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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Banning and responding?
Okay so my question is more just a way that I think the site should be changed in regards to banning. The way I see it, if you ban someone and then respond to their position, they should have the option to respond back. I think that past that they could do nothing else on the debate, and that if the debate moderator DIDN'T respond to the banned debater's position, then they (the banned debater) couldn't say anything else.
If you think this is a good idea, say why. If not, the same.
How about we make it so that if you respond before they are banned they can't respond to that after you ban them. So, if you respond to them about verbal abuse, then ban them, they can't respond, but if you ban them, then respond to them they can respond.
You can only get in a few responses before you ban someone. People like Saintnow would lose a lot of his power to keep responding hundreds of days after he bans you. It is at least a compromise. The banners would still get the chance to ban people and respond to them, and the normal people would get to respond to their argument activity.
I just don't think a compromise is really realistic. Either way the problem would be there. The way I see it if you feel the need to respond to the argument then the debate is still going, if you choose to respond and ban a person then I think they should be able to respond back. If you want to ban someone because they are legitimately harassing, then there should be no reason to respond to them at all.
Letting the person know that they have been banned for being harassing is a courtesy that you can provide. It is nice to know how you affected the person. AT least with my idea you have a way to let someone know that they were harassing you without having to fear that they would just keep responding with the harassment.
What a bunch of cry babies. You want to act like idiots, then cry when you get banned and can't respond in the debate you misbehaved in. If I get banned, I just shrug and move on.
Yes, once the debate creator has, childishly placed a ban on someone, then no further reference should be made to, or about the excluded respondent. The rules should be fine tuned so that only certain ''unsocial conduct'', such as the use of profanities, can be used as a reason for banning. Em, the only problem with that is I might get banned quite regularly. I only have issues with those who idiots who disagree with me.
The act of banning should have a more strict cause definition. I have been banned for disagreeing with someone, not for abusive treatment. And THAT after the verbal abuse came from the banner, not me. Apparently , disagreeing is "verbal abuse" to many.
Here's an illustration. You are implying that God is no better than you. You are insisting that your life is justified and you do not deserve the punishment of death any more than you deserve Hell. You did not ask to exist, and now you have to die, and it's not fair for God to bring you into a dying existence, therefore you insist He is not there because He is not being good to you...and God cannot be God if He is not good.
Now, compare that to your behavior here. You did not ask for me to exist, therefore you believe you can prove me stupid if I ban you from my debate....after by creating the debate, I brought you here. It's not your fault if you are being obnoxious, it's my fault that you are obnoxious here because I created the space allowing you to come in. Then you parade around like a fool saying I'm stupid if I ban you, and you think I'm going to tolerate your foolishness forever? I'm trying to draw you in to see that the faith of God is logical, reasonable, and good and all you are doing is insulting me.
Banning you here is an illustration of what you are facing in death between you and God. Your rebellion against God, your sin, separates you from God. Your attitude against me separates you from me. If you push the limits of God's patience and refuse to believe He loves you so much that He died for you, paid your price with His won blood, and rose from the grave offering you pardon and victory over death, the way out of sins imprisonment ....you refuse to receive Him as your Savior, He will eventually run out of patience with you for trampling the blood of His Son under your feet, and you will be forever banned from life where there is no sign of His goodness, only the sign of wrath which He suffered for you in death, and that is the fire of Hell burning in God's wrath against sin for those like you who refuse His love and finalize their rejection of God in death.
Let's illustrate it like this: You antagonize me, and I have the power to ban you (if this were my debate). When you cross that line, I can decide to allow you more time to converse in my debate, or I can ban you. If I decide to ban you, it's over for you there and you can't come back, you are gone forever from the discussion.
We all have done things antagonistic toward God; we have all had evil imaginations which in God's sight are the same as doing the thing we imagine doing, we have all done wrong, we are all guilty and unworthy of remaining in a place where God allows antagonistic arguments, He can ban us forever from this world at any moment. He has that right because He owns everything, He created it all, He created us. If He bans you from life, the discussion goes on without you while you remember the antagonistic things you did as you burn in Hell, the flames burning against you like your passion and pride burned against God as you tried to make Him go away and leave you alone.
