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 addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS Beevbo

Reward Points:307
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.
3 points

Is heterosexuality morally wrong? Seems fair enough of a question for me to ask.

1 point

It's difficult to parse what you're getting at. So, Atheism, the belief that there is no God or higher power, is illogical because . . . yeah, that's where you lose me. Is it really a response to religion? Atheist aren't atheist because people believe God, they're atheist because they believe in something different, just like Buddhists believe in something different.

0 points

Facebook is definitely better online. Imagine if you called your friends up just to tell them you like pickles, or you miss your girlfriend or that "The Arcade Fire r0kz0rZ!" They'd disown you, you'd have zero friend instead of 357. Facebook is like a security blanket for your annoying bullshit, it creates a bubble where it's perfectly acceptable to let 300 people know you just when to the bathroom and your pee smells like Corn Pops.

Sex Online, however, I'm sure that's better in real life . . . probably . . .

2 points

Which side do I pick to point out that it's "ICED CREAM"? Grammar Police!

0 points

Yeah, no, you're right. I was thinking of someone who had gender reassignment surgery . . . which still doesn't make them a hermaphrodite . . . so I'm way off.

-1 points

I'm not sure where the benefit would be for movie studios to allow us to legally watch their movies online for free? I guess they wouldn't be spending money on researching how to stop us from downloading.

Does anyone have a source on any statistics on the cost of piracy to the movie studios?

3 points

If you loved dogs, but you were also equally fond of cats, would you want an ungodly mutilated amalgamation of the two?

-1 points

When there are plenty of movie still grossing 200 million during the summer months I'm guessing that the affect of piracy is problem not as far reaching as the movie studios think. Then again, I'm not a movie studio, nor do I have the numbers in front of me.

Still, at the same time you can't fault the studio for trying to protect their property. I think these days we all think we're entitled to free entertainment because it's so accessible, and it's easy not to feel guilty when you're plucking intellectual property from giant movie studios that have truck loads of money. The reality is that the films are their work, and they have a right to control where and how is it distributed, just as much as a student film makes has control over his work.

5 points

Kind of depends on the level of manipulation. Most photo manipulation for newspapers and the like are simple contrast, color and brightness correction, sometimes necessary for the photo to be publishable. Other manipulations can be innocent ones that are more about composition of then anything.

Of course, it goes without saying that any photo editing that would deliberately mislead the public should be punishable, but in my view this is no different than an article that is deliberately misleading, they should both be handled in a similar way.

2 points

The science of global warming is extensive, complicated and confusing, particularly when you try to listen to both sides of the anthropogenic argument. Both sides have points and counter points for each other and the debate over the cause and effects of global warming will likely never reach a consensus. Trying to make heads or tails of the issue is a stressful experience, and I think I'd rather punch myself in the balls for half an hour, at least that's predictable. I hit my nuts, pain is felt. Easy. Simple.

However, as others have pointed out, there are many reasons to cut back our burning of fossil fuels even with global warming aside. Do you like the convenience of a plastic spoon? Hard to eat Wendy's chili without one. Guess what, all that stuff comes from petroleum, and we don't have an infinite amount of that stuff.

Also, the fact that the city of Toronto has something called the AQI (Air Quality Index). If our whether reports include a number that indicates how safe the air outside is to breath, we are already in serious trouble.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Legitimizing a falsehood.
Winning Position: You bet!
Winning Position: What do you expect from the gaming industry come the next generation?
Winning Position: Captain Malcolm Reynolds
Winning Position: fuel of the future!

About Me

Biographical Information
Name: Gregg Beever
Gender: Male
Age: 37
Marital Status: In a Relationship
Political Party: Green Party
Country: Canada
Religion: Atheist
Education: College Grad

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