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.
Yeah, but that's only when the water is highly flouridated. Just about anything in excess is bad for you. When you read online that studies have confirmed that high levels of flouride in drinking water lowers your IQ, they're usually referring to a study that was performed in China and India, in which the amount of flouride in the drinking water was 20 times the regular amount.
Yeah, but that's only when the water is highly flouridated
Yes but it is distinctly said that highly fluoridated water causes a large decrease in IQ. It doesn't say that only highly fluoridated water makes you dumb.
It doesn't matter how fluoridated it is, if you drink tons of it and have a bad diet and a lot of people have a bad diet.
Just about anything in excess is bad for you.
How much is "excess"? Is an excess amount of pudding the same excess amount of burritos?
When you read online that studies have confirmed that high levels of fluoride in drinking water lowers your IQ, they're usually referring to a study that was performed in China and India, in which the amount of fluoride in the drinking water was 20 times the regular amount.
It doesn't matter, because the US does in fact, induce high levels of fluoride in its water supply.
Yes but it is distinctly said that highly fluoridated water causes a large decrease in IQ. It doesn't say that only highly fluoridated water makes you dumb.
It was only with highly fluoridated water that researchers were able to see a difference.
It doesn't matter how fluoridated it is, if you drink tons of it and have a bad diet and a lot of people have a bad diet.
At a certain amount, it becomes toxic. Similar to an overdose. If you consume twenty Sudafed at the same time, you're going to have a worse outcome than if you were to consume the recommended two Sudafed. If you take two Sudafed daily, you won't eventually reach the equivalent of taking twenty Sudafed at the same time.
This is what is happening with highly fluoridated water in China and India. They are consuming water twenty times more fluoridated than the regular amount. This amount is toxic to children. It would take an even larger amount to become toxic to adults. Kind of like if you were to look on the back of a Sudafed box, it would say something like the recommended dosage for adults is two pills, one pill for children ages six to twelve and any age below that it would likely suggest that you contact your doctor first.
How much is "excess"? Is an excess amount of pudding the same excess amount of burritos?
Well, the response that I just made should give you a pretty good idea of excess, but excess does vary between things. An excessive amount of Sudafed is not the same as an excessive amount of Mucinex.
It doesn't matter, because the US does in fact, induce high levels of fluoride in its water supply.
Is it higher than the amount that is considered toxic to children in China and India?
It was only with highly fluoridated water that researchers were able to see a difference.
At a certain amount, it becomes toxic.
Fluoride is toxic to the human body already, regardless of the amount.
This amount is toxic to children.
This high level of fluoridation within the water supply has been around for a long time now, so a lot of those children have become adults. I believe that the bad genetics, which is the result of fluoride's ability to cause calcifications within the adult's body, would then be passed on to their children and the cycle continues.
Besides, why else would they be putting it into the water and it is completely toxic for humans to begin with?
Is it higher than the amount that is considered toxic to children in China and India?
Fluoride is toxic to the human body already, regardless of the amount.
Prove to me that fluoride is toxic in low amounts.
This high level of fluoridation within the water supply has been around for a long time now, so a lot of those children have become adults.
What amount do you consider to be a high level?
Besides, why else would they be putting it into the water and it is completely toxic for humans to begin with?
I can kind of agree with you there. I don't think it's too necessary. Would you drink natural water though? Fluoride naturally appears in water, without doing anything to it. It's obviously a much smaller amount, but by your logic... that doesn't matter, right? It's even recommended that we consume at least 1.5 mg to 4 mg of fluoride per day. Our drinking water contains around 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm.
What I have failed to explain here, is what fluoride does to the brain, specifically, the pineal gland. It does not matter the dosage of fluoride in your system, all it takes is for small quantities of fluoride to be assimilated and then as more fluoride enters the body, it rolls up onto the other fluoride, which causes the pineal gland to become more calcified. The pineal gland loses some of its functioning as it becomes more calcified, because some areas around it become blocked.
It does not matter the dosage of fluoride in your system, all it takes is for small quantities of fluoride to be assimilated and then as more fluoride enters the body, it rolls up onto the other fluoride, which causes the pineal gland to become more calcified. The pineal gland loses some of its functioning as it becomes more calcified, because some areas around it become blocked.
But scientists don't fully understand the effects yet. A lower IQ certainly isn't something they've discovered from a fluoride build up in the pineal gland.
But scientists don't fully understand the effects yet. A lower IQ certainly isn't something they've discovered from a fluoride build up in the pineal gland.
The pineal gland secretes melanin and other chemicals that are essential to several processes in the brain, so a lower IQ would definitely be the product of a calcified pineal. I don't need some peeps in lab coats to tell me that.
