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.
I don't think it's so much that we'll ever have an 'accurate' answer so much as even if we did/do have the answer, we just can't understand or comprehend it.
Not quite sure how to respond, my initial post contained no logic to deem overrated, (did you understand my post to mean I'm god?). Also, popping my kickstand out would make my bike fall, I don't see a connection to my post either.
Should I take that literally or assume you mean that I'm making inane comments? Taken literally, that sentence implies I'm considering inane comments hypothetically, whether mine or those of others. Also, I'm starting to suspect you're not only referring to my discussion with you, are you referring to the "debate" I'm having with the sarcasm dude? Clarify and I'll respond.
See, you're still doing it and you need to stop, because at this point I'm not actually sure if you're able to see the point of the incredibly simple statement I originally made.
Out of 3 sentences, your post contained 3 sarcastic comments. That's it, nothing else. Good thing we have representatives for logic and reason like you. Let's see how hard it is to dispute posts using nothing of value.
Pro/con abortion
Sarcastic failtool - YEAH, DERR, IM SURE KIDS SHOULDNT DIE, JUST A HUNCH THO.
Uninstall your internet.
P.S. Keep adding dots at the end of your main points, it makes you sound smarter.
Yes, I realize that I was being sarcastic. But sarcasm can be used in an argument to show a point. Just like you used sarcasm to attack my writing style by saying "Good thing we have representatives for logic and reason like you."
I'm not sure where you learned sarcasm, but most people who use sarcasm don't talk like idiots, contrary to your example sarcastic sentence. As for your request to have me uninstall my internet, I must respectfully decline. After learning spelling, grammar, and sentence construction, not to mention logic and reasoning, in school, I feel I have earned the right to be sarcastic at certain times.
And I place ellipses in my sentences to show where my voice would trail off if I were talking. Four periods indicate that the ellipse is also at the end of the sentence. You could think of it as the ellipse, and then the final period, if you wish. In my post, I used it to indicate that I wasn't stating a fact, but was being sarcastic.
You're employing sarcasm to dig yourself out of the hole sarcasm got you stuck in?
sarcasm can be used in an argument to show a point
Not surprised for a second that you feel this way.
you used sarcasm
Your initial post contained nothing but sarcasm, watch what you criticize in others.
learned sarcasm
Not something you learn, elementary won't help you here.
most people who use sarcasm don't talk like idiots
People who ONLY use sarcasm aren't idiots, but they're lacking.
contrary to your example sarcastic sentence
Incorrect grammatical form. It would make alot more sence to say "example of sarcasm". If you're going to preach grammatical function and form, spell check your posts.
request to have me uninstall my internet, I must respectfully decline
Redundant, I didn't request or invite you to uninstall your internet.
After learning spelling, grammar, and sentence construction
Starting grade 1. This isn't a credential.
logic and reasoning
School doesn't teach you logic or reasoning, it teaches you little more than deduction, though I wouldn't expect someone that interchanges "request" and "invite" to grasp the difference. Fyi, logic and reason (not reasonING) are inherent capacities available to all humans, school won't help you.
earned the right to be sarcastic at certain times.
Not a right to be earned, be sarcastic if you want, no one can stop you.
would trail off
Where do I begin... The sarcastic implementation of ellipses is used for implication. You're wrong and ugly.
voice would trail off
Re-read your "ellipsed" sentences, their function has nothing to do with your voice trailing off.
Four periods indicate that the ellipse is also at the end of the sentence
No fool, the context in which they are used indicate function. Given the sentence "forgive us our trespasses....trespass against us", will you assume two sentences are being quoted (since a 4th dot has been incorrectly entered)? This is what you can learn in school.
In my post, I used it to indicate that I wasn't stating a fact, but was being sarcastic.
Really?
And I place ellipses in my sentences to show where my voice would trail off
wasn't stating a fact = voice would trail off
I notice your post contains 3 weak paragraphs, I wonder if Ill have to deal with your moronery in 3s... DOTDOTDOT
Perhaps you'll surprise me with 3 essays. LOL your next reply will be the third reply, make it good this time returd.
Note: Although the usual bold-face quote, regular-font reply is logical, I will not use it here, as that would make these conversations become massive and ugly.
