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 addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS SecuritronX

Reward Points:106
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.
3 points

Perhaps, rather than banning the offending media outright, parents could be encouraged to play a more proactive role in raising their children?

Why should mature consumers be deprived a legitimate source of entertainment simply because some parents aren't responsible enough to pay attention to the kinds of games their children are playing?

Games are already rated for the level of violence or other such content they contain, and games rated for mature audiences should not be sold to minors, period. It should be left up to the discretion of the parents whether or not such a game is appropriate for their children.

Probably not much different than it is now. People would likely still discriminate and persecute others based on cultural, religious, ideological, socioeconomic, educational, political and/or technological differences.

They just wouldn't be able to use skin color as a means to associate others with a particular culture.

It's difficult to genuinely pursue the question of God's existence with diligence and intellectual honesty if you are convinced you'll face harsh and severe penalties (in both this life, and the next) for coming to the conclusion that God does not exist.

3 points

Both, I guess. But at the bare minimum, you just have to not be convinced that any gods exist to be considered an atheist.

If you aren't convinced any gods exist, then you can't really say you believe any gods exist. Therefore, you do not believe any gods exist.

Likewise, if you are convinced that no gods exist, you also do not believe any gods exist.

"1. Then how did an endless explosion happen what ever the hell was there"

In other words, what caused the Big Bang? A Nobel Prize and about $1 million U.S.D. awaits anyone who can provide sufficient evidence in support of whatever answer they've come up with.

There's plenty of evidence that it happened, just very little concerning how it happened. It could be the doing of some benevolent deity, it could be the result of a lab experiment by some extra-dimensional aliens, or the result of some unknown natural phenomena.

"2. And it killed al those dinosaurs, hmmm, does sound right"

To be fair, it's entirely possible other factors could have contributed to the downfall of the dinosaurs. It's just rather conspicuous that the Chicxulub crater (which is around 110 miles in diameter, and about 12 miles deep), happens to have an age that coincides so closely to the age of the K-Pg boundary.

So we know a large asteroid hit around the same time as the dinosaurs disappear in the fossil record; and we know that an impact of that magnitude would have significant global climate effects due to the amount of dust particles kicked into the atmosphere (which could remain and block a percentage of sunlight for up to a decade). Kind of like if a giant super-volcano, like Yellowstone, erupted... only much bigger.

It seems probable these conditions would be inhospitable to many forms of life, particularly large animals with low adaptability and tolerance thresholds for environmental upheavals.

2 points

"1.still no answer"

Only because the question is nonsensical. You ask how an explosion happened in the middle of nothingness. There never was nothingness, therefore no explosion ever happened in the middle of nothingness, therefore, no explanation can be given for how this non-occurring event you have imagined occurred.

"2.really bad answer"

I'm... sorry? I don't know what to tell you then. A meteor with an average diameter of 6 miles compared with the earth's average diameter of 7,900 miles just isn't large enough to entirely destroy the earth. It would take a planet-sized object close to or larger than the size of Mars to obliterate the earth.

"3.I got lice just a couple months ago"

Imagine how bad an infestation might be if your entire body were covered in fur.

"4.Because genetic didn't play any damn role in it"

Fair enough; but the analogy still works. A small group can split off from the main group without dragging the main group along with it. You might as well ask why there is any diversity to life at all. If evolution worked in the way you seem to be implying, everything should evolve in the same way, towards the same goal, and there should only be one type of life form on Earth.

Obviously this is not the case, therefore we must conclude this is not how evolution works.


Perhaps I misunderstood your question here.

3 points

"If the world started from the Big Bang, how did an explosion that continues for ever even start in the middle of nothingness?"

No such thing as "Nothingness."

"If a metor killed all the dinosaurs how come it didn't destroy the world or at least take us out of our perfect orbit?"

It wasn't big enough.

"How come we lost all our monkey hair in a time when we really needed it for warmth, do genetics just hate us?"

Lice, fleas, ticks, and other parasites.

"How come all the monkeys didn't evolve...."

How come all the British people didn't become Americans?

"...hell why are we still the same?"

We're not.

SecuritronX(106) Clarified
4 points

Equivocation is the misleading use of a word or phrase that can have multiple meanings. Very often it involves using the same word or phrase multiple times in an argument with different meanings each time, but treating each usage as if they were the same.

A popular example of equivocation is the saying "Evolution is just a theory." This argument equivocates the word "theory," which can have different meanings in different contexts, in an attempt to reduce the Theory of Evolution's credibility to that of a layman's hypothesis so that it may be discarded more easily.

"Theory" in a scientific context:

A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

"Theory" in a layman's context:

A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion, hypothesis, postulate.

Equivocating the word "Faith" is also very common in religious discourse.

5 points

"If I was headed where atheists are headed ... I'd be depressed too"

Only if you believed it to be true. If you had no reason to believe a visit to Hell was likely to be on a future itinerary, I doubt it would trouble you much.

A depressed atheist is probably more troubled by ostracization than by the ramifications a mythological realm may or may not hold.

Winning Position: No, you are not omnipotent

About Me

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Age: 37
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Agnostic
Education: High School

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