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!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All


Reward Points:902
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
Right Now

10 most recent arguments.
seanB(902) Clarified
1 point

You are actually a fucking moron. The government wasn't telling people what to eat. It was mandating what schools could serve. When kids go home, they can eat whatever the fuck they like. While they are in the government's care, the government obviously wanted them to eat healthily.

I really don't see the issue.

We have laws here that mandate for schools to provide healthy meals, and obesity remains low as a result. Child nutrition is high, and children are generally active and healthy.

How is that a bad thing?

1 point

What a racist cunt. Get back to your baba ghanoush and hummus, you arsehole.

seanB(902) Clarified
1 point

Who do you think advised Michelle Obama? It certainly wasn't an inbred cunt like you. It would have been doctors, dieticians, qualified personnel. You know, people who literally study human anatomy and metabolism for a living.

1 point

What a stupid question.

Michelle Obama's programme was about giving children healthier food while they were at school. If it is rolled back, children are then given unhealthy food instead. The key is in the word, CuntMan:


1 point

The government wasn't telling parents anything. The government was providing healthy SCHOOL MEALS. You know, SCHOOL. Where the parents AREN'T.

1 point

Anybody with even a passing knowledge of metabolism knows what human beings are meant to eat. Quite clearly you don't, seeing as you are literally defending the diets of the fattest and most unhealthy population on the planet.

1 point

Athletes do fine with roast meat, vegetables and rice/potatoes. Never met an athlete in my life who ate burgers and fries every day. 20% of US children are morbidly obese. 35% of US adults are obese, and a further 34% are overweight. That means 69% of American adults are overweight or obese.

You have an obesity problem, quite clearly.

1 point

Nobody is trying to tell parents what their children should eat. This initiative was focused on the meals provided IN SCHOOLS. You know, those places where the government mandate children to be for 6 hours a day from the ages of 4 to 16?

If the government want those institutions to serve healthier foods, it is the government's prerogative to do that. Particularly if it makes children healthier. You know, that group of people who are under the protection of the state and for whom society has a responsibility to care?

No child should be eating cheeseburgers and fries every day for lunch, and if they have to change the menu in order to stop that from happening, then so be it!

What's wrong with roast chicken and vegetables?

As for "athletes needing higher quality food", athletes eat healthily, as a matter of necessity. You won't catch an athlete eating burger and fries day in day out.

1 point

The USA has the biggest obesity problem on the planet. It literally is the biggest cause of preventable deaths in your country, next to firearm related incidents.

In a word, you are fat ignorant fucks, and you need to lose weight and gain intelligence.

1 point

Competition doesn't drive innovation anywhere near as much as research drives it. Competition begets conflict. Research begets information and innovation. Cooperation begets efficiency. It wasn't competition that gave us light bulbs, TV's, electricity, cameras, phones, radio, radar, engines, cars, aircraft, rockets, subs, mass farming, penicillin or any other such innovations. It was research, creativity, and continuous application.

In reality, a society based purely on the concept of competition means the fiercest, biggest, strongest, rule the society, but not necessarily the smartest, or the most sensible, or the most rational, or the most qualified.

Competition is much less effective in promoting innovation and fair, freer societies, than altruism, cooperation, rationality, and the search for new information.

The system you describe has arguably brought us more harm than good, if we think about it long term. The level of consumption driven by the systems of competition will lead us to climatic and cultural oblivion.

You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. It is that simple. And any proposed solution requires not competition, but cooperation. Not selfishness, but altruism. Not conflict, but accord.

Winning Position: Give Men Reproductive Rights

About Me

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: Ireland
Religion: Atheist
Education: Post Grad

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