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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What Do You Think America Should Do?
We give Obama a second term, we owe our lives to China, Detroit still exists, and more problems than a country should ever have. What do you believe America should start doing. You can focus on a single topic or talk about everything if you want, I want to see CreateDebates opinions on America.
My answer is also a question. I am not an American so am looking from the outside in where I find my self wondering why it is that ever since America was drawn into WWII it has placed itself in the position of the world's police force.
Shouldn't America encourage that role be the mainstay of the UN then America could concentrate more of its energy and resources on its domestic instead of foreign policy
Shouldn't America encourage that role be the mainstay of the UN then America could concentrate more of its energy and resources on its domestic instead of foreign policy
I think we feel like the last time we focused on domestic policy World War II broke out.
I hear what you are saying however the bombing of Pearl Harbour, was an outcome of flawed responses to years of Japanese expansionism in Asia.
Sagan’s view “the origins of the Pacific War are best viewed as a mutual failure of deterrence” in effect it was a disastrous failure by both sides to create an Asia/Pacific solution.
The US was trying to halt Japanese expansionism in Asia. and ultimately, the Japanese, significantly overestimated the American public’s desire to remain isolated at peace and their reaction to an attack at Pearl Harbour.
It can be contended that both sides of the Asia / Pacific argument ultimately created the circumstances that led to the Pacific War. This was America's foreign policy at work against Japan's expansionism, hence my question why does America still see itself as the world's police .....?
The character and values of the United States of America was formulated by the modern day settlers who burnt their personal attributes of, self reliance, work ethic, ambition and pioneering spirit into the psyche' of the nation. Over time some of these national characteristics have been diluted by unregulated immigration and eroded by liberal politicians who achieved periods of influence and governance by irresponsibly convincing the weak minded that there really is something for nothing. If all the money in the world was pooled and divided equally between the rich and the poor, soon after that event most of the previous wealthy would have their dosh back and the former poor would once more be impoverished and bellowing, this is an unfair system. How certain manipulative, self serving politicians love to whip the mindless non achievers into a frenzy of discontent by having them believe that the world owes them a living and they are all victims of a conspiracy by a hierarchy of the rich elite. This, not so, mild form, of communism has done the nation incalculable harm during a good part of the last century. Call it what you will, survival of the fittest, natural selection, but whatever title you give to the essential order of things it is nature's way of ensuring that the weak will perish so the strong of a species may flourish. To try to alter the intended natural course of the progression of the nation will see the acceleration of the decline of America. The Obama experiment has failed because he has failed miserably to address, never mind redress the issues which have plagued the nation since he took office. Back to basics, back to the fundamental values and principles of the hard working, god fearing and innovative founding settlers.
An idea that recently came to me that I believe is best for America is a second president. I think if we arrange a system with two presidents, one left wing, one right wing, there could be much more balance in the executive branch. The president is given too much power, example being Andrew Jackson. In the Bank War alone, it is demonstrated that the president can make extreme actions with much disapproval from other branches. If the power is broken between two people, both of different sides, there will always need to be much discussion before massive executive orders are passed.
I definitely think this is an interesting and possibly very good idea, though I would be interested to see how it would work out with our current hyper-partisan climate. I definitely think the original concept of the President - Vice President relationship was meant to be along the lines you are referring to (after all, the loser in the general election became vice president so they were often of differing ideologies), though the lack of substantial vice presidential powers prevented the sort of power structure you are referring to. I would be very interested in seeing this idea play out, as I think it could potentially be very beneficial.
Yes, it would be hard to bend our society, but as I said, the president is VERY powerful. If a president in our future is to go with this idea there would be no problem going along with it. For your Vice-President and President statement I must say the Vice can do nothing. The only thing he can do is check up on the president's health day to day. If this system is added to our country I believe we can get a much more balanced culture. I thank you for the support.
Encourage small businesses and sole-proprietorships, it is corporate America that is running things at the current time and this needs to change. This mentality that corporations and big money can do no wrong, has to stop. Tax the shit out of the bastards and let real competition exist.
America must get back to their traditional roots. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT!
Every person of common sense knows that personal accountability and personal responsibility are what should be lifted up by society.
