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.
People who are competitive get there. That's what it takes. "What it takes" is essential for success. You need the killer instinct. Or connections, which is a form of cheating, and cheaters aren't nice. Therefore, nice guys [or girls!] never win.
"But that's completely irrelevant. Why bring cancer children into this?? Just, why?"- how is that irrelevant at all? Just because I used children with cancer as a part of my example? Is there something wrong with that? Its not like I said anything bad about them, so why does it matter? Maybe you are just ignorant enough to look over my point and try to make it seem like I was insulting children with cancer.
"I DONATED TO CANCER CHILDREN, thank you very much. So don't go there."- don't go where? I didn't say anything bad about them you fucking idiot.
The point that you obviously weren't smart enough to see was that cheaters can be nice people. Please don't give me another ignorant response.
I'm saying, don't use cancer children as an example. Yeah, I guess someone could donate to them by cheating, and you're right, that does make them nice. It doesn't make them win, though.
And no... you misunderstood me. I'm not here to get personal... please don't call me a 'fucking idiot'. I wasn't inferring that you said something bad about cancer children. I was saying don't make it seem like I'm not involved or whatever you were trying to say... but that's not the point.
I'm sorry that you're able to guiltlessly say 'you obviously weren't smart enough to...' I guess you're not one of the nice guys! =]
Touche, cheaters can be nice people, but even if they are cheating with their money for a good cause, that money is taken from someone else who earned it. Whenever anyone steals, someone is being gypped of something that they own.
It doesnt matter if they win or not. You said that cheaters aren't nice and I gave you an example of how they were nice.
"I wasn't inferring that you said something bad about cancer children."- if I didnt say anything bad about them, then what is the problem with using them as an example?
"I was saying don't make it seem like I'm not involved or whatever you were trying to say... but that's not the point. "- what does that have to do with anything we are talking about? It seems like you are just trying to tell people that you help children with cancer. Like you want the credit for it or something.
"I guess you're not one of the nice guys"- im not nice to people who make wild claims backed with inconclusive evidence.
"that money is taken from someone else who earned it"- technically that isnt true because they earned the money, they just aren't giving it to the government to use.
Ok. {I'm typing this for the second time because it just got deleted. >:-0! }
1) It does matter if the win or not. The agrument is called "Nice guys never WIN".
2) I wasn't saying at all that you were talking bad about cancer children. I was saying that you shouldn't have used them as an example because EVERYONE pities people with cancer, and it's kind of a given that those who can donate to them will, or want to. It's like a guilt-trip weak spot. So of course I have to agree with you that it's nice to donate to them, but whether it's nice or not, it's wrong to take money or not pay it where it needs to be. It is stealing, because they owe that money to the government or wherever it's going to, while everyone else is coughing up all they can to get there...
3) Sure. Credit is nice, because I feel that it was a nice cause to donate to. BUT, I didn't bring it up for credit, I was bringing it up because you said whatever you said about them in such an accusatory way that I felt you were accusing me of not being someone who would understand that kind of donating.
4) "im not nice to people who make wild claims backed with inconclusive evidence." Well. I try and be open-minded when someone else given their opinion, and not call them "Fucking idiot"s just because I don't agree with or understand what they're saying, or that they don't think EXACTLY like ME. I try and see what they mean, and if I don't agree, I'll agree to disagree and move on =]
5) Thinking back... you're the one that made wild claims with really no point behind them. Let's say you were right, that people who take money out of their taxes to donate to cancer children are nice, and they're not cheating in any way. Sure, so that disputes one of my points, but what does that say for your side of the argument? It says that nice people can be cheaters, but... "NICE GUYS NEVER WIN" ... do they win? Donating to cancer children is an act of kindness to others, so yeah, they get the satisfaction that they did something, but who's winning here? ... The nice guys who now have tax debt?
1) We weren't talking if they would win or not. I was telling you that you were wrong when you said nice guys couldn't be cheaters.
2) Using a child with cancer in a example, keeps me from pitying them? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever. "it's wrong to take money or not pay it where it needs to be"- so if a child needs an organ transplant or they will die, and they cant afford it, its wrong for someone to rob a bank for the money? Oh right, should i have not used a sick child as an example?
