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 very much enjoy debating with PrayerFails (something like that).
Very informed and well-read. Hats of to him.
And, as had been said, srom1883 is awful to debate with. He simply ignores points he can't refute, cites lies as evidence, states unfounded assertions and claims them as undeniable proof.
Not to mention the fact that he once stated that evidence to prove his claims could only be glue if we went forward in time. Honestly…I know he is 15, but so am I. It is a very basic skill to debate.
Now to debate effectively is a whole other matter.
I do not state lies as evidence. I gave you evidence about the Bible and how Jesus existed. But you yourself are not getting the whole point. I said exactly the evidence and all you did was rejected it when it really was the truth. Sooner or later you will realize that what I said to you was truth but by then it would probably be too late for you.
Well, to be more specific, the Bible is not evidence for the existence of God. Why? Because using the Bible as evidence would be a case of question begging. But, in general, you're right Apollo.
You're my favorite debater mainly because you are one of the few people on this site that can make an intellectual argument while at the same time effectively blending in your own personal views with said argument. There are only a few other people that pull this off, but I think you do it the best :)
And I think anyone who takes something like this site too seriously and can't have a little fun needs to log off the internet and walk away from the computer. Forever. So fun I have :)
I know it may seem unfair of me, but I pick PrayerFails mainly because he's the most consistent debater I've come to clash with.
I learn this mainly from the areas I disagree with him on. Whenever I say "yeah, I'm not a Libertarian in the same way as you" he tends to show me why I'm "wrong" in not being as into Libertarianism as he is. His arguments, whether you agree or not, are kind of bullet proof. not because he's "right", but because his basis matches his conclusion. For most other people, they tend to be all over the place, or never really argue from a basis.
PrayerFails has his beliefs and he sticks to them. If you challenge him, he will have an arsenal of information that will answer any discrepancies you may have.
This may be what attracted me to the Libertarian mindset in the first place. It always seemed to come from reasoning and a back up of facts, as opposed to the arguments of Liberals and Conservatives.
As stated, I could have a bias here, but I'm merely going on who can be the most challenging. I ask all of you; when you disagree with PrayerFails, isn't it more of a matter of opinion than of facts?
As well, i enjoy looking up the the things he has to offer when he says "read this" or "watch this". While Gary tends to do this as well, his links are backed less by facts and are usually just opinionated people who are saying "This is A, this is B, and I like apples". Gary makes it hard to care about what he's talking about, and while he is close to PrayerFails in his argument tactics, I feel that PrayerFails succeeds where Gary tends to fail.
In the end, if I argued more like PrayerFails, I'd probably become more of an ideologue than just a guy who tries to dance around other's tactics. I don't support Libertarianism enough to look to the research of certain scholars as my main basis of argument, and this could be my very flaw.
I just don't like standing for anything (except maybe individualism, but even that sometimes gets in the way of what I feel would be the best thing).
"While Gary tends to do this as well, his links are backed less by facts and are usually just opinionated people who are saying "This is A, this is B, and I like apples"."
I actually the really appreciate the criticism because i know it's not meant in a malicious way, I also admit that many of the sources I provide are opinionated, and are far from bulletproof when subjected to severe scrutinization, but in my defense many of them were never intended to be bulletproof, I just like presenting them cause it's a perspective i rarely see presented anywhere else.
I know it may seem unfair of me, but I pick PrayerFails mainly because he's the most consistent debater I've come to clash with.
Why is it unfair?
I do appreciate that you think that I one of the best and consistent debaters.
This is coming from a man that I can respect because I also think that ThePyg is genuinely one of the best debaters along with Terminator.
His arguments, whether you agree or not, are kind of bullet proof. not because he's "right", but because his basis matches his conclusion.
Are you sure they are not right?
For most other people, they tend to be all over the place, or never really argue from a basis.
Exactly, THANK YOU INFINITELY
PrayerFails has his beliefs and he sticks to them. If you challenge him, he will have an arsenal of information that will answer any discrepancies you may have.
Correct, that is what Libertarianism is, logic rather than emotion.
As stated, I could have a bias here, but I'm merely going on who can be the most challenging. I ask all of you; when you disagree with PrayerFails, isn't it more of a matter of opinion than of facts?
True, matter of opinion only comes into play with responses like favorite movie or television.
I don't support Libertarianism enough to look to the research of certain scholars as my main basis of argument, and this could be my very flaw.
Atlas Shrugged and Human Action literally changed my life.
I just don't like standing for anything (except maybe individualism, but even that sometimes gets in the way of what I feel would be the best thing).
Nothing stands in the way of individualism, except family.
I don't believe that any ideology can actually be right. Whether we turn to Socialism or not, the Universe will be unchanged.
