CreateDebate


JaceCarsonne's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of JaceCarsonne's arguments, looking across every debate.
2 points

I must say, your bait is absolutely legendary. I'm a massive fan.

As an individual who moderately identifies toward Libertarian social values and operation, I believe that anyone should have the right to speak absolutely anything. There should never be limitations on what we can and cannot say. This includes the concept of 'hate speech'. As human beings, when we say or do anything, we also must accept the consequences for stating those opinions.

I believe that someone should have the right to walk up to a Black man and call him the N word. I also believe that the Black man should then have the right to beat the shit out of that guy for being a racist shithead.

In the same vein of being able to run businesses exactly how one wants, and running the risk of going out of business for how its run, we need a society where we are taught that our actions have consequences. We learn the best and most concrete lessons by experiencing ramifications for our words and actions.

The thing about people who believe that healthcare is an inalienable right don't understand how much of a hit the economy would take if that were the case.

First of all, we're devaluing Doctors and the amount of time and finance they have put into earning their degree and becoming adept at medical science. If healthcare is a public good and does not cost anything to the individual, where is the money supposed to come from to pay the care providers? Are they supposed to be paid from the "bottomless Government fund" that exists solely to pay doctors? Well, no.

Are doctors supposed to work for free? They won't. Humans rarely work toward things on a mass scale without an incentive, usually financial. The medical fields of study will take a massive blow, and eventually there won't be enough care providers to tend to those seeking care.

And once again, capitalism is the only way to move the country forward. Any and all examples of socialism being successful are not pure examples of socialism, but rather corporatism; and often, with a much larger emphasis on capitalism than the defenders of socialism will admit.

Socialism will only ever work for the social and political elite, because they can afford it.

We CANNOT consider healthcare an inalienable human right. Can we make it more affordable, better quality, and/or more universal? Absolutely. That's the goal. But not working together to finance it as a country is the equivalent of everyone saying "Well, I want it, but I don't want to work for it. So I'm just going to say that I deserve it so that it will happen".

Well, it depends on whether or not people want to be intellectually honest. If we, as a society, are going to generally be accepting of the notion that an individual can be born as one gender, and choose to identify as another; then people should also be able to identify as a different age, therefore rendering pedosexuality a moot point.

I mean, that's how it works right? What's the difference between identifying as the other gender, and identifying as a different age?

I'll preface my retort with the fact that I am not a practicing member of any religion. However, I believe in the existence of some kind of omniscient creator. If one would like to refer to that as God, then that's fine.

First of all, 'Ancient book of nonsense' is not, in itself, a valid argument. That's essentially saying "Here's what I think, so I'm right".

Historical evidence has shown that key events in the Christian bible indisputably occurred in the past, and many of these are unanimously agreed upon by religious and non-religious scientists, anthropologists, archaeologists and historians alike. These unanimously agreed upon events include a genocidal flood that consumed the earth; the torture, crucifixion, and unexplainable resurrection of Jesus; A significant amount of historical accounts chronicling the life of families that stretched for generations, including lines that are not unbroken as of today.

Let me ask a probing question, why does the concept of an omniscient creator make no sense to you, while the concept of the universe being created 'because it did' correlates to facts and logic? Currently, there are no proven theories of how or why the 'big bang' happened. The scientific community has never not been deadlocked on this issue. And yes, there is no physical or tangible evidence that there is an omniscient creator (citing to the argument of 'God exists because the universe' is not an accepted argument, and not one I would make). However, attempting to call one thing a factually and logically incorrect ideology, while secular creationism is also not proven/accepted by fact or logic renders your argument invalid.

Secular creationists are consistently switching the fundamentals of their respective ideologies in order to fit with the ever-growing historical evidence and accuracy of biblical events, as well as making desperate appeals to the most unscientific notions imaginable. Lee Smolin (cosmologist) suggests that the only way to solve the big bang's scientific problems is to argue that 'the laws of physics were different in the past.' How is that a sensible argument?

Additionally, leading secular creationism researchers Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman readily admit that no observed natural processes can produce life from non-sentience. But they also assert that the required natural processes existed at one time anyway and, for some reason, we just haven’t yet discovered them. That line of thinking sounds an awful lot like belief in a faceless, omniscient creator, wouldn't you say? All either side is doing is believing in something without a guarantee.

