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.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS Beastforever

Reward Points:423
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.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.

Because it's better . As it isn't as harmful as the other possible conditions could've been.

And the better side is what we choose to pick, which obviously is practical to do.

If you are doing anything other than reading the definition as it is, then you have stepped outside the definition itself and are bringing external ideas to it that the definition itself doesn't support.

Understanding and applying the definition to the context of debate?

Your opinion about what is practical is a subjective belief, based upon what is subjectively practical to you. Any opinion about anything is subjective, but it isn't logically entailed from there that everything is therefore subjective. Incidentally, subjectivity doesn't scare me; why do you think it's a problem?

Science would be subjective then, wouldn't it?

But we have an aim through which we use the subjectivity, that is to use it for certain purpose, for understanding and making sense of something, this case makes subjectivity not so subjective to a considerable degree, which is in turn called practicality.

To the contrary, I place great personal value on practicality and nothing I've said actually suggests otherwise. Not that speculation about my preferences is a responsive argument to my point here. If you believe that kids change opinions over candles, then they don't get fixed ideas so indoctrination shouldn't even be possible on your own account and this is all a non-issue.

Well said,Of course they change opinions over candies, that's what proves to us that they aren't mature enough to pick sides, (which has it own consequences if indoctrinated), as kids have their own way of responding to issues, and when we know that they don't get indoctrinated, why try in the first place? which again leads me to believe that a school that is secular is better, as they don't waste resources and time on any particular thing(theism and anti-theism, in this case).

No. I don't believe they are meant for anything in particular. Their function has varied across time and place considerably. I'm asking you why you think they are meant to educate and not indoctrinate (presuming that's a real distinction, of course).

The most common purpose and reason to schooling is education, be it in today's world or in the past, that was one thing common in all the other things schools have done. Indoctrination was not the case throughout, and as I have mentioned earlier, the word school as we use it refers to place that is meant to educate.

It does if freedom to expression is considered a right. If you don't believe that people should have equal access to expression in public institutions they have to help fund, then there's no basis for you to be opposed to indoctrination since by your own reasoning now that's not in-egalitarian.

Indoctrination, leads to certain groups believing in something and that causes drift between them and other groups..(not necessarily in all cases, but definitely a difference in opinion), and when certain groups want to impose their ideology onto others,

egalitarianism is threatened.

Why is that what's supposed to be?

Because practically, it isn't doing harm, at least not as much as the contrary would.

Nothing in the definition establishes reasonableness; that's not actually what definitions do. Now you've shown what the absence of egalitarianism might look like, and even ignoring the obvious deployment of an alarmist slippery slope you're still making a number of assumptions that aren't proved

It certainly does, if you actually make sense of what the definition conveys and not just read it the way it is. Assumptions that haven't been proved?

those are what could possibly happen, because neither you nor me, know what is to come in the future.

That math, science, and sports don't harm anyone is entirely your opinion and not a matter of objective fact.

Well done, you choose to stick to calling it subjective rather than sticking to practicality, so in that sense everything is subjective and you have just proved that there cannot be any objective effect, something common for everyone... good luck with the subjective lounge, does it have a buffet?

To say simultaneously that it's their choice and that they're too immature to make choices isn't even the least bit coherent. Either they can make their own choices and this isn't an issue, or they can't so we have to choose something to teach them at which point we're necessarily preferencing some conception of value over others.

Kids change opinions over candies. Let's just say you're not the biggest fan of practicality.

Why is the purpose of schools to learn, as opposed to indoctrinate? Just because you feel that's what they should do that doesn't mean they must be about that.

Wow, so according to you schools are meant to indoctrinate, is it?

They are for educating children, not indoctrinating them.

The word school refers to a place where people get educated.

Oh wait, it must be different for everyone isn't it? since because you believe everything is subjective..

