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
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Ludo

Reward Points:15
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.
87%
Arguments:9
Debates:2
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
9 most recent arguments.
2 points

Sub-primes and the ratings agencies. 2008. If thats not an example of what damage a lack of regulation can do, i don't know what is. That is the danger. A free market would also have child labour may i add. It is govt. regulation that prevents that.

1 point

Just because you can't be sued or blamed legally for the negative externality, doesn't make it dissappear. Can you clarify that a bit?

0 points

But would a free market provide 'public goods' that benefit all of society as opposed to just those individuals that can afford them? Would a free market run wild with market failure caused by the negative externalities (the social costs being greater than the private costs) the government isnt trying to correct? A demerit good has over consumption due possibly to information failure which means that individuals don't realise the impact of certain goods on themselves (Smoking). Surely the over consumption would be far greater, and therefore the market failure would be far greater, if there wasn't the indirect tax imposed by the government to try to correct this a bit. I do understand your point about Hong Kong however.

1 point

The issue isn't whether God exists but whether the Bible is 'imperfect'. The story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah is disgraceful and should be viewed as such by any God believer. I myself believe in God but that He offers his daughters to the crowd of rapists shows such evil. It is disgusting to think that anyone could show such inhuman actions and be shown as a good man (One of the few that don't perish with Sodom and Gommorah). The Bible has a backwards mentality over homosexuals which also begs the question 'Why would God create people that are homosexual if they are evil?'. The Bible for many years was used as a method of controlling people, you just have to look at the power the Catholic Church commanded over France before the French Revolution and the power it still controls and your mind starts to ponder the probability of the fear of God being used to the advantage of the bourgeoisie. The Bible dictates to people what rules God puts on them, but it is God and God alone that can tell you what he wants, through yourself. He doesn't need a book, he is omniscient and doesn't have to put it down on a book once to avoid having to repeat himself. The Bible was created to control, and control it has done.

1 point

Try to find where I made that point in my argument. I think if you read it over again you'll realise that your dispute hasn't attacked what i said just made another statement. Again, imagine if that was your kid. They break into a home because of who they are hanging around with. They're killed for one mistake. Conscious decisions can also be the result of a confused mind. If the state doesn't have the death penalty, why should a citizen be able to administer it? Out of curiousty therefore, how is my argument 'totally flawed'?

1 point

I support the idea that only when you know that yours or your family's life is in danger, should you be allowed to take another human being's life. However, no matter how the Hussain's felt towards those burglars, it was up to the law to decide their fate. Yes, the law may get it wrong, but thats why we have elections, so that we can choose the right government to make the right laws. This was a 'revenge attack', just as Tony Martin, the farmer who shot his intruders in the back as they were escaping was; this is because at this point they no longer pose a threat and it is a crime to attack someone without it being self-defence. The Hussain's live in the UK, and therefore have made the conscious decision to abide by the UK's laws. In this light it is obvious that they should be punished if they hit the burglar so hard it split the cricket bat. Emotions, no matter how justified, can't replace the law, otherwise there would be anarchy as 'what is justified' can be very subjective to opinion. However, in the instance of one's or one's family's lives being at risk, the use of force (that may include killing) may be necessary. There is a new law in the UK that accepts this. But, the law doesn't permit you to make the decision that someone deserves to die for the wrong they have committed against you.

Btw, this was my view from another argument, but it was very old so i deecided to create a new one.

2 points

Why would God allow a society that permits homosexuals to be who they are if he was so against the idea? Just remember that the Bible has some atrocious moments that question its own validity as a means of guidance. The man that offered his daughters to crowds of rapists so that they wouldn't try to have their way with an angel? I forget the name, but that is disgraceful. The Bible shows him as a hero, the one that God chooses to let escape. The Bible has the very real probability of being written for the purpose of control by bourgeois members of society many years ago. Open your eyes and don't just downgrade human beings for their sexual preferences.

1 point

I support the idea that only when you know that yours or your family's life is in danger, should you be allowed to take another human being's life. However, no matter how the Hussain's felt towards those burglars, it was up to the law to decide their fate. Yes, the law may get it wrong, but thats why we have elections, so that we can choose the right government to make the right laws. This was a 'revenge attack', just as Tony Martin, the farmer who shot his intruders in the back as they were escaping was; this is because at this point they no longer pose a threat and it is a crime to attack someone without it being self-defence. The Hussain's live in the UK, and therefore have made the conscious decision to abide by the UK's laws. In this light it is obvious that they should be punished if they hit the burglar so hard it split the cricket bat. Emotions, no matter how justified, can't replace the law, otherwise there would be anarchy as 'what is justified' can be very subjective to opinion. However, in the instance of one's or one's family's lives being at risk, the use of force (that may include killing) may be necessary. There is a new law in the UK that accepts this. But, the law doesn't permit you to make the decision that someone deserves to die for the wrong they have committed against you.

2 points

Try to think of this sensibly. If it were one of your children who was hanging out with the wrong people and got involved in burgaling a house (*note how i'm not saying pointing a gun or a knife at anyone) then would you be so keen for the homeowner to blow a whole through your kid? No. Unless you've got serious problems and therefore shouldn't be allowed out of a mental institute, you would feel a sense of injustice, unfairness and anger towards that narrow minded homeowner. Everyone can make mistakes. Granted if you can defend yourself through exerting force to detain or scare the burglar away then that's ideal, but why be unintelligent enough to value materialistic things over human life? The comment about not being able to replace a man's life has been the only intelligent comment so far. Clearly you are allowed to defend yourself from a thief, hence self-defence; you can use 'reasonable force'. Yes, the men in the story about finding the leader and beating the crap out of him have the right to feel that angry, but his punishment should be dealt with by the police and by taking the law into their own hand, they are not using self-defence but instead attacking the man. Can you attack anyone on the street. You aren't allowed to attack anyone that has done you wrong, no matter how you feel about them (otherwise referees would be being attacked all the time because of decisions that go against certain teams). The amount of ignorance on this website is amazing...a Nazi symbol as a display picture just says it all about that ignorant idiot. Grow up.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United Kingdom

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