Liberals have done all in their power to tear down any notion of personal responsibility for one's choices in life. They want to redistribute money from hard working responsible people and give to those living irresponsible lives. IT'S INSANITY!
We must start electing Conservatives once again because they have the only answers..... smaller government, accountability for one's own choices in life, less taxes, etc. etc..
Until our Liberal media is shown for the corrupt biased reporters they are, the press will control the minds of low end voters. The type who elected Obama. They will continue to demonize any Conservative candidate that comes along.
So the traditional roots of slavery, lack of women's suffrage, etc? Which roots?
"Every person of common sense knows that personal accountability and personal responsibility are what should be lifted up by society." Except that isn't exactly our "traditional roots".
"Liberals have done all in their power to tear down any notion of personal responsibility for one's choices in life. " No, not really.
"They want to redistribute money from hard working responsible people and give to those living irresponsible lives. IT'S INSANITY!" Most welfare recipients are working, you know that right?
"We must start electing Conservatives once again because they have the only answers..... smaller government, accountability for one's own choices in life, less taxes, etc. etc.." That is all rhetoric, which is what the right most often employs (just like the left). Those are not specific answers to any of our problems.
"Until our Liberal media is shown for the corrupt biased reporters they are, " You mean like Bill O'Reilly, the most popular member of the right wing media who is currently going through a controversy regarding his corrupt reporting?
"the press will control the minds of low end voters. The type who elected Obama." I didn't know you voted for Obama! Very interesting.
"They will continue to demonize any Conservative candidate that comes along." And the right will demonize any Liberal candidate that comes along. That is what happens when you exist in a hyper partisan climate.
Most welfare recipients are working, you know that right?
You are offering opinion to refute facts. Where are your facts?
That is all rhetoric, which is what the right most often employs (just like the left). Those are not specific answers to any of our problems. Smaller (less intrusive) government is clearly a good thing as compared to the bloated bureaucracy we call government.
You mean like Bill O'Reilly, the most popular member of the right wing media who is currently going through a controversy regarding his corrupt reportingNEWS media. NEWS not commentary. Daaaa
Obama." I didn't know you voted for Obama! Very interesting. Sarcasm, that's it! No comment to defend our main stream news media as unbiased?
And the right will demonize any Liberal candidate that comes along That's what you got? ---- No denial? ---- No defense? ---- just unfounded claims about the right with zero details, zero examples. Hmmmm
I offered opinion to refuse opinion. Neither of us cited anything, so how can you call what I responded to facts? I have in previous posts demonstrated facts that oppose those claims, while those claims have not been substantiated with facts at any point. I love the double standard.
"Smaller government is clearly a good thing" It can be a good thing in some instances and it can be a bad thing in other. Don't say "clearly" just because you believe it.
O'Reilly is the top personality on the highest-viewed part of right wing media. "Daaa"
Our mainstream news (CBS, ABC, NBC) are biased towards sensationalism. I can count to multiple stories where they ran with sensationalist headlines and pieces that leaned right wing, and you can do the same for the left wing. Same for CNN, though MSNBC is certainly right wing.
"That's what you got? ---- No denial? ---- No defense? ---- just unfounded claims about the right with zero details, zero examples. Hmmmm" Denial or defense? I agreed that the left will do exactly what he said, and pointed out that the right does the same thing, and recognized that as part of a massive issue in this country. Why is it that he did not have to provide details, but I do?
Your double standards are getting significantly worse, Daver.
"Bigger governments with their hands in every part of our lives, lessen our freedoms." They limit negative freedoms and improve positive freedoms. You sure like to declare your opinions as fact, don't you?
"The left media ignore stories that reflect poorly on Obama's administration. " And the right wing media ignored stories that reflected poorly on Republican presidents, and the media of both sides ignore stories that reflect positively on an opposing party's presidents. What's your point?
As I see it, you are debating, correct? I believe the best way to go along is to keep things out of words such as 'suck tits'. What are we, twerkers in Miley's next music video? Heavens no, we are debaters, expanding our knowledge in politics!
