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.
Yes not worth the risk. But not drastically otherwise your children wouldn't be able to order a simple meal because they shouldn't talk to strangers which would include waitresses/waiters. But they should definitely be taught to not take anything from a stranger unless the parents are present.
A blanket prohibition against talking to strangers may adversely affect the child's ability to function in society. A store clerk is a stranger, a police officer is a stranger, and most teachers are strangers. While this sort of prohibition may make sense for very young children, we must begin teaching them how to discern when a situation is potentially dangerous as soon as possible. Of course we should teach them to err on the side of caution.....
i don't think so, surely that just creates paranoid people who think everyone's out to get them.. teaching them to be careful yes, but teaching them that strangers are all bad when in fact only a very small percentage are can't be a good thing
My god, just because I believe in the illuminati doesn't mean I'm paranoid, if I was paranoid I'd probably be a shut in and no offence but I've probably got more of a social life than someone who hides behind a cartoon character
I am sorry, but what word would you use to describe a person who believes a secret organization exists and they insert their satanic symbols whenever they can get away with it until the can depopulate the planet and takeover?
can't think of a single word but someone who isn't looking at the world through rose tinted glasses.. i'm not paranoid about the idea, people who are usually won't use mobile phones or anything cause they think they're being traced.. believing something doesn't always mean you're paranoid, just means you have reason to believe it.. anyway i'm not going to argue with you on this post anymore, it has nothing to do with it and the sole reason you even posted was because you saw i posted and decided to launch another attack.
lol there's a difference, believing there is a few bad people is completely different to believing everyone is bad.. like someone else said on this post, if you won't talk to strangers because you think they're all bad then you're going to be forever alone.. and since (if you are still alive and have never been kidnapped or molested or something) it's more than likely a stranger has never done anything really bad to you, then you have no real reason to believe it
So, you think a secret satanic organization is going to depopulate the world and take over, and you have no fear of them? How long have you been a member of the Illuminati?
I want to kill you right now, do you fear me? Probably not so there you go... And if you think the worlds all sunshine and rainbows your a bigger idiot than you think I am
I don't fear you because I know you aren't going to do anything. So, you must be saying that you know the Illuminati is not doing anything. Oh, well why didn't you just say that in the first place?
I don't fear them because what's the point, just because I believe in them doesn't mean I'm gonna become a tin foil hat man, and look up contrails vs chemtrails and then tell me there's nothing in what I'm saying
Lol I'm not, i made a perspective debate just to get some others thoughts.. Then I come across you trying to make out I'm mental and won't go away.. If you don't believe you don't have to, just drop it, Jesus Christ
It's Cartman, you can stop calling me Jesus Christ. ;)
i made a perspective debate just to get some others thoughts
This is only partially correct. You made a perspective debate. I came on there and tried to explain to you that your evidence didn't help your case. I didn't say you were wrong or right, or that I didn't believe you. Then, you tried to explain to me how you had to be right. Then I told you that it didn't matter if you are right about the Illuminati because the picture you posted still doesn't help you. To which you responded with more "proof" that you are right. You did not just make a perspective debate, sorry.
if you'd like to read it again I'm pretty sure I said a few times i could be wrong, at no point have I said I had to be right, and like I said you where trying to make me out as mental so I showed you the Zak and Cody thing to say there is something to it and I'm not just seeing shit.. You can reply again but you'll be talking to yourself
I didn't mean to imply you were crazy at that point. I was telling you that the evidence you posted didn't work. You forced me to start thinking you were crazy after that.
Just going in circles now dude, I did not argue it 3 times, I posted the Zak and Cody one saying what about this one.. If I thought I was right with the Rihanna pic why would I do that? I wouldn't.. What I argued about was you saying according to me they try hide it but in the Rihanna pic it's in plain sight and highlighted, so I said it's because it's a still that someone else highlighted, not that I was right.. Seriously last comment
Just going in circles now dude, I did not argue it 3 times
I was counting the first post that I initially responded to as 1, then you responded to me twice saying you weren't wrong at all. Total 3 times.
I posted the Zak and Cody one saying what about this one.. If I thought I was right with the Rihanna pic why would I do that? I wouldn't..
You spent an entire paragraph explaining how you were right about Rihanna, then right at the end you were like, oh look, here is another picture. Your words and your actions apparently don't work together.
What I argued about was you saying according to me they try hide it but in the Rihanna pic it's in plain sight and highlighted, so I said it's because it's a still that someone else highlighted, not that I was right..
You apparently posted a picture of Rihanna for absolutely no reason then.
Well, I don't actually believe that it will cause paranoia, so I didn't really think about the implications of just attacking him. Yeah, I pretty much just attacked him to attack him. Sorry I couldn't add more to this debate.
You think that the paedophile will just grab her or something?
Paedophiles are usually the father or other male relative. However, if they're a stranger theres usually a period of grooming in which the paedophile gains the trust of the child. Teaching a child that they shouldn't talk to strangers stops this progression.
And this has what to do with my argument? The debate says '' should children talk to strangers'' .. and the only reason I find why a child shouldn't talk to a strangers is in case the stranger is a pedophile. Which is dumb... since like you said yourself, the stranger won't give up just because the kid won't talk.
Yes, and a kid who won't talk to him at first won't stop him. So I don't see any reason for telling kids to not talk to them .. like that gives them any safety from anything at all.
But the stranger won't move on to the next kid just because the first one didn't talk to him
Yes they will. They look for easy targets. If a paedophile approaches a kid 3 times and every time the child says that they're not going to talk to them then he's going to move on to the next kid. Why wouldn't they? Urg anyway this is exchange is getting a bit silly. We both keep saying the same things.
Then you're talking about different types of predatory behaviour. What telling children not to talk to strange prevents is someone befriending a child on the street. Its not so common but that's the point of it. That type of predator is looking for easy targets that will talk to him. If they have techniques on making them talk, and the child does talk, then they haven't listened to their parents. This doesn't mean the parents shouldn't tell them talk to strangers in the first place.
I remember reading a study that stated that when a child is taught not to speak to strangers, he develops a kind of fear for them. This fear of strangers, no matter how small, turns into a hate of strangers. You know who are the "strangers" in adulthood? Foreigners. Children who are taught to stay away from strangers are more likely to develop of a fear or hatred or unnecessary dislike for most foreigners. I'd rather teach my children to be wary of strangers that to straight up avoid them.
FEAR,paranoid,great thing's to teach your kid's,now i know why the're ain't any 18-21 year old's protesting againt's their governments,incase there is a paedophile in the crowd
