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.
I believe that yes, any debate topic should be allowed on this website, except a few motions. But before that, let me define spam.
Spam: irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.
I believe that we should always be able to monitor what goes on this website because anything that is unmonitored is a recipe for disaster. We are humans. People are evil. You can't just let anyone post anything. There may be incredibly disrespectful, pointless, useless motions that only would hurt and cause harm to our community. So Yes, we should be able to remove the spam messages, because there is no value in a post of spam, and there is whatsoever, no use of a message that contains spam at all.
Finally, I would like to end this debate with an analogy. Imagine you have a voting poll, and anyone can post anything. Some man keeps on advertising his products completely irrelevant to the actual use of the poll. Spam causes a lot of time wasted in filtering the messages, and overall annoying-ness. So in that way, no, spam should not be allowed on this website!
I agree that this a website for anyone to debate on anything, but sometimes, it so happens that we end up debating on pointless issues.. can this be avoided? of course, one can always choose to not debate on a particular topic, but some topics, are just not going to do good to anyone, provided the circumstances and opportunities to make a change.. so do we owe any "quality" to the topics we want to debate?
I personally am emotionally detached from criticism. I simply don't care about critiques, insults, banter, trolling, etc that is directed at me. If the mod pms me, I always take the rebuke and do as requested. Example?
He pm'ed me and asked if I could make debate titles that were in the form of a question. I complied for it seemed a reasonable request.
The NotASaint debate was designed to bait Saint into a debate about hell, which Saint loves to talk about in excess. But if we try to debate him or her on their debate, we are quickly blocked. Understand? Bronto's been debating a long time and knows the tricks of the trade.
Okay beast. If the universe can randomly create life by chance, why couldn't a squid type out a message on a keyboard by chance? What makes you think I'm not a squid?
What you say WOULD be true, IF the universe did what you learned in church that it does.. But, it doesn't, and that's why church isn't a good place to learn your science..
I'm not religious Con. You're up the wrong tree again. I simply am a person who can flummix Atheists that have any sort of a brainstem. Atheists seem to mentally evade philosophical concepts. I don't know if they are afraid of them or simply don't understand them. Perhaps this explains why the concept of a creator is so hard for them to grasp.
If the universe can randomly create life by chance, why couldn't a squid type out a message on a keyboard by chance? What makes you think I'm not a squid?
If that's the case, spaghetti monsters might exist, and every creature you don't believe might exist, what makes you think all that you didn't believe doesn't exist?
1)I don't say anything doesn't exist. If you want the theory of everything, you're making my point and in danger of philosophically heading towards theism. Hey bronto, everything must exist then! Oh?
2)That's not the debate. The debate is, if consciousness and human language and words can come by chance, why can't words on a computer screen while say a chimp whacks at the keyboard?
If the existence of one thing means that the other doesn't, one of them doesn't exist
If spaghetti monster exists, that doesn't mean a creator doesn't. Spaghetti monster doesn't cancel out a creator's existance, nor does a creator's existance cancel out a spaghetti monster.
If the fact "god doesn't exist " exists, then god doesn't exist.. on the other hand, if "god exists" then the other becomes false. I wasn't talking about spaghetti monsters there.
That's fine, but the highest possible being not existing in an infinite reality is impossible. The best "doesn't exist" is a meaningless concept in a reality of conscious beings within said reality.
Next. If God is beyond our reality, and all things exist in said "beyond our reality", then we have an answer. If we have "the answer", where God came from is irrelevant. He's still who and what he is. For all we know it's meaningless where he is at.
And if you say reality is finite?
The highest being that exists in said "finite reality" does exist and philosophy can't get around it (reality). And then you have to accept that a basketball can literally exist inside of nothing... and believe it...
Even if "god" is beyond reality(let's assume), we can never know or discuss about him, for we can only discuss what we know, within reality, then for you to say god is "real" would be a total contradiction..
You are beyond or "outside" of the Sims reality. And I'm pretty sure you and I exist.
that is because we are "outside" the sims reality. but to the characters in there(provided we give them the intelligence), they cannot talk about us, as there is nothing that tells them we exist, except for them to "imagine" that we do.
1)If we entered their world as one of them and told them who we are, did miracles, and raised their dead then that wouldn't be true. Did that happen in our history here? Hmmmm...
2)Even if they "had no reason to believe we exist", we do still exist...
