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


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS SeanB

Reward Points:322
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.
91%
Arguments:389
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
0 points

Well, I don't agree with abortion without restriction. Pretty sure I've said this multiple times.

1 point

If this is a serious debate premise, then I hope that you, the poster, are involved in a fatal car crash at the next available juncture.

And I hope that a male, with his evil evil penis, then proceeds to piss joyfully on your grave.

1 point

Abortion when necessary as a medical procedure is a right the same way it is a right to be taken and treated in a hospital after a severe car-crash. If your life and physical wellbeing are in real threat, then you ought to be treated: whatever that treatment means.

However, I don't see how abortion in all cases could be considered a right. I don't think any of us are really okay with the idea that a woman can enter a hospital at any time during her pregnancy (seven, eight, nine months) and demand an abortion. I think anybody who is for that, is severely lacking in the most basic sense of what humanity is, and even the most basic sense of what life is as a phenomenon: which is the instinct to further itself: the drive to protect the survival of its kind: the fundamental desire to see our genes passed on. There's something very wrong with someone who lacks what is freely and invariably present in all the species on this planet.

2 points

Because the only difference between a religion and a psychotic cult is the number of adherents.

If one person says they think a piece of bread can be turned into the flesh of a man who died two thousand years ago, in the throat, just by the power of belief, they are crazy. But if a billion people believe it, they're just devout Catholics.

For all intents and purposes, unwavering belief in the fairy-tales of Christianity fits the definition of mental illness, but it just so happens that human societies are built upon mob mentality. If the social majority are the crazies, then the crazies get to define normative standards, which is why in America it's considered a bit 'deviant' to be an atheist: Christians make up the majority of the citizens.

I personally do consider fervent religious belief a form of severe delusional thinking, as would most of the prominent psychology theorists. What tangible relationship to reality has the completely ludicrous belief that bread eaten on a Sunday in a church turns into the flesh of Jesus Christ? It's a completely falsifiable belief, yet, a few hundred years ago, it would be tantamount to a crime against the state to argue so.

0 points

First of all, liberal is not an American political party. Democrat, is an American political party.

Second, the fact that I class myself as a "liberal", does not mean that I agree with abortion without restriction.

Third, denying access to abortion could be interpreted convincingly as being a restriction of rights.

Fourth, I'm not an American Democrat.

Fifth, Nazification is a desperate debate tactic, and an informal fallacy.

Sixth, I don't vote in the US. If I did, I certainly wouldn't vote Democrat or Republican.

1 point

As wth every Liberal I have ever debated, you only see the few things that are good about Liberalism, and ignore your inhumanity.

Hitler would have made a great Liberal when it came to abortion and controlling the people.

Liberal -- adjective -- willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.

"Controlling" is the antithesis of this word.

Socialism will be a small foot note in the history of mankind. Your were lucky enough to live during the time of debt spending. Sociaism lives and breathes off debt spending.

Fiat-capitalism lives and breathes off debt spending.

We see every year more nations, more cities, going into default on their loans because MONEY DOES NOT GROW ON TREES! Spare me the few sociaist nations who do not have huge debt. They soon will and if they don't, then they are not bleeding heart fools like in most Socialist nations.

Money is literally created out of thin air by banks when they impart loans. That is the very basis of the currency model currently in us. It is, by default, a debt-based monetary system created through debt levied on regular citizens: an unpayable debt, as you point out. And what happens when the un-payable debts cause an economy to collapse? Well, the institutions who created that money from thin air and loaned it out, get bailed out by the taxes the average citizen pays towards the cost of all those "socialist" projects that are supposed to keep his country afloat -- roads, hospitals, schools, a military, healthcare.

Idiot Socialists lack the simple intelligence to know that like credit cards, the point always comes wen the minimum payment can no longer be afforded.

Capitalism is based, once again, upon credit creation.

America is 20 TRILLION in debt

Ask yourself, to whom?!

thanks to big spending Liberals (closet socialists). Every time these past fifty years that the Republicans(the adults in the room) try to slow the rate of growth of our spending, Democrats scream how they supposedly hate the poor

Spending deficit necessarily increases when taxes drop, particularly when the average wage is insufficient to meet the living costs of a paradigm which is almost entirely privately operated. Nationalization counteracts this problem.

America is lmost spending the cost of our entire military budget on making the interest payments on our national debt

Debt to whom?

