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.
Eric Bolling from Fox's The Five Says he supports her. What is your position? Let us know here...let him know here @ericbolling . Don't forget to include @createdebate and the link in your tweet!
Support for political parties and politicians should remain confidential. I wouldn't have minded her saying she supported a specific political view, but to support a single politican taints the election.
Now some people won't vote for Romney because they thinks Romney's a good person who can make the right choices, they will vote for Romney because they think Stacey Dash is a good person who makes the right choices.
Support for political parties and politicians should remain confidential.
It does remain confidential. We will never know how she voted in the end. She could be lying right now and her statement really does not bear any legal burden on her at all. If you are keen on the state controlling absolutely everything about political speech then fine, but I will call the libertarians on you and they will put a "-1" in front of your zero on the points counter.
Sorry did you downvote me? For having a different opinion to yours?
"It does remain confidential. We will never know how she voted in the end."
Yes, but she clearly voices support for a political candidate. I didn't say anything about voting.
"She could be lying right now and her statement really does not bear any legal burden on her at all."
Why would she be lying by saying 'vote this guy' when she really wanted everyone to vote for someone else? She clearly abels Romney as the 'only choice for your future'.
"If you are keen on the state controlling absolutely everything about political speech then fine,"
I'm against individual politicans abusing popular celebreties in an attempt to gain support for the masses. As I clearly stated in my original argument, it taints the election process. People will no longer vote for Romney purely because of his policies or political views, some people will ow vote for Romney solely because they idolise Stacey Dash.
They say any publicity is good publicity. I wouldn't be surprised if it was about that in the end. She deserved the critique because she wanted it so badly.
Of course not but what do ya expect? There's a lot of idiots on the internet and it happens.... Hell, Garry told me to go hang myself for showing a little support for Israel.
And Andy, wassup with the size of that font? Worried Joe might not be able to read it otherwise? ;)
Hell, Garry told me to go hang myself for showing a little support for Israel.
That would have actually been an improvement on the treatment I received during a debate with Garry that touched on that topic. I have only opted out of exactly one debate, and it was on the grounds that the person I was debating with was being too much of a vulgar, uncompromising jackass for me to stomach and still keep my cool, and that was a debate with Garry about Israel. And Pat Condell.
"That would have actually been an improvement on the treatment I received during a debate with Garry that touched on that topic."
Really, what exactly did I say that was so bad? And worst than asking you to hang yourself, get real. Perhaps I was bit demeaning and petty, but in fairness, you were sort of asking for it.
"I have only opted out of exactly one debate,"
Are you sure you're not confusing "opted out" for "had your ass handed to you on plate."
"and it was on the grounds that the person I was debating with was being too much of a vulgar"
No, if you were being honest with yourself you’d admit that your position had become rather untenable despite my brash, spiky, and uncompromising style of argument and prose. I remember that argument, I started off being rather reasonable, then your conceited tone pissed me off, and I decided not to show any quarter, as there was none given.
But hey, I’ll let the record speak for itself, any who gives a solitary fuck can check it out here
And worst than asking you to hang yourself, get real.
Maybe it's a matter of personal preference, but I would rather have someone irately make a violent statement at me like "Go hang/fuck/kill yourself" than have someone make attacks on my character or intelligence.
Perhaps I was bit demeaning and petty,
Exactly.
but in fairness, you were sort of asking for it.
I suppose so. I did have an opinion you didn't agree with.
Are you sure you're not confusing "opted out" for "had your ass handed to you on plate."
Yes, quite sure. I've had my ass handed to me before and stuck it out until losing or conceding or eventually turning the debate around. Getting my ass handed to me isn't a problem. It's actually nice to have those kind of debates every once in a while, I think. But I digress; the reason I abandoned the debate is what I said it is above, and what I said to you in a message when i stopped replying to the debate. Basically: I can't continue to debate with someone who debates like you do and still keep my cool. It's not that you made good points that deterred me from the debate; it was the way you made those points.
No, if you were being honest with yourself you’d admit that your position had become rather untenable despite my brash, spiky, and uncompromising style of argument and prose.
About exactly half of my argument, yes, I agree. The part (you brought up) about Israel, admittedly, I probably should have left alone in the first place. My position regarding Pat Condell (which was the original point of the debate) has, if anything, strengthened since we last talked. You can download his podcasts for free and I do a lot of driving so it was easy for me to burn through his entire works in the weeks following our last debate, and I still don't see the baseless ("just watch his videos" and "just look into his eyes" were your main arguments for why Condell is racist) accusations you made as being remotely true.
And I would have really liked to make more points on the subject, but like I said I couldn't bring myself to continue and not potentially blow up on you.
I remember that argument, I started off being rather reasonable, then your conceited tone pissed me off,
And when I look back at it, it seems like you're the one who gets condescending while I'm still being reasonable. Perspective is a funny thing.
But hey, I’ll let the record speak for itself
Thanks for linking that, btw. I wasn't sure where that debate got to and i wanted to look it over again. Nostalgia.
"but I would rather have someone irately make a violent statement at me like "Go hang/fuck/kill yourself"
I didn't violently ask him anything I calm suggested the world would be better off if he wasn't in it, well, maybe it was violent.
"han have someone make attacks on my character or intelligence."
I never overtly attacked your character or your intelligence, you simply decided to interpret my abuse that way.
"I suppose so. I did have an opinion you didn't agree with."
