CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Ardak1210

Reward Points:76
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
97%
Arguments:52
Debates:6
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

I disagree with you. Certainly, watching television takes less time than reading books. However, it depends on the person and book. If a book is really fascinating and the person who reads this book is good reader. It is better to read a book in one day and improve your mind and etc. than to spend two hours to watching the film.

I think that it is impossible to give all the feelings of the book through the film. Since film is also kind of business. People try to earn a big amount of money on it. In this way, they may do everything to achieve this purpose and even change the content of the book, take into account not all important aspects and add some new things. I think that it is very seldom, when the film is able to be similar to the book.

Watching television is just emotional development, reading books is spiritual development. We should think over what is more profitable and useful for us?

Books are more advantageous than watching TV. According to Sarah Ockler, there are many benefits of reading books. For example, books are companions in traveling, books do not cause cultural disorders, books open new world for us, enrich our imagination, thoughts, ideas. As she said "book is the soul of humanity in the written form". I totally agree with her.

To conclude, I want to say that books are definitely better than watching TV.

1 point

You are quite right! GOD always sees everyone and everything everywhere. Every thing in the world is his creation. We are also creations of GOD. If we will love and pray him, he will also love us. He accounts all our actions and it does not matter good actions or bad. It is very important that we are responsible for each our action.

Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. We should know that GOD has enormous kindness.

I wish all of you forgiveness of GOD and his big kindness.

1 point

Yes, I think they should because I don't see anything wrong in that teens have an account on facebook. Moreover, just to say below 18 is a little bit ridiculous because even children younger than 13 use facebook as other social networks. Certainly, it may be harmful for them, but anyway it depends on people, who are friend of these children on facebook. Since if they communicate only with their fellows there, it is not dangerous for them.

They may use facebook, but I think that their parents also should control them not to cause addiction. Generally, it doesn't matter people of what age use facebook because everybody use it differently. I want to say that they just should be careful with friends on facebook.

According to statistics given by Facebook service team, there are 1000000 people, who did not achieved 18 years old. Additionally, according to Leonie Smith, it even may be useful for them because it is also one of the parts of development.

To conclude, it might be considered that teens below 18 may use facebook, but their parents also should not forget to control them.

1 point

I don't agree with that marriage education should be taught at school. I also think that it is impossible. Moreover, I assume that schoolchildren are too young to think about it and even learn it. Since they may overdo it. Of course, it is definitely interesting for them, but they also may perceive it not seriously and just think that it is easy. I agree with that they should be taught family values, that they should appreciate their families, how to behave. However, it is the best idea to teach them marriage education. We all know that nowadays even schoolchildren are informed about everything, even things, which they should not know at this age. I am afraid that in minds of schoolchildren may be formed wrong imagination about real marriage with marriage education at school curriculum. Additionally, I think that it is not necessary because most of children just may take example from their parents and understand what is good and what is not good in family relationships.

According to Susanne Alexander, it may be harmful for children's psychological development. Since age group of schoolchildren doesn't allow to understand serious things such as marriage because they are too young for it. I totally support this idea.

To conclude, it could be argued that marriage education should not be taught according with harmful influence to psychology of children.

2 points

I think, schools should not ban teachers to be friends with their students in Facebook. I don't see anything wrong in it. Moreover, I assume that it may be a little bit beneficial for both sides. For example, if a teacher and students are friends in Facebook, they would communicate with each other better as in social networks as in real life because it is even common interest. Consequently, it is known that common interests make us closer to each other. Moreover, teachers would able to learn more information about students. I think it is possible to understand their psychology by communication and friendship in social networks. However, I also suggest teachers to not to overdo it, they also should keep some kind of distance with them. For instance, some my teachers are my friends in Facebook, but we don't communicate with each other there. I mean that we just have each other in list of friends.

I think that it is also useful for upbringing of pupils because teachers can give some advice their students in facebook and they also may even control them in facebook.

