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.
Liberals are offended by many things such as a Conservative's free speech and opinion on College Campuses, but these same pious hypocrites are not offended by a viable baby having it's body drawn and quartered weeks from birth.
Can you even imagine the lack of discernment and humanity to have such misplaced ideas of what should offend people?
It's called big money special interest groups dictating what offends Democrats and what does not.
The same Liberals who were outraged by the Patriot Act's percieived attack on our privacy, SAY NOTHING when learning of Obama and Susan Rice possibly survieling private American citizens for political reasons.
What offends Liberals is purely dictated by their extreme political ideology and has nothing to do with our freedoms or privacy.
Liberals are only offended by things that are good and decent. Like marital fidelity, a belief in a Creator, and anyone who disagrees with them about anything. Poor little snowflakes.
What can one say about how Liberals act? I could fill entire books on this subject. Liberals are adults who have never matured mentally. When you watch how they behave, in any situation, just compare it to how a spoiled child acts, and respond appropriately. Too bad we can't give them all the spanking they deserve. It would make things a lot easier.
Yes, this is why Liberals are anti spanking. They know they deserve it for all their hypocritical deception.
This is why Progressives want big government making laws to prevent any discipline for irresponsible behavior. In their twisted insecure world, we are all perfect just they way we are.
I AM offended by orange people. I'm also offended by people, who by their very PERSONHOOD, are LYING to me.. When I see FAKE hair, I'm offended that the person wearing it, is LYING to me - right smack to my face. I'm offended that Trump thinks I'm stupid enough to believe him..
Nope. Last I checked, America became the science leader when Christianity was in full effect, Obama demonized Israel and liberals cheered, and conservatives had to protect gays and minorities from the Liberal/Islam love affair (Islam being the cult of killing gays and minorities). And liberals have a monopoly the size of China on the news, media, and Hollywood.
Nope. Christianity itself had no direct causality to the rise of science despite coexisting, and now the religious right is actively at war with science over evolution, geologic history, global warming, and medicine.
And proclaiming conservatives the proctectors simply for opposing Islam is a total crock when a) most of those groups I listed generally don't want anything to do with conservatives, and b) conservatives still persecute those groups, and c) the gloom and doom global threat of Islam has already been disputed in other debates on this site.
Sure it did. When I was a kid the U.S. was 90%+ Christian, missionaries actually came into the schools and taught, and the Bible was an acceptable part of curriculum. We also said the pledge of allegiance every day which has "under God" in its words and? We destroyed the rest of the world in science and technology.
2) The religious can indeed already teach now. Curriculum, public vs private schools, and nature of any given class assignment, all factor in to what is taught. The Bible can be part of it when appropriate. But the presence of the Bible also doesn't mean nothing different from the Bible can be taught.
3) "Under God" wasn't always in the pledge. I don't personally mind that it's there, because now it's a part of history. But likewise, I think the pledge is just another form of government enculturation anyway.
4) You essentially disprove that Christianity can take any credit for science and technology when you then turn around and say but "we destroyed the rest of the world in science and technology".
Indeed, that is true. And yet it is also other Christians who deny evolution and global warming. In fact it's hard to find anyone other than the religious who oppose those.
Yes, I look through that source, and I don't find anywhere it gives a 90% number. In fact it supports my argument instead that at the most it was around 3/4, and frankly it's declining and represents a vast variety of beliefs, not just one common belief.
So are you willing to tolerate Catholics being part of your ranks? Because usually Evangelicals only credit the protestants, and a very small portion of the protestants at that, and the Protestants were only about 60% range in those years. So is that what it takes for greatness? Does it simply take a population of about 60% protestant to lead the world in science and technology?
Well if Catholics and Protestants, both equalled 91%, then that kills the Christians are anti Science narrative. Otherwise we wouldn't have led the world in science. America kicking tail in science predates the very new militant/New Atheism of today.
What it shows is that sensible Christians can coexist with science. So then the quesiton becomes why is the religious right now at war with evolution and global warming? What are you not getting in your skulls that your predecessors did decades ago?
2)Many Christians believe in theistic evolution and actually claim that the system of Darwinism matches the Genesis account. Plants first, fish second, birds and land animals next, humans last, etc.
3)Many Christians do not "oppose" evolution but would like it to pass the bare neccessities of the scientific method. (Testable, observable, measurable...). As it seems that any scientific "fact" should. It'd be a shame if Atheists had no faith based on a presupposed conclusion that turned out to be false or only "part true". Which is a trend with scientific theories over time, to be true or false one day and flip the next day. Example? Spontaneous generation. Time space continuim. Etc
4)The Cambrian explosion and a lack of the billions of intermediaries in the fossil record it takes to get from Cambrian to human does not exist. (Atheist David Berlinsky agrees and says the theory has become political rather than "going where the evidence leads".)
5)Richard Dawkins himself has explained away what he called "the appearance of design in DNA" (in an interview with Ben Stein and others) by saying advanced aliens seeded the Earth and that our reality may be a computer simulation...
6)The findings of James Gates are very problematic for Atheism. Almost too problematic.
If you are looking for a fundamentalist surrounded only by religious dogma, meet Brontoraptor, the hybrid, who can tell you both sides' best and worst arguments, because bronto is not afraid of provable facts, dying and nothing else happening, or zealotous name calling from either side on any given issue.
First, that was the best response from you I've read in a long time and I'll salute you for that. Are you sure you're still a troll?
1) and 2) I can agree with. Done.
3) I understand. I personally think evolution has made a pretty convincing case but I get it that others disagree. Though I do think it's ironic that they'll disagree with the evidence from science while accepting practically no evidence at all of creationism,
4) Lack of intermediary fossil records don't alarm me as much as you. Fossils are not automatic. It's lucky circumstances that form them. Lack of a fossil doesn't mean there wasn't something alive, it just means it didn't fossilize.
