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
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Usucdik

Reward Points:0
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:8
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
8 most recent arguments.
1 point

Oof. When you go on a hate-spree in a piss poor attempt to call someone else hateful...

The thing is, most of the laws were already created by the wacko theists and conservatives, so you're just trying to obstruct change. It's so bad that you're even here defending cigarettes. You've lost the plot.

Also, how's this for "passed in the past 30 years that tells you what you must do": you misogynist creeps passed laws forcing doctors to spew misinformation to patients regarding abortions, outright lying about the dangers and giving out religious propaganda. At least they still have the right to preface it with: "A stupid law forces me to do this, so please disregard what I'm about to say."

"and what our children can eat in school" - so dictating the types of foods is worse than... no food at all? That's exactly what you hateful and selfish people advocate for removing because you act like taxes are ruining your life. Yeah, forget the defense budget, we should target the kids first! How about their lunches!

You lot are simply on the losing side and you know it, which is why you have to cry foul and pretend you're being bullied by the others having your ugly little claws and their stranglehold removed from aspects of society.

1 point

Religion deserves to attacked, because is has been attacking our society for so long already. It attacks science, social tolerance, logic, happiness...

It is so lol hilarious that you claim to have lost freedom, when you are complaining and gnashing your teeth over someone criticizing the overtly-religious crowd that is known for oppressing others and drowning out opinions. The only time you assume freedom is lost is when you lose the slightest bit of your iron grip on having full control to act however you want without consequence. If anything, you deserve to be "attacked", because your ideas are foolish and often get in the way of becoming a more humane society.

Also, conservative talk radio works well enough because conservatives like their 2 minutes of hate, and they like to be told how to think. If they had to actually come up with their own opinions or hear a real debate on crucial topics (you know, instead of "Obama is the anti-christ!" type stuff), their brains would tire out long before they could accomplish their goal of having a well-formed thought.

2 points

Perhaps some people don't want to be known as citizens of a country where the people have vile, bigoted, selfish thoughts and actions. So yeah, "Liberals" are gonna complain when someone like fatmouth Rush Limbaugh starts saying hateful things just to whip people up into a frenzy and target the evil Democrats with his version of 2 minutes of hate.

Is it really insecurity when someone sees another person proclaim 2+2=9 and wants to correct them? Sounds more like altruism. Is it insecurity if someone walks up to you, tries to punch you, and you fight back?

Is it insecurity that makes me type out this post? Or is it insecurity that makes someone create a topic demonagogueing about another group you have poorly defined, on purpose, because you're just so mad and frustrated at how you can't physically knock some sense into them?

2 points

Since I don't believe what you believe, you are wrong. That is all you have as an argument; your faith (in yourself).

Also, God never condemned abortion, unless you mean some wacky side religion where it was one of his commandments. That "book of life" crap is so stretched out of proportion, when it was only talking about one person that God had a plan for in the bible. Taking it literally as meaning God is writing down every name of every soul that is implanted in a woman's uterus at... an arbitrarily chosen moment like "conception", is to be making up your own religious beliefs.

Nothing shows it is harmful to society, and in fact all studies seem to show it has a lot of benefits, because unwanted pregnancies tend to lead to worse outcomes.

1 point

Equal chance? Hell no. No religion has any provable God, and the Atheist automatically wins in that regard, because he has to do nothing to be right.

The only way to make an Atheist wrong is to change the definition around and claim that "God" is simply what came before "[X] known entity", thus being a "creator".

Common accepted definitions make Atheism right by default, until proven otherwise.

1 point

There are simple logical arguments for why pretty much any established religion is bogus nonsense. You don't need all that fancy learnin' and stuff to get to that conclusion.

Case example #1: no witnessed miracles or supernatural events. Still waiting for those random events in nature that breaks all known rules. Basically, if God did ANYTHING then we would be able to observe the breakage of cause and effect as we know it to be.

All the other observable stuff, we collectively put together as part of science. God has no place is the physical sciences, because it literally does no exist. It does exist as part of psychology, though.

1 point

If we went after every group that killed an American, there's be almost no one left. This should not be the sole reason for going to war.

1 point

Disingenuous postulation, because the definition example is clearly stating a solid (paint) that is affected by water, not that the paint itself is purely a liquid all on its own. If water is in a liquid form already, and is introduced to more water, it doesn't "wet" the water, it simply adds volume. It is a term solely used for a solid with an added liquid that adheres to it. If the water doesn't adhere, then the two are merely sitting side by side.

Mercury can be in liquid form and it doesn't make things wet, and it not wet itself. Being wet is only when water has changed the property of the object. It is simply a relative term.

Usucdik has not yet created any debates.

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