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 Endhypocrisy

Reward Points:65
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.
4 points

I really don't have anything good to say of him. He has a massive delusion of grandeur, as is shown by the fact that he considers himself to be "way above" his crowd academically but is stumped by the notions of communism and gun control. His arguments are based on the repetition of rightist propaganda which has long since been debunked. His view of history is a shadowy, razor-tongued husk irredeemably biased by a ridiculous and pernicious worldview that is entirely made up of insanely ardent Catholicism. His view on law is a meretricious attempt to paint US secular law with his own madness. I consider it to be a shame that religion has distorted his worldview so much.

I disagree. Just because something is different from something else does not make it inferior or superior, and you should see that your logic here is flawed. We are all humans; to not recognise this is moral bankruptcy. If we are all born to the same species, then logically we have the same abilities and desires, and therefore the same rights, at birth. It also follows by extension that, if we keep the same abilities and desires throughout life, then we also keep those rights throughout life. Therefore if we all have the same rights at birth and during life, then our inferiority or superiority cannot be determined by the circumstances of birth and must therefore be decided by what people do qua their decisions. The fundamental principle of our democracy is that superiority or inferiority is decided not be circumstances of birth but by beneficial and moral actions performed throughout life.

0 points

If it was proven that God was real, and worthwhile, then yes of course I would believe in him. But the burden of proof is on Christians, and they have presented almost none whatsoever.

OK, we all know you can quote the native killers-- I mean Founding Fathers-- until the cows come home. Now do you actually have an argument of your own, for once?

Your description of justifiable homicide is flat out wrong. You cannot kill someone just for obscuring your rights. To be justifiable the person must be a reasonable threat to kill you or inflict grave bodily harm. By your definition you could kill someone for cutting in line in front of you and taking the last donut.

There are plenty of cases in which the foetus is posing a risk of death. What would you do in those situations? Anyway, here you only consider physical pain, but what about emotional pain. In many cases, it can be far worse than physical pain and can lead to physical self-harm. And anyway, having our rights denied to us is in many ways tantamount to death-- it denies our humanity. And having someone steal a donut is not an inherently parasitic action. It does not directly contravene your rights as it does not restrict your right to say, buy another one, and it does not automatically void your humanity.

Also by your thinking if a mother decides that her three teenage children are preventing her right to live as she chooses she can kill them as justified homicides because she is protecting her rights which are under threat. Correct?

No, and I really do not think that you understand my thinking. In that situation, the teenagers have independent wills and goals of their own, instead of having wills and goals purely based around the mother. Therefore they are not parasitic in nature and the killing would not be a justified homicide.

To expand on your thought above:

Yes., but that does not change the fact that the "welfare recipient" is quintessentially parasitic in nature and thus the "tax payer" has a right to terminate it. The "tax payer" has consented to cohabit their "Country" with that "welfare recipient" and if they judge it to be a threat to their "ability to prosper" then they may justifiably terminate it. Can you see where your though process is flawed now?

I disagree. The welfare recipient in this case is not parasitic as they are trying to sate their own need rather than undermine another's rights. And what on earth does this debate have to do with taxes?

1. To people who say abortion is a women's choice what about the baby's choice? Would you want to be aborted?

We agree that women have a right to live their lives freely, correct? If someone is obscuring your rights, then you are allowed to kill them to protect your rights. That is called a justified homicide, which is a defence to murder in the UK, US and other countries. So it therefore follows that if a foetus is obscuring a mother's right to live a she pleases, then within the boundaries of morality, it is a justified homicide if the mother decides to terminate the foetus. Do you agree?

2.If you kill someone in the United States while they are pregnant it is murder if it their "choice" it is not a crime at all.

Yes. If you jus randomly kill a pregnant person, then that is an unprovoked murder and therefore not a justifiable homicide. However, a mother who chooses to have an abortion clearly thinks that the foetus is preventing her right to live as she pleases and thus it is a justified homicide if she chooses to terminate the foetus to protect her own rights which are under threat.

3. At Conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the Mother

Yes., but that does not change the fact that the foetus is quintessentially parasitic in nature and thus the woman has a right to terminate it. The woman has consented to cohabit her body with that foetus and if she judges it to be a threat to her rights then she may justifiably terminate it.

The Supreme Court's decision of Roe v. Wade separated personhood from humanity and this is a dangerous slippery slope that will go over in the future.

It did no such thing. Roe v Wade was not even about personhood. It was about the right to privacy and the 14th Amendment. Learn your facts, and anyway do you even have evidence that this "slippery slope" will "go over" in the future as you say it will?

1. We do not need a law degree to know that we have a intrinsic sense of individual morality. Almost all of us would agree that a "moral" action is one that helps the most people. If embryonic stem cell research has the potential to save more people than it kills, then it is a justified, moral experiment.

2. Mankind is scientifically inclined to protect its own species. If embryonic research help to eliminate illness and promotes evolutionary possibilities then it is only logical.

3. There is a concept known as the "greater good". This means that in some cases altruism must occasionally be sacrificed to help the general populace. We must realise that medicine, like all science, is in its unaltered form amoral; all medicine really cares about is fulfilling a patient's desires insofar as is possible.

4. Once a woman becomes pregnant, the embryo, as much as she may love it, is inherently parasitic. This means that the embryo, as it is cohabiting the woman's body, can only morally exist when it is not inhibiting the woman's right to live as she desires. Therefore, if a woman judges an embryo to be impairing her right to live as she pleases, embryonic stem cell research or abortion becomes justifiable.

Socialism is about disestablishing the very idea of class. All Hitler did was make more classes. What Hitler was really good at was taking the zealousness of religion and mixing it with his own madness.

A film and a statue? Is that all you have? Grow up. Besides, most of the founding father were deists or agnostics.

0 points

I'm seriously worried about him. I'm not even kidding. He is an oleaginous, censorious troll.

About Me

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United Kingdom
Religion: Atheist

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