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 PhilboydStud

Reward Points:79
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.

I'm afraid they're doomed.

Those who dance must pay the fiddler. Maybe not immediately, but that day will come.

2 points

Yes. The Wells report is said to meet the standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred. Some of the text exchanges between Jastremski and McNally seem to contradict Brady's own statements claiming he knew nothing the deflation of footballs. In addition, the Patriots and Brady were less than cooperative with the investigation. Furthermore, the Patriots are repeat offenders (of rule violations).

I think the 4 game suspension of Brady are reasonable. The $1 million fine and loss of draft picks may be a little excessive. Still, the NFL wants the integrity of its sport maintained, so they needed to punish the Patriots too.

Brady is such a great QB. Why would he take the risk of circumventing the rules is beyond me. I doubt he gained that much of a competitive edge.

Nah. I'd like to think that I'm making my little corner of the Earth a little nicer. Of course, I'm not thinking about my carbon footprint at the same time.

Another suggestion would be to take it easy on the ganja.

I take it as a sign that other CD'ers either agree/disagree with my opinion, or believe I made a logical point (or not).

It makes more sense than the Allies, Enemies, and Hostiles functionality. I disagree with some people here fairly consistently, but still, why make them an Enemy? I might agree with that person on the next debate.

Sure, so long at that country doesn't have a constitution that separates church and state.

That country would effectively be a theocracy (even if the president didn't hold a position in the Christian church).

PhilboydStud(79) Clarified
1 point

If you don't mind, I would like to focus on #1.

I just went out and read several articles on flat tax and what it means. Let me first clarify that I am for a flat tax rate with zero deductions. These must go hand in hand.

Since the cost of goods is fixed, a flat tax would affect the poor more than everyone else. Not my intention. How about this? What if the amount of income needed to be at the poverty line (whatever that is) is not taxed at all? Besides this, the tax rate would be flat, albeit a little greater.

Many of the articles said a flat tax would lower the tax rate of the wealthy. I know our current tax code is progressive, but with all its deductions and loopholes, how can anyone really know the effective rate paid by a wealthy household? I suspect the wealthy actually pay a lower effective tax rate than the rest of us. Of course, I have no way of knowing this, but I base my suspicious on the belief that money begets power, which in turn begets more money. With the influence the wealthy have on our government, it seems quite possible they are paying a lower tax rate after deductions.

Most people would agree that our current system is far to complex. I am still a proponent of gradually reducing deductions while flattening the tax rate (with something to protect the poor). It seems the only way of knowing we all pay a fair share.

3 points

I used this website daily while in the office. Very disappointed.

My vote is for fear, but this could just be projection on my part.

PhilboydStud(79) Clarified
1 point

1. Moving to a flat tax would have many negative, short-term side affects. To mitigate these the move would need to be staged and perhaps quite gradual.

2. We need to figure out how to help people out of poverty, especially generational poverty. Almost certainly there are several factors that are to blame. I was suggesting we attempt to change peoples' patterns of behavior. Get them out doing something between 9 and 5. I was thinking only of welfare - not unemployment benefits. Workfare would require all able-bodied people to do work no one else is doing. If nothing else, fixing up homes, picking up trash, etc. This is just one idea though. We will probably need many more.

4. I agree with your clarification. Again, perhaps a staged approach would be useful. Start with the less harmful, less addictive drugs first, evaluate the consequences, then adjust the plan.

5. Perhaps idealistic, but not necessarily unrealistic. How about indexing the flat rate tax percentage? The more we spend, the higher the flat tax rate. Right now there is an apparent disconnect between government outlays and revenues. I fear this could have dire consequences. Disclaimer: If/when WWIII starts, we could resume deficit spending.

6. I wouldn't think redistricting would be that difficult. Being an engineering-type, I look at it as a mathematical (geometrical) problem. Don't let any district's shape get too wonky.

7. I couldn't agree more.

2 points

1. Simplify the tax code. A flat tax rate with no deductions would be an improvement over the clusterf##k we have today. Eliminate the distinction between capital gains and income. Eliminate the tax cap on social security.

2. Entitlement reform. Replacing welfare with workfare for all able-bodied people. Somehow effectively help people out of poverty.

3. Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

4. End the war on drugs.

5. Eliminate deficit spending.

6. Eliminate gerrymandering.

7. Overturn the Citizens United ruling.

PhilboydStud has not yet created any debates.

About Me

"I'm a good person."

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: College Grad

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