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 Vaylkon

Reward Points:2
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

Then she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. I guess I should have made it clear- only people who NEED abortions or have been through difficult circumstances should be paid for.

1 point

So far all the arguments presented against socialism have failed to take into account two things, among them:

1) What socialism isn't

2) Socialism in a modern context OUTSIDE the United States

1) Socialism isn't communism. Socialism doesn't lead to fascism (since fascism is essentially the OPPOSITE of socialism.)

Socialism is NOT the government taking total control of the state and its people, as seen in Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, and Stalinist trains of thought: those are variants of fascist-tyrannies.

Socialism is the intervention of the government in critical areas of public sector services- it is the provision of universal healthcare, the provision of public services (and the maintaining of said services), and the protection of the economy by said government.

2) Moving on, repeated claims in this argument have claimed that "socialism" will (or has) failed America already. Addressing this complaint is easy: socialism has NEVER existed in America. That point is moot. The economy failed BECAUSE of a lack of government regulation.

Let's look at Canada, for example. By NOT privatizing their banks, the Canadian economy has managed to do reasonably well, weathering the recent recession with minimal damage. The "slippery-slope" fallacy fails upon any close inspection:

Canada is not run by tyrants. Canadians, for all their self-depreciation, have some of the highest standards of life in the world. Lest you forget that other countries exist outside North America, socialism also serves countries such as Sweeden and Norway very, very well.

2 points

So when a woman who has little to no money, and has been raped, she should be forced to sell everything she owns, suffer the social stigma of having an abortion, and become homeless?

Glad to know you people care about the welfare of society.

1 point

The only thing dividing a "good" and "bad" person is their motivation for doing things.

2 points

Are you insane?

Imagine if America was run by fascists.

Would you want to live there?

Imagine if America was run by people who you didn't like.

Would you want to change that?

Liberals want to change because they think things are wrong.

They're THINKING about the situation rather than ACCEPTING what's given to them, blindly.

1 point

It is by the very definition of liberalism that a liberal is more patriotic than a conservative:

Where a conservative is unwilling to change from the status quo, to "preserve" a a country, a liberal is willing to make radical change- to do what is necessary.

Where a conservative is unwilling to do anything that might contradict so-called "traditional values," a liberal is unconcerned with that, so long as nobody's rights are violated.

Where a conservative is unwilling to help those who are downtrodden, the liberal is willing (and, hopefully, so are his or her constituency) to spend money to help.

That's why liberals are more patriotic.

1 point

I don't believe in a prime mover; that is, I don't think that other than the laws of physics and chemistry, that there's an organized "system" that follows anybody's thoughts or actions.

1 point

Nope. Everyone dies, everything dies; what matters is doing as much stuff as you can BEFORE you die.

I accepted that when I was roughly 5 years old. It's just enjoying life to its fullest which matters.

5 points

You're forgetting that humanity means nothing. We have observed 3000 galaxies, and that's only what we've seen. You're telling me that out of an estimated 500 billion galaxies, not to mention the possibility of there being more than one universe, that the chemical / physical reactions couldn't at least create another planet with life?

Remember that we're not even breaching the realms of other life, such as non-carbon based lifeforms- or for that matter, OTHER DIMENSIONS.

Think your statement over again.

2 points

No, I don't believe in god(s)- at the same time, I don't think science disproves god(s), nor would the existence of god(s) disprove science. They are not exclusive. It's absolutely personal, and my idea is no.

Vaylkon has not yet created any debates.

About Me

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: Canada
Religion: Atheist
Education: In College

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