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
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic


RSS Vaan

Reward Points:167
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:161
Debates:4
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

That would depend on what you define a good role model as.

If you mean in a christian stance then he is a perfect role model because the whole idea is to be "christ-like"

If you mean in a moral sense then its relative, unless you decide there is a good to give objective morality to the situation. And that would also be unhelpful because that would not tell us what morals are objective, unless you believe that christ was God which is circular and needs you to believe the premise (that Jesus was a good role model).

Thus the only defensible position to take is that he is structurally neccesary to christianity as a role model, and is good in that sense.

1 point

Yes that is what i'm saying, and that does seem very realistic. The way we morph our governments over time makes them more effective. Unless you want to say that Athenian democracy would be just as effective today than our current models.

Why can't it be definitively proven?. When a deity moves into the physical realm it becomes an observable and testable event.

1 point

That's like saying that you cannot argue for a particular type of government in a debate about governments so I'd hardly call it an impossible hypothesis.

And fallible theories can then be argued for and against appropriately, using the limits of current science, philosophy and historical research. In fact the idea of an involved God makes it more rational as if it is true it becomes possible to definitively prove, as opposed to the probability element of just the philosophical evidence.

1 point

After (attempting to) read half of the shit above, i'll have to settle with intangible.

1 point

Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand etc. Countries that have a medium population, high GDP per capita, high stability, high life expectancy, good schools (comparitively) and so on. If its a battle over quality of life then America will lose hard to these sorts of countries.

1 point

I was one of those brainwashed kids. I fell away for many years, using alot of those silly statements until I actually stopped being lazy and reviewed the evidence as unbiasedly as I could and decided belief in a higher being was acceptable. I was able to use the process of elimination to settle where I am today.

Its ignorance,stubborness and personal bias that makes this process so difficult, you have believers and nonbelievers not bothering to study both sides with an honest heart and prefer to just throw ad hominems and conjecture around.

1 point

The belief in God can be reasonably disputed as being rational. Religion, however, as a whole is not rational as its multiple forms contradict one another. But if one where to look at the various types of religion and cut off the least rational types that would leave one type of theism, which once filtered again could be seen as rational from a theological standpoint.

The main issue with religion as opposed to just the philosophical notion of God is that its strength is also its weakness - religions usually show a viewpoint of involved gods or God which usually means the intervention into our realm. The strength of this is that it helps to convince those who witness it that their God is real. However this leaves open the negative - the ability to disprove those events,and pick apart that belief system. So it would have to be a decently strong piece of theology.

3 points

Of course there is evidence for God(some of which I have already mentioned), you'd have to be ignorant or very poorly read to believe that. You could attempt to argue that there is no good evidence for God and that there is good evidence against which leads to my question

What is this good evidence against the Philosophical concwpt that is God?

1 point

Ectopic pregnacies kill both mother and child.

Childbirth is far riskier than abortion, which is very low risk in the first 9 weeks.

And there are also millions of lost souls that have grown up in broken lives that go to also commit crimes, overdose or harm society. Just because a rare couple turn out good it does not make it more probable than not.

Birth defects being inherited diseases etc

Vaan(167) Clarified
1 point

The rules are simple

1: stick to the topic of the debate

2:refrain from ad hominem

3: respond to points in a rational and justifiable manner

4: back up points with appropriate evidence

Now they are known they are obvious but i'll make sure to clarify it in future debates, now I expect them to be followed

Displaying 4 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Arguments against
Winning Position: Atypican's ontological argument isn't ontological
Winning Position: Arguments for

About Me


"Hello, my name is Steven and I am a 17 year old australian. I am currently a corporal in the AAC with intentions of becoming an officer in the Australian Army. My favourite topics include Philosophy, History (both modern and ancient, and especially military history), Myers-briggs typology (I am an INFJ), Philosophy, Religion, Science (especially astrophysics, chemistry and biology) and of course debating. I dislike people who make claims about another person based on thier beliefs that are negative or plainly for the sake of putting them down."

Biographical Information
Name: Steven 
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: Australia
Religion: Protestant
Education: High School

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