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.

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

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Bogan

Reward Points:31
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.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
0 points

There is no cultural diversity in Hollywood today. Movies today are so boringly politically correct that they are little more than left wing propaganda. Every left wing cause is usually the storyline, from homosexual cowboys to movies portraying the mining industry as the rapers of the Earth. Heroes usually consist of photogenic male leads who are usually outsmarted and outpunched by their photogenic female leads, as well as the obligatory minority sidekick.

Rupert Murdock greatly increased his wealth when he realised that most news was left wing fake news, and he started Fox news as a counter balance. Now left wing fake news journalists wonder why Fox is number one and CNN is twenty three in the list of trusted news sources. Like right wing news, the entertainment industry is crying out for moviemakers to produce movies promoting patriotism and white pride. Clint Eastwood is probably the only movie director today who produces movies portraying real American heroes. And don't the left hate him for that?

1 point

"Conservative" governments around the western world are becoming the party of white people, as well as Asians, and those members of usually very dysfunctional minority groups who have brains and who are productive. "Progressive" western political parties represent the welfare dependent, dysfunctional minorities, and spoiled rich kids and their filthy rich celebrity mates, as well as homosexuals and those peculiar people who are confused about their gender.

The reason why the Dems won is because the number of dysfunctional minority groups in the USA keeps increasing through immigration (both legal and illegal) and birth rate differentials between conservatives and progressives.

The only way that the success of the progressives can reverse is for them to make an absolute stuff up of their economy and to continue to destroy the social harmony of their communities. The they are making a real effort to achieve that. What may result is that enough rich kids and celebs will realise that their advocacy of anti democratic and dysfunctional minorities is not in their own best interests, and this influential group will throw their weight behind the conservatives.

1 point

i was once a staunch anti racist, until the day that I realised that the people who claimed to be the most anti racist, were in fact racist towards my race, which is the white race. It was obvious to me tht the only way that leftists could explain away why so many of the "oppressed" minorities they championed were so crime prone and dysfunctional was to blame it all on white people.

Okay, I was taught in high school that for Hitler to blame the Jews for the misfortunes of the Germanic people was racism. Now I was seeing the same phenomena again only my race was the scapegoat. Realising that something was fundamentaly wrong with the so called "anti racist" mindset, I began to think more clearly.

Everybody is racist. Every race prefers to live within a community of people made up of their own race. This is the reason for the ethnic Ghettoisation of all western cities. In high school, one demographic that always complained about racism was the Jewish kids. Then I learned that it was impossible for a non Jew to legally immigrate into Israel.

It is not always wrong to be racist, as it can be seen as simply supporting your own people, which I thought was a virtue? But like all vices and virtues, they can be taken to extremes by stupid people where they become dangerous. "Positive discrimination" is racism but it can be justified with a reasoned argument. When any racism can be justified with a reasoned argument then it can not be an absolute evil.

1 point

Compared to every other western country in the world, the USA is a very violent country. The reason is, that for over 150 years the US entertainment industry has glorified violent characters and violent, revenge seeking behaviour. Today that same media still glorifies loners bent on violent personnel revenge, as well as criminal behaviour generally It presents drug taking behaviour, violence against women, hired murderers, , car thieves, graffitti "artists", and school shooters, as action movie heroes, to low status young males with low IQ's.

Next, is has a preponderance of ethnicities who are noted in every western country for having a far greater propensity to a low mean IQ than other races, as well as a genetic proneness to violent behaviour. Although, western countries everywhere are trying to close the gap between the USA and themselves in this respect with their own immigration laws.

Toss in firearm laws, which are so lenient that even people diagnosed with serious mental conditions and on medication for it, can easily obtain firearms, and the fact that even the most violent criminals can easily obtain bucketfuls of the most lethal weapons imaginable, and of course the USA will be a violent country.

And it will remain so. The reason being, that the need to reform all of these three factors is opposed by special interest groups who always try to point the finger at the other factors, but will never consider sublimating their own self interest on behalf of the common good.

1 point

If the "experts" who claim that the temperatures are rising significantly, the ice caps are melting, and the seas are rising, make predictions about immanent doom which never eventuate, then you don't have to be a Mensa from the local Audubon society to figure out that these "experts" do not have a single, solitary clue what they are talking about.