1)If we entered their world as one of them and told them who we are, did miracles, and raised their dead then that wouldn't be true. Did that happen in our history here? Hmmmm...
if we go as one of them and do as you said, it still wouldn't apply to them that they know of our existence, as any character can tell anything and do anything. sure, the character doing that might become a great leader, but the character by himself wouldn't know of our existence.
Even if they "had no reason to believe we exist", we do still exist...
to them, they can either believe we don't exist or imagine of our existence, either of which doesn't prove to them our existence.
The supernatural arena is where you study, look for, and/or "find God".
you are talking about something you call that is "above our reality" irrespective of his existence, you cannot talk about something you don't know, as talking about anything above our reality which we personally don't know would be "imagination".
In our reality? Sure. As I said, everything that can be self caused must come to exist at every chance. For an impersonal universe, that's pretty low. However, it's about 100% for omnipotent entities.
Therefore, God should always be coming to existence everywhere. Unless, that is, he isn't possible, in which case any self causation is beyond the question.
And if we're in a simulation, then there's no afterlife, except perhaps in the recycle bin.
Simulation is a semantical term. If God is real, anything He creates is a simulation. That doesn't mean it is a computer simulation, just that it isn't His reality. It's a medium or in His mind, or who knows.
Therefore, God should always be coming to existence everywhere. Unless, that is, he isn't possible
One would have to define "God" to say whether He is or isn't possible. We create simulated realities all the time, and we are possible. What we can say with assuredness is that the highest possible being within our reality is possible, and would have or does exist within the constructs of infinity. It's hard for me to think that our consciousness didn't have a "programmer" or designer, so to speak.
And I don't know about the "recycle bin", but it's highly possible that we just would go to a higher simulation or reality that is still created by God from the outside. In the Bible, Jesus is clear that he is God, but still takes a position that he is the King of the inside of our reality as "The Son", yet is somehow different than the Father, by being human. But then the Bible is clear that they are "One".
That's not a problem. You can create as many manifestations as you want of yourself in a simulation and they'd be one.
Christus might be his preferred "face", so to speak, at the time. But that means he was kidding while saying that he has always and will always be with God, and that he eternally "sits beside him", as I've heard.
Earth exists thus God does not exist by default? That's not even a logical statement. Because something exists, that doesn't make another thing "not exist by default. That's like saying "marbles exist, so apples do not exist by default". It's not a coherant thought.
Earth exists thus God does not exist by default? That's not even a logical statement
that's sure an illogical interpretation.I never made that statement. okay, let me break this down for you..
there are two possibilities, god exists or god doesn't exist. the fact that one is true implies the other is false. we know for a fact that earth exists, and hence to say that earth does not exist is false, by default. you cannot relate marbles to apples, as they can simultaneously exist. and have nothing to do with each other's existence.
Your orginal premise was illogical in the first place. The "if it can not exist, then it doesn't exist" argument isn't even logical. I can not exist and did "not exist" for billions of years, but I do exist. Just because I can "not exist", that doesn't mean that I don't. What does that even mean?
If the fact "god doesn't exist " exists, then god doesn't exist
This is the illogical premise you presented. X can "not exist", therefore it doesn't exist? That's an illogical concept. Everything that we know DOES exist CAN "not exist", but it does exist. This is basic deductive reasoning.
And again. The spaghetti monster vs God comparison is horrible. If there is a spaghetti monster out there somewhere, God doesn't exist and vica versa? That doesn't even make sense. It's like saying "If cars exist then birds do not". It's an illogical argument.
you talked about chance there, talking about you being a squid, smashing the keyboard randomly and stuff and then asked why not?
the same way, i can talk about spaghetti monsters and their existence, just like you did with the "squid" even i can ask why not?, taking chance to be my advantage..
spaghetti monsters was totally not related to the god argument, you made that interpretation for yourself there.
. If the universe can randomly create life by chance, why couldn't a squid type out a message on a keyboard by chance? What makes you think I'm not a squid?
that was what you said, and then you brought up god in the next disputing argument you made, bringing up existence of everything is possible, telling that i was proving your point.
my reply to that was if the existence of one thing means another thing doesn't exist, then one of them should exist and the other will become false by default.,
how this is related to god, is that you stand on a side that says god exists, and i say god doesn't exist(just for this argument though, i do respect the idea of chance), so either one of us is going to be right, at the end..
it can't happen that both exist simultaneously. that is why i wasn't proving your point, as i stand on a side that i believe is true and you stand on a side that you believe is true and only one of them can be true among the sides we take.
and chance talks about whether a thing "can" exist, it doesn't talk with certainty that the thing "does exist".
as i have mentioned earlier, I do respect the "possibility" of existence of everything, but due to what I observe and think, I take a side.
the same way, i can talk about spaghetti monsters and their existence
God, Spaghetti Monster and pink unicorns can all coexist. It's a meaningless intellectual proposition to me. There is a reason Richard Dawkins is a biologist rather than a philosopher.
that was what you said, and then you brought up god in the next disputing argument you made, bringing up existence of everything is possible, telling that i was proving your point
If reality is infinite, all things that can exist must exist and infinitely. Within the construct of an infinite realitiy, there are infinite you's, infinite me's, and infinite everything that "can be", including the highest concievable being that is possible.