There isn't any objective reason that terrorism shouldn't be taught in schools. In some schools, arguably, it is. The only thing that keeps it from being taught is anti-egalitarianism which treats terrorism unequally be preventing it from being taught. That's really quite obvious I should think. If you're being a consistent little egalitarian, then you should insist that terrorism be given equal opportunity in schools!

this is exactly why I choose to quote definitions

egalitarianism: the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

egalitarianism is based to giving opportunities and equal rights to people

it does not refer to ideologies.

you might say that by not providing opportunities, we restrict people from becoming terrorists, the opportunities are just the same, it's just that whether people are accessible to it, if you look for an electronic gadget in a store that sells clothes, you are definitely not going to find it, however, I would have to clear myself on what I mean by egalitarianism... , I refer to it in the more practical sense, rather than anything completely by the name of it, provided the debate title is raising an issue within practicality.

Then what is it supposed to teach, exactly?

What is supposed to be.

Something that'll help humanity irrespective of an individual's personal opinions, something that actually can give them jobs to earn money, something that you and me have learnt till date, only that it probably might be better in the future.

Defining egalitarianism doesn't prove that it's reasonable, anymore than defining hierarchy proves it's reasonable. You've only established what egalitarianism is, but I'm asking if you can warrant your belief that it's reasonable. So, can you?

I wouldn't have to, if you would have made sense of the definition. If not for egalitarianism, certain kids will not be given opportunities , with some being given opportunities. That means all kids won't get the same kind and quality of education, which in turn leads to untapped potential, which might end up being harmful for the nation, do I need to go on?

Similarly, defining a school as somewhere that people learn things isn't an explanation for why schools cannot teach certain things. So, again, why can't schools teach that either theism or atheism is wrong?

Little bit of logical reflection would be appreciated, I don't have any problems with math, or science or sports being taught in school, they don't cause any damage to people's personal opinions, and clearly, we are talking about kids here, who haven't reached their complete mental maturity to reflect upon what is supposed to be deep and

subjective. It's their choice after all, and talking about schools, you are referring to a place with a specific purpose, to learn. Keep religion and atheism as another subject, and It will come under what a school should cover. Schools trying to impose their ideology on a kid, seems crazy to me, so according to what you've said, why should terrorism not be taught in schools?

Why is the expectation that schools be egalitarian reasonable?


believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

I think that should make it clear, it is reasonable.

Why isn't it the school's right?

A school is where people get education, on particular subjects, if religion was a subject, I have no problems with atheism and and religion posters being put up everywhere in the school.

In my opinion, schools should be neutral on this, it is not their right to tell others to pick on religion or atheism, however I wouldn't mind debates, as that'll get the kids thinking, when we talk about schools, we are talking about people getting education and knowledge, what they(students) want to believe in should be none of their business. People from different religious beliefs come to study and we expect a school to be just as secular as egalitarian.

Logically speaking, yes.. I think morality is interlinked to emotions, and while morality may be subjective to all of us in different topics, (which involves our opinion on the issue), but such as that of basic survival issues involve morality that's centered somehow to "survival" in that scenario.. morality doesn't exist on a life threatening scenario, or I'd rather say there's a different sense of morality in such conditions.. which might be wrong to your otherwise non threatened state.. what was wrong becomes right and hence morality fails as a whole, morality is formed with the conditions surrounding you, which means an "act" cannot be "wrong" or "right" intrinsically, but it depends on the conditions you think in.

beastforever(423) Clarified
1 point

Sometimes, the logical stand need not be the best side to pick upon..

suppose that there was a debate on how to reduce population(in a hypothetical scenario)

now the most logical thing to do is to reduce the population as the word says, that is, to eliminate some amount of population, whereas some would suggest birth control, in which case their argument is based on emotions, that of compassion to be specific, or maybe even fear.

to be completely logical has it's own shortcomings.., but however, I do support giving logic priority over emotions in general..

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: beastforever gets roasted, join in.
Winning Position: we try to change their opinion
Winning Position: what would be the present state of the world if western colonizations never took place?
Winning Position: yes
Winning Position: yes
Winning Position: yes
Winning Position: yes, anything is cool

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