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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Islamic extremists just beheaded many Christians and still Obama cares more about Climate.
If there were ever a poster child for the extremism of Liberalism, Obama would be it. No matter the atrosity, he always finds reason to go to fund raisers or golf courses the next day. Could there be any better picture of the misplaced priorities of Liberals?
Four men and our Ambassador die from terrorists in Benghazi and Obama goes to Las Vegas the next day.
12 people murdered in France and Obama sends no one of importance to take a stand.
The President of Israel is coming to speak in Congress over the dangers of Iran nuclear capibiities and terrorism and Obama and Demcrats want to boycott.
I coud go on and on but it is so obvious what makes up the priorities of Liberals. Their theories of global warmng are much more important even though most of their models are proven wrong.
You think because proven liars claim climate change is real, we are all suppose to believe them? These same liars told us all about global warming and the false models they pushed on us all. When a group is proven to be liars, an intelligent people laugh at their future claims!
Gee you did not throw out some lame insult and actually made an attempt to address the argument. Hence I did not ban you. GET IT?
How do you figure they are "proven liars"? I really hope you aren't referring to "Climategate", because that has been addressed ad nauseum. Though if you need it, I can provide you with some reading regarding the actual implications of "Climategate", as opposed to the talking points repeated by "certain" media outlets.
When Republicans spew incorrect garbage one has to ask: are they liars or merely ignorant? That is your call to make. One thing is for sure though: never trust a Republican.
But if you are talking about long term climate change, 20 years really isn't a period of time that makes sense to look at. Not only that, but it is both possible, and quite likely, that the ocean can (or rather has) taken the brunt of the changing temperatures which would help offset the change in air temperature.
And are you referring to ALL climate related models? Or certain ones specifically?
You think because proven liars claim climate change is real, we are all suppose to believe them?
No, what he is saying is that ISIS can only kill a small portion of the population where climate change can kill everyone. Obama would be picking the correct priority in that case. That's all he is saying.
My response is, what kind of people could possibly believe proven liars. Just because Democrats spew lies of global warming does not mean it is true. Most times it has been proven false. Americans surely do not want to pay much more for electricity and loss of jobs just because Democrats want to cater to their environmentalist doners.
Him being wrong doesn't have anything to do with his priorities. If he works on climate change he can convince people he helped more people than working on foreign policy. Especially if you are right about climate change. According to you there is no actual problem and the Earth will regulate itself. So, Obama can take credit for that and look like a hero to the entire world.
"Most times it has been proven false." Then why would the scientific community, the majority of which does not have any poltical or monetary reason to claim it is true, recognize it?
"Americans surely do not want to pay much more for electricity and loss of jobs just because Democrats want to cater to their environmentalist doners." Do Americans not want cleaner air? Do they not want sustainable energy that will not be subject to price fluctuation via oil speculation? Do Americans not want long term fixes?
The scientific community most certainly has a strong monetary interest in continuing to study global warming. I'm sure you have heard of research grants. You as a scientist need money for your research. If you don't have a problem to study, grant money does not come your way. Tremendous effort is expended in order to "get your research published ". Why ----- one very dominant cause is the need to continue receiving new grants.
But that's the thing, it isn't just those with a financial interest that are recognizing this problem. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community, most of which have nothing to gain financially from this, still recognize it. I understand questioning the motives of those who get grant money based on the results of their research, but when everyone else who DOESN'T get money based on this research is also recognizing it is a problem, then you've got to ask some questions. Even scientists hired by the Koch brothers to dispute climate change came to the conclusion that it was a real issue.
That were if climate change were not just a political movement to secure environmentalist campaign money. Climate change is the new name that was once called global warming. These people are laughable extremists, they change the name when their theories are complete jokes.
Climate change is different from global warming, as it addresses both increases and decreases in temperatures, though due to the same factors. Now I ask again: Why is it in your opinion that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, including those who have no ties to "campaign money" or government funding, recognize this?
Are you serious? The global temperatures have not risen in almost 20 years with all of your overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Can you grasp reality?
But that is the thing: If one is looking at CLIMATE change, then one needs to look at a long period of time. 20 years is a relatively short period of time, so to single that period out will not give you an accurate take on this issue. If you look at the past 100 years, for example, you see a very different picture.
Can you try posting without such insulting lines like "Can you grasp reality"?
You also have not addressed why you believe the majority of the scientific community, by an overwhelming margin, recognize this as a problem. Could you please?
It's funny that when it comes to Liberals and their environmental agendas, a short amount of years of warming does seem to make for an accurate take on this issue. You see it works both ways and as always it only works one way for environmentalists. When the data goes against them they make excuses. So very typical of Liberals.
