text stringlengths 1 67.4k | label int64 0 1 | author stringlengths 2 25 | original_text stringlengths 6 75.8k | category stringclasses 23 values | round int64 0 8 | debate_id stringlengths 6 103 | idx int64 10 82.5k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. DUH! | 0 | Glitter2998 |
No. DUH! | Entertainment | 0 | Are-aliens-real/7/ | 5,735 |
ummm.....pineapples?...... lol aliens are NOT real. | 0 | Glitter2998 |
ummm.....pineapples?......
lol
aliens are NOT real. | Entertainment | 1 | Are-aliens-real/7/ | 5,736 |
lol Donald Trump sucks. I hate him with a damn passion. | 0 | Glitter2998 |
lol
Donald Trump sucks. I hate him with a damn passion. | Entertainment | 2 | Are-aliens-real/7/ | 5,737 |
I don't think that we can prove the existence of aliens through the text we're typing here on Debate.org. I do, however, believe that we can give an estimation of fairly plausible to the idea that aliens exist. The Milky Way (our own galaxy) contains between 200 and 400 BILLION stars and at least 100 BILLION (100,000,000,000 ) planets (estimated). If that sounds huge (because it is) - it's actually puny compared to M87, an elliptical galaxy 980,000 light years in diameter. The Milky Way is only 100,000 light years in diameter. Let's not even get into Hercules A, which is 1.5 million light years across. So, we've discussed three galaxies so far, each with billions and billions of suns and planets. According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion (100,000,000,000 ) galaxies in the observable universe. They've counted the galaxies in a particular region, and multiplied this up to estimate the number for the whole universe. ( <URL>... ) Now, we can take a small sample size of this 100 BILLION galaxy estimation, say, 10 billion galaxies (or 10% of the estimation). The number of stars in a galaxy varies, but assuming an average of 100 billion (a low-ball estimate) stars per galaxy means that there are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe! In conclusion, 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way and more than 100 billion galaxies in the Universe " maybe as many as 500 billion. If you multiply stars by galaxies, at the low end, you get 10 billion billion stars, or 10 sextillion stars in the Universe " a 1 followed by 22 zeros. At the high end, it"s 200 sextillion. There are more stars out there than grains of sand on this earth. To say that there are no aliens because 'duh' is like saying that the Texas Rangers have no chance of winning the World Series. Plausible, but not yet proven. | 0 | Spedunkle |
I don't think that we can prove the existence of aliens through the text we're typing here on Debate.org. I do, however, believe that we can give an estimation of fairly plausible to the idea that aliens exist.
The Milky Way (our own galaxy) contains between 200 and 400 BILLION stars and at least 100 BILLION (100,000,000,000
) planets (estimated). If that sounds huge (because it is) - it's actually puny compared to M87, an elliptical galaxy 980,000 light years in diameter. The Milky Way is only 100,000 light years in diameter. Let's not even get into Hercules A, which is 1.5 million light years across.
So, we've discussed three galaxies so far, each with billions and billions of suns and planets. According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion (100,000,000,000
) galaxies in the observable universe. They've counted the galaxies in a particular region, and multiplied this up to estimate the number for the whole universe. ( http://www.physics.org... )
Now, we can take a small sample size of this 100 BILLION galaxy estimation, say, 10 billion galaxies (or 10% of the estimation). The number of stars in a galaxy varies, but assuming an average of 100 billion (a low-ball estimate) stars per galaxy means that there are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe!
In conclusion, 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way and more than 100 billion galaxies in the Universe " maybe as many as 500 billion. If you multiply stars by galaxies, at the low end, you get 10 billion billion stars, or 10 sextillion stars in the Universe " a 1 followed by 22 zeros. At the high end, it"s 200 sextillion.
There are more stars out there than grains of sand on this earth. To say that there are no aliens because 'duh' is like saying that the Texas Rangers have no chance of winning the World Series. Plausible, but not yet proven. | Entertainment | 0 | Are-aliens-real/7/ | 5,738 |
Well, if you want to get silly. a"li"en adjective 1. belonging to a foreign country or nation. (noun) 1. a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living. "an illegal alien" synonyms: foreigner, nonnative, immigrant, emigrant, "migr" Just watch any of Donald Trump's public talks and you'll see that aliens are very real, at least in the pineapple world. | 0 | Spedunkle |
Well, if you want to get silly.
a"li"en
adjective
1. belonging to a foreign country or nation. (noun)
1. a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living.
"an illegal alien"
synonyms: foreigner, nonnative, immigrant, emigrant, "migr"
Just watch any of Donald Trump's public talks and you'll see that aliens are very real, at least in the pineapple world. | Entertainment | 1 | Are-aliens-real/7/ | 5,739 |
First round is for acceptance only. I will argue that none of the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are true. You will be arguing that one of them is true (you can choose which one). Good luck! :D | 0 | darthebearnc |
First round is for acceptance only. I will argue that none of the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are true. You will be arguing that one of them is true (you can choose which one). Good luck! :D | Religion | 0 | Are-any-of-the-Abrahamic-religions-true/1/ | 5,740 |
First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and wish him or her the best of luck in this debate. It seems that I had forgotten a few things in the introduction to the debate (definitions, Burden of Proof, etc.), so I'll clear that up now. I suppose that the Burden of Proof will be shared, as my opponent will be providing evidence for the religion of his or her choice and I will be providing evidence against. Essentially, whoever has the best argument wins the debate. Furthermore, as my opponent seems to have chosen the religion of Christianity, I assume that the definition of Christianity we'll be using for this debate is basically the set of beliefs and customs practiced by those who worship the trinitarian God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Christian religion. Unfortunately, my opponent has disregarded the 'first round is for acceptance only' policy, though I'm okay with that. My first argument will basically compile some evidence against the God of Christianity, who I'm assuming my opponent supports based off of his or her slightly confusing opening argument ("Well, I guess I technically lost this debate alreedy since I agree with my opponent that all religions only relgions"). With that, I'd like to thank my opponent one more time for accepting this challenge, and wish him or her good luck. Let the debate begin! :D For my first round of arguments, considering the short character limit, I'll only be discussing discrepancies between the Bible and scientific evidence. As commonly asserted by those opposing the Christian faith, the Bible is full of fallacies and errors that are strongly unsupported by the scientific community. Here are a few examples: 1. Age of the Earth - The Biblical interpretation of the age of the Earth is one of the most controversial and highly scrutinized aspects of the Christian religion. According to the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, God created everything in the universe (heaven, earth, light, water, sky, land, plants, animals, people, etc.) himself in a process known today by Christian adherents as the 'Creation'. Most modern biblical scholars attribute this period of 'Creation' to be around 6,000 years old, with God having created the universe and all of its contents in six 24-hour periods. This account, widely interpreted as true by those who follow Christianity, has the following flaws: a. All modern, valid, and tested scientific evidence regarding the matter attests the age of the universe at at least 13.8 billion years. This approximate age has been calculated by the scientific community using two methods - studying the oldest known objects in the universe and and measuring the universe's range of expansion. First, scientists research the age of the oldest discovered celestial bodies. Currently, these bodies are found in globular clusters, or dense collections of stars. The age of the stars in these globular clusters is determined through mass - scientists have developed a scale that relates the mass of a star to its life cycle and age. Through this data, scientists have determined that the oldest stars in globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old - as the universe cannot be younger than the objects within it, this shows that the universe is at least 11 billion years old. The second method that scientists use to determine the universe's age is its rate of expansion. Scientists have calculated the universe's expansion rate by observing the rate at which celestial bodies move away from each other - this rate is known as the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant tells us that celestial objects have been moving away from each other for about 13.82 billion years - due to this estimate, as well as the evidence that the universe's expansion is slowing, scientists have theorized that 13.82 billion years ago, a single point known as the 'Big Bang' suddenly started expanding into the universe and has been doing so ever since. Obviously, as scientific evidence has shown, the universe is older than the 6,000 year Biblical estimate - to say that the Biblical age of the universe is valid is similar to saying that the distance from New York City to San Francisco is 7.8 years. More evidence for the age of the universe can be found at tinyurl.com/q3axkud . b. Scientific evidence has shown that no known current living species on Earth was created in its current stage. Fossil evidence and records have constantly shown that the species currently on Earth have evolved from ancestors, with the process of natural selection guiding which members of a species survive and reproduce the most effectively - helpful genetic mutations aid an organism's survival and cause it to be more successful in reproduction (with enough genetic mutations, the process of natural selection will eventually lead the more advanced part of a species to overpower its counterparts through reproduction and become a separate species of its own). This theory of evolution, constantly proven valid through scientific research and observation (fossil record, genetic mutation, etc.), proves the Creationism of the Bible as scientifically invalid. More information on this topic can be found at tinyurl.com/ajvvz5 . c. Radiometric dating, a scientific process in which objects are dated based off of the amount of radioactive material they contain, clearly shows that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. The process of radiometric dating is based on the fact that a radioactive isotope changes from one element to another at a fixed rate. Each of these isotopes has its own rate of change, measured in half-lives. Through radiometric dating, scientists can measure the half-lives of radioactive isotopes contained in an object, thereby determining the age of the object itself. For examples of radiometric dating and more information, go to tinyurl.com/qxptqza . 2. Noah's Ark - The story of Noah's Ark, found in Genesis Chapters 6-9, is another aspect of the Bible often scrutinized by those with scientific evidence. Due to the low character limit, I can only give a short summary of problems with the story, though can provide a link with full information on the floods impracticality at tinyurl.com/44sku (this is also my source for this argument). Flaws within the story of Noah's Ark include: a. As within many other Biblical stories, the age of those described within the story of Noah's Ark is incredible. According to Genesis 7:6, Noah was six hundred years old when building his supposed ark. This age (similarly to Adam's 930 year lifespan) is scientifically impossible, according to all modern evidence and research. According to most modern biblical scholars, the story of Noah's Ark occurred at around 2370 BC. This would make Noah's birth date at approximately 2970 BC. According to most modern scientific research, human life expectancy at this time was around 33 years. This life expectancy rate, along with many other scientific estimates of human longevity in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods, makes Noah's age as reported in the Bible essentially impossible. For more information on this topic, go to tinyurl.com/2u3xhs . b. Problems with the ship and animals described in the story of Noah's Ark include: -The Genesis account, accompanied with modern measurement conversions, provides the size of the ark at 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. A ship of this size would NEVER be able to hold two of every single animal species on Earth (this includes all modern species as well as those extinct). To say that the ship would be able to hold all extinct animal species as well as the 1,263,186 animal species currently estimated to be on Earth would be absurd. -A wooden ship of the size described in the book of Genesis would be virtually unable to hold together or sail. The longest modern ships are 300 feet long and require iron strap reinforcement and constant pumping due to constant leaking - it would be nearly impossible for a 450 feet ship at a time without our modern-day technology to float. -There is virtually no way that all animal species could have gotten to the ark in the seven day period allotted to Noah in Genesis 7:4-10. If the animal species were scattered around the world at the time before the flood, they would not have been able to all reach the same point withing a seven day period. Non-swimming and non-flying animals on islands would not have been able to reach Noah, and some animals with difficulty traveling would be unable to cross the terrains, bodies of water, and obstacles necessary to reach Noah within a seven day period. Furthermore, if my opponent argues that the animals all lived near Noah at the time of the flood, they surely would have killed off one another within a short period of time due to competition for food, water, and habitat. c. There is virtually no evidence that a worldwide flood occurred anywhere in the last 6,000 years. Scientists would surely have been able to discover evidence of the flood by now through fossil evidence, carbon dating, and flood-suggesting land forms, though nobody in the scientific community is able to do so. Obviously, this shows that the probability of a world-wide flood occurring in the past few thousands of years is astronomically low, and to assert that such a flood did happen would be without virtue. Before ending my argument, I would like to clarify two things: 1. If my opponent attributes the extraordinary happenings in the Bible to a supernatural power, he/she must also provide evidence for a supernatural power's existence. 2. If my opponent states that only some portions of the Bible are literally true, he/she must also provide reasons that certain parts of the Bible are true and other's aren't (as well as why the parts he/she selects as true are true in comparison to the other parts). I am running very low on characters and must now say goodbye. I thank my opponent and wish him/her good luck! :D | 0 | darthebearnc |
First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and wish him or her the best of luck in this debate. It seems that I had forgotten a few things in the introduction to the debate (definitions, Burden of Proof, etc.), so I'll clear that up now. I suppose that the Burden of Proof will be shared, as my opponent will be providing evidence for the religion of his or her choice and I will be providing evidence against. Essentially, whoever has the best argument wins the debate. Furthermore, as my opponent seems to have chosen the religion of Christianity, I assume that the definition of Christianity we'll be using for this debate is basically the set of beliefs and customs practiced by those who worship the trinitarian God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the Christian religion.
Unfortunately, my opponent has disregarded the 'first round is for acceptance only' policy, though I'm okay with that. My first argument will basically compile some evidence against the God of Christianity, who I'm assuming my opponent supports based off of his or her slightly confusing opening argument ("Well, I guess I technically lost this debate alreedy since I agree with my opponent that all religions only relgions"). With that, I'd like to thank my opponent one more time for accepting this challenge, and wish him or her good luck. Let the debate begin! :D
For my first round of arguments, considering the short character limit, I'll only be discussing discrepancies between the Bible and scientific evidence. As commonly asserted by those opposing the Christian faith, the Bible is full of fallacies and errors that are strongly unsupported by the scientific community. Here are a few examples:
1. Age of the Earth - The Biblical interpretation of the age of the Earth is one of the most controversial and highly scrutinized aspects of the Christian religion. According to the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, God created everything in the universe (heaven, earth, light, water, sky, land, plants, animals, people, etc.) himself in a process known today by Christian adherents as the 'Creation'. Most modern biblical scholars attribute this period of 'Creation' to be around 6,000 years old, with God having created the universe and all of its contents in six 24-hour periods. This account, widely interpreted as true by those who follow Christianity, has the following flaws:
a. All modern, valid, and tested scientific evidence regarding the matter attests the age of the universe at at least 13.8 billion years. This approximate age has been calculated by the scientific community using two methods - studying the oldest known objects in the universe and and measuring the universe's range of expansion. First, scientists research the age of the oldest discovered celestial bodies. Currently, these bodies are found in globular clusters, or dense collections of stars. The age of the stars in these globular clusters is determined through mass - scientists have developed a scale that relates the mass of a star to its life cycle and age. Through this data, scientists have determined that the oldest stars in globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old - as the universe cannot be younger than the objects within it, this shows that the universe is at least 11 billion years old. The second method that scientists use to determine the universe's age is its rate of expansion. Scientists have calculated the universe's expansion rate by observing the rate at which celestial bodies move away from each other - this rate is known as the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant tells us that celestial objects have been moving away from each other for about 13.82 billion years - due to this estimate, as well as the evidence that the universe's expansion is slowing, scientists have theorized that 13.82 billion years ago, a single point known as the 'Big Bang' suddenly started expanding into the universe and has been doing so ever since. Obviously, as scientific evidence has shown, the universe is older than the 6,000 year Biblical estimate - to say that the Biblical age of the universe is valid is similar to saying that the distance from New York City to San Francisco is 7.8 years. More evidence for the age of the universe can be found at tinyurl.com/q3axkud .
b. Scientific evidence has shown that no known current living species on Earth was created in its current stage. Fossil evidence and records have constantly shown that the species currently on Earth have evolved from ancestors, with the process of natural selection guiding which members of a species survive and reproduce the most effectively - helpful genetic mutations aid an organism's survival and cause it to be more successful in reproduction (with enough genetic mutations, the process of natural selection will eventually lead the more advanced part of a species to overpower its counterparts through reproduction and become a separate species of its own). This theory of evolution, constantly proven valid through scientific research and observation (fossil record, genetic mutation, etc.), proves the Creationism of the Bible as scientifically invalid. More information on this topic can be found at tinyurl.com/ajvvz5 .
c. Radiometric dating, a scientific process in which objects are dated based off of the amount of radioactive material they contain, clearly shows that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. The process of radiometric dating is based on the fact that a radioactive isotope changes from one element to another at a fixed rate. Each of these isotopes has its own rate of change, measured in half-lives. Through radiometric dating, scientists can measure the half-lives of radioactive isotopes contained in an object, thereby determining the age of the object itself. For examples of radiometric dating and more information, go to tinyurl.com/qxptqza .
