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.
40 days or so of frequent use on this site and my initial impression seems to me to be more and more a correct one: that the people on here are either stupid or don't care to use the brain evolution gave them.
You use the same baiting tactics that they do! "You're all dumb, try to best me!"
Another slapshot it seems.
And the same phrases,"Drrrr! I've been hers for so and so days and it seems that the people hur really are dumb!" Or something to that affect.
They also usually come in with the " I'm a searweeous debater" attitude for a little bit, but then realize that they aren't getting enough attention and thus , resort to name calling to try to get some.
No, I am calling people dumb (and little, but that is another discussion) because they abuse this site.
It is not my hobby; rather it is the very purpose of this site. Anyone who would rather engage in Machiavellian and sadistic trolling (not the objective of this site) rather than enlightening and engaging debating (the object of this site) is, to the extent that I am concerned, stupid.
That depends upon how you conceptualize purpose. If you go by intent, sure. If you go by practice, questionable. At any rate, I fail to see why using something for an ends other than its intended ends makes someone stupid. In other scenarios, that could be considered a mark of ingenuity.
I think the real issue may be that you do not like people behaving a certain way and calling them names makes you feel less frustrated... which raises the question: how, exactly, are you different from them? Because, last I checked, ad hominem was not a substantive contribution to "enlightening and engaging debating".
P.S. You know you are feeding the trolls when you make "debates" like this, right?
Considering the fact that his behavior lines up with that, of a puppet account, I'm pretty sure he does know..
Also, trolls feed by deceiving people, not by causing psychological discord. Psychological discord is the purpose of the flamer. Though, the two skills do work well together and I believe that's why trolling has been misconstrued to mean "the act of trying to piss people off".
I have been off the forum, so they are new enough to me to have the benefit of the doubt still.
There are many varieties of trolls, not just one. Flame trolling is absolutely a thing, as is flame baiting. Attempting to reduce trolls to one form is denying a fascinating range of diversity among the internet species, IMO.
Your brain shows what happens when you to choose to kick God's wisdom out. Utter lack of common sense and humanity. That is what is happening to mankind.
Here is just a short list of man's values without the wisdom of God.
Killing millions of unborn Babies is ok while not agreeing with Gay marriage is BAD!
Supporting abortions to prevent children from having hard lives is good but shaming the behavior of promiscuous sex that creates these fatherless children is BAD!
Having commercials addressing and shaming cruelty to animals is good while having commercials shaming promiscuous sex and the results of abandoned fatherless children is BAD!
Back ground checks on guns that would have prevented none of the mass shootings is good while back ground checks on repeat DWI offenders is BAD!
Cops killing a White man is never mentioned but Cops killing a Black man is front page news.
Insulting women is sexist unless ofcourse the woman is a Conservative such as Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, etc.
I could go on and on but debating a Liberal is like commiting suicide by slow death.
The double standards from the Left and the denial of same makes intelligent debates impossible. If you lived in this nation, I might actually waste my time until you proved what I already know about you.
I'll debate most anything, I just don't have time for a detailed one on one debate with research and such. Between work and family I only have time for brief visits on a variety of topics. But hey, I'll discuss/debate anything so long as I have something to say on the topic. Abortion, gun control, euthanasia, whatever. I wouldn't debate car repair because I don't have anything to bring to the table on that topic.
Some do, some don't. Most are probably like me and want light-hearted entertainment, not something heavy duty. Every now and then, I do like to get into serious, in-depth discussions, but those urges are often fleeting and passing. Oh well.
It's hypocrisy because you condemned others for something you do.
You belittle others.
Many people on this site troll.
This is a debating site.
Red herring.
Anybody who would rather troll than debate - the purpose of this site - is "little" by my conception of the term.
In this statement , you're trying to make yourself appear big -by calling others little- the same thing which you condemned others for. That is pure hypocrisy.
But I didn't condemn people for belittling others; indeed, I have little problem with that, if it is warranted. What I have no patience for is the mindless drivel that gets passed as trolling around here.
Where is the red herring?