When I said I knew I was being sarcastic, I wasn't being sarcastic. Nothing in my "Three weak paragraphs" was meant to be sarcastic. Your next few 'disputes' were taken completely out of context. When I said that you used sarcasm, I wasn't criticizing you. I was showing you that you used sarcasm to show a point. I never said you could learn sarcasm in school, but sarcasm is a learned thing. If it wasn't, small children would use and understand it, but they don't. Somewhere along the line, we learned it.
You are correct when you say that people who only use sarcasm probably aren't all there, but I have yet to find someone like that. If you are implying that I use only sarcasm, than you probably aren't even reading these posts.
"Contrary to your example sarcastic sentence" is technically proper form, with all the types of words where they should be, but you're right in saying I could have made it flow better. However, as there was not a misspelled word in my post, I don't understand why you'd tell me to spell-check my posts.
If logic and reason are inherent in humans, why are there so many illogical and un-thinking people in the world?
And now for your abuse at my use of ellipses. Yes, that first sentence would trail off had I said it out loud. "Yeah, that's not narcissistic at allllllll----". But instead of putting eight ls and a few dashes to indicate that, I used an ellipse. If I read the sentence "Forgive us our trespasses....trespass against us" without knowing better, I would think it was two sentences.
I really hope that we can soon cease this pointless 'debate'. After all this time, it seems the only thing you've managed to criticize about me is my sarcastic nature, my non-existent spelling errors, and various attacks on me (such as calling me a moron or saying I'm ugly). This, in general, makes me a little sad. There are too few coherent people on this site, let alone the internet, for there to be pointless and ill-founded attacks on those you haven't met, especially since you're one of the coherent.
-I agree completely, I spent more time on the last reply than I wanted.
-I know you weren't being sarcastic, it was an attempt to lighten the rivalry we seem to have fallen into.
-Here you correct, it was late, and I misunderstood your point. Now in the light of day I see that your referring to my sarcastic comment couldn't be taken any other way than intended, but I still misunderstood.
-I didn't say sarcasm was learned in school either, I said "school cant help", your agreeing with me on this point, though I disagree with your assessment on learned sarcasm. Ill give you a hint, humans don't learn psychological development either, it's a natural course of development.
-Again, trying to lighten the seriousness.
-Grammar relates to both form and content, "spell check" was meant to relate to your entire post, not simply the sentence that I deciphered" though I suppose I'm guilty here of what I'm preaching, it would have been better to enter that sentence in a separate heading, so as not to connect it to that one sentence of yours.
-Logic and reason are faculties humans possess, the efficacy of their usage however, relies on belief and their ability to wade through sewage of experience unhindered. As an example, you won't find many fundamentalist christians dedicated to the logical dissection of reality. Their belief, while hindering, doesn't change their core nature of deriving meaning from existence, in fact, it's the cause.
-I'm sorry if you felt I abused your ellipses, but you're wrong. The only abuse I'm guilty of is calling you wrong and ugly, and that was meant to put a smile on your face given the absurdity of the comment.
-Re-read your point about the trailing "l"s. "...not sarcastic at all" wouldn't trail off with "l"s. Phonetically, the sentence would stop short as it should, I'm still certain your assessment of ellispses is an incorrect attempt at describing what I'm maintaining is their primary function - the unsaid implication left to the imagination afterwards. In speech, no one trails off with a legion of "l"s. Actually sound it out in your head, "alllllllllllllll". No dice.
-That's fine (and proper) that you would regard it as 2 sentences, but the world is never as regimented as grammatical rule. The context (in my opinion) must be the primary source of deciphering meaning. It will save many headaches.
-Agreed. For my part, I felt attacked based on my ridiculous initial post that was meant to incite little more than some humour in the debate. To be honest, had you not downvoted that post, I would have responded in kind.
-Again, I can't possibly know if you're ugly, that was an immature shot below the belt meant to be funny. After all is said and done, I feel like a douchebag that lashed out, not at your response to my post, but your downvote and response. Notice I haven't touched your points yet?
Since I'm sure we both have better things to do (you said as much yourself), were done here. I'll try to watch the whole wrath thing ;)
For my part, I felt attacked based on my ridiculous initial post that was meant to incite little more than some humour in the debate. To be honest, had you not downvoted that post, I would have responded in kind.
Well, there we go. This whole thing was a giant misunderstanding. In retrospect, I know a rational individual wouldn't honestly believe that they're the beginning of the universe. However, this is the internet, and so such a person might exist. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