2. Noah's Ark - The story of Noah's Ark, found in Genesis Chapters 6-9, is another aspect of the Bible often scrutinized by those with scientific evidence. Due to the low character limit, I can only give a short summary of problems with the story, though can provide a link with full information on the floods impracticality at tinyurl.com/44sku (this is also my source for this argument). Flaws within the story of Noah's Ark include:
a. As within many other Biblical stories, the age of those described within the story of Noah's Ark is incredible. According to Genesis 7:6, Noah was six hundred years old when building his supposed ark. This age (similarly to Adam's 930 year lifespan) is scientifically impossible, according to all modern evidence and research. According to most modern biblical scholars, the story of Noah's Ark occurred at around 2370 BC. This would make Noah's birth date at approximately 2970 BC. According to most modern scientific research, human life expectancy at this time was around 33 years. This life expectancy rate, along with many other scientific estimates of human longevity in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods, makes Noah's age as reported in the Bible essentially impossible. For more information on this topic, go to tinyurl.com/2u3xhs .
b. Problems with the ship and animals described in the story of Noah's Ark include:
-The Genesis account, accompanied with modern measurement conversions, provides the size of the ark at 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. A ship of this size would NEVER be able to hold two of every single animal species on Earth (this includes all modern species as well as those extinct). To say that the ship would be able to hold all extinct animal species as well as the 1,263,186 animal species currently estimated to be on Earth would be absurd.
-A wooden ship of the size described in the book of Genesis would be virtually unable to hold together or sail. The longest modern ships are 300 feet long and require iron strap reinforcement and constant pumping due to constant leaking - it would be nearly impossible for a 450 feet ship at a time without our modern-day technology to float.
-There is virtually no way that all animal species could have gotten to the ark in the seven day period allotted to Noah in Genesis 7:4-10. If the animal species were scattered around the world at the time before the flood, they would not have been able to all reach the same point withing a seven day period. Non-swimming and non-flying animals on islands would not have been able to reach Noah, and some animals with difficulty traveling would be unable to cross the terrains, bodies of water, and obstacles necessary to reach Noah within a seven day period. Furthermore, if my opponent argues that the animals all lived near Noah at the time of the flood, they surely would have killed off one another within a short period of time due to competition for food, water, and habitat.
c. There is virtually no evidence that a worldwide flood occurred anywhere in the last 6,000 years. Scientists would surely have been able to discover evidence of the flood by now through fossil evidence, carbon dating, and flood-suggesting land forms, though nobody in the scientific community is able to do so. Obviously, this shows that the probability of a world-wide flood occurring in the past few thousands of years is astronomically low, and to assert that such a flood did happen would be without virtue.
Before ending my argument, I would like to clarify two things:
1. If my opponent attributes the extraordinary happenings in the Bible to a supernatural power, he/she must also provide evidence for a supernatural power's existence.
2. If my opponent states that only some portions of the Bible are literally true, he/she must also provide reasons that certain parts of the Bible are true and other's aren't (as well as why the parts he/she selects as true are true in comparison to the other parts).
I am running very low on characters and must now say goodbye. I thank my opponent and wish him/her good luck! :D | Religion | 1 | Are-any-of-the-Abrahamic-religions-true/1/ | 5,741 |
I'm quite afraid that I don't know what you're talking about. The subject of this debate is clearly "Are any of the Abrahamic religions true?" In Round 1, you stated clearly that you believe Jesus Christ is God, making me assume that you are of the Christian faith (this assumption is further shown to be accurate on your profile, which says you are a Baptist). One of the main tenets of Christianity (which you are clearly affiliated with) is the belief that the Bible is truth. Therefore, I spent my first argument showing evidence that many parts of the Bible are not true. At the end of the argument, I recognized that you may not believe that the Bible is literally true, and asked that you provide reasons for why some parts of the Bible are literally valid and others aren't. Unfortunately, you failed to do so in your argument, instead criticizing me for supposedly changing the topic of the debate - I did not do this. Instead, I made the evidence-based assumption that you were a Christian and based my argument off of providing evidence against a clearly Christianity-related doctrine, the Book of Genesis. If you would like to rebut my arguments against Genesis, clarify that you do not believe that the Bible is literally true, or continue this debate in any other reasonable manner, I encourage you to do so. I have decided to not continue my argument against Christianity in this Round in order to give you the convenience of an equal playing field if you decide to continue the debate in a reasonable way. Please do so, and thank you. | 0 | darthebearnc |
I'm quite afraid that I don't know what you're talking about. The subject of this debate is clearly "Are any of the Abrahamic religions true?" In Round 1, you stated clearly that you believe Jesus Christ is God, making me assume that you are of the Christian faith (this assumption is further shown to be accurate on your profile, which says you are a Baptist). One of the main tenets of Christianity (which you are clearly affiliated with) is the belief that the Bible is truth. Therefore, I spent my first argument showing evidence that many parts of the Bible are not true. At the end of the argument, I recognized that you may not believe that the Bible is literally true, and asked that you provide reasons for why some parts of the Bible are literally valid and others aren't. Unfortunately, you failed to do so in your argument, instead criticizing me for supposedly changing the topic of the debate - I did not do this. Instead, I made the evidence-based assumption that you were a Christian and based my argument off of providing evidence against a clearly Christianity-related doctrine, the Book of Genesis. If you would like to rebut my arguments against Genesis, clarify that you do not believe that the Bible is literally true, or continue this debate in any other reasonable manner, I encourage you to do so. I have decided to not continue my argument against Christianity in this Round in order to give you the convenience of an equal playing field if you decide to continue the debate in a reasonable way. Please do so, and thank you. | Religion | 2 | Are-any-of-the-Abrahamic-religions-true/1/ | 5,742 |
First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for posting a coherent argument this round, and wish him the best of luck in the rest of this debate. Thanks! :D 1. Rebuttals My opponent's argument is essentially a broad collection of absurd and incredible claims for which he does not provide the smallest shred of logical or falsifiable evidence. My opponent begins by attesting that 'the Bible is God's love letter to mankind' and that 'God made a covenant with Abraham, it's called the Old Covenant,' though fails to provide any reasonable evidence in support of his claims. He then asserts that I 'don't believe God loves' me and that I am 'trying to call God a liar' - these ad hominem attacks do not support my opponent's argument in any way or form, regardless of whether they are true (in fact, my opponent is correct in saying I don't believe that God loves me... I do not require the love of a magical sky man who supports the killing of babies [Psalm 137:9], promotes the selling of daughters as slaves [Exodus 21:7], and encourages the taking of young virgin girls as property for rape [Numbers 31:17-18]). Toward the end of my opponent's argument, he supposedly agrees with me that 'Abrahamic religions are untrue' - if you do not support any Abrahamic religions, why are you arguing with me in the first place? My opponent has essentially already offered a concession, though I, in an attempt to give my opponent another chance to win, will willingly slightly shift the topic of this debate to simply whether Jesus is the Christ and God's Bible is the truth. With that, I end my counter-rebuttals, and assert that my opponent has failed to provide any reasonable or rational evidence of his claims, instead only providing a variety of baseless assertions without the slightest bit of logic behind them. 2. Argument A: Biblical Contradictions As my opponent has now provided a coherent (nonetheless absurd) argument, I feel able to continue in fighting for my contention that Christianity (or at least my opponent's belief in Jesus and the Bible) is untrue. I will now offer ten contradictions found throughout the Bible that show how deeply the document fails in credibility. - Joseph's father is both Jacob and Heli (MAT 1:16 and LUK 3:23). - The Son (Jesus) is both equal to and lesser than the Father (God) (JOH 10:30 and JOH 14:28). - The righteous both live and perish (PSA 92:12 and ISA 57:1). - Jesus's first sermon was on a mountain and in a plain (MAT 5:1 and LUK 6:17). - Judas died both through self-inflicted hanging and through explosion/bowel-gushing (MAT 27:5 and ACT 1:18). - Michal had both zero and five sons (2SA 6:23 and 2SA 21:8). - Baasha died both in the 26th and 36th years of the reign of Asa (1KI 16:6-8 and 2CH 16:1) - Jesus wore a scarlet robe and a purple robe at his trial (MAT 27:28 and JOH 19:2). - Jesus had three different sets of last words (MAT 27:46,50 and LUK 23:46 and JOH 19:30). - There were three years and seven years of famine (II SAMUEL 24:13 and I CHRONICLES 21:11). 3. Argument B: Contradictions between Jesus Christ and Science I will now provide a variety of contradictions that show how science refutes the possibility of Jesus as the Messiah. - In John 11, Jesus supposedly raises a man named Lazarus from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that any human being can be raised from the dead. - In Matthew 14:25, Jesus supposedly walks on water. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that any human being can walk water. - In John 9, Jesus supposedly heals a man who had been blind since birth. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human with the technology and medicinal knowledge of 2,000 years ago could have instantly cured a blind man. - In Matthew 8, Jesus supposedly heals a man with leprosy. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human with the technology and medicinal knowledge of 2,000 years ago could have instantly cured a man with leprosy. - In Luke 7:11-18, Jesus supposedly raises a widow's son from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human being can be raised from the dead. - In Matthew 12:22, Jesus supposedly heals a man who had been possessed by demons. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that 'demons' exist or can possess people. - In Luke 24:5-6, Jesus rises from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that anybody can willingly give themselves life after death. All of the above 'miracles', attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in various Biblical texts, are widely thought of as to have been true by those who believe Jesus is the messiah. However, there is no logical, reasonable, or falsifiable evidence whatsoever that any of the above actions could have occurred, especially with the medicinal technology of the time. My opponent, however, is likely to argue that Jesus was able to do those things because he, as the messiah, had supernatural/messianic powers. If Pro uses this argument, he must also provide reasonable, logical evidence that Jesus did have supernatural/messianic powers, and must justify how these powers could logically exist. Using the actions above to justify Jesus's supernatural abilities would completely be using circular reasoning (you can't say that Jesus did the above things because he was supernatural/messianic and was supernatural/messianic because he did the above things). If you use the existence of God as justification for Jesus's powers, you must also provide evidence for God's existence. With that, I end my relatively short argument, and wish Pro the best of luck in the final two rounds of this debate once more. | 0 | darthebearnc |
First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for posting a coherent argument this round, and wish him the best of luck in the rest of this debate. Thanks! :D
1. Rebuttals
My opponent's argument is essentially a broad collection of absurd and incredible claims for which he does not provide the smallest shred of logical or falsifiable evidence. My opponent begins by attesting that 'the Bible is God's love letter to mankind' and that 'God made a covenant with Abraham, it's called the Old Covenant,' though fails to provide any reasonable evidence in support of his claims. He then asserts that I 'don't believe God loves' me and that I am 'trying to call God a liar' - these ad hominem attacks do not support my opponent's argument in any way or form, regardless of whether they are true (in fact, my opponent is correct in saying I don't believe that God loves me... I do not require the love of a magical sky man who supports the killing of babies [Psalm 137:9], promotes the selling of daughters as slaves [Exodus 21:7], and encourages the taking of young virgin girls as property for rape [Numbers 31:17-18]). Toward the end of my opponent's argument, he supposedly agrees with me that 'Abrahamic religions are untrue' - if you do not support any Abrahamic religions, why are you arguing with me in the first place? My opponent has essentially already offered a concession, though I, in an attempt to give my opponent another chance to win, will willingly slightly shift the topic of this debate to simply whether Jesus is the Christ and God's Bible is the truth. With that, I end my counter-rebuttals, and assert that my opponent has failed to provide any reasonable or rational evidence of his claims, instead only providing a variety of baseless assertions without the slightest bit of logic behind them.
2. Argument A: Biblical Contradictions
As my opponent has now provided a coherent (nonetheless absurd) argument, I feel able to continue in fighting for my contention that Christianity (or at least my opponent's belief in Jesus and the Bible) is untrue. I will now offer ten contradictions found throughout the Bible that show how deeply the document fails in credibility.
- Joseph's father is both Jacob and Heli (MAT 1:16 and LUK 3:23).
- The Son (Jesus) is both equal to and lesser than the Father (God) (JOH 10:30 and JOH 14:28).
- The righteous both live and perish (PSA 92:12 and ISA 57:1).
- Jesus's first sermon was on a mountain and in a plain (MAT 5:1 and LUK 6:17).
- Judas died both through self-inflicted hanging and through explosion/bowel-gushing (MAT 27:5 and ACT 1:18).
- Michal had both zero and five sons (2SA 6:23 and 2SA 21:8).
- Baasha died both in the 26th and 36th years of the reign of Asa (1KI 16:6-8 and 2CH 16:1)
- Jesus wore a scarlet robe and a purple robe at his trial (MAT 27:28 and JOH 19:2).
- Jesus had three different sets of last words (MAT 27:46,50 and LUK 23:46 and JOH 19:30).
- There were three years and seven years of famine (II SAMUEL 24:13 and I CHRONICLES 21:11).
3. Argument B: Contradictions between Jesus Christ and Science
I will now provide a variety of contradictions that show how science refutes the possibility of Jesus as the Messiah.
- In John 11, Jesus supposedly raises a man named Lazarus from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that any human being can be raised from the dead.
- In Matthew 14:25, Jesus supposedly walks on water. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that any human being can walk water.
