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.


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


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Desrt2

Reward Points:9
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:13
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Your answers are flippant Gary. You are using the Straw Man argument. Communism is ideal but doesn't work. Everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator. Capitalism thrives but eats itself. It's doomed to fail and we've seen recently how it's crushed the European economy and the US is in serious danger of reaching that point. Flawed or not, though, Capitalism has survived much longer than communism or socialism. It's the realistic better of the two. Corporations suck; I agree. Why is one person given billions of dollars? Edison, Salk, Henry Ford, Jobs, Gates, Wright Brothers, the Lumiere brothers, Farnsworth; those inventors were worth the money, but not some person who goes from one corporation to another and makes millions while the workers lose their jobs to foreign countries. Media is corrupt, I agree. The truth is out their for people who are not spoon fed by the networks. The rest of your replies are inflammatory and subjective.

2 points

Focusing in on your statement that only the military, police and it's reasonable to deduce from your, ".etc", any authority I posit that when you remove the means of a citizenry from protecting themselves against their own government, you do not have the power to overthrow an oppressive regime. One of the first steps Hitler took in controlling and manipulating the German citizens was the confiscation of all privately owned firearms. This particular thread to support firearms ownership goes further into depth but you can see the point. Their are always current event examples of countries where their citizens have no means of change and voting is a farce. Will the US ever need to over throw our government? I hope not, but we did so in 1776. Sarik; you've made some valid and objective statements. Here are some fundamental rules of firearm safety: 1.) Always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction until it's ready to be used 2.) Never point a firearm at someone or something that you do not intent to shoot 3.) A firearm is ALWAYS loaded 4.) Always keep your finger off of the trigger until ready to shoot. 5.) Always keep a firearm unloaded until ready to shoot 6.) Store firearms and ammunition in different containers and away from each other. 7.) Be aware of your surroundings. Even a .22 LR can travel a mile or more.

2 points

Intelligence is complicated and not measured by one standard (the, "IQ"). Focusing on just this one premise; there is a difference between faith and religion.

Religion can be an adherence to theistic doctrine, dogma, rituals and practices without actual belief.

"If I go to church every Sunday and give 10% of my earnings, I'm guaranteed an afterlife." This is ritual/religion without faith.

Practicing religion may indeed breed ignorance (not lack of aptitude) if the individual blindly follows without or free thought.

In the Christian faith, we believe that God granted us free will. There are no Bible verses that state this verbatim, however there are many that support the conclusion.

The Christian faith diverges in doctrine but not the central message:

The religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, sent by God. They believe that Jesus, by dying and rising from the dead, made up for the sin of Adam and thus redeemed the world, allowing all who believe in him to enter heaven. Christians rely on the Bible as the inspired word of God.

Our core faith does not exclude free thinking, logic and science.

Staying within the confines of religion and adherence leaves no room for individual thought.

As someone who is a person of faith, I have choices - God gave them to us - and my choices have consequences (good or bad). But I am not limited in my exploration of the mind; I can only choose to suppress it or reject my family/community and the mainstream doctrine of my faith.

Are atheists more intelligent? No. Their advantage in this argument is they are not confined by doctrine.

To "measure" an individual's "intelligence, you mus evaluate the following while considering the three types of learning:

Visual/Spacial

Verbal/Linguistic

Logical/Mathematical

Bodily/Kinesthetic

Musical/Rhythmic

Interpersonal/Intrapersonal

Styles:

Visual

Auditory

Tactile/Kinesthetic

It's reasonable to state that these qualities occur in capacity but may be restricted by adherence to faith, culture and societal norms.

Spirituality is subjective and can only be interpreted by peers and their hierarchy.

1 point

Democracy Now is considered socialist/left by us conservatives. There is a bit of irony in your proposal to watch the movie, "The Corporation"; you give a link to ThePirateBay for downloading torrents "illegal file sharing." File sharing is communal/leftist... which makes me a bit of a hypocrite since I do it.

Communism of a sort. But whatever this makes me, I am against censorship of any kind unless it's considered obscene. Please don't make me cite the case law on the definition of, "obscene."

The leftist media censors.

Yes, Fox News is Right-centered but it is the only major network that is conservative. I'll duck for cover for the usual onslaught of comments about Fox. Yes, they promote conservative but I have only seen a few instances where they withheld a full account or taken something out of context. And no, I'm not the authority on that.

Yes, corporations and lobbyists buy people's opinions either direction but people are also sheep being led to slaughter.

Democracy is Socialism. A republic is supposed to be a more accurate representation of a true majority, not a simple majority.

