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 Thejax

Reward Points:68
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

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. You are no moral equivalent to me and I'm no moral equivalent to you.

You are indoctrinated because, your mental capacity is limited to few words (for example Racism, Sexism, or Homophobia) all programmed to a script. You have no original thought. You were not taught to think critically but rather react. Your thought processes follow conventional wisdom and fit into a designed mold or cast. You are socially engineered and designed.

The so called educators ripped you off. Whatever anger you have should be directed at them for programming your mind to run a script as opposed thinking for yourself and being an individual.

And I'll maintain my position: Women have no core. No honor. They follow. They are fickle. They go where it feels good and if don't feel good they find feeling good elsewhere.

A woman achieved (you fill in the blank) because a man made it possible.

If it weren't for men, women wouldn't be voting. Who controlled political system before women's suffrage? Men controlled it.

You are not educated. You are indoctrinated.

1 point

You are predictable. Your response is a cookie cutter template based on years of indoctrination. You are programmed to give predictable knee jerk reactions without any thought or life observation never challenging those who have given the narratives you spew forth.

1 point

I know. I hear you. I always hear the mantras and indoctrination, years of so called education from the public schools and universities. You don't understand because you are programmed to think only one way, the way they taught you. I understand your reaction and why.

0 points

No. Women will follow men to where ever men lead them and like it.

Women have no core. They orbit around a man with a core. Substance has no meaning. Its all about how a man can make her feel.

So if you look at all the diversity of where women are today in their lives (forget about the substance) itswhere men have led them to be. They are they are because it feels good to be wherever there is or whatever there means.

There is no loyalty. There is no honor. There is no core. Its a state of mind and how they feel regardless of what they are doing or where they are. Its all changeable and may change depending upon if there is a man willing to lead them into a different direction or just more of the same.

thejax(68) Clarified
1 point

There's a difference between enforcing morality and big government. Enforcing "good" morality really shouldn't require big government based on the fundamental reason, that big government is evil and immoral.

One way or the other morality is going to be enforced, but who will enforce it? Will it be people who believe in smaller and limited government or will it be people who believe government is God as opposed to smaller government enforcing biblical principals of morality: Don't kill your fellow human being. Don't steal from your fellow human being. Don't lie to your fellow human being. Don't copulate with your fellow human being's spouse and so on.

Summed up as an abstraction: Don't initiate the use of force against your fellow human being. In other words you may not assume the moral authority and initiate the use of force.

So let's look at the issues you present:

Abortion. This is murder. If doctor kills a human being while the human's state of existence is in development, then the doctor has initiated the use of force. That's immoral!

Smoking Dope. No reason for the law to stop you from self destruction. The problem comes in when one's self destruction somehow spills over into other people's lives who are minding their own business. For example one drives a car under the influence of drug use, collides into an oncoming car of a family of five and kills them all. You personally may have common sense and use your drugs responsibly where your actions will not impact other people, but lets face it, there may be more people who will conduct themselves as if they were not under the influence while being under the influence of drug use and that may have an impact on people who are minding their own business. Nonetheless if we treat each situation like the car wreck scenario, we exclude the drug use and just focus on a driver as a murderer as opposed to a drug user under the influence, it may change the behavior of those choose to use drugs and use them responsibly.

Driving around with money... not sure of the context. I'll skip it.

Large military. A large military doesn't equate to government regulating my life as a citizen hindering my individual rights and freedom. Look at Europe. They have small armies and limited means of self defense, yet have the biggest and most intrusive regulating governments against their own citizens. The United States, despite the damage the liberals have done, is still one the most free of all countries in the world despite its defense budget.

Border Control and Immigration: Once again, the government protecting the nations borders doesn't equate to government regulating my life as a citizen hindering my individual rights and freedom.

Selling drugs: I have no argument here. This is a great analogy. Imagine drug dealers getting on TV and present their products and listing all the side effects no different than big Pharma.

Terminology: Right winger

There really is no such thing as right winger. You either support the morality of the US Constitution or you oppose the morality of the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the rule of law defining the moral, cultural and philosophical attitude of the country.

1 point

Given of what we know today, yes. In addition human beings are divided into 3 distinct mitochondria. The human mitochondria also has no biological link or relation to any form life on earth.

Off topic: Wolves also don't share any link with any other life forms on earth as well, although they are classified as canines, but that has nothing to do with related biology.

1 point

Yes. Great idea. No more imperfect men running around claiming to be God's ambassadors. Instead replace religion with salvation. We approach the situation understanding that we are all sinners and we'll never be perfect, but that God gave us Jesus Christ who atoned for sin allowing us to be in fellowship with God. We replace membership (religion) with transformation of you, the individual.

So yes. Let de-emphasize the relationships between men, their organizations, their rules, their rituals and let each individual without any organization or church, go before God and either humbly kneel before God recognizing Jesus as the atonement for sin or stick your fist out to God face and extend your middle finger.

This is this choice as opposed to men in big buildings, creating cash cow mega churches, wearing costumes, drinking wine and molesting children and let's throw in sanitizing the earth holy crusades and jihad if you don't believe like me while your at it.

2 points

Capitalism hasn't committed suicide. The government is busy destroying Capitalism, by creating dependencies in many aspects of life.

The government has convinced enough people to give up being personally responsible, self-sufficient and depend upon it.

In which case, the government has no choice but to initiate the use of force against free people practicing Capitalism.

Free people give up their right to be self-sufficient they stop practicing Capitalism.

thejax(68) Clarified
1 point

You haven't disputed me. You haven't provided a rebuttal.

The bottom line is...

No single human being reserves the right an enforces their code of morality by initiating the use of force against another single human being. Why? because no single human is God.

Each human being is born into the world.

Each mother and father is obligated to teach their child skills to becoming self sufficient, disciplined against being lazy and idle.

Upon maturity which should be around the teen years a human being should be at the point of being self-sufficient and go on their own ensuing that each day of their life they provide self. All this can be so long as the government doesn't deny free people an opportunity to live their lives free from government playing the role of God enforcing its brand of morality.

Government assumes the role of God (its brand of morality) by initiating the use of force, forcing those who are self-sufficient to sacrifice for those who choose to be lazy and idle and take care of them.

2 points

Why would any single individual forfeit their right and neglect self preservation against those who would initiate the use of force against them?

Thejax has not yet created any debates.

About Me

"I am a good person, but there's no much space in this textbox to describe why."

Biographical Information
Name: James Axsom
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Postal Code: 78251
Religion: Christian-other
Education: College Grad

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