The pineal gland secretes melanin and other chemicals that are essential to several processes in the brain, so a lower IQ would definitely be the product of a calcified pineal. I don't need some peeps in lab coats to tell me that.
Obviously you do. The pineal gland doesn't secrete melanin, which is pigment, it secretes melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone that helps regulate sleep. Have you ever heard of Melatonin supplements?
Obviously you do. The pineal gland doesn't secrete melanin, which is pigment, it secretes melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone that helps regulate sleep. Have you ever heard of Melatonin supplements?
Don't be so stupid. That was obviously a typo. Melatonin isn't a appearing as a word in google chrome. It had the red squiggly under it and melanin is the auto-correct option.
The pineal gland secretes melatonin and other chemicals that are essential to several processes in the brain, so a lower IQ would definitely be the product of a calcified pineal.
But it's basically a theory right now. The studies even say that they don't yet know whether or not fluoride accumulation effects pineal gland function.
Humans have been consuming fluoride for so long now, you'd think there would be at least one subject with excessive fluoride build up in the pineal gland.
Well the logic is there. Idk what else to say.Your thingie hardens and it's tougher outer layer makes it hard for the juices to get through to the brain and do their job.
Well, you don't have to... but I think I have a better grasp on what fluoride actually is than him. I might already have a response to what you were going to say.
How come the people in the government aren't worried about getting a root canal from a dumbed down dentist? If the idea is to dumb down the population, why are they concerned with the huge numbers of people that they rely on to be sharp?
I guess I don't get the point then. If you can't get everyone, then how can you be sure who you got and who you didn't? Maybe the dentist is stupid or maybe he isn't?
Why do they need to be sure of who they get and didn't get?
Because they rely on various individuals who need to be sharp. They would want to avoid dulling the wits of professionals that they personally deal with.
I've seen plenty of studies that say otherwise and science disagrees too, but there is obviously going to be clashing evidance here. They are trying to cover it up!
Says simple logic. It's a known fact that fluoride causes calcification on the pineal gland and it should be simple to understand how that would affect the pineal gland's processes.
By the way, our tap water contains between 0.7 and 1.2 mg of fluoride. Potatoes contain between 0.3 and 13 mg. Rice contains 14 mg, peas contain 14 mg and corn contains 2.10 mg... just to give you an idea.
I said that it isn't naturally in those foods and did not say that the fluoride isn't natural. I thought you were asserting, that because it's natural part of the those foods (it's not), then it must be safe. Fluoride is a key component in pesticides.
Did you know in a international survey, nation that place fluoride in their water supply do not show a clear difference to the nations that do not.
Also, assuming fluoride is meant to be a medical treatment, it violates two basic rule for administration, proper dosage and patient consent.
And even in the United States there are study that show local water supply contained higher than the legal amount of fluoride present.
Now why is it reasonably to put fluoride in our water where is is disproportionately consumed, has a high potential for negative side effects and no proven health benefit.
Did you know in a international survey, nation that place fluoride in their water supply do not show a clear difference to the nations that do not.
Then I guess we have nothing to worry about, right?
Also, assuming fluoride is meant to be a medical treatment, it violates two basic rule for administration, proper dosage and patient consent.
Patient consent would be choosing to consume either filtered or non-filtered tap water.
And even in the United States there are study that show local water supply contained higher than the legal amount of fluoride present.
Can you give me a link?
Now why is it reasonably to put fluoride in our water where is is disproportionately consumed, has a high potential for negative side effects and no proven health benefit.
In all fairness, Fluoride Alert has a clear bias on the issue. For every quote they have from some supposed expert, I can find five others that say differently.
Filters do not remove flouride from their water supply.
here is a story of over flourification
And here is a quote from that story...
"The water treatment plant experienced a malfunction in the flouride distribution system on Tuesday morning. City leaders say it resulted in an over-release of the chemical between 10-11:30am"
A malfunction which they warned residents about. If you consume too much, then of course you'll get sick. You can get sick if you consume too much of anything.
and in addition to that, the amount of fluoride in non-water based sources, such as tea leaves and grape juice
I believe in only one conspiracy theory: That the current negative connotation with the term 'conspiracy theory' is intentional, and serves as a smoke screen to hide actual conspiracies. It accomplishes this in two ways; firstly, it discourages people from theorizing in the first place or lending any credence to existing theories. Secondly, it downplays all conspiracy theories in general by comparing them to caricatures of other theories. How often is a conspiracy theory compared to actual conspiracies?
