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
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS Ta9798

Reward Points:313
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.
83%
Arguments:207
Debates:7
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Yes.

Marijuana hasn't been proven to be more dangerous than Alcohol or cigarettes but the US government acts like it is. I think Marijuana should be regulated and taxed like alcohol and cigarettes.

This will provide income for the states by means of taxes.

It will also mean that states don't need to spend so much money and resources putting people in jail (often private for-profit ones).

Also police officers can focus on actual crimes and and do a better job of responding since their resources won't be so strained.

Finally, a jail time record, for even something like having marijuana can doom an individual's future. It makes it much harder to get a job and stigma is stuck on that individual. With a large population of people not able to get a job partially due to the 'criminal' record they may be forced to live in poverty and turn to actual crime. This in turn will cost the states and government more money and only hurt society.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol but the government seems to be ignoring history and trying to prohibit marijuana and in this instance, it is doing a great job of just messing everything up and making people's lives worse, except for the ceos of private prisons.

2 points

Norse gods rule. First off having gods and goddesses is much cooler than just one god or savior.

And then they fight far more exotic and dangerous monsters. Who can say one of their gods defeated a serpent that coiled itself around the world. Or Another of their gods killed a wolf that swallowed the moon? Or what about a god who plucked out one of his own eyes to gain knowledge? Only the Norse people I believe.

But the most awesome thing about the Norse gods, I think, is that they all knew their moment of death and they bravely prepared for that final confrontation. Oh, and they did all of this to save humanity. :)

1 point

I don't think so. I understand evil as acting to intentionally harm another being where the main purpose is causing harm. Animals can be dangerous such as when they are hunting, sick, or protecting their offspring, but I don't think they ever intend harm so I don't think of them as evil.

1 point

The arguments while appearing similar are not.

I slavery there is a minium of 2 roles, the slave and the master. The master projects his authority over the slave.

However in the case of the pro-life view there are a minimum of three roles involved, the woman, the unborn child, and the pro-life church. Your argument tries to link the unborn child to the slave and the mother to the master, but you fail to take into account the relationship of the pro-life church. The role of the the pro-life church like the slave master over the mother.

This of course all relies on the the belief of when fetus is considered a person. If you look at the pro-choice view, there is a longer period of time before the fetus is considered a person. In this view, the slave analogy, the only relationship left is the mother as the slave to the will of the pro-life church master.

The problem that many pro-choice people have with people trying to take away abortion rights is that the pro-life church is using the Government to impose the church's will on a selection of other people that there is absolutely no doubt to them being actual people. The government should not enforce religious ideology on those who do not agree with that Ideology but the pro-life stance demands just that. Many good Christians detest and are outraged with the state mandated religious laws forcing Muslim women in Iran and Afghanistan to wear hijabs or burqas. Why should the Christian church be able to force it's views on the women of the United States?

Abortions should be a last resort, and it is something only a woman with the accurate and honest advice of a doctor can decide on. No church, no government, no body else has the right to insert themselves into this situation. And even if we agree that the fetus is a person much earlier, that still does not mean the church or a politician can speak for that unborn child so they still have no right to interfere.

2 points

Obama can't work with those who won't work with him. Obama has tried to work with the republicans, he has made offers that contain proposals the republicans have expressed interest in such as the Chained CPI.

Also during the Fiscal cliff fiasco Obama originally said he wanted to raise the income taxes on those making $250000 or more a year. That is what he ran on in his campaign. The then offered to make the threshold $450000 or more because the republicans wanted it higher. Eventually Biden and McConnell made a deal but it was after the president attempted to work with the republicans and his offer of $450000 for the threshold was used.

Obama has tried, and compromised quite a bit with the republicans but you can't shake hands with somebody if they don't extend theirs you know.

3 points

I support President Obama because he has tried to help the country and succeeded in several places. He helped to prevent the economy from crashing and he has managed to prevent us from going in to more pointless wars where our service men and women needlessly die. He has stood up for marriage equality and gender pay equality. The more equal a society the better every individual does as well. For instance, gender pay equality would mean that women would have larger paychecks equal to their effort which they could then go out and spend at a local store or restaurant and help the economy. Is he a perfect president, of course not, and there are several things I disprove of his handling, especially when it comes to the banks and healthcare but overall I think he has done a good job in a tough global and political environment.

Too often it seems that people cling to one thing they don't like about a person and then decide to hate that person because of it. At one point, I couldn't say anything but how much I hated Nixon but I've found that he's done things I agree with such as founding the EPA, and opening relations with China, and ending the war in Vietnam. I still would never vote for him, but I wouldn't blindly accuse him with false information or make damning accusations without first finding proof about them.

Unfortunately, president Obama hasn't seen the respect a current or former president deserves. Disagree or agree with the president, but at least respect the office.