Ideology is about how people want things to be done. What's good about Libertarianism is that it sets a standard for what it feels to be right and will often find the most logical route towards it. Are you right for believing in Libertarianism? Well, on an objective scale, no. Ideology is merely a collection of ideas and holds no absolute meaning. You're a good debater, however, because you stick to the principal and provide evidence for any discrepancies that some will bring forward.
i support most aspects of it because of my believe that there is no objective meaning. If we are living on a floating rock in a Universe that doesn't matter, why create rules to restrict us? It seems like a waste of time.
Also, I enjoy looking up works of others. Will I read an entire book? sometimes. But in the end, my argument is more of a response to others than it is a collection of scholars who may or may not have already covered the subject. I like to debate just because I enjoy exchanging ideas. I dispute when I feel that someone has made a mistake in their reasoning (which is often).
Every once in a while I'll start a debate, but I'll tend to post my entire reasoning in the description if I can, so that others can know where I'm coming from and dispute that if they feel that there's a problem with it. Often times, they'll skip most of the argument and dispute me with something that I've already covered within my description.
Without dispute I can claim that I'm the best. You want evidence, just look at what the other-side said about me. Such hatred can only be created by jealousy. Jealous of what? The ability to hold my own against those that are unable to apply the logic they claim they hold the patent rights to. Sorry, if thinking makes you hate me. I can live with this.
Alas, there once was a day where I would have been high on the list of top debaters on this site. Sadly, with my ever-changing opinions, the ever-changing quality of folks on here and the disappearance of straight-headed people, I've fallen from my pedestal. C'est la vie.
I'm not going to say the worst, but even though i definitely don't agree with his religion, i totally accept his morals and the way he goes about proving them. So im gonna have to go with supreme pizza.
yo!I agree with you, he only talks on bible,bible and bible, and blah blah blah when it gets to the creation of the world or universe (there are some debates about it). doesn't he know anything about science? or does he even learn science?
no matter how many people had argued about his arguments, he only answered the same, i.e. the bible
Oh really? I prove evidence to the subject and I don't repeat the same thing over and over again. I am not repeating anything over and over am I. I think you are the worst debator.
Oh, and you say I'm wrong, yet I've got up to four upvotes. Meaning other people agree. Maybe you should try I different tactic while debating, because obviously your current one isn't working.
So what you think I am the worst debator. I don't give a crap about what you say because what you say about me isn't true. Sooner or later you will realize that what I said about God and everything was true! But by then it will already to late to believe in God because you will be suffering in eternal flame for the rest of your life. You can say that Heaven and Hell don't exist but they really do exist.
Sooner or later you will realize that what I said about God and everything was true!
But as far as I've read, you do not provide any serious arguments and evidence for the existence of God. Thus, you have no logical and rational reason to believe in the existence of God.
Why are you always saying something against me? Your always have something negative to say. If you looked at Can anybody be like Jesus? You will see that I talked to Apollo about the existence of God. Why is it everytime when I post something you respond? I never respond or say any negative stuff to you? Why do it to me? I do provide evidence about the existence of God but atheists like you do say that is not proof when it really is proof.
Whats the point of arguing with you over the existence of God when you won't even read what I post or even realize what I said about the existence of God is true. I
If you want physical evidence I can't give you that because Jesus is already in heaven. Nobody has given me FULL proof that God doesn't exist.
If by "against me" you mean that I disagree with your views, then yes, I do disagree with you very often. There will always be people who do not agree with you. Live with it. If you want to hold to your world view, then provide evidence.
I do provide evidence about the existence of God
No you don't.
but atheists like you do say that is not proof when it really is proof.
Atheists do not judge your arguments because of our world view. We judge your statements purely on philosophical and scientific grounds as far as I can tell. You obviously have training in neither field and only provide vitriolic and strident remarks.
Whats the point of arguing with you over the existence of God when you won't even read what I post
I do read what you post. That is why I am quoting you when I reply.
or even realize what I said about the existence of God is true.
Because you haven't provided any good evidence or arguments to back your claims.
If you want physical evidence I can't give you that because Jesus is already in heaven.
I'm not even asking for physical evidence. I am asking for any sort of evidence and philosophical argument.
Nobody has given me FULL proof that God doesn't exist.
The great British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell has proved, through his Celestial Teapot argument, that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim and not with the person who tries to disprove it. So, the burden of proof lies with you to provide evidence that God doesn't exist. Moreover, if you have read my other arguments, you'll see that I provide sound philosophical arguments against the existence of God.
Why do you always act like someone is attacking you when they're just disagreeing with you? You do realize this is the internet. No sense in getting all frazzled about someone who doesn't agree with you and acting like they hate you.
And no, I don't think I'll change my mind. Nor do I really care that you think I'll be "suffering in eternal flame". It's not relevant to this debate at all. Stay on topic buddy.
He seems to just make shit up, and never really tries to argue. Just likes to attack everyone and say "atheists are stupid". As well, he doesn't even know what Atheists believe, I think.
