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
None

RSS WinstonC

Reward Points:136
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.
98%
Arguments:92
Debates:11
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

Yes exactly, this is my biggest problem with having the death penalty at all. Wrongful conviction will never be 0% and therefore we shouldn't execute prisoners as it cannot be undone if we find later we were wrong.

1 point

Thanks for showing me some new nonsense to laugh at. I'm both open minded and skeptical on everything but when the practitioners refuse or fail reasonable testing they're clearly charlatans.

1 point

"Until you give me a substantive counter-argument, my point stands and I've got nothing more to respond to."

That's exactly what I felt about your the last message, which is precisely why I merely addressed your point about my credentials.

WinstonC(136) Clarified
1 point

"The idea that black people go to jail for more time than white people for the same crime, usually the one people like to use on this is the idea that crack cocaine and powder cocaine have different sentences. The reason they have different sentences is because powder cocaine is harder to distribute, it's not as addictive; crack cocaine is much easier to distribute and much more addictive. The fact is that people that designed the disparity in sentencing between powder and crack cocaine were black legislators in the inner city who were sick of watching crack cocaine ravage their communities. Not only that if you actually want something comparable then take crystal meth which is essentially as addictive and is easy to distribute as crack cocaine. The federal sentence for an ounce of crystal meth possession is exactly the same as for an ounce possession of crack cocaine. And the vast majority of people who are arrested for crystal meth possession are of course white."

He goes on to state that most people in jail for drug offenses are there for distribution and not use. I'd also like to note that both crystal meth and crack are full of adulterants which makes their sale more profitable and their use more dangerous.

1 point

I'd once again state my problem with Wikipedia's definition but I don't want to flog a dead horse. Where do you think things are going? I'm personally most concerned by the rise of social justice, anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. Take the recent events at Evergreen State College, for example. If that in itself doesn't worry you then the fact that social justice is what's fueling the rise of the alt-right will.

WinstonC(136) Clarified
1 point

"you said that laws shouldn't enforce morality"

As far as I can see I said laws shouldn't enforce morality between consenting adults, but if there was a time I didn't include this qualifier know that I intended it to be there.

"Why is the morality of harming others appropriately enforceable, but other moral foundations are not?"

I see, so you're asking why enforce laws to prevent harm of others but not harm of self. First of all, if we look at self-harming behavior there are so many that enforcing a lack of self-harm would necessitate total control of an individual's life. One's diet would need to be controlled by the state, all drugs (including caffeine, nicotine, alcohol) would need to be illegal. Moreover 8 hours of sleep, daily exercise, oral and general hygiene and so on would need to be mandatory and enforced by law. One could go on endlessly with examples of self-harmful behavior which are harmless to others. It isn't possible or even desirable to stop people from harming themselves if they wish to do so. Also, as mentioned previously, the government could be wrong about the harm caused by a behavior.

A government which controls every facet of life is harming it's citizens by taking away their right of self ownership. It denies them the agency to try things for themselves, make mistakes and learn from them. One must also have the freedom to decide that the self-harmful behavior is worth the consequences if they alone pay them. Behavioral innovation, too, would be stifled by the inability to try new ways of doing things. It is therefore clear that governments should respect people's right to self-ownership and only enforce laws which prevent involuntary harm.

1 point

"The notion that you should not lie, cheat, or steal translates into fraud, breach of contract, and theft."

Lying is legal except under circumstances where it causes another person harm or loss. Breach of contract, once again, causes loss for another person, as does theft. As such it is clear to me that these laws are not concerned with enforcing moral standards but rather on protecting the rights of its citizenry.

"Rights are moral notions, as are principles guiding when to abridge or suspend them."

I'm unsure why this is relevant. My point isn't that laws should have no moral basis but that laws shouldn't enforce morality when all those involved are consenting adults.

"If it is wrong to stop consenting adults from engaging in whatever they want to do, does that mean that whatever they do is right?"

No but it does mean that they should be free to do so, as long as they don't infringe the rights of others.

1 point

Society shouldn't restrict the rights of it's citizens for moral reasons. Apart from the fact that it's wrong to stop consenting adults doing whatever they want together there is a greater problem. If the state enforces morality (aside from the fact it's view of morality may be wrong) then the people will not need to figure out morality for themselves.

According to Kohlberg's stages of moral development the majority of people don't progress beyond the stage whereby their perspective of morality is driven by law, authority and social order. I feel that this is a real problem for society as, for example, one must rise 2 stages above this to know it is morally correct to disobey unjust laws. If all moral behavior was legislated then even fewer would reach levels of moral understanding beyond the authority and social order level. Aside from this in itself being a problem, it makes future tyrannical regimes easier to establish due to it's citizens' lack of moral understanding.

1 point

We should as a society dis-incentivize bad behavior. As such, criminals must be punished to deter citizens from breaking the law. This is not to say rehabilitation isn't important, though, because I think it is a crucial part of any prison system.

1 point

There are three definitions on that link. As aforementioned multiple times you were operating using the first definition (1 "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"). I was using the third definition (1.2 "Signs or indications of something").

I think you missed the parts where I said I'm not a Christian and that I don't believe the bible is 100% true. I was stating that the biblical texts are evidence, no matter how weak, for the existence of the biblical God. We then proceeded to debate the definition of evidence ad nauseam.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Tied Positions: No vs. Yes
Winning Position: Life has intrinsic meaning
Winning Position: Against
Winning Position: Representative Democracy
Winning Position: No we shouldn't
Winning Position: Males are advantaged
Winning Position: It is necessary

About Me


"I'm not here to be belligerent. I prefer the dialectic style to classical debate."

Biographical Information
Name: Winston 
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United Kingdom

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