3) I was explaining that the guy was nice for donating. How could that translate into me accusing you "of not being someone who would understand that kind of donating. " ? Either you weren't smart enough to interpret it correctly, or you just wanted people to know that you donate to children with cancer. You choose.
4) "just because I don't agree with or understand what they're saying"- i understand what you are trying to say, but what you are saying doesnt make sense. It wasnt just because I didnt agree with you.
5) We were never discussing if they could win or not. We were arguing on whether or not a cheater could be considered a nice person. In my opinion, by donating to children with cancer, they do win. They have tax debt because they donated to a higher cause.
Ok, are you arguing just to argue? Because it seems like you're frantically searching for details to critique, because you could easily give in to an argument that I'm obviously winning.
[I'm going by your number system]
2) I actually don't remember what my 'logic' was, but OF COURSE it's wrong to do that! Robbing a bank is robbing someone, which is wrong. No matter the intentions. That's not their money to use. If they want to use their own money to donate, fine, but there is no excuse for robbing a bank for it. What if the bank company had a family involved that had some other great medical issue? Then you'd be saving the cancer patients, but you may have just killed someone else, by taking away money where it was needed to save another life. Nice going, nice guy!
3) I choose neither, thanks. Go back and read what we said, with my comment in mind. It'll make sense to you. I couldn't figure out really how to word it, but you made some kind of offensive comment. So I was on the defense.. I didn't know how to explain it any better. But do you kind of get what I'm saying?
4) ... Ok, thanks for saying "I understand what you are trying to say". I now have some belief that you're a real person with ACTUAL feelings, but honestly, I don't even remember what I was saying at that point in the argument, and I'm too lazy to go check. :)
5) Ok sure. That makes enough sense. I was just pointing out that that doesn't really secure the ARGUMENT too much, "Nice guys never win" (but I guess that depends on your interpretation of winning).
"because you could easily give in to an argument that I'm obviously winning."- im not sure its obvious that you are winning at all, but im arguing with you because you are being irrational.
"[I'm going by your number system]"- are you an idiot? I numbered my statements because i could easily keep track of yours.
1)?
2) "Robbing a bank is robbing someone, which is wrong. No matter the intentions."- you really have to look at it from more than one angle.
"What if the bank company had a family involved that had some other great medical issue?"- the money would be insured, but that would also be an exception.
3) "I couldn't figure out really how to word it"- so you are choosing that you weren't smart enough to interpret it correctly? Saying that you donated to children with cancer had no relevance to this debate. How could you even think that I was somehow trying to attack you for not donating to children with cancer? It doesn't make sense at all.
4) Why is it such a big deal? Are you really that sensitive? I called you it because its true.
5) What would you consider to be more important: paying your taxes or donating to sick children?
.............P.S.....IF SOME SICKO TOUCHED YOU AS A KID kinda,THEN GET HELP!. Stop punishing everyone else for something that happened to you.We didnt do any thing to you.Homosexuals did nothing to you.And while your at it ,wiki "arshole" and check yourself out.Yes i been following you about on CD, i like picking on Bullies.I believe bullies are the reason why fuck all people enjoy coming here and its the reason why fuck all people stick about. So yeh at this stage i dont know if nice guys never win,(your still here) but i guess in time i (im still here too) will find out.
yeah i do.... it can be kinda creepy........sigh...but im not listening to you and you anymore , so i guess as boring as it is , i got nothing more to say so , .
"LOL @ USING OPINION POLLS AS A MEANS TO DETERMINE YOUR STANCE!!!"- lol your just mad because i really am winning here.
"It's funny how you say wikipedia is flawed because anybody can post anything they want on it but how using the same technique on CD it is not flawed."- im not taking comments from createdebate as points of reference. Im not using it as a source. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source as well. Once again, you're an idiot, stop trying.
"you'll never win an argument on this topic"- lol, too bad for you, i am winning.
You're using the polling on CD as your reference. lol. Don't worry your stupidity won't let you ackowledge your contradictions and hypocrisy. Check mate btw.
"You're using the polling on CD as your reference. lol."- im using the score because if some people read our arguments, they will vote for the side that is supported by the person that they agree with. Obviously, you weren't smart enough to figure this out.
