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 have a right to tell anybody anything. And likewise they have the right to tell you you're wrong. And that's what the rest of us keep doing to the preachers on this site. We tell you we don't agree with you and give you excellent reasons why and you keep either banning us or just telling us we're going to hell.
Say what you want. I'm all for free expression. Heck, you're never going to see me ban anyone on this site at any time. But as you say what you want you need to know I'm not going to hesitate to say something back.
I may disagree with you on many of your stances. However, I do agree with you here. Banning people from a debate for speaking their mind is, to me, one of the worst evils you can do without breaking the law. People that ban certain parts of speech prevent ideas from freely flowing, and in turn, hold up process towards a compromise or a solution.
Well, if some person who calls himself a Christians kills millions of Jews, you better believe true Christians will call him a false Christian. It is not Christian against Christian, it is Christian against evil.
If the KKK or white supremace groups or some wacko false church supports hating and killing Black people, etc. then of course Christians will tell the world what fake evil people they truly are. It's called defending your faith and the true meaning of being a Christian. I realise the Left wants to tear down Christianity and use these false Christians to try and do damgae to the Christian faith and is why Christians speak out.
Just the same way the Democrat party disavows their connection to KKK Democrats.
There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. on both sides of the political spectrum. However, the way that the left uses the topic of religion in political debates where data and statistics should take the place of feelings. The best example of this is gun control. Following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, liberal activists and politicians everywhere used the moral argument in order to diminish and otherwise silence opposition. There argument in a nutshell was that if we do not stand with us on banning "assault weapons" or "high-capacity magazines", it's not that you want to try to find another way of saving lives that doesn't wreak the rights of 300 million America to prevent things like Sandy Hook, it's just simply that your a bad person. The argument of "You don't care about what happened in Sandy Hook" is actually quite a jackass-type of tactic. The left is the only side that is famous for using these arguments. If you don't believe me just search "Gun Violence-The faith response" and you will see exactly what I'm talking about. They basically say that you are a morally deficient human being if you don't side with them.
Search: "Gun violence-the faith response" on Goggle
I agree that the left does that a lot with gun control, and as a member of the left I strongly oppose that. But the right has used morality and religion far more than the left. From abortion, to the "moral majority", to same-sex marriage and adoption, to climate change, etc. The Republican Party far more strongly identifies with Christianity and employs religious arguments far more often than the Left.
Thr argument coming from the Religious Right (not referring to the entire right, just the portion of it whose primary voting trends align with their religious odentity) is that since god created Earth, something as small as humanity couldn't possibly damage it, particlary since that would mean we would be changing the day of judgement (or rendering it irrelevent), which of course would have to be impossible according to God's will as layed out in the bible.
I'm an Agnostic but I still think Global Warming is full of crap.
1. Global Temperatures have been essentially flat-lined since 1997.
2. There is no scientific evidence that indicates that climate change is caused by man.
3. Arctic Ice is up by 50% since 2012
4. Predictions about Global Warming have already been wrong. (Al Gore, the politician that popularized the concept of Global Warming stated that all of the Arctic Ice would be gone by 2013. Not only is it not gone, but it's expending).
2. There is no scientific evidence that indicates that climate change is caused by man.
That is factually untrue. You may not believe there is sufficient evidence, but there is a substantial amount of evidence. I recommend reading all three links.
3. Arctic Ice is up by 50% since 2012
Why would changes in arctic ice over a four year period serve as evidence against a trend that spans centuries? Particularly considering it is up from a record low? It seems strange to watch the ice melt year after year after year, then as soon as it recovers a bit, declare the warming void.
4. Predictions about Global Warming have already been wrong. (Al Gore, the politician that popularized the concept of Global Warming stated that all of the Arctic Ice would be gone by 2013. Not only is it not gone, but it's expending).
Why does it matter if Al Gore, who isn't a scientist, got it wrong? Why does it matter if any past predictions have been wrong? The entire point of science is to readily admit and acknowledge when one is wrong and move on from there. The fact that science has been wrong in the past does not in any way undermine the ways in which it is correct now. In fact, the acknowledgement of said past mistakes further legitimizes current scientific claims.
No religious argument here. Only science.
I agree that you didn't use religious arguments, but you didn't really use science either. You used cherry picked statistics about very short term trends when discussing a long-term topic.
On the topic of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage to me is a moral conflict, but not because I'm against homosexuals. I think that the government should stay out of the business of marriage all-together. When the government says that same-sex marriage is now declared constitutional, it is then impossible for businesses and churches to deny services to same-sex couples, even if they violate their own religious beliefs. (Which is a violation of the First Amendment). In America, you should have the choice of which things you want to participate in. Instead, the government allows individuals to participate in religion, just the way the government wants them too.
Firsr, every church remains able to deny them service. That never changed. As for busniesses, that has to do with state anti-discrimination laws, not the legality of same sex marriage.
Second, we don't have total freedom over what we want to participate in. We never have, since the beginning of this country. I don't want to participate in torture or aggressive wars, yet I am forced to via our taxation system. Muslims have to subsidize pork via taxes as well. Christians have to subsidize birth control. It's all just a part of the social contract.
Firstly, some of your taxes pay for the military, because if we are ever invaded by a foreign state, we are ready to defend ourselves. Either way, most of your taxes anyway par for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Until I see you over in Syria with a rifle in your hands fighting with ISIS, your not participating in any sort of war.
