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


Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Yamancool63

Reward Points:17
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:19
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

No, you're right, a little persecution here and there, a dash of police brutality, hate mail, and death threats, nothing to worry about. It's all good, we can ignore it.

they aren't going to settle for the lesser preferred gender just because of a bit of persecution.

You're right, actually, quite a few people resort to suicide.

1 point

You're just saying "clearly" to make it sound like there's one side to this argument. Clearly there are two.

"yes it is clearly wrong if a baby is created solely for the purpose of science. a baby is a human- and although they cannot speak and tell you how they feel, they clearly have feelings- not only physical needs but a natural born need to feel love and affection from a mother."

It may be wrong from your moral standpoint, but what if the research that fetus is involved in goes on to save millions of lives in developing an HIV vaccine, and the only way that could have happened was through stem cell research? Are millions of people worth more than one child when the world is full of orphans needing clean water and enough food?

It seems selfish to me to say that crucial moments in the history of scientific development need to be stopped for the needs of a new child, which do not clearly have feelings, as you have so aptly cited. Have you ever been inside a child's brain to know what they feel?

1 point

How is the Christian god different from the Jewish god or Islamic god?

Let me answer that for you: they're supposed to be the same person. This verse from this book in particular may be referring to Christians, but what's this debate about again? Oh, right, THE BIBLE.

1 point

I see what you're saying, that everything abides by a set of laws at a higher level, and there seems to be a semblance of rationality there.

However, the pool analogy isn't relevant. And here's why:

If you give a pool ball the same input for two shots, choose the same angle, same force, spin, etc., you will have the same result.

If you ask a human to make a choice twice, will they come up with the same answer twice? It's possible, or even likely, but humans, dogs, animals, and any other sentient beings have the free will to act within their own system. They can make decisions rationally, weighing outcomes, and make a decision. So, they might answer the same twice, but that does not exclude the possibility that they could have or would have chosen differently.

I'm not saying humans are this super special magical master breed where laws don't apply, but if humans don't have the ability to do what they want, then why do they?

"While claiming that free-will somehow doesn't separate man from cause and effect, an essential characteristic of god(s) and other super rational entities in most conceptions of them. This is where free will is absurd in its implications, humans are not super natural entities."

So you're saying the only thing that can have free will is God because that's what most people think a god is? I don't understand.

1 point

I'm new here, and I figured that out pretty quickly. His profile picture gave him away.

2 points

He who hath no argument garners no respect. He who lies and speaks foul of a fellow man garners no respect.

1 point

What the hell are you even rambling on about now? There's nothing in their argument history that remotely mentions anything like any of what you're trying to say.

1 point

You didn't think I would actually check out their profiles here, did you?

They seem pretty rational and level headed to me. I see no mention of them having intentions to kill people that don't believe what they do.

0 points

Not sure if troll...

A pool ball does not "decide" anything; however, user input, geometry, and physics control predestined motions and actions for the pool ball, determining where it goes on the table. Applying the same cookie-cutter, clear-cut arguments with human existence and emotions is patently absurd and lacking in depth and forethought, as everyone makes their own choices, and is different.

BTW, I'll be going on a nude killing spree soon, so if you want me to stop by, just send me a message. I wasn't planning on it, although I chose to join this website of my own free will, I chose to pick up this argument of my own free will ,and I chose to respond to your comment of my own free will.

I believe you have superficial mistaken for another word. I find this argument:

" To suggest otherwise is to say that humans are super-natural and little gods not connected to cause and effect."

quite lacking of anything more than superficial conjecture. If you wanted to make a statement and call me superficial, don't "put anything simply," like you did in the next sentence:

"To put it simply, your analysis is superficial and a more indepth one will lead you to reject the existence of free will. "

How? Why? Where's your proof? I gave you examples of my free will and choices, where are yours? You don't seem to get the idea of a "debate," where you need evidence to back up your claims.

" the evidence for it is lacking and the definition absurd in its implications."

Once again, back up your claims! You haven't provided a single reason for me to believe you're anything more than one who does not understand what they're talking about, and trying to cover that up with poor formatting, hiding your real arguments, and making me dig for facts, eventually leading to a thought overload.

1 point

I highly, highly doubt they would actually pick up a gun and shoot anyone for not not believing in a god.

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