Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Cerin's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Cerin's arguments, looking across every debate.
4 points

In general, I agree, but there's a big exception. If the woman was raped, she should be able to legally force her rapist to pay for the abortion.

1 point

Better news headlines:

Honey, I Blew Up The Kid!

Husband Full Of Hot Air

Kid on Cloud Nine, Literally

1 point

Makes sense. The dollar keeps getting less and less valuable as the government debt racks up. You can't blame them for wanting to switch away.

0 points

This is a great litmus-test type question, because narrow-minded ideologues (Republican or Democrat) would never be able to answer it.

Really, as long as he doesn't screw up the country as much as Bush, he will have succeeded in my book. This means, 1) fund science, 2) improve our international image, 3) get us out of endless wars, 4) improve the economy.

If he stops or fails to do any one of those things, I'd probably stop liking him. I'll give him some leeway to accommodate for obstructionist Republicans who'd rather see the US in flames then Obama succeed at anything.

1 point

I know I don't insult people on this website and actually look down on it, but you are probably one of the biggest morons on this site.

Yeah, how dare I assume you're religious just because you support religious phrases on our currency.

Stay classy asshole.

1 point

I'm sure glad our God-fearing nation was never materialistic or imperialistic. We've always giving all our material possessions away, and only export hope and liberty to those poor countries that don't already have it.

2 points

The previous motto was "E pluribus unum", or "Out of many one".

It has a much more inclusive feel to it.

1 point

Yes, I don't want it removed. It would cost too much money. ;)

You'd be using less ink, so it would cost less money. Besides, the fed already redesigns bills every few years, just to stay ahead of counterfeiters.

1 point

sure don't mind printing it over and over and over again.

The same can be said of church coffers.

1 point

Simply because something is part of our past doesn't mean it should be commeroated on our currency. I also fail to see how belief in God helped us beat the Communists.

Oh, and what's the ETA on God helping us beat the Chinese, who are also still sorta communist?

1 point

So you disputed his argument because you're apparently in favor of shoving unconstitutional beliefs down throats?

1 point

"And if you worship no one... it doesn't matter."


If you worship no one, it definitely matters! If you didn't believe in God, why would you want your money to state otherwise?

Based on your past arguments, and your position in this debate, I'm going to assume you're a Christian. From that, is it fair to imply that you wouldn't want the currency changed to say "In Allah We Trust"?

Of course it wouldn't be ok, since that wouldn't be inclusive to your religion. So please don't try and justify shoving your religion down my throat because you think I don't care.

2 points

The first ammendment to the constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

"Trusting in God" is by definition respecting the establishment of religion. It is therefore unconstitutional and should be removed.

And to anyone claiming the founders added it, please read a history book. It was added by Congress in 1955, when racial and political fear mongering was at a peak. They had to rally everyone against the evil baby-eating communists, and stamping God on everything didn't seem to hurt.

Of course, since 70% of the population is Christian, adherence to the law will be fudged to suite their preference.

2 points

You might be a redneck if...your limo consists of twelve Ford Bronchos welded together.

1 point

Per the 26th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the national voting age is 18, and so the fetus's vote doesn't count.

However, your idea about the woman being forced to carry the fetus to term, in the case where she doesn't want it but the man does, is interesting. That would not seem to unduly inconvenience the mother, and would also respect the father's want. On the other hand, after codifying that into law, the state would be telling an individual what they can and can't do with their own body, which is overstepping their bounds.

So I'm somewhat torn on that later point, so I'm forced to default to letting the woman decide. If she wants to keep it, great. If not, well, it's her body, and she's the one who has to live with the consequences.

1 point

If cities were outlawed, then where would rednecks get their beer, pickup trucks, guns, and NASCAR from? Those are all made in cities.

2 points

If it's a prophecy, isn't it, by definition, beyond our control to alter?

1 point

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

"If you're a lazy bum, no problem, go on welfare."

Welfare isn't for lazy bums who don't want to work. It's temporary aid to help people get back in the workforce. It doesn't last forever. Sure, some sleaze-bags take advantage of it, but that doesn't discount the whole point of the program.

"If you made a bad business decision, no problem, we'll bail you out."

Is this why Bush started the bailouts back in 08? Is he a liberal?

"If you get pregnant, no problem, get an abortion."

That's a responsible choice, given the right circumstances. Would you prefer people have children they can't afford to support, and end up having to go on welfare as a result?

2 points

Why do I suddenly have the feeling you used to work in the Bush administration?

2 points

I completely disagree. No one's disagreeing with you at all!

1 point

I partially agree with your sentiment. I don't think many (if any) people are fans of NAMBLA or Nazis. And I agree that they sometimes back the wrong horse for what they believe is a greater good.

My favorite example is their position on SPAM. They object to bipartisan efforts to penalize it. When you object to a topic that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, you really have to take a second look at your philosophy.

However, the one thing I definitely agree with ACLU on is their belief in the rule of law. It's a slippy slope to say courts should use "common sense" in order to "legalize" the prosecution of organizations like NAMBLA and Nazis. If these people truly present a tangible harm to society (which I believe they do), then a law should be crafted through our Democratic process to address it.

1 point

Yeah, I'm reminded of the case where the ACLU even defended Rush Limbaugh, who's made a career out of saying the ACLU is worse than Hilter.

Supporting Evidence: ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense (
2 points

The ACLU is one of the few legal/political/activist organizations that puts its money where it's mouth is. The Constitution doesn't make exceptions for people we personally dislike.

1 point

She's definitely a bit creepy. No sane person should be that excited about car insurance.

1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]