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
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS A14mclean

Reward Points:4
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.
100%
Arguments:4
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
4 most recent arguments.
a14mclean(4) Clarified
1 point

You're very right- I agree with you on many of these points. As a full disclaimer, I personally do not mind the idea of perfect ideal Socialism. For me, it does not matter how much money I make so long as I can feed my own family and provide for them a solid quality of life. I would easily forego a large salary if it meant that we could improve the quality of life of all americans. To me, in that scenario, the idea of ensuring food for all, healthcare for all, and education (not necessarily college but at the very least access to information and enough education to be able to effectively use that information) is very appealing to me.

That said, I do not think that idea of perfect socialism is remotely feasible. Obviously it depends upon public/government control and regulation which I think is the first place where this ideology breaks down. In fact, I think it's where a variety of related issues breaks down. I think common core is a pretty fantastic example- the intent, the direction, and the idea of a common core that all children across the united states should know is pretty incredible to me. Forgive the cliche but America's children are obviously in a very real sense the future of America- the nation suffers from a lack of education and flourishes from a well-established education. To clarify, by education I don't mean every child in America should have extensive knowledge of math/science/ect. However, at a bare minimum, I think every child in America should be taught literacy and should be exposed to a variety of ideas and concepts from various disciplines. Without these, children would have no way to find credible information to base their own opinions or to permanently record their own experiences. Common core is based on these very simple largely self-evident principles, but the execution of the design was positively horrific.

That's why I completely agree that the recent expansion of the umbrella topic of human rights is made less feasible by adding in these topics. In doing so, we discredit the importance of the more basic human rights.

To be fair I do believe in many of these topics, but not in the way that they are being attempted to be executed. I do believe that everyone should be guaranteed access to basic healthcare, no matter what. However even as a medical provider myself, I think much of the way that we go about medicine is completely and utterly flawed, which makes any attempt at truly universal healthcare destined to fail fantastically. That goes into a series of topics I think we need to address with our medical system before the idea of universal healthcare can even begin to be brought to the table.

Free college tuition is a bit silly to me, though the intent is solid. Like I mentioned previously, I believe in access to information and education to that end, but not necessarily access to college. Again, college opens up into another variety of issues that I have with the education which is another debate. Largely, I think we should focus on opening up and encouraging free platforms so that people have access to information.

But of course, you're right. There's a powerful drop-off where as government power starts to escalate to encompass every possible topic under the sun. Freedom is obviously one of the founding non-negotiable principles of America, and we do have to avoid over-compression of those freedoms in that respect. It's an interesting thought progression as to where the negatives outweigh the positives.

1 point

See, this is exactly where I'm saying this argument breaks down. Saying that I'm conditioned to democratic rhetoric, that my views are nonsense and disgusting, this is not an attempt at discussion. That's simply useless to anybody.

Regarding the remainder of the points that you raised:

Additionally, if you think something I say is a lie or simply rhetoric, please do point it out and I can attempt to clarify. However, if you truly find nothing I say remotely valuable, then absolutely feel free to stop reading my 'lies and rhetoric'. I'm simply discussing my own personal opinions. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm here to discuss a difference of opinion, not convert anyone or attack anyone's beliefs.

On the issue of abortions, yes. I think late-term abortions should occur only in absolute life or death situations. If the mother will certainly die carrying the child to term yet can survive through late abortion, then yes. Wouldn't it be even more immoral to allow both mother and child to die if we had the option to save one?

Further, yes I think early term abortions are acceptable for women who have been raped. Carrying a child for 40 weeks is not a trivial task. It requires lifestyle changes, and opens the mother up to a slew of horrific medical complications that can kill the mother, along with higher rates of mental illness. Further, I don't think forcing a woman to carry a reminder of rape for 40 weeks without solace seems particularly humane.

Obviously, it's not as if anyone views abortion as a good thing, or a happy thing. The argument that is to be made is one of humanity. Is the potential for a human life more valuable than an already living human, with thoughts, feelings, family, ect? The issue of late abortions in America is not one of mothers who just decided one morning that they didn't actually want to be a mother. Late abortions are performed exclusively in the united states if carrying the child would endanger the mother's life or health. Totally acceptable to disagree with my stance, but I'm obviously not pledging for convenience abortions.

