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.
Domestic violence is stereotypically male against female or either parent against a child. Though it is less known or popularized in entertainment and media, domestic violence happens against men every day. Given the cultural perception of men who are victims of domestic violence, it's likely more common and less reported than one might think.
Of course it is real. Liberals live in Never Never Land, where a woman, a Muslim, and/or a gay person can do no wrong. That is of course.... unless they are a Conservative "Uncle Tom".
Not really. I don't use catch phrases like "you're a white male" or "that's sexist" or "you're an Islamaphobe" to intimidate the opposition into silence. Did you feel intimidated?
You call people racist, unpatriotic, and Nazis all the time. Then when the don't get silenced you ban them to make sure they are silenced.
You love to switch around what you say when you get called out. You never mentioned intimidation, then all of a sudden you bring it up. I am not intimidated by words.
Nope. I only ban you because you can't get through more than one or two sentences without becoming unhinged, going on cursing fits, and having a mental meltdown. Anything else?
It looks like I intimidated you. This may be the first time you've gotten through 3 sentences without coming unglued and hitting the automatic cursing fit button... I shamed you into speaking like a human being.
You couldn't even figure out what Milo said in a 3 minute video. It isn't surprising that you get this wrong too.
This may be the first time you've gotten through 3 sentences without coming unglued and hitting the automatic cursing fit button... I shamed you into speaking like a human being.
My vocabulary didn't indicate getting unglued. I use those words ask the time. What you just failed to realize is that by not addressing anything I say and pushing your narrative even though I am doing no choosing only shows that you can't make valid arguments under any circumstances. The fact that I cuss isn't the problem, you are the problem. As you can see I can go 3 sentences without cussing. Can you go through 3 sentences without being delusional?
-----My vocabulary didn't indicate getting unglued. I use those words ask the time. What you just failed to realize is that by not addressing anything I say and pushing your narrative even though I am doing no choosing only shows that you can't make valid arguments under any circumstances.------
Making no claims and picking no sides on issues is a bold action. I probably wouldn't become a soldier or a cop. Perhaps you should become a liberal politician.
That's hilarious. You are proud of the fact that you don't take a position on this website. You claim to have been a soldier. Is that why you lost your legs?
-----The fact that I cuss isn't the problem, you are the problem.-----
1)Maybe it is your problem.
2)If I am poison and you keep drinking said "poison", then you are purposefully taking.... "poison". Maybe you should stop partaking of what triggers you.
1) I just established that it wasn't. I didn't cuss and you are still triggered. It is clearly your problem.
2) I never called you poison. But, you indicated that my language was poisonous. You keep ingesting it. Interesting. Maybe you should follow your own advice. Oh, you do when you ban me. Hmmmm.
Does it make you feel better to accuse others of the problems you have?
It isn't as challenging as you would think. It depends on the one being triggered really. You see, neither one of us flips burgers and yet you get triggered every time I hit the submit button. You are still trying to figure out what triggers me.
8) that one is actually something that triggered me. You showed a video of Milo then you said he said something he didn't say just like every other liberal who attacks Milo. Why can't you liberals ever write what Milo actually says?
I can say what I want, when I want, and if it's a tactic used to trap you on purpose, it's your fault for not countering and/or adjusting to my techniques.
I don't know about all that, but I do feel like I can touch the sky, leap over a rainbow, and that I could even possibly fly about right now. You on the other hand, only have a banana.
Well, it's like this Nagpal. If there is an option of happiness based in faith and an option of unhappiness based on a lack of faith, isn't it actually the "smarter" thing to go for the faith...
Hmmm... we have poison in a bottle or... Lobster....
The atheist drinks down the poison and then tells you that you are the idiot. So you give them a smile, nod, and you go back to finishing your lobster with wine.
Aaaaaaah... the excellence of drinking a nice cold Dos Equis while Cartman tells you that you triggered him. Is that birds chirping that I hear? Indeed.
Not really. Time and space didn't exist before the Big Bang, so whatever preceded it was beyond space and time, the creator of it. Your clan can't use that answer. It needs magic.
Perhaps. And it's good stuff too. I'd buy you some and share, but you're a minor and don't have your big boy pants on yet. Talk to me in a few years. I'll pass you the Jack.
Is that why you have been triggered to ban me all the time? You get triggered as much as I breath. I just have to use a four letter word to set you off.
This thread is about domestic violence. My clan doesn't use violence to shut up liberals. I also don't yell or scream, or shout down my opposition with "slogans". I'm actually rather laid back and very calm. Then liberals in real life get mad at the calmness.
by "equality", I am referring to the point of having a biased opinion on the basis of gender, religion, according to you, which was, liberals think women, muslims ... can never be wrong.
What is physical information; and what is non-physical information?
I could have just said information, but that would have been hard to understand. There's no "non physical information", and the "physical" is more of a determiner than a quantifier.
Which one applies to domestic violence against men?
This question is based on the shaky assumption that the previous one was valid. Therefore, it makes no sense, especially when we add what I said.
Let's not get side tracked by your misunderstanding of the nature of information.
Basically, you said that for domestic violence against men to be real, it must be composed of information (leaving out the unnecessary "physical" qualifier).
So what does it mean for real domestic violence to be composed of information?
Let's not get side tracked by your misunderstanding of the nature of information.
Ah, yes, let's not get side tracked by your misunderstanding of the nature of information.
Basically, you said that for domestic violence against men to be real, it must be composed of information
Yes, that'd be right.
So what does it mean for real domestic violence to be composed of information?
I don't think it can be simplified further. Unless you want examples of things being composed of information, so let's give you the benefit of doubt on this one.
The simplest example would be a block of wood being composed of the information, in its molecules which are mostly organic, and which in turn are composed of smaller bits of information.
We should debate information in another thread, because it unfortunately bears on your presentation here.
Your original post amounts to "domestic violence against men can only be considered real if domestic violence against them really happens". A tautology not worth posting except in the hopes of appearing smart. Unfortunately, while failing to say anything on this topic, you said something wrong about another topic.
You can start your argument about info in a different thread from the following: Material things are composed of matter as such. They are independent of that which is outside What they are composed of. Information is not information until it is conveyed. Nothing is composed of information. That which a thing is composed of provides information to other things that interact with it. Information requires relation, composition does not. If you would like to challenge my correction to your understanding of information, challenge it elsewhere. Let's keep this debate about domestic violence.
So that means that the question you asked has a more obscure interpretation.
Yes, this isn't the right place to handle your rigid misunderstandings. I've said that already. That's why I included physical there, because I won't be arguing over the nature of information if it's hard for you to understand. But you...are not so smart.
Ah, there I let it go right off the rails. Back to the topic at hand.
Your original post amounts to "domestic violence against men can only be considered real if domestic violence against them really happens". A tautology not worth posting except in the hopes of appearing smart. If this is incorrect, go ahead and post whatever point you meant to convey.
Since the head terms "violence" and "domestic violence" does not correspond to something which is real, it can't be real
When you said that domestic violence is only real if it really happens, what you meant to say was that no violence is real, including domestic violence.
Your original post amounts to "domestic violence against men can only be considered real if domestic violence against them really happens". If this is incorrect, go ahead and post whatever point you meant to convey.
When you said that domestic violence is only real if it really happens, what you meant to say was that no violence is real, including domestic violence.
Hmm...
I think we are probably done here.
At least one reasonable thing from you. Considering how stubborn you are about your poor comprehension, yes, we're done here.