3 points

Terrorism is a tricky subject because any reaction to it acknowledges it exists and the effect it is having.

I think how you react, however, is what further promotes it or not. Negotiating or just talking to them, I don't think emboldens them or tells them they won. Talk is cheap and easy, making a war on them is expensive and hard. If a terrorist act can get a nation to make war on a group of people or another nation, then that reaction affirmed that terrorism worked in that case with that group of people.

Also, terrorism often breads terrorism in the various forms of retaliation. Take for instance the shock and awe strategy. Are not the overwhelming show of air power and massive explosions all methods to subdue and demoralize the enemy? To terrorize them against a force they can't possibly beat and thus they must succumb and give in. Sure its on a larger scale but the primary means of using fear as a weapon is similar.

Waiting/enduring the terrorists out seems like a emotional tactic of stubbornness which will only encourage the terrorists to devise greater, in magnitude, acts of terrorism in an attempt to create a volatile reaction.

There are terrorists who will never negotiate with us but reacting first with violence carries the potential to further their cause. The current US wars both are demonstrating that terrorism works against the US and gives the terrorists more potential recruits who are marginalized by the reckless attacks by the US.

While the terrorist cells are a problem we need to look deeper. Why do these cells exists? What possible policies(US or other) is giving people a motivation for violence and suicide? The idea that we can eradicate terrorism is foolish, but we can certainly reduce it as well as reduce the sympathy some terrorists receive.

4 points

While the distinction between states laws verses federal laws, and who enacts them is important it shouldn't factor heavily into this debate.

The states nor the federal government should deny same-sex marriage, that comes with the same government rights of conventional marriage, based on a religious interpretation of marriage.

The government, by not protecting and giving the equal rights to same-sex couples, is in effect marginalizing a group of people as lesser citizens with unequal rights. This government is also accepting the full influence of religion in its proceedings and thus acting on the behalf of one religion and thus group of citizens to deny equality to another group of citizens.

If the government keeps the term marriage, all it needs to do is allow any two people to receive the same rights and recognition. It doesn't not need to require that a marriage ceremony takes place in a religious venue or fashion.

The term marriage is not monopolized or owned by any religious organization, and thus religious organizations shouldn't have any influence in how the government or people use the term marriage.

In issues of equality among citizens, the federal government should take precedence over state so that it can apply a law to effect all citizens equally. To force the states to do this would be to allow the possibility that certain groups of citizens have more rights to equality than other groups of citizens.

1 point

Most predators have several features that complement each other, to create a better hunter yet humans only have the mind. I guess what i was trying to imply was that from the beginning the human ancestors were never serious predators. If we never evolved to have a capable mind, we would have continued to eat similar diets to chimpanzees and other primates. I don't know of any species which has evolved to change from, say a chimpanzee's diet to a bear's diet. So i don't think we were "meant" to eat the kind of meat that we eat now.

These last few arguments have strayed from the topic, and I doubt that either of us will come to abandon our positions within them. I think we can, however, agree that meat isn't necessary for humans. We might like it, but we don't need it to survive.

2 points

First let me say i appreciate you not downvoting my arguments just because you don't agree with me, its a step up from at least half the people on this site.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Humans are capable of eating both meat and vegetables but that doesn't mean we need to eat both. Humans can survive fine with a vegetarian diet. A meat diet can directly and indirectly cause harm to humans, animals, and the planet.

- meat can be unhealthy and lead to weight issues as well as illnesses

- slaughterhouses can cause pain to animals as well as injury to workers

- meat production contributes negatively to the environment from global warming to deforestation for corps.

Humans might be the best predators but that doesn't mean we need to eat meat. Also, if we couldn't cook our meat would we even eat it? You say we are the most natural predators but cooking our meat to eat doesn't seem so natural. Also, often, if we don't cook our meat we can get food poisoning that most predators never have to worry about, why is that? If you look at the overall autonomy of the human being you can realize that without our ability to think we would be pretty lousy predators.

- our teeth are inferior to other predators

- we don't have claws talons etc...

- we are slow runners

- our sense of sight, hearing, and smell are inferior to most predators.

Humans might enjoy eating processed and cooked meat but few if any are willing or able to chase down a deer, tear it apart with our fingernails and teeth to eat it raw like other natural predators.

Displaying 7 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Georgia
Viacom vs YouTube decision » visit link (www.businessweek.com)
Winning Position: Bad
Winning Position: Anarchy
Tied Positions: No, because vs. Yes, because
Winning Position: No they should be worried

About Me


"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. - Jimi Hendrix"

Biographical Information
Name: Anton 
Gender: Male
Age: 30
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Postal Code: 21204
Education: In College
Via IM: imchampion87soccer

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