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!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS SexyJesus

Reward Points:228
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.
1 point

Sure it's possible for reunification. It's actually really easy. Have Winnie the Communist Shitstain step down, then give China back to Taiwan. Boom, peaceful reunification.

1 point

I think that the question is flawed, because if we are to look at this as a sort of Venn diagram, the circle of "Communism" would be entirely inside of the circle of "Insanity". Therefore the fact that he is insane is a given, and the only question is whether or not he's also a communist.

Speaking of communists, does anyone know if Nomenclature is still around? Did he finally suck start a rifle?

1 point

If you live in a state with an almost non-existent crime rate why do you want to carry a gun?

None of your business, but I'll tell you anyway.

One, I like guns. Two, I work in the gun industry. Three, almost non existent and non existent are two very different things. Four, as 2020 showed us with massive runs on guns and ammo in the wake of civil unrest, the time to buy a gun is before bad shit happens. Five, competition. Six, the idea that we require the permission of a bureaucracy to defend life and liberty is directly contradictory to our founding values as a nation, especially when said bureaucracy wouldn't pass its own background check. Seven, the idea that when you choose to lay down arms dangerous people will do the same , or that you do anything but leave yourself at the mercy of them, is naïve wishful thinking to the point of insanity. Eight, if you trust the government about anything, including the idea that they will or even can keep you safe, then you're an idiot. Nine, a general faith in humanity that there are more good people than bad, and that while the latter may not be persuaded to the path of righteousness through propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good people with guns. Ten... Well, I'll stop there. I could go on for awhile. The reasons get plenty scarier from there.

And I've talked about pretty much everything else you've mentioned here ad nauseam before. Really, I just don't give enough of a fuck to hash that out again. Trust me, that way lies madness. You enjoy your opinions, I'll enjoy filling my gun safe.

2 points

Joe Biden needs to be removed from office by invoking of the 25th amendment. It is my belief that he should stand trial for both mass homicide and high treason (by way of aiding America's enemies) through gross negligence. I'd sure love to see him use his "four or five days ago" line as a defense strategy. And, if found guilty, he should be put to death. Now, you may disagree with that for reasons of your own, and that is fine. There is however one point on which I will not tolerate your difference of opinion. (And for the love of fuck, don't bring some pathetic "but orange man" argument to the table.)

If you continue to support Joe Biden after this, if you praise his actions over this in any way, FUCK YOU. GET OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. Your values are not compatible with either American ideals or basic human decency, and YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.

One more thing: if you are OK with the situation in Afghanistan but are desperately afraid of guns in this country, then you trust the Taliban with actual assault rifles- which, let me point out, we can't buy- and rockets and grenades and blah blah blah more than you trust your countrymen with semiautomatic rifles and 30 round magazines. And if you open your fucking mouth to protest that point you deserve to have your teeth smashed in.

1 point

They're something like the 19th state to do that. I don't get why people were making a big deal out of it. I live in a state with constitutional carry and our crime rate is almost nonexistent. I'm carrying a gun without a permit right now. The fuck do you care?

It's better than New York, or any other state with a may-issue permit system which encourages bribery. You can basically only get a permit in NY if you're rich and/or famous.

SexyJesus(228) Clarified
1 point

I imagine we probably have a great deal to agree on when it comes to the energy/global warming crisis. Certainly, more needs to be invested in it, as well as toward many other avenues of science and progress. I want to live to see us go to Mars, I do hope that NASA will get off of their asses soon. If anything, we owe the next generation just one major advancement in science and technology that isn't rooted in war.

I definitely want to hear your immigration plan. However, how do we balance this with 1) keeping security threats outside of our borders, such as cartels or guerrilla fighters (such as ELM, which has lately taken to recruiting Venezuelan refugees in Colombia). 2) Are we sure we can accomplish this without a situation such as in the EU, where countries have greater power in other countries' legislation? For instance: Mexico sees the influx of guns into its country from the US as a major concern. This is commonplace; there are many smugglers who run guns south and drugs north. By opening the borders as suggested, smuggling would become much easier, prices for guns would drop in Mexico and beyond, prices of drugs would drop in the US and Canada. Would Mexico try to lobby our congress to make changes not only to gun legislation but also any other legislation within their interests?

I also wouldn't mind hearing about your medicare for all plan, but I think the problem is far more complex than just firing the health insurance industry. Primarily, because the government can't do anything right, and isn't held accountable for what they pay for goods and services. Do I think basic lifesaving healthcare is a human right? Yes. And it disgusts me that we are- seemingly begrudgingly- held to the standards of the Geneva Convention and required by law to provide lifesaving care to prisoners of war, but we can't do the same for our own people. But if the government is simply going to foot the bill for everyone, that means a few important disadvantages. Primarily, hospitals will be able to charge whatever the hell they want- and as someone who routinely orders parts for military aircraft, I can assure you that when it comes to a price markup when the manufacturer stamps "PROPERTY OF US GOVERNMENT" on the side, the sky is the fucking limit. Ever gone to Home Depot and paid $10,000 for a flush head screw less than half an inch long made from no special metals or with any special manufacturing treatment? Because I have half a million dollars worth of those screws in a drawer at work, right now, in a compartment that's only a few cubic inches, that you paid for. And they break all the time (they hold the brake keys in place on the F18E/F main wheels). No one is answering for this. Why would I trust the same government that pay for these screws to wisely use my tax dollars to cover healthcare cost when they're not even going to look at the price tag? Especially when, frankly, the healthcare I get onboard my ship is full of idiots who do anything they can to avoid doing their jobs?