Sir, No offense but that is completely random. This debate is just talking about banning and responding. There is no need to take it to a spiritual level.
Everything is spiritual. Spiritual is your driving force. We are spirits who reside in bodies, amphibious sorts....the spirit is the fluid of our being, our bodies are the temple we reside in.
People who try to focus only on what is material still are being spiritual, and that is either in agreement with God or in opposition against Him. There is no "neutral" state.
Come on sir, This is a playful(somewhat) Debate. There is no need to mention God in it. Mentioning God in every debate(that have no reason to have God mentioned) will make people not take you seriously and not ant to debate with you.
It's a discussion about fairness, justice, execution of final decisions, and complaint or appreciation regarding that decision. It's very much similar to God's execution of Justice. If you don't like the allegory(?), you don't have to pay any attention to it. I will always try to do everything I can to point to the risen Savior who conquered death so that we can have eternal life. What else is there, but death? I have eternal life, and I can't stop talking about it because people like you need it and I know you can have it from God.
So why don't you admit you are a sinner and need God's mercy?
Why don't you believe He loves you?
Why don't you believe He can give you eternal life in Heaven with such joy, beauty, wonder, in the light of His love as He glorifies Himself in His goodness and you enjoy it all forever? Why not believe He died for your sins, rose from the dead offering forgiveness, and you can receive Him personally as your Savior and know you are forgiven and are passed from death into life eternal? Why not?
neither do I intend a mean tone in anything I say. When a criminal is not admitting guilt, not seeking mercy or pardon, telling them that they deserve justice sounds mean...but it is not, it is truthful. They need to seek mercy, they need to know they cannot escape justice. If I care about somebody, I'm going to tell them the truth. If I don't care, I'll keep quiet and let them go to Hell without trying to tell them they can be saved.
What a bunch of cry babies. You want to act like idiots, then cry when you get banned and can't respond in the debate you misbehaved in. If I get banned, I just shrug and move on.
If this were my debate, I would ban you now for insulting me, and I would say that my choice of banning you is similar to God running out of patience with sinners and ending their time in the place where it is possible for them to know His goodness and leaving them in Hell like eternal sausage frying in the burning dump forever.
And then after I banned you, I would probably make a similar comment to add under your post each time I saw your annoying and worthless remark making cheap graffiti where I had hoped to generate productive discussion. Whoever you are, I hope you know that your sins are forgiven and you are on your way to heaven without a doubt. If not, I can tell you how you can be sure.
I hope you found this response to be an adequate comeback to your worthless comment.
LOL, of course the idiots, those who spew profanity, those who deceive and lie to make themselves right want to change the ban rules. The same people who have no problem with copying other's arguments!
Do you have a clue how laughable your complaints are when you have no problem with copying others words?
No, you ban people who try to actually debate you. Anytime anyone disagrees with you, you accuse them of lying (without demonstrating how or providing any evidence) then ban them.
What a bunch of cry babies. You want to act like idiots, then cry when you get banned and can't respond in the debate you misbehaved in. If I get banned, I just shrug and move on.
Is Crock your butt buddy? Is he your woman, or are you his? Do you have an inner-opposite gender inside you trying to get out to be friends with my children?
I'm torn. On the one hand, I do like the idea of restricting how FromWithins banhammer gets swung about, but on the other hand I love seeing them make a new debate, ban everyone on it, then make another new debate because they got lonely. It's kind of like watching a kid throw a tantrum over some trivial nonsense, then throwing another tantrum when nobody pays them any attention.
FromWithin: Passionately wrong about things, lies in most posts, will never change their mind.
SaintNow: Zealot extremist who uses a flimsy understanding of religion to justify hate-speech. Possibly deranged, considering the quantity and quality of the spam they post. Likely has no mind to change.
LibProLifer: Still partly convinced she's just a very, very long term troll
Outlaw60: Doesn't actually speak English so has no idea what we're talking about, but is very good at copy/pasting comments. Seems to think that if he gets enough CreateDebate points maybe his mother will talk to him again (she won't, Outlaw60).