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.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS BMud

Reward Points:73
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.
85%
Arguments:52
Debates:2
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

I already do know! I will die at the very end of my life (on this plain of existence).

And then I will go on to whatever is next - I'm looking forward to it.

1 point

World Piss.

Oh, dang. Now look what I've done. That should have been World Peace.

That just goes to show - "If wishes were whores, we'd all be riding" (but I guess that we'd have to pay for the ride).

3 points

No, you obviously are NOT one of the Chosen.

The year 2112 is chiseled into the foundation of the cornerstone, as a fourth dimensional palindrome - signifying a series of preplanned cataclysmic events destined to bring about the desired cleansing.

Those of us in the way of portended noesis seek daily the provided orders hidden in the NY Times crossword puzzle (seek and ye too shall find, and by obeying may be multilaterally chosen to be considered worthy).

If this argument does NOT self-destruct by dawn of the day of the 3rd new moon of the 1st quarter of the current year, please consider it to be a drollness of improper hypothesis - and thereby save yourself from self-aggrandized delusional mental kinetosis (a most embarrassing condition).

0 points

I couldn't watch the entire video. Whoever made it should make it again - WITHOUT the red on black text - I simply cannot make it out.

(Which maybe goes to show that the presentation of information is more important than the availability of information)

2 points

I would argue that, as the consequences of the choice between idealism and pragmatism become more crucial, the more important it is to be able to temper idealism with pragmatism. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I believe that the best problem solvers are those who are both noble-minded (idealists) AND realists (pragmatists). If there are important issues that need to be resolved, we are more likely to implement successful solutions if we start with the idealistic approach of "what is the right thing to do" and then realistically consider "how to get it done".

It seems to me: that the "Pure Idealist" (if there is such a creature) would rarely accomplish much - Utopia only exists in our minds, and the "Pure Pragmatist" represents a potential drastic threat - the ends do NOT always justify the means.

2 points

Idealist:

Someone guided more by ideals than by practical considerations

Pragmatist:

A person who takes a practical approach to problems and is concerned primarily with the success or failure of her actions

The exact question asked is - "When in conflict, should idealism be valued over pragmatism?". A thoughtful consideration must begin with another question: "What is the nature of the conflict?".

If the consequences of the conflict are relatively unimportant (should I snack on some raw fruits and vegetables or should I satisfy my mild hunger by eating a hot dog?), then it probably matters very little if I solve the conflict with the idealism of "what's good for me" or the pragmatism of "what's readily available".

If the conflict involves a matter of life or death (should I support a presidential candidate who believes that a show of military might is the right response to most international disputes, or should I cast my vote for a candidate who believes that diplomacy is the better approach?), then the choice between idealism and pragmatism is certainly more important.

Of course, there are a range of conflicts that fall somewhere in between the trivial and the dire.

I would argue that, as the consequences of the choice between idealism and pragmatism become more crucial, the more important it is to be able to temper idealism with pragmatism. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I believe that the best problem solvers are those who are both noble-minded (idealists) AND realists (pragmatists). If there are important issues that need to be resolved, we are more likely to implement successful solutions if we start with the idealistic approach of "what is the right thing to do" and then realistically consider "how to get it done".

It seems to me: that the "Pure Idealist" (if there is such a creature) would rarely accomplish much - Utopia only exists in our minds, and the "Pure Pragmatist" represents a potential drastic threat - the ends do NOT always justify the means.

2 points

First, I would like to thank you for the link to your blog post - I had heard the term Machiavellian used, but had never actually done any research on it (and had guessed that it was not a favorable adjective based on the context in which it was used); I now have a much better idea of the concept.

According to your blog, Machiavelli suggests many characteristics of a "good Prince" - arguing that if the ruler follows Machiavelli's advice, the kingdom would benefit and thrive. Each point of advice could be argued on its own merit, as to the benefit that it would bring upon the subjects of the monarchy.

But the argument FOR a monarchy (as put forth in your blog), leaves out a key component - succession. When the "good Prince" passes on his duties as ruler to the next Prince, how likely is it that the next ruler will exhibit all of the suggested characteristics, and therefore benefit the people of his kingdom as well as his predecessor? AND, what are the rules for succession? If my understanding of history is (even close to) correct, succession is a family matter - the "next in line" for ruler of the kingdom is based on birth rights (although it seems the history of monarchies is rife with many examples of subterfuge and chicanery).

I would put forth the argument that the concept of royalty is merely the opposite of slavery, and that both are equally preposterous. To accept that a person can be born into slavery is morally wrong, and to accept that a person can be born into royalty is also wrong.

However, to answer you question - Yes, I suppose that a monarchy (under the auspices of a "good ruler") COULD be a good form of government. But I personally would prefer a direct democracy (even though the democracy in which I find myself could definitely use some improvements. But that would be an entirely different debate).

3 points

The best economic policy is JOBS CREATION. I'm sure that the structure of our financial institutions need some re-tuning in the way of better regulations that are more strictly enforced, but no amount of fine-tuning will amount to long term improvements without some kind of massive Jobs Creation program.

The real problem (as I see it) is that wealth distribution has gotten way out of balance - with the very top of our societal pyramid controlling a disproportional percentage of available capital.

If we don't find a workable solution that puts more capital into the hands of the middle and lower class, the pyramid will collapse. And creating meaningful jobs that contribute to the overall well-being of our society is a solution that will work to infuse capital into our system.

And as soon as President Obama calls on me for advice, I will share the sage wisdom of my deep insight for the betterment of all mankind ;-)

6 points

If your opinion on who has the better tax plan is based on the information provided by the Heritage Foundation ... I suggest you look elsewhere.

I suggest you look at each candidate's website.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

http://www.johnmccain.com/

(you may have to dig around Senator McCain's website a bit to find his specific tax proposals)

My support for Senator Obama is NOT based on who has the better tax plan. For me, when it comes to the presidential election, there is ONE OVER-RIDING CONCERN - who is least likely to start a nuclear war.

Barack Obama is thoughtful and careful, and would consider all the consequences of "pushing the button". John McCain strikes me as impetuous and dangerous, and I don't want his finger anywhere near the button.

2 points

One of the skills a good debater should have is the ability to argue both sides of an argument - be able to present points both for and against.

There is certainly nothing wrong with choosing which side of a debate you believe is presenting the facts. BUT, any debater will improve his/her skills by being able to make arguments both ways!

Displaying 2 most recent debates.

Winning Position: What Habits Would You Advise Others To Emulate?
Winning Position: hmm yes fashizzle dizzle

About Me


Biographical Information
Name: Will Dugan
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Other
Education: Some College

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