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.

Add CreateDebate to Your Classroom

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
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Send a Message
Report This User

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


Enemies
View All
None Yet!

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Rumor Mill
borme sent a message to JimmyLee.
20secs ago

borme sent a message to Liberal.
12mins 17secs ago

MisterGuy sent a message to joecavalry.
1hr 35mins ago

borme sent a message to karla.
2hrs 12mins ago

andsoccer16 is now allies with Mahollinder.
2hrs 47mins ago

RSS Jessald

Reward Points:1345
Efficiency: ?82%
Arguments:1262
Debates:51
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:
21hrs 23mins ago

Joined:
590 days ago

Arguments

Displaying 10 most recent arguments.
Vote Up Vote Down
1 point  

Yeah... that's not a good reason. That's a pretty stupid reason actually. Let's come up with a word for red ants, because otherwise people won't know whether we're talking about red ones or brown ones!

Come on Joe, who do you think you're kidding? You oppose gay marriage not because you're a bigot, but because the people you are politically aligned with are bigots. You're coming up with all these nonsense apologies for their blatant attempts to bring religion into government because in return they will support you and your social darwinist views.

21hrs 41mins ago | Tagged As: yes
Vote Up Vote Down
2 points

That's like saying buildings make bricks.

No, it's nothing like that. Actually, I see Avedomni over there has put it better than I can -- you're conflating description with definition.

Oh I see, you want to use the force of law to make me accept something I find unacceptable.

Accept it? No, I don't think you will ever accept it. Your mind is closed. But I do want to force you to tolerate it. We forced racial integration onto people who didn't want it, and that was a good thing. We should force gay marriage onto people for similar reasons.

early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing

I wouldn't say it's a good thing. It just is. Are you honestly suggesting a large number of people should repress their sexuality for their entire lives?

Problems such as depression and suicide are caused by a lack of tolerance, and we should work to change society's attitude. That's a separate issue though.

Also, American Physicians and Surgeons is a political organization. I'm sure you know that as well as I do. If you want to have an honest debate, cite neutral third parties.

I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and what to see them set free.

Can't be done. Homosexuality is not a choice.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

1 day 17hrs ago | Tagged As: yes
Vote Up Vote Down
1 point  

Well the word marriage is used in two senses. There's the sense that people use it in normal conversation, and then there's the legal sense. We obviously can't force people to stop being bigoted assholes, but we obviously can change the legal meaning of the word. And we should do that. Because there's no good reason not to.

1 day 17hrs ago | Tagged As: yes
Vote Up Vote Down
1 point  

Society as a whole should accept gays. That would be best.

But if it refuses to, we should still legally allow gay marriage. Because law should be based on reason, not popular prejudices. There's just no logical reason to disallow it.

"By failing to expand the definition, we are NOT collectively deriding gay love as unworthy."

Haha, I like you added the word "not" in there. I haven't heard such a devastating rebuttal since first grade.

If we give gay love a lower status than straight love, we are saying it is less worthy. How is that not obvious?

You should stick to make witty comments Joe, you're no good at this big people stuff. ;)

2 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Vote Up Vote Down
1 point  

Lucky Ducky strikes again I see.

........................

3 days ago | Tagged As: Wait..., what...? No!
Vote Up Vote Down
3 points

Agreed. Guantanamo is a dark stain on the honor of the US. It needs to be closed down. And we need to do something with the detainees.

I mean come on people, it's not like we're buying them a home in the suburbs. They're gonna be kept in maximum security prisons.

3 days ago | Tagged As: YAAaaaaaa.
Vote Up Vote Down
2 points

What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola.

Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Currently it refers to a special kind of relationship between a man and a woman. We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love. By failing to do so, we are collectively deriding gay love as unworthy, and this is a disgusting thing to do.

(btw, your link is broken.)

3 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Vote Up Vote Down
1 point  

Whatever.

................................................

4 days ago | Tagged As: No
Vote Up Vote Down
1 point  

You affirm that there are no stones that are white.