Aside from that, I can't personally lend any credence to any other theories that I'm aware of and have had opportunity to look into. But conspiracies have happened throughout history, and continue to happen to this day; I would be quite startled if it were to be conclusively proven that all current conspiracy theories are rubbish.
Is that negative connotation a conspiracy though, or an uncontrived occurrence? I request any evidence you may have indicating that this is a manifestation of an organized, intentional, concentrated effort.
I don't have evidence for it at all. The debate was about whether we believed any. This is just something I strongly suspect but I can't prove it by any means.
Who cares what that old goat did? The only claim she has to fame is the fact that she is descended from a long line of tyrants and a line of tyrants that has been proved legitimate.
I did to. Snowden actually wasn't the first whistleblower. People just paid more attention to him for some reason. I guess he may have released more information, but the whole NSA is spying on us thing wasn't new.
I was in Italy recently and Putin was there visiting the Pope. There were a ton of protests going on. He had a helicopter that would fly over the city each day planning his route and I'm not positive, but I think it would follow his car around as well, just to be safe.
I see the evidence that they exist by what is in the music videos they produce. You see symbols, gestures by the artists, and a lot of the time in the music videos it promotes drugs, sex, and alcohol. It's also has appeared in video games, and TV shows.
I believe that there's this group of people that have nothing better to do than come up with conspiracy theories and release those theories onto the world ;)
The push for globalism is a move for world domination. It encompasses many conspiraciesw in one, and the Bible is not my only reason. Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama have all mentioned a new world order or a world order. Both parties are guilty of this, so I don't blame this party, or that party.
No. I believe that there are good people and bad people in each government and that it is the job of the people to choose the good. Besides, a truely democratic republic would not push for globalism in my opinion but push for national soveirnty so that too much power is not concentrated on one group or entity which would assert too much control over the people. That is why I have no problem with people living in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen and so on. They are as much a victim of their respective regimes as the people those regimes hurt. Regimes are so good at keeping people divided. That is essential to controling the people. Divide, misinform, and concur. This is not left or right, theist or atheist, this is right and wrong, free and enslaved.
I don't know a lot, but from what I have learned, there is a push for a global one world government by the elite in many countries. The UN is the biggest perpatrator, but we have the European Union, the African Union, and so on. Research Agenda 21 which is openly mentioned on the UN website.
I hardly see the existence of the UN or EU or AU, or any other intergovernmental body, as evidence of a conspiracy to consolidate all power into a single governing body. Agenda 21 could possibly present evidence to substantiate the claim of concerted, intentional effort to indoctrinate disparate cultures into a monoculture, but for even that to be true I think one would have to show that the UN has actually been effective in implementing it. By and large, the UN and other international bodies remain rather limited in their efficacy. This is because most nations, particular those not positioned to assume more power through consolidation, fiercely defend their national sovereignty.
It is rather the absence of a belief, but I accept the intended respect towards my stance. Also, yes, we're "cool"; I am capable of disagreeing without it becoming an issue. At most, I am moderately disappointed that the debate just tapered off. That happens though.
You wanna debate it for real? I am willing to do so if we remain civil. I am trying to leave my old habits behind. If I give one hint that I am not perfect, everyone will say what a failure I am, and how I should be banned. I am trying to be cool like an icecube.
Generally, debating is why I come to this site. ;) I can speak to my own civility, and I do not believe that I have ever indicated or expressly observed that anyone is a failure. Nor have I ever banned anyone from my debates. I will only caution that I think I sometimes come across as fairly coldly analytical myself, and this is not intended as being uncivil. If you feel that to become the case, please do inform me. Otherwise, I am wholly willing and interested in an actual debate if you are.
I believe I made the last argument, so it is your turn to counter. What I argued is posted below:
I hardly see the existence of the UN or EU or AU, or any other intergovernmental body, as evidence of a conspiracy to consolidate all power into a single governing body. Agenda 21 could possibly present evidence to substantiate the claim of concerted, intentional effort to indoctrinate disparate cultures into a monoculture, but for even that to be true I think one would have to show that the UN has actually been effective in implementing it. By and large, the UN and other international bodies remain rather limited in their efficacy. This is because most nations, particular those not positioned to assume more power through consolidation, fiercely defend their national sovereignty.
I hardly see the existence of the UN or EU or AU, or any other intergovernmental body, as evidence of a conspiracy to consolidate all power into a single governing body. Agenda 21 could possibly present evidence to substantiate the claim of concerted, intentional effort to indoctrinate disparate cultures into a monoculture, but for even that to be true I think one would have to show that the UN has actually been effective in implementing it. By and large, the UN and other international bodies remain rather limited in their efficacy. This is because most nations, particular those not positioned to assume more power through consolidation, fiercely defend their national sovereignty. My response is that George Bush Sr. and Jr. as well as Clinton and Obama have all talked about a new world order.
