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
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Gcomeau

Reward Points:536
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.
89%
Arguments:582
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Sorry, but I can't possibly vote in favor of a movie that is essentially "let's watch some people take a boat ride... spoiler to entire world, it hits an iceberg and sinks at the end."

I have enough issues with hollywood telegraphing the endings to stories without dealing with that. Titanic made as much as it did because of all the adolescent girls who were crushing on DiCaprio. The end.

2 points

Nobody. The value of economies will be based on supply and demand of goods and services. Markets determine value, they always have and always will.

How the heck is that answering the question? Did you understand it? I wasn't asking about the "value of the economy" I was asking about the currency supply that economy has to use to conduct trade.

Wait...You wouldn't have a claim without a source. Oh, I forgot, you never forget that..

First, what I never do is pull figures out of my ass. You have never once found one single figure I cited to be without basis and yet you seem obsessed with trying to imply that I make up figures at every opportunity.

For cripes sake, it's one simple number. Do you know how google works? Are you disputing it because you seriously doubt it or just to be a pain in the ass? Do you suspect I made up the number and the real number is some massively different value or are you just being a child?

Here, the World Gold Council puts it closer to 160k:

http://www.gold.org/about_gold/story_of_gold/numbers_and_facts/

Like that better? It makes no difference but maybe you're happy with that marginally higher estimate?

Now, I'm going to point out to you that there are 1000kg in a metric ton... and I'm not going to cite that figure either. Proceed to imply I'm making it up, by all means.

I'm just going to ignore your rambling on on "my definition of wealth" since I never even provided one.

If I owned every single piece of gold or every paper fiat dollar on the Earth, I would be presumed rich, but if goods and services don't exist, it is just worthless metal or paper.

Uh-huh... so to dispute my point that they were just worthless metal and paper that people only assigned value to you wrote an entire rebuttal to say that NO! They're actually worthless metal and paper?

Hope that was worth the time and effort.

3 points

So if we had a small govt we would not be in 14 trilion dollar debt..correct!

No, not correct. Since the size of government also doesn't determine the ratio of it's revenue to outlays... which is what determines debt levels.

No lets not go to canada or the U.k lets go somewhere that has extreme socialist policies like IRAQ OR CHINA

This is simply yet another demonstration that you don't even know what socialism means. Which is making this entire discussion pointless. It's like arguing the finer points of Shakespeare with someone who doesn't know how to read...

Our four fathers were NOT SCOCIALIST THEY WERE CAPTIALISTS LEAVING THE SOCIALIST WAY OF LIFE IN EUROPE,What part of THAT didn't you understand?

No part of it... since we're not even discussing that. What part of that do YOU not understand?

1 point

So what you're saying is you have no idea how to evaluate whether the claims you're making are correct but you know you're right anyway?

Ok, noted.

1 point

What part of this do you not understand? "Big govt" does not equal "Socialism". Socialism is an economic policy, not a measure of government size.

And yes... "Big Govt" doesn't mean anything. It's just a catchphrase. And yes, education spending and corporate tax breaks and national budget management are indeed functions the government performs! Congratulations! They're not "socialist" functions however.

If you want an example of a socialist government program refer to the U.K. national health service. Or the Canadian health insurance (NOT health CARE) system. Or for that matter... the American Medicare system. One very VERY isolated example of a U.S. program that actually does venture into socialism although it does so incompetently.

A person who clearly doesn't even understand the meaning of the words they are using lecturing me on being "very undereducated" about the subject we're discussing is an extremely amusing development I must say.

2 points

No I damn well did not ask you to show me "where they've done it before". I asked you to explain to my what possible profit generating mechanism they would use that could offset the construction costs and thus motivate them to actually undertake the project. And you dodged, the way you have been dodging all thread. You threw out vague hand waving "oh, they would have passed on the costs somehow" but when pressed to perform some real math you run for the hills every time.

2 points

Perhaps your couple days worth of deliberate willful ignoring of everything I say is managing to irritate me. That's just a theory.

One more time. The claim you made, which began this exchange, was that the private sector could do ALL THE JOBS the public sector does and do them better.

This is wrong. I have showed you over and over why it is wrong and challenged you to support your contention with any actual fact based analysis whatsoever. You have repeatedly refused to do so while simply repeating your claim again and again.

2 points

Depends how it's taught... but often yes it clearly is.

If the approach generally taken to religious education was to present a spectrum of religious beliefs then let them evaluate them so that as they matured they would have a solid foundation for choosing their own beliefs that would be one thing.

Very few people do this.

Instead it's "This is our religion, you will believe it, not believing it or even questioning it is wrong/evil/etc... ". The evidence is irrelevant, the logic is irrelevant...

That's brainwashing.

1 point

Only if the loan system were fund limited enough to cause that to happen, which it generally isn't. Scholarships are short on money... loan departments? Not so much considering they keep getting what they give out back with interest.

1 point

Would you please grasp this simple point I've been trying to hammer into your head all thread? It is not just that the public sector does things more efficiently than the public sector! (In some cases this is true, in most it is not). It is that the public sector does things the private sector DOES NOT and WILL NOT but which need to be done.

And I did not ignore your "collaboration of business" point. I specifically and directly addressed it, asked you to provide an explanation of what kind of "collaboration of corporations" would take on such a problem and how, and you dodged the question just like you've been dodging it all along.

Gcomeau has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: In a Relationship
Political Party: Democrat
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: College Grad
Websites: Dueling Dogma

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