Climate alarmist predictions which flopped.

The first IPCC meeting was held in 1988 in Europe, during the one of the worst snow storms that Europe had ever recorded.

"Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000", predicted by Noel Brown, the director of the UN environment Program in 1989.

On November 4, 1998, the BBC, quoting "European scientists", claimed that Italian ski fields would snow free by 2008, while skiing in Germany would be "impossible" as the snow would simply fall as rain.

The Washington Post. 2019 "AOC claims the world will end in 12 years unless we do something now."

In 2007, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be "ice free" by 2013. The Arctic ice cap grew by 533,000 square miles between August 2012 and August 2013.

In 2006, NASA's James Hanson said that "Manhattan would be underwater by 2008."

In 2006, In December 2009, Al Gore claimed that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014. John Kerry proclaimed 2014 as the year the arctic would melt, the seas would rise, and they would drown low lying island chains and coastal cities. The BBC predicted that New Orleans and Miami would be underwater by 2014. In 2014 when the arctic was certainly not ice free, and the oceans of the world had stubbornly refused to rise to drown cities and subways, and entire nations had not been wiped off the Earth, the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6, 2014, reported that the Arctic Ocean is expected to be ice free in summer before mid-century. Seems like if the "expert" predictions sadly do not eventuate, the "expert" alarmists just put the date for the end of times back another decade or two.

Oddly, Coastal real estate prices all over the world have not crashed, and nobody with a water front property (including Australia's climate commissioner Tim Flannery) are trying to sell their waterfront properties at giveaway prices. As a matter of fact, waterside real estate prices just keep climbing. Perhaps it is because the equity managers, the real smart guys, who are responsible for investing trillions in real estate, regard HIGW as complete malarkey?

Aaustralian "Climate Change Commissioner" Tim Flannery's 2006 prediction that "the dams will never fill again" looks funny when the dams overfilled and they drowned Brisbane and Townsville. Sydney's Warragamba dam had to open it's floodgates twice. When the dams overflowed, Tim Flannery then claimed that "climate change can not be ruled out" as the reason for the flooding rains. Not bad. Drought? Blame climate change. Flooding rains? Blame climate change. Temperatures hotter and bad bushfires? Blame climate change. Northern hemisphere buried in snow? Blame climate change for that too.

Other predictions from Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery.

Predicted 2004. Climate change would be so quick we would not have time to build desalination plants.

Predicted 2004. Perth would be the world's first ghost Metropolis

Predicted 2005/6/7. The eastern coastal suburbs of Sydney would be under water

Predicted 2007 Brisbane and Adelaide would run dry of water.

Predicted 2013. The Arctic would be ice free by 2018

Predicted 2015. Hurricanes would be more frequent (they aren't)

On 16th of October, 2008 the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation it has ever passed, committing the UK to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds. On that very day it snowed in London in October, for the first time since 1934. $400 billion pounds in the UK alone? Somebody is sure making big money out of this farce.

Climate "Scientist" Dr David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. (you remember them, the Climategate guys) predicted that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

In February 2019, (and in 2020) the USA, all of Europe, and Russia were all up to their eyeballs in snow. It was even snowing in Los Angeles, which it just like saying is snowing in Brisbane.

The Himalayan Glaciers did not melt.

The "ship of fools", consisting of an expedition from Sydney University which set sail to Antarctica in a taxpayer funded chartered Russian icebreaker, to prove that the East Antarctic Ice Shelf was melting. Instead it got stuck in record amounts of thick sea ice and had to be rescued by carbon belching rescue ships and helicopters.

The "urgently" needed (and hugely expensive) desalination plants in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide which still rot away unused.

The Climategate scandal where supposed "scientists" from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit discussed among themselves how to fudge the data which clearly displayed that global temperature rises were levelling out. And, they also discussed the sacking of one EACR scientist, who was a climate change sceptic.

And whaddya know, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology themselves got caught red handed "adjusting" the historical temperature data to "prove" rising temperatures, by the families of people who have been recording temperatures in their own districts for over 100 years, and who still have their families hand written records to prove it was complete BS.

1 point

This is a false dilemma fallacy. Just because the NAACP has lobbied Congress to deny research funding to geneticists who want to research a link between genetics and crime, does not automatically mean that they are not seeking the truth.

