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.
But there is now breaking news that crews are being sent to Mount Rushmore National Memorial to get to work with jackhammers to destroy the memorial. Capitalism is at work as we can see now.
But there is now breaking news that crews are being sent to Mount Rushmore National Memorial to get to work with jackhammers to destroy the memorial. Capitalism is at work as we can see now.
Please read Outlaw's latest blog, "Edgy", where he explains how the heavy periodic elements were created by capitalism.
Crews that are going to tear down Mount Rushmore are proof that Capitalism works. Somebody has to do the work so the Leftist won't complain at least for a few minutes anyway.
As Capitalism works tearing down what is offensive to the Leftist what monuments are next on their list ? Leftist don't want to do the work so Capitalism has to remove the offensive monuments.
Crews began removing Baltimore's Confederate statues early Wednesday, days after the deadly unrest in Charlottesville instigated by white nationalists rallying to defend a downtown Confederate monument.
Baltimore Mayor Catherine E. Pugh, a Democrat, on Monday announced plans to remove four Confederate statues in the city's public spaces, which were approved by the city council that night.
Photos and video posted on social media shows crews using cranes to remove statues of Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, hauled away on a flatbed truck. Statues honoring Confederate women and Roger B. Taney, the former chief justice who authored the notorious proslavery Dred Scott decision, were also removed.
First, what is or isn't controversial is subjective and changes over time if public opinion or historical understanding changes. Had the South won the Civil War and the North erected monuments to Grant or others then there could just as easily now be slave holders who find it utterly offensive the North would have statues to a man who wanted to take away the liberty to own slaves. Twisted, I know. But the point is controversy is subjective. The North (or advocates for freedom with no slavery) would be furious and protest if Grant was being taken down, just like some Southerners and historians and white supremacists are about Lee being taken down.
Second, consider the word "should". I didn't ask "can". Can they be taken down? Well, yes, of course. They can because whomever holds the reigns of government has the power to do what they want, presumably because people elected them to do just that. It's fully within the right of a city council or a State or of the US government to decide the fate of monuments under their jurisdiction. They can. Should they? Well I'll refer you back to my first paragraph. And I'll elaborate further below.
Also consider:
1) Removing a monument is a whitewashing of history. Hey, the event or the thing the monument was created for either DID happen, or enough people believed it did to be worth making a monument back then. We shouldn't be in the business of rewriting or hiding history.
2) Monuments which infuriate people create teachable moments. Hey, if you don't like what it stands for then teach the kids about why it is bad. But don't teach them to destroy or hide or ignore why it happened.
3) New generations with different opinions have their own rights to add. Add a plaque near it with the contemporary view. Or add another monument next to it which is bigger or better to reflect your modern beliefs.
4) You can legitimately move it to a different public location. You could put it in a museum. You could designate one particular park to where you banish the past monuments and you can even name that park "The Dustbin of History Park" if you want. But don't just destroy or take away forever. Hey, when the Taliban used cannons to destroy giant rock carvings from another ancient religion the world was aghast at the destruction of history. Well, this is essentially the same thing, just on a smaller scale.
5) It's a free country. If you don't like the history of where you live or its monuments you can move somewhere else. Or you can also run for office, get elected, and ralley support to do any of 2 through 4 I listed above.
I agree, and I wish you could see your hypocrisy when people on the Left want to censor symbols of our Christian heritage.
The Left censors a community's freedom to choose to leave up nativity scenes on public land. The Left screams TAKE THEM DOWN, we don't want to see any religious expression of our nation's heritage on public land.
The Left does not like seeing those Plaques of the Ten Commandments on our court room walls. TAKE THEM DOWN!
The Left does not like the Pledge of Allegience because it mentions God. CENSOR IT!
The Left does not like "In God We Trust" on our money. TAKE IT OFF!
It's funny how the supposed tolerant Left is the most intolerant of any group of Americans. They censor Conservative speakers from Colleges.
It's funny how when it comes to hate art from Liberal Professors, the Left says leave up those paintings of President Trumps severed head on those walls of our public Colleges.
Free expression is always conditional when it comes to the Left.
Point well taken. I will support treating pre-existing monuments to religion in the same way as the points in my post above. Keep in mind that could also mean moving them to another location or posting new monuments or views next to them. And that also means completely new religious monuments still have no support from me due to separate of church and state.
Yes, if a monument to the 10 commandments has been standing for a century I'm not going to ask to expunge it from local history.