- In John 9, Jesus supposedly heals a man who had been blind since birth. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human with the technology and medicinal knowledge of 2,000 years ago could have instantly cured a blind man.
- In Matthew 8, Jesus supposedly heals a man with leprosy. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human with the technology and medicinal knowledge of 2,000 years ago could have instantly cured a man with leprosy.
- In Luke 7:11-18, Jesus supposedly raises a widow's son from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human being can be raised from the dead.
- In Matthew 12:22, Jesus supposedly heals a man who had been possessed by demons. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that 'demons' exist or can possess people.
- In Luke 24:5-6, Jesus rises from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that anybody can willingly give themselves life after death.
All of the above 'miracles', attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in various Biblical texts, are widely thought of as to have been true by those who believe Jesus is the messiah. However, there is no logical, reasonable, or falsifiable evidence whatsoever that any of the above actions could have occurred, especially with the medicinal technology of the time. My opponent, however, is likely to argue that Jesus was able to do those things because he, as the messiah, had supernatural/messianic powers. If Pro uses this argument, he must also provide reasonable, logical evidence that Jesus did have supernatural/messianic powers, and must justify how these powers could logically exist. Using the actions above to justify Jesus's supernatural abilities would completely be using circular reasoning (you can't say that Jesus did the above things because he was supernatural/messianic and was supernatural/messianic because he did the above things). If you use the existence of God as justification for Jesus's powers, you must also provide evidence for God's existence.
With that, I end my relatively short argument, and wish Pro the best of luck in the final two rounds of this debate once more. | Religion | 3 | Are-any-of-the-Abrahamic-religions-true/1/ | 5,743 |
As I have already provided two cohesive, understandable, and in-depth arguments (both of which are yet to be refuted), I will spend this round rebutting the unsupported and slightly illogical claims that my opponent made in his previous argument. "Why do you keep going on and on? I already agreed with you more than once that all relgions are false. Abraham knew God. Knowing God is not religion, it's a relationship." I only keep 'going on and on' because you have not yet forfeited and I assume that you would like to finish this debate. Why did you even accept this debate if you already agree with me that 'all religions are false'? I could only have assumed that you believe in the Christian faith, as you make numerous references to Jesus Christ and God. It is on these grounds that I continue my argument - even though you apparently want to forfeit due to your admission that no religions are true, I have to assume that you want to continue this debate because you have not yet actually forfeited. "You are not looking at Jesus Christ or God. It's like you are wearing a sun visor blocking out the light so you can't see Jesus Christ because you really do not want to turn against the pleasure of your sin. You can name your own sin, I don't know you well enough to do that, but I sure can see you are proud and think that you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. Pride is the essence, the basis, of all sin. "I'll do it my way, when I want to, how I want to, and for my own reasons; God's not going to tell me what I should or should not do". I wonder how many times you talked to you parents that way, and I wonder what they did when you put on that air with them. I know what happens to my children if they talk to me that way.What do you think will happen to you?" I suppose you are correct in saying that I'm 'not looking at Jesus Christ or God', as I do not believe that either of the above exist. I don't believe in God and Jesus Christ not because I want to sin, but because there is no reliable, logical, observable, reasonable, scientific, or falsifiable evidence for God or Christ's existence. If I was presented with this evidence, I would quickly accept the Christian faith - however I am yet to find such evidence. I suppose that I do sin on a Biblical standard, though there is no evidence whatsoever that the absurd moral standards in the Bible are true. Because of this, I refuse to accept God, Christ, or the Bible as true, and plan on continuing to do so unless I am presented with reasonable evidence that tells me otherwise. It also seems that you have failed to provide evidence that "pride is the essence, the basis, of all sin", so I will refuse to believe this theory as well. "You are arguing against religion because you don't want to be religious. That's good. God wants you to know Him personally, as Father to son, adopted by Jesus Christ and the price for your adoption into the family of God paid by His own blood which He gave to buy you back from Hell which pulls you down through the strength of sin which holds you in death." I am arguing against religion not because I don't want to be religious, but because there is no evidence that religion is true. Furthermore, I see no evidence that God exists, nor that he wants me to know him or that he wants me to know how Jesus apparently died to buy me 'back from Hell'. "This is not religion, this is reality. Jesus Christ is God the Creator who came down from Heaven in human form to save you from Hell. You can know God personally by receiving His Son, Jesus, as your Saviour. He is God and He is able to come in to your heart and give you a new heart with eternal life." Please provide evidence for this claim. If you succeed in doing so, I will gladly conform to your beliefs. "It is not me who needs to provide evidence of God. You have all the evidence of God if you look in a mirror. If you look in a mirror, you are looking at the person God Created, and He knows you inside and out, He knows you so well that the hairs of your head are numbered. I am not the one who has the burden of proof to make you believe God loves you. You are carrying the burden of trying to prove God is not there and therefore cannot love you. That's a very heavy burden, and it is the reason you spend so much time parroting people who hate God and deny He is God as if they have proof that He is not there and He does not love you. Why in the world does anybody want to beleive God cannot love them? God loves you just as you are or He would not allow you to breathe His air any longer. If you believe God, like Abraham did, He will give you eternal life and satisfy your soul. You can never satisfy yourself, that is why you keep going on and on and on trying to justify yourself. It is not possible for you as a sinner against God to be justified except by the everlasting fire of Hell's torments which justifes the existence of sinners who can never be justifed to exist outside of it's prison." It is you (or any of your fellow Christ-fearers) who needs to provide me with evidence of God, as I don't have all (or any) of the evidence for God when I 'look in a mirror'. I am unaware of any proof that God created me or that he knows me 'inside and out'. Furthermore, I don't think I have the burden of proof, as I, as an atheist, simply just don't have to believe in something. The default position is atheism, as it takes effort to believe in God and religion as truth. I'm pretty sure that my opponent would have the burden of proof, as he must make a positive claim (God/Christianity is true), while I must only show how the claim isn't true. I also don't know why I should be condemned to 'the everlasting fire of Hell's torments which justices the existence of sinners' - there's no evidence that Hell exists nor that I should go there. "Jesus promises that if you will continue in His Word, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Jesus Christ is the truth. He is not religion, and He's knocking at your door. You need to stop pretending it is not possible for you to be saved from Hell and have eternal lfe. Open the door to Him and He iwll come in to you and He will be your life and your life will be eternal. Why not?" I see no reason to believe that Jesus Christ is truth or that he's knocking at my door. I don't have to pretend that God, Jesus Christ, Heaven, or Hell exist, as I only have to assume so due to the complete and blatant lack of evidence for their existence. I don't know what 'door' you want me to open, though I am fairly sure that there won't be evidence for God or Christ behind such a 'door', at least if the door is in reality. "Think, man. You did not have the choice to exist. You cannot un-exist any more than you made yourself exist. You are hoping in death to be free, but it is not possible. To hope that God is not there when your death is finalized is a false hope which will only take you forever away from your Creator and He will not let you go free as a lawbreaker. Life is eternal, or death is eternal, and you will have eternal death in Hell if you will not receive God's offer of eternal life through the blood of His Son which He gave to cover your crimes agaisnt Him so He can and will forgive you if you believe Him and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour." You are correct - I don't have the choice to exist. However, there is no evidence or proof that I'll be in Hell when I die - why should I believe such a thing if there is no evidence to tell me that such a belief is true? My opponent also fails to give evidence that 'life is eternal, or death is eternal' - please give me the astronomical coordinates for Heaven and Hell if you want me to believe that they are true. I don't see how God could have given me his 'son' to cover my 'crimes' against him, nor do I plan to believe so unless I am provided with reasonable evidence, at the least. Overall, I believe that I have easily refuted each of my opponent's claims, as he asserts them without any reasonable or logical evidence whatsoever. Unless my opponent can provide valid evidence that God exists and rebut each of my logical arguments, I think this debate is essentially over. To the voters - please consider which of the debaters has provided a lot of reasonable evidence for their side and has successfully refuted each of their opponent's arguments. It should be obvious which one this is. Once more, I thank my opponent and all the voters out there, and hope that everybody has a great 2015. Thanks! :D | 0 | darthebearnc |
As I have already provided two cohesive, understandable, and in-depth arguments (both of which are yet to be refuted), I will spend this round rebutting the unsupported and slightly illogical claims that my opponent made in his previous argument. "Why do you keep going on and on? I already agreed with you more than once that all relgions are false. Abraham knew God. Knowing God is not religion, it's a relationship." I only keep 'going on and on' because you have not yet forfeited and I assume that you would like to finish this debate. Why did you even accept this debate if you already agree with me that 'all religions are false'? I could only have assumed that you believe in the Christian faith, as you make numerous references to Jesus Christ and God. It is on these grounds that I continue my argument - even though you apparently want to forfeit due to your admission that no religions are true, I have to assume that you want to continue this debate because you have not yet actually forfeited. "You are not looking at Jesus Christ or God. It's like you are wearing a sun visor blocking out the light so you can't see Jesus Christ because you really do not want to turn against the pleasure of your sin. You can name your own sin, I don't know you well enough to do that, but I sure can see you are proud and think that you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. Pride is the essence, the basis, of all sin. "I'll do it my way, when I want to, how I want to, and for my own reasons; God's not going to tell me what I should or should not do". I wonder how many times you talked to you parents that way, and I wonder what they did when you put on that air with them. I know what happens to my children if they talk to me that way.What do you think will happen to you?" I suppose you are correct in saying that I'm 'not looking at Jesus Christ or God', as I do not believe that either of the above exist. I don't believe in God and Jesus Christ not because I want to sin, but because there is no reliable, logical, observable, reasonable, scientific, or falsifiable evidence for God or Christ's existence. If I was presented with this evidence, I would quickly accept the Christian faith - however I am yet to find such evidence. I suppose that I do sin on a Biblical standard, though there is no evidence whatsoever that the absurd moral standards in the Bible are true. Because of this, I refuse to accept God, Christ, or the Bible as true, and plan on continuing to do so unless I am presented with reasonable evidence that tells me otherwise. It also seems that you have failed to provide evidence that "pride is the essence, the basis, of all sin", so I will refuse to believe this theory as well. "You are arguing against religion because you don't want to be religious. That's good. God wants you to know Him personally, as Father to son, adopted by Jesus Christ and the price for your adoption into the family of God paid by His own blood which He gave to buy you back from Hell which pulls you down through the strength of sin which holds you in death." I am arguing against religion not because I don't want to be religious, but because there is no evidence that religion is true. Furthermore, I see no evidence that God exists, nor that he wants me to know him or that he wants me to know how Jesus apparently died to buy me 'back from Hell'. "This is not religion, this is reality. Jesus Christ is God the Creator who came down from Heaven in human form to save you from Hell. You can know God personally by receiving His Son, Jesus, as your Saviour. He is God and He is able to come in to your heart and give you a new heart with eternal life." Please provide evidence for this claim. If you succeed in doing so, I will gladly conform to your beliefs. "It is not me who needs to provide evidence of God. You have all the evidence of God if you look in a mirror. If you look in a mirror, you are looking at the person God Created, and He knows you inside and out, He knows you so well that the hairs of your head are numbered. I am not the one who has the burden of proof to make you believe God loves you. You are carrying the burden of trying to prove God is not there and therefore cannot love you. That's a very heavy burden, and it is the reason you spend so much time parroting people who hate God and deny He is God as if they have proof that He is not there and He does not love you. Why in the world does anybody want to beleive God cannot love them? God loves you just as you are or He would not allow you to breathe His air any longer. If you believe God, like Abraham did, He will give you eternal life and satisfy your soul. You can never satisfy yourself, that is why you keep going on and on and on trying to justify yourself. It is not possible for you as a sinner against God to be justified except by the everlasting fire of Hell's torments which justifes the existence of sinners who can never be justifed to exist outside of it's prison." It is you (or any of your fellow Christ-fearers) who needs to provide me with evidence of God, as I don't have all (or any) of the evidence for God when I 'look in a mirror'. I am unaware of any proof that God created me or that he knows me 'inside and out'. Furthermore, I don't think I have the burden of proof, as I, as an atheist, simply just don't have to believe in something. The default position is atheism, as it takes effort to believe in God and religion as truth. I'm pretty sure that my opponent would have the burden of proof, as he must make a positive claim (God/Christianity is true), while I must only show how the claim isn't true. I also don't know why I should be condemned to 'the everlasting fire of Hell's torments which justices the existence of sinners' - there's no evidence that Hell exists nor that I should go there. "Jesus promises that if you will continue in His Word, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Jesus Christ is the truth. He is not religion, and He's knocking at your door. You need to stop pretending it is not possible for you to be saved from Hell and have eternal lfe. Open the door to Him and He iwll come in to you and He will be your life and your life will be eternal. Why not?" I see no reason to believe that Jesus Christ is truth or that he's knocking at my door. I don't have to pretend that God, Jesus Christ, Heaven, or Hell exist, as I only have to assume so due to the complete and blatant lack of evidence for their existence. I don't know what 'door' you want me to open, though I am fairly sure that there won't be evidence for God or Christ behind such a 'door', at least if the door is in reality. "Think, man. You did not have the choice to exist. You cannot un-exist any more than you made yourself exist. You are hoping in death to be free, but it is not possible. To hope that God is not there when your death is finalized is a false hope which will only take you forever away from your Creator and He will not let you go free as a lawbreaker. Life is eternal, or death is eternal, and you will have eternal death in Hell if you will not receive God's offer of eternal life through the blood of His Son which He gave to cover your crimes agaisnt Him so He can and will forgive you if you believe Him and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour." You are correct - I don't have the choice to exist. However, there is no evidence or proof that I'll be in Hell when I die - why should I believe such a thing if there is no evidence to tell me that such a belief is true? My opponent also fails to give evidence that 'life is eternal, or death is eternal' - please give me the astronomical coordinates for Heaven and Hell if you want me to believe that they are true. I don't see how God could have given me his 'son' to cover my 'crimes' against him, nor do I plan to believe so unless I am provided with reasonable evidence, at the least. Overall, I believe that I have easily refuted each of my opponent's claims, as he asserts them without any reasonable or logical evidence whatsoever. Unless my opponent can provide valid evidence that God exists and rebut each of my logical arguments, I think this debate is essentially over. To the voters - please consider which of the debaters has provided a lot of reasonable evidence for their side and has successfully refuted each of their opponent's arguments. It should be obvious which one this is. Once more, I thank my opponent and all the voters out there, and hope that everybody has a great 2015. Thanks! :D | Religion | 4 | Are-any-of-the-Abrahamic-religions-true/1/ | 5,744 |