His default pic matches his personality. Some crazy old man who's had a few too much to drink.
The best part is, saying that he's the worse debater won't get me any grief from the other members. We're pretty much all in the same boat by saying TheWayItIs is, most likely, insane and has no idea on what he's talking about.
He is probably going to read this and feel all self-righteously validated about the athiest conspiracy on this site. Because it's definitely that and not that he sucks.
Dang. I really need someone like you to follow me around and say all the things I was going to say more quickly and to-the-point than I would. Would allow me to spend more time breathing and scowling.
Those that criticize, seldom do anything else. Must be why you never say anything with substance. Your attempt to belittle me is humorous (you're*) because an atheist picking someone is like a mentally retarded person calling some else dumb.
Secondly, never have I said I was right. I have clearly stated that what I say is my opinion, belief, etc. Facts always change overtime and are only relevant in the moment.
Yes, I'm very proud that my responses only get grammar corrected and you have no dispute. Why is this again?
I didn't even read all that but I'm sure it was totally reasonable and coherent and not at all a desperate attempt to protect your ego. Please go on if you need to. I don't want you to have trouble sleeping tonight.
Big surprise to find that you are unable to read a few paragraphs. This does explain why your so narrow-minded. Anything beyond a sentence and it is never read by you, short stories, essays, articles never read. A book beyond your grasp. Just wondering if you sign your name or just make a mark?
I actually just spit on the signature line and hope that works. You must be a psychic, please tell me more about the things I am able and unable to do.
Right, I remember when I said that, word for word. Seriously, don't stop now. I need to hear about the things you know about atheists that they don't even know.
What's left to know about atheists? All one has to do is check out this site, the church of non-religious. You being the preacher for them all should know this. I'm glad I came here to straighten out all those confused and lost souls.
Oh, you're so clever, you caught me. I'm an atheist so everything I do is obviously because of peer pressure. You're the only free thinker on this whole site and everyone who disagrees with you is brainless. Or something.
You must be watching a different debate, he has on a few occasions actually provided sources which directly contradict his own claims, and when you point this out to him he just launches a series of personal insults.
BOHEMIAN: ...and when you point this out to him, he {Thewayitis} just launches a series of personal insults.
THEWAYITIS: Bohemian, You jackass, this isn't true . I noticed that your name never came into play. Why is that? Could it be that what you post neither inspires or provokes thought of any kind?
^This proves my point.
If I cannot be liked for the right reasons, then I prefer to be hated for the right reasons. At least I'm not invisible like you.
You're not hated. I don't think anyone here cares enough to hate you, you're Just the subject of both ridicule and hilarity.
From what I've seen many people like to down-vote you. But it couldn't possibly be you that is the common factor, and not the people down-voting you. Have you considered the possibility that your arguments are just terrible? For the record I do think your arguments are better than srom's.
For the record I do think your arguments are better than srom's.
That is disputable. I think that they are both lousy debaters. And I say this with no reference to their belief in God, which I think is irrational as well. Both of them make no serious arguments for their beliefs. The closest arguments that they have written that even be considered "arguments" are fallacious at best.
Which is contradictory to what you perviously said. You perviously declared that there are no fallacies. So either you're going senile or you're just indecisive.
Crying fallacy is fallacy in itself.
I don't disagree. Fallacies are but one out of many ways to prove an argument is illogical. They are not used to prove the conclusion is wrong, but the argument. There is a big difference. Still, you don't seem to have any knowledge of epistemology.
It is you that lack any or you would not have claimed to have knowledge of knowledge.
Again, you don't get to question my credentials. Epistemology is a subject in philosophy which questions how we know what we know. According to the OED, epistemology refers to "The theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge." Therefore, the word "epistemology" is not a synonym of "knowledge". I wouldn't expect one who hasn't been trained in philosophical thought to know the difference.
Seeing as you can't justify your claim, such a claim can be taken as dubious.
I was picking your brain. Assuming you have one.
Such a weak ad hominem. I expected more from a strident, vitriolic lunatic like you. Well, obviously if you have to pick the brain of others, you don't have one of your own.
Philosophy encompasess an entire plethora of issues ranging from epistemology to logic and math, philosophy of science, mind and matter and religion. Religion is a mere subset of philosophy.
I guess the fact that the only Ancient Greek philosophers you know of are Plato and Socrates tells me that you don't know any thing about philosophy.
And yes I have heard of Hegel. He wrote one of the most famous and eloquently argued books entitled the Philosophy of Right. I didn't need to research that. I've been studying the Philosophy of Right for the past year.
Because I have studied and practiced philosophy and epistemology for almost 3 years now. You don't get to question my credentials seeing that (1) you have not read any academic work I have written and (2) you don't seem to have the sort of philosophical background that I do.