The debate about the art in Alaska of Trump's severed head has already been discussed at great lengths and is not the same as a monument to the 10 commandments.
You can't just white wash censorship by calling it "speration of church and state"..... nowhere in the Constitution. Just because a few justices decided it was ok to censor freedom of religious expression on public land does not make it ok.
Would you be ok if the activist Justices all of a sudden decided free speech on pubic land was no longer allowed, or would you fight it? You have excepted censorship of religious expression on public land under the lie of Separation. You did this because you as most people on the Left do not like Christian expression in this nation.
The issue is using taxpayer funding, which comes from not only Christians but atheists and Hindus and Muslims, etc, to put up displays which the vast majority of the time are only about Christianity. I don't need a Supreme Court verdict or wording in the Constitution to help me conclude that is a violation of the religious beliefs (or non-religious beliefs) of all the non-Christians. And yet, the Supreme Court did indeed rule on that anyway.
You've got nothing with this argument. In fact, if the city hall in a predominately atheist town put up anti-religion displays, or if one with most Muslims put up Islamic displays, you'd be flipping furious and claiming they were violating Constitutional rights and doing un-American things. The only defensible position in a society with freedom of religion is that no one's tax dollars have to go to benefit predominately just one religion against their will.
It's amazing how your bigotry has clouded your mind.
Free speech and free religious expression has NOTHING to do with if someone is offended, or if someone thinks their rights are not being included!
That's the entire purpose of freedom of speech and religion. It is the freedom to say or express thngs that might offend others. It does not mean everyone gets equal expression. It alll depends on the voters in a community.
You are fine with offending millions of Prolife people by forcing them to pay for state funded medicaid abortions. Do you see how the Left's concern over offending others is conditional?
The reason the vast majority of religious symbols in our nation is Christian, is because the vast majority of Americans are Christian. Our nation was founded by a vast majority of people with a Christian heritage.
It's ludicrous to censor the vast majority of a nation's faith so as not to offend those of other religions. That would be like telling Israel they can no longer display religious symbols because some Christians also live in Israel. Christians are not offended my a nation's majority reigion and are not as arrogant as Atheists to try and censor those symbols.
If I were traveiling through a majority Muslim community, and the voters in that community chose to display some symbol reflecting their beliefs, that would be their right to do so. It's called freedom! They pay the taxes in those communities.
We are not talking about a federal Government forcing communities to display Christain symbols. If a community does not want to do so it is their right to decide.
It's funny how you have no problem with historical symbols being displayed without giving everyone else equal displays. It's ludicrous to go down the road of equal access to all because that leads to equal access for NONE as we are seeing.
You're so full of crap. Whether free speech offends or oppresses someone is absolutely relevant because a) it impacts other Constitutional rights, it doesn't stand alone as the only right, and b) courts have consistently from the beginning of the country ruled that the impact of what you say can result in damages, from treason to libel and slander to causing deaths from trampling after yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Funding of abortion does not violate the Constitutional rights of prolifers because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. If they change their mind and rule the other way someday then that changes. It hasn't.
And communities deciding whether or not to display religious items on public land already exists absolutely everywhere. The places where they are being taken down don't occur because of some federal law or edict, they occur because the local or state governments with jurisdiction, which have all be elected by their current constituents, decide to do it.
Funding for abortions was never addressed in the Supreme court ruling. You are a foo to suggest such garbage.
For Decades pro choicers told us all they would never force tax payers to pay for abortions.
As always, the words from the left is worthless hretoric. Liars as always.
Why is it that the Federal Government made it the law not to force federal tax payers to fund abortions? If what you say about the supreme court is true, they would have had no choice to make such a law.
You are wasting my time as per usual. Deception as always.
When people go to a museum, it is a purposeful "educational" experience. It is a more contrived experience. People can easily avoid ideas/monuments/realities of history that they disagree with or find distasteful.
The advantage of having monuments in parks and public buildings, as well as naming streets, etc. is the likelihood of incidental exposure. It demonstrates in a metaphoric way how the particular history is part of the environment. It also forces exposure and consideration in the context of the normal life going on around it. It is harder to avoid.
One of our problems as a nation is that we rarely account for the changes of history, nor for the fact that our values are not, nor have ever been universal values and beliefs.
No historical figure was perfect in his or her own time, and they all appear much less so in ours, especially because our values have changed. It is instructive to come across that truth unlooked for in the course of life.
You eady to ake that Robert Byrd statue down con? No? I didn't think so. That's the leader of your leftist cult. He designed your politics and strategies.
