It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
McCarthy says he doesn't "see the support" in House for Senate funding measure
If Congress can't pass a government funding bill by 11:59 p.m. Saturday, then the government will shut...
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Einstein wasn't religious Maxx. Not in the traditional sense. His last words on the subject were penned in a letter he wrote in 1954, one year before his death:-
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Girlie boy Adolf is happy you agree and plans to organise a full military parade to commemorate the occasion.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't see how that is relevant to your initial claim. You appear to be making an argumentum ad populum, and one which doesn't even stand up to scrutiny in the first place. Scientists in particular have a much higher rate of atheism than the general public.
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Science and religion are the antithesis of each other. They are completely incompatible as ideological systems. In science, you conduct experiments and draw falsifiable conclusions based on the results. In religion, you begin with a non-falsifiable conclusion and interpret everything as evidence supporting that conclusion.
The influence of religion on thought is why so many scientists end up looking for evidence to support their own biases rather than actually pursuing science.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
When one learns a certain habit or belief, the earlier and longer that they have it; the more ingrained it becomes with-in our brain cells and memory banks, and that produces the effect that this belief is correct regardless of the proof otherwise.
for example, i have given plenty of proof on the benefits of garlic on here as well as the medical value of hypnosis. Many on here would not accept that poo, and if i am not mistaken, you were one. If you believe in something long enough, then it becomes true in your brain. Opposing evidence will not shatter what you believe in, because what you consider true, is deeply ingrained in your thoughts It is not about rationality; it is what one learns, and how long they believed it.. @Nomenclature
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I didn't mention God. I asked if anything is more intellectually redundant than religion. Religion incorporates a lot more than simply believing in God. For example, Christianity is predicated on the idea that someone called Jesus spent a lifetime on Earth performing various miracles which are outlawed by the laws of physics.
Firstly, you tried to use Einstein as an example of a rational religious person, and I had to explain that Einstein wasn't actually religious.
Then, you claimed there are religious scientists, which I agree there are, but you showed no evidence that any of those scientists are rational, and you furthermore ignored the fact that, as a group, scientists are far less religious than the general population. The fact that scientists are far less religious than the general population illustrates that the more scientifically minded (i.e. rational) a person is, the less likely they are to be religious.
As regards the rest of your blathering, then I'll read it when you acknowledge and accept the mistakes you have already made.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stop ignoring when your claims are disproved, Maxx. It's childish and it wastes both our time. One year before his death, Einstein made his views perfectly clear:-
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”
If you don't understand how burden of proof works that's your own problem.
If you need a link to understand that people rising from the dead and walking on water is irrational then you shouldn't even be on a debating site. You should be in school learning the basic laws of physics.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Nomenclature said:
There's only one way for a person to become religious, and that's by switching off the part of their brain responsible for rational thought.
'
There are many great scientists who were also people of faith. Here are just a few examples:
Johannes Kepler - famous astronomer. He was a religious man, as evident in his writings. Kepler believed that God exists and that He had created a perfect universe and that we cannot understand it without studying it.
Robert Boyle - father of chemistry. Also famous for his belief in God, which he expressed through his writings such as The Christian Virtuoso and A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature.
Gregor Mendel - A Roman Catholic Augustinian abbot. Founded the science of genetics; identified many of the mathematical rules of heredity; identified recessive and dominant traits.
Blaise Pascal - Inventor of the mechanical calculator and French Catholic Theologian.
Joseph Lister - Father of modern surgery.
Alessandro Volta - inventor of the electric battery the Voltaic Pile. He also discovered methane—a gas that is commonly known for its presence in natural gas reserves and is used as a fuel source. And a strong person of faith.
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek - considered the "father" of microbiology and devout Calvinist. His religious views drove his work.
Isaac Newton - Passionate dissenting Protestant who spent more time on Bible study than math and physics. Profoundly changed our understanding of nature with his law of universal gravitation and his laws of motion; invented calculus; built the first ever reflecting telescope; showed sunlight is made of all the colors of the rainbow.
John Eccles - great neurophysiologist. .Eccles was one of the three recipients of the 1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine, alongside Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley, for their contributions to the synapse. He was a devout Catholic.
Charles Townes - A member of the United Church of Christ. Prayed daily. Wrote books linking science and religion; believed religion more important than science. Invented the laser and maser. Established that the Milky Way has a supermassive black hole at its center.
George Washington Carver - A Protestant Evangelist and Bible class leader whose faith in Jesus was the mechanism through which he carried out his scientific work. Improved the agricultural economy of the USA by promoting nitrogen providing peanuts as an alternative crop to cotton to prevent soil depletion.