Well, seeing as you don't even have the intellect of those who contribute to Wikipedia, you obviously don't have the qualifications I do.
Nobel prize? Is that the only academic accolade you can think of? That's not a surprise since the probability of you getting it is lower that that of the existence of a married bachelor.
You think I'm trying to boast? Clearly, you don't know me well enough. Seeing as you're not intellectual at all, you don't have a right to boast anything.
Are you asking Rage or myself? Assuming you are asking me, I have never claimed to be an expert, however I have taken college level logic courses, I have participated in real debates, and I have continually trounced you in virtually every disagreement we have ever had. I certainly know enough to know that you are a terribly inept debater.
ThePyg, I am honored that you choose me. Of all the people here you singled me out and there is no greater reward than to be named as one's worst. My words are not in vain, because you hang onto every one of them. Remembered and not forgotten.
Because his arguments are facile and unsupported. Because he apparently considers associating the antithesis to his argument with certain political factions to be the most devastating rhetorical device known to man.
Perhaps even more grievous is his shifting sands tactic. When one attacks a point (id est "X is categorically, unequivocally true") he disowns it and pretends to have meant something else (exempli gratia: "But by categorically, I meant not really, or was speaking metaphorically").
I mean you're annoying and full of yourself, and your example is from when I was being plainly figurative and you chose to take it literally because you could not find a substantial counter argument. But despite how annoying I find you personally, and how ridiculous and baseless your criticism is I'm still aware there are worse debaters.
and your example is from when I was being plainly figurative and you chose to take it literally because you could not find a substantial counter argument
Which is the same sentiment you purported (and failed to demonstrate) at the time.
But despite how annoying I find you personally
And what is it that you find so objectionable about me, sir? I do not find you annoying. Your arguments may sometimes be wanting (though your disposition is often harmonious with mine own), but I know very little of you as a person.
and how ridiculous and baseless your criticism
You are prodigal with your assertive energies, sir. Your reserves of reason remain untapped.
I'm still aware there are worse debaters.
It is my opinion that there are some who are not worthy of being dubbed "debaters" at all, and who therefore cannot be included.
Christjesus by far, he out-measures even the likes of some of my most hated debaters. Thankfully he hasn't been active in a long time, but seriously, look at his profile and his 'arguments':
In all of the debates I have participated in, I think Qymosabi is the most unpleasant debater to encounter. I had participated in a debate of his (or hers) where the topic was (in my opinion) extremely racist. After that debate, I saw another one posted, where many people described him as a "Troll." I COMPLETELY SUPPORT THAT OPINION.
As for the best debator, I don't really have one. To be honest, I enjoy debating with all of you. :)
I believe at times i happen to be the worst debator. I happen to make debates with a certain point of view and change them as i learn.
I try to sound intellectual and i try to think. As with the sex and rape debate....i try to find a difference between them. And one of my reasons was consensuality. But like always, i find out that sex doesn't really imply consensuality.
And my debates contradict. I have like two or three recent suicide debates. And now i want to make a new one that titled: "Can you really commit suicide?" My brain is everywhere and think you honestly can't when you blame physical factors. But i think im wrong. ha ha. :( :)
I honestly think S.Baby you shouldn't have made this debate. It is going to cause hate and bad feelings for those who end up on the worse side.
Now here is my kind words. I do think a fifteen year old like yourself is wiser than normal and intellectually admring. And what i mean by "intellectually admiring" is that it makes me feel good inside knowing that young people aren't just in videogames. Tho, i am myself. A balance is nice.
Well, I have to commend, to say that you may be the worst debator takes a really secure and humble person. but honestly thinker, there are way worse than you, that are so drawn in to defend themselves right now, like srom1833 or whatever and TheWayitis. they are showing us one thing about them, they are insecure and if a person truly thinks they are a good coherent thinker or whatever they won't need a reason to care what others think, therefore never improve themselves, they are stubborn. you are highly speculative, having to consider every possibility and reality, you forget to put things in perspective in my honest opinion, but an open mind is one of the most important thing in finding the truth. I honestly am excited to see everyone react to this debate, because it will be funny to see people get heated up just to argue with someone elses opinion of them lol
TheThinker, for creating two debates trying to prove its point whilst failing to provide any evidence greater than "according to Google," (at least TheThinker is honest), and refusing to accept basic grammatical truths about the subject, as well as for its inability to express itself coherently.
I respect your honesty and agree that i don't express myself coherently. I have to work on that. ha ha.
But um, what do you mean that i refuse to accept basic grammatical truths on the subject?
And what else is there to prove that allowing someone's death is suicide other than using a dictionary source? I actually learned from Apollo that Martin Luther King Jr. stated that an accomplice is equally guilty as the one who did the crime. Or was it somebody else? But it didn't matter what he said or what anybody said. The real answer lies in the dictionary but that answer follows law other than a person own personal view.