Lastly, the word, "Liberal" has been stolen. "Liberal" should refer to free or independent thinkers. Which validates your statement of having an open mind.

desrt2(9) Clarified
1 point

The scenario is objective. Global Policy is subjective and debatable. When you remove political consideration from the table, your view will change. If that's your son or daughter about to be vaporized by a terrorist, would you sacrifice them based on principle?

You can replace the kidnapping scenario with an eminent bomb threat and the premise is the same. Is it easier for you to stand on principle when you personally have nothing to lose?

If I were the terrorist, I would lie and deceive to obtain my objective.

Only the torturers, suspects and those who demanded the information know if the torture was successful. You do not know how many lives we have saved by employing psychological and physical torture. And to be fair, we don't always know if we had the wrong guy.

My position is that I believe torture is acceptable just like justifiable homicide. It's you, someone you care about, or them.

1 point

I do not agree with the majority of his or the Democratic party positions. Not all, but enough that I vote Republican. I would prefer to vote 3rd party if a candidate was viable.

An independent will probably not have a chance at the executive office for 4 more cycles unless they are a wild card.

It's cliche to say this but it's true; voting for a third party or abstaining is throwing your vote away when you have the opportunity to vote for the better of 2 candidates.

It's a losing situation since voting for a third party raises the numbers for next time and encourages more voters to have another option.

Even though I disagree with the President Obama's positions, he really wasn't given a good start. The housing bubble wrecked the economy. War is actually a revenue and employment generator. We really didn't get to see whatever potential he brought to the table.

I feel that he has been given too much support by a select few with too much financial and media influence. You can buy your way into an elected position or have others pay for you.

Lastly, as much as I don't want him to serve a second term, I think that he will most likely win. Mitt Romney has no personality, a large body of voters, the religious right - non-Mormon - has rejected him. And Newt Gingrich is way too controversial.

2 points

Youth are going to vote emotionally/subjective. I'll throw out a guess that most people do not ask for a copy of a measure before voting on it and those that do may not read key words that may render a measure opposite of the intention.

Most adults vote subjectively and most vote by soundbytes, party line, ads and biased media (either side).

I guarantee you that I can go onto a college campus, hand out free marijuana and get students to sign petitions or vote the way I want. Free X-boxes are too expensive to use as bribes.

2 points

Swearing is good for you. It even helps distract or reduce pain.

Although, like the article included says, Chef Ramsey might be a bit overboard. Or, he feels REALLY good.

Supporting Evidence: Article on swearing. (www.independent.co.uk)
1 point

Although women have been warriors across the world and throughout history, American culture is a huge obstacle.

So much WILL go wrong.

You will have 5 men competing for 1 woman in a squad of 6. This breaks unit cohesion (esprit decor). 1 or more of the males will choose to save the female over a male who is injured worse.

Me, no. I'd let her die so that we could finish the mission. (I am a combat vet and fought in 8 major battles). I completely shut down all of my emotions in combat except rage/anger and exhilaration. But prior to that for instance, I would be distracted because I would want to at least have sex with her.

In Desert Shield (the recon and logistics phase) - I had not seen a female in 7 months. I was already in Iraq doing reconnaissance and not around any form of civilization.

I'm not alone in saying that I would want to have sex one last time before getting killed.

In the Gulf War, Iraq War and Afghanistan, females in support units would intentionally get pregnant to be sent back to the US. Just a small percentage, but males don't have that option unless they purposely self-injure or flat out refuse (in which case they may not even get to go to jail if they are already deep in the soup).

Females do make excellent fighter pilots (helicopter and fixed wing). They have demonstrated that they can vaporize the enemy. They fly cargo, re-fueling and intercept planes as well as being crew chiefs, but that's a completely different environment than the sand box.

Women are not inferior, and maybe it would work out just like no one went ballistic on gays when the ban lifted. We might be surprised.

2 points

On your statement of equal entrance requirements specifically and concentrating on the physical aspect; only if the standards aren't lowered.

"If we set "stronger" as being able to lift the heaviest weight, then the answer is that there are basic anatomical and biological differences that make men able to develop, sustain and use more muscle mass than women. Basic anatomy and statistics on work/sports related injuries tells us this, and no political agenda is going to change that.

So if you take an average man and an average woman, equally motivated and dedicated, and have them both train as hard as they can - then the man will end up stronger."

Although it's well known that adrenaline surges can boost strength beyond normal muscle failure, males have a greater endurance with heavier weights.

Why does it matter? Someone has to pick up all 200 lbs of me if I get injured in combat and cannot move under my own mobility. As determined as that petite 100 lb female is, she might only be able to cross the 10 yard line. Whatever standards there are for female firefighters sounds like a good idea. My aunt was a police officer, weighed 127 lbs, 5'6 and dragged 6 people out of a burning house. I'd fight along side her.

BTW, I am a combat vet and fought in 8 battles. For what it's worth.

Desrt2 has not yet created any 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