5) Dawkins, and people who theorize alien interaction with earth, are just different voices among the many out ther. I'm not Dawkins. I'm not automatically agreeing with anything and everything he has to say.
6) Gates I probably need to read up on. But you say he's a problem for atheists. I'm not actually a professed atheist, it's just the rest of you you smear me as that, because I don't hesitate to challenge those with religious dogma.
And hearing that you're a hybrid is something I'm fine with. I like people who can challenge and think. Keep on doing that.
-----I understand. I personally think evolution has made a pretty convincing case but I get it that others disagree. Though I do think it's ironic that they'll disagree with the evidence from science while accepting practically no evidence at all of creationism-----
I disagree and have a page dedicated to why. But... I don't get my core "proof" from science. I get it from probability and predictive terms. If the Bible is wrong, its predictions must be too...
There's a whole heaping amount of US history and science and technology advancement that happened before kids started saying that. And the kid who was 7 and starting school when that go added would have needed 12 years to get out of school before pursuing the science and technology to make it great. Which puts first possible impact from it between 1966 and 1970 depending on 4 years of college or not. Do you see how small your window of time is becoming?
"Destroyed the rest of the world" wasn't in regards to passing whoever was the leader. It was used in reference to the fact that we never weren't the leader.
World leadership of the US was based on the Cold War which ran from about 1947 to 1991. It was about us leading the free world. And then after that it was about being the last remaining superpower. And at no time, even during the height of the Cold War, was the US completely dominant in science and technology. Our rival USSR was right up there with us in science and technology, and lot's the West takes credit for came from science and tech amongst our allies as well.
During the time period you speak of, the U.S. was at the height of its being religious.
Russia has never led the U.S. or been tied in science or technology. But if you make that claim, it would simply mean the U.S., a highly Christianized nation was tied for first in those fields. That kills the leftist "Christians are anti science" myth.
Evangelicals didn't explode on the scene until after the end of that swing, and it's the Evangelicals primarily behind the current religious right movement. And once again, existing at the same time as something else doesn't mean any causality in one creating the other. Those were also the years Nerf toys of many kinds were popular. Shall we credit Nerf with our science and technology?
Yes they are. Liberals are offended by Melania Trump, the immigrant. They sold gays out for Islam. They call black conservatives "uncle Toms". There were public services and independent news well before the new militant "progressivism" came along. And they are offended by lewd comments unless of course the "vagina grabber" is Bill Clinton.
Melania Trump - is disliked because she is a pinup who married an obnoxious man for his money.
Gays were never sold out for Islam. That's just your latest favorite argument for why only Christians can save the world.
I do agree many use the "Uncle Tom" reference for black conservatives. Sometimes it's a fair analogy if they're in the pocket of wealthy special interests at the expense of their own race. Other times it's completely unfair. That's a case by case thing, and not just about liberals. Because abasolutely anyone can make this type of argument.
Militant progressivism is just rhetorical inflammation. It's no secret as conservatives proceed to cut social program spending and pile the military budget sky high that conservatives hate funding social programs.
And Bill Clinton neither then nor now was supported by all liberals, as is evident from the recent loss of his wife in the election.
This is all true. And then the question is whether the person who did it is your choice for first lady of the USA. I'd rather someone else. But yes, lots of people do exactly what she did.
Not me though. I'm happily married and no I didn't get rich or powerful based on my choice.
True. Which is one of the first signs that BOTH major political parties really aren't all that different. They're both tools for the wealthy to get what they want.
Barack Obama is the highest military spender of all time. He dropped more bombs than all other Presidents combined and accumulated more debt than all other Presidents combined.
1)That depends on how you define "military budget". Obama spent billions fixing areas in the Middle East that were devastated by war that were technically not a part of the "military budget".
2)Explain why a strong U.S. military is a bad thing.
1) - I'll agree to. But that's not just Obama. Frankly I've never understood why we can both be so deeply in the hole but also be giving millions and billions of dollars of aid all over the world. And I'm sure some of that aid relates to military purposes indeed.
2) - I've got nothing against a strong US military. It's just we already spend more than all the other spenders top of the miliary spending list. And meanwhile we're literally busting apart in so many other ways domestically.
What else do I got? I used to be a liberal until there was nothing "left" on the left for me. Suppression of free speech, petting Islam(the worst religion for minority rights), and the sudden love of burning the flag and hatred for the white race made me accept that Liberalism is simply Goerge Orwell's 1984 - Orwellian doublethink. It's simply the left's way of justifying that it is what it declares it hates, by giving excuses for its hypocritical behavior.
Example? Violence and intollerance is good if it's toward Conservatives.
Example: I hate religion. I support Islam. Which means not that they hate religion, but they hate Christianity.
Example: Leave people's sex lives and private lives alone. Demand Trump's taxes and demonize him for "lewd comments 12 years ago.
Example: say they support free speech. Then try to use violence to shut down non-liberal speakers.
Example: Conservatives are war mongers for calling Russia our biggest threat. Then are pissed about Russia being our biggest threat, when it becomes politically expedient to do so.
Example: Say "love Trumps hate" then resemble nothing that looks like love. It has become an "oppression olympics" where being "the most oppressed" reigns supreme, and virtue is only had by being the loudest or the most oppressed.
The left has become hypocrisy gone mad. The right at least is more consistant.
Wine Drinker gays are sold out for Islam what is it that you don't get ? Islam doesn't support the views of you Progressives so what is your attraction to a religion that opposes all your views ?
Isn't it you Progressives that are offended by the President of the United States ? Marches in the streets that serve no purpose just to expose Progressives as sore losers because Hillary didn't win !