I am not detracting from the relevant issue; this is the relevant issue.
you're trying to make yourself appear big -by calling others little- the same thing which you condemned others for.
I am not here to be "big".
I am here to debate, and hopefully to refine my beliefs by being shown logically and consistently how they are flawed.
Nobody wants to do that; instead, all anybody does is troll. Rest assured, no amount of word-twisting will bring me to condone trolling.
Here is the definition from Wikipedia of "Internet Troll"
is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
There is no place for puerility on a debating website; there is place only for debate. I want more debates to occur.
express complete disapproval of, typically in public.
I am not detracting from the relevant issue; this is the relevant issue.
The issue is your hypocrisy, not the quantity of trolls or what this site is.
I am not here to be "big".
Whether you're here for it or not, your recent behavior suggests that you believe to be "bigger".
Nobody wants to do that; instead, all anybody does is troll. Rest assured, no amount of word-twisting will bring me to condone trolling.
If no one wants to do it, and it's what you're here for, then why are you STILL HERE?
Here is the definition from Wikipedia of "Internet Troll"
Wrong.
There is no place for puerility on a debating website;
That can't be right, because you're still here.
I want more debates to occur.
Then learn how to incite positive and thought provoking responses from the users or accept that you're too boring to do so and go find some place that doesn't irk you.
Sure. I'm in the middle; I consider abortion to be unethical but a necessary evil. I presume you'll be on the 'prolife' side. Might as well do it here.
History has shown that women who want an abortion will do what they must to abort, often at the cost of their own well-being. By legalizing and regulating abortions, women are capable of controlling their future without risking it with a coat-hanger, spurious drugs (abortifacients like mugwort), or jumping onto their stomach. These methods damage the woman while also potentially damaging (but not always killing) the foetus, and thus the resultant baby.
The prevalence of abortion in history is unknown, but based on the lists of abortion-inducing drugs in medical texts from the medieval period it was clearly practiced in the ancient Islamic world. The Bible states that the life of the body is in the blood (Lev. XVII xi); thus one could argue from Christianity that abortions are not wrong prior to the development of blood in the fetus which, according to Larsen's Human Embryology, occurs around day 17 in the form of hemangioblastic aggregates, or by the end of the 3rd gestational week if you are looking for vasculogenesis, which is the formation of the vascular network (blood vessels).
However, apparently most women do not realize they are pregnant at this point; it is not until day 17, according to wikipedia, that the most sensitive pregnancy tests begin to show a decent level of accuracy. However, babycenter says that hCG tests can be taken 7 days after conception. Women who wish to have an abortion are probably not those who hastily use pregnancy tests two weeks after having sex; thus, if it is an unwanted pregnancy, it seems reasonable to conclude that it will take longer for them to realize that they are pregnant. To restrict abortion to the first 3 weeks would pretty much root out precisely those people who would want an abortion.
While killing is not ethical, neither is neglect. If a woman does not want her child, she may not care to care for it after its birth. Financial and home situations may not be suitable for the baby with associated problems such as a lack of food, physical and emotional abuse, and isolation; the mother may be a drug-user, in which case the child may be born with a drug addiction and damage associated with its mother's use. While these in themselves are arguably not the best reasons to have an abortion, a woman may be commended for not wanting to bring a baby into her world of devastation and grime. A woman needs to be prepared, both internally and externally, for a child, and abortion allows her to get her life together before getting pregnant with a foetus she wishes to carry to term rather than trying to do so afterwards.
Poor guy. She either wont respond or will say: no one has the right to murder............... Or unborn babies have the right to life...................
LOL, here in a nutshell are the excuses from pro abortion people for killing innocent human life.
The Babies would be better off dead! Tell me what sick twisted mentality does it take to play God and say you KNOW what the future lies for any human being, and then have the inhumanity and evl nature to sentence that life to death.
If one MORON brings up life of mother or other extreme case abortion(that no one is denying) I will put you on lifetime ban and make sure everyone knows what a complete deceptive idiot you are. We are talking about the vast vast majority of abortions at any stage for any reason!