(when interest rates are historically low). To a sane person, that is a hideous thing to see that much of our tax dollars simply being spent on the interest payment. IT CAN NOT CONTINUE YOU MINDLESS BLEEDING HEART MORON!

Do you understand how loans work? Why is it, do you think, that nearly every working American has credit of some kind? It's because wages don't suffice, and it's because infrastructure that should be public and operated at a controlled cost is private and operated at expense to the average person. Just look at your healthcare costs to see what I mean.

No nation or people can afford to give everyone a good life on the backs of tax payers.

Most people are taxpayers. If I pay taxes, I expect to see something in return for them. And if I as an average earner pay away an aount of tax which leaves me short of the expendable income necessary for a basic standard of living, then it is only fair to expect those much more fortunate to pay a higher proportionate share, particularly when those more fortunate utilize public infrastructure for a profit that depends on the financial-fleecing of the working class.

It's a ponsey scheme for corrupt politicians buting votes...... for a time until it all collapses.

Capitalism is, yes.

Tell me, in all your childish irresponsibility, what happens to poor people when the monopoly money runs out?

You mean the fiat-currency that banks create out of thin air, loan out, and ask interest back upon?

Well, what happens when it "runs out" (if there is such a thing), is that the banks call in the payments, the economy collapses, and our taxes are used to prop up their failed business model, while we lose our houses, our jobs, and some old men in suits get big fat cheques in the post.

There will no longer be money for even safety nets.

There's always enough money to go around. Just not enough people smart enough to make sure that it does.

Intelligent responsible people live within their means and do not spend money they don't have.

This is trite and, frankly, stupid. Most people in the US who work, have a form of credit. The median wage in the US, is less than the required wage for a basic standard of life at average living costs, thus people must utilize credit. They must utilize credit to get educated, to pay hospital bills, to afford rent, whatever.

That's a political choice: it's an engineered system of financial autocracy: an oligarchy by all reasonable standards. If wages were high enough and transport and living costs low enough that people could live without debt, then it would be fine. But they aren't. And it doesn't help one iota that loans (thus debt) are functionally necessary for the creation of currency.

Most socialist nations are in bigtime financial trouble

Such as?

The country with the highest debt to GDP ratio is Japan: one of the US's main capitalist allies. The US is 12th on that list (a capitalist country). Germany is 43rd. Finland is 52nd. Iceland is 65th. Sweden is 89th. Denmark is 103rd (highest living standards in the world). Norway is 113th.

due to corrupt politicians who buy votes at the expense of their nation's future solvency. You can't keep taking hard working responsible people's money to give to lazy dead beats.

That's not at all what socialism is about. You work, I presume? If you work for a company, you probably make a miniscule fraction of the profit that company creates (like most people). Socialism is simply the idea that people ought to be rewarded more; have more say; be valued more as humans.

Even if very large company owners took a maximum 5 million a year, and dispersed surplus profit to their workers, the standard of living for those workers would skyrocket. They would pay more tax, obviously, but would also live muc more comfortably. Those taxes, from owner and employees, would be used to provide a country that offers opportunity and investment in its citizens: educationally, medicinally, and structurally.

But instead, less than 50 people on this planet own or control more than HALF of its wealth.

Pyramidal, indeed.

The hard workers finally give up.

I am much more likely to give up knowing I am valued little, given wages to the minimum a company can legally get away with, while my boss takes my hard work and makes millions, and through loopholes available it seems only to the rich, dodges paying his taxes.

That's capitalism.

Capitalism and conservative values is what made America great

I personally saw early America as a place of progressive values, for its time. People didn't laugh and sneer at intelligence; nor did they have an issue with providing for those less fortunate. Traditionalism is fine, but trying to wrap up greed, selfishness and hatred for your fellow humans as some limp nostalgia trip is not.

, and we are seeing how socialistic Liberal ideology is bankrpting America financially and morally.

If you understood economics you would understand that capitalism thrives upon debt-bondage: it requires a class of people who are heavily capitalized upon: that's your starving Ethiopian children and your Congolese mine owners; your Indian slum families whose water is stolen by Coca-Cola; your Chinese child labourer who makes your Apple computer.

You get the point.

Conservatives have always supported safety nets for those who can not help themselves.

Apparently not.

We are not total fools to think we can give everyone a good life no matter how irresponsible and lazy they are.

MONEY DOES NOT GROW ON TRESS!

Or "trees".

