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 Strega222

Reward Points:13
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

6 most recent arguments.
2 points

I believe that assisted suicide should be legalized. Sometimes in our pursuit to save another's life, we forget that when they do not wish for their life to be saved, then it will not be saved. We cannot assume that it is within our power to tell another person that they must live, they must endure the shadows that haunt their soul, the ills which will cause them a slow and painful death. One must also keep in mind that if someone truly wants to commit suicide, and in their minds and hearts they foresee no other alternative, then they will take action on their desires. This simply means, if they want to kill themselves badly enough, they will do it, no matter what your contributions to the contrary. Why should we deny someone their right to end their own life? But rather, ensure that their passage from this world is painless? Shakespeare once wrote "But that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to other we know not of? Thus, conscience does make cowards of us all."

2 points

In a hypothetical sense, Yes. I do believe that competency tests should be issued before one can attain the right to vote. However, in the United States, this would never happen. Issuing competency tests would conflict with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I remember walking into my first period class the day after the 2008 election. People walked in saying that we all were going to die because a "Muslim" had taken office, and not that politely either. They seemed to have only gotten their facts solely from the McCain campaign website, if they ever researched the candidates at all. You have the right to vote in this country, although the Constitution does not specifically grant everyone the 'Right' to vote, but I beg the general public to PLEASE do some research on your options before going out to the polls and voting on an arbitrary whim.

4 points

Seeing as I am gay, I will admit that I am automatically turned to this position. I will bet that most of the people whom do not wish to see gay people get married pull most if not all of their reasoning from the Bible. When in a survey, most of those whom voted Yes on Proposition 8 in California, stated that they voted yes because of their religious beliefs. I would venture to say that most politicians whom oppose Gay marriage have a similar view. I believe that the founding fathers did not want the religious point of view of politicians, or other citizens to effect the lives of others. Why are we allowed to vote on people's rights? In the midst of this argument did we forget about the 14th amendment? Discrimination toward a group of people is wrong and immoral not being gay, being something that you did not choose. Even if it could be "fixed" I will not change myself, nor should anyone else, to make a group of people happy. Therefore, I say Yes. All gay men and women should enjoy their Guaranteed right to marry.

2 points

The Declaration of Independence, written by the very men whom garnered the strength and courage to rebel against the King of England, wrote, "All Men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." If you were to open a dictionary, and find the word Inalienable, you will find something along the lines of this "unable to be taken away from." I proclaim that this means that the rights the founders set for us in the Constitution, are in fact inalienable. This does not mean that it is permitted to "temporarily" suspend the rights of one citizen, a group of citizens, or the nation as a whole when it becomes an inconvenience. Although I do suppose that I have looked in the wrong dictionary, and the Bush and Possibly the Obama administration have somehow come across as secret scripture that gives the true meaning to every word. In all seriousness, I do not believe that it is necessary, acceptable, or legal to suspend the rights of citizens. The Liberties of the people, are a key factor in the definition of the United States of America. When our Rights disappear, so to shall our definition, and thus I foresee that all boundaries that limit the Executive branch of government, (all that remain) will thus begin to wither away with every Liberty that crosses the path of this administration.

1 point

I think that the Democratic Party along with it's members are at times hypocritical. As I also agree that at times the Republican party and it's members can also be hypocritical. If one is bold enough, to say to everyone around them, to proclaim as proud as they would shout an announcement of victory, that they have never once gone against what they preached, then they are not only a liar, but self righteous, and selfish. If you look back upon the history of any person, you will undoubtedly find hypocrisy in their past. Regardless of their sexual, racial, religious, or Political orientation, you are bound to find hypocrisy. Therefore, I say Yes. Liberals are AT TIMES hypocrites. Though republicans/conservatives, members of the green party, the independent party, and all other political orientations, are at times as well.

1 point

When taking the solemn oath to become a senator, or a representative not of the state you were elected in, but by the people who made it possible for you to be a part of the Legislative Branch of Government, I believe that one of the promises you have hence made, is to not vote Yea or Nay on a bill which could fundamentally change the order of the country for better or for worse swiftly and without thinking. I believe not just in this bill, but in all bills that come into the great chamber of the House and of the Senate on capitol hill, that it is the right and the duty of the congressman or women to ponder carefully of his/her actions, and of what her choice shall be, concerning any piece of legislation. Therefore it is the only logical verdict in my mind, and this is why I say yes. Congressmen/women should read the health care bill, and all bills. It is there sworn responsibility, not their staff's or assistant's.

Displaying 2 most recent debates.

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

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