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
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic


RSS Harvard

Reward Points:666
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.
92%
Arguments:890
Debates:54
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

What kind of democracy are we in where this many people are hoping for a case to go to SCOTUS because the justices were both chosen by, and politically aligned with, the POTUS? It keeps me up at night thinking why anyone would think it is okay to root for a biased SCOTUS decision; then when they have the unmitigated, unadulterated gall to remain unbiased, Trump supporters are not only upset, they say that the SCOTUS is now fraudulent.

(BTW: To clarify, since I know how Trumpers are: any Trump opposers are left-wing Biden lovers, I am independent and I think both choices were equally terrible so I did not vote. If I could vote for anyone, I would have voted for Mike Pence--who I also think is terrible, but he would have been the best option, IMO.)

2 points

The similarity of this game--the knowledge of which I possess solely based on your description--is not without the boundary of what is expected in any healthily functioning society, barring a couple protocols (one of which being a leader extending their post unless otherwise outlined as being permissible in their country's constitution/national laws). So, to say "dishonored is non-fiction" would, naturally, suggest to me that our reality is so absurd/unreal that it resembles a game intended to be based on fiction. I am not saying that my suggestion is the entailment of what you are saying, rather it is how I process it (especially due to your use of the word "uncomfortable" when asking if the game is close to reality).

So, a clarification is needed to prevent my overthinking everything: In your opinion, should saying the game resembles our reality be a compliment to the production team for appreciating modern and historic laws/protocols on how to function in a pandemic, or is it an insult to the governments resembling Dishonored that their responses to the pandemic could've been constructed by a mere child who is a fanatic of the game?

(SN: Glad to be back and see you're still here!)

1 point

Wow. I have been gone a few years and I see nothing has changed about you, Atrag. You are the same walking ad hominem machine as you have always been.

1 point

Obviously. If Nike believed they would lose money for their shareholders (although they have lost a few points), they would not have made this highly controversial move.

Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

Is it fair to narrow in on law enforcement officers? I think his position, although not explicitly stated, is regarding civilians.

1 point

The entire story is false. Michael Jordan did part ways with the Nike brand. Stop debating over something that did not happen.

2 points

Assuming the blind man understands that he is blind, and what that entails, I would assume that he understands that there are things that exist that he could never know due to his condition. I would also assume that the blind man understands that there are others who will have the ability to see what he cannot. Given those two assumptions, I would suggest that the blind man not contend with that which he understands he is incapable of disproving.

1 point

"By your definition, every deliberate killing would be genocide (even mercy killings, etc.) - it isn't."

By my definition, every collectively deliberate killing of a specific racial group may be considered a non-standard form of genocide.

"A) You have separated deliberate from its use - it is not that the killing is deliberate, it is that the systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is deliberate."

There are several differently phrased definitions of the word genocide.

Genocide - the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group.

"B) one killing is not a systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

If 1,000 Nazis killed 1,000 Jews, obviously with each Nazi killing 1 Jew, would that be considered genocide? You see, it is not one lady killing one baby, it is hundreds of thousands of women killing hundreds of thousands of babies. The collective action done to a particular racial group, though done by the same racial group, is what I am suggesting may be considered a form of genocide.

5 points

I suppose I would not be able to prove such a concept to a person who is afflicted with a condition that occludes them from seeing the evidence for the existence of that concept. The Judeo-Christian god (who I am assuming is the analog), however, presumably created humans to have the ability to recognize his existence, or the evidence thereof.

1 point

The act of killing their offspring is deliberate and results in the "destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group;" therefore, the act can be considered an anomalous form of genocide.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Becasue the court is fair
Winning Position: No, they are not.
Tied Positions: No, here's why. vs. Yes, here's why.

About Me


Biographical Information
Name: Harvard University
Gender: Chap
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Education: College Grad

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