To quote the great Ben Shapiro, "facts don't care about your feelings."

Freedom to do what, exactly? And do you mean specifically in America?

The section of Islam that is prone to violence and an outdated ideology shouldn't be allowed to commit public actions of crime, but sure. All people should be allowed THE CHANCE at freedom. If they commit crimes or break the laws of this country, then they should not. Case closed.

- Even though a common standard for debaters is "using facts", it is also just as necessary to provide sources and statistics in order to substantiate your claims. If you can't provide reasoning and application to your claims, they aren't valid.

- Having the self-control to avoid resorting to emotion-based responses. What an individual THINKS about the world is not important. What facts, stats, and logic SHOW and PROVE about the world is important.

- Have humility and respect for the person you are debating. Accept that not everything you say will be correct, and that you can have a spirited debate without it being combative or hostile.

Because there would be no legitimate way to enforce that law at this point in time. Let's say that someone doesn't have a "license to parent", and the woman gets pregnant. If they don't get approved for a license, what's the government going to do about it? Forcibly kill the unborn child? That sort of operating is significant of borderline government tyranny.

Well, yes. But there has to be a middle ground. I do not identify with either specific political party, which is good to counterbalance the pros and cons of each side. While, absolutely, a percentage of the Left have gone absolutely crazy, with many ideas that do not make any logical, political, or social sense. But they aren't alone on that. There is also an equal-sized percentage of the Right that can be described in exactly the same way. The difference lies in which ways we define behaviour that does not identify the party as a whole.

If one is to say that Democrats never learn, that is not entirely true, in a general statement. I have had many reasonable conversations of substance with individuals who identify themselves as 1st-wave Democrats (linking their political ideology to versions of it from the past), and they tend to be much more in line with the modern conservative way of thinking. The deviations are there, but there are many more commonalities there than between modern liberals and conservatives. Additionally, if one is to say that Democrats never learn, one must also conceded that Republicans never learn, simply due to the fact that sections of the Right also still believe in some ridiculous ideas. You must operate outside of the narrow political dividend if you are to understand your own party, as well as the members of the opposite party, wherein you may find more rational individuals than you realize.

So Oprah wouldn't be a good president just because she's a black woman? Who says she wouldn't be a good president? You are only saying this because I specifically am talking about a black woman!

- First of all, very nice strawman. Quite clearly, I didn't say Oprah wouldn't be a good president because she's black. In fact, I followed up my initial statement with "we need a good President, and if they happen to be black, then great!" Once again, Presidential effectiveness should have nothing to do with skin colour or gender. In fact, for a number of years, I have advocated that Condoleezza Rice run for President. I think she would make a fine leader. The difference between her and Oprah? Rice has been a politician for decades. Oprah lives in the lap of luxury. She knows nothing of political proceedings.

He didn't make any progress. Instead he spent his whole presidency cleaning up the mess George Bush left behind. Now Trump is here to fuck it up even worse.

- Then that alone is an incorrect statement, but it isn't the one you originally made, which is also incorrect.

It's too bad some people use racism as an excuse for racism, but that's not what the vast majority of libs do. By your logic, I guess all conservatives are neo nazi white nationalists who watch the Alex Jones show.

- If you couldn't infer from context clues by now, I'm not even conservative, so... And that's actually not a correct application of my logic, at all. You talk about Trump spreading racism in America, when in actuality, the most boisterous examples of racism and sexism that I see frequently is that from groups like Black Lives Matter, feminists, ANTIFA, and other groups of the sort. Examine your thinking.

When you register to vote, how many genders can you choose from? What if someone wants to identify as non-binary?·

- Well, non-binary doesn't exist, so I guess you can't

¯\(ツ)

Furthermore, the last US election ballot very clearly had a check-mark option that said "Male", "Female", and "Other". But you don't know that because you didn't fucking vote.

Also, if you're transgender, you go from being one gender to another. If you're a woman who wants to identify as a man, then you very clearly check "Male" in that bubble, and vice versa. Literally every word you just said was wrong.

Neither does Trump, but he's a white male sooooooooooooooooo.....

- Yeah, I didn't say he was a good president. I didn't say I voted for him. But he won because Hillary was the worst presidential candidate in the history of US elections.