Secondly, Muslims don't subsidize pork via taxes. The government subsidizes farmers in order to keep the price floor there in the marketplace so food prices don't change uncontrollably. (For those who don't know crap about economics, a price floor is a government limit on how long a certain price can go. The minimum wage and farmer subsidies are the two best examples of this).
Thirdly, Christians do have to pay for other people's birth control and it's absolutely sick. Say someone was really horned up and they wanted to go at it 5 times a week. Condoms on average cost approximately 18 cents each. That 90 cents a week. Nobody's gonna go broke on 90 cents a week. Another thing, every leftist throws around the terms "social contract" and "social justice", yet none of them can clearly define what it is. That term is once again thrown around by the left, as I've mentioned before, in order to make anyone that doesn't agree with them look like a bad person.
Firstly, some of your taxes pay for the military, because if we are ever invaded by a foreign state, we are ready to defend ourselves.
The closest we have come to that was WW2. Even then, I have no issues with paying for defensive operations. That's simply not what our money is going towards, however. It is going towards torture, or half a million innocent casualties in Iraq, etc.
Either way, most of your taxes anyway par for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Until I see you over in Syria with a rifle in your hands fighting with ISIS, your not participating in any sort of war.
You are conflating direct and indirect participation. If my money is going to fund something, I am participating in it in a very real way.
Secondly, Muslims don't subsidize pork via taxes. The government subsidizes farmers in order to keep the price floor there in the marketplace so food prices don't change uncontrollably.
I am fully aware of why we subsidize pork, but that doesn't change the fact that people who have religious issues with the consumption of this animal have their tax dollars go towards its subsidization, in violation of their religion.
Thirdly, Christians do have to pay for other people's birth control and it's absolutely sick. Say someone was really horned up and they wanted to go at it 5 times a week. Condoms on average cost approximately 18 cents each. That 90 cents a week. Nobody's gonna go broke on 90 cents a week.
You seem to be assuming that those who are getting subsidized birth control are people who readily have access to and knowledge of birth control. They don't.
On top of that, subsidizing birth control saves our country money due to the decrease in unwanted pregnancies, which would lead to an increase in both crime (depending on the socioeconomic status of the family) and social welfare spending (again, depending on the socioeconomic status of the family). Subsidization of birth control is the fiscally smart move.
Another thing, every leftist throws around the terms "social contract" and "social justice", yet none of them can clearly define what it is. That term is once again thrown around by the left, as I've mentioned before, in order to make anyone that doesn't agree with them look like a bad person.
I'm going to give you this warning once, because I have zero tolerance for this. You are talking to an individual, not "the left". Do not tell me what you think "the left" does or doesn't do in general terms, or I shall leave. There is no room for debate against a perceived notion of "the other" in generalized terms.
The Social Contract is a term coined by the likes of Hobbes and Locke, and refers to the agreement we as members of a given society make to sacrifice some freedoms in order to be free of the state of nature. For example, we agree that we no longer have the right to go up to someone and punch them, because they have the right to not be punched. This sort of agreement violates the state of nature, but is generally accepted by most people. The very same principle that goes into this most basic example of the Social Contract extends to every level of our society.
And I never mentioned social justice in an way, nor did I use a reference to the social contract to make anyone look bad. I simply am a student of Political Science with a particular affinity for political philosophy and ideology, and thus will obviously refer to it when it is relevant.
As I said, please refrain from any further references to "the Left" as a whole when discussing what I say. I am not "the Left". Hell, I'm not eve a Democratic.
Casualties in Iraq were around 120,000. 27,000 of which were American and Iraqi Forces. 37,000 of which were Insurgent Forces. The rest were civilians, of which, 85-90% of which were committed by Insurgent Forces. Civilian deaths have actually increased since we pulled out of Iraq in 2011, because ISIS has came in and started beheading and shooting anyone they didn't like.
The thing is, when you go into a country and start a war to overthrow a government, particularly on false grounds, then you share responsibility for the situation that unfolds.
Sadam was bad, yes, but he did not kill nearly many people as the casualty rate from the situation our actions created.
Edit: also, that only addressed a small fraction of my post.
I would agree most people on the Left are probably the false Christians that bigots speak to when describing atorcities perpetrated by Christians. I forget how many millions of unborn Babies(including no limit late term abortions) have been killed with the support of the Left. God says he knows us in the womb so HOW ON EARTH could a Christian support abortions?
The Left supports even NO LIMIT abortions when they vote for pro abortion politicians. ENOUGH SAID!
Pulling someone aside only makes you look weak and courage-less. If you have a problem with something that someone is saying, you need to speak up and say exactly what you need to say. If you don't, especially if there is an audience present is 1) You'll regret it later and 2) If what the other person(s) is(are) saying is harmful and/or incorrect, then you are doing the audience a disservice by filling them full with incorrect and naive data, statistics and emotions.
As a Christian, Jesus told us in the Bible that if one of our brothers or sisters sin's we are to point it out to them in person between the both of us.
"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over." Matthew 8:15
This is barely even an argument. Under the First Amendment, your able to say whatever you wish (so long as it does not threaten another individual's rights). I guess with religion, the main dilemma is that when do you call someone out on, well, not truly being Christian in this instance. Are you arguing it from a morality aspect or whether or not they hold the same texts and rituals sacred? In the KKK example, they hold the same texts and rituals sacred, however they do not accept the same moral philosophy as mainstream Christians. In a personal example, (I use this all the time), I hold many of the Christian morals and values as my own. However, I do not consider myself a Christian because I don't actively go to mass and participate in many Christian traditions. (Easter and Christmas are the exceptions).
