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
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS Beinglostats

Reward Points:602
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.
85%
Arguments:563
Debates:11
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.

I'm not sure where you stopped, but if you read it through there are some very clear thoughts of my own.

To define freedom, three postulates are required:

1. The self-contradictory cannot exist.

2. A concept and its complement exhaust a universe of discourse.

3. Every permission corresponds to a conscious action, and every conscious action can be stated as a permission (Gill 1971).

I would argue that when people speak of freedom, they mean self-control (Hadamard 1945). Within self-control there is a need for self-consistency therefore, Freedom is decision by necessary norms.

If I were to define liberal democrats using your criterion and search methods, this would lead me to the wikipage titled "liberal democrats"- a UK based political party. Wikipedia lists their platform as follows: constitutional and electoral reform,progressive taxation, wealth taxation,environmentalism, human rights laws, cultural liberalism, banking reform and civil liberties.

Furthermore, their ideology or philosophy is to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which they seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

Based on the platform, ideology and definition of freedom as a decision by necessary norms. I would say they are practicing the very decisions to create necessary norms.

Are they afraid of freedom?

Perhaps, however if your intention was to insinuate that being afraid meant that they would not pursue decisions to create necessary norms, I would counter that liberal democrats own platform and ideology stand against that insinuation and therefore are not afraid of freedom.

Works Cited

Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20.

Hadamard, Jacques. (1945) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, N.J.

Wikipedia. Liberal Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats. Accessed online on June 15, 2012.

Supporting Evidence: Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20. (www.jstor.org)

beinglostats(602) Clarified
1 point

What's FTW?

Your comment on tap water depends on where you're located in the world. Tap water is typically free of harmful bacteria to humans. If it isn't it's usually for a very short time, as in a few hours a day or more isn't very typical of most water systems in the US. If it were, you'd notice a higher prevalence of diarrhea and cholera, to name a few.

beinglostats(602) Clarified
1 point

I haven't been on the site in some time. It was more typical of past debates to be more clear on terminology. In addition, I have not exchanged words with you and wanted to gauge your perceptions on either of these points.

Assessing the different talking points in this debate has led me to the conclusion that your negligence to include a clear definition of freedom (at the most basic level) has limited the likelihood for a clear and logical debate to occur. (perhaps that was your intention)

Freedom is not self explanatory. "Ordinary speech, being careless about details, frequently causes somebody to do something or permits a tree to fall. By failing to discriminate between the deontic, the alethic, and the mechanical, common usage makes the problem of freedom insoluble--or worse, meaningless (Gill 1971)." Your limited viewpoint is the exact reason why much of this debate lacks substance.

To define freedom, three postulates are required:

1. The self-contradictory cannot exist.

2. A concept and its complement exhaust a universe of discourse.

3. Every permission corresponds to a conscious action, and every conscious action can be stated as a permission (Gill 1971).

If I were to engage in your limited view of freedom, I would argue that when people speak of freedom, they mean self-control (Hadamard 1945). Within self-control there is a need for self-consistency therefore, Freedom is decision by necessary norms.

If I were to define liberal democrats using your criterion and search methods, this would lead me to the wikipage titled "liberal democrats"- a UK based political party. Wikipedia lists their platform as follows: constitutional and electoral reform,progressive taxation, wealth taxation,environmentalism, human rights laws, cultural liberalism, banking reform and civil liberties.

Furthermore, their ideology or philosophy is to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which they seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

Based on the platform, ideology and definition of freedom as a decision by necessary norms. I would say they are practicing the very decisions to create necessary norms.

Are they afraid of freedom?

Perhaps, however if your intention was to insinuate that being afraid meant that they would not pursue decisions to create necessary norms, I would counter that liberal democrats own platform and ideology stand against that insinuation and therefore are not afraid of freedom.

Works Cited

Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20.

Hadamard, Jacques. (1945) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, N.J.

Wikipedia. Liberal Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats. Accessed online on June 15, 2012.

There shouldn't be a difference. If there is, it most likely has something to do with the water infrastructure. If it has an odd taste or smell for both it could have something to do with the treatment process or possibly organic material build up in the distribution system.

Where are you from and what is the source of your water? (Specific to ground water or surface water) In most, if not all, US cities, a drinking fountains supply comes from tap water.

Prior to engaging in any sort of debate, I ask the debate creator to please specify his or her definition of the following two terms: liberal Democrat, freedom.

Thanks.

(Glad to see some familiar names among the active community)

I can't say I disagree with you, but your point seems off topic. What I can see from the statements is purely an argument in semantics. :)

Why is it better? What types of diseases come from consuming meats? And what types of meats? What types of fats are these meats packed with? How are these meats bad for our health?

What makes Vegan the best choice? What makes Vegetarianism the best choice? Did you know there is a difference?

It's not necessarily that consuming animals is unhealthy. It is the amount you eat and the origin of the meat. How was this meat prepared? Was the animal wild or husbanded by humans? What types of foods did this animal consume during its lifetime? What environmental toxins were in its habitat? What effects do the hormones and medicines introduced have on the animal itself and in turn how does that affect those that consume it?

I could go on and on. My point is you don't have to give up your steak, but you should know where it comes from and balance how much you eat. This will help you take stress off your bodies functions to maintain homeostasis and will result in a long and healthy life.

The meats we consume are the results of animal husbandry, which our bodies are not accustomed to. (speaking from an evolutionary perspective of human genetics)

Plants, those that have not been genetically modified by humans from 1950-current, are better for our nutritional needs and have far greater health benefits.

There is much evidence linking the eating of "greens" to providing 90%+ the nutrients we need to provide a healthy living structure. I would argue that meats that do not come from the result of animal husbandry, also known as wild, have far more benefit. Furthermore, if these meats come from an environment that has the least amount of contaminants it would be the most beneficial- as your body would not require the energy to detoxify as well as any possible genetic change that could result in later in disease.

*Vegetarianism is different than being Vegan.

I'm more inclined to practice a 80-20 or 70-30 type diet whereas the first number is the percent of plant based consumption and the later is animal based in your diet.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Not in best interest of Public
Tied Positions: Streaming white noise vs. tinnitus
Winning Position: Yes it's true
Winning Position: I rather enjoy taking part
Winning Position: poe's law
Winning Position: No
Winning Position: Small Farm/Organics is future

About Me


"Keeping exploring, keep debating. Cheers!"

Biographical Information
Name: Felipe 
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Postal Code: 60642
Religion: Atheist
Education: Masters

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