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.

Start your own community!

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
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
None

RSS Protazoa

Reward Points:427
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.
94%
Arguments:473
Debates:14
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:
3 years ago

Joined:
3 years ago
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

The fundamental problem with your argument is that you qualify everything with "I think".

I know you think. You are clearly capable of forming an argument. However, It seems that you are drawn into the excitement of a discrepancy- a discrepancy that John Pilger (a writer known for making controversial, ant-western articles) made quite clear. However, even in non sensationalist issues there are discrepancies. The fact that Osama had a gun within reach compared to open firing is a "lie" by the technical definition in that it is not the truth, but it is not a "lie" on the order of magnitude that you are implying.

"This i find absolutelty hilarious" That was the point. It was facetious. The p test is invalid anyways, because no count is allowed to be under 10- let alone zero. I thought that was clear to a person familiar with statistics.

Unfortunately I have not had nor will soon have time to elaborate, as I have finals and subject SAT's to study for. Until then, feel free to send me articles if you wish, but I will not be able to reply for another week or so.

2 years ago
1 point

"why can't I brainstorm everything in my mind, and let other people try to fill in the blanks?"

you physically can. It just seems to defeat the purpose of a debate site.

2 years ago
1 point

"it is considered a sin"

then again, so is judging other people (judge not lest ye be judged)

"I beleive in the word of God"

obviously not, considering ye judge

"When a man and women has sex it has the potential to result in a baby"

generally an unintended consequence. Does that make condoms immoral as well? Or oral sex?

"It is disgusting to be honest with you"

I am at least relieved that you were lying the entire time up to this.

2 years ago
3 points

so it went from being a red state (#FF0000) to being a red state (#FF1000)

2 years ago
1 point

I feel we have had a misunderstanding. I do not feel that religion is a good thing.

I find it to be equally moral as a hammer. Depending on the method with which it is used, it can aid in construction, destruction, or a variety of other purposes. However, if you take away a hammer, it is no guarantee that people will not continue to act with a saw, screwdriver, crowbar, or protractor (totally counts as a tool).

Also: evidence suggesting correlation between latent homosexuality and homophobia. Essentially, because homosexuality is frowned upon (Darwinian circumstance possible to increase reproduction within a group) , resulting in Freudian repression and ultimately irrational anger directed at the desire in question.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/assault/roots/freud.html

2 years ago
2 points

"I agree with you that we need equality of outcome"

and yet you disputed my argument?

And I am not doubting your motives- I was merely noting what has in the past proved to be point farming- but whatever your reasons, you can let other people make the arguments you find "obvious". There is no need to go at it with yourself to prove that you are a master-debater who sees both sides of an issue.

2 years ago
2 points

"I didnt realise that you were actually looking for conclusive proof that Obama and memebers of the american adminsitration dont care"

Yes, I wanted conclusive proof. I do not care much for inconclusive conjecture.

"Now the proof is staring you in the face, you just need to recognise it, lets look at the facts"

actually, you stated that the evidence doesn't exist- a statement that is mutually exclusive with proof staring me in the face.

"your government"

I am Brazilian

"government instigated an illegal war in Iraq that has led to the deaths of thousands of american soldiers"

I am sorry- but I think you have your American presidents mixed up. Obama is the one who killed Osama. Bush Jr. is the one who instigated the war.

"your asking for something that no researcher can prove and you know it"

I managed to find evidence based on economics. If you want me to give you some pointers on how to construct an argument against myself, message me and I can help you out.

"if you want to call me a liar"

I believe you read through articles. I was intending to emphasize the fact that you have no evidence despite your research.

"im sure you could find them yourself if you really wanted"

well, yes, but seeing as I am researching my arguments, not yours, it would e helpful for you to cite something

"circumstancs by which Bin Laden was assassinated have effectively been proven to be lies"

Are you surprised that Osama's family places more emphasis on US brutality than the US did? And that is not even my choice of words- the subtitle states

'Details emerge of what really happened when Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan – according to the survivors, at least'

and in that vein, there was still a firefight

"Kuwaiti's brother was killed as he prepared to fire a gun"

"[Osama had]an AK-47 assault rifle, most...[and] a Makarov pistol [within reach]"

I will definitely admit that the US version of the story was exaggerated. However, the first person they encountered did try to shoot them-which generally makes soldiers less likely to assume the rest of the house is friendly. And Osama did have two guns within reach. So- the US definitely exaggerated the story- but to say the have proven to be lies is taking it a bit far...

