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
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Dalodus

Reward Points:31
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:26
Debates:3
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

It would be possible for me to agree with one. and if it worked it would probably be the most efficient government to date... but I would need 100% transparency and i would want a voting system to be present even if its just for representation of the masses. i would also want the leader to maybe be elected by some sort of consul. but it could work.

1 point

there could be voting. it would be possible to create a technocratic republic. although I guess Its not specified

dalodus(31) Clarified
1 point

Mahatma Gandhi was a political leader of India who used non violent protests to free the country of India from imperialist English rule. He inspired a country to gain its freedom without wasting lives. he is a hero and one of the greatest men who ever lived. is that a good enough clarification?

1 point

non-violence freed the country of India from the rule of England as well as desegregated the USA. Tienanmen square caused shock waves around the world that helped spread the idea of capitalism being superior to Communism. Violence only works in specific situations as a last resort.

1 point

nonviolence is always the best weapon and with the advances it becomes a better and better option. I can site many reasons why this is the case.

1. the most important and most prominent reason in the world today is the backlash from an over reaction in force. look at the college students that got pepper sprayed at The UC Davis pepper-spray incident here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/pepper-spray-cop-uc-davis-compensation) the backlash from that video voiced the cause that they had to lower the costs of college.

2. with the technology today an armed rebellion in the united states even if well armed would stand little to no chance against the government of any 1st world nation. a single tank would render armaments of nearly any well armed rebellion.

3.and three the attacking group would be labeled a sleeper cell terrorist organization and the news agencies that should be on your side would spread fear and unite the country against you. this is called propaganda. it was used in WWII to unite Germany against the jews

1 point

I agree with the eccentric. the only reason that the treaty of Versailles created WW2 was because of the policy of appeasement the allies had post WW1

1 point

Thats not true anarchy because of basic driving rules everyone there has the experience and practice to know. now true anarchy would mean that i could run in the middle of that street with a gun and get a new car with no consequences other than a pissed off guy looking for his car and that's if i don't shoot him haha. but yea not really anarchy because if there is a wreck then the party at fault will still have to pay for the others car thus providing incentive to not run over the pedestrians or the smaller vehicles. It's more of an example of capitalism in the fact it deals with incentives.

Our normal road system would more closely represent socialism.

1 point

Personally i say they are as I tend to be very strait forward and even blunt at times. women, at least in my experience, women tend to try to play both sides with a lot people and talk about people behind their back more often. women tend to always appear on your side until they're just not any more :( it sucks because I always give a person the benefit of the doubt but in my opinion its true.

1 point

Really lets look at the simple most basic concept in morality. Not eating each other.Well if you look at the chimpanzee (which are omnivorous) they will eat other monkeys but not each other. this may seem like it doesn't take morals but it really is one of the founding parts of morality not to resort to cannibalism.

1 point

Not necessarily there is no evidence supporting that claim. I would say more but I think I'll wait for your response.

Displaying 3 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Allows us to work as one
Winning Position: Yes
Winning Position: Why not

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