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.
This side will certainly win, as that side will be brought down by semantics at every turn—those of us on this side can argue for this side and against that side, but those on that side must clarify every statement in favor of their side, so they do not appear to be arguing for this side.
That is a very good point. This side knows who we are voting for, but That side must always state which side "This" side (ex: right side/left side), in which they are referring to, actually is. Therefore, This side must win because That side will be too confused to put up an argument.
So what you're saying is that if you're arguing for this side, it's easier to not make a mistake, whereas if you're arguing for that side, it would make it's favorers have to think more before arguing?
Well, I am glad that I have chosen the side that requires more brain power to argue for... and it's paying off.
Touché. It could be pointed out here, however, that the titles at the top have been changed, and both are now labeled as "This side". So a "that side" cannot actually win at this point, being as it has ceased to exist. Which has also rendered my original argument (and a lot of everybody else's) completely pointless, oh well.
But then wouldn't it be that that side has ceased to exist while this side continues to prosper? Therefore, with both sides being "This Side", then no matter what this side will win. So that side has already lost! [;
This side will keep its cool- that's why they are blue. They will not resort to personal attacks and will always treat debate as a game.
This side is also more in touch with its peers- they refer to themselves as 'this' side, and everyone knows 'that' sounds condescending. 'This' always comes first when you use the expression 'this n' that.' That's because everyone knows it's better.
However you overlook the fact that if a = b and b = c then a = c. Its basic algebra. or in other words. Since that side = this side and this side = this side, then this side = that side. So no matter what both sides lose and both sides win. Its a never ending royal of arguments that all have the same outcome. Therefore, all your arguments towards both sides are meaningless since this side and this side already won and lost because they are this side.
We of "That side" are more independent than all of you in "This side". We only call ourselves "That Side" because we know that we are not "This side"... we obviously see that there is something wrong with "This side" or we would be "This side" too. You only dislike "That side" because it's not "This side".
Since when do you participate if "fun" debates? I thought you were all for stuffy "serious" debates. What gives? And what are you doing on "this side?" Get back on to your side which is "that side" over there --->
I am a very fun person with a brain that I like to use once in a while. Also, most of what I say here, I don't necessarily believe. I do it all for the sake of the argument, not for the sake of attention.
Before the debate was changed, the side that you are on was called "This side" as it is now, but the other side (the side right of your side) was called "That side". The change has rendered so many arguments useless... I think this debate is dead now.
Sunny has a certain connotation that is agreed to by most people. If you meant to say that you get sunny showers, then you should have said so. Aside from that, I think your a "this side" wanna be. Why else would you spent so much time on "this side?"
this side becoause blue is a prime colour and its oppiste colour is red which helps to make a secondary colour orange FACT BOOM RIGHT THERE! thankyou for reading (I love art)
Blue is clearly the colour of royalty and therefore the blue side will win, because they control all of the land peasants need on which to grow their vegetables. Red non-royal peasants are all too dumb to resist the domination by governments they must pay to survive.
Red is clearly the emotional and therefore necessarily irrational side.
Well, I'm really proud that I stuck to my guns and didn't switch sides (like I usually do) when this side was down. We are up and we be kicking butt!!! I guess those prolific and tenacious debaters on the other side got writer's cramp! HA!
Has anyone else noted that the blue side is the only side that can win. Obviously if blue is "this side" then arguing that "that side" will win implies that the blue side will win. Thus blue triumphs over orange.
Yet even this seems to be a gap in logic since the orange side is winning. Ah the tangled web we weave.
"This side" and "That side" are only algebraic aliases.
"This side" stands for the left side of the argument, and "That side" stands for the right side.
It's like "X" vs. "Y" (but since both are more similar than dissimilar, I think it's more correct to be "S" vs. "s")
Now, as I've noticed, there are a lot of people here making the mistake of not putting these names into the correct context. This side means something completely different than "This side", so what they say is meaningless to the argument... though it is fun to read.
However you overlook the fact that if a = b and b = c then a = c. Its basic algebra. or in other words. Since that side = this side and this side = this side, then this side = that side. So no matter what both sides lose and both sides win. Its a never ending royal of arguments that all have the same outcome. Therefore, all your arguments towards both sides are meaningless since this side and this side already won and lost because they are this side.
That side is colored-coded as red/orange. We all know this is the color of passion. That side will be much more deliberate and passionate and will ultimately win this debate.
Plus, when you get that side started they never stop. That's why they are the color of fire- because they get on fire and make solid argument after solid argument.
you see, this side has the aura of the KUNG FU PANDA! (notice his shorts are the same color-ish as our side) this side will do whatever it takes to be the winner of this debate. if that means assassinating you all we probably wont be there but the thought still is...
our side also has the feng shui that all super sides have...such as our warm apparently happy color that is the supreme reigning overlord of this side. (google: orange). so you see we have a supreme reigning overlord who tells us what we should do, without saying anything at all!!
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
This side looks good to me. I think it should win. Although is looks like it's going to lose to the blue side. Because blue side usually stands for 'yes'.
This side(red) will win, because i will sabotage the other side's arguments with obviously superficial and flawed arguments muhahahahahhhhh!.
Edit: Look! The infiltration worked!
I have even planted bold lettering to further the blue cause by helping people spot deliberately flawed or unsupported arguments. Including the peasant's very visible "we can't do anything because no-one else is doing anything" argument premised on the false notion that anti-establishment activists all know about all other anti-establishment activism despite their inadequate underfunded and persecuted communications networks and dispelled by Ghandi's advice to "become the change you want to see in the world".
I also threw in the emotions necessarily lead to irrationality argument, which ignores the power of emotion to motivate rationality.
Long live emotion, long live resistance to tyrants and long live red resistance in the face of blue oppression!
Consider also blue's first argument that "debate is always a game" and you should "never attack the person". Some positions are dangerous. People should most definitely have attacked Hitler for his murderous anti-Judaism BEFORE he started carrying out the massacres.
Blue's first argument demonstrates pathetic ignorance of the serious implications of debate. Debate creates understanding. Without understanding you'll always be a slave. It is NO game.
Typical decadent blue side argument. Dangerous. and "PolicyDebate" the individual SHOULD be attacked for the real world consequences of his dangerous beliefs.