1b. This argument was largely devil's advocate, given that the co-debater has "prolife" in its name it seemed like there'd be nothing to debate if I argued from the pro-life position.
2. "The Babies would be better off dead" is not a good reason to have an abortion, as I stated.
If one MORON brings up life of mother or other extreme case abortion(that no one is denying) I will put you on lifetime ban
Am I not already on 'lifetime ban'?
make sure everyone knows what a complete deceptive idiot you are.
You already seem to be doing that. Why stop now?
Go ahead. Give me your worst.
We are talking about the vast vast majority of abortions at any stage for any reason!
Now, we aren't.
In fact, there is no "we" here.
Just me and LibProlifer.
Besides, as my debate stated, one could argue Biblically for a 3-week cutoff period.
Nowhere did I give support to the idea of late-term abortion, nor would I condone late-term abortion.
You just see what you want to see, and you aren't even good at that.
You say what most deceptive liar pro choicers on the Left say in this nation. You say you do not condone late-term abortions yet I can bet 100% for sure that you vote for polticians in your nation who support the right to late term abortions for any reason.
So tell me...... are abortions past 1st trimester illegal in your nation(unless extreme cases). No?
What month are they illegal when not extreme cases?
I've debated this subject a hundred times with the deceivers on this site. They constantly lie, deceive, deny what they support when they vote for "no limit" pro choice politicians who keep abortions legal for any reason at any stage in nine of our states.
Can you be the exception and be honest with me?
Do you vote for pro choice politicians who support abortions past the 1st trimester?
You say what most deceptive liar pro choicers on the Left say in this nation.
I'm really stupid, y'see, so please explain to me in simple terms what it is the Left bastards are lying about.
You say you do not condone late-term abortions yet I can bet 100% for sure that you vote for polticians in your nation who support
Yes, you can. I have never once voted nor do I ever intend to.
I don't condone democracy.
Also, politicians don't seem to me to have as much control in the matter as you give them credit; it is usually the Supreme Court that decides the legality of abortion.
So tell me...... are abortions past 1st trimester illegal in your nation(unless extreme cases). No?
Apparently Canada has no limits on abortion whatsoever. Simply not part of the Criminal Code of Canada.
They constantly lie, deceive, deny what they support when they vote for "no limit" pro choice politicians
When you vote, you aren't casting a vote for the destruction of foetuses.
You are voting for a politician in all of his beliefs: economic, military, foreign, social, etc.
Abortion is one minor issue to the vast majority of people who have more pressing and ofttimes personal concerns regarding their politicians and the political positions thereof.
Do you vote for pro choice politicians who support abortions past the 1st trimester?
Never in my life.
I can say that with complete honesty because I have never once voted.
You just admitted that if you ever did vote, you would not consider the one MINOR issue of those late term Baby's lives as being important enough for you to change your vote!
THAT IS WHY I call you and most on this site and most on the Left complete hypocritical phonies when they claim to only support 1st trimester abortions. You WOULD support those late term abortions with your vote. Issues of innocent life being legally killed should be the MOST IMPORTANT issue there is to people with humanity.
Do you posses the intellect to admit that simple truth? I doubt it and is why I have already banned you before.
You are the only person I've ever encountered who thinks that abortion is the biggest political issue of the day.
There are many other issues which play significant roles in the mentality of the voter. For instance, whether or not the candidate supports the ongoing wars or interventionism; whether the candidate supports the death penalty; whether the candidate supports social policies; whether or not the candidate supports drone strikes which kill hundreds of innocent people around the world; whether or not the candidate believes in global warming and wants to tackle it.
Abortion is just one issue of many; to allow one to completely cloud your judgement to the detriment of the rest is democratically irresponsible.
You just admitted that if you ever did vote, you would not consider the one MINOR issue of those late term Baby's lives as being important enough for you to change your vote!
The point is that that is moot because I would not vote.
THAT IS WHY I call you and most on this site and most on the Left complete hypocritical phonies when they claim to only support 1st trimester abortions.