The second concern I have, is how much individual choice is removed from the healthcare system? If the government is paying for it, then presumably, they will have veto power over many important health care decisions. For instance, will families be able to choose whether their loved ones will be kept alive if they're in a coma?

1 point

There's quite a bit of nuance to go over in how a government would attempt confiscation. Unfortunately, we can see it on a small scale already in states like New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida that have passed so-called "red flag" laws. Already this is being abused, as kids who talk about the reality of shootings at school without making threats to anyone are pinned as sufficient cause to have their parent's firearms taken away. People are being killed by police in their own homes when they are served confiscation orders if they try to resist, because we now have systems in place in the US where anyone can anonymously point to someone they don't even have to prove they know, and say "he's a threat to himself or others". Typing that sentence literally makes me want to vomit.

This, obviously, is a serious violation of due process but on a small enough scale that no one is doing anything about it. I don't know why the NRA isn't jumping on this; I can't see it being upheld by the supreme court. My worry is that confiscation will happen slowly enough that by the time people realize just how screwed we are it will be too late, however, I'd like to think that it's not possible for this sort of thing to become routine without significant resistance.

On the subject of gun confiscation by the federal government, as you said, it would be far from out of the blue, and for that matter, nearly impossible. People accuse the NRA of not representing the people, but people are the secret behind the NRA's power: If the government starts to indicate that they wanted to move toward such a ban, 5 million+ members showing up to say "we'll vote someone else in to take your job" has a profound impact on elected officials. The NRA gets those people organized and notifies them when there's legislation on the table that's worthy of their attention.

But in the hypothetical situation of federal confiscation, as far as the military and what their role in such an event would be, I'm not convinced that we can call resisting that order "betraying their country". Betraying the government, sure. But as it says in the oath, loyalty is placed toward the constitution before it is placed toward following orders, and we are specifically trained to never follow an order that is unlawful. At the very least, the government would have to throw out the second, fourth, and fourteenth amendment to mobilize that sort of mass confiscation. Even if the constitution were amended to make such a thing legal it's very likely that many people would no longer recognize what would be left as being legitimate. It's a question of what percentage of the soldiers will see the order as unlawful, and how many of them will have the courage to resist. However, as in any war, it only takes a few soldiers to take that step before more get the idea. As more soldiers refuse their orders, it becomes that much easier for the next soldier to do the same. Outside of a state of war, these soldiers would be imprisoned, but if a state war is declared, many would very likely be put to death by firing squad. Such a system to control desertion is relatively easy to maintain when fighting an outside force, but when fighting a civil war- especially in this case, when so many people in the military are pro 2A- It's virtually impossible to just shoot every pro-gun service member. The military would completely tear itself apart if it tried, and what would be left would most likely see the government as the new enemy of the people.

Would people take up arms if trump is impeached?... I think a few would. But I don't see it being any kind of widespread phenomenon. Mainly the difference would be that there would not be the internal contention in law enforcement and military over the matter of orders vs. laws vs. morals. We support the president. I don't like the guy but I do it anyway no matter who's in charge, because that's the job. Thankfully I have not had any circumstance where I had to balance my orders against the law or what I believe to be right or wrong, and I hope I never have to. But I think I speak for most service members and police when I say that if extremists start losing their shit over a lawful impeachment, no one's going to have any moral issue with stopping whoever is causing unrest.

1 point

Still here, written most of a response. I'm in New York visiting family, I'll make sure and get back with you soon. Happy holidays!

1 point

Don't know your branch, but the Navy doesn't have DTs (unless you're talking about Dental Technicians). BOHICA still gets thrown around every so often though; that seems fitting to Big Donnie & his swamp.

1 point

I say yes. Sexual education is important, but there are a lot of kids these days with no idea of what a healthy relationship looks like. They've been lied to all their life by the TV of the idea that they'll find "the one" and that everything will fall into place without effort. Fact is, if you walk into a relationship with that mindset, it's doomed to fail, because contrary to popular opinion, a good relationship takes a lot of work on both sides. On top of that, many people have no idea how to apply that effort, or what the warning signs for trouble are, or when to get out of a relationship that is toxic.

Ultimately, we need this for the same reasons we need classes on home economics, sexual education, firearm safety, and filing your taxes. Those being: unlike most of the things you learn in school, these are the things that you actually need and will use, and we often can't trust parents to teach this necessary information.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Teach kids safety & responsibi
Tied Positions: Excon vs. SexyJesus
Winning Position: Any other armed atheists out there?
Winning Position: A Legal and Economic Hypothesis
Winning Position: Do not thank me for my service.
Winning Position: There is no limit to human stupidity.
Winning Position: Gun Free Zones

About Me

"My opinions are my own and do not represent any official stance of the Department of Defense or USN."

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

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