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 Fnkyazn

Reward Points:4
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.
100%
Arguments:4
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
4 most recent arguments.
1 point

True freedom is born from a state where there is no authority. Freedom is when a human being, like all other animals, can do whatever he or she chooses. When a human is not bound by law, he or she learns to approach the world not with the determination to comply with a list of rules but to comply with what he or she perceives the nature of life to be.

With this in mind, I would consider an anarchist society to be one that truly acknowledges our equality with one another. The constitution tells us that all men are created equal, yet it is hypocrisy. The government is not made up of some godly figure, the government is made up of people. Why is it okay for a particular group of people to forcefully impose law an order on another group of people? Aren't we supposed to equal? And if so, how can we possibly achieve equality when the government creates a group of elites? Such pursuits where we strive to control our own kind in the masses (government) ultimately prevent us from achieving a state of equality.

In an anarchist society, such inequality does not exist because there is no existing system to permit such elitism. In an anarchist society, each individual is permitted to do whatever he or she wants because that is his or her right as an existing part of this world. A member of an anarchist society does not have to comply with a list of rules and consequences, but rather with what he or she perceives life to be. In this state of living, we are closest to what nature intended for us, are we not? After all the government is man-made, and if take away what is man-made we permit ourselves to witness only what exists in nature. And what we see is the natural blooming of the human conscience: one that is not hindered by the laws of man or the notions of a dominating government, but rather one that is given the freedom to live amongst other free beings.

Side note:

I would also like to address the concern about an anarchist society resulting into complete and perpetual chaos. To believe in such an outcome is to believe that humans are incapable of coexisting in a peaceful manner. If this is so, then are we truly fit to live as a species?

Humans aside, every other animal species has managed to live in anarchy without creating the very chaos we fear in a human society. Sure, humans are more intelligent and we're capable of thinking in more complex terms, but shouldn't we then be able to, with all our intelligence, manage to live in a society where we can both live freely and civilly?

I understand how the notion that human beings are bound to break into chaos might concern people, but we musn't forget that human beings are STILL animals. Like every other animal on this other, we have instincts to kill, steal, but also instincts to coexist and help one another. We must accept that we cannot eliminate murder or crime in any sort of society. Such would be impossible. A government will make its promises and strive to reduce this, but in the end we are still bound to our instincts. In anarchist society we're simply given the freedom to express them just as any other animal would be able to, both the "good" ones and "bad" ones.

If we are, in fact, inclined to create perpetual chaos, death and murder, as so many seem to believe, then I must state once again that I do not think we are fit to live as a species.

2 points

The better question that should be asked is: why not?

And the consequent result is: there is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

The only reason one might find that to be a controversial topic is by virtue of how a society or culture views the role of race. What does race even mean? That's the question.

To me, race is just as variable a trait as the shape of peoples' noses, eyes, so on, so forth. While it may appear more apparent, it is nothing but a variation in appearance.

2 points

The keyword in this argument is "force."

Men and women, speaking strictly in correlation with the way I see it, are equal. Men and women have different physical traits, their voices are different, sure. However, at the end of the day, they both share one common quality, and that is that they're both human.

Why should one gender have the right to dominate, instruct, and control the other? What gives them the right? Until that is thoroughly, and reasonably justified, it stands that men and women are equal and neither sex is more superior than the other in terms of social equality.

If a woman wants to wear a burka, that is her right. On that same token, she also has just as much a right to decide not to wear a burka. Period.

1 point

Yes, I think the outcome of a child does reflect their parent's abilities.

HOWEVER, I must stress, this is only the case to a certain extent.

Children are undoubtedly subject to influence from their surroundings, and their most common, most evident surrounding is their parents. From a strictly psychological perspective, children are naturally inclined to emulate their surroundings as a part of child development. So yes, in this regard, how a child turns out is determined, to some extent, by virtue of how well their parent's took care of them.

Now the second is taking into consideration that children have lives outside of their household. As a consequence, they are then subject to influence from not just their parents, but other people as well. Not only that, there are factors such as influence from the media, which I feel has become an increasing influence considering the increasingly conclusive statistics showing that children are starting to watch more and more T.V.

In the end, I think something like this is very circumstantial. There are so many factors to take into account, especially regarding the frequency of time that the parents actually spent around the child, which is a defining factor as to whether the argument mentioned is valid or not. Also "abilities" is a little broad. Although I do assume it implies abilities regarding their ability to parent.

Fnkyazn 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