Yeah I know. I'm learning the skill of debating people who only attack something in your posts, seemingly with no opinion of their own to share. GN is a slippery debater who likes to change your words then attack. Its great practice for a beginner like me. :-)
I'm learning the skill of debating people who only attack something in your posts, seemingly with no opinion of their own to share.
There are reasons for this, though. It's not necessarily a dishonest tactic.
An individual who is undecided or even agrees with you overall may criticize your points or reasoning. The undecided individual probably wants clarification, and the person who agrees with you is probably concerned about the 'image' you may be presenting of others who agree with you on the matter as well. Neither person is likely to offer a dissenting opinion, but both are likely to pick your posts apart.
Yes. You are right. Starchild(I think that's the name) is one such debater. I believe that I can distinguish to some extent, the people who are just looking for a fight, from the ones expressing their own ideas. Anyway maybe I'll get better at this ------- maybe.
Do you think that the lack of a number invalidates my statement that there are hundreds of thousands of people receiving welfare who have no intention of ever working for a living. Over 11,000,000 get >1/2 there income from gov. You tell me how many want to work and the remaining hundreds of thousands are the people I made reference to in my factual statement.
there are hundreds of thousands of people receiving welfare who have no intention of ever working for a living.
100,000 is less than 1% of 11,000,000. There are numerous individuals who receive <1/2 of their income from the government but are still on some kind of assistance as well, so that percentage scales down lower.
In other words, people abusing the system- by your own numbers- represent a tiny minority ranging from less than 1% to maybe a few percentage points tops. This actually represents an extremely successful program. If my experience was sufficient to draw conclusions from, I'd say that far more than few percent of employed individuals are either doing the bare minimum or are skating by entirely on the efforts of coworkers or lower-level employees. I'd also say that far more than a few percent of employed individuals are less than 100% honest on their tax returns, and other things. I can't make those claims because my sample size is so limited, but there it is right there.
There is always a certain portion of people who abuse the system, and they should be dealt with when it is cost effective to do so. Unfortunately, the efforts to specifically identify those abusing the system have all cost significantly more money themselves than was 'saved' in denied benefits. As far as abused systems go, though.... welfare actually seems to be doing pretty well compared to many others. Again- by your own numbers here. I fail to see any justification for throwing more money at the system to curb the abusers, and no reason to make life more difficult for the MILLIONS who are using the system legitimately to supplement their income just to punish abusers on principle.
Do you disagree with my post saying that fromwithin had valid points in his statement. If so why/how.
my reference to "hundreds of thousands" on the gov. tit with no intent to ever work can be supported by <1.839% of 11,000,000. So tell me why that's not a reasonable number.
You should note that I opted for 'Clarify' rather than 'dispute.'
Do you disagree with my post saying that fromwithin had valid points in his statement. If so why/how.
I don't. FromWithin does occasionally make valid points, though they are often buried in his rants and rhetoric, and often contradicted himself later.
my reference to "hundreds of thousands" on the gov. tit with no intent to ever work can be supported by <1.839% of 11,000,000. So tell me why that's not a reasonable number.
I never said the number was unreasonable (though there are actually over 15 million people on welfare, the 11 million was a number you gave representing those who have government benefits as half or more of their total income). What I said was that this represents a very low rate of abuse, as far as government programs go, and that as such it wasn't something worth prioritizing at the moment, especially given the expense of previous screening attempts. I asserted that the only reason to prioritize this is to stand on principle, and I don't believe we can currently afford to do so, if prior attempts are any indicator.
I'm well aware that there are people who abuse just about every system with the potential for abuse, and I'm not contesting that the numbers of people abusing our welfare system are rather high in terms of raw absolute numbers- but they're in an extreme minority within the welfare system, and I don't feel that it's cost effective to target them right now.
It "sounds" right, but to claim something as factual without any legitimate evidence is always intellectually lazy. For all we know, it sounds right because it is a claim that has been made so many times.
I find it annoying that once again a person's only disagreement with our traditions is slavery and women suffering. You know that isn't even close to what he meant, our modern society is more than capable of retrieving the good of our old ways while removing the bad. Further more you give no proof that Liberals are not going out of their way to make disagreements. It has even became a common thing in politics for Liberals to accuse Republicans of racism, that is just plain ridicules! Also, please tell me, who are all these people who have became mass successors thanks to the aid of welfare, you said it is working after all. Finally, your comment that the man was weak-minded was very immature of you.