I accept your challenge. Since you are the instigator of this debate, you can definately go first to present a case in the next round. | 0 | ScarletGhost4396 |
I accept your challenge. Since you are the instigator of this debate, you can definately go first to present a case in the next round. | Science | 0 | Are-biofuels-a-better-alternative-to-fossil-fuels/2/ | 5,752 |
Sorry, I'm going to have to place my statement/rebuttal at the end of Rd. 3 because I didn't get the time to actually write a statement. I can do my cross-examination real quick instead. 1. You're saying that biofuels require more energy for production. If fossil fuels weren't an option, where would production companies get the energy for the production? 2. You also use soy bean and sunflower seed production as an example. Are those the only biofuels we can use? What other biofuels are there, and what is the required energy for them? Can you list all or at least, most of them? 3. And what is the energy production of biofuels in comparison to fossil fuels? 4. You state that we will need to increase our dependency on food. How much will food cost in comparison to fossil fuels? 5. Do we always have to have good relations with countries in order to do what is best for the nation? | 0 | ScarletGhost4396 |
Sorry, I'm going to have to place my statement/rebuttal at the end of Rd. 3 because I didn't get the time to actually write a statement. I can do my cross-examination real quick instead. 1. You're saying that biofuels require more energy for production. If fossil fuels weren't an option, where would production companies get the energy for the production? 2. You also use soy bean and sunflower seed production as an example. Are those the only biofuels we can use? What other biofuels are there, and what is the required energy for them? Can you list all or at least, most of them? 3. And what is the energy production of biofuels in comparison to fossil fuels? 4. You state that we will need to increase our dependency on food. How much will food cost in comparison to fossil fuels? 5. Do we always have to have good relations with countries in order to do what is best for the nation? | Science | 1 | Are-biofuels-a-better-alternative-to-fossil-fuels/2/ | 5,753 |
I'm ashamed to say that I haven't been able to have any kind of time to be able to put some kind of statement together in order to argue against my opponent, and I probably won't be able to later on either. So, unfortunately, I have to submit this case to my opponent. | 0 | ScarletGhost4396 |
I'm ashamed to say that I haven't been able to have any kind of time to be able to put some kind of statement together in order to argue against my opponent, and I probably won't be able to later on either. So, unfortunately, I have to submit this case to my opponent. | Science | 2 | Are-biofuels-a-better-alternative-to-fossil-fuels/2/ | 5,754 |
This Debate will go as followed: Round One: Intro Round Two: main round Round three: CX Round four: rebuttal Round four: conclusion | 0 | wierdman |
This Debate will go as followed:
Round One: Intro
Round Two: main round
Round three: CX
Round four: rebuttal
Round four: conclusion | Science | 0 | Are-biofuels-a-better-alternative-to-fossil-fuels/2/ | 5,755 |
Thank you for accepting the debate. In theory Bio fuels appear to be reduce carbon emission; however in practice, bio fuels are less environmentally friendly than there statistics claim. It is true that plants absorbs carbon from the air;however the process of turning a seed into fuel requires a huge amount of energy. We must also look into the fact that the United States must find a way to make this fuel compatible with our current machinery. This will not only consume a great deal of money, it will also consume huge amounts of energy. We must also look into the fact that despite the fact that biofuel is good for our atmosphere, it is a horrid substitute for fossil fuel as it will need more energy to produce than it generates. "In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for bio diesel production, the study found that: soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced." ( <URL>... ) The increased production of bio fuel poses a great treat to the environment. If bio fuels are to meet the energy requirements of the United States, vast areas of land would be dedicated to these crops. This creates a monocultural environment in which many animals/wildlife would be denied there native habitat as they would be denied of there native foods. These crops are not grown for human consumption so they are most likely to have huge amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides as well as genetically altered crops. The production of bio fuel can also be seen a threat to the environment as it would lead to massive deforestation due to a massive need for energy and a need for sugar cane plantations. This can already be seen in places such as Brazil and Indonesia. "In the Atlantic Forest, which is located in the southeastern coastal area of Brazil, sugar and coffee plantations were the major causes of deforestation." ( <URL>... ) America's demand for energy is so great that there is no possible way of achieving independence through bio fuel as it would damage our relationship with countries such as Nigeria, Canada, Angola e.t.c who are main suppliers of fossil fuels. Trying to produce enough bio fuel to reach the United States demand would mean that we would need to decrease agriculture for human purposes and increase agriculture for bio fuel. This means that America would have to rely on imported food thus leading us to inflation and poverty. "The main problem with biodiesel is, as a country, we can't make enough of it. I'm talking on a scale which will enable the country to climb out of the petrol-hydrocarbon-fossil fuel mess we are in. There is simply not enough land area to grow crops for biodiesel and food too." ( <URL>... ) Finally, we must talk about the bio fuel technologies. Bio fuel technologies may improve but this is not guaranteed. The technology used to create these bio fuel may require more genetic energy than the public is willing to take. "Some types of biofuel technology are actually rather ancient," ( <URL>... ) In conclusion, bio fuels are not the best option for the United States, the best option would be to focus our attention on reducing energy consumption not completely changing it. I look forward to your case. | 0 | wierdman |
Thank you for accepting the debate.
In theory Bio fuels appear to be reduce carbon emission; however in practice, bio fuels are less environmentally friendly than there statistics claim. It is true that plants absorbs carbon from the air;however the process of turning a seed into fuel requires a huge amount of energy. We must also look into the fact that the United States must find a way to make this fuel compatible with our current machinery. This will not only consume a great deal of money, it will also consume huge amounts of energy. We must also look into the fact that despite the fact that biofuel is good for our atmosphere, it is a horrid substitute for fossil fuel as it will need more energy to produce than it generates.
"In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for bio diesel production, the study found that:
soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced." ( http://www.news.cornell.edu... )
The increased production of bio fuel poses a great treat to the environment. If bio fuels are to meet the energy requirements of the United States, vast areas of land would be dedicated to these crops. This creates a monocultural environment in which many animals/wildlife would be denied there native habitat as they would be denied of there native foods. These crops are not grown for human consumption so they are most likely to have huge amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides as well as genetically altered crops. The production of bio fuel can also be seen a threat to the environment as it would lead to massive deforestation due to a massive need for energy and a need for sugar cane plantations. This can already be seen in places such as Brazil and Indonesia.
"In the Atlantic Forest, which is located in the southeastern coastal area of Brazil, sugar and coffee plantations were the major causes of deforestation." ( http://www.zum.de... )
America's demand for energy is so great that there is no possible way of achieving independence through bio fuel as it would damage our relationship with countries such as Nigeria, Canada, Angola e.t.c who are main suppliers of fossil fuels. Trying to produce enough bio fuel to reach the United States demand would mean that we would need to decrease agriculture for human purposes and increase agriculture for bio fuel. This means that America would have to rely on imported food thus leading us to inflation and poverty.
"The main problem with biodiesel is, as a country, we can't make enough of it. I'm talking on a scale which will enable the country to climb out of the petrol-hydrocarbon-fossil fuel mess we are in. There is simply not enough land area to grow crops for biodiesel and food too." ( http://making-your-own-biodiesel.com... )
Finally, we must talk about the bio fuel technologies. Bio fuel technologies may improve but this is not guaranteed. The technology used to create these bio fuel may require more genetic energy than the public is willing to take.
"Some types of biofuel technology are actually rather ancient," ( http://www.wisegeek.com... )
In conclusion, bio fuels are not the best option for the United States, the best option would be to focus our attention on reducing energy consumption not completely changing it.
I look forward to your case. | Science | 1 | Are-biofuels-a-better-alternative-to-fossil-fuels/2/ | 5,756 |
Since my opponent was not able to write his argument, i am unable to cross examine his claims. I would however answer the questions that he asked. 1: i don't quite understand this question but i would do my best to answer. I never said that fossil fuel was not an option, i only stated that fossil fuels are our best option. 2: In my speech, i stated that bio fuels can also be created by using sugar cane and corn. Other crops include canola, palm oil, wheat and coconut. i can't really tell the specific energy requirement for each crops. 3:Due to its energy input compared to its output, bio fuels produce far less energy than that of a fossil fuel. 4. i don't know how much food will cost in comparison to fossil fuel; however i do know that if bio fuels were to become a substitute for fossil fuels, the United States dependency on food import would rise thus causing an inflation in food prices. 5. The World as of know is interconnected and if the United States were to damage its relationship with other countries, it will plunge to poverty so the answer to your question is a yes. i look forward to your case. | 0 | wierdman |
Since my opponent was not able to write his argument, i am unable to cross examine his claims. I would however answer the questions that he asked.
1: i don't quite understand this question but i would do my best to answer. I never said that fossil fuel was not an option, i only stated that fossil fuels are our best option.
2: In my speech, i stated that bio fuels can also be created by using sugar cane and corn. Other crops include canola, palm oil, wheat and coconut. i can't really tell the specific energy requirement for each crops.
3:Due to its energy input compared to its output, bio fuels produce far less energy than that of a fossil fuel.
4. i don't know how much food will cost in comparison to fossil fuel; however i do know that if bio fuels were to become a substitute for fossil fuels, the United States dependency on food import would rise thus causing an inflation in food prices.
5. The World as of know is interconnected and if the United States were to damage its relationship with other countries, it will plunge to poverty so the answer to your question is a yes.
i look forward to your case. | Science | 2 | Are-biofuels-a-better-alternative-to-fossil-fuels/2/ | 5,757 |
since my opponent conceded his debate to me, there isn't much to say rather than asking for your votes. I thank my opponent for been kind enough to reply even with his limited time. Thank you. | 0 | wierdman |
since my opponent conceded his debate to me, there isn't much to say rather than asking for your votes.
I thank my opponent for been kind enough to reply even with his limited time. Thank you. | Science | 3 | Are-biofuels-a-better-alternative-to-fossil-fuels/2/ | 5,758 |
Why are gays so evil? I think they probably just want to be evil. If gays are evil then they are not good. Why do we need evil that is not good? We do not need evil gays. So gays are useless and evil. So either they should stop being evil gays or stop being. | 0 | cho123 |
Why are gays so evil? I think they probably just want to be evil. If gays are evil then they are not good. Why do we need evil that is not good? We do not need evil gays. So gays are useless and evil. So either they should stop being evil gays or stop being. | Philosophy | 0 | Are-gays-evil/1/ | 5,805 |
1. Introduction First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate, and wish him/her the best of luck. Thanks! :D 2. Burden of Proof As my opponent seems to be affirming that gays are, in fact, evil, he/she needs to fulfill the Burden of Proof in order to win the debate. 3. Definitions gay (noun) - A homosexual, especially a man. evil (adjective) - morally bad. 4. Rebuttals "Why are gays so evil?" That's a great question. In fact, it's essentially the topic of the debate. You should probably use logic and evidence to answer this question if you would like to win. "I think they probably just want to be evil." However, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that gays are evil (or want to be). Why do gays want to be evil (what about homosexuality makes one evil)? You must answer this question to win this debate (as you have the Burden of Proof) - to say only that you think something doesn't make it true. "If gays are evil then they are not good." Yes. According to my definition, evil means morally bad, and bad is not good. Congratulations. "Why do we need evil that is not good?" I assume that you mean 'society' by 'we'. I agree that society doesn't need evil - especially evil that 'is not good'. Congratulations once more. "We do not need evil gays." As far as I know, society doesn't need any evil, so yes. Congratulations again. "So gays are useless and evil." Where did you deduce this from? Your argument has essentially been an incoherent collection of baseless assertions for which you provide not the slightest shards or shreds of evidence. In order to affirm that gays are either useless are evil, you must provide evidence or a logical proof. "So either they should stop being evil gays or stop being." I'm not sure where you derived this conclusion from. Please explain. Once more, you've provided no evidence that gays are evil, so I see no reason why they should stop being evil or stop being. 5. Conclusion At this point in the debate, all of my opponent's statements have been successfully refuted.Pro must defend his statements or provide new, valid ones (with evidence) in order to win the debate. Thanks, and good luck! :D 6. Sources <URL>... <URL>... 7. Yee | 0 | darthebearnc |
1. Introduction First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate, and wish him/her the best of luck. Thanks! :D 2. Burden of Proof As my opponent seems to be affirming that gays are, in fact, evil, he/she needs to fulfill the Burden of Proof in order to win the debate. 3. Definitions gay (noun) - A homosexual, especially a man. evil (adjective) - morally bad. 4. Rebuttals "Why are gays so evil?" That's a great question. In fact, it's essentially the topic of the debate. You should probably use logic and evidence to answer this question if you would like to win. "I think they probably just want to be evil." However, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that gays are evil (or want to be). Why do gays want to be evil (what about homosexuality makes one evil)? You must answer this question to win this debate (as you have the Burden of Proof) - to say only that you think something doesn't make it true. "If gays are evil then they are not good." Yes. According to my definition, evil means morally bad, and bad is not good. Congratulations. "Why do we need evil that is not good?" I assume that you mean 'society' by 'we'. I agree that society doesn't need evil - especially evil that 'is not good'. Congratulations once more. "We do not need evil gays." As far as I know, society doesn't need any evil, so yes. Congratulations again. "So gays are useless and evil." Where did you deduce this from? Your argument has essentially been an incoherent collection of baseless assertions for which you provide not the slightest shards or shreds of evidence. In order to affirm that gays are either useless are evil, you must provide evidence or a logical proof. "So either they should stop being evil gays or stop being." I'm not sure where you derived this conclusion from. Please explain. Once more, you've provided no evidence that gays are evil, so I see no reason why they should stop being evil or stop being. 5. Conclusion At this point in the debate, all of my opponent's statements have been successfully refuted.Pro must defend his statements or provide new, valid ones (with evidence) in order to win the debate. Thanks, and good luck! :D 6. Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... 7. Yee | Philosophy | 0 | Are-gays-evil/1/ | 5,806 |
Yee! | 0 | darthebearnc |
Yee! | Philosophy | 1 | Are-gays-evil/1/ | 5,807 |
#votecon #con2015 #readyforcon | 0 | darthebearnc |
#votecon #con2015 #readyforcon | Philosophy | 2 | Are-gays-evil/1/ | 5,808 |
First of all what do you mean by use their fame. Most musicians are famous by their music so thats why we like them. Maybe the Musicians that have been an actor or something else that has made them famous may be using their fame. Most musicians try to catch peoples attention by using their music and creating things that people have never heard before. These people have never been famous before so theres no way they can use their fame to get people. | 0 | DrumBum1234 |
First of all what do you mean by use their fame. Most musicians are famous by their music so thats why we like them.
Maybe the Musicians that have been an actor or something else that has made them famous may be using their fame.
Most musicians try to catch peoples attention by using their music and creating things that people have never heard before. These people have never been famous before so theres no way they can use their fame to get people. | Entertainment | 0 | Are-musicians-using-too-much-their-fame/1/ | 5,843 |
The only time Britney Spears was ever famous was with her music and before she started acting all weird and mess. And shes not even really considered a musician anymore. | 0 | DrumBum1234 |
The only time Britney Spears was ever famous was with her music and before she started acting all weird and mess. And shes not even really considered a musician anymore. | Entertainment | 1 | Are-musicians-using-too-much-their-fame/1/ | 5,844 |
Vote Con! Pro is obviously not man enough to step up and debate me no longer. He only Stated something useless about britney spears. Vote Con! | 0 | DrumBum1234 |
Vote Con!
