDA and various public regulation agencies.

2 points

If we wanted to compare Communist Dictatorships to Nazi dictatorships, I'd vote Communist.

However, the ideology of Communism is not worse than Nazism. Communism specifically goes against government, against property and money, against competition, religion, etc. Nazism is an extreme form of Fascism, purporting ethnic cleansing and executions of anyone deemed unworthy (including political dissidents.) There is no real argument here.

Stalinism and Maoism are, in ways, forms of Fascism and Statism. They purport a Socialist distribution of resources while also creating a ruling class (Democratic or not) and a non-ruling class. The ideologies support authoritarianism while Communism (in the Marxist sense) is against theoretically all hierarchy. As well, there's a major hostility towards so-called Capitalist (wealthy men that work with government in exploiting the lower class).

I could go on and on, but Stalin and Mao's rule were not actually Marxist Communism. They were "state" Communism, dictatorships, etc. Statism is bad in any form.

1 point

I remember our last few debates were pretty hostile.

I should have been the better one and just not use insults, but w/e.

All in all, I can only recall our vile nature of debate. We probably agreed on more shit earlier, but maybe not.

I think I also just said things because I knew it would piss her off.

She's gone now. Sure I had something to do with it, or maybe she just got bored of CD.

1 point

Yeah, sales were pretty low since Xbox360 was less money at the time.

eventually the prices went down, bundles were provided, etc.

People who buy things when they first come out tend to just have a butt-load of money to blow. I don't, so i take my time. not like i care that much anyway.

1 point

Supply and Demand.

Although, the playstation 4 is $400 (once they stock stores again).

Cheaper than the ps3 when it first came out (600).

1 point

What's this obsession with statists in insisting that services that seem important ought to be rights?

Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education.

As my mother used to say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"

It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. Slavery used to be common. Currently, the drug war is very common. Should we demand that Holland and Portugal make drugs illegal because practically every other country is doing the same thing? Governments are these twisted little things that force people to conform. Collectivism is the greatest evil. We aren't born to serve others. We are born, for the fuck sake of it, and we should hold this ability to do whatever we want. Sure, murder is undesirable, but murder invites murder. What does not hurting people invite? Yeah, fuckin' not hurting people.

Such education is generally uncontroversial and accepted as necessary by both liberals and conservatives around the world.

Not controversial? I suppose the elitism and snobbery that comes from Ivy leaguers isn't controversial when we cherish Aristocracies. If anything, we should end intellectual property rights and open up the ability for hackers to release all the information that their sacred research journals hold. Education should be free, but only when demand is so high that the people find ways to make it free. Knowledge is everywhere. With a simple google search you can learn most of the shit that you'd learn in college. Eliminating IP will make all that information forever available until they find more secure ways to keep it locked up in some encrypted software. However, subsidized education is not free; we're asking tax-payers to pay for it. And it's not like all of a sudden poor people are going to start entering these places. It will likely be the same crowd, but with possibly less debt (depends on how you subsidize it.) We're asking the American people to pay for the education of elitists.

In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. In many states students must pay fees to attend university, for which they may seek student loans or grants. Often states offer financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford to pay fees and lack other methods of payment. In other states, university education is completely free and considered a citizen’s right to attend. Debates center on the issues of whether there is in fact a right to university education, and on whether states can feasibly afford to finance such education.

The state always finds a way to finance things and never admit that it was wrong to do it in the first place (Drug War, all other wars, Social Security, FDA, etc.)

The issue is what will this do to the quality of education if it is no longer competitive? For one thing, I know that subsidizing the actual Universities just allocates funding to more buildings so that they can bring in more students. Subsidizing via grants and loans has sparked the costs of education since the ability to pay for it is so laxed (same thing that health insurance does to the cost of healthcare.)

A half-private system that we currently have is terrible and destroys competition. A public system would destroy quality and enslave the students. A completely private system (not in the hands of corporations, but in all individuals for various intent, methods, etc.) would open competition, innovation, end bureaucracy, and practically eliminate the stress in believing that one MUST attend a University in order to thrive. Imagine how much better off the impoverished would be if they were just left alone and allowed to find their own ways to improve their conditions? Schools and communities would teach children about the dangers that crack does to the community, and maybe other communities would teach children to use drug sales as a means of bringing revenue into the community. But currently there is this major enemy that is the state, and the state cripples us greatly and forces us to pay for a shitty crutch and in the case of public schooling "you can buy a better crutch if you'd like, but only until you pay for the production of this shitty crutch first."

