CreateDebate



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
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Valar

Reward Points:6
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.
86%
Arguments:6
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
6 most recent arguments.
1 point

neither. it should be deist. why is the choice only between these two choices? completely biased question.

1 point

if reincarnation exists, you already are immortal whether you choose to be or not.

0 points

neither came first. rather a self replicating molecule came first which eventually led to asexual reproduction a la bacteria, and eventually sexual reproduction.

1 point

all traits do not have an equal chance of being carried on. without medical intervention, many traits would kill off the organism before it had a chance to have offspring and carry on that trait to the next generation. we are interfering with natural (i.e. without human intervention) evolution, but mutations occur at the same rate. medical intervention is not "slowing" evolution, nor are we "losing" our ability to evolve, human intervention is merely changing it from what it would otherwise be without it.

1 point

not exactly. evolution kills off non survival traits not allowing them to be passed on to the next generation. "adaptation" doesn't occur in one lifespan but over many. by medicine artificially prolonging the life of humans with non survival traits, it allows them to have offspring with this non survival trait and pass it on. this wouldn't occur in nature without medical intervention. that is what eugenics was all about.

1 point

I am completely against abortion except where the mother's life is at stake. those who are "pro choice" must prove that this thing they want to abort is not a human being, since if I am wrong, I do not commit murder, putting the burden of proof squarely on them. further, it is not the "woman's body," since this entity has its own DNA which is different than the mother's and it merely resides in her body as opposed to being her body.

however, I am even more against the notion that the government in its majestic notion of "justice," (I can't actually write that without laughing), can decide who is guilty of this crime and sending them to prison when one considers all the innocents that are fed to the prison industrial complex to make money for lawyers, prisons and their ilk in the "land of the free."

so I am actually pro choice for this reason. where else is the debate here?

Valar has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


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