No, it is called drawing an obvious conclusion from the very clear facts. According to an arch anti racist, (Peter Breggin) the NAACP lobbied the US Federal government to deny funding to any geneticist who wanted to investigate any link between genetics and crime. I would have thought that any intelligent person can make the connection, that when any group of people use their political power to stop scientific research, they do not want that research done because they are afraid of what will be revealed? And they do not want that knowledge publically known. Arguing against scientific research, eh? Hahaha. Congratulations, you have finally become the very sort of anti scientific person that you once despised in your youth.

There could be many reasons why they have done this, such as the fact that they believe that such research is dangerous and could be used to justify discrimination against certain groups of people.

You got that right. Making it a scientific fact that certain races are genetically prone to violent criminal behaviour would nullify the widely held belief among "intelligent" people that all races are equal. Can't have that, can we? Better to shut the scientists up and keep spinning the false premises which are destroying western civilisation, the same civilisation you live in. The truth must not be told. The truth is too "dangerous". You would have made a great archbishop when Darwin published "Origin of Species." You have exactly the same mindset.

First of all, it is important to note that just because someone is a scientist, does not automatically mean that they are right about everything.

We are not asking them if they are right, are we? People on your side of the fence do not even want them to investigate what is right. What does that tell you about their motivations? It tells me a lot about your motivations that you would choose to misread what I wrote and instead toss a very smelly red herring to avoid commenting upon the fact that your side wants to shut up science.

Scientists are human beings and are just as prone to bias and error as anyone else.

That is true. But you are smart enough to know that what you wrote was a misdirection. The anti racist forces, of which you are a sterling member, do not want scientists to look for knowledge which the anti racists do not want known. THAT is not the position of an intelligent person. It is the position of a wild eyed fundamentalist zealot. You are not one of those, are you?

Second of all, the fact that Crick was sacked from the HGP and had his name removed from any plaque dedicated to his contributions to science does not mean that his views on race are correct. It simply means that his views were not in line with the values of the organisation he was working for.

An organisation who does not want to start another Darwin style public furore and have their public research funds cut off by the government, acting on behalf of a minority group who fears the truth being made public. What would that do to their Critical Race Theory, hmmmmm? Hey! This is fun. I have never debated against somebody who seems to be squirming because he knows that by advocating for the anti racist side, he is indirectly advocating for the scientists to be shut up. Maybe we are in a time warp here? You are really a priest? And you are actually typing your opinions from the 19th century, and your messages only arrived in 2022 through a black hole event horizon?

Lastly, I am not on the side of those who want to shut up scientists. I am on the side of those who want scientists to be open-minded and willing to consider all evidence, regardless of where it comes from.

Hahahaha! They can not be open minded if they are not even allowed to conduct the research, can they? Which side is not being open minded? And if they come out and say what they think is the truth, they lose their job and get cancelled. That is shutting up the scientists. You are certainly in a quandary, aren't you? You know that shutting up the scientists is imperative to your anti racist humanitarian ideology, but you don't want to be seen as one who agrees that scientists should be silenced.

This is a strawman argument. I never said that science does not recognise race. I said that there is no scientific basis for the claim that one race is superior to another race. There is a big difference between recognising that people can be grouped into races and claiming that one race is superior to another race.

I would have thought that science would agree that people with black skin have superior skin solar protection than people with white or yellow skin? That is self evidently a physical difference. Or do you even deny that?

This is an ad hominem fallacy and a strawman argument. Just because I do not agree with you does not automatically mean that I have been brainwashed by my peers or that I am unable to think for myself.

You have no evidence that races are equal at all. Then you claim that "there is no scientific basis for the claim that one race is superior to the other." But in solar protection alone you are obviously wrong, and you do not even need to be a scientist to know that. Could I also submit that you have no scientific basis to your claim that races are equal? Yet you still believe it. That looks like religion to me. It has been inculcated into your brain so long ago that you simply accept what is quite plainly illogical, superstitious nonsense.

I find it amusing that you think that you can just cherry-pick a few isolated incidents and use them to paint an entire movement with a broad brush. I could do the same thing to you and your argument, but I choose not to because I believe in engaging in civil discourse.

