CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
"To my knowledge none of the primary founding fathers had died in that time, So the treaty of Tripoli was written and approved by largely the same people who wrote the U.S. Constitution."
Perhaps, written was a poor word choice (Support would have been a more accurate word choice), but certainly it was approved by many of the primary founding fathers. John Adams who was actively involved in the drafting of the Constitution was president at the time, and he ratified the treaty. Jefferson who literally wrote the Constitution, was vice president at the time. Alexander Hamilton, was Inspector General at the time.
The Treaty received UNANIMOUS approval from the senate.
I think john Adams is in a better position to know what this Nation was founded on than you are. You have no valid reason to dismiss the Treaty of Tripoli. Historical fact is in my favor not yours.
Well, this may surprise you but the person who actually wrote...
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
...Was a chaplain. Just because modern day Christians feel they should be able to impose their religious views on everybody by rule of law, does not mean that is how the founding fathers felt. To the contrary, most of the founding fathers (again, most of whom where christian) felt that Religion was a personal matter. We don't need to speculate on their intentions because they boisterously wrote and spoke about their intentions and this is all well recorded. They did not think this nation was founded on the christian religion, they felt this nation was founded on freedom of religion (to believe as one so chooses).
You claimed it wasn't founded on religion and now claim it was founded on religious freedom. Which is it?
You seem to be implying that these two statements mean the same thing, they don't. One of the statements I have already explicitly stated, and the other I haven't. So why are you asking me to choose between something which I have already said and something which I have never said? Obviously it's the thing I said, and not the one I didn't say.
Hell, you might as well ask: "You claimed dinosaurs weren't alive 4,000 years, and now you are claiming evolution is true. Which is it?"
That question would make about as much sense as the one you just asked.
Of course racial equality is racist, when it is done by law. Anytime one makes a big deal out of something then it is an intentional act and then makes it a racial act. Give to the United Negro College. Afro-American. These are discriminating. Give to your local college is not. American is not, but Afro-American certainly is. White people are not French/Americans, English/Americans, etc, just Americans.
Hahahaha! You two go at it more than Gary and I... I don't have a problem with either of you so I'll stay out of this one... and yes, since I'm not taking a side I shouldn't have chimed in but I did anyway just for the hell of it!
life and death are considered as beginning and ending. no evidences are available after death. how ever let us know the beginning of birth. beginning of the birth is not to be seen after delivery. what was the location of individual before conception? if we fail to know the beginning ,how can we ascertain death is the termination. we are yet to know the secrets of nature. what is the true state of water?
Are you entirely unaware that this is not in fact a discussion on life after death, but merely an attempt to form a strawman argument and attack it, rather than the actual argument given?
Also- the true state of water is liquid. Otherwise it is known as ice or steam. :D
The problem here is dead men are not alive, so even if Bohemian did state this he hasn't proven anything. In order for them to be alive they can no longer be dead, I thought that this would be elementary logic to a mind as powerful as yours.
Or maybe you are completely right and everyone else is wrong, maybe you have some skill of quantum reasoning that instead of passing the insurmountable energy of logic tunnels through.
Dead men can't be dead and still have worked on The Treaty of Tripoli, so they must have came back to life. So what do you conclude about Bohemian's statement, since he stated they worked on this treaty? How else were they able to do so?
I don't care for Bohemian's statement, my point was that you stated "Atheist proves there is life after death" and then in the premise state that dead men wrote something. Dead men are not alive, therefore your Tag-line contradicts your debate topic. If you had stated that Bohemian thinks that "dead men came back to life and wrote the treaty", then that would have been different, but you hastily rushed to sully Bohemians name without thinking about what it is you were spewing.
We need not talk to the dead to know the opinions of the founding fathers, this is well recorded. You have a particular knack for denial. Is this a skill you had to develop or is it a natural born talent?
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
According to definition 1- defamation- you are in fact slandering Bohemian. So as to prevent any misunderstanding- defamation is, after all, a rather large word- any action which attacks one character, intelligence, or person is considered slander. Even if your statement were true- which I maintain it is not- you would still be slandering Bohemian.
"To my knowledge none of the primary founding fathers had died in that time, So the treaty of Tripoli was written and approved by largely the same people who wrote the U.S. Constitution."
Half of them were dead when the treaty was written.
Doesn't matter whether you say they are key members or not, unless you deem one person as greater than another. "All men are created equal" A quote from the "key" members.
I never claimed any person was greater than any other: only more influential.
Both of us, according to the united states constitution, are equal to the president of the united states. Neither of us, however, are nearly as influential.
Bohemian claims 26 dead men wrote the Treaty of Tripoli.