Pro is obviously not man enough to step up and debate me no longer.
He only Stated something useless about britney spears.
Vote Con! | Entertainment | 2 | Are-musicians-using-too-much-their-fame/1/ | 5,845 |
The thing is, you posted the debate, and people are going to act accordingly. Nobody is going to take that debate and joke around with you, they see that as an easy win and that is what con got. Debates on this site are not aimed at joking, therefore nobody took it as a joke. You have two burdens of proof, one you must prove that we are as stupid as you think we are. And two prove that we have no sense of humor. Now, mind that there are different "senses of humor" just because nobody found your leprechaun debate funny does not mean we do not have a sense of humor. Good luck. | 0 | Alex |
The thing is, you posted the debate, and people are going to act accordingly. Nobody is going to take that debate and joke around with you, they see that as an easy win and that is what con got.
Debates on this site are not aimed at joking, therefore nobody took it as a joke.
You have two burdens of proof, one you must prove that we are as stupid as you think we are.
And two prove that we have no sense of humor.
Now, mind that there are different "senses of humor" just because nobody found your leprechaun debate funny does not mean we do not have a sense of humor.
Good luck. | Education | 0 | Are-people-on-this-site-as-stupid-as-I-think-they-are/1/ | 5,885 |
I will start this round by answering my opponents comments and questions. "So what you are saying is that they saw a cheep shot to win a debate and despite the fact they were obviously going to win they still took it. If you saw this debate would take a shot at it just to get one more victory on your score card. Also keep in mind that even people commenting were taking it seriously." Yes that is what i am saying. But no i did not take this for another win on my score card. The people on the comments were presenting it as seriousness, but what you type and what you put down on the computer is different. I kinda got a kick out of the debate, but i acted serious on the site anyhow. But really we cant say what people were actually thinking about it. The thing is this is a debate site primarily for serious topics, so we are going to act accordingly. But i am wondering how to take this "I find that people have different senses of humor as everyone else does. I can see you are not stupid by your response". I am thinking thats conceding by the looks of it but i cannot be sure, or maybe my opponent has just came to my side i'm not sure. But you still did not present any evidence that we are stupid or lack a sense of humor so my previous arguments still stand through this round. | 0 | Alex |
I will start this round by answering my opponents comments and questions.
"So what you are saying is that they saw a cheep shot to win a debate and despite the fact they were obviously going to win they still took it. If you saw this debate would take a shot at it just to get one more victory on your score card. Also keep in mind that even people commenting were taking it seriously."
Yes that is what i am saying. But no i did not take this for another win on my score card.
The people on the comments were presenting it as seriousness, but what you type and what you put down on the computer is different. I kinda got a kick out of the debate, but i acted serious on the site anyhow. But really we cant say what people were actually thinking about it.
The thing is this is a debate site primarily for serious topics, so we are going to act accordingly.
But i am wondering how to take this "I find that people have different senses of humor as everyone else does. I can see you are not stupid by your response".
I am thinking thats conceding by the looks of it but i cannot be sure, or maybe my opponent has just came to my side i'm not sure.
But you still did not present any evidence that we are stupid or lack a sense of humor so my previous arguments still stand through this round. | Education | 1 | Are-people-on-this-site-as-stupid-as-I-think-they-are/1/ | 5,886 |
Yes that is what i mean thank you for not taking my mis-type seriously. I apologize I am just very tired. And yes the site is "primarily for serious topics" because if you look at the definition of primarily it states :essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally, -dictionary.com So most of us are serious, but there are the others like you and those quote debates *sigh* that make the exceptions. But does not mean everyone on the debate is stupid and lack a sense of humor. But all in all you have admitted to the negation of the topic being correct, so i thank you. We do in fact have a sense of humor, we are in fact not as dumb as you think. And thank you for the debate. Vote Con | 0 | Alex |
Yes that is what i mean thank you for not taking my mis-type seriously. I apologize I am just very tired.
And yes the site is "primarily for serious topics" because if you look at the definition of primarily it states :essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally, -dictionary.com
So most of us are serious, but there are the others like you and those quote debates *sigh* that make the exceptions. But does not mean everyone on the debate is stupid and lack a sense of humor.
But all in all you have admitted to the negation of the topic being correct, so i thank you.
We do in fact have a sense of humor, we are in fact not as dumb as you think.
And thank you for the debate.
Vote Con | Education | 2 | Are-people-on-this-site-as-stupid-as-I-think-they-are/1/ | 5,887 |
I posted a retarded argument for the favor of the existence of leprechauns and every one took me seriously. I hope that this is mearly people playing along. Sadly however I'm afraid I was wrong and the people on this site have no sense of humor. I mean if you see my account it is clearly fake and my previous argument was purely for entertainment (as that is what it was categorized in). Please, I hope my debaters were not the cream of the crop. | 0 | number1letterA |
I posted a retarded argument for the favor of the existence of leprechauns and every one took me seriously. I hope that this is mearly people playing along. Sadly however I'm afraid I was wrong and the people on this site have no sense of humor. I mean if you see my account it is clearly fake and my previous argument was purely for entertainment (as that is what it was categorized in). Please, I hope my debaters were not the cream of the crop. | Education | 0 | Are-people-on-this-site-as-stupid-as-I-think-they-are/1/ | 5,888 |
So what you are saying is that they saw a cheep shot to win a debate and despite the fact they were obviously going to win they still took it. If you saw this debate would take a shot at it just to get one more victory on your score card. Also keep in mind that even people commenting were taking it seriously. I was bored one night and decided why not. That's why I made the debate with obvious signs that I was not serious. Later I checked out my mad ranting and found the responses. You can read it if you want. I just figured one out of a million would at least find it funny or see how ridiculous an argument titled "lepricons" would be also under the topic of entertainment. As for my burdens of proof I didn't expect every person to find it funny. I find that people have different senses of humor as everyone else does. I can see you are not stupid by your response, but if you are going to argue my previous debate without the slightest sign that you are just humoring me or you know I'm joking then you lack one aspect of intelligence at least. That is that you lack interpersonal intelligence. I hope I actually loose because this is one thing I don't want to be right on. | 0 | number1letterA |
So what you are saying is that they saw a cheep shot to win a debate and despite the fact they were obviously going to win they still took it. If you saw this debate would take a shot at it just to get one more victory on your score card. Also keep in mind that even people commenting were taking it seriously.
I was bored one night and decided why not. That's why I made the debate with obvious signs that I was not serious. Later I checked out my mad ranting and found the responses. You can read it if you want. I just figured one out of a million would at least find it funny or see how ridiculous an argument titled "lepricons" would be also under the topic of entertainment.
As for my burdens of proof I didn't expect every person to find it funny. I find that people have different senses of humor as everyone else does. I can see you are not stupid by your response, but if you are going to argue my previous debate without the slightest sign that you are just humoring me or you know I'm joking then you lack one aspect of intelligence at least. That is that you lack interpersonal intelligence.
I hope I actually loose because this is one thing I don't want to be right on. | Education | 1 | Are-people-on-this-site-as-stupid-as-I-think-they-are/1/ | 5,889 |
That's a relief. Yet, I would still say that is low due to the fact you don't have really much to gain. "but what you type and what you put down on the computer is different." I'm sure that is not what you meant to say as that means the same thing. I think you meant to say think instead of type. I agree with this, but like you said we can't know this as a fact. Yet, in a way my lack of evidence that they are understanding the situation is my evidence as my only clue on one comment was a smiley face. I can't proof that they got the joke. Kind of like a clue. I have no evidence that a pacific person committed a crime so I can not prove they did it. So, out of over one hundred people I only found one small clue that one person may have got it. "The thing is this is a debate site primarily for serious topics, so we are going to act accordingly." You did say "primarily". I said you weren't stupid is because I looked at your previous debates and profile to understand who you are. This is what a lot of people didn't due as I can see as I have claimed to have a Post Doctoral at the age of 16 and that my belief was that Pringles were delicious. | 0 | number1letterA |
That's a relief. Yet, I would still say that is low due to the fact you don't have really much to gain.
"but what you type and what you put down on the computer is different."
I'm sure that is not what you meant to say as that means the same thing. I think you meant to say think instead of type. I agree with this, but like you said we can't know this as a fact. Yet, in a way my lack of evidence that they are understanding the situation is my evidence as my only clue on one comment was a smiley face. I can't proof that they got the joke. Kind of like a clue. I have no evidence that a pacific person committed a crime so I can not prove they did it. So, out of over one hundred people I only found one small clue that one person may have got it.
"The thing is this is a debate site primarily for serious topics, so we are going to act accordingly."
You did say "primarily".
I said you weren't stupid is because I looked at your previous debates and profile to understand who you are. This is what a lot of people didn't due as I can see as I have claimed to have a Post Doctoral at the age of 16 and that my belief was that Pringles were delicious. | Education | 2 | Are-people-on-this-site-as-stupid-as-I-think-they-are/1/ | 5,890 |
wel to be truthful rex-town i have no idea im not really into the government thing. i dont really pay attention to whats going on in the government and politics. now i do pay some attention to the election of presidents because i do not want someone who will put our country in more of a bad situation then it already is..but i will debate this subject. u say that politicians are liars.. "they're the only ones that lie," but that would be - - another lie. Both the Republican and Democratic parties seem to be infested with expert liars. <URL>... okay first of all u do not say i believe where are the facts..to what you say. "I believe that politicians are liars because they have so many secrets to the citizens that we don't know what are their doing in the parlament"..thats what you just told me. yes well they might be liars but you dont officually..u need fact to support that... i have concluded that not all politcians are liars, yes some other them are but that doesn't mean they are all like that. | 0 | ally93 |
wel to be truthful rex-town i have no idea im not really into the government thing. i dont really pay attention to whats going on in the government and politics. now i do pay some attention to the election of presidents because i do not want someone who will put our country in more of a bad situation then it already is..but i will debate this subject. u say that politicians are liars..
"they're the only ones that lie," but that would be - - another lie. Both the Republican and Democratic parties seem to be infested with expert liars. http://www.associatedcontent.com...
okay first of all u do not say i believe where are the facts..to what you say.
"I believe that politicians are liars because they have so many secrets to the citizens that we don't know what are their doing in the parlament"..thats what you just told me. yes well they might be liars but you dont officually..u need fact to support that...
i have concluded that not all politcians are liars, yes some other them are but that doesn't mean they are all like that. | Politics | 0 | Are-politicians-liars/1/ | 5,905 |
the follow information is the same as my last post. unfortunately rex- town has no argument for what I said.. to add to my last argument yes politicians can say dumb stuff but that doesn't make them all liars. and this is coming from me but if I am not correct tell me because I know I am everyone lies and its natural to lie once in a while but some of the politicians do lie a lot but none of us people can judge and that we still elect them to be in office.. we as people elect them and they get our attentions by laying to us. we have no control over what they lie about its there choice. and if they didn't lie and just told the truth none of the politicians in office today wouldn't even be in there right now.. so I hope this comes to the point that I should win the debate. clearly rex-town hasn't had enough information to keep this debate going..so clearly your best choice for voting is me.. VOTE "CON" | 0 | ally93 |
the follow information is the same as my last post. unfortunately rex- town has no argument for what I said.. to add to my last argument yes politicians can say dumb stuff but that doesn't make them all liars. and this is coming from me but if I am not correct tell me because I know I am everyone lies and its natural to lie once in a while but some of the politicians do lie a lot but none of us people can judge and that we still elect them to be in office.. we as people elect them and they get our attentions by laying to us. we have no control over what they lie about its there choice. and if they didn't lie and just told the truth none of the politicians in office today wouldn't even be in there right now..
so I hope this comes to the point that I should win the debate. clearly rex-town hasn't had enough information to keep this debate going..so clearly your best choice for voting is me..
VOTE "CON" | Politics | 1 | Are-politicians-liars/1/ | 5,906 |
well first of all you give NO bettter information..so i see no point in going on with this debate..because you have proven NOTHING at all.. expect that you believe.. wel how do you know i got mine information off the internet thank you very much...so wheres your.. there for i have nothing more to say about this debate clearly you have no information for me to keep debating you about this subject.. If you would of wrote back with an actually arguement then maybe this would of been an actually debate. instead of me just telling you the obvious answer. to me thats not much of a debate.. so i have proven what i know and looked up. and i rest my case with that... there for rex-town has proven NOTHING. i should be the obvious choice for the vote.. "VOTE CON" | 0 | ally93 |
well first of all you give NO bettter information..so i see no point in going on with this debate..because you have proven NOTHING at all.. expect that you believe.. wel how do you know i got mine information off the internet thank you very much...so wheres your.. there for i have nothing more to say about this debate clearly you have no information for me to keep debating you about this subject.. If you would of wrote back with an actually arguement then maybe this would of been an actually debate. instead of me just telling you the obvious answer. to me thats not much of a debate.. so i have proven what i know and looked up. and i rest my case with that...
there for rex-town has proven NOTHING. i should be the obvious choice for the vote..
"VOTE CON" | Politics | 2 | Are-politicians-liars/1/ | 5,907 |
I believe that politicians are liars because they have so many secrets to the citizens that we don't know what are their doing in the parlament | 0 | rex-town |
I believe that politicians are liars because they have so many secrets to the citizens that we don't know what are their doing in the parlament | Politics | 0 | Are-politicians-liars/1/ | 5,908 |
How are you so sure that politicians aren't always liars have you not know that most of the important information's such as the status of the war on Iraq or the economical crisis that we are undergoing is something that politicians saw and therefore did not inform the people for some kind of development so how are sure of your self we don't know what is going on in the white house | 0 | rex-town |
How are you so sure that politicians aren't always liars have you not know that most of the important information's such as the status of the war on Iraq or the economical crisis that we are undergoing is something that politicians saw and therefore did not inform the people for some kind of development so how are sure of your self we don't know what is going on in the white house | Politics | 2 | Are-politicians-liars/1/ | 5,909 |
This argument is purely opinion, I'm just going to say why snakes are amazing and why I love snakes, and then whoever can say why they don't. Snakes are amazing, they are adorable, have you ever seen a snake? People normally associate snakes with scary fangs and even the untrue slimy skin, I will admit when I was younger, I thought snakes had slimy skin. That is far from the truth, snakes have smooth skin, I mean, if rubbed the wrong was it can be rough(which is very uncomfortable for the snake, so don't do that) Dear god, they even have adorable puppy mouths!! My science teacher once had a snake named Precious, he liked to go inside people's shirts, or if you were wearing a hood he would go in your hood. Snakes can actually be wonderful pets as all snakes are not venomous, where I am from, most snakes are actually non venomous. So where my opinion stands is that snakes are wonderful and adorable. | 0 | Cheore |
This argument is purely opinion, I'm just going to say why snakes are amazing and why I love snakes, and then whoever can say why they don't.