As for women's health rights, there's been a large push to close down planned parenthood clinics because they perform abortion operations. However, the clinics also provide contraception and contraceptive advice (not just for sexually active women- many need contraceptives to treat other non-reproductive conditions) and cancer screenings. They're giving women information about their own health. Information many women don't receive otherwise.

On the topic of the bathroom laws, it really isn't quite as simple as boys simply walking into girls bathrooms. I understand that the situation is uncomfortable, but there's not a particularly solid solution. If a birth-female switches to male gender, should that student be forced to stay in the girls bathroom as well? Even if that student is undergoing testosterone therapy and has had a sex change operation? Where is the line drawn? It's a slippery slope that makes it difficult to clearly define the exact boundaries. I myself don't know of a proper method of handling the situation in a way that makes nobody uncomfortable, short of building transgender-specific bathrooms which is obviously not feasible for many places. Have you considered any other alternatives? I honestly do not know what the absolute best solution is here.

Regardless, thank you for your opinion. I honestly enjoy civil disputes. I'm sure you have perspectives on these issues I haven't considered.

1 point

This is actually something I would very much love to discuss. I myself live in New York City and I generally vote democrat in local and federal elections. I was mostly drawn to your point about democrats coming back to the middle. I think you do have a point, but it is interesting because I myself don't really see either the Democratic National Party or the Republican National Party as being particularly middle in their views. I think it seems to be an effect of people being afraid of not being 'pure enough' to their respective party in their beliefs. It seems to me that on the left there are definitely people who seem to think that anyone who believes in gun rights or anyone who wants to lower taxes is quickly demonized and attacked for being a conservative asshole, and similarly on the right there are definitely people who seem to think that agreeing with some of the aspects of universal healthcare or welfare are pussies who are trying to leech off of others hard work, ect. ect.

I think talking to people we don't necessarily agree with is crucial so that we don't end up getting caught up in who is the most pure conservative or who's the most pure liberal. I really don't think America as a whole can be summed up into two relatively extreme platforms. Personally, I agree with arguments on both sides so I don't consider myself a democrat, even though I tend to vote that way. Here's why:

If there is anything I've learned in my life it's that there's a lot more that I don't know. I don't know a lot of answers to hard questions that are currently facing down the nation. Myself, I know very little about economics so it's hard for me to really feel passionate about any position economically. I haven't had much experience at all interacting with people who haven't lived in America for most of their lives, so it's pretty hard for me to feel passionate about any position diplomatically either. However, there is one thing that I do personally find to be to me most important, which is human rights.

Human rights is the entire reason why I tend to vote democrat. I agree with some aspects of the democratic platform, disagree with others, and don't have much of an opinion about more. But, it always seems to me that on the Federal level, many if not all of the major party-emphasized Republican candidates want to revoke gay marriage rights, women's health rights, and often tend to support bills and stances that are disproportionately directed towards minorities.

As a straight white male, largely none of these stances affect me personally. That said, I really don't believe that it's okay to push bills or laws that affect the rights of others based on their sexuality, gender, or race. The foundations of America are built upon this- I believe America's power as a nation comes from our unity as a people- the fact that we can have these arguments and discuss issues because it forces us to think from different perspectives. To further that, I agree with your issue on political correctness. Trying not to offend somebody is reasonable. What's not reasonable is being offended by somebody's opinion, and then demonizing them, stereotyping them, or trying to censor them. I disagree with Tomi Lahren on many of her points, but I do respect her position and I would defend her right to make those points and to say the things that she does until I die. Just because somebody says something that we don't agree with doesn't make them a bad person, and it doesn't even make them wrong. I think there are very few right vs. wrong issues. But by arguing and debating, we gain perspective that we don't gain from talking exclusively to people we agree with.

What are your thoughts?

1 point

That's not true at all. Historically, leaders have risen to power through the abuse of religion and through the abuse of some of those people who practice that religion. However, that doesn't mean that every religious person, or even that every religious group has homicidal/genocidal tendencies towards similar religions. Many of the core lessons taught by virtually every majorly practiced religion emphasizes respect to all, not just those within your religion. Further, I think very few religious people truly believe themselves that those of other religions deserve to die or deserve to be harmed.

I myself am not religious but I wholly and completely respect everyone who is. So long as your rights do not impede on those of others, your beliefs are your own and to stereotype in this way is to deconstruct legitimate argument from which both sides can learn. By demonizing religious peoples, we are discrediting their voices before they've even spoken.

A14mclean has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


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