All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Eleven years on this site, I can hardly believe it's been that long. I remember going on here in high school, arguing somewhat poorly lol. Those were the days. I'm old now :(
Wouldn't that be cool thoI could probably figure it out. I've done a little bit of app making w/ android, no experience with iOS but hell I'd give it a go
To thank God for some action may discredit the work and selflessness of someone else.If you get into a car accident, don't thank God you didn't die from the impact, that credit goes to the car's designers. When the police and fire trucks arrive, don't thank God for their rescue, the servicemen are the ones who are sacrificing to save you. When the doctors stabilize you and get you on to a speedy recovery, again, do not thank God; thank centuries of medical advancement and progress administered by the hospital staff that helped you through.To thank God is to tell everyone else that they were inconsequential,it's to reduce them to a means to an end,it's removing their agency,and worst of all,it's egregiously selfish.
For most atheists, I assume, it's simply a declaration. But does not believing in a god inform or alter our perception of reality enough to warrant a categorically separate Identity? And if so, how different would atheism be from something like humanism or secularism (not to claim that in this case any of these would be mutually exclusive from any other)? Or is it that the collective agreement on one issue isn't substantial enough to do so, especially so considering how atheism carries no innate dogma or rule set?
The only debates that seem to crop up anymore are about whose point farming or who's imitating who our who's banning who... it gets old. I really like this site, been with it for years, and it makes me sad to see it reduced to this. How about we have some actual debating?
I'd like to clear a few things up for some of the users on here. The national debt is representative of growth, and it should be expected that as a country prospers, their debt increases. The deficit, on the other hand, should be low. The deficit is the difference between the debt and income. As you might have already guessed, a country strives to have as low of a deficit as possible, even better if the value is negative (represents a surplus).
The affirmative argument commonly being that crimes should be treated like a form of flat taxation,
so that the individual consequence is effectively equal.
- - - - -
The negative argument commonly being that crimes should be treated as absolutes,
that to charge two people differently for the same crime is unjust.
If you could spend your pants on some things provided by the site, what would they be?
A new name?
A spot on the featured debates?
The ability to buy one of those snazzy ass createdebate t-shirts?
Booze?
I'd like to think that if we had this option, we could also have a "total points accumulated" value, without deductions, just so we can still see them as we do now, as experience.
Dear SitaraForJesusMusica
It has come to my attention that you are predisposed to banning not only myself, but other members, from debates in which we disagree with you. In the multiple times I've adressed this problem when messaging you, you've been consitent in giving me an excuse that is, in summary, I accidentally the whole thing. I do not believe you, likely nor does anyone else. It takes a conscious effort to ban someone from a debate, evident from how one must select ban, and then confirm with yes. Once would be an accident, sure, but numerous times???
On the rare occasion that I am not actually banned from one of your debates, the arguments I receive from you aren't qualified to be considered debating. You simply state, and restate, and restate again, your unwarranted opinion. I don't know why you actively participate in a debating website in where you post your opinions as though you just took some buzzfeed poll and want to share it with all of your facebook friends. It's not working.
Throughout your history here, you have transcended the boundary between troll and confused debater. If anything, you've perfected an art form in doing so. You always capture the ambiguity of intention so perfectly. This is what I appreciate about you. But I will not honor you as a debater if you will not fix these grievances. Until otherwise I refuse to debate with you. I encourage others to do the same.
With all the remaining compassion left in the cavity once known as my heart;
-Akulakhan
P.S.: As you are accustomed, you will be banned from this debate.
On the ballot in a few states, including my own, is the measure to force GMO foods to be labeled on produce and groceries.
Should this be done and why our why not?
Bill Nye on the matter
I'm sure you are like me;
Logs on to CD,
looks at debates on home page,
...
finds nothing of interest or have already commented.
See who's online,
hover over "Jump"
...
realize everyone is also staring at the home page
probably doing exactly what you're doing right now.
Maybe if we had a chat box set up somewhere, homepage or otherwise, we could find something to argue about and someone to argue with without having to make a debate and watch it fade into obscurity.
↑↑↑↑↑↑
I made a debate earlier about the potential interest in having a community dedicated to more formal debating.
There were enough supporting the idea that I went adead and made it.
Please give it a shot!
The rules and structure are hyperlinked on the top of the page, it even comes with an example debate.
↓↓↓↓↓↓
I intend to create a formal debate community for us debaters who want to have challenge debates in a structured and formal manner. Anyone else willing to join????
HEY THEISTS
How come there isn't not a God?!!?!
If evolution don't exist, why are dogs big and small and sometimes mean?!?!!!?
If Jesus was God WHO IS GOD?
ANSWERS PLEASE!