Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Spoonerism's Waterfall RSS

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

Obviously I would swish it around and sing songs like:

I WHIP MY TAIL BACK AND FORTH

I WHIP MY TAIL BACK AND FORTH

I WHIP MY TAIL BACK AND FORTH

I WHIP MY TAIL BACK AND FORTH

And whip it around to smack JoeCavalry when he's being an idiot. Which means it would get a LOT of use.

2 points

Obviously the demonstrators who are reacting violently are the ones centrally at fault. But the idiot in Florida certainly instigated it, and unapologetically at that.

I'm opposed to book burning in general, and doing so to incite violence and instigate a reaction is beyond wicked. The fact that a preacher knowingly did so makes it even worse. Especially considering that Islam and Christianity are so intertwined and overlapped. It's like he burned part of the Bible too!

It would be like a man saying, "If you give me the middle finger, I'll have no choice but to open fire" and the other giving him the middle finger anyway. Of course the man with the gun is AT FAULT, but the other one isn't completely innocent either.

1 point

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

2 points

It's quite odd to me that you waste so much time on a debate forum when you clearly either cannot debate or choose not to.

And your use of the ;) makes me cringe.

1 point

I say no because cin my experience clothing isn't very good armor.

...

8 points

I don't think Hitler was ever separated from the human race. Until he killed himself, that is.... So...good luck subduing and separating all the atheists.

Religion starts wars, atheism only correlates with them. So if we're banning things in the name of peace, let's start there.

1 point

My point is that the "traditional" has no place here. Regardless of how non-traditional a family, or perhaps commune may be, if it provides the same support structure as a traditional family, why shouldn't it incur the same privileges?

1 point

First of all, we are overpopulated as it is. So there's no real need to promote reproduction at this point in time. We've got more than we need.

And secondly, what exactly are the "problems" that arise from sex outside of marriage? I'll predict your answers will be 1-STD's, and 2-babies out of wedlock, but correct me if I'm wrong. As for 1-it is solved by the use of condoms, and 2-it can also be prevented through condoms and when added to a birth control pill, it is almost 100% foolproof.

I think your simplistic reduction of what the family is to society is incorrect. Families are a support structure, not just replacement reproduction. And they are of value for far more than their sexual protections.

1 point

Or rather, why does the government feel it ok to promote marriage by giving certain married couples benefits? Since not all couples are eligible to marry and receive these benefits, this is patently unfair. And the benefits are all economic incentives. Paying people off to be in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Kind of weird. I just don't see the connection as to why marriage benefits our country.

But, in total, yes, the government should promote positive behavior. It's far better than enacting laws to require the behaviors. If we want people to drink and smoke less, than we should tax alcohol and tobacco more.

2 points

Let's start with my most unwanted internet chum, joecavalry. I find his remarks to be unwanted, his inability to accept facts inconvenient (especially given his ability to vote).

1 point

Ok, what did you mean by "Think carefully because by promoting certain behaviour some people will feel left out and start demanding rights. I call this the "But what about meeee?!?!?!" syndrome ;)" part of this?

1 point

I'm going to need an example or two on "behaviors" the government should promote that would benefit the country.

2 points

Certainly not. He claimed authority over everyone else by saying, "This is my meeting, I'll set the rules", when in fact, he ought to have none, being elected by the majority. It will be very interesting to see what the next election cycle is like after all these townhalls with their varying rates of success.

2 points

This is ludicrous. The only laws that should be made which "enforce morality" are those that protect people. So basically, murder, stealing, drunk driving, rape, incest, etc. should all be illegal, as they are actions that hurt others. Any action which does not hurt other people, on the other hand, such as the use of drugs or sex with a same-sex partner, should not. These are merely choices people make that some people disagree with. Your disagreement on a moral basis does not mean I should not have the choice for myself.

A society may agree that if homosexuals choose to be discreet, then society in return will leave them alone – that they will suffer no persecution or penalties, that gay bars discreetly run will be discreetly ignored. The compromise is a useful one. It permits homosexuals to live largely as they wish, yet heterosexuals will not have thrust on them practices that they find repugnant.

That's fucked up. Heterosexuals having to coexist with homosexuals is not an issue that needs addressing. It's called tolerance. Some people are different from you. Deal with it.

1 point

And buy some more mary jane, right? ;-)

((The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.))

2 points

How hard is the Geneva Convention to comprehend?

We alone are allowed to torture?

"All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition. This was affirmed by Saadi v. Italy in which the European Court of Human Rights, on February 28, 2008, upheld the absolute nature of the torture ban by ruling that international law permits no exceptions to it.[157][158] The treaty states 'No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture'."

Wiki

1 point

Torture: causing severe physical and/or mental anguish.

Simulated drowning-- causes severe physical and/or mental anguish.

Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee Against Torture has said:

It's a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT's definition of torture. In addition the CIA's waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.[8]

1 point

Very different scenarios. Women having kids out of wedlock, though abhorrent to your moral standards, is not actually wrong. It doesn't risk the lives of the woman and those around her.

Driving while drunk on the other hand is abhorrent and wrong. It risks the lives of the driver and everyone else on the road.

1 point

No, because ethanol is something we ought to do right. There are plenty of possibilities as far as ethanol is concerned, we don't need to be hopping on board with every plan that will make a quick buck.

I would only support this if we could get koala bears who crapped rainbows to live in them.

2 points

And you're terribly fortunate to have a family that can help you if times get tough. But consider that not everyone is in that situation. Some people are going to be on the edge of sinking or swimming. Aren't we a stronger nation if we help them swim rather than watch them sink?

2 points

You are right. You're way too left

I'm right and left? How on earth do I manage that? ;-)

You're not left enough!

It's easy to criticize programs that you don't use or foresee using, but you really don't know what the future holds. I hope you're fortunate enough to never need welfare or food stamps, but in case you're not, I hope the country stays "too left" right along with me.

1 point

Your wink smile doesn't make up for your idiotic statements.

We are socialist (to a degree). We're merely arguing over what the degree should be.

0 points

I've contributed as well. So no, not someone else. Myself and everybody else. We all put a little in to make sure we can take care of the most disadvantaged in our society. You're lucky if you never need to use the services, but if you do need them they are there. We've got to get past this selfish attitude and learn the benefits of taking care of each other.

1 point

Yes, let's take it out on the fatties who are fat for a medical condition, rather than the fatties who are fat because they're lazy and eat the wrong foods.


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

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