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!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS Misterfr33ze

Reward Points:120
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.

Bill Lind, American expert on military affairs and a pundit on cultural conservatism, calls political correctness cultural Marxism in this lecture. He does have a point, but in his effort to point out that homosexuals/minorities/women play the victim he in turn makes himself/the religious right/cultural conservatives out to be victims. I think his philosophy is interesting, but his agenda becomes quite clear as he applies it to American society so I'd take it with a grain of salt.

I'd rather contribute to my team's success (even if there was little of it) than be a bench-riding waste-of-space. Plus, you can still make the all-star team if you're on the worst team ;).

I meant surviving in the short term, not worried about the future of our species [which I realize doesn't make much sense anyway since we can still 'survive' on foreign oil, but still ;)] and 800,000+ barrels of oil would still allow less reliance on foreign oil.

I'm not going to really defend this stance anymore because it's assuming we don't fix the problems we already have, namely overpopulation--as in will our technological advancements keep up with our population increases and resource depletion. Either away, I understand your whole argument and it makes sense.

The reason I put "regardless of age," if that's what you were responding to, is because currently, in California at least, once you reach 18, all you have to do is pass the written test and you are eligible to take the driving test. I think the focus of an ammendment to the current laws should address that drivers (of the current legal ages set) should be required more supervised driving time regardless of age because experience is a more important factor.

As shown in this graph, experience has more of an effect on accidents than does age. There is still a positive trend that implies that younger drivers are more susceptible to accidents (this could also be due to the fact that younger drivers have less experience), but the rate of accidents only slightly decreases with age whereas it drastically decreases with experience (at least at first) and then levels out.

I think the focus of an amendment to the current laws should be on the required supervised drive time before one can test for/receive a license regardless of age.

Another quick fact from the site, "research shows that accident liability is reduced by nearly half after two years driving experience."

Most things in life that aren't necessary for one's survival or the survival of others and even those things that can be said to be necessary for social beings (like ourselves) still fall under the category "obnoxious douchbaggery." This definitely meets the criteria.

I completely understand. I'm not looking for a quick-fix, what I'm saying is that overpopulation is what is going to destroy the balance of ecosystems and so we are basically fucked. (again, see: overpopulation debates, there's one on my profile). If we are unable to curb the population growth, survival and prosperity will not be possible. As it stands now the population will reach 8-12 billion by 2050 and we do not have the resources to support that (with current consumption rates which are always increasing). With that being said, if we don't figure it out we may as well drill in Alaska and take care of the here and now because there will be no future.

Keep in mind I'm all for fixing the problem, but if new technology can't keep up with the population increases and resource depletion we're fucked anyway.

That's like saying, "GTA San Andreas is a waste of time, go join a real gang."

I don't think the issue was whether or not they would still be considered champions, but either way, it seems nowadays the best athletes cheat or play dirty, so I'm not sure how I feel about this, but maybe it is the only way to go.


Barry Bonds - Greatest Batter of all time...maybe

Roger Clemens - Greatest pitcher of our era

Marion Jones - Greatest female Olympian ever

Floyd Lands - Winner, Tour de France

Patriots - Best NFL team of the decade

Spain paralympic team - Won gold in basketball (w/ 10 players that had no disabilities)..not sure what year

I realize it says dirty play, but I think cheating is even dirtier than a Bruce bowen least he doesn't hide it!--not to say he doesn't try ;)

Nationalism and Religion or in other words, Pride and Prejudice.

Displaying 6 most recent debates.

Tied Positions: Grow some skin! vs. Necessary! Don't offend me!
Winning Position: No, resources stretched thin!

About Me

"I choose to attack debates with almost no background on the topic at hand in order to test the limits of baseless human logic."

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Age: 32
Marital Status: In a Relationship
Political Party: Republican
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: Some College

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