Which has nothing at all to do with Agenda 21, or my refutation. You are effectively conceding that your earlier point has no substantiation, and moving on to a new one that is equally unfounded. The term "world order" is exceptionally vague, and does not necessarily refer to any particular ordering at all. It would, of course, help if you cited any of them using the term to give your claim some context.
Apologies, that was more aggressive than I intended. Incidentally, I'm also in pain (fucking pinched nerve) so I empathize. I was referring to my counterpoint against your Agenda 21 point, and observing that saying past and current political officials have referenced an abstract "world order" isn't really concrete evidence. Basically, looking for evidence that Agenda 21 is possible and that "world order" refers to something specific.
It's all cool. Pain has been proven to alter brain chemistry. Take care of yourself. Now: You raise a valid point, and I need to do more research, so recess?
Pain can alter brain chemistry, although I do not think it invariably affects the capacity for reason. That said, thank you, I am, and I hope you are as well. Recess is entirely acceptable.
I believe the US government is spreading conspiracy theories on the net to distract people from real issues and significant events.
Google is pumping up conspiracy sites on the search results to spike up attention to the right sort of crank to keep people distracted. This is the continuation of a long tradition, in fact, HSCA concluded that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy. Can you think of anything more inconsequential? That's not an accident.
I definitely find it odd, but a lot of the conspiracy theories surrounding his death don't add up either. I used to think that Lyndon Johnson was in on it too.
Cyanide can be found naturally in apples, that does not make it a good idea to pump it into the water. True, fluoride does occur naturally in fresh water, but the average amount is 10 times less then was is currently being artificially placed in the water.
Cyanide can be found naturally in apples, that does not make it a good idea to pump it into the water.
That's because it's cyanide.
True, fluoride does occur naturally in fresh water, but the average amount is 10 times less then was is currently being artificially placed in the water.
And twenty times the amount in our tap water is considered toxic to children.
It's beneficial for your health to consume vitamin C each day... but if I were to give you twenty tablets each morning, then it would have a negative effect. Just like with fluoride. It's okay to consume a certain amount, but there is a limit where it no longer becomes beneficial.
If their is already an abundance of sources for fluoride already, why continue to pump it into the water.
Fluoride is the only non-essential chemical added to our water supply. Does our goverment have the authority to force individuals to consume flourdie. Most people don't even know what it is. That is not informed consent.
I edited my argument after thinking about it for a bit. You responded before I finished typing though lol.
Anyways, I think you may be looking at the definition too broadly. I understand what you're saying though.
I think definitions are abused on this site. I had a long debate the other day with someone who kept insisting that atheism is a religion. Looking at the definition provided by certain sites, the door is left open for many things to be considered religions. So, rather than going by that definition, it's better to look at common elements of what are already considered to be religions. There's actually eight similar elements that all religions share... and atheism definitely doesn't match up.
I think the same could be applied to conspiracy theories. Obviously the religious elements couldn't be applied, but a different set of elements that all conspiracy theories share could.
I find it somewhat odd that some of the terrorist that "terrorized," on 9/11 still live. One of the plane high jackers live till this day. Also have an interview with him saying, " i don't know why they say i commit such acts, i live till this day."
The conspiracy about the Illuminati. They are perfectly concealed in a way that their is no solid proof of their existence, but jut out there enough that coincidences often seem to happen in their name.
I believe that the CIA killed JFK since the CIA wanted to be in Vietnam and JFK was the biggest opponent to entering Vietnam, so the CIA killed him. And Lee Harvey Oswald was using the least accurate bolt action weapon, and a angles shot in the back of the head of a moving target is a challenge enough and to do it with a shit Italian rifle makes it harder. And, isn't strange how publicly Oswald was killed? I think the CIA wanted a scapegoat killed.
I think you could make a logical argument about the JFK assassination because Oswald was killed so soon after the assassination. To question that particular case does make a little sense.
I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK. He was an An Average struggling guy.mhe was the perfect target. He was a communist, he got kicked out the Military, and was in hard times. Also Castro have claimed many times that People of the Us government wanted JFK guy. And why would a man like Oswald kill one of the most powerful men in the world. Plus the Autospy proved that the bullet that hit JFK throat entered in the front of his body, not the back.
I dont know if these are true, but I totes think there is something going on.
The Illuminati or Freemasons.
Apophis in 2025ish?
I did believe in 2012. I was sure it was ending.
I believed in bigfoot but that was when I was little.