In conclusion, your arguments are statistically incorrect, you have chosen to act childish, you believe in a thin set of ideals that you clearly know nothing about since you can't defend your points with actual correct facts, and you have proven yourself to just be a mindless apologist sheep in a sea of licentious degenerates.

America needs a black woman to be president

- Um... no, America needs a good president who knows how to run the country. If that individual happens to be black, then that's great! But if you're basing the necessity of one being president just based on their skin colour, you know nothing about politics or life.

After Trump gets done destroying all the progress Obama made America will need a break from mysogyny, racism and trickle down economics

- First of all, you spelled misogyny wrong, so good job. Furthermore, name all of the progress Obama made that is good for America as a whole. This is a debate, and since you took a biased opinion, you are required to provide statistics for your claims. Thirdly, I walked past a Black Lives Matter rally a while back and caught the phrases "all white people should burn", "What do we want? Dead white cops!" and "Fuck white people! They don't know shit about anything!"

There's your fucking racism, you unintelligent profligate.

We can finally break the glass ceiling

- It doesn't exist, so...

Give transgender people the right to vote

- Oh good lord. At this point, I'm just hoping your original debate posting was just bait, because this is too much unintelligence to even be funny anymore. Transgender people do have the right to vote, you professional victim.

If this whole thing is serious, please. Please stop popping off of the pillow in the morning with new ways to victimize yourself and whatever social class you belong to. Black president? Woman president? Bring it on! That would be wonderful. But I could care less about someone's gender or race. I care about whether or not they would make a good president, and Oprah knows nothing about running a country.

Your argument is uneducated, childish, and invalid. The fact that you felt the need to respond out of emotion and with the use of expletives proves that you do not possess a mental capacity that is capable of critical or logical thinking, and must resort to a sort of tough-guy anger when you can't grasp a concept. Furthermore...

I don't think you understood my response at all. Charging someone more for being gay would be a good example of a Free Market system. The head of the bakery would say "We're gonna charge gays more since we don't agree with their lifestyle choices."

The gay couple would see this and say, "Well, we're being charged more because we're gay. Let's go to the bakery down the road where they don't charge us more based on our sexual preferences."

Business A is free to practice its religious/moral freedoms, and Business B picks up the profit that Business A missed out on due to practicing its religious/moral freedoms.

It should be universally known at this point that every action has a reaction. You choose to charge gays more or not to serve them? Cool. You're well within your legal right to do so. But you need to understand that the REACTION to your initial action will potentially result in loss of finances, loss of customers, and potentially a bad word-of-mouth reputation getting around about your business.

Please, for the sake of individuals: Try to really sound the words out and comprehend their meaning next time. You attempted to dispute me, but all you did was make a point that supported my initial point.

If the police can come to your home and arrest you for selling alcohol to teens at your own home, how far can they push their agenda?

-- I mean they should be able to push it however far they want. If you're over the age of 21, and you're selling alcohol to a minor, it's a felony. It's only relatively acceptable when you're doing it in your own home, mostly because they can't do anything about that.

What if the teen is your own child, should you be arrested for having your own child in a safe environment where they can experiment with alcohol?

You can keep an eye on the effects alcohol will have on your child.

-- This is where you lose me. What parent is selling their child alcohol? Giving, sure. I'm all for that. Teaching kids about alcohol and not acting like it's the blood of demons is important in them not acting like idiots when they go through their rebellious teenage phase later. There's a reason why European teens don't have as big of a problem with alcohol as American teens do. There's such an enormous taboo on the concept of alcohol in this country, that the first time a 14 year old is offered booze at a party, they take it because it's unexplored territory, and they think it will make them feel older and cooler. If you're taught when you're young that drinking is just a thing people do, and not something that legitimately makes you cooler, a large majority of those teens won't feel like it's their go-to option.

Or should the your teenager go with their friends to another place to get alcohol, get wasted, get into a car and then (God forbid) get into an accident? Or if your teen is a girl she gets, GHB'd?

--Honestly, it's much more important to teach your kid to have an honest and open relationship with you. Chances are, your kid is going to go to a party in high school, and will probably have a drink. They need to know that if they go to a party and fuck up, that you'll be disappointed in them, but won't come down on them in a crazy way. Otherwise, they'll never trust you with anything. It's more important to teach them:

~~"If you drove to the party, you better not get behind the wheel after drinking. Additionally, if someone else drove you, and they got wasted, they better not be driving you. If you're without a ride, call us, Uber home and leave the car, just whatever you do, don't drive.