You had far more than that my friend, you started the debate with an air of superiority, you were clearly very sure of your position, probably like anyone else who listens to Condell, the guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about, he seems reasonable, rational, intelligent, and articulate, his intellectual dishonesty is extremely hard to spot.
"But I digress; the reason I abandoned the debate is what I said it is above, and what I said to you in a message when i stopped replying to the debate. Basically: I can't continue to debate with someone who debates like you do and still keep my cool"
The reality is the debate cooled down significantly after a few posts, it became much more cordial, but if I remember correctly, once you sensed my guard was down tried to capitalise on it as a desperate attempt to restore some semblance of parity, and I responded again with a torrent of what you might deemed "heavy handedness", once you realised there was nothing in the debate for you to won, you stopped replying, and the resocrd proves it.
"My position regarding Pat Condell (which was the original point of the debate) has, if anything, strengthened since we last talked."
Even though his views on the Palestinians and Islam in general are abominable.
"I still don't see the baseless ("just watch his videos" and "just look into his eyes" were your main arguments for why Condell is racist) accusations you made as being remotely true. "
So you do beleive the Palestinians are simply mooching beggars who get far too much attention in the media, and its all simply an Arab scam to rob the Jews of their homeland despite international law?
"And when I look back at it, it seems like you're the one who gets condescending while I'm still being reasonable. Perspective is a funny thing. "
I'm well aware I was being a condescending ass, I knew that from the get go, but frankly you dragged up a debate that was months old, and I really didn't want to respond (just like this one), but I find it hard to walk away form any potential challenge, and I so used condescension as a means of lessening the amount of work I had to put into my posts.
"Perspective is a funny thing"
Some would say the only real truth is perspectival truth, although we might all be entitled to our own opinions (i.e. prejudices and flaws), we are not all entitled to our own facts.
Some would say the only real truth is perspectival truth, although we might all be entitled to our own opinions (i.e. prejudices and flaws), we are not all entitled to our own facts.
Seeing as what we're discussing is one anothers tone on the internet, objective truth might be a long shot. I would say at best we're comparing opinions.
but I find it hard to walk away form any potential challenge, and I so used condescension as a means of lessening the amount of work I had to put into my posts.
I think that's kind of a weak excuse, especially compared to responding in kind, which is a reason you gave for your tone and attitude, already.
If you don't want to respond, don't respond. I'd much prefer that to you responding like an asshole.
So you do beleive the Palestinians are simply mooching beggars who get far too much attention in the media, and its all simply an Arab scam to rob the Jews of their homeland despite international law?
Except for the part about far too much attention in the media (as I said, I live in CA; they make a big deal of it here), no.
Even though his views on the Palestinians and Islam in general are abominable.
Is that a question?
and the resocrd proves it.
How could the record possibly prove my emotional, personal, and subjective intentions?
and I responded again with a torrent of what you might deemed "heavy handedness"
This was the real reason I didn't want to continue. I like to fight fire with fire, and I like to respond in kind, but when that means arguing like an unrelenting asshole I usually decline to continue, or reply in the first place.
but if I remember correctly, once you sensed my guard was down tried to capitalise on it as a desperate attempt to restore some semblance of parity
Again, how could this possibly be anything other than blind conjecture? And I wouldn't have needed to "desperately" try to restore parity; you we're winning half the debate, and so was I. That seems pretty even keel, to me.
his intellectual dishonesty is extremely hard to spot.
Not really. Just check his facts.
You had far more than that my friend, you started the debate with an air of superiority
Really, now? I think on this one you ought to go check the record. With the exception of the bit where you misunderstood my point as trying to give you advise, I don't see how I said anything with an air of superiority.
I never overtly attacked your character or your intelligence, you simply decided to interpret my abuse that way.
garry77777: "Seriously, this demonstrates incredible stupidity on your part."
...hm... I hope you'll agree that when I "decided to interpret" this kind of thing as an attack on my intelligence, it's because that's really the only way to decide to interpret it if you understand the English language.
And, looking it back over, I really ought to applaud you on your quality debate skills, man. I was in over my head. I'll bet the subject was irrelevant; you could have put your skills to use tearing down any opinion of mine if I did in fact piss you off with my tone. Really. There were a lot of times there you had me not even knowing what I was trying to say.
I like to think a couple hundred days of debating in circles with people on here made me a little less easily fallible than before, but perhaps that's wishful thinking. Either way I'll end this like I did last time: I'm looking forward to debating you on another issue, another day.
"And, looking it back over, I really ought to applaud you on your quality debate skills, man. I was in over my head. I'll bet the subject was irrelevant; you could have put your skills to use tearing down any opinion of mine if I did in fact piss you off with my tone. Really. There were a lot of times there you had me not even knowing what I was trying to say. "
I do deeply respect and admire your magnanimity, and I am sorry I was such an ass.
" I'm looking forward to debating you on another issue, another day."
I look forward to it, although I have very little time for this site these days.
She received some really horrific twitter threats back after she made her initial tweet in support of Romney. These were really serious threats. I was very surprised with the level of the threats!
Unfortunately, this is the consequence of social media, and the state of affairs in politics where social media has driven us to share everything that we think especially celebrities because it feeds their egos, and politics has become so negative and hatred that people are threatened with violence for the support for one candidate.
Nope. I understand that people's ideals are very important to them and they believe that contrasting ideals might be hazardous to their nation...but I can't understand why some people think it's right to lash out so violently. They should just buck up and accept the fact that all humans are not meant to think alike.