NIH director Francis Collins, a successful gene-hunter, who helped identify genes associated with cystic fibrosis and other disorders.
Max Plank, father of quantum modern physics and quantum physics. In his Religion and Science (May 1937) Planck wrote: “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.”
Seems like some of the brightest minds of all-time would strongly disagree with you and disprove your thesis.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That doesn't make religion rational.
I don't need examples because your statement is irrelevant.
Your bogus efforts to create a false association between science and religion are contrary to the facts, so thanks for illustrating my point.
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Scientists in the United Kingdom are significantly less religious than the general population there, research finds.
https://www.futurity.org/uk-scientists-less-religious-1937692-2/
US scientists, however, are substantially less likely to hold belief in the supernatural (Larson and Witham 1997; Leuba 1916). Interestingly, this difference is far more evident among distinguished scientists: Larson and Witham (1998) found that 92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33
What about British scientists? One thousand and seventy-four Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion... Overwhelmingly, the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity, and to consciousness after death.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33
You have not provided an argument. Either provide one or go away.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I can very easily prove that people can't rise from the dead, walk on water or part the seas with their hands. All of those things are precluded by very specific physical laws and if you believe them there's something seriously wrong with the functionality of your mind.
Go away Maxx. You're unintelligent, persistent and annoying.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Maxx,
Are you pseudo-christian, or a non pseudo-christian?
.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Nomenclature
What is known is at best but opinionated beliefs given by any observer observing an object or an image. Based upon its motion, we create information about said object or image. For the images are just thoughts and when we have a thought about a thought, we claim it as our information. This information could exist on a wide spectrum of being either false or relatively true. What exists is truth, as what is truth is existence itself. With this understood, any new information that is placed upon any image or object about its motions are at best ones made up mind about said object or image. So we basically make up information and call that knowledge and say it's either true or false and if its commonly known and viewed similar to the first opinion, a certain amount of people can agree that it is reality to them. But it is only a reality, a dream state for which we make up as information to know and the more you know, supposedly the more intelligent you are. Funny thing is, if you have yet to understand anything I have given, we make up information to believe in as it is the truth about the truth. Truth is the truth existed before we even laid eyes upon it and gave it a name. Or a reference to the existence of said object or image. No one is smart and no one is dumb, as this is another opinion made after the matters motion here in the never-ending night sky. Example. For the sun rises and sets and this is commonly known. More knowledge about the subject would show that the Sun does not set nor does it rise. This is less commonly known of. But what we fail to understand most of the time, is that the Sun never left so it has never came back with a new day that many people believe based on the information that was made up on how to keep track of a schedule. Basically the date is not exist for it's a blue mirage that covers the never-ending night sky. And all of that which exists is a unit. And here we are speaking our verse.
A units verse is the universe describing what other verses have given trying to claim it as ours individually and specifically. And this is coming from a member of the triple 9 society.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Redundancy is more redundant, clearly.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're only describing knowledge obtained from experience, not a priori knowledge. Confusing these two concepts is a common mistake made by people who haven't ever studied philosophy.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm sorry, you have me misunderstood with your knowledge obtained from my motions given. Or⚜️
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
People nowadays go to great length to come up with a clever interpretation of religion that avoids having to deal with facts. Someone like Jordan Peterson will ask a set of rhetorical questions, such as "Are there unifying principles?", "Is there a hierarchy of such principles?" and so on, and then dramatically pause and say, "Well, the highest of such principles is embodied in the concept of god". Cool, very clever, Jordan. Anything can be defended in this way. I can defend the concept of Sauron by defining it in a similar way.
Is this what the actual religion calls god: a "highest unifying principle"? Of course not. The resurrection of Jesus is not some abstract unifying principle at play, but a very specific claim about a physical event that allegedly happwned in the real world. How about all these high philosophers grapple with that, rather than going around the circles and hiding behind the layers of abstraction?
Religion ultimately is a fantasy roleplay taken seriously. It is as if the fans reenacting a battle scene from the Lord of the Rings genuinely thought that they are fighting the orcs in Mordor. Any moral or philosophical lessons that can be drawn from it are not its focus and are not at the core of the issue us atheists have with it (although, even on that front, the morals major religions promote are deeply abhorrent).
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Exactly Maxx. It's a debate site, not a "I'm going to refuse to accept when anything I say is accurately refuted" site. Not a "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and refuse to acknowledge basic facts" site. Not a "I'm going to waste everybody's time by going around in a circle" site.
Part of debate involves the ability and willingness to accept when your argument doesn't match up to the facts, and that's an ability you lack in total and complete entirety. It renders discussion with you utterly pointless.
