Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

22
24
Of course But I want free [insert here]
Debate Score:46
Arguments:29
Total Votes:62
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Of course (11)
 
 But I want free [insert here] (18)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37547) pic



Taxes should be used to pay for necessities, not individual choices

Homeland security is a necessity given global terrorist networks.

Abortion is...., not so much a necessity as it is a choice.  Which is why the group supporting abortions is called Pro-Choice not Pro-Necessity ;)

I'm willing to make an exception for rape and incest victims.  I'm also willing tomake an exception if the mother's health is at stake.  But I am not willing to make any exceptions for a woman who is trying to rid herself of her responsibilities.

Gambling is also a choice.  Which is why if you gamble and you lose, the government (i.e., the tax payer) is not responsible for covering your loses.  If you gamble that you will not get pregnant and you have sexual intercourse (instead of some other form of sexual activity) and you lose (i.e., you get pregnant) then the government (i.e., the tax payer) is not responsible for covering your loss (i.e., your abortion).

Of course

Side Score: 22
VS.

But I want free [insert here]

Side Score: 24
2 points

Taxes are designed to protect the greater good. Not to protect people who made their choices and do not want the consequences.

Side: Of course
MisterGuy(1) Disputed
2 points

Is it in the interest of the "greater good" that women be denied their full ability to exercise their own Constitutional rights?? I don't think so.

Side: Wrong again
kamranw(232) Disputed
2 points

Give me a break! They are not being denied anything! How is not funding something denying someone their rights? They have the "right" to an abortion. They do NOT have the right to make others pay for it.

Side: Of course

If a woman makes the conscious decision to put her Constitutional rights at risk, then yes, it is in the interest of the "greater good" because it teaches her and those around her a very valuable lesson. ;)

Side: Of course

This is so logical that I just can't imagine what type of mental disorder would lead you to disagree ;)

Side: Of course
MisterGuy(1) Disputed
1 point

Wow, nice lack of a coherent argument there Joe. I really just don't know what to make of you sometimes. Your borderline misogyny is quite disturbing.

Side: Wrong again

What you don't seem to realize is that liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberalism is a disease. ;)

Side: Of course
0 points

NO! Women deserve rights! They are constantly supressed by a completely unfair society.

They have several choices of clothing to wear to work or school while males only have 1 which is unfair as it means they have to get up earlier to get changed.

Women and children are protected by men which is unfair because when men go to war or fight for them and die for them it's the women who are traumatised

Women have to spend much more time and money to look good because they choose to have men go after their looks and not their intelligence. It's not fair. When women wear short skirts, high heels and show a lot of cleavage, they should be shown respect and be judged by their intelligence not their looks.

It's unfair that women have to be responsible for themselves. If men are so great then they should worry about women getting pregnant, not women themselves. Women should be allowed to roam around on the streets with their legs wide open and if a man decides to do what he was made for, women should not be responsible for the consequences.

The list goes on.....

Side: But I want free [insert here]
0 points

For any idiot who thinks I'm being serious read below.

Sarcasm.

Side: But I want free [insert here]
0 points

Hop on the whhhhaaambulance, y'all!

What is this? Your third debate on the same topic?

If you can't win the others, you won't win this one.

You're wrong, deal with it, Joe.

Side: But I want free [insert here]

Actually, I am winning. The previous debates were just meant to sharpen my argument. So here it is in a walnut shell (or a peanut shell if you prefer ;).

National Security is a necessity and should thus be funded with tax dollars.

If a woman is not a rape or incest victim and if her health is not in any immediate danger, then an Abortion is a choice (remember... pro-choice).

The choices people make should not be paid for using tax dollars.

For example:

If I chose to gamble, I don't expect for tax payers to cover my gambling loses.

If a woman chooses to gamble that she will not get pregnant and she loses, she should not expect tax payers to cover her gambling loss.

A woman is free to chose between facials, blow jobs and other forms of sex. If she cannot pay for an abortion she should not chose to have sexual intercourse. If she chooses to have sexual intercourse and she gets pregnant, she should bear the consequences of her actions (not the tax payer). She should take responsibility for her actions (not the tax payer).

Side: Of course
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
1 point

I like pecans, actually.

Even if a woman is a rape or incest victim, abortion is a choice.

Even if it is your only option, open heart surgery is still an option.

As humans we make decisions millions of times today. Just because we make the same, obvious choices, doesn't mean they aren't still choices.

People choose to smoke, should we not cover cancer?

People choose to use dirty needles and have unprotected sex, should we not cover treatment for aids?

People choose to play sports, when they fall, should we leave them there?

This is America, where we fight for the freedom to make choices. Where we fight for the freedom from religious prosecution, let that be prosecution for our religious beliefs or lack there of. I'm going to keep fighting for my rights.

Side: Of course

OK so I tried to educate myself on this health care issue and I read this:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-uGO7WHIvlMCxNvWJPoUWg5_WHwD9C1C4O80

and it did not change my mind about health care. So... now what? ;)

Side: Of course
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
1 point

Im very glad that you are allegedly putting in some effort, but as I recall, you've already been bitching about this.

Do you remember the fires a few years ago? Well at that time I was still working my way into my current position as a front desk agent at a hotel.... I'm not telling you which one because you already creep me out. :P You could figure it out with a little luck and a little research, but please don't.

So anyway, before the fires, half the hotel had been booked for a conference and the other 50% cancelled because of the fire. So we started taking internally displaced fire victims... Well these people brought everything they owned, and I remember one guy specifically that needed 7 parking passes.... 7. And he was still bitching that he had to leave his jet skis. Now luckily the conference was for the EPA, and they all took public transportation, so we had the parkig space... But I was just appaulled that all these people were likening themselves to Katrina Victims or refugees... It was disgusting.

My point is, you don't need 7 hummers and a few jet skis to be happy... All of that stuff if superficial. All you need is the basic essetials, a few loved ones, and a little time to take it all in.

Call me robinhood, call me crazy, call me a freakin' liberal, but I say, fuck the rich, they're damn rich enough.

If that doesn't work for you, then think of it as insurance. You have a pretty good idea of what your future holds for you, but you never know. You might be wearing a barrel and suspenders some day, and you might need a little help from some rich person, too.

That's the point of a civilization, to work together to create a paradise where everyone is healthy and happy.

Side: But I want free [insert here]
-1 points

"Which is why the group supporting abortions is called Pro-Choice not Pro-Necessity"

Because the issue is about women having the right to freely choose whether or not to have a simple medical procedure, peirod.

"I'm willing to make an exception for rape and incest victims. I'm also willing tomake an exception if the mother's health is at stake."

Once again, how "magnanimous" of you to sit in judgment of when a woman should be able to exercise her Constitutional rights.

"Gambling is also a choice"

...which I am personally opposed to, but who is asking that people's monetary gambling debts by paid off by the govt.??

Side: Wrong again

If a woman chooses to gamble that she will not get pregnant and she loses that bet, she should not expect tax payers to cover her gambling loss.

If a woman is raped, or is the victim of incest or if her health is in immediate danger, then the woman was forced to make a choice about abortion.

If a woman simply chooses to have an abortion because she bet that she would not get pregnant and she lost, then she made a conscious choice. The choices that were available to her were not forced on her. Choices should not be paid for by the govt.

A woman is free to chose between facials, blow jobs and other forms of sex. If she cannot pay for an abortion she should not chose to have sexual intercourse.

If she chooses to have sexual intercourse and she gets pregnant, then

she should bear the consequences of her actions (not the tax payer). She should take responsibility for her actions (not the tax payer).

If someone makes a mistake, you let them suffer the consequences. Otherwise you propagate the notion that it is no one's fault and thus no one has to take responsibility for their actions.

Side: Of course
2 points

If someone makes a mistake, you let them suffer the consequences. Otherwise you propagate the notion that it is no one's fault and thus no one has to take responsibility for their actions.

What century do you live in Joe? WE dont hold people accountable anymore jeez! That would be crazy!! ;)

Side: Of course
kamranw(232) Disputed
2 points

Because the issue is about women having the right to freely choose whether or not to have a simple medical procedure, peirod.

They do have that right now. They just want to force others to pay for that right.

Once again, how "magnanimous" of you to sit in judgment of when a woman should be able to exercise her Constitutional rights.

No, he is saying that the only time it should be a "right" is when it puts her life in danger.

...which I am personally opposed to, but who is asking that people's monetary gambling debts by paid off by the govt.??

Ok, so what makes you think that we for them getting that debt paid off by the government?

Side: Of course