Snakes are amazing, they are adorable, have you ever seen a snake? People normally associate snakes with scary fangs and even the untrue slimy skin, I will admit when I was younger, I thought snakes had slimy skin. That is far from the truth, snakes have smooth skin, I mean, if rubbed the wrong was it can be rough(which is very uncomfortable for the snake, so don't do that) Dear god, they even have adorable puppy mouths!! My science teacher once had a snake named Precious, he liked to go inside people's shirts, or if you were wearing a hood he would go in your hood. Snakes can actually be wonderful pets as all snakes are not venomous, where I am from, most snakes are actually non venomous. So where my opinion stands is that snakes are wonderful and adorable. | Miscellaneous | 0 | Are-snakes-good/1/ | 5,953 |
Thank you, read this carefully It may change you? Hell! Through out history it has been thought of as the most foolish and regretful place to end up out of the whole existence of everything. If I was confronted with a slight possibility of a place like this where you end up after your "first death" I would consider to think about the wording of "what if and "if only". Although there is no proof in the physical world that such a please existence. It would be wise to try and understand the strange spiritual world. By finding out if God does actually exist or not by close (not skeptical) examination of God's ever lasting love. By saying "I know what love feels like, so why do I need God's love?" I will answer.... "All love is from God even from other people as it hell there is no love, and all the love you feel now is spiritual love." As science can not excitement with love emotions. It could be possible to decrease or increase the amount of love you feel. But not get rid of it, this occurs naturally anyway, when you injure emotions. There is no such thing as a emotion with no love. You may think hate is a emotion with no love. But you only truly really feel bad emotions in hell. As there is no God to offer good emotions. (God will be none existent to you in hell) Likewise you may blame God for curtin emotions, but God is actually the one not to blame since He is giving all the love He can to you but you simply reject it by blaming God. Hell is a place where you know all the sins which appeared good turn out to be evil and corrupt, Jesus said "Turn from your sins now" Jesus did not say that to spoil your enjoyment but to give you ever lasting enjoyment. Love is enjoyable, enjoyment is love-able. Sin is selfish, selfish is sin. Example: Getting into a drunken state leads to bad atmosphere, making it unconformable, disrespectful and insecure. But you are having fun. No? By not getting drunk will allow you to see clearly at the foolishness which occurs. Get drunk in the Holy Spirit and you can see what is foolish. Even one sin will, even if you steal a paper clip. God sees material thing unworthy of heaven, so what you still is not the point, It is the very thought of making the thought come true. Even by taking a paper clip will make you injure endless suffering and pain in hell. If I mention the "not so good" news, I must give you the good. Jesus Christ can save you from hell if you trust in him by giving your sins to Him. As Jesus lived a perfect life He should of lived but instead God decided to make Him Son injure instead. So you selfish people (including me) can have ever lasting life. From DE's, people have said hell seems more real than this life and having no sense of the time. Once in hell you will see a faint bright light which contained all the love aviaible to you in heaven, But instead you having it God rejects you like you rejected Jesus Christ. Making a perfect man die for nothing. If you were the only person Jesus could die for on earth Jesus would still have died for you! Yet every time you sin it is like spitting in His face. If you sin once a day that's spitting 3550 times in Jesus' face for 10 years. If you sin 10 times a day that's 35500 times in 10 years. And that's only one person. It seems people forget Jesus was perfect. And they (sinners) are not. As a child you believe in Santa Claus? Most children do. You enjoyed the fact that Santa was a cheerful man, who deserved to give gifts to your children. (If you are a parent you get no credit for Christmas when you have young children as Santa does all the work) You as a Child are born enjoying Christmas every year believe that Santa will come into your house (If Santa was to visit ever house in one night, He would have to spend a 1 millionth of a second at each house) Moving that fast is supernatural. Like the devil who hides, it would be impossible for the eye to see Santa as your eye can only see a maximum of a 20th of a second. So Santa is the devils way for bring in the children into the Physical world (mentioned in my other debate, "Randomness is a lack of knowledge in the Spiritual and Physical world") As a Child the Devil acts like the child is in control by doing nothing on Christmas and the devil (now known to me as Santa) has the burden of running about after presents. When you Grow older you become the devils slave as you do not believe in Santa and therefore the devil anymore. Making your life style converted by physical not spiritual beliefs. And now as a adult with money "You can not serve two masters, money and God." is more avaible, again more involved in the physical world. So now the burden is on you to run into shops buying gifts you are now the devils slave who has seemed to have disappeared as quickly as Santa did. The trap is hell and if you are still a sinner you will go there unless you trust in Jesus (spiritual) and confess you are a evil person in a physical world. Thank You Josh Crisp (GodStands) | 0 | GodSands |
Thank you, read this carefully It may change you?
Hell! Through out history it has been thought of as the most foolish and regretful place to end up out of the whole existence of everything. If I was confronted with a slight possibility of a place like this where you end up after your "first death" I would consider to think about the wording of "what if and "if only". Although there is no proof in the physical world that such a please existence. It would be wise to try and understand the strange spiritual world. By finding out if God does actually exist or not by close (not skeptical) examination of God's ever lasting love. By saying
"I know what love feels like, so why do I need God's love?" I will answer....
"All love is from God even from other people as it hell there is no love, and all the love you feel now is spiritual love." As science can not excitement with love emotions. It could be possible to decrease or increase the amount of love you feel. But not get rid of it, this occurs naturally anyway, when you injure emotions. There is no such thing as a emotion with no love.
You may think hate is a emotion with no love. But you only truly really feel bad emotions in hell. As there is no God to offer good emotions. (God will be none existent to you in hell) Likewise you may blame God for curtin emotions, but God is actually the one not to blame since He is giving all the love He can to you but you simply reject it by blaming God.
Hell is a place where you know all the sins which appeared good turn out to be evil and corrupt, Jesus said "Turn from your sins now" Jesus did not say that to spoil your enjoyment but to give you ever lasting enjoyment. Love is enjoyable, enjoyment is love-able. Sin is selfish, selfish is sin. Example: Getting into a drunken state leads to bad atmosphere, making it unconformable, disrespectful and insecure. But you are having fun. No? By not getting drunk will allow you to see clearly at the foolishness which occurs. Get drunk in the Holy Spirit and you can see what is foolish. Even one sin will, even if you steal a paper clip. God sees material thing unworthy of heaven, so what you still is not the point, It is the very thought of making the thought come true. Even by taking a paper clip will make you injure endless suffering and pain in hell.
If I mention the "not so good" news, I must give you the good. Jesus Christ can save you from hell if you trust in him by giving your sins to Him. As Jesus lived a perfect life He should of lived but instead God decided to make Him Son injure instead. So you selfish people (including me) can have ever lasting life.
From DE's, people have said hell seems more real than this life and having no sense of the time. Once in hell you will see a faint bright light which contained all the love aviaible to you in heaven, But instead you having it God rejects you like you rejected Jesus Christ. Making a perfect man die for nothing. If you were the only person Jesus could die for on earth Jesus would still have died for you! Yet every time you sin it is like spitting in His face. If you sin once a day that's spitting 3550 times in Jesus' face for 10 years. If you sin 10 times a day that's 35500 times in 10 years. And that's only one person. It seems people forget Jesus was perfect. And they (sinners) are not.
As a child you believe in Santa Claus? Most children do. You enjoyed the fact that Santa was a cheerful man, who deserved to give gifts to your children. (If you are a parent you get no credit for Christmas when you have young children as Santa does all the work) You as a Child are born enjoying Christmas every year believe that Santa will come into your house (If Santa was to visit ever house in one night, He would have to spend a 1 millionth of a second at each house) Moving that fast is supernatural. Like the devil who hides, it would be impossible for the eye to see Santa as your eye can only see a maximum of a 20th of a second. So Santa is the devils way for bring in the children into the Physical world (mentioned in my other debate, "Randomness is a lack of knowledge in the Spiritual and Physical world")
As a Child the Devil acts like the child is in control by doing nothing on Christmas and the devil (now known to me as Santa) has the burden of running about after presents. When you Grow older you become the devils slave as you do not believe in Santa and therefore the devil anymore. Making your life style converted by physical not spiritual beliefs. And now as a adult with money "You can not serve two masters, money and God." is more avaible, again more involved in the physical world. So now the burden is on you to run into shops buying gifts you are now the devils slave who has seemed to have disappeared as quickly as Santa did.
The trap is hell and if you are still a sinner you will go there unless you trust in Jesus (spiritual) and confess you are a evil person in a physical world.
Thank You
Josh Crisp (GodStands) | Education | 0 | Are-the-presents-of-Hell-not-worth-dodging-this-life-for-everlasting-life/1/ | 5,990 |
I have nothing to say, what Is done is done, It is finish (Jesus' last words) It's now a question of accept or do not accept the truth. Thank You Josh | 0 | GodSands |
I have nothing to say, what Is done is done, It is finish (Jesus' last words) It's now a question of accept or do not accept the truth.
Thank You
Josh | Education | 1 | Are-the-presents-of-Hell-not-worth-dodging-this-life-for-everlasting-life/1/ | 5,991 |
Let me sum up what I have proven Fact. Either way you look at this I have won. If you think that Science can prove the reason why this universe is here then that proves my point by you are believeing that science can find all the answers. As science is physical. The more deeping you believe in science the more the Devil has corrupted you. Like the Devil corrupted you into thinking Santa was real as a child. But was not. The devil has made you believe in physical things and merterail things. So how do you find out how you thought the universe started? By physical tools, probes and satilites. To find out how the universe started. Tools like that can not be trusted. Can you trust that your TV will be able to turn on? So the Devils plan is to convert you from knowing the spiritual side of life. And doubt it. I will break this into sections. So you will understand. Starting with the Big Bang. 1) The Big Bang: The Big Bang contains all the matter in one small compact space then imploded And scince then galaxies have been "falling" apart (Notice the words falling apart, Toys fall apart) Ok so I know the universe is eternal and it still had a beginning, this is why. The further away from earth you get the slower time will tick. The closer you are to earth the faster the closk will tick. The way you tell time is by the earth rotating around the earth. Day and night = 24 hours = 7 days in one week = 4 weeks in 1 month = 12 months in one year = 10 years in one decade = 10 dacades in one century = 10 centuries in 1 milleniumon then it ends. This is proof that earth is only 6000 years old as in till and if the earth reaches 10,000 years old, a new name will be made up. But this is how we measure time by those terms, by rotation around the sun. But if there was no sun to rotate around there would be no way of telling what the time was. (In a voied) And that there is no time there is no mass stopping time from happening then there is no time limit therefore time is unlimited like God "God stretched out the heavens" If you say the moon is being pulled towards the sun by "gravity" then why when the Big Bang imploded did not the "gravity" given by mass bring in the parts moving away? And even more so if gravity exists then why did the Big Bang implode In the FIRST place? (Take note on the word first) As the Big Bang is a lie like Santa is. You can match Santas' sack or gifts and toys to the Big Bang. Like I have said, if santa could travel to every house in one night, He would need to spend a millionth of a second at one house. This matches the Big Bang when it imploded it covered a distance supernaturaly as for gravity to take place, light needs to be slower than gravity (there is no time between "gravity" and the effect) so the Big Bang was a supernatrual event. Again this leads to the spirt world and Not God's creation. So as santa dishes out the gifts around the world to little children in 12 hours or less. This acts like the Big Bang imploding, as the galaxies act like ground of presents and the presents as stars. This too proves no new stars are formed. If you ask "Ok then what if a child makes his own toy" I will say..."This implies creation of human made by a child and children are not as good as a toy maker making is." This also imples that we are God children and like toys God made us for His pleasure. Like a clock ticks around because earth spints around. Because of "gravity" the Big Bang would, by the fact tha suns explode. And if you state that the Big Bang acted or even was a sun imploding (as then like stars are far apart so are the I'll give it to you the Big Bang happened as a sun imploding. As the sun implodes (Big Bang) the planets are destroyed since no matter leaves the universe the planets reform by "gravity". There are many universes which form from dying suns. God is still fact. But the reason why I agree why the Big Bang (suns imploding) exists (after thinking very hard) Just shows God's unlimited power. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old still as time is only told by a sun. (as I explained that space is timless) This also shows that suns do create other suns the same matter is used to make a new sun. Like a baby from the mother. So are you still not convist? I've used science in this one and logic linking to the Bible. To understand God's unlimited powers, intelligents and strenge is beyond me. The Big Bang could be called itelligent imploding. For a moment I have serious doubts that God did not exist. Flip that was mad! I stupidly forgot that God is etenal therefore unlimted in all ways. The Devil is still trying to make know God does not exist by adding only physical things in mind when you look for the truth. As in that case you will find the truth pointing to a unlimited God. Case closed. | 0 | GodSands |
Let me sum up what I have proven Fact.
Either way you look at this I have won. If you think that Science can prove the reason why this universe is here then that proves my point by you are believeing that science can find all the answers. As science is physical. The more deeping you believe in science the more the Devil has corrupted you. Like the Devil corrupted you into thinking Santa was real as a child. But was not. The devil has made you believe in physical things and merterail things. So how do you find out how you thought the universe started? By physical tools, probes and satilites. To find out how the universe started. Tools like that can not be trusted. Can you trust that your TV will be able to turn on? So the Devils plan is to convert you from knowing the spiritual side of life. And doubt it.
I will break this into sections. So you will understand. Starting with the Big Bang.
1) The Big Bang: The Big Bang contains all the matter in one small compact space then imploded And scince then galaxies have been "falling" apart (Notice the words falling apart, Toys fall apart)
Ok so I know the universe is eternal and it still had a beginning, this is why. The further away from earth you get the slower time will tick. The closer you are to earth the faster the closk will tick. The way you tell time is by the earth rotating around the earth. Day and night = 24 hours = 7 days in one week = 4 weeks in 1 month = 12 months in one year = 10 years in one decade = 10 dacades in one century = 10 centuries in 1 milleniumon then it ends. This is proof that earth is only 6000 years old as in till and if the earth reaches 10,000 years old, a new name will be made up. But this is how we measure time by those terms, by rotation around the sun. But if there was no sun to rotate around there would be no way of telling what the time was. (In a voied) And that there is no time there is no mass stopping time from happening then there is no time limit therefore time is unlimited like God "God stretched out the heavens" If you say the moon is being pulled towards the sun by "gravity" then why when the Big Bang imploded did not the "gravity" given by mass bring in the parts moving away? And even more so if gravity exists then why did the Big Bang implode In the FIRST place? (Take note on the word first) As the Big Bang is a lie like Santa is. You can match Santas' sack or gifts and toys to the Big Bang. Like I have said, if santa could travel to every house in one night, He would need to spend a millionth of a second at one house. This matches the Big Bang when it imploded it covered a distance supernaturaly as for gravity to take place, light needs to be slower than gravity (there is no time between "gravity" and the effect) so the Big Bang was a supernatrual event. Again this leads to the spirt world and Not God's creation.