When individuals use short amounts of time to indicate that climate change is real, they are just as wrong as when people try to use short amounts of time to indicate that it isn't real. Using their inaccurate methods does not legitimate using said methods for the opposite purpose.
Can you please try to respond to me, instead of to "Liberals"?
You just answered why I put NO CREDENCE in what scientists and environmentalists say on Global warming. I refuse to change the name just because their models were a joke.
Yes it has risen. I gave you the figures. This is what we are dealing with people when we deal with Republicans - they repeat the same argument over and over again even when they have been proven wrong. VOTE DEMOCRAT: we do more than mindless rhetoric.
It is true that Obama is the poster child for the extremism of Liberalism but if I were playing Devil's advocate I would say that, in his defense, the beheadings did not put a dent on the total number of people on this planet (Christians or otherwise).
No, Obama is not the power child of extremism of Liberalism, at ALL. Obama is far from the most Liberal president we have ever had (seriously, compare him to FDR), he has just been liberal during a more politically polarized time.
So you base your concern for humanity by the number of people butchered by Islamic extremists? Get real.... Obama is indeed the poster child for Liberal extremism and he has a responsibility for all Americans butchered no matter the numbers.
So does every president have complete responsibility for all American's who are killed under their presidency? Not meant to be a straw man or extreme or anything short of trying to understand your thoughts on this.
Emotive, knee jerk speeches after such a diabolical outrage could incite the start of a 'tit for tat'' reaction among certain types of hotheads. One thing for certain is that this latest I.S, atrocity will be the subject for serious and urgent debate among the political leaders of all civilised nations. The continuing I.S, threat will have to be dealt with in a way which will have a lasting outcome and can enlist the support of the Muslim nations and all the ordinary, hard working Muslims throughout the world. I have noticed on other sites that regardless of the savagery of an incident, or national sponsored criminality a lot of people demand President Obama to respond immediately, either verbally or demonstratively , ( send in the marines & B52s). From where I sit,( Ireland), President Obama tends to ponder on problems before deciding on a course of action.
From where we sit here in America, Obama ponders mostly on how to push his extreme Liberal agendas and hopes that terrorists and Putin and Iranian nuclear weapons just go away. He is truly the worst president in our history.
How can you say he is the worst president in history, compared to Andrew Jackson who committed genocide? Yes, Obama is bad, but do you TRULY believe that what he has done is worse than genocide?
Keep saying the same exact thing and maybe someday some idiot will actually take notice. Obama is by fr the worst president in our history. He picks and chooses which Americans to protect(the ones who vote for Democrats) and which ones to steal from.
I know not what genocide you speak to. Are you talking about war with Indians in our past? If it were true that Indians killed settler families while taking scalps, kidnapping women, etc. then I could see where a war might start.
I highly suggest you read up on the Trail of Tears and Jackson's unconstitutional actions taken against Native Americans. It was not a "war", it was a slaughter, and against peaceful tribes. I do not understand how you could justify genocide based on the (comparatively) small scale violence from other tribes.
Edit to provide some initial reading:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/ 02/20/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-list-worst-us-presidents-98997
Not the most unbiased of sources, but it provides citations for quite a few of its claims that help flesh out what I am referring to.
One clear overarching feature separates Obama from the rest. He was not raised to love America. His father (who had a great influence on his perspectives) was an anti-colonialist. His mother did not have a love for America to pass on to her son. There is great understanding to be gained by his stated purpose for America. Not one of extolling and expanding the American dream into the future, but one of "fundamentally transforming America" the implication being that there is something fundamentally wrong with America. Divide Americans as never before along racial and economic lines. FDR sought to build up America. Obama seeks to lower its influence in the world.
Just to nit-pick, there were multiple presidents that were not raised to love America, in that there were multiple presidents who were raised before America was even a country. As for the rest of your post, none of that indicates that either he fundamentally dislikes America, or is an inherently bad president. Everyone's parents raise them a certain way, and quite often it doesn't stick. You often cite the "fundamentally transforming America", but the problem is it simply has not translated into his actions. But I am curious: How specifically has Obama divided Americans "as never before" along racial and economic lines? And are you really claiming we are more racially divided now than during slavery and Jim Crowe? Are you claiming we are more divided along economic lines than the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons?
FDR sought to build up America, but it is hard to claim that he didn't also try to radically change it, considering his second Bill of Rights.
And where is your evidence that Obama seeks to lower our influence in the world, as opposed to simply change our form of influence?
