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 Surak

Reward Points:15
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.
97%
Arguments:12
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Ironic considering Milo is a homophobe.

I don't hate him, but he promotes a book that commands the murder of gay men. Promoting the murder of gay men(even if indirectly, and from a gay man) is homophobic.

1 point

Ironically I went through a super-christian phase when I was young. And I was actually a homophobe(in my defense, homophobia would be rational if the Bible were true).

Now, I'm the opposite of that: A bisexual anti-theist.

1 point

Promoting Christianity is inherently homophobic.

If you promote the Bible as the truth, and/or suggest following it's rules, you also promote the passage that says to slaughter gay men(Leviticus 20:13).

And if you have a counter-argument don't make me go to another website to get it, because that makes it difficult to create my rebuttal(assuming it is an invalid counter-argument).

1 point

"Tell the truth, are you homophobic?"

Specifically "Tell the truth". This implies it is likely someone would lie about their homophobia, and if that were the case, you would need them to provide evidence for their support of gays, because simply having their word would mean nothing.

1 point

I'm choosing this side for a semantic reason.

The actual acronym "LGBT" could be improved.

I think "HB+" might work.

Standing for homosexual and bisexual.

And the plus because Homosexuality and Bisexuality are the only sexual identities that i'm sure are valid.

Ex:I haven't seen evidence that asexuality is even humanly possible(without mutation or alteration), so including it in the acronym specifically might delegitimize the movement.

As well as transgender, because using that label makes a statement about the definition of gender that i'm not sure is an accurate one.

And these things apply to all of the other labels that I've seen.

3 points

He's in the right.

The constitution specifically prohibits theocracy.

All future U.S. currency should be created without "In God We Trust" on it.

However, past currency should be kept for obvious practical reasons.

1 point

Does the christian god exist?

Nope.

He has mutually exclusive traits, as well as an impossible trait.

Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are mutually exclusive traits.

Here's Epicurus explaining why so I don't have to:

β€œIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

Also, if your definition of God includes omnipotence he doesn't exist because omnipotence contradicts itself: Can god create a rock he can't lift?

Yes: Then he is not all powerful because he can't lift the rock

No: Then he is not all powerful because he cannot create a rock that he can't lift.

I suppose if your definition of God is a being that is omnipotent, with a few exceptions like the one above, he could technically exist, but then you would need to provide some evidence in order for me to believe he exists.

1 point

Normally I'd back my position with some evidence and logic(or at least try to).

But I don't think I need to explain why the MCU is better. This debate is pretty pointless.

1 point

The left is not a unified entity. Generalizations are always bad(excluding this one).

1 point

Prove Christianity(which would prove the existence of sin), and I will gladly admit my own sin. Until I encounter evidence, I am not going to believe in the existence of sin(or Christianity for that matter).

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