"I find it annoying that once again a person's only disagreement with our traditions is slavery and women suffering." But the thing is, those ARE part of our traditions. We can not simply ignore parts of our history that we have not liked, as they played incredibly large parts in the creation and development of our society.
"our modern society is more than capable of retrieving the good of our old ways while removing the bad. " See, the concept of the "good old days" is exactly my point. If you are white, as I am guessing you are (and I certainly am), then we can recall the "good old days" where everything was quite great for us, especially if you are a male. But if you aren't, then those "good old days" were actually substantially worse, be it due to slavery, Jim Crowe, Reconstruction Era South, Civil Rights Movement, etc.
"It has even became a common thing in politics for Liberals to accuse Republicans of racism, that is just plain ridicules! " Yes, it is ridiculous. But it is also common for Republicans to accuse Liberals of either being anti-Christian or anti-America, which is equally ridiculous. Both sides are guilty of petty and absurd behavior along those lines.
"Also, please tell me, who are all these people who have became mass successors thanks to the aid of welfare, you said it is working after all. " I didn't say it was working, I said that most people who receive welfare ARE working.
"Finally, your comment that the man was weak-minded was very immature of you." I never called him weak minded, though I did make a joke that turned around one of his quotes on him. If that joke is what you were referring to, do you believe it was immature of him to call those who voted differently than him "low end voters"?
I believe are miss interpreting my message. What I am trying to get across is any color and sex would get to live those 'good old days'. I know slavery and lack of women rights was part of our tradition, that is why I mentioned we are capable of cutting the bad out. What annoyed me was again a person turned a blind eye to that ability of our society. I also believe in America with the overwhelming media anti-Christian actions (which disappoints me with such a sensitive culture we are now) and the common phrase 'America sucks' accusing someone of not being patriot or not Christian is no more than the wind blowing. Accusing racism on the other hand, even though it is basically gone here, is none less than a political punch in the face for no reason. Next, if they are working, how come they need money from their fellow Americans. Clearly they have jobs that require little education proving they are lazy and did not care about their future (not including family's constisting of a dozen or mor children. Low-end voters are in fact a real thing. People who pay no attention to either politics in general or do not listen to the other side. Yet, these people still vote. By this guy's comment alone it is clear he is paying attention to politicians, and your comment is just a twist of words.
1. It will take quite a bit more societal progress before every race and group could equally achieve the "good old days".
2. "I also believe in America with the overwhelming media anti-Christian actions " Can you refer to some specific "anti-Christian actions"?
3. "and the common phrase 'America sucks' accusing someone of not being patriot or not Christian is no more than the wind blowing." It is "wind blowing" just as much as accusing someone of racism, and racism is CERTAINLY not "basically gone here".
4. "Next, if they are working, how come they need money from their fellow Americans." Because most jobs that are being created right now are minimum wage, or close to it. Wages are not improving with the rate of cost of living increases, making it harder and harder for people to stay afloat for those who are poor.
5. " Clearly they have jobs that require little education proving they are lazy and did not care about their future (not including family's constisting of a dozen or mor children." It really proves nothing of the sort. They could have grown up in a bad household, received a bad education, etc. There are just so many answers as to why someone might be in that situation that it is ridiculous to immediately assume the worst.
6. "Low-end voters are in fact a real thing. People who pay no attention to either politics in general or do not listen to the other side. Yet, these people still vote. By this guy's comment alone it is clear he is paying attention to politicians, and your comment is just a twist of words." Can you tell me how I have twisted his words? And FromWithin does not "listen to the other side" at all, which would make him, according to your standard, a low-end voter.
1. Such as Liberals to stop making false accessions of racism?
2. Example, a man played for a Christian Concert. He sang the lines "I love Jesus" for a while, everyone repeated. Then he sang "I love Jesus, I hate faggots", everyone stopped repeating. He then said "Oh, I guess it will go better in Church". Quiet rude, I wish he would sing at my church, and see how they would react (not how he would wish)!
