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 Diomedes5

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.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
1 point

There is a major problem with using "objective" and "Morality" in the same sentence. The simple fact is that social morality is subjective. That being said there is factual evidence to indicate that there are certain morals or maybe more accurately "principles" that have generally negative consequences if they are violated. Murder, stealing, lying, adultery, ect....generally have negative consequenses. Of course; some people would argue what constitutes negative consequences.....morals and values have more to do with one's personal beliefs and popular social views. For instance; in medieval times it was common practice for women to marry and have children in thier early teens. This was not commonly viewed as immoral. It is commonly viewed as immoral in our society. No; I'm not advacating teen pregnancy. Just sayin.

1 point

weather they would have "won" or not would depend entirely on one's view of victory. That there would have been as complete a victory as the one that was achieved is certainly debatable. The fact of the matter is that no matter what one thinks of the political ideology of wwii Germany they; nevertheless, had the best and most inovative military of that era. American industrial capacity along with geographical isloation from direct attack enabled US forces to overwhelm axis forces by the sheer number of tanks and aircraft that were deployed in the European theater. On the eastern front Germany faced a similar situation with a flood of humanity that Russia was not at all timid about sacraficing. Some estimates have the Soviet's losses at around 11 million. The answer is "yes" Germany would have lost anyway. Just not to the Brits. More to the Soviets. Germany would have probably at the very least been able to survive as a regime without US involvment.

1 point

Yeah....if it was just cops, firefighters, roads, the armed forces ect...that would be great. Virtually everyone wants the basic services and protections that organized government has traditionally offered. The problem arises when it ends up being billions for other countries, billions for banks and car companies, billions for social programs, billions for people that are not even citizens of our country......It's actualy more like making people buy some of the shit that they want and a whole lotta shit that they dont' want or need.

2 points

Yeah....they are experienced when they are appointed alright. They are experienced at all the beauracratic BS., political ass kissing and money motivated decision making that you would expect out of any experienced lawyer. After all..they are almost entirely lawyers. Being appointed makes them virtually impervious to any consequences even if they repeatedly make bad decisions. They always have connections and personal affiliations that they have cultivated to get to where they are at and protect them once they are there. If they were elected, they would be beholden to the constituents that elected them.

2 points

"Under God" as a statement in the pledge does not mandate religeous belief nor does it exhert undue influence on the workings of government.

1 point

Capitolist economic system with a Socialist govt?......Doesn't the Peoples Republic of China have something like that?

1 point

His statement is basically true. Capitolism is the greatest catalyst for economic growth, health and well being. The problem is that when Capitolism exerts undue influence on those that govern a country you are sure to have greed, corruption and govenment that favors a huge disparity in economic benefits. The recent government bailouts were a perfect example of this. The majority of the country were against them yet Congress and the Pres. pressed forward with them anyway. Wealthy merchants, banks and businessmen are the real governing body of our country. Socialism on the other hand......hmmm....where are the shining examples of this again???

1 point

"Why would any citizen willingly fight any war for a country that treats them like garbage? I'll take Iceland in a war over China. I don't care how many human shells you throw at someone, a person who has a reason to live will defeat a person who doesn't 99 times out of 100.

The Soviet Union did it against the Germans and it worked great. Many Soviet soldiers hated thier own generals as much as the Germans.

3 points

The police will do an excellent job at investigating the murder of you or your loved one but they will NOT protect you from it happening. Those that are so against gun ownership and concealed carry have never been the direct victim of a violent crime.

2 points

A whole continent full of Hitlers left to their own devices.......I don't think that would bode well for the rest of the world.

Diomedes5 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