He was a white supremacist who the Democrats kept electing from about 1953 to 2010. Concerning Robert E. Lee, we have no idea how he felt about blacks, only that he was a general in the Civil War. We know how Robert Byrd felt about blacks. He had to be bleeped in interviews even in his last years for using the "N" word.
Nope. You just used several words that weren't the word logical. Examlple? You used the words "everything", "I", "say", "to", "you", "is". None of those words are the word "logical". So, you are incorrect. Shame on you for being incorrect.
No, the shame is that you are more concerned with points than you are with debating.
I've yet to see you put forward an argument in the month or so I've been here. Your posts are invariably short, vague snipes and/or personal attacks. You've even less reason to be here than he does.
You are fucking retarded. You are too busy believing mass murderers are telling the truth and pretending to do research that you wouldn't know an argument if it bit you on the fucking ass.
Your posts are invariably short, vague snipes and/or personal attacks.
You are too fucking stupid to recognize Osama bin Laden is a lying sack of shit. You deserve every personal attack that you get.
You've even less reason to be here than he does.
With fucking retards like you here the only thing worth doing on this site is trolling. When hypocritical idiots like you don't want to debate it doesn't mean the people who are here to debate have no reason to be here.
You are too busy believing mass murderers are telling the truth
The burden of proof is on you to show me some evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The burden of proof is also on you to show me some evidence that George W Bush is not a mass murderer.
A Dutch TV jury has found Osama bin Laden not guilty of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Your one line attacks are awesome and everything, but either prove bin Laden was involved like you were asked or shut the fuck up and get back to jerking yourself off in your basement.
In an interview after 9/11 bin Laden made 4 statements. 3 of those statements were definitely false. You never admitted that those statements were false. After 10 years of research you couldn't figure out that those statements were false. There is no amount of evidence I could give you to prove that 4th statement was false.
In an interview after 9/11 bin Laden made 4 statements. 3 of those statements were definitely false.
Cool. In an interview after a local football game, you made 4 statements. 3 of those statements prove that you are definitely sexually attracted to young boys.
Your personal anecdotes are worth nothing. You sad little man.
You clearly don't have any evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. All you have is evidence that you are an angry pre-pubescent teenager.
Your entire rhetoric on this website has been that people don't listen to evidence. There is no context that can make your Dahmer joke make sense because of that.
Your entire rhetoric on this website has been that people don't listen to evidence. There is no context that can make your Dahmer joke make sense because of that
Firstly, don't tell me what my rhetoric is about because you aren't qualified to do so. Secondly, you have been given several opportunities to provide evidence that my joke didn't make sense and have predictably provided nothing. Hence, you are a liar and a pointless narcissistic retard with nothing intelligent to say. You don't belong on a debating site because the only thing you know how to do is make personal attacks. I have yet to see you even make an argument in the entire month and a half I have been posting here.
Firstly, don't tell me what my rhetoric is about because you aren't qualified to do so.
Well, some you called yourself a liar I guess I will agree that you are lying here.
Secondly, you have been given several opportunities to provide evidence that my joke didn't make sense and have predictably provided nothing
I just did you fucking idiot. You dumb mother fucker. I just explained to you why it didn't make sense.
Hence, you are a liar and a pointless narcissistic retard with nothing intelligent to say.
You just said a completely false statement then called me a liar because of it. It doesn't get lead intelligent than that.
You don't belong on a debating site because the only thing you know how to do is make personal attacks.
Do you really not see how fucking dumb you are for preceding this statement with personal attacks? Look at you. You lie, then you call me a liar, then you attack me for using personal attacks. It's fucking ridiculous.
have yet to see you even make an argument in the entire month and a half I have been posting here.
You keep saying that and I already proved you wrong. You keep ignoring my arguments. That doesn't mean I am doing anything wrong.
So, I say you misunderstand me, and you continue with the same line of thinking. Go back and read what I wrote. It does not say having lots of points is a bad thing ... still.
Don't quote me. Read the quote. I know what I said. You need to read it. If you were accumulating points by making good arguments I wouldn't care how many points you had.
I know how he felt about blacks, you have no idea.
Sure I do. I've watched videos of his interviews where he tells how he feels about blacks. He flings the "n" word around like a toddler flings boogers. Look it up.
It's not about evil people or all historical monuments.. It's about monuments that celebrate TRAITORS. But, I don't think they should be torn down. I think they should be MOVED to a Civil War museum.
