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 Luckin

Reward Points:176
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

I am in support of the person who considers them self gay to have rights just like everyone else who is a citizen of this country

1 point

I would be for this just because people have the right to choose the kind of therapies they want if they even want it at all

1 point

There could be an infinite amount of police brutality and that still would not take away our right to self preservation through the use of a gun

1 point

Is this a philosophy that we shouldn't consider when it comes to science?

3 points

I would say he is God as well as someone who existed in history

1 point

I think the better term would be pro second amendment, but otherwise I would agree

1 point

Yeah. Especially when they try to tell you God doesn't exist

2 points

There are parts of it that are meant to be taken figuratively and there are parts of it that are meant to be taken literally. However, this does not take away from the fact that the entire thing is true

luckin(176) Clarified
1 point

How can they intentionally harm humans if they don't know humans exist?

Not knowing something exists does not negate the intent to harm

In order to decide, you have to have options. A virus is acting chemically - it cannot just choose not to replicate, etc.

Who’s saying the virus does not have options?

A virus does not foresee its death.

Sure it is. It foresees that not replicating properly results in death

A) malice aforethought is more than 'the most basic level of thought'.

Yet these viruses still have the most basic level of thought

B) no, a virus - which has no brain - does not have any thoughts at all

Sure it does. As mentioned earlier, these thoughts just so happen to be the most basic level

ok - looks like we are at an impasse. You are stuck confusing mindless action with intentional action.

OK. Maybe next time you’ll be reasonable and have a logically defensible argument

You should do yourself a favor, ask someone whose opinion you trust: "Does a virus have malice aforethought?"

How about this. Try telling someone outside of the Internet that abortion is a viable means of self-defense. They’ll know as well as I do it’s childish and foolish to say that it is

luckin(176) Clarified
1 point

wrong. they don't conceive of humans, much less that their actions will harm humans.

Whether or not they conceive of humans is completely irrelevant. The fact that they can recognize that they need to infect a host in order to survive shows a level of comprehension that you’re not willing to recognize.

not desire - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.

Yeah those that don’t act on the desire to survive die off

not plans - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.

Those that don’t plan on acting that way die off

not decisions - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.

Those that make the decision to not act that way die off

not foresight - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.

Those that foresee their death should they not act die off

acting in a way the preserves itself does not constitute foresight about harm to others.

Sure it does. Not realizing that it does is foolish

all do.

If some humans can lack the legally requisite level of thought, how would these be considered to have it?

You mean like those people that think that parasites aren’t capable of the most basic level of thought? You’ve proven time and again that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how intent actually works

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: Possible vs reasonable
Winning Position: Helpful or harmful?
Winning Position: Dealing with it
Winning Position: Religious arguments
Winning Position: Favorite
Winning Position: Pride
Winning Position: Guy pay's no matter what
Winning Position: Yes there are
Winning Position: Noah's Flood: Local or global

About Me

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Libertarian
Country: United States
Religion: Christian-other

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