If reality is finite, you must explain how something comes from nothing and how something can exist inside of nothing.
They said breaking 4 minutes in the mile was impossible. Now you won't even make the jv squad for the Olympics if you can't break 4 minutes, so that's how that works.
Abiogenesis is just a possibility at this point. All theories of how we got here are nonfacts at this point, so the God theory and the hope for eternal life in happiness is obviously the best option, unless you simply want to not exist anymore.
An idea out of someone's head doesn't necessarily decide my existence. The reason I say that possibilities should not be used in an argument, is that if you talk about it's
existence in the future, i might as well say that it'll never exist(also a possibility) and we cannot find out who among us will be right, sooner or later.
If you do not look at the evidence, decide there is none, and then face a creator in a judgement, saying "I didn't think you existed" probably won't be seen as a logical answer. Said judge will probably say "Why didn't you hope in my existence for yourself and your loved ones"?
"I didn't think you existed" probably won't be seen as a logical answer
it is an logical answer, provided we talked already about people imagining the existence of god.. and that with all that's provided to me, i'd rather not believe in god just because someone told me to, i'd see and question anything i can, and debate with me and others of his existence, until i make a conclusion.
i'd rather not believe in god just because someone told me to, i'd see and question anything i can
Sounds like a heart issue rather than an intellectual issue. If your response toward your boss was "to question everything", you'd be fired. At some point you have to hope for others, otherwise you have intentionally murdered their future existence in your heart when the possibility of their eternal existence was possible.
It doesn't look like it's a physical labor job but a job that consists of you loving and coexisting for eternity. Some people cannot except said job, thus may not be asked to do a job they hate, don't want, or reject. Faith shows particular characteristics of the person and so does a lack of faith. The one that looketh at these characteristics searches the heart. Your lack of faith will not derail God from the searching of the heart that He so chooses to take part in.
It doesn't look like it's a physical labor job but a job that consists of you loving and coexisting for eternity. Some people cannot except said job, thus may not be asked to do a job they hate, don't want, or reject.
yeah yeah, just believe in something you can imagine, and live in nostalgia for your whole life.
Not really. Jesus Christ is a part of human history even according to Atheist historians. He isn't an invisible entity. He was a man that changed the entire course of human history.
jesus Christ is a part of human history even according to Atheist historians. He isn't an invisible entity. He was a man that changed the entire course of human history
He might have been, I don't have any problem with that.
Nope. I never used the words, "he was just a man". I said he was a man, which kills the "He's invisible and made up" narrative. His followers claim he was killed and raised from the dead and claimed to be God himself in the flesh. They believed it so much, that they all faced prison and/or death for their faith. The other followers were burned at the stake and killed by lions in colliseums. He's the only man in history to claim to be God, declare that his gospel would be preached to every nation, then it happen, then it happen at a time when the world looks the way he described it looking when the gospel goes worldwide. The point? Faith is reasonable, and there is good, logical reasoning behind having it.
I said he was a man, which kills the "He's invisible and made up" narrative
that I'm okay with, of his existence, and I didn't know, by "man" according to you, would refer to a human being with supernatural powers. sure you didn't use those words there. but what a "man" is for everyone is different for you, unlike everyone else.
His followers claim he was killed and raised from the dead and claimed to be God himself in the flesh
then that's the first thing i'm going to do today, claim to be god, have all those people who abide by my idealogies to think i'm dead and (when I'm actually alive)
come back, and voila, i'm another important part of so many generations' day to day life.
I don't have to know that, if i ask them what a "Man" means, i pretty much know what to expect, unlike your claim of the word referring to something else totally and also your claim that christians also think the word "man" means what you think.
They watched him die and have a spear shoved through his gut to make sure. He also hung there bleeding to death for hours. The Centurions also declared him dead before he was put in the tomb.