~~"Never take a drink from someone unless you physically watched them make it with your own eyes, it's someone you trust and know wouldn't try to put some crazy shit into your drink, never leave your drink sitting alone, and if you do, go get another one."

~~"If you're going to choose to drink at a party, you need to understand the consequences that could happen to you if the police showed up to the party and you got busted. Additionally, you need to understand the consequences and legal implications if you were at a party where someone got into a vehicular accident, overdosed on drugs, or got alcohol poisoning.

It's absolutely imperative that kids don't view alcohol as a rebellion tool. Otherwise, if they kind of hate you when they're going through their shitty little phase, they'll use drinking to say "Fuck my parents. I'll do what I want!"

2 points

It's certainly possible. It's quite telling that Newt Gingrich was defending Franken on his show recently; Not because he believed that Franken was innocent, but because he didn't want the media to go after Trump the same way. And of course, after throwing Franken under the bus, the leftists immediately said, "Okay, well we threw Franken and Conyers out, how about you guys throw out Moore and Trump?"

Granted, I believe that the scenarios are vastly different, since there was actually tangible, photographic proof of being a sexual predator. Moore (even though I personally believe he's guilty) just got hit with several accusations (some of which have been debunked, no less), and the accusations that Trump got hit with pretty much disappeared after he became President. It's all a sketchy fucking mess. We should just throw all of the ballot candidates for senate seats out and have a write-in campaign.

No. What's ethical is a free-market system where businesses have the right to practice religious or personal moral freedoms, and lose income, and lose customers to other businesses. That's what drives the state of businesses: Competitive marketing.

Sidenote: If I owned a bakery, I would make a cake for a gay wedding. I don't have any qualms against doing something like that, because I don't care whether or not someone's gay. A customer is a dollar sign. But if there was another bakery down the road from mine that refused to do gay weddings, I would be grateful about that; Simply because it means that the gay couple would come and use my services instead.

Free market system.

2 points

If that makes sense, then why is it that on submission forms of various kind, you see one of these two things:

Sex: (circle one) M or F

OR

Gender: (circle one) M or F

Notice the interchangeably used words.

Yes, this is also true for Doctors' Office and Hospital forms. So if you are going to claim that the majority of doctors are incorrect, please do so.

2 points

No, because that would fall under free speech.

However, if you legitimately believe that the holocaust didn't happen, I would question your intelligence level, or the existence of your intelligence at all.

No, it shouldn't be a crime, which is why it isn't. And fortunately for individuals that question the holocaust, stupidity isn't a crime either.

- Cigarette Smuggling

- Media Piracy

- Prostitution

- Illegal Gambling

- Counterfeiting

Any of these things sound familiar? That's because they're five of America's largest underground economy markets.

Cigarettes are legal here, and there is a vast array of regional cigarette companies. So why would there be a black market for them?

Do you know how cheap it is to buy music and rent movies in today's market? Especially now with Spotify (which is essentially music piracy anyway, but that's a whole different TED talk) where, essentially for free, you can have almost any music you can think of. Yet, people still pirate music. Why?

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point by now. (However, I'm perfectly willing to go on about the other four if you ask, since there's a 50% chance that your next argument will contain something akin to the phrase "You didn't say anything about the other four because you have no argument for them".)

Whether or not something is legal or illegal, there will always be an underground ground market for goods and services, especially things that were made legal in more recent years.

2 points

Almost universally, it makes sense.

I'm from Seattle, and Marijuana has been recreationally legal in Washington since 2012.

In the three-year period between 2012 to 2015 (the most recent expansive and reliable statistics), things have either changed for the better, or haven't changed in a negative way.

Crime:

Low-level marijuana offenses lowered by 98%, all categories of marijuana law violations lowered by 63%, and all marijuana related convictions lowered by 81%. Due to these factors, Washington State has been able to cut millions of dollars in specific funds concerning marijuana law enforcement.

Financial:

The state has collected over $682,023,598 in marijuana tax revenues. That number expected to exceed $733,000,000 before 2018. This money is being channelled into such sources as: substance abuse prevention and treatment, youth and adult drug education, and community health care, among typical tax pools.

Safety:

The number of traffic fatalities due to driving under the influence of marijuana has not spiked since legalization.

