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.
Just go to DIGG.com and pick any political topic and then try to find any* political view that doesn't fit the liberal agenda (which just happens to be right up there with the Bush Doctrine).
Yeah, digg is definitely liberal, or at least anti-neocon. So is reddit. So is StumbleUpon.
CreateDebate seems to lean that way too (to a lesser extent).
It seems that any community website which allows anyone to join leans liberal. What does that tell you? That liberals are on the side of the majority while conservatives favor the few.
Not really. I'd say it has more to do with the younger population being far more liberal than the older population, and also being far more computer literate and likely to join sites such as Digg, Reddit, CreateDebate, etc.
Although, I disagree that Digg is as liberal as you say. My experience has been very mixed. You can't judge Digg on its articles as it is not a fair user driven content system. People such as MrBabyMan and badwithcomputers dominate the front page submissions, so really Digg will reflect their political positions more than the majority.
I've seen it explained that liberalism changes in a way that previous liberalists do not like, and this together with differing priorities makes them choose conservatism instead. For example, imagine what it would have meant to be "liberal" when your father or grandfather was your age. What is thought of as liberal now would probably have been scandelous then. I'm not saying that one way of thinking is any more right than another, but that tends to be the average way a person votes across their life.
Younger and older people just have different priorities and the different political parties appeal to those differing priorities. No one ideal is better than the other; just different.
I think the answer lies in your last paragraph with a little twist.
People have different priorities at different points in their life and pick a political party that more closely aligns with those priorities.
For example, when I got married (and I was still in school), I wanted government programs that would help me buy a house (in other words, though I didn't categorize it as such at the time, I wanted the rich to be taxed at higher rate and then have that money given to me in such a way as to not appear like a handout.).
Now that I have a house, I don't want the government to tax me and give my money to someone else.
Now, when I'm older and retired, I'll probably want government to tax the rich again and give me money. God knows that if this economy continues the way it has or gets worse, my 401K will be worth squat.
Probably one of the most well-rounded comments I've read from you in a long time, Joe. We finally agree on something.
People hate being on the receiving end of the lesser of two deals. However, when their situation is reversed, they still want to be on the good side of the deal. The challange comes in having your morals drive your politics, not your politics drive your morals. If you could comfortably/honestly afford it, would you mind paying a little more tax so people who are in the same situation as you were can get the help that you wanted at the time?
Incidentally, I wouldn't label myself liberal or conservative. I simply vote for whoever is best matching my ideals at the time. In the UK, at the moment, it happens that I will be voting Conservative (even though I'm sure you probably would have me pegged as a Liberal). When I go through life and my priorities change, I hope that I will still be able to vote morally and not just for what will best suit my current situation.
I think that charity should be very localized. I don't think it should be a government function at all. As far as big charity organizations, I think they should only exist to facilitate charity outside the country.
What I mean by localized charity is that the charitable organization should operate locally and people join up. Those giving and those receiving. I think that churches could provide this service but we'll need something for charitable atheist to join up too. The reason I want localization is because I want the people receiving and the people giving to get to know one another. This should make it more rewarding and should also cut down on abuse. In other words, I want to cut down on waste.
Well that explains why everywhere I look I see liberals. Like in that movie the 6th sense; remember that little kid? They're everywhere and some don't know they're liberal.
Because my comments such as, "One need not be a Christian, or even religious for that matter, to disagree with abortion. Not to mention the fact that there are not only religious people out there who agree with abortion, but have gone through with the procedure" and, "The debate in the comments above, between "Republicans" and "Democrats" is pathetic. It's the same damn argument with the same boring points over and over again. Don't you realize that you people are speaking in circles? Doesn't it get old? You will not be able to convince someone of your opinion, just like you're being stubborn about changing yours. Open your ears and at least listen. Acknowledge the fact that this is all opinion based and we're each entitled to it because of this great country we live in. Don't snub people just because of their political opinions. If you like corn, would you avoid people who dislike corn like the plague?" get -20 and -11 respectively. It doesn't get more neutral than that.
A good mix of issues, and very well written - the output and quality are incredibly high. I'd value a little more feedback and thoughts from other thinkers / organisations cited in the blog as currently the comments / interaction is a bit two dimensional.
It's not as bad as you might think. It's definitely not a "fuckfest" because no one on digg has sex.
It seems as though digg is turning into diggchan though, and if you know chans, then you know what you're dealing with. The most liberal trolls on the internet (maybe planet)... and Digg seems to have a love/hate relationship with *chan.
Digg is a democracy though, and the users get what they want... Why aren't there enough conservatives on digg to equal out the content? Because conservatives fear everything, including the internet.
I don't know that I would categorize it as fear. Conservatives are comfortable with the status quo and don't feel threatened enough to defend it. Now, when you see Republicans fighting like rabid pit bulls, then you know they're afraid.
Although there are a disproportionate amount of liberal stories on digg, that is not a reflection on the site itself but the overall politics of the users. For your information one of the candidates that most digg users support is actually Ron Paul a republican/libertarian. Also, a good portion of the stories are not political at all. Some of the most popular topics are computers, science and random funny stuff on the internet. If Joe is so concerned about this then he can make his own digg.com profile and start burying Liberal stories and digging conservative ones. It's a very democratic system.
NASA High-Speed Tracking Camera Films Spectacular P-G Clouds watch!
Doc Says Pot Pill No Good -- Just Let Em Smoke It!
Clinton goes to bat for Obama and party
Google Has Changed Political Debate Forever
Individuals with social phobia see themselves differently
Those were the first five articles. I failed to see any liberals f*&&#xin;g as I followed the links.
So now you're arguement is Bush is a liberal? Interesting. Desperation is a stinky cologn Joe. By the way McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and, tada! 100% of the time in '08.
Now for a shameless plug, go to my blog, drugs.reportednow.com without the www for the real scoop on marijuana pills. The only reason they're trying to legalize the pill is because every study shows marijuana is the most effective, and least harmful painkiller known to man, problem is if people can grow it themselves pharmacies are out billions.