"Don't worry your stupidity won't let you ackowledge your contradictions and hypocrisy."- hey you actually attempted at insulting me without calling me some elementary school name. Maybe you are learning from your mistakes.
"Check mate btw."- its not check mate until you insult successfully and/or you prove me wrong. Sorry, but you haven't achieved these things yet.
Wait so people inputting their opinion is different from wikipedia how?
Face it. You use whatever suits you best. On this website people are able to come onto a debate and upvote/debate no matter how much they know or don't know about the subject. Same as wikipedia.
Even worse is the fact that it's you and dacey downvoting and upvoting everyone. Hmmm... THAT obviously makes it a completely neutral argument.
It was check mate. I just had to point out how it is check mate because you're too stupid to realise. Wankstain.
"Wait so people inputting their opinion is different from wikipedia how?"- its not different and i never said that it was different.
"Even worse is the fact that it's you and dacey downvoting and upvoting everyone."- i havent downvoted or upvoted anyone. There is only one comment on the right side, the false side, that is above 1 point. That obviously makes it a completely fair argument. Stop making excuses.
"It was check mate. I just had to point out how it is check mate because you're too stupid to realise."- its impossible to realize something that hasn't occurred.
"Wankstain."- i actually thought that you grew out of your old ways, but once again you fail to surprise.
its not different and i never said that it was different.
Wait. What was that? You admit defeat. When I post a wikipedia as a source you say that its flawed... but you want to prove you're on the right side by looking at the poll count (which all of a sudden isnt flawed) even though the same techniques are used for both. Now you just admitted it. You admitted your contradiction. :) -> I repeatedly have to show you check mate. And being as continuously stupid as you are... you can't see it.
"its not different and i never said that it was different."- how is that admitting defeat at all? lol, you are so fucking stupid.
"When I post a wikipedia as a source you say that its flawed... but you want to prove you're on the right side by looking at the poll count"- those are two completely different things, which you obviously couldnt see. Wikipedia is flawed as a source because its full of incorrect or biased information. The poll count shows who is supported by the majority. It is a display of support for information, possibly unbiased, introduced by separate sides.
"I repeatedly have to show you check mate. "- you show me check mate? Does it even make sense to say it that way? You are such an idiot.
My point is not regarding their accuracy.. only that both sites are full of faults and you can't (especially YOU) judge which is more accurate. That's where your hypocracy lies. You're wrong either way until you can prove to me what the term nice guy means. You've avoided that throughout all your posts.
I have got nothing more to say. If you continue it's probably only for the sake of argument or through stubborness than the lack of reasoning on my side.
"Both sites are full of incorrect information."- the difference is that some people try to use wikipedia as a source, when, in fact, it is the same as this site.
"Both sites show what the majority enters."- what? An entire Wikipedia article can change from one person. There is no kind of majority going on there. You may argue that more people biased to one side would more often change the information, but then that is not the same thing as on this site. The important fact on this site is that the readers can see both sides of the argument and later choose who they support. On wikipedia there is only one side to see.
"My point is not regarding their accuracy.. only that both sites are full of faults and you can't (especially YOU) judge which is more accurate."- your point is not regarding their accuracy only that people can judge their accuracy? What the hell? lol you are so fucking stupid.
"You're wrong either way until you can prove to me what the term nice guy means."- first of all what does that have to do with anything we are talking about? You are obviously trying to get off topic. Second, i have answered this question a long time ago and im not going to waste my time finding it because we have already been through that debate and you lost.
"I have got nothing more to say."- thank GOD.
I think you are starting to refrain from using those children names. Have you found that they make you look like idiots?
Alright, unless we've all taken IQ tests, there's no way to measure that.
It only shows that you're meaner, definitely not smarter.
It seems that your technique is to call people idiots just to make them step off and move on to another debate... but it's not proving that you're smarter. At ALL, actually.
You seem arrogant enough to claim that you're the smartest person on earth... but I guess you'll argue that, too. Because since I'm OBVIOUSLY of lower IQ level, I'm PROBABLY wrong, so what do I know? You're right again, mister! Ah, just amazing how that always comes out the same, isn't it? Sweet Bejesus, you're smart, dude!