Voting for somebody does not necessarily mean that you support all of their policies. Take Justin Trudeau here in Canada; I know people who supported him but abhor his policy of accepting Syrian refugees (no matter the number). That doesn't mean that they should have voted for Harper (the Idiot) again, a global warming denier who put gags on the scientists of the nation and tried to turn Canada into his own image (going so far as to change his government's name from The Government of Canada to The Harper Government)! It simply means that you have to take the best that is offered; while you may not agree on all issues, you look for the person most aligned with your own values.
Issues of innocent life being legally killed should be the MOST IMPORTANT issue there is to people with humanity.
Abortion does not have a monopoly on "innocent life being killed". Wars, drone strikes, death penalty, cop killings. Innocent life is taken regularly, and little is thought about too many of those lives.
As ALWAYS, these abortion debates come around full circle and people on the Left like you ALWAYS revert back to war, drone strikes, death penalty to try and excuse the inexcusable.
Do you know how many times I have had to debunk these same ludicrous anologies?
Wars have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans on almost every war we have had. Democrats supported the Iraq war and it was no part of any election. War is almost never an issue when we elect someone. There is never a politician telling us he will or won't take us to war if we vote for him.
The innocent people killed by war or drone strikes are NOT DONE SO ON PURPOSE! Abortion is premeditated killing of innocent life.
The dearth penalty is to prevent murderers from ever murdering again. The entire concept of the death penalty is to protect future innocent life in or out of prison.
There are issues of prioroties in life. I have proven this simple fact with people on the Left who say they are not a one issue voter.
When it comes to a politician being a member of the KKK, hypocrites on te Left would say how they could never vote for a KKK member no matter if they are on most other issues as you say "most aligned with your own values".
So it is laughble how killing late term Babies for any reason at any stage is not important enough issue for you to not vote for someone, but being a racist is an important enough issue. Can you grasp the hypocrisy and double standard?
It is truly sad you don't vote, or are you not old enough to vote? Stop using that for an excuse when the entire point is that you would have no problem voting for those supporting late term abortions on demand.
I woud totally agree with you except for the fact i have heard this pure hogwash denial a thousand times from pro choicers. I can almost bet you 100% I am right with this guy also.
Very very very few pro choicers will ever admit that they suppout abortions for any reason at any stage when they vote for politicians who support late term abortions for any reason. They are total deceptive liars who refuse to admit what they support with their vote.
Prove me worng with you. Tell me if you support no limit abortions. Now after telling me you do not, would you refuse to vote for a politician who supported it?
Very very very few pro choicers will ever admit that they suppout abortions for any reason at any stage when they vote for politicians who support late term abortions for any reason
It's idiotic to not vote for someone just because you disagree with them on a single issue.
No, it is idiotic to say you do not believe in no limit abortions and then vote for those who keep it legal. Who on earth do you think you are kidding? Yourself? Others on a debate site?
There is no more important an issue than purposely taking innocent life, and for you to keep it legal with your vote makes you a complete phony on the issue. Just have the integrity to admit what you support. It's embarrassing listening to those on the Left deny who and what they truly are. I want to debate intelligent honest people but I guess i will never find it from people on the Left.
The only people who can not see the truth behind what you support are low end voters or comeplete deceptive liars.
I do not support any stage abortion. But yes I might vote for a politician that might do depending on the situation (bare in mind they wouldnt actually be advertising that they support that). For example I would vote for pretty much any other candidate irrespective of their polciies if the only alternative was Trump.
Thanks for being honest. Very few are on this site.
What you just told me is that the life of an innocent baby is not as important as stopping Trump. Now think about that while you claim to be pro life.
You have less problem with Hillary who supports NO LIMIT abortions. Can you even grasp your priorities?
Can you see why I keep laughing at so called pro life people. They are not pro life. They actually couldn't care less. If people would vote pro life, late term abortions would not be legal and you would have saved millions of innocent lives.
But as always, those on the Left would rather stop Conservatives over saving innocent life.
Because you'll never accept that people have different beliefs pertaining to when human life begins, you have precluded yourself from any and all reasonable, adult conversations on this topic matter.
You aren't talking about the vast majority of abortions. The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester and you only care to discuss late term abortions.