1 point

What's this obsession with statists in insisting that services that seem important ought to be rights?

Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education.

As my mother used to say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"

It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. Slavery used to be common. Currently, the drug war is very common. Should we demand that Holland and Portugal make drugs illegal because practically every other country is doing the same thing? Governments are these twisted little things that force people to conform. Collectivism is the greatest evil. We aren't born to serve others. We are born, for the fuck sake of it, and we should hold this ability to do whatever we want. Sure, murder is undesirable, but murder invites murder. What does not hurting people invite? Yeah, fuckin' not hurting people.

Such education is generally uncontroversial and accepted as necessary by both liberals and conservatives around the world.

Not controversial? I suppose the elitism and snobbery that comes from Ivy leaguers isn't controversial when we cherish Aristocracies. If anything, we should end intellectual property rights and open up the ability for hackers to release all the information that their sacred research journals hold. Education should be free, but only when demand is so high that the people find ways to make it free. Knowledge is everywhere. With a simple google search you can learn most of the shit that you'd learn in college. Eliminating IP will make all that information forever available until they find more secure ways to keep it locked up in some encrypted software. However, subsidized education is not free; we're asking tax-payers to pay for it. And it's not like all of a sudden poor people are going to start entering these places. It will likely be the same crowd, but with possibly less debt (depends on how you subsidize it.) We're asking the American people to pay for the education of elitists.

In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. In many states students must pay fees to attend university, for which they may seek student loans or grants. Often states offer financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford to pay fees and lack other methods of payment. In other states, university education is completely free and considered a citizen’s right to attend. Debates center on the issues of whether there is in fact a right to university education, and on whether states can feasibly afford to finance such education.

The state always finds a way to finance things and never admit that it was wrong to do it in the first place (Drug War, all other wars, Social Security, FDA, etc.)

The issue is what will this do to the quality of education if it is no longer competitive? For one thing, I know that subsidizing the actual Universities just allocates funding to more buildings so that they can bring in more students. Subsidizing via grants and loans has sparked the costs of education since the ability to pay for it is so laxed (same thing that health insurance does to the cost of healthcare.)

A half-private system that we currently have is terrible and destroys competition. A public system would destroy quality and enslave the students. A completely private system (not in the hands of corporations, but in all individuals for various intent, methods, etc.) would open competition, innovation, end bureaucracy, and practically eliminate the stress in believing that one MUST attend a University in order to thrive. Imagine how much better off the impoverished would be if they were just left alone and allowed to find their own ways to improve their conditions? Schools and communities would teach children about the dangers that crack does to the community, and maybe other communities would teach children to use drug sales as a means of bringing revenue into the community. But currently there is this major enemy that is the state, and the state cripples us greatly and forces us to pay for a shitty crutch and in the case of public schooling "you can buy a better crutch if you'd like, but only until you pay for the production of this shitty crutch first."

ThePyg(6759) Clarified
1 point

but I'm quite sure children with guns kill far more people with guns than children without guns do.

Then bringing up Somalia was an ignorant tactical ploy.

I'm not overly committed to debating you on the subject.

Based on your statements so far, this makes sense.

I'm more of a debate with Jesus nuts rather than gun nuts kinda guy.

Your lack of confidence to protect beliefs in gun-control is understandable. Gun-control is irrational and often a contradiction in terms.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: The movie "42" is a tale of how the Free Market defeated Racism despite Statism
Winning Position: Morality of Statism and Anarchism
Winning Position: Which candidate do you side with the most? Quiz Time!!
Winning Position: If the government had a War on Zombies...
Winning Position: Eliot Spitzer got my repsect
Winning Position: My question to those who believe that contraceptives should be provided
Winning Position: Level of Sexuality - I'm curious on what you would rate yourself
Winning Position: Let's discuss Humans as Organic Machines

About Me


"The Universe is fascinating."

Biographical Information
Gender: Chap
Age: 106
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Websites: My Tumblr

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