No. When I say economists in general can be trusted I'm obviously not referring to every economist in existence. I'm saying in general -- on average -- for the most part. You already stated that you understood this.

You have affirmed that there are at least a few unscrupulous economists on planet Earth. This is a reasonable claim. You then suggest that we should not rely on the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. This is not a reasonable claim. Without a logically sound measurement of the ratio of unscrupulous to scrupulous economists we can draw no conclusions about the trustworthiness of the consensus opinon of the profession as a whole.

To continue beating this analogy to death... there are white stones and there are non-white stones. We can make no sound assertions about the ratio of white to non-white stones without some logically sound measurement. Grabbing a bunch of white stones and saying "Just look at 'em!" is called cherry-picking, and it is not a logically sound measurement.

Further, since we're talking about human beings and not stones, it is reasonable to assume that they are, for the most part, acting in good faith. To suggest that unscrupulous economists outnumber scrupulous economists, or to suggest that the body of unscrupulous economists is sufficiently powerful so as to render untrustworthy the consensus opinion of the profession as a whole... This is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence... Such as a random sampling of predictions made in a major journal or newspaper.

...a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations...

The keyword there is "consistently". You have not demonstrated they consistently get things wrong and cannot do so with cherry picked anecdotes.

4 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Vote Up Vote Down
1 point  

Explain to me why it is obvious.

It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.

I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.

This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.

However, you would then argue that...

Again you assume nefarious motives on my part. This reflects your bias toward paranoid thinking. When are you gonna learn that I'm just a humble seeker of truth?

there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your auments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists.

How about having a basic faith in humanity? It is not unreasonable to assume that people are generally honest enough to be trusted.

there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class...

You really should offer citations when making claims of fact like this. Also, I think you are being a bit hasty in this assertion. But I will agree with you that this seems to be the trend.

Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same?

They are not. There are a number of policy suggestions out there. (example) Now admittedly, it's rare to hear a mainstream economist call for some radical shift in the way our economy is run. But radical changes are dangerous, incremental change is generally preferable whenever possible. How would you remake our economy? I myself see no easy answers here.

"transfer of your wealth...economists are effecting policy for that very purpose.

One glaring problem with this assessment:

"Median annual wage and salary earnings of economists were $77,010 in May 2006."

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos055.htm

Seems to me economists aren't the beneficiaries of this transfer of wealth.

6 days ago | Tagged As: No

Debates

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Good point
Winning Position: Just do this...
Winning Position: Disagree
Winning Position: No good solution
Winning Position: doooo iiiit
Tied Positions: Power Sharing vs. Decision Making
Winning Position: We're going to let it happen
Winning Position: Bad Idea

Messages

Displaying 10 most recent messages.

pic
jtopolnak said:

Alright they passed it, i hope it works well I really do.

12 days ago.
pic
jtopolnak said:

I apologize for my tyranny last week that wasn't fair of me and not nice I see that you where referencing someone else. By bad.

13 days ago.
pic
lawnman said:

A new 50+ I.Q. debate:

Most US citizens are both fearful and arrogant.

20 days ago.
pic
joecavalry said:

I've tried that and it says, "Oops, something bad happened, tell us what you were doing and we'll fix it." :(

21 days ago.
pic
joecavalry said:

Hey, do you mind telling me how to embed video. I've tried and failed. Thanks.

21 days ago.
pic
jtopolnak said:

hey Jessald let me ask you this. Why would Obama seal his records? Isn't that a little suspicious? Talk about not being transparent and open, he's the only president to ever do that.

24 days ago.
pic
lawnman said:

I created a new debate that could prove to be amusing.

27 days ago.
pic
chapulina said:

Don't wanna see the point ay? =P

40 days ago.
pic
Cerin said:

Glad to see you're still a reasonble guy. Keep it up :)

61 days ago.

About Me


"Just some guy. I program computers. I waste too much time on this site."

Biographical Information
Name: Jesse 
Gender: Male
Age: 24
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Postal Code: 78741
Religion: Atheist
Education: Some College

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



About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons



©2009 CreateDebate, LLC All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.