Similarly, marijuana usage of minors has not increased since I-502 was passed.

In conclusion, the stigma against marijuana is something that I still don't quite understand. I am not a regular marijuana smoker, but I see its legalization as a positive thing for the American economy. Additionally, anti-legalization activists have no credible data or statistics to back up their claims that it shouldn't be legalized now, especially with Washington and Colorado being used as a "trial group" of sorts for the past 5 years.

The bottom line/bigger picture is:

- Young people who want to smoke marijuana will find a way, whether it's legal or not. Let's use France as an example. Marijuana is 100% illegal in France, yet 22.1 % of individuals between 15-34 use it on a recreational basis. That's nearly a quarter of the young adults in the country. Total illegality of something will never stop it completely.

(Plus, if your kid is going to spend money on marijuana anyway, wouldn't you rather that their best friend's older brother buy it from a licensed shop, rather than some sketchy dude in an alley-way who very well could have laced the marijuana with other drugs?)

- People who drive high or drunk are going to do that anyway, whether or not marijuana is legal. Unfortunately, the government can't really make "being a shitty human being" illegal, but even if they did, people would still drive high and drunk. Those kinds of people will always exist.

- The same people who cry fowl at the prospect of widespread legalization, and freak out about it entirely, are the same ones unwilling to concede that if marijuana is illegal, alcohol should also be made illegal. It's common knowledge at this point that alcohol causes a vastly larger number of deaths per year than marijuana. Obviously, there has only been one reported case of a fatality by "marijuana toxicity" in the United States, ever, but it can still be the catalyst for why you ran your car off of the road while driving high.

If you're going to push for marijuana to be illegal, I would recommend not taking a hypocritical stance, and also being willing to let go of that glass of wine, bottle of beer, or shotglass, if you want to look like an educated individual.

"Actually no. Just shut up. That would be way better."

Wow. Great debate strategy there. Brimming with quality.

I'd like to cite Ben Shapiro, "It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture."

Violence is not a gene encoded into the DNA of black people, nor is it that way for anyone on the planet. Often times, when you see this sort of violence occurring, it isn't most often taking place in middle-class suburban neighborhoods near middle-class public schools.

The top three cities with the highest murder rate (Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis) have a murder rate (per 100k people) of 43.82, 55.37, and 59.29--respectively.

The African American population in these three cities is 81.55%, 63.7%, and 18%-respectively.

The poverty rates in these three cities are 40%, 24%, and 30%--respectively.

African Americans aren't more violent than white people. There are just more African Americans living in negatively-cultured cities in the US--the bulk of them, from birth--and growing up in harsher circumstances, impacting them in their later lives.

There are plenty of African-American men and women in the United States who have been brought up in a rough culture in the US that disallowed them from being able to access certain things in their younger years, but rise from it eventually. 75% of people who are born into the lower class do not stay in the lower class. If they finish high school, enter the workforce/get an education, don't have babies before getting married, you fall into that 75%. There are plenty of African-Americans who have achieved success after living in impoverished cities.

You are the exact sort of example I am speaking of. You are the reason why people hate God.

The Bible states that human beings should adapt traits of love and compassion toward our fellow man. Nothing that you just said signified any sort of love or compassion.

The way that you're presenting Christianity makes it look unappealing, because you're being an absolute fascist. "TELL ME YOUR TESTIMONY OR YOU'RE DEFINITELY A FAKE." Wow. God would be proud of you, buddy.

Also, I'd just like to say, I can guarantee that I've had a much more difficult Go in life than you have. Only after I was raised on the streets, sexually assaulted twenty times before I was 16, and then became addicted to Heroin and Opiates for over a decade, did I understand how a life could be changed. The only method through which I kicked my substance addiction and style of living was by casting my problems upon God, and finding community in my fellow brothers.

Go ahead. Come at me, you uneducated profligate.

2 points

I think the legality should depend on the severity of the situation. If a clinically depressed person walks into a hospital and wants to be euthanized, that shouldn't be allowed, since clinical depression can be remedied and dealt with.

However, I have heard of circumstances where one's circumstances of health are so bad, that it's the only option they could think of. For example, if someone steps on a landmine. Quadruple amputee, loss of sight, hearing, smell, taste... Inability to live, essentially... I could see that being a situation in which euthanasia would be acceptable.


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]