So as santa dishes out the gifts around the world to little children in 12 hours or less. This acts like the Big Bang imploding, as the galaxies act like ground of presents and the presents as stars. This too proves no new stars are formed. If you ask "Ok then what if a child makes his own toy" I will say..."This implies creation of human made by a child and children are not as good as a toy maker making is." This also imples that we are God children and like toys God made us for His pleasure. Like a clock ticks around because earth spints around. Because of "gravity" the Big Bang would, by the fact tha suns explode. And if you state that the Big Bang acted or even was a sun imploding (as then like stars are far apart so are the I'll give it to you the Big Bang happened as a sun imploding. As the sun implodes (Big Bang) the planets are destroyed since no matter leaves the universe the planets reform by "gravity". There are many universes which form from dying suns. God is still fact. But the reason why I agree why the Big Bang (suns imploding) exists (after thinking very hard) Just shows God's unlimited power. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old still as time is only told by a sun. (as I explained that space is timless) This also shows that suns do create other suns the same matter is used to make a new sun. Like a baby from the mother.
So are you still not convist? I've used science in this one and logic linking to the Bible. To understand God's unlimited powers, intelligents and strenge is beyond me. The Big Bang could be called itelligent imploding. For a moment I have serious doubts that God did not exist. Flip that was mad! I stupidly forgot that God is etenal therefore unlimted in all ways. The Devil is still trying to make know God does not exist by adding only physical things in mind when you look for the truth. As in that case you will find the truth pointing to a unlimited God.
Case closed. | Education | 2 | Are-the-presents-of-Hell-not-worth-dodging-this-life-for-everlasting-life/1/ | 5,992 |
Thanks for the challenge, GodSands, and I wish you the best of luck. I also thank the readers for reading this - I know it's hard. === Resolutional Vagueness = I'll first point out that this resolution is very vague. Due to the lack of proper english usage, it is very difficult to understand exactly what my opponent's position is. However, I will attempt to explain what it seems to be: My opponent is advocating the avoidance of sin in this life due to the existence of a hell where sinners will suffer eternally. I'll ask my opponent to clarify if that is not a correct interpretation. === Examining God's Love = My opponent asks us to find out if god really exists or not. He tells us that this can be done by a close examination of God's love [though we must also not be skeptical, for whatever reason]. Let me explain this as bluntly as I can. "God's love" cannot be examined, especially by those who don't even believe in his existence. The only people who would even think they can examine God's love are people who already believe in God. === Good emotions = My opponent also claims that all good emotions come from God. Uhh, I don't think so. A friend I know did some drugs the other day, and he felt euphoria. I'm certainly not condoning drugs, but we cannot ignore the fact that 'sinful' behavior leads to good emotions most ofthe time - that is what makes 'sin' so tempting. If god is the one supplying all positive emotions, why would he make such sinful behavior so pleasurable? === Bad emotions = Next, my opponent claims that we [I assume he is talking about non-believers] blame god for certain bad emotions. This is simply not true. Many of us do not believe in God, and those of us who do rarely blame him for much of anything. I, for example, do not believe in god - this makes it impossible for me to blame him for anything. === Paper clip = My opponent explains that, according to his God's sense of justice, stealing a paper clip is worthy of an eternity of suffering and pain. Nothing is worth such an infinite punishment, let alone a crime so petty. If a god did exist as an infinite intelligence, one would wager it would have a sense of justice at least on par with what us humans have come up with, if not far better. === The Good News = My opponent explains his belief that Jesus died for all of our sins, that way we won't have to endure an eternity of suffering for being imperfect. First, if Jesus actually died for our supposed sins, then we should be fine. It does not make sense to place a stipulation on Jesus' sacrifice - that he only took the sins of those who would believe in him. Knowing how unfair the current justice system was, and being the noble mangod he was, why would he not simply take all our sins and call it a day? Why do we have to believe in him for his sacrifice to actually work? It makes no sense. Add that to the fact that my opponent has done nothing to support his supposition that God exists and Jesus was his son, and my opponent should find himself in a real pickle. === Hell = My opponent says that even if you were the only person on earth, Jesus would still have died for you. He then says that sinning is like spitting in Jesus' face, but I say that it would be the opposite. If you didn't sin, then Jesus would truly have died in vain. If you sin, at least his death does something. Not that his supposed death could be considered much of a sacrifice - it was far more short-lived than a normal person's death, according to biblical mythology. Even so, sinning gets you the best bang for your buck - it's not like Jesus has to go die a second time just because you sinned a bit more. === Santa/Satan = My opponent also pasted some copypasta, which he has used in a few of his debates now. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about - it's an intricate, broken comparison between the devil and Santa. It really doesn't belong here, and it didn't really belong in any of the other debates he used it in. Even if it was relevant to our discussion, the comparison is flawed and illogical, but there's no need to waste any of our time with rebutting it, since it's not even on topic. And now I'll let my opponent respond. Hopefully he can clarify his position and maybe even make some rebuttals. | 0 | beem0r |
Thanks for the challenge, GodSands, and I wish you the best of luck. I also thank the readers for reading this - I know it's hard.
===
Resolutional Vagueness
=
I'll first point out that this resolution is very vague. Due to the lack of proper english usage, it is very difficult to understand exactly what my opponent's position is. However, I will attempt to explain what it seems to be:
My opponent is advocating the avoidance of sin in this life due to the existence of a hell where sinners will suffer eternally. I'll ask my opponent to clarify if that is not a correct interpretation.
===
Examining God's Love
=
My opponent asks us to find out if god really exists or not. He tells us that this can be done by a close examination of God's love [though we must also not be skeptical, for whatever reason].
Let me explain this as bluntly as I can. "God's love" cannot be examined, especially by those who don't even believe in his existence. The only people who would even think they can examine God's love are people who already believe in God.
===
Good emotions
=
My opponent also claims that all good emotions come from God. Uhh, I don't think so. A friend I know did some drugs the other day, and he felt euphoria. I'm certainly not condoning drugs, but we cannot ignore the fact that 'sinful' behavior leads to good emotions most ofthe time - that is what makes 'sin' so tempting. If god is the one supplying all positive emotions, why would he make such sinful behavior so pleasurable?
===
Bad emotions
=
Next, my opponent claims that we [I assume he is talking about non-believers] blame god for certain bad emotions. This is simply not true. Many of us do not believe in God, and those of us who do rarely blame him for much of anything. I, for example, do not believe in god - this makes it impossible for me to blame him for anything.
===
Paper clip
=
My opponent explains that, according to his God's sense of justice, stealing a paper clip is worthy of an eternity of suffering and pain. Nothing is worth such an infinite punishment, let alone a crime so petty. If a god did exist as an infinite intelligence, one would wager it would have a sense of justice at least on par with what us humans have come up with, if not far better.
===
The Good News
=
My opponent explains his belief that Jesus died for all of our sins, that way we won't have to endure an eternity of suffering for being imperfect. First, if Jesus actually died for our supposed sins, then we should be fine. It does not make sense to place a stipulation on Jesus' sacrifice - that he only took the sins of those who would believe in him. Knowing how unfair the current justice system was, and being the noble mangod he was, why would he not simply take all our sins and call it a day? Why do we have to believe in him for his sacrifice to actually work? It makes no sense.
Add that to the fact that my opponent has done nothing to support his supposition that God exists and Jesus was his son, and my opponent should find himself in a real pickle.
===
Hell
=
My opponent says that even if you were the only person on earth, Jesus would still have died for you. He then says that sinning is like spitting in Jesus' face, but I say that it would be the opposite. If you didn't sin, then Jesus would truly have died in vain. If you sin, at least his death does something.
Not that his supposed death could be considered much of a sacrifice - it was far more short-lived than a normal person's death, according to biblical mythology. Even so, sinning gets you the best bang for your buck - it's not like Jesus has to go die a second time just because you sinned a bit more.
===
Santa/Satan
=
My opponent also pasted some copypasta, which he has used in a few of his debates now. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about - it's an intricate, broken comparison between the devil and Santa. It really doesn't belong here, and it didn't really belong in any of the other debates he used it in. Even if it was relevant to our discussion, the comparison is flawed and illogical, but there's no need to waste any of our time with rebutting it, since it's not even on topic.
And now I'll let my opponent respond. Hopefully he can clarify his position and maybe even make some rebuttals. | Education | 0 | Are-the-presents-of-Hell-not-worth-dodging-this-life-for-everlasting-life/1/ | 5,993 |
Well, I gave my opponent a well organized response - with each point in its own header - and I asked for clarification on exactly what the resolution is supposed to mean. Since my opponent has not corrected me, I will assume that my interpretation was indeed correct: My opponent is advocating the avoidance of sin in this life due to the existence of a hell where sinners will suffer eternally. It would also make sense to assume that my opponent concedes to all my points, as he has not corrected me. In addition to all the points I brought up last round, which my opponent did not address, I will bring up a few more that deal a little bit more directly with the resolution. 1. Hell, in all likelihood, does not exist. First, we have no data suggesting the existence of hell, except for various religious texts. Even so, there is an obvious reason a religion would insert threats of hell into their holy books - it gives people one more reason to believe in that religion. While it is a cowardly reason to believe, the fear of hell has persuaded many people to belief, which certainly helps these religious organizations gain more political power. Also, let us examine the absurdity of hell. We know that our bodies here on earth are regulated by our physical components - our memories are physically stored in our brain, our personality is determined by our brain, what we feel is determined by our entire nervous system, etc. When we die, all of this deteriorates. We can no longer feel pain - we have no nervous system, and no brain to interpret the data even if we had one. We no longer have memories - these are stored in our brain, which is no longer active. Our personality, too. So then, even if there was some sort of 'afterlife,' how would we get there? Without our memories and personality, we could hardly be called the same person. Even if we could, we wouldn't have the capacity to think, to feel pain or pleasure, or really do anything. Every single thing we do is explained by a physical part of our body - and our bodeis certainly don't come with us to the afterlife - they are either rotting in the ground or have been incinerated into ashes. My opponent has done nothing to show that hell exists. 2. Avoiding sin would not affect one's chances to get into hell Like my opponent said - even just stealing a paperclip is enough to warrant placement in hell for eternity. In fact, according to my opponent's religion, we are born with sin - so even if we live a sin free life, a nigh impossible task in itself, we're still sinners! According to my opponent, the only real way to avoid hell is to believe in Jesus, etc. It doesn't matter how much you sin. Sin half as much or ten times as much, and there is no difference. You either go to heaven because you believe in Jesus, or you go to hell because you don't. As much as that smacks of being made up, it's what Christianity says. Thus, by not only the reasons I gave last round, I will have to negate this resolution. Avoiding sin in this life to avoid going to hell is foolish. Not only does hell probably not exist, but since we are all sinners [even from birth], sinning more or less in the future does not change anything. All that matters is that we believe in Jesus, that we cave into the fear the church places on us. Until next time, beem0r | 0 | beem0r |
Well, I gave my opponent a well organized response - with each point in its own header - and I asked for clarification on exactly what the resolution is supposed to mean. Since my opponent has not corrected me, I will assume that my interpretation was indeed correct: My opponent is advocating the avoidance of sin in this life due to the existence of a hell where sinners will suffer eternally. It would also make sense to assume that my opponent concedes to all my points, as he has not corrected me.
In addition to all the points I brought up last round, which my opponent did not address, I will bring up a few more that deal a little bit more directly with the resolution.
1. Hell, in all likelihood, does not exist.
First, we have no data suggesting the existence of hell, except for various religious texts. Even so, there is an obvious reason a religion would insert threats of hell into their holy books - it gives people one more reason to believe in that religion. While it is a cowardly reason to believe, the fear of hell has persuaded many people to belief, which certainly helps these religious organizations gain more political power.
Also, let us examine the absurdity of hell. We know that our bodies here on earth are regulated by our physical components - our memories are physically stored in our brain, our personality is determined by our brain, what we feel is determined by our entire nervous system, etc. When we die, all of this deteriorates. We can no longer feel pain - we have no nervous system, and no brain to interpret the data even if we had one. We no longer have memories - these are stored in our brain, which is no longer active. Our personality, too. So then, even if there was some sort of 'afterlife,' how would we get there? Without our memories and personality, we could hardly be called the same person. Even if we could, we wouldn't have the capacity to think, to feel pain or pleasure, or really do anything. Every single thing we do is explained by a physical part of our body - and our bodeis certainly don't come with us to the afterlife - they are either rotting in the ground or have been incinerated into ashes.
My opponent has done nothing to show that hell exists.
2. Avoiding sin would not affect one's chances to get into hell
Like my opponent said - even just stealing a paperclip is enough to warrant placement in hell for eternity. In fact, according to my opponent's religion, we are born with sin - so even if we live a sin free life, a nigh impossible task in itself, we're still sinners! According to my opponent, the only real way to avoid hell is to believe in Jesus, etc. It doesn't matter how much you sin. Sin half as much or ten times as much, and there is no difference. You either go to heaven because you believe in Jesus, or you go to hell because you don't. As much as that smacks of being made up, it's what Christianity says.
Thus, by not only the reasons I gave last round, I will have to negate this resolution. Avoiding sin in this life to avoid going to hell is foolish. Not only does hell probably not exist, but since we are all sinners [even from birth], sinning more or less in the future does not change anything. All that matters is that we believe in Jesus, that we cave into the fear the church places on us.
