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

RSS Swordtenchi

Reward Points:11
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

First of all, whose development? Because the disappearance of the Maldives and Bangladesh, as well as myriad costal cities such as New York and Boston due to sea level rise and the destruction of crops in Somalia are definitely not positive for the people affected. Second, what if ecotourism is important to the economy, such as in Costa Rica? I feel as if "development" is really a code word for the provincial interests of certain countries over others, who are OK with ignoring the negative externalities of climate change they end up imposing on everybody.

1 point

What sort of crime is Dog hunting them for, and are they dangerous?

1 point

However, it can be achieved through international governance and trade. Most of the wars since the end of the Second World War have been civil rather than international in nature. The international system today incorporates a lot of the tenets of Immanuel Kant's "Perpetual Peace." On the subject of those civil conflicts though, many groups go to war to correct economic inequalities or improve their human security situation, but engaging in war is widely agreed upon to make human security worse. In general, it's pretty counterproductive.

1 point

Kenneth Waltz and some other realists argue for a "widespread proliferation" of nuclear arms so that all countries are subject to MAD and are unlikely to go to war. I don't buy that it would really bring a peace because the amount of applied science required to create a single nuke inherently creates an inequality favoring countries that have the resources to build nuclear infrastructure and either train or buy off nuclear engineers. Total MAD would therefore be less likely to hold up.

1 point

No, but I think we need to put small cars in perspective. A lot of small cars sold in the U.S. market are re-branded "city cars" sold in the European and Japanese markets. They were never designed for the road-centric American society where large commerical vehicles and SUVs much larger than in those markets dominate highways. I think that they can still be safely operated on highways, but perhaps there need to be some restrictions on where they can be operated or or even move to a less road-dependent economy...just something that alters incentives in favor of small car ownership.

1 point

I'd say they're justified in the sense that international governance, diplomacy, etc. broke down and warfare was the last resort. Nobody should enthusiastically embrace war, but sometimes you have to engage in it.

1 point

Even if they're allowed to have their own borders, that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll develop a strong economy and institutions. The territories' lack of access to markets and capital is the greatest hindrance to economic growth. I agree with your argument that the viability of a Palestinian state really depends on the degree to which Israel will allow it to have sovereignty--so far they haven't been willing to. Whether they should or not is a normative question that's beyond the scope of the debate topic.

src: CIA World Factbook, West Bank - Economy

4 points

Even though you say they should be banned, would a ban truly be effective at reducing the number of smokers vs. moving the problem somewhere else?

Even when cigarettes are highly taxed (NYC, Spain), cartels spring up to provide them in the face of high prices. A significant underground economy would certainly accompany a total prohibition of cigarettes, as shoving legitimate suppliers out of the market would increase alternative suppliers' incentives to capture consumer surplus for cigarettes.

2 points

I think that people have the right to have vices, because control over one's body regardless of others' objections is important in a free society. However, it's important to recognize that whilst also recognizing that smoking imposes a social cost--medical expenses and human capital degradation due to cancers, hypertension, and other health problems, the effects of which are not confined to the smoker.

Bearing this in mind though, increasing the price of smoking generally is more effective than a blanket ban. Traditional cigarettes and cigars could also be phased out in favour of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction measure.

1 point

Plenty of wars have been "justified" (1812 War, Second World War, American Civil War, First Gulf War, Afghan War). But I doubt that one could say that any war is a "good" war. All war to some degree involves dehumanisation of other peoples, destruction of property, threats to human health and security, human rights abuses etc. etc.; it's rather alarming that Americans take the idea of it so lightly as to be willing to call it "good". Also, it's rare in war that sides can be completely clear-cut into merely "good" vs. "evil".

About Me

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: In College

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