1 point

A real man recognizes injustice and acts to do something about it. All the rest of it is posturing and posing. You're so far up your own arse and so blind to how provelaged you are that you don't recognize poverty is a political decision made by those with the power to make it. It's no choice. Only an idiot could think so.

You think all those child labourers that prop up your paradigm CHOOSE to have to work fifty hour weeks for buttons and pennies? Because that's the reality of capitalism. But I can tell you've never ventured outside your own American white Christian privileged little bubble to see it for yourself. You wouldn't.

You haven't been to Turkey or India or China and watched little kids rummaging through trash, or working in bars til 3 in the morning, or poor parents who weep because they can't afford to send their children to school. That's the price of having a class of capitalizers: fifty percent of Earth's wealth lies in the hands of fewer than a hundred people, stolen and claimed when it wasn't theirs to steal or claim. And the cost is billions in poverty.

For you to support a world like that -- a world without a welfare system, without regulation, without altruism enforced as it must be to protect against those people who would literally put a price on water -- is the same as to support a world where children are forced to be adults well before they are physically or mentally capable.

That's on you, Mr. Moral Highground.

There's a reason super-capitalists tend to come from privelage and money, while socialists and Marxists tend to come from poverty and grind out an education. The smartest people in society recognize through experience the perspective of the many, not of the few.

I've never met an uber-capitalist with humanity, empathy and decency -- the necessary foundation of globalist morals. Bill Gates -- successful socialist. Melinda Gates -- successful socialist. George Soros -- successful socialist. Mark Zuckerberg -- successful socialist. All people who pledge most of their fortune to others after they die. Tony Benn, George Orwell, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russel, Pablo Picasso, Martin Luther King, H.G. Wells, Oscar Wilde, Woodie Guthrie, Charlie Chaplin, Marie Curie, Nikola Tesla, Bob Dylan ... socialists.

There's a pattern there.

Great minds are socialists. Corrupted minds are super-capitalists, fascists even.

Hitler was a eugeneticist who hated welfare, the disabled, blacks, Jews, Muslims, demanded patriotism, created common enemies of the state. The same goes for Stalin, Lenin, Mao. There's no difference between tyrants, enemies of socialism, enemies of people, enemies of what's good and right. They suppress, control, supplant, take, shame, ridicule, defame, mock, begrudge, control, dumb-down, misinform, strip freedoms. The list goes on.

You're a lapdog for assholes and bad morals, and you don't even see it.

You're completely deluded about how the world works.

1 point

Trust the insecure, self-help-aholic weasel to cite a guy who writes books like "Double Your Dating", for lonely, single little sexists like yourself who can't bag a date lol.

You reek of Ted Bundy. Get a life.

Capitalism is the failed philosophy that strips you of both your humanity and your dignity. And you've already lost both, you worthless little fucktard.

You're the same guy who cites his own fucking facebook page as a credible source on the veracity of a fucking fairytale book written by mysoginistic goat-fuckers. You're about one instance of shitting your pants away from full blown mental handicap.

You're like a chicken expecting a pack of dogs to let you be a dog. They won't. They'll fucking eat you and shit you out and come back for the eggs you laid, and you'll still be fantasizing about sucking on their dogmeat.

Fuck off back to your cave.

1 point

Us liberal idiot millennials are the ones who will be paying for your old-age diapers when Donnie Flump strips you of every social safety net you have. We're the ones whose taxes will be used to buy out your failed pillars of capitalist greed, AGAIN, and who will have to reimburse the pensions lost by bankers playing fast and loose with your cash, AGAIN, and whose taxes will have to be used to invest in infrastructure that is profited upon by private entities who extort us for everything from transport to clean water, AGAIN.

What part of "bigger public pot means better public safety net" don't you understand?

Capitalism is failing, and you're on the wrong side of history.

2 points

I believe that it can, but only when information is freely shared and accessed. Throughout all human history, the most powerful weapon of any "regime" has always been the control of information. If you suppress free thought, free speech, and free inquiry, and supplant it with dogma of any kind (religious, political) then you are able to control a population. Every pyramidal society in history has done this, from the ancient Egyptians to the Medieval Papacy to the propagandas of the twentieth century, and only now, for the first time in human history, is information so abundant and available.

The internet is, for all its flaws, an information exchange the like of which humans have never seen before.

It's the final frontier for freedom, and governments know this. And this is why governments around the world are bent on censoring and controlling it, because they know how powerful a weapon it can be, either for meaningful change, or tyranny.

SeanB has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: Ireland
Religion: Atheist
Education: Masters

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