Also- your article from presstv is an opinion piece. That generally means it is not 'completely based on fact', and in fact is in conflict with your source from the guardian (a credible source)

And I seem to recall you stating that they assassinated him because he had information that Obama did not want to leak- which I claimed ridiculous. I was the one who said they killed Osama because he was shot at (as pulled from the guardian source, conveniently left out of your presstv 'source')

"Osama was killed to keep him from exposing shady dealings with the cia may have been a bit if a stretch"

my point entirely. I think there was little chance of Osama being taken in alive- simply because I would not suspect him of going down peacefully (again: first person encountered open fired, Osama had two guns)

"to be honest i think now it is more likely that he was assassinated solely for the political gain"

and convenience.

I disagree with that assessment though i think if an actual hypothesis test was performed on the incident (not that it would or could) the past dealings of Osama Bin Laden with the cia would have to be accounted for in the calculation, which would at the very least raise the probabily of the null hypothesis above 0

Actually, I am yet to find any news articles discussing peaceful Al-qaeda interactions.

a google news search: 1 result for: al-qaeda "acts of peace": an article which discussed Obama's lack of acts of peace against al qaeda. that makes 0 articles for peaceful al-qaeda interactions

a google news search: About 87 results: al-qaeda "acts of violence"

so, with

the proportion of violent actions =87/87

the proportion of peaceful interactions =0

and n=87

since an SRS was not used, I will conduct a robust chi square goodness of fit

Ho: peaceful=0

Ha: peaceful =/= 0

standard alpha level =5%

A chi test is robust, so the randomization of google search engine satisfies this condition

The sample size is large

Unfortunately, the expected values are not all greater than 10, so my results may be questionable

chi^2 value=0, significant at 5% alpha level

p value=0

All you need to do is find a single peaceful interaction to prove this analysis questionable, and I suspect that you will. But you have not. So, technically, p value=0. I suppose I did that more for my own geeky fun rather than to actually prove a point.

Oh-also, the null hypothesis would still be zero. You would simply reject the null hypothesis. Are you sure you took an advanced statistics class? (just kidding, you seem to have a good grasp of the subject)

2 years ago
1 point

You can always walk.

You know, just extending the metaphor.

Without religion, people would still have the natural inclination to hate. People have used various methods of hate- as a species we seem to be rather good at hating. Whether on the grounds of militant religion, Social Darwinism, or jingoism, people have a knack for taking what has the potential to be peaceful- religion, science, national pride- and using it however they see fit.

Also: I would argue that the inclination to hate homosexual people is not learned directly, but rather indirectly. People learn that it is normal for a man and a woman to have sexual relations, and then homosexuals simply fit in the 'other' category which is hated as a method of self preservation. If my hypothesis is true, all that would be necessary is to accept homosexuality as a normal- rather than unusual- practice.

And if nothing else, religion is a product of the human condition. Unless you believe that religion was divinely inspired, a group of people determined what was wrong or right, leading people (not religion) to the root of the problem anyways.

also- your argument seems to be pro-homosexuality... you might want to change the tag

while you are at it, the correct spelling "pseudo", not "suedo".

2 years ago
1 point

You can always walk.

You know, just extending the metaphor.

Without religion, people would still have the natural inclination to hate. People have used various methods of hate- as a species we seem to be rather good at hating. Whether on the grounds of militant religion, Social Darwinism, or jingoism, people have a knack for taking what has the potential to be peaceful- religion, science, national pride- and using it however they see fit.

2 years ago
1 point

well, lets not fall prey to a common logical fallacy. Correlation is not causation.

We can, however, say that the correlation between proportion of atheists and average intelligence in a country is 60%- a rather strong correlation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000238

2 years ago
Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: When its trolling
Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: Nuclear Fission
Winning Position: No- its degrading
Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: yes, or we cannot believe them
Winning Position: no! laws are laws!

About Me


"Technically, I have not completed high school. I am *ENROLLED* in high school"

Biographical Information
Name: leo zornberg
Gender: Male
Age: 19
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Democrat
Country: United States
Religion: Jewish
Education: High School

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
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.