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!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Zico20

Reward Points:345
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

You can't read very well you stupid fucking moron. There are federal death benefits involved for the family members. Nowhere did I say it was for the person incarcerated and facing execution. I said if the prisoner was MARRIED or has minor children, a federal judge can get involved because federal benefits ARE involved.

Here is a link. And-How-Much.htm

You are such a fucking asshole. Real tough hiding behind a keyboard are you. I bet you are a real wimp in person.

1 point

You are the fucking idiot! Since you can't think it through for yourself, I will give you the first example. Remember, I said a federal judge COULD/SHOULD be able to stop a state execution based on federal benefits. If a person is executed and he OR she is married, there are federal death benefits involved.

You really could not think this one out? You are not too fucking bright now are you. Do I have to go through the rest of the list for you also? Do you get the picture now.

Go ahead and come up with some lame ass excuse like it isn't that much money or some other crap. Your original post only mentioned federal benefits. I just gave you one.

1 point

Sorry, but you are wrong about public schools and prayer. He did not make up the issue. Do you know your history? I don't think you have a clue. Here is a link for you to learn.

Let me guess.I bet you will come up with 10,000 reasons why the article is wrong other than what he wrote.

Also, a lot of gays are to Christians as the KKK is to minorities. They just don't get the negative press that the KKK gets. The LGBT leadership is very anti Christian and trying to bring it down one piece at a time. activists-95803/

1 point

You have not thought any of these through. The list isn't silly at all. Every one of those I listed has/can have federal benefits involved. You made the case that gay marriage should be decided by federal judges because federal benefits are involved. You think you are the smartest person on this site, so use your brain a little harder and figure out why I made these specific situations.

1 point

This is such a weak and pathetic argument unless of course you are a big federal government, nanny state supporter. Or should I go all the way and say you favor a police state since you despise religion like Stalin and the Castro boys.

So, according to your logic here involving federal benefits, you would then support a lowly federal judge who could/should be able to do the following.

1 stop state executions

2 stop divorces

3 end right to work laws in states

4 not allow a company to move from state to state

5 stop a state from raising the minimum wage beyond that of the federal level

6 not allow states to set their own speed limits on interstates

7 release state prisoners

I could go on and on with more examples. Your post reveals all we need to know about your positions. The federal government has the right to interfere in anything it chooses.

Here is an interesting article if you care to read it.; ylt=A0LEVyKWsYRVJcMA.y1XNyoA;ylu=X3oDMTEzbzdqbzlsBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVklQNTA0XzEEc2VjA3Nj

1 point

That case was decided wrongly. Just because 9 people think one way does not make it right. Gay marriage is a states rights issue. You just love to use the 14th amendment for whatever you like. I have a tremendous amount of legal understanding on issues. It is you that doesn't understand the Constitution. If states want to not allow interracial marriages, that is their choice also. If someone doesn't like it, move to another state where the laws fit their beliefs and values.

If the 14th amendment was so important, it would have been included in the original Bill of Rights. The founding fathers did include states rights so the federal government would not have too much power. You have serious mental issues you need to deal with. What happened to you as a little kid that made you so insecure and hostile to people who disagree with you. I feel sorry for anyone who has to be around you on a daily basis. Grow up.

1 point

That is your opinion pal. Millions of people do not believe a person's constitutional rights will be violated by not allowing same sex couples to marry. Where do you get off thinking your position is what is best for all 50 states. That is very arrogant of you.

1 point

The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about marriage. You liberals like to make the 14th amendment anything you please.

The 10th amendment specifically allows states to make their own rules when it is not a federal law or mentioned in the constitution. Federal judges should have no say in state matters when it does not contradict federal law or is clearly stated in the constitution. Just how much do you hate the 10th amendment? I am willing to bet you would like to see it get eliminated.

Pass a federal law allowing any two people to marry, including brother/sister. I have no problem if the people of a particular state pass a law allowing gay marriage. If that is what they want then good for them.

1 point

Yes I did. Scotus was not ready to take ANY gay marriage cases at the time. Now they are. I believe you purposely used the word recognize instead of legal to influence the uninformed that 37 states passed gay marriage laws. You are not a dumb person, you knew how that would sound by using recognize. I called you out on it and you conceded it meant legal. Which I agree with you.

Say what you want, but gay marriage is now a political issue since we are dealing with state laws, the federal government, and every level of the court system. Recognition means acceptance. At least people who are reading this debate now know that individual states do not recognize, "accept," gay marriage like you had hoped they would.

This is my last post on this subject. I got you to use the word legal. So we have no more disagreement.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Ireland votes for gay marriage
Winning Position: He Knew
Winning Position: Yes
Winning Position: Castro Boys Demand Gitmo Back
Winning Position: Do anything necessary
Winning Position: Unresolved
Winning Position: The hardest career to achieve and succeed at is?
Winning Position: political posturing
Winning Position: discrimination

About Me

Biographical Information
Name: craig 
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Republican
Country: United States
Religion: Protestant
Education: Masters

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