Well you're prophecies are going to have to come true and all at a specific time together in history. You're welcome to try and pull it of
definitely, at some point of time, somethings will look like the way i describe them today, well, let me just put prophecies of wars, natural disasters .. hmm that should do the trick..
Not really. Biblical prophecy gets way more specific than that. It's a shame that militant Atheists are bound and determined to keep you as far away from it as is possible.
Your followers will also have to be so convinced that they all die in your name to defend who they say you are. And if you don't change the course of all of human history, then apparently you weren't as convincing as he was. And then you'll need to make a bunch of specific claims that all manifest into reality together in history.
Your followers will also have to be so convinced that they all die in your name to defend who they say you are. And if you don't change the course of all of human history, then apparently you weren't as convincing as he was
provided execution goes well, which is all left to the people, there's nothing that could go wrong.
If you can predict the entire eschatology of a future religion that beheads Christians, genocides Christians, and rejects Jesus as the Son of God coming into play in the end and attacking Christian nations, that'd be only just a start. You've got a guantlet of unexplainable prophecies that are mind boggling about the end to get through. When this religion begins waging war and attacking Christians and Christian nations, Damascus and Syria is obliterated. And that will all happen when Atheism begins getting a foothold which happens as soon as the gospel goes to every nation. It even tells us every nation that Christ stands against in the end. Every single one is Islamic today. Islam didn't exist when the Bible was written. At some point it becomes impossible for the Bible to predict it all without the hand of God Himself. Of course I provided you a link that demonstrates the entire concept, that is... if you have the stones as a devout unbeliever.....
Your followers will also have to be so convinced that they all die in your name to defend who they say you are
you seem to get things now, see, i was just another person, who didn't die ....
but still i have people who think I'm god and just because i said so, who believed that i actually died, and still continue to believe in me just because no one can ever know what i truly was..
Many people have claimed to be God in modern times. Very few remember them, and they were just months and years ago.
it's because of the "execution" part i talked about in the other argument, that went wrong for all of them, and possibility that i become successful of the claim, still exists.......... let's just stop debating this here, it's way too off topic.
That's a good thing. Intellectual suicide is not something to be obtained with any satisfaction. I consider that either or could be the truth, but only one will matter if it is true, thus I adhere to it as the better of the 2 options. One offers, well... nothing.
Perhaps. Do you want to just die and not exist anymore? If so, then Atheism is the obvious choice. I want to create, love, laugh, and make music for as long as I am allowed.
and chance talks about whether a thing "can" exist, it doesn't talk with certainty that the thing "does exist".
If reality is infinite, and we accept Darwinian theory as true, then Dawinian evolution is happening infinitely.
The logic is, someone greater than us evolved, then greater than he, then greater than he, then greater than he, and infinitely until you reach a singularity or the greatest possible being. And in infinite history, it has never not been happening, is happening now, and will never not be happening and infinitely in infinite space.
And if reality/space and time are infinite, then it is obviously a programmed loop by an intelligent mind or is all within someone's mind. All "things" have boundries with naturalism.
If reality/space and time are finite, something exists in nothing with naturalism. It's the equivalent of a basketball existing in nothing. This would logically suggest we are in a medium, a medium meaning? Someone's mind or something like a hard drive or "other".
Yes, so long as it follows the rules of the site. But just because a debate is posted it doesn't mean people have to respond. Don't like a debate posted? Don't respond to it. Simple
Everyone has an opinion on everything, so as long as there are two different choices (the choices not being synonyms) then I think that all topics should be allowed.
I know this site has rules and I'll abide by them. But I've shared my philosophy before and I'll say it again now...
A debate website should be like just about any conversation you'd have with a person face to face. You can say anything, with any words. If they don't like it they can argue back or they can walk away. So I think it should be anything goes. If you cross a line, such as cause a risk to public safety, or commit libel or slander, then you face the consequences, but you should be able at least initially to argue anything about anything and in any way you want to. And in terms of youngsters seeing it, well then either make a separate site just for the youngsters, or require everyone to sign a disclaimer each time they log in that they understand they may be subjected to language and arguments some might consider offensive.
Done.
Debate is debate. You can debate anything in debate. The moment you start saying "anything but..." and then censoring is the moment you allow people with agendas OTHER than debate to become the dominant players on the site. Admit it, the people who ban the most on this site aren't people who love debate for debate itself, it's people who love their issue and literally hate to actually debate that issue. That's not "CreateDebate", it's "CreateCan'tDebate".