Traitors? Seceding, for whatever reason, wasn't treachery. There is no evil in the desire to self-govern. One may question their motives (I detest slavery) but one should also sympathize that the south's economy was heavily reliant on slaves. In addition, all Americans were traitors to the British crown under your definition. It appears then that it only matters if they are "traitors" to a particular empire or in a certain situation.
The late Antonin Scalia says secession IS illegal. He argued that a the question was not in the realm of legal possibility because 1) the United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War,” and 3) there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”
It still stands to reason that simply wishing to self-govern isn't traitorous nor is it evil. Of course the federal government would like to keep itself whole and therefore will act in a manner that facilitates this. As aforementioned, the American founding fathers did exactly the same thing in declaring independence from Britain. This demonstrates that secession can be the correct thing to do and in itself isn't morally bad or good.
the “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War,”
So, is Scalia's (and yours) argument that the US Constitution says that generals, not US Supreme Court justices, have the job of determining interpretation and application of the Constitution?
That does not sound like your typical reasoning, nor does it sound like Scalia's typical reasoning.
there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”
The Pledge of Allegiance to the US Flag is not part of our Constitution anymore than is Emma Lazarus' poem. Unless there has been a US Supreme Court decision that determined/acknowledged that the Pledge of Allegiance has legal authority and, moreover, that specifically decided the term indivisible is indicative of a Constitutional principle, I do not see how this is relevant.
It's not about evil people or all historical monuments.. It's about monuments that celebrate TRAITORS
Lee was a Democrat for starters.Secondly, the left has chosen to ignore his apologies and self reflection post war. They have also chosen to ignore that the statue also keeps people mindful of not repeating the mistakes of the past.
Yes ,leave them on display . The world seems to be breeding deeply sensitive individuals who look for and find offence everywhere ; I would leave them up just to annoy these deeply sensitive morons
It looks like he thinks you are me. I really am crippled and he uses the term towards me often because he hates veterans of the U.S. military. He also wears pink panties, but that's neither here nor there.
" Running a train on me " 🤔 Oh 😳 that's that American tough guy talk where you as a white man start taking like a black gangsta and fellow Americans think you're ' tough ' ?
Hmmm , that's not great is it ? You really need to work on the ' tough guy ' talk ..... 🤔 Hey .. got it .... try saying ' bitch ' every now and then isn't that what the jailbird gangsta say ..... supposedly it's more ..... impressive 🤗🤗😢
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't choice.
Leave them and those who are sufficiently opposed to their presence will be liable to disfigure them with obscene slogans along with ''protest demonstrations which could turn violent''.
Remove them and those who support them remaining will stage ''protest demonstrations which could turn violent''.
Such statues representing people or events of the past should remain firmly in the pages of dusty history books.
Henry Ford was correct when he said,'' THE ONLY HISTORY WORTH A TINKER'S DAMN IS THE HISTORY YOU'RE MAKING TODAY''.
The disruptive agitators who rake up the ashes of history should be recognised for the trouble making anarchists they are.
If we tear down Robert E. Lee's statue you may as well start tearing down the rest of American history to fit in with the loony left's narrative.
George Washington was a slave owner.
Best to tear down everything to do with him and rename the Capital of the United States?
Abraham Lincoln was willing to let slave states keep their slaves provided they stayed within the Union.
So, the same treatment for Ab., as George Washington?
The main issue in the civil was was the preservation of the Union with the slave issue sidelined to number 2 on the priority list.
Are the looney left brigade going to seriously argue that the average confederate solider was any more or less racist that his northern counterparts?
Airbrushing, or erasing, history because it doesn't fit with looney left's narrative is starting down a very dangerous road on which only blind fools would not fear to tread.
Andrew Jackson is on the $20 bill and has statues across the country. He also round up the Native Americans at gunpoint and forced them to march thousands of miles. Tens of thousands of Natives died, namely the elderly and children. I don't see the left rushing to scrub Jackson from the 20 or take down his monuments...
There really is no winning on this. I can see both sides. Ultimately I fall on, we don't rely on the statues for history so getting rid of them isn't the same as getting rid of any controversial figure in history books. I know people are saying "well then we have to get rid of George Washington.....blah blah" but....and I'm not excusing it....Washington was a man and product of his time. He didn't fight to keep slavery like the men portrayed by the statues in question did. Men who fought against freedom for others shouldn't be immortalized in anything other than history books. BUT again....I see both sides and there is just no winning this.