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


Enemies
View All
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS DisputedByMe

Reward Points:102
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.
98%
Arguments:99
Debates:5
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.

Soooo, the Torah is around 6,000 years old... But, Jews MUST believe a book that was written 4,000 years later, or they can't believe the Torah...

The Bible was not written 4,000 years after the Torah. The Bible was compiled in 1611, which means that it is a collection of 66 books that were written over a period of 1,600 years. The Old Testament, which is the portion of the Bible that is shared by both Christians and Jews, was written over a period of 1,000 years. So, the Jews have no reason to dismiss the Bible as divine simply because it was written after the Torah. And yes, you can't believe in part of the Bible, but not the entire thing, if you want to maintain a consistent worldview. Jews don't have to believe in the New Testament, but if they don't, they are effectively rejecting parts of their own holy text.

I pick Christianity due to it fullfilling Judaism

I does fulfill Judaism but Jews don't want to accept that.

Making a full on thesis of why might take a while. I used to do alot of religious debates on here but found them to be unfullfilling.

Well, yeah, but I mostly wanted to see how Excon would react since he/she is a Jew supposedly.

You can make a rock solid argument to most Atheists, and they'll not be intellectual enough to even grasp the argument.

This honestly made me laugh. Not because it's stupid, but because it's so TRUE.

Honestly, what's the point of being on this debate if you can't advocate for one or the other?

I clearly said: "Assuming one of them is correct"

If you can't assume that, then you have no place in this debate.

First of all, the text describes many prophets who predicted Jesus as described in the New Testament, yet the Jews believe that Jesus hasn't come yet. Jews and Christians share the same set of books called the Old Testament if you're a Christian, or the Torah if you're a Jew. The problem lies in when the books were compiled. The Bible was compiled in 1611, and it contains the set of 66 books that the organizers at the time found to be divine. If Judaism is going to reject some books over others, then what grounds do they have to say that the Torah is or isn't divine? If the Bible is the word of God, then it should be consistent with other books that are also the word of God. The New Testament is full of references to the Old Testament, and Jesus even said that he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. The point is, if Jews can dismiss a few books because they don't believe they are divine, then they are effectively destroying their own worldview.

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.

Nope. Still false equivialancy. Your problem is that you're confusing "those who seek to pervert science for their own political agenda" with "those who want to use scientific research to find the truth". The two are not the same.

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.

I find it amusing that you think that scientific evidence is somehow less truthful or dangerous than ignorance. The fact is, if certain races are indeed genetically predisposed to violence, then it is far better to know about it and try to find a way to mitigate those tendencies than to remain ignorant and continue to allow innocent people to suffer.

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. 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?

This is a strawman argument and a false dichotomy. Just because I don't agree with you does not automatically mean that I have been brainwashed by my peers or that I am unable to think for myself.

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?

I find it amusing that you think that being against shutting up scientists is somehow equivalent to being a "wild eyed fundamentalist zealot". Again, this is a false dichotomy.

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.

This is a strawman argument and an ad hominem fallacy again.

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 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.

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.

No evidence? Except for, I don't know, maybe the Harvard race article I linked you to? That provided a pretty good overview of the scientific evidence on race, and it showed that there is no scientific basis for the claim that one race is superior to another race. So I'm not sure where you're getting your "evidence" from.

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?

This is a strawman argument and a false dichotomy. Just because I don't agree with you does not automatically mean that I am against science or that I am in favor of shutting 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.

Now, are we going to actually start debating or are you just going to keep committing logical fallacies? You don't seem able to debate logically without resorting to fallacies, so maybe we should just end this now. OR you can start with a new argument, one that doesn't rely on fallacies. Your choice. You're making it really easy for me so far, you might want to change up your strategy. Or not. Your inability to make any sort of coherent argument is really quite amusing to me.

Food for thought. Bon appetite.

Because I like to understand both sides of an argument before I commit, I read the anti racist book "The War on Children" by Peter Breggin. The most interesting thing about reading books by fundamentalist zealots is that they are so convinced that they are right, that they let all kinds of things slip that they should keep to themselves. Breggin bragged that the US NAACP had successfully lobbied the US Congress to deny research funding to any geneticist who wished to research any link between genetics and crime. Now, I don't know about you? But my reasonable assumption is that any organisation who uses political influence to shut up scientists is not one who is seeking the truth.

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. 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.

Your link also mentioned the Human Genome Project. The Director of the HGP was non other than one Francis Crick, co discoverer of the double helix and a Nobel Prize winner. When questioned by a reporter on developing Africa to a European lifestyle, Crick pointed out that it could never happen because black African people are just not smart enough. That created a furore, and Crick was sacked from the HGP, tossed out of his university, and had his name chiselled off any plaque dedicated to his contribution to science. At least he did not get treated by the politically correct like the Catholic Church treated Galileo. They did not display to him the instruments of torture if he did not recant. They just "cancelled" him and destroyed his career. That's progress. And you are on the side of those who want to shut up the world's leading scientists? Like, are you serious? Do you really think that your beliefs are those of a far seeing intelligent person?

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

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.

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.

As to the idea that science does not recognise race, that is easily disprovable BS. Anthropologists are scientists who are intensely interested in tracing the origins and movements of the various branches of the human race. They routinely dig up ancient burial sites and one thing they need to know is the race of the buried human. This they can do through skeletal examination. (and increasingly, DNA) Whenever a skeleton is discovered that is believed to be a murder victim, the police need to identify the race, gender, and age of the victim to have any chance of making an identification. Forensic Anthropologists are scientist skilled in answering those questions the police need answers to.