Sounds rather vague to me beast. Not all debates are about changing people nor their opinion. The squid debate gets people thinking that "if I can't believe a creature can type out random words, then why do I believe nothing/other naturalistic answer can manifest our reality, consciousness, or human beings with even worse odds?" See how that works? It's a philosophical debate disguised, so that people don't initially catch on. Then you get them into a debate about why they can believe one but not the other.
Not all debates are about changing people nor their opinion
not all debates change people and their opinion, but we try to to explain the opposition why we are right, for which the clear motive is, to change the opposition's belief..
squid debate gets people thinking that "if I can't believe a creature can type out random words, then why do I believe nothing/other naturalistic answer can manifest our reality, consciousness, or human beings with even worse odds?" See how that works? It's a philosophical debate disguised, so that people don't initially catch on
sure, you can say that I've missed the context there, which I might have.. but that just gets me into another confusion, any debate topic in that sense can be explained as philosophical then.., irrespective of if that was the notion there initially..
Yes, but not at the expense of excluding the less serious topics. Membership and participation in this site is voluntary and each volunteer chooses which topics to launch and which to comment on. Supply and demand, marketplace of ideas, and all that. If too many stupid topics launch and not enough people keep them going then that discourages too many more stupid topics.
You already see this here on this site. There may be 5 or 6 dumb or lesser topics and then one big one will come along and everyone will pile onto that one. It works itself out.
Again, that's true, nothing to disagree upon, but should we have such debates in the first place, when "we" (every individual) have control over the topic of debate we want to launch?
Yes we should. Sometimes we feel like launching a really serious topic and other times we just want some fun. Both are valid. And arguably it's the fun topics which keep a little life blood flowing through the veins of these sites. If it were all just high tea at the Ritz people would fall asleep at their computers or sign off and go enjoy life elsewhere.
When we talk about such websites, I feel you'll have different crowds, debating..
one group can be classified as the "serious" group, who are solely interested in debating, and find fun in just debating serious topics (as we may call it) as it is their passion..
another can be a mixed group, who just are not that serious about debating, but do it to read and share their opinion..,
and finally we have the ones who don't care but just comment, for the heck of it, not interested in putting up their ideas..
the website is createdebate , debating by itself should be fun, irrespective of the topic we debate on, so I don't see a necessity to make specific debate topics, just for fun..
Not everyone is you beast. That's the spice of life. Some of the geniuses of the world are very unserious people. Robin Williams for example. We don't have to all debate the same, nor should we IMO.
I can generally accept that description. The one disclaimer I'll throw in there is just because someone enjoys an occasional non-serious topic doesn't mean they aren't serious debaters.
It was three decades ago but I competed in academic debate at both the high school and college level (LD, NDT, and CEDA) for seven straight years. It was my lead scholarship for paying for college. And I can tell you both from the standpoint of winning judge decisions and also from the standpoint of personal interactions, the hardcore debaters often used humor and worked in some levity as one of many tools at their disposal. It works, both on lay judges and the seasoned ones. And face it, on a public debate website like this one the only actual "judges" are the participants. There are people in here you can only persuade with seriousness and facts and there are others who will consider your so-called facts blown out of the water if others can get some good zingers in on them.
It takes a balance. I just don't want to see any particular side (jokester alone; serious topics alone) kick the other side out. I think we'd all lose in the end.
It takes a balance. I just don't want to see any particular side (jokester alone; serious topics alone) kick the other side out. I think we'd all lose in the end.
Definitely. we can't group and kick one out.. the existence of either side cannot be disturbed.. my idea was to self evaluate our topic before launching them, which is again a choice.
If ANY topic is fine, why isn't every response to ANY topic fine too??
that's because debating is about interchange of ideas with one another and not just comment anything totally irrelevant to the topic.., which spoils the quality of debate..
Yes, anything should be cool, but there are a few rules to keep in mind.
1. No profanity (yes we have tolerated it in the past), we are looking into anti-profanity filtering services.
2. If you have a topic that you feel would be offensive to a grade schooler (this site is used by many schools), it should be categorized as NSFW (Not Suitable for Work) which ensures it will never be displayed on the home page.
3. No personal attacks or threats
4. Zero tolerance for anything illegal
5. I am the moderator, and while I have my own beliefs, opinions and political alignment, I do not censor this site based on anything other than the above.
Nice to hear from you, I am not against people creating debates in the first place, I just want people to think on what they debate and if it is actually worth debating, (which can be different for all) I in no sense have any intention to stop people to be able to create debates...