Congrats, and give yourself a pat on the back.
And while I have no way of knowing, by levels of debating technique, it seems to me that Kinda and I are both smarter than you. And nicer, but we'll never win this debate, because of that! Golly willikers, it sucks to be nice.
"Alright, unless we've all taken IQ tests, there's no way to measure that. "- you wouldn't understand, you're not smart enough.
"It only shows that you're meaner, definitely not smarter."- dont worry, i am smarter than you.
"It seems that your technique is to call people idiots just to make them step off and move on to another debate... but it's not proving that you're smarter. At ALL, actually."- thats not my technique at all and you just proved again that you are an idiot for saying something like that.
"You're right again, mister!"- just for saying that, i think that you are more intelligent than i thought.
"Congrats, and give yourself a pat on the back."- dont need to.
"it seems to me that Kinda and I are both smarter than you"- it seems to you that way because you are dumb. I am smarter than you both combined.
"Golly willikers"- havent heard that one before, im not being sarcastic.
"Since when does "being nice" involve insisting to someone you've never met that you're smarter and that they're a 'fucking idiot'??"- oh trust me, thats exactly what it involves.
I'm not being irrational. I'll be honest and say that I've been trying to be nice to you, but you're a complete jerk. And one who is worthless to argue with, because you're not even attempting to see things the way I'm trying to tell you. Along with that, your calling me an idiot is pretty ironic, because my arguments are as clear as day and you're not getting it.
"you're not even attempting to see things the way I'm trying to tell you"- maybe if there was some kind of rational argument that you were putting forth, you would be able persuade me to see it from your side.
"my arguments are as clear as day and you're not getting it."- they clearly aren't
You're clearly an idiot, otherwise you'd understand.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
You could say connections is a form of cheating but it is actually a form of competition. To make the connection and to be able to use it requires certain skills i.e. to be able to make that connection like you - to give you a favour.
Except for those rich cunts with rich parents who don't have to lift a finger in their life - only study - and they've got their life set for them. I don't actually mind them until they become snobs. Then they deserve to die and I wouldn't mind kiling them.
I might get killed for saying this, but maybe the winning argument is 'false' because the majority of the people aren't nice... or just haven't had the pleasure of being back-stabbed and stepped on by "friends" along the way.
Nobody is nice all the time cause if they are others just take advantage of them. The truth is nice guys get walked all over, you can't be nice all the time, if you were you'd be a door mat. Therefore, the answer has to be nice guys dont ever win. Bad dangerous boys are viewed as being more attractive (by in large ) by the opposite sex, competitive people who are willing to walk over their own grandmother invariably make it to the top, bad guys win because we live in a bad world where the demons are allowed to run a muck. the entire system is founded on enhancing human greed by seeing how much wealth one can accumulate. Everything comes back to this, we live in a society where accumulating more wealth and status are the top priority for most people, this is because seocity is structured to encourage this. Human innovation and creativity are both subject to this e.g. effective corporate control of scientific research.
Completely true, man. Join the facebook group, "The Nice Guys." Or something like that. It's all about what you just argued. You are hands-down correct. Very nice.
To counter argue that read the rest of your point... LOL... and if THAT's not complainig... read your other posts...
When did you ever ask me to define it?
really??
explain..........
"not calling anybody names?"- when someone starts to call somebody else names, it shows two things. They are frustrated and they have nothing more sophisticated to say to the other person. You resorted to name-calling, which shows how your statements have little importance to the debate.
No, it just means I'm calling you names. Why? Because it's fun. Watching you complain is also kinda funny. Watching you complaing about name calling is funnier. Watching you complain about how you don't complain makes most of this worthwhile.
*BTW the word complain can also be replaces whinge, whine, moan etc.
"A - Nice guys aren't pussies"- the nicest man in the world couldn't be the strongest and bravest person on the planet? It is extremely ignorant to act as though any person who is nice, is also a pussy.
That is what a 'nice guy' is. Unless you've got a different definition. Doesn't just mean a guy who is nice but also other things. Nice guys are complete pussied up little mummy boy pansies. Like you. It also means they COULD be strong (not brave, cause that's NOT being a pum) but they're NOT.