Furthermore, in my debates I ask the questions and in your debates you ask the questions. It isn't a complicated concept to grasp buddy.
My debate is about religion, not "bits of religion". Stop your silly straw man arguments and go away.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Religion is a society with-in itself. As well, the social activities is a strong part of religion.So are certain morals and principles. What is no longer useful among those two things? You said religion as a whole and they are part of it. No, mr nom you are just stuck with miracles of the bible, not religion.. As normal, you will fail to address those points. @Nomenclature
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stop telling me what my argument is about. I'm the one who gets to decide what my argument is about, not you.
My argument is about religion, and the title makes that perfectly clear. If even part of religion is believing in things which are physically impossible, then that makes religion irrational. Does that compute Maxx?
Go away. You're not debating. You're trying to dictate to me what my own debate is about, which is idiotic. I literally told you in the last post to stop with the straw man arguments.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you had made any relevant points, I'd be more than happy to address them. But you haven't.
I asked whether anything is more irrational than religion, and I offered up some of the things religious people believe as evidence that there probably isn't.
You, on the other hand, have spent days trying to dictate to me what my own argument is about, and are now talking about the "social activities" of religion as if that is somehow relevant to how irrational it is. Neo-Nazis have social activities. Scientologists have social activities. The psychiatric wing at your local hospital has social activities.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No Maxx, I refuse to have an argument about nothing with someone who doesn't have any relevant point to make. Why don't you simply go away, like I've politely asked you to do numerous times?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Exactly my point Maxx. You don't care about the topic and are motivated only by a personal desire to feel like you've won against me somehow. It's extremely childish and a waste of both our time.
No I didn't. I've just run a search for "useless" and found six mentions of the word in the thread, all of them yours.
Go away Maxx. You're an absolutely pointless troll and you want to argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Nomenclature would rather engage in personal attacks and whataboutism. He never addresses the arguments someone makes. Look through the various topics and his posts. You'll find a lot of name calling, but no substantive arguments.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let me explain a few basic facts to you.
Number one, I created this debate. I set the debate question.
Number two, Maxx began arguing with a different question.
Number three, Maxx repeatedly accused me of using a word I did not use, and he used six times.
If Maxx doesn't understand the basic premise of debate, that is not my fault. If you want to jump on the hate train because of your own personal bias, that is not my fault either.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The phrase I used was "intellectually redundant", so at this point I'm beginning to think the problem might be that you're too dense to understand the English language. If you don't understand plain and simple English Maxx, why are you using a debate site?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No Maxx, your examples prove that you are an illiterate halfwit.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Maxx, do you have any argument at all about why religion isn't intellectually redundant and/or irrational? Because you've spent three days in this thread making false claims, attacking the wrong question and generally making irrelevant comments. You are a complete waste of everybody else's time.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh just go away you pointless troll. You're an imbecile Maxx.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Nomenclature
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Go away you absolutely pointless imbecile. You've made no effort to debate the topic. You've spent the last three days trying to forcibly change the topic.
First, you began by saying religion can't be irrational because Einstein was religious. That was a fallacy, since it assumes that rational people can't ever believe irrational things. Moreover, Einstein wasn't religious in the first place, which I explained to you.
Second, you doubled down on the fallacy, and furthermore doubled down on refusing to acknowledge that Einstein wasn't religious.
Third, you tripled down on the fallacy, and claimed you could give me the names of scientists who believe in God.
Fourth, you accused me of saying people are not rational if they believe in God, which is not what I said.
Fifth, you accused me of not being able to evidence the idea that religion is irrational, which I disproved by giving several examples of religious beliefs which contradict and defy the known laws of physics.
Sixth, instead of accepting the relevance of my examples to the argument that religion is irrational, you instead accused me of trying to separate religion into "bits and pieces".
Seventh, you spent several more hours trying to redefine my argument without my consent.
Finally, you abandoned even the pretense of debate and simply accused me of ignoring your "points".
You are an IMBECILE Maxx. I've asked you at least half a dozen times to go away and you keep coming back to write even more pointless comments.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Then you begin your next post:-
Then you continue to repeat the same fallacy I debunked three days ago:-
Einstein was not religious (this is a false claim made by believers who take his quotes out of their original context) and if you were less of a complete and total imbecile you would understand that Einstein always agreed with the central principle of this debate (i.e. that religion is irrational), as evidenced here:-
A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.
https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/einsteins-famous-quote-science-religion-didnt-mean-taught
You are an imbecile Maxx. Stop talking and go away you pointless troll.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra