Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Welcome to Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day!

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day 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!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Stav

Reward Points:69
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

5 most recent arguments.
3 points

A) It is already in process.

B) I wouldn't think about a gay revolution as passionately as I do with drugs and the freedom of thought because no one can stop you from picking your favorite hole to love, and marriage is over romanticized paper work, authorized love. So the real problem is elsewhere, I'd say jealousy, whatever that may be thought of as sacred in the whole marriage thing is the undergoing conversation with the hottest couple around Genesis.

And, you know, back then you needed a man and a woman, to make a baby.

Alternative ceremony should be considered, maybe some LSD.

0 points

I've already argued in favor of the legalization of marijuana, but there's one thing I forgot about. I watched "Severance" the other day, it's about a group of a European sales division of Palisade Defense are on a bus to a team-building weekend at a "luxury lodge" in the Mátra Mountains of Hungary. The team-building activities don't really work out till the they realize some wacko soviet soldiers are waiting in the woods to kill them one by one, only then they manage to form some sort of a group working together, helping each other, the survival of each is dependent on the survival of the team.

I figured that it might be a bit loose, but there is something about getting into drugs that brings back something that was lost during the arms race in the name of nape security. To illustrate - A few years ago I wrote a story about an alien civilization acting as if they were about to exterminate all humans, the aliens announced it on the news so a global panic was achieved, and nothing really happened, only that a feeling of survivalism boiled up everywhere, there was a greater power threatening from above, one intention over everyone, seeing all human kind as unified, ignoring our differences and difficulties with each other.

Later they said that the whole trick was to teach humanity a lesson about individualistic racing.

6 points

Marijuana should be legalized BECAUSE it is dangerous.

If 'dangerous' is the over-all term for anything that might shunt one from his formal, initial, eligible state of his body. An imaginary state of fully-functioning, flawless, ideal body. Structured by psychology, biology, culture and all kinds of institutions, to distinguish sanity from lunacy, health from illness, intelligence from ignorance. Though these are not the bad guys, of course, it's just that marijuana does change you, it does change your body, the way you think, thus the dangerous mark is understandable.

The 'high' effect is an abnormal state that will never fit it with the standards. in fact, it changes people so much they often consider upper spiritual intervention and skip their way to the bible, only to find (or intentionally reinterpret) juicy quotes of Jesus puffing away - THESE are the bad guys. These people underestimate the abyss between themselves and the machine that produced the metaphors they use to explain their experience.

The data field of it's effects is radically shaped by the method of learning it, thus a non-user and a do-user are both biased, the argument between the two always hides the law underneath it, which separates them even more. The point is that some day the do-user won't have the need of such self-deceit, just like most of us manage to live without defying the meaning of life.

Stigma dissolving is not necessary, maybe not even possible, the stigma is not a merit of either side of the coin, it is the coin itself, the need to justify and 'OK' stamping one's inevitable position on either side demands the improvisation of rational evidence of truth.

Once a full legalization is executed, there might be a radical separation and a birth-approval for new culture, new moral, new rationalism that neutralizes the holiness around such a nihilistic notion of 'reasonable behavior', new thought, new language, new engagement with whatever is or is not considered reality. While the non-user will embrace the whole coin to morph it into a monopoly of the whole opinion spectrum within the data field of marijuana study, and will create yet another standard, unifying abstainers as much as absence of activity can be conceivable as a common denominator.

'Users' will consider the activity as we all consider sugar, it just won't be considered at all.

1 point

That was just a quick example for a breed between different ethnic and maybe evolutionary stages.

2 points

Great argument.

I wouldn't comment the creationist because the principle behind the perfect god is one that cannot be argued with, it's simply the perfect argument. Maybe the "perfect" prefix was made up exactly for dealing with arguments, as long as it's around you either believe it or ignore it.

I do like to comment the evolutionist.

Saying that X animal produced a Y animal egg with a DNA differences that separates X and Y into two separate animals classification is like saying there might be evolutionary differences between human generations.

The Chicken\Egg questions illustrates by trick questioning our inability, after declaring all chicken in the Y animal group, since they all look and act the same, to cope with a concept such as 0.001 of X and 0.999 of Y when it comes to such an obvious in-front-of-you entity as a life form, an animal, a person.

Imagine we had an evolutionary math. We wouldn't have this question's problem, we could easily consider the "It's a really slow process, still going on" answer. But we'd have worse dilemmas, like what evolutionary stage\branch is X person comparing to Y? What should we do when a white chick breeds with an African?

It's the biggest pile of tree branches there is, with no point for science to sort things up by defying them, classifying into groups for easy research.

Stav has not yet created any debates.

About Me

Biographical Information
Name: Stav Geffen
Gender: Male
Age: 35
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: Israel

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