According to Pamela Rutledge, friendship with teachers in facebook gives students sense of equality with them. They start to know their balance of work and even personal life. All these information cause interests of students to their teachers. It means that this friendship enhances trust between teachers and students. Moreover, it also helps them in education because they begin to hold strong motivation to study. To conclude, it could be reasonably argued that friendship in facebook is a good opportunity to make relationships between students and teachers stronger.

1 point

I don't agree with you. Certainly, sometimes some kinds of sport are dangerous for people, but there are also so many sports, which are very useful for us. First of all, sport is necessary for health care because it is known our body always needs physical activity and sport fully support it. Secondly, sport helps to avoid some harmful habits like smoking, drinking alcohols or other negative activities. According to Ollie Cooperwood sport is very good engagement in comparison with, for example, watching television and other negative habits. Moreover, it may be the main reason of involving other good hobbies in our lives. It is also enriching knowledge because by knowing even types of sport of we start to expand our outlook. Therefore, it could be reasonably argued that we all need sport to improve and enrich our life. Moreover, we have a good chance to perfect as person by helping of sport.

1 point

I agree with that mobile phones distract kids in concentrating in studying, but I don't think that it is only reason of kids' distraction, although mobile phones essentially influence children. Moreover, they have other harmful effects, which also prevent their developing in right way. According to Sir William Stewart (Chairman of the Health Protection Agency) teens under 16 years old should not be let to use mobile phones because only from this age teens become more clever and responsible. However, the main point of this idea is avoiding children from negative affect of mobile phones. I fully support his idea because I also think that it is a right decision for kids' safety.

We believe that it is a responsible policy and is in line with their advice on health."

2 points

I don't agree with this statement. Since I think that tourism is more useful for people than harmful. Moreover, people may be beneficial from tourism. For instance, people may improve their health condition, expand outlook, make acquaintance with new people from different countries, find adventures and moreover, they may even find a future spouse. Additionally, it depends on the country, where people want to go as tourists. Besides, tourism is profitable not only for tourists, at the same time is is a very good chance for touristic countries. According to Nicole Vaugeois, tourism in developing countries is very useful in development of economy. For instance, African, Asian, South and Central American countries may be appropriate examples to it. It is an excellent opportunity to relax in countries like these. It could be argued that they are not so dangerous for people. To conclude, it can be stated that tourism is one of the powerful tools in development of the world.

1 point

Alibek I don't want to continue to argue with you. In my and in your arguments anyway exist many mistaken facts. Since we don't know how it can be realized in experiments and prisons. There are many aspects, which need careful decision.

Moreover, I am claiming it according to my religion. I don't know what about you, but it is my point of view. May be, it is not profitable for experiments, but I don't think that I would change my opinion.

1 point

In my point of view, it is impossible to have virtual love. Since it is not real life. It is just virtual life. You can just communicate with the person by messages and you can also see his or her pictures. You can't see him really. You can't speak with him. It means that virtual life limits people in many sides. Nothing may be better than real life communication and especially love. I agree with that we may find new friends and even communicate with friends, who know us in real life. However, love is absolutely different thing. How the person can love somebody, if he doesn't know her in all ways. At least her real character, how she appears, how she speaks. In general, I mean fall in love with somebody it is necessary to know him in real life. How can you imagine for example, confessions of love by messages? It is stupid. According to psychologist Liliana Weston, virtual love is just illusion. People think that it is love, but it is not more than attachment and sympathy. I think it is possible even if the couple will meet in the real life. Why people do not make acquaintance in the Internet and love each other in the real life? I know many cases connected with it, when the couple found each other in social networks and fell in love with each other only in the real life. I agree that it is really a good idea than claiming about love not seeing each other in the real life. To conclude, I am sure that real love exits only in the real life.

Displaying 6 most recent debates.

Tied Positions: I don't agree vs. I agree
Winning Position: No, it doesn't matter

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here