3. Oh but it is, I believe they have equal job rights, correct. A black man hasn't been whipped in quiet a time, wouldn't you say. We have one for a president (a insanely powerful position in America), and heck, it is now a trend to hate white people (for their skin color). Racism towards blacks is a thing of the past, and if I can deal with being referred to as a racist for no reason (at least keeping in violent outbursts) , I believe they can get us to us existing.
4. Such as fast food worker and bus boy, if you see what I am saying (or repeating).
5. I could believe less in bad homes. My father grew up in a town house, worked at one of our family sonic's since he was eight, his mom left soon, had two bother's who killed them selfs at some point (one uncle I never met, one I barely knew personal) and at age 42 his house was paid, he owned three cars, and he jogs in cross country along side playing his trumpet.
6. The fact he heard the statement where the GOP was accused of being racist alone proves he was listening to what the other side was saying.
1. I was thinking of much larger issues, but yes, that is a part of it.
2. I am really confused by your example. Is that a hypothetical, or are you referring to something that actually happened?
3. Equality of opportunity is very far from existing in this country. Even with exactly the same resumes, individuals with african american sound names are disproportionately denied jobs. Education in areas that are predominantly black are almost always of a lower quality. I could go on! Now I live in South Chicago, in a predominantly black area, and I ASSURE YOU, racism towards blacks is not a thing of the past. It is very easy to think it is, but it really, really, REALLY is not. And no, it is not a trend to hate white people. There are some individuals that are racist against whites, but that number is not as high as those who are racist against blacks.
4. Not just fast food worker or bus boy, but those are included. When those are the only job opportunities available in a given area, and people are forced to take those (or be unemployed), then what do you expect them to do?
5. "I could believe less in bad homes. My father grew up in a town house, worked at one of our family sonic's since he was eight, his mom left soon, had two bother's who killed them selfs at some point (one uncle I never met, one I barely knew personal) and at age 42 his house was paid, he owned three cars, and he jogs in cross country along side playing his trumpet." None of which discounts the effect that growing up in a dysfunctional or lower-income home can have on the long term outcome of a child's life.
6. "The fact he heard the statement where the GOP was accused of being racist alone proves he was listening to what the other side was saying." No, it doesn't. TO actually LISTEN to what the other side means more than just hearing snippets from right-wing media and extrapolating. FromWithin reacts viscerally to any left-wing individual or left-wing idea, he has an instinctive borderline violent (rhetorically speaking of course) to the concept of liberalism, and he shuts his mind to any opinion that differs from his. Hearing what people say and LISTENING to them are two different things.
3. What evidence do you have of this. I have not heard of bosses making thousands of blacks go into unemployment. If there is much racism in you area by chance is there gangs?
4. I doubt there are cities, towns, or counties where the only job option is of minimum wage. Even then you should plan to move if you have such problems.
5. Did I forget to bring up his family being poor? I thought being raised in a town house explained that. Heck, if you want it worse than that his father picked cotton for fun. He couldn't rub two nickels together. Yet, after years of work, he was able to spend his later years (starting around early elderly years) in a very fancy home in a very nice part of Oklahoma (where he still lives).
6. Well if we are to determined if he was 'LISTENING' we will need more than his first comment.
2. Can you provide a link to that, out of curiosity? I'd like to see it. And do you think that is somehow representative of a trend, and if so, why?
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-straight-talk-for-white-men.html Feel free to ignore the article itself, the NY Times is incredibly biased. But the links involved include a study I was referring to (one of many that show such a trend). That being said, I never claimed that bosses were making thousands of blacks go unemployed, I said that job offers were disproportionately denied to black individuals. As for gangs, not in my immediate area, no, but close by there are. There are always gangs where there is destitution.
4. There are plenty of cities, towns and counties where the only jobs available to those without specialized job experience or education can only get minimum wage jobs. To tell those people "you should plan to move" ignores the fact that people who are working minimum wage jobs do not have the money necessary to simply pack up and move.
5. Again, anecdotes do not undermine a trend. There are always exceptions to a trend, but that doesn't change that a majority of those who grow up in such conditions do not turn out so successful.
6. I agree, so I would say go ahead and look at his entire comment history. The real challenge would to be find examples of him actually listening to those with political ideologies that differ from his.