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 am sure that you are smart enough to know that what I just wrote about scientists can identify race of even a skeleton is correct? That is common knowledge to anyone who watches TV crime shows. But the reason why you did not make the connection between what you know and what you advocate, is because a mental barrier has been installed in your brain by your peers who do not want your brain to make very obvious connections. Your brain is stuck in a rut that it can not think past.

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.

Lastly, left whingers always claim that race does not exist whenever it is convenient for them to do so. But they can see race as plain as day whenever they are lobbying for more public funds to go to the races or ethnicities they champion but who they perversely claim do not exist. These races, they claim, are supposedly "oppressed" by the white race, which also logically does not exist.

This is a strawman argument. I never said that race does not exist. 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 recognizing that people can be grouped into races and claiming that one race is superior to another race.

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.

Because I like to understand both sides of an argument before I commit, I read the anti racist book "The War on Children" by Peter Breggin. The most interesting thing about reading books by fundamentalist zealots is that they are so convinced that they are right, that they let all kinds of things slip that they should keep to themselves. Breggin bragged that the US NAACP had successfully lobbied the US Congress to deny research funding to any geneticist who wished to research any link between genetics and crime. Now, I don't know about you? But my reasonable assumption is that any organisation who uses political influence to shut up scientists is not one who is seeking the truth.

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. 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.

Your link also mentioned the Human Genome Project. The Director of the HGP was non other than one Francis Crick, co discoverer of the double helix and a Nobel Prize winner. When questioned by a reporter on developing Africa to a European lifestyle, Crick pointed out that it could never happen because black African people are just not smart enough. That created a furore, and Crick was sacked from the HGP, tossed out of his university, and had his name chiselled off any plaque dedicated to his contribution to science. At least he did not get treated by the politically correct like the Catholic Church treated Galileo. They did not display to him the instruments of torture if he did not recant. They just "cancelled" him and destroyed his career. That's progress. And you are on the side of those who want to shut up the world's leading scientists? Like, are you serious? Do you really think that your beliefs are those of a far seeing intelligent person?

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

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.

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.

As to the idea that science does not recognise race, that is easily disprovable BS. Anthropologists are scientists who are intensely interested in tracing the origins and movements of the various branches of the human race. They routinely dig up ancient burial sites and one thing they need to know is the race of the buried human. This they can do through skeletal examination. (and increasingly, DNA) Whenever a skeleton is discovered that is believed to be a murder victim, the police need to identify the race, gender, and age of the victim to have any chance of making an identification. Forensic Anthropologists are scientist skilled in answering those questions the police need answers to.

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 am sure that you are smart enough to know that what I just wrote about scientists can identify race of even a skeleton is correct? That is common knowledge to anyone who watches TV crime shows. But the reason why you did not make the connection between what you know and what you advocate, is because a mental barrier has been installed in your brain by your peers who do not want your brain to make very obvious connections. Your brain is stuck in a rut that it can not think past.

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.

Lastly, left whingers always claim that race does not exist whenever it is convenient for them to do so. But they can see race as plain as day whenever they are lobbying for more public funds to go to the races or ethnicities they champion but who they perversely claim do not exist. These races, they claim, are supposedly "oppressed" by the white race, which also logically does not exist.

This is a strawman argument. I never said that race does not exist. 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 recognizing that people can be grouped into races and claiming that one race is superior to another race.

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.

I have no idea what this "scientific evidence" is that you claim proves that races are physically and mentally equal, and I would love to know what it is? Could you please submit a link? You are self evidently wrong about physical abilities, unless you want to argue that there is "scientific evidence" that white skin is just as solar resistant than dark skin?

The scientific evidence that I am referring to can be found here

This evidence shows that there is no scientific basis for the claim that one race is superior to another race.

As for your claim that races have equal crime rates, Like, are you are kidding me? Do you really believe that? Or are you just trying to be funny? Thank you for clearly showing that those who support the idea that all races are equal can believe the most incredible nonsense and are a bit short in the brains department.

This part is laughable. Instead of actually disputing my claim, you left it all to the Ad Hominem logical fallacy which clearly shows that you have no argument to offer.

Also, just an FYI, you don't have to say "To " every time you want to dispute someone's argument. There is a dispute button that shows up below my argument that you can press to dispute.

The scientific evidence does not support the idea that any one race is superior to any other race. Instead, the evidence shows that all races are equal in terms of their physical and mental abilities.

One reason why some people believe that some races are superior to others is because of the way that they look. For example, white people tend to have lighter skin than black people. This can give the impression that white people are more beautiful than black people. However, beauty is subjective and there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that one race is more beautiful than another race.

Another reason why some people believe that some races are superior to others is because of the way that they behave. For example, some people think that black people are more likely to be violent than white people. However, this is not true. The crime rates for different races are similar, and there is no evidence to suggest that one race is more likely to be violent than another race.

The scientific evidence does not support the idea that any one race is superior to any other race. Instead, the evidence shows that all races are equal in terms of their physical and mental abilities. This means that all races should be treated equally and given the same opportunities in life.

It sure is funny to watch two arguers roast each other on CD. Makes my day

Displaying 5 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Christianity
Winning Position: Ukraine
Winning Position: Theories are Uncertain

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