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
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS MrObvious

Reward Points:45
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.
88%
Arguments:51
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Yes, the "theoretical" particle that we haven't really found but yet we assume that must exist in order to allow for all these theoretical ideas that we have that go against our physical laws; that particle, yes. That's why it's called the "GOD" particle; because only "GOD" could defy his own natural laws, like helium and hydrogen gaining enough atomic weight to change into heavier elements. Do you see how crazy it sounds?

Look past the luster and see that people conjure up insane hypotheses to try to give weight to a theory that is unworkable. If it defies the laws of physics why try to imagine a "GOD" particle in order to give credence to a hypothesis simply because you desire so much for that hypothesis to be true? Follow the evidence, don't fabricate evidence when evidence isn't present.

1 point

What does religion have to do with it? It is pretty obvious our level of intellect is much higher than that of other animals. What other animal has ever launched a satellite into space, or established a society governed by the rule of law?

1 point

"Moochers wouldn't exist without the rich and their corporations taking what they don't need. Our system allows the extremely rich to exist, and therefore is allows the extremely poor to exist."

And Socialism would fix this how? In case you haven't noticed, socialism is for the people not the socialist. If you are implying that socialism can provide an even distribution of wealth you are being naive. Even in socialist societies there are those who are better off than others and usually it is the socialists themselves.

"People enslave themselves..."

I can't really ague with this because it is true. We enslave ourselves through our own selfishness and vanity.

"We have the choice of what jobs we want to do...

No we don't... not in all cases. If you knew what giant corporations have done to some small communities, you'd see that you are incorrect."

Yes, we do. More so than many socialist societies. As with any society people will follow the industry. Take the Pacific NW. For many years timber and fishing were the primary employers of the region. That has changed as Boeing and computer software took over the main employers. We make a choice.

"The government HAS NO RIGHT...

Well, since the poor are poor because of the rich, I see it's only fair that the wealth of the rich be redistributed to the poor."

How is that fair? The poor are not poor because of the rich. It's the rich who create jobs. I have never been given a job by a poor person. Have you? Everyone has a right to the fruits of their labor, no one else. The poor have no right to my earnings. Now, I am with on the charity part but this "wealth threshold" idea is ridiculous. So what if they can never spend their all their money. The majority of their worth is wrapped up in assets anyhow. By the by, the US is the most charitable nation. We give more both privately and through the form of federal aid than any other nation.

2 points

Bottom line: Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist. How many leaders of socialist nations adhere to the same restrictions and regulations they place upon the people? In a socialist society you are a subject, in a non-socialist society you are a citizen.

The difficult part of this debate is the fact that capitalism revolves around mostly economics and socialism more so, well social issues; hence (social)ism.

Granted, we are not entirely a capitalistic society, I doubt we have even allowed a free market to attempt to operate. It seems that every time the market showed any sign of instability the big hand of the government stepped in to try to correct it with out giving it a chance to correct itself.

No matter what form of government a nation has, there will always be an elite class that thinks of themselves as somehow above the rest. In a non socialist society the people are empowered to remove them and in the case of the US, we are empowered to remove the whole government should we so choose. I know of no socialist society that has that kind of power.

I have lived in Europe and seen socialism at work. German parents cannot name their children without first getting approval from "big brother". A government bureaucrat must first approve that name to ensure that the child will not be teased due to his name. Try going to a european hospital. Or how about your future beyond high school.

1 point

You do realize that much of what the military does is other than actual war fighting is accomplished through private contractors, right? Our weapons, contractors, our armor, contractors, our vehicles, contractors, maintenance, contractors, housing, contractors, admin, contractors and even some recruiting is done by contractors. The list goes on and on.

2 points

The key word in this question that I disagree with is forced. I don't think anything should be forced upon us. I would agree with doing away with SS and having an OPTION to contribute that same money into an alternative investment program or keeping that money and invest it personally.

If the question were reworded to say "Should SS be replaced with IRAs and 401(k)s, etc?" I would say yes but since it says FORCED. I have to say no.

1 point

I know how the tax brackets work, I've been paying taxes for a while. All you did was put my argument into numbers. With a progressive tax program as your income increases you pay more, and you pay more disproportionately. I got it, there are measures in place to prevent one from paying a crap load more when they cross the bar by one dollar. It doesn't change the fact that it's unfair in this "social equality" world they would like us to live in to "penalize" success simply because they can afford it. Who cares if they can afford it, are they not entitled to the fruits of their labor? It's their money, they worked for it, they earned it.

1 point

So because the hind limbs of a whale are "vestigial" means that the organism has no use for them at anytime during its life? You are saying that because we do not know why it is there at this time it must be evidence of a distant ancestor down the evolutionary line? Do you realize how insane that sounds? Your thyroid was thought to be useless at one time, as was your endocrine (hormonal) glands.

Did you know that as recent as the 1960s scientists were claiming that the human body had over 200 vestigial organs in it? That number has significantly decreased as these same scientists learn the function of these once thought to be useless organs to include the thyroid gland, pineal gland, the bones in the 3rd, 4th and 5th toes. Today, all organs once thought to be vestigial are known to have a function at some time during the life of humans. That said, we cannot say the the hind limbs of the whale do not serve a function, nor the pelvic bone in a snake. What it boils down to is the fact that we don't understand the purpose of something at the present time so therefore it must be evolution. History shows us otherwise.

All the other "examples" you are showing are variations with in the species. Yes, species adapt to their surroundings, I'm not saying they don't what I am saying is that a species does not "evolve" into another, it is genetically impossible. The very theory of natural selection attempts to explain how one species evolved into another which doesn't happen as R.A. Fisher, a proponent of evolution discovered. There is a genetic barrier that prevents this.

3 points

Which would make it a universalist religion, a religion that accepts all as equally relevant and all paths lead to the same destination.

1 point

I never said Fisher wasn't a proponent of evolution, in fact everyone I cited is a proponent of evolution and I cited them for a reason; because they are known to those who believe evolution and you are likely to discredit a non proponent of evolution as biased.

I never said that Lamarckism is true, I was stating that the example of the elephant is known as Lamarckism which was proven false by another proponent of evolution trying to prove that theory, Weismann.

Again, if the example of the tusks is natural selection then why is it that when Weismann cut of the tails of 901 mice (19 generations worth) the mice continued to grow tails? It's the same scenario.

So, if you are going to dispute me, A. quote me accurately and B. don't assume that I don't know my sources.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Republican
Country: United States
Religion: Christian-other

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