"To counter argue that read the rest of your point... LOL... and if THAT's not complainig... read your other posts..."- how does that prove that I was complaining or not? That entire line doesn't mean anything. That's like telling someone that their food tastes bad and when they ask you how, you say taste it again and repeat that it tastes bad. You gain no headway, fail to prove your point, and waste time all in the same instance. Unless you can explain to me how I was complaining, instead of just repeating that I was complaining, there is no reason for you to say anything.
"When did you ever ask me to define it?"- how could i explain this? Do you even think before you type?
"No, it just means I'm calling you names. Why? Because it's fun."- do you know those who think its fun to call people names? Children. They cannot find anything else to say, so they just make up a name and say it to people. You obviously haven't become sophisticated enough to learn that.
What you need to understand is that there is a difference between the words complain and argue. I haven't been complaining about your inability to prove an ignorant point. I have been arguing, though, against what doesn't make sense. I have to argue with you over what you say because most of it is completely irrational and unreasonable. I argue to try to get you to understand that you are not making any sense when you say that real men cannot be nice.
"That is what a 'nice guy' is."- you don't understand that a person doesn't necessarily have to be either a "real man" or a nice guy. A "real man" could be a nice guy. It seems as though you have made up your own definition of what a nice guy could be. Basically, a nice guy is a guy who is nice. There is nothing that you could add to that. How could you call a man that is nice a pussy, "mummy boy", or pansy? It wouldn't make sense because you have no information other than the fact that they are nice.
"So... a hit and a miss pansyboy."- im guessing that people would probably take you more seriously if you didn't call them names. Hopefully im the only one that you do it to.
i agree with you that most grow out of the ahol phase but at times with the nice guys it leaves a bitter taste in their mouths so to speak because their more or less told they have to wait till the girl/woman discovers herself before the nice guys is found. the nice guy already knew what most girls/women need or needed and in some ways provided that while being the platonic friend but at that time just was never seen as boyfriend material. the good thing as mentioned is they do grow out of it most of the time. the nice guys out there may never fully understand it but are glad thatr eventually they can get the girl. the nice guys in general just wish that it would be earlier than so much latter in their lives. in my case it wasn't until i was 25 when i met my gal who had several jerka*'s before me she's 2 years younger than me. we've been together now for 40 years
Every now and then a nice guy manages to come out. Bill Gates probably falls in the nice guy category, he seems to be doing alright. Even-though this is the exception to the rule.
Because of this one example one cannot say nice guys never win. One can say that most of the time nice guys never win.
Everybody wins the same amount. It has nothing to do with being a "good" person or a "bad" person. Who decides what's good or bad anyway? Things just happen, fate doesn't decide on what happens if your good or bad...
Nice guys dont finish last... depends on the girl though if the girls just looking for a little play toy with more biceps then brains sure nice guys wont win, but if the girl is looking for an actual guy to be with nice guys kick ass
Maybe in high school and some college. At those times, sure, girls go for bad-asses. But eventually, she should become mature and realize that a nice guy would be better to raise children with.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
NEWSFLASH: Ladies have other aspirations than making babies.
Isn't enough to go for guys that respect us (as equals and not baby-makers, mind), without plans for children, marriage, or even long-term relationships? Some girls do go for asshole, just like some guys go for unavailable/manipulative/whatever girls- but it's a minority. Most people like nice people.
I never said women want to settle down while men don't. After we go through our youthful ages, a lot of us, both men and women, want to settle down. And a lot of these people who settle down have babies. Not a big deal.
im a nice guy and a lot of people like me for it the reason not girl wants me is my manners I am also very shy and have a hard time socializing I have had a lot if females say how sweet I am
tell us whens the last time you run across one of those animals.
there are very few guys out there that are what one might call the middle of the road (combination nice guy /bad boy ) these types are a minority in numbers . yes they do exist. however its either or in most girls minds nice guy / or bad boy-jerks as deffinitions. guys fall into one or the other of these last two options
When was the last time I ran across one of those animals?
-Well he's not an animal. i am currently with him. He doesn't cry in front of anyone except for me, and he stays strong for me during rough times. He doesn't let anyone get to him, if he does, I never seen it. So I guess I have a piece of that minority.