So do I.

I am saying it is self evidently obvious that races are not equal, and I am giving examples of why I think the way I do. One reason is, because one very influential anti racist organisation is using it's influence to prevent geneticists from seeking knowledge that the anti racist forces do not want known to the public. Any organisations that want to shut up science have lost me. You are in a quandary, aren't you? As an "intelligent" person you know that it is wrong to support shutting up scientists. It goes against all secular western thinking. But on the other hand, you don't want the scientists to do research that would disprove your pet humanitarian ideology wrong. So, you engage in mental gymnastics, trying to support the anti racist position by not quite responding to what I am submitting, muddying the water, while claiming that you are not anti science. That is not the way an intelligent person thinks, and you know it. An intelligent person says "May the truth be told, though the heavens may fall." It was because western people started thinking that way 400 years ago, our civilisation rocketed ahead of all others. So, at least I presume I have got you thinking? You have to choose whether you support those who want to shut up science? Or, you support those who are submitting a premise that contradicts everything you have been conditioned to believe is all that is good and holy?

Food for thought. Bon appetite.

1 point

To excon.

Slavery was around for thousands of years and was accepted as perfectly normal by all races, ethnicities, and nationalities. Including black Africans. It was the British who were the first people to promote the (at the time) novel idea that slavery was utterly wrong. That slavery was wrong was then taken up by other European powers who supported the Royal Navy's campaign to intercept the ships of any nation carrying slaves, and free the slaves. So shove your racist anti white mindset where your mother never kissed you.

Even today, most white people erroneously believe that all races are equal. Black African people in the USA demanded Equality and they got it. But it did not do most of them any good because most African people are simply not intelligent enough to compete with smarter races in a competitive western world.

African people who are unable to explain why equality did them little good, and convinced that they are all as smart as whites, Jews, and Asians, now claim that the reason for their race's dysfunction must be the white guys fault. Which, if you accept that all races are equal would make sense, even if it is a racist premise itself.

So I think it is time to give the Africans, Pacific Islanders, and Australian aborigines a reality check. Neither the whites, Asians, or Jews, are responsible for your dysfunction. Sad though this fact may be, the overwhelming majority of people from these races have low IQ's, and probably a genetic susceptibility to violent behaviour at a rate much higher than for other races.

May the truth be told, though the heavens may fall.

1 point

I am simply stating the facts, Mr excon. I am sorry if the truth hurts your ears. Ever heard of Critical Race Theory? That is a "theory" where dysfunctional, welfare dependent, and crime prone ethnicities blame the white race for their own behaviour and lack of economic success. Which, I might add, is racism. And this is being taught in western schools by left wing teachers to young students? Then you froth at the mouth when the race of people you are slandering shoot back with the truth?

2 points

I think that race baiting by left wing parties in every western country is working just fine. The lefties know that dysfunctional, welfare dependent, and crime prone minorities are increasing in number in every western society because of immigration, both legal and illegal (which the Left supports) and through birth rate differentials.

So it is just a matter of time before their new electorate beciomes the majority. In the meantime, the left can suck up to these dysfunctional minorities by claiming that their endemic dysfunction is all the fault of that filthy white race of racist oppressors.

This definitely strikes a chord with the dysfunctional ethnicities who need to believe that they are equal in every way to the successful races and need to believe that their endemic problems are all somebody else's fault.

The problem is, that there are some people in the dysfunctional minorities who are smart, and they are getting wise to the empty promises of socialism. This is greatly aided by the fact that so many white leftists suffer from hubris and they are convinced that if their class had total control over everything, they could solve every human problem. But the reality is that socialism just does not work, and sooner or later everybody figures that out.

1 point

Egalitarianism may be popular with the Left but mother nature is no egalitarian. Very beautiful women do exist and they can be breathtakingly beautiful. The effect that beautiful women have on others is reflected in our language which is used to describe them, usually in the form of complete physical dysfunction. "Bombshell" "Drop dead gorgeous" "Stunner". I myself had the pleasure of seeing a very beautiful young woman walking through my local shopping centre and she was quite literally stopping traffic. I wondered who she was, when a few days later I saw the same young lady in my local newspaper. She was "Miss Teen NSW."

Winning Position: Races are not equal.

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