I do believe in ghosts. I have zero proof though.
Other than that I don't have any others besides the idea that female scientists are making ways to eliminate the male race and allow female to survive on their own. Crazy though right?
You know who the Illuminati were and what their purpose was, right?
Other than that I don't have any others besides the idea that female scientists are making ways to eliminate the male race and allow female to survive on their own. Crazy though right?
Yes, but I am talking about the media hyped representation of the "Illuminati". Like the triangle and songs about weird things backmasked. Get me now?
Well, here's what I know...
The Illuminati (which means "The Enlightened") started as a group of men who were interested in science... which was rare for their time period. I've read that Galileo was actually the first Illuminati, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. Anyways, after Galileo said that the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Catholic church got pissed. They arrested him and were even going to execute him.
To send a message, the church had four Illuminati members publicly executed. This forced the remaining members to have to meet in secret, due to their fear of being killed... but what this also did was make them despise the Catholic church. They eventually retaliated and killed a few members of the Catholic church. This resulted in the church referring to them as Satanists. That's still common today and what that has done is given people a false impression, resulting in wannabes calling themselves Illuminati and worshipping Satan.
Most people think that our dollar bill is full of Free Mason symbolism, but what it really has is Illuminati symbolism. The proof is the Great Seal on the back. The pyramid with the all-seeing eye is obvious, but what really makes it clear is what is written underneath of it... "Novus Ordo Seclorum", which means New Secular Order. It's funny how it contradicts the phrase in the middle of the bill that says, "In God We Trust".
"Novus Ordo Seclorum", which means New Secular Order.
I just checked wikipedia for that phrase and whoever wrote that article seems to think that it means "New Order of the Ages". It was supposedly proposed by Charles Thomson to "signify the beginning of the new American Era".
Come on! The Seal along with the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" was added to the dollar during FDR's presidency. FDR was a well-known Mason, but Henry Wallace, who suggested the phrase, supposedly had Illuminati ties.
The more people involved in the supposed conspiracy, the more eyes that are on it and the more it supports stereotypes of large groups of people (be it a race, a government, a corporation or whathaveyou) the more skeptical I am. That is not to say that I rule out conspiracy theories automatically, but most seem extremely implausible.
To be honest, I REALLY, REALLY hate admitting this... but I did kinda buy into the whole 2012 thing, though I didn't believe in the Mayan Calendar, but Edgar Casey's prophecy about 2012 supposedly. I think subconciously I kinda wanted the world to end and then survive somehow... I feel life can be a tad dull sometimes... That's the first one I remembered off the top of my head, for a little bit I believed I was visited by aliens (when I was a lot younger), lets see here I think I bought into zeitgeist a little bit, but I couldn't remember what it was about. If I remember anymore I'll add them but I think that is it.
Ha! I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel at least a tad bit worried on December 21, 2012. Deep down, I knew it was a bunch of BS, but all the hype made me just a little bit anxious to get that day over with.
It's funny that you brought up how you used to think that you were being visited by aliens, because I've actually been abducted by aliens... just kidding! I've never had anything like that, but I did stay up late one night watching a Ghost Hunters marathon and ended up convinced that a ghost was moving my furniture.
I've never had anything like that, but I did stay up late one night watching a Ghost Hunters marathon and ended up convinced that a ghost was moving my furniture.
You ever heard of the Tails Doll? I have a friend who is a HUGE Sonic The Hedgehog fan boy, and their is a character which is a floating doll that looks like tails (it was in sonic CD I think), and their have been stories for years about how the doll is this evil manifested spirit, and if you do all this Jazz it will come out and kill you. Me and my friends tried to "summon" it once...
Last time I was in Mexico, I noticed that they were selling "Suck My Dick!" and "Fuck You!" T-Shirts at the souvenir stands. They were everywhere! But anyways, what is the creepiest thing?
I don't know, but the drug cartels must be doing creepy stuff. I am pretty sure everything that has been done to those dolls was done to actual humans at some point.
I think they sell those shirts in Japan, too. I heard anything with English words on it is considered cool.
With the only difference here is that we actually do care what the symbol means. Otherwise, good point. That is interesting that people want to wear the other persons language.
There are a few that I think are believable, but I don't necessarily believe them to be true. Lyndon Johnson being involved in JFK's assassination would be an example.
The larger and more complex a conspiracy theory, the less likely it is to be true. The more people there are who have to keep something secret, the less likely it will be kept secret.
Conspiracy theories are for morons who don't understand simple math and science. Especially 9-11 and the moon landings. The JFK assassination conspiracies though are ones I have looked into least, could be true, I don't know.