Until next time,
beem0r | Education | 1 | Are-the-presents-of-Hell-not-worth-dodging-this-life-for-everlasting-life/1/ | 5,994 |
My opponent opens up his third round by claiming that he has proven facts to us. This is simply not true. My opponent has proven nothing - he has simply used faulty reasoning to come to faulty conclusions. Conclusions such as 'intelligent falling' or whatever he calls his variation of the big bang. Conclusions such as that we should avoid sin in order to gain eternal life. My opponent apparently broke his final round into numbered points, with #1 being the Big Bang.... but it seems he did not get to number two. I'll address this singular point in a second, but first, a preface: The big bang has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic. Whether the theory is 100% true, 100% false, or anywhere in between, this topic remains unaffected. We are talking about whether a person should avoid sin to reach eternal life; we are not talking about the Big Bang - or rather, we shouldn't be. However, I feel I must correct at least the big problems with my opponent's view of the Big Bang. I'll number all the misconceptions he has. === 1. In the Big Bang theory, all the matter was contained in one compact space, _then it imploded_. Me: NO. The big bang was an EXplosion of matter. That is the opposite of an IMplosion. === 2. Since the Big Bang, galaxies have been falling apart, like toys. Me: First, the analogy is completely unecessary and doesn't show anything. Second, galaxies aren't "falling apart." Perhaps my opponent means they are moving apart from one another, and this is true - just like the fragments of a grenade move apart from one another after an explosion, so too do the various bodies of matter. === 3. My opponent knows that the universe is eternal and still had a beginning. Me: No. My opponent does not know this, he thinks this. The universe probably did have a beginning, though it may not have. It also may or may not be eternal, though the likelihood of it being eternal is much less if it had a beginning. === 4. "The further away from earth you get the slower time will tick. The closer you are to earth the faster the closk will tick." Me: No. Certain types of clocks may become inaccurate [such as a grandfather clock or any oter pendulum-based clock], but time still goes by the same. It goes by the same in every galaxy. === 5. The way you tell time is by the earth rotating. Me: NO. That is ONE way to tell time. Another way is to use the earth's revolution - which takes a whole year rather than a day. Another way is a pendulum based clock, which would workeven if the earth was stationary. A computer's clock works differently still, and the clock in a timex watch works another way [both of these would work in the void of space]. There are many ways to tell time - telling it by the earth's rotation was simply the most primitive way we humans did so. === 6. "Day and night = 24 hours = 7 days in one week = 4 weeks in 1 month = 12 months in one year = 10 years in one decade = 10 dacades in one century = 10 centuries in 1 milleniumon then it ends. This is proof that earth is only 6000 years old as in till and if the earth reaches 10,000 years old, a new name will be made up" Me: NO. Nowhere in there did my opponent prove that the earth was only six thousand years old. Milleniums aren't even the biggest measurement of time. A Myr is a million years. A galactic year is about 225 million years. In fact, the sun is about 20 Galactic Years old - far more than 6000 years. <URL>... === 7. "But if there was no sun to rotate around there would be no way of telling what the time was. (In a voied) And that there is no time there is no mass stopping time from happening then there is no time limit therefore time is unlimited like God" Me: There are plenty of ways to measure time in a void. A computer can do it, and chances are, your watch could do it. Mass does not affect the passing of time in any huge way, like my opponent suggests it does. === 8. If you say the moon is being pulled towards the sun by "gravity" then why when the Big Bang imploded did not the "gravity" given by mass bring in the parts moving away? Me: The same reason gravity doesn't pull together the fragments of a bomb when said bomb goes off. The mass was moving away from the central point too fast to be pulled in by gravity. === 9. If gravity exists then why did the Big Bang implode In the FIRST place? Me: Not because of gravity. No one is claiming gravity was the cause of the explosion. As a matter of fact, we don't know the cause of the big bang. There simply isn't any data from which to reach a valid scientific conclusion at this time. === 10. You can match Santas' sack or gifts and toys to the Big Bang. Me: That doesn't even make sense, nor can we make conclusions about the big bang from this analogy. My opponent seriously needs to learn how analogies work. === 11. "[...] This matches the Big Bang when it imploded it covered a distance supernaturaly as for gravity to take place, light needs to be slower than gravity (there is no time between "gravity" and the effect) so the Big Bang was a supernatrual event." Me: NO. Light moves at a specific speed, and gravity gives things a certain ACCELERATION. They are two different things - it is improper to say that light is faster than gravity, or gravity is faster than light. Gravity does not have a speed, it causes a gradual change in speed over time. This means my opponent's statment makes no sense - "Light needs to be slower than gravity" is a nonsensical statement. Further, gravity's effect DOES move at the speed of light rather than instantly, a fact that we've been able to confirm through observation. === 12. "So as santa dishes out the gifts around the world to little children in 12 hours or less. This acts like the Big Bang imploding, as the galaxies act like ground of presents and the presents as stars. This too proves no new stars are formed. [...] This also imples that we are God children and like toys God made us for His pleasure." Me: This is yet another baseless analogy. My opponent says that this analogy proves that no new stars are formed, but it proves nothing - it is no more than a flawed comparison. Further, we have OBSERVED stars forming. <URL>... It also doesn't prove anything about a God. === 13. "As the sun implodes (Big Bang)" Me: The big bang has NOTHING to do with either suns or imploding. No one ever said it was, except my opponent. And of course, as always, his theory is based wholely on him 'thinking,' not based off any observations, not based on any real data. === 14. "So are you still not convist? I've used science in this one and logic linking to the Bible." Me: No, you haven't. My opponent has used cmplete nonsense that he himself just made up. None of his 'theories' are scientific, they are plain fabrications. === 15. "Case closed." Me: Indeed. I'd like everyone to notice something. NONE of my opponent's 3rd round had anything to do with the topic. Thus, all my previous points still stand. Thank you. | 0 | beem0r |
My opponent opens up his third round by claiming that he has proven facts to us. This is simply not true. My opponent has proven nothing - he has simply used faulty reasoning to come to faulty conclusions. Conclusions such as 'intelligent falling' or whatever he calls his variation of the big bang. Conclusions such as that we should avoid sin in order to gain eternal life.
My opponent apparently broke his final round into numbered points, with #1 being the Big Bang.... but it seems he did not get to number two. I'll address this singular point in a second, but first, a preface:
The big bang has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic. Whether the theory is 100% true, 100% false, or anywhere in between, this topic remains unaffected. We are talking about whether a person should avoid sin to reach eternal life; we are not talking about the Big Bang - or rather, we shouldn't be.
However, I feel I must correct at least the big problems with my opponent's view of the Big Bang. I'll number all the misconceptions he has.
===
1. In the Big Bang theory, all the matter was contained in one compact space, _then it imploded_.
Me: NO. The big bang was an EXplosion of matter. That is the opposite of an IMplosion.
===
2. Since the Big Bang, galaxies have been falling apart, like toys.
Me: First, the analogy is completely unecessary and doesn't show anything. Second, galaxies aren't "falling apart." Perhaps my opponent means they are moving apart from one another, and this is true - just like the fragments of a grenade move apart from one another after an explosion, so too do the various bodies of matter.
===
3. My opponent knows that the universe is eternal and still had a beginning.
Me: No. My opponent does not know this, he thinks this. The universe probably did have a beginning, though it may not have. It also may or may not be eternal, though the likelihood of it being eternal is much less if it had a beginning.
===
4. "The further away from earth you get the slower time will tick. The closer you are to earth the faster the closk will tick."
Me: No. Certain types of clocks may become inaccurate [such as a grandfather clock or any oter pendulum-based clock], but time still goes by the same. It goes by the same in every galaxy.
===
5. The way you tell time is by the earth rotating.
Me: NO. That is ONE way to tell time. Another way is to use the earth's revolution - which takes a whole year rather than a day. Another way is a pendulum based clock, which would workeven if the earth was stationary. A computer's clock works differently still, and the clock in a timex watch works another way [both of these would work in the void of space]. There are many ways to tell time - telling it by the earth's rotation was simply the most primitive way we humans did so.
===
6. "Day and night = 24 hours = 7 days in one week = 4 weeks in 1 month = 12 months in one year = 10 years in one decade = 10 dacades in one century = 10 centuries in 1 milleniumon then it ends. This is proof that earth is only 6000 years old as in till and if the earth reaches 10,000 years old, a new name will be made up"
Me: NO. Nowhere in there did my opponent prove that the earth was only six thousand years old. Milleniums aren't even the biggest measurement of time. A Myr is a million years. A galactic year is about 225 million years. In fact, the sun is about 20 Galactic Years old - far more than 6000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
===
7. "But if there was no sun to rotate around there would be no way of telling what the time was. (In a voied) And that there is no time there is no mass stopping time from happening then there is no time limit therefore time is unlimited like God"
Me: There are plenty of ways to measure time in a void. A computer can do it, and chances are, your watch could do it. Mass does not affect the passing of time in any huge way, like my opponent suggests it does.
===
8. If you say the moon is being pulled towards the sun by "gravity" then why when the Big Bang imploded did not the "gravity" given by mass bring in the parts moving away?
Me: The same reason gravity doesn't pull together the fragments of a bomb when said bomb goes off. The mass was moving away from the central point too fast to be pulled in by gravity.
===
9. If gravity exists then why did the Big Bang implode In the FIRST place?
Me: Not because of gravity. No one is claiming gravity was the cause of the explosion. As a matter of fact, we don't know the cause of the big bang. There simply isn't any data from which to reach a valid scientific conclusion at this time.
===
10. You can match Santas' sack or gifts and toys to the Big Bang.
Me: That doesn't even make sense, nor can we make conclusions about the big bang from this analogy. My opponent seriously needs to learn how analogies work.
===
11. "[...] This matches the Big Bang when it imploded it covered a distance supernaturaly as for gravity to take place, light needs to be slower than gravity (there is no time between "gravity" and the effect) so the Big Bang was a supernatrual event."
Me: NO. Light moves at a specific speed, and gravity gives things a certain ACCELERATION. They are two different things - it is improper to say that light is faster than gravity, or gravity is faster than light. Gravity does not have a speed, it causes a gradual change in speed over time. This means my opponent's statment makes no sense - "Light needs to be slower than gravity" is a nonsensical statement. Further, gravity's effect DOES move at the speed of light rather than instantly, a fact that we've been able to confirm through observation.
===
12. "So as santa dishes out the gifts around the world to little children in 12 hours or less. This acts like the Big Bang imploding, as the galaxies act like ground of presents and the presents as stars. This too proves no new stars are formed. [...] This also imples that we are God children and like toys God made us for His pleasure."
Me: This is yet another baseless analogy. My opponent says that this analogy proves that no new stars are formed, but it proves nothing - it is no more than a flawed comparison.
Further, we have OBSERVED stars forming.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It also doesn't prove anything about a God.
===
13. "As the sun implodes (Big Bang)"
Me: The big bang has NOTHING to do with either suns or imploding. No one ever said it was, except my opponent. And of course, as always, his theory is based wholely on him 'thinking,' not based off any observations, not based on any real data.
===
14. "So are you still not convist? I've used science in this one and logic linking to the Bible."
Me: No, you haven't.
My opponent has used cmplete nonsense that he himself just made up. None of his 'theories' are scientific, they are plain fabrications.
===
15. "Case closed."
Me: Indeed.
I'd like everyone to notice something. NONE of my opponent's 3rd round had anything to do with the topic. Thus, all my previous points still stand.
Thank you. | Education | 2 | Are-the-presents-of-Hell-not-worth-dodging-this-life-for-everlasting-life/1/ | 5,995 |
Vampires are not always evil. In fact, they are portrayed as good in many different movies and stories. There are the "Twilight" movies, "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant", "Dark Shadows", "The Little Vampire", "The Vampire Diaries", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Underworld", to name just a few. | 0 | Rorodog |
Vampires are not always evil. In fact, they are portrayed as good in many different movies and stories. There are the "Twilight" movies, "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant", "Dark Shadows", "The Little Vampire", "The Vampire Diaries", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Underworld", to name just a few. | Society | 0 | Are-vampires-always-evil-Con-if-you-do-not-think-that-they-are-always-evil/1/ | 6,038 |
There are even good vampires within the old legends. The Stregoni Benefici are a race of Italian vampires that help sick people and are mortal enemies with the evil vampires. | 0 | Rorodog |
There are even good vampires within the old legends. The Stregoni Benefici are a race of Italian vampires that help sick people and are mortal enemies with the evil vampires. | Society | 1 | Are-vampires-always-evil-Con-if-you-do-not-think-that-they-are-always-evil/1/ | 6,039 |
There are now loads of alternatives in which vampires can use to get the blood that they need to drink. Vampires can now drink fake blood, blood banks, animal blood* and even human blood that they will have collected or had collected from people, without killing them. Some vampires have even been known to heal any cut that they make after they have fed from the person. The person would probably then only get ill to the same extent as if they had the flu after that. They may even ask the person first before they feed and/or have a willing donor, if they are able to cope with their blood supply coming from just one person and not being very varied. | 0 | Rorodog |
There are now loads of alternatives in which vampires can use to get the blood that they need to drink. Vampires can now drink fake blood, blood banks, animal blood* and even human blood that they will have collected or had collected from people, without killing them. Some vampires have even been known to heal any cut that they make after they have fed from the person. The person would probably then only get ill to the same extent as if they had the flu after that. They may even ask the person first before they feed and/or have a willing donor, if they are able to cope with their blood supply coming from just one person and not being very varied. | Society | 2 | Are-vampires-always-evil-Con-if-you-do-not-think-that-they-are-always-evil/1/ | 6,040 |
No, not necessarily. I am actually thinking of writing a story in which the main character is stranded in another world with a vampire. He tames her and befriends her, and he gives her some of his blood to prevent her from dying, but she does not kill him or even seriously injure him. Also, I did not say that vampires could give you the flu. I merely compared the weak feeling that may occur after one of their feedings to the flu. Also, it would probably only make them feel a bit sick for couple of days before they were okay again. Angel, one of the vampires from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", saved a child from being killed by another, demonic vampire. Would you really say that a creature who did such an act was truly evil? | 0 | Rorodog |
No, not necessarily. I am actually thinking of writing a story in which the main character is stranded in another world with a vampire. He tames her and befriends her, and he gives her some of his blood to prevent her from dying, but she does not kill him or even seriously injure him.
Also, I did not say that vampires could give you the flu. I merely compared the weak feeling that may occur after one of their feedings to the flu. Also, it would probably only make them feel a bit sick for couple of days before they were okay again.
Angel, one of the vampires from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", saved a child from being killed by another, demonic vampire. Would you really say that a creature who did such an act was truly evil? | Society | 3 | Are-vampires-always-evil-Con-if-you-do-not-think-that-they-are-always-evil/1/ | 6,041 |
Before we start bashing them for what they have supposedly done to humans, think about what humans have done to them. Throughout the years, according to movies, legends, books and other stories, humans have used Holy water to burn vampires, as well as tricking them and/or somehow keeping them in the sun, locking them in coffins and allowing them to suffocate, staking them through the heart and otherwise torturing, maiming and killing them. Think about it this way. You are a vampire. You are of the type that have vampiric traits in your appearance, such as pale skin and red eyes. You cannot go into any public place without experiencing persecution and having everyone else there afraid of you. You want to make friends, or even just ask someone something, but you cannot get near anyone without them backing away, insulting you and trying to ward you off, even though you have no intention of harming them. They just think that, because you are a vampire, you want to kill them. All you want to do is just ask them something or befriend them, and/or mind your own business, but you cannot do this because are so feared and persecuted. Everyone thinks that you just want to drain their blood, but you don't. | 0 | Rorodog |
Before we start bashing them for what they have supposedly done to humans, think about what humans have done to them. Throughout the years, according to movies, legends, books and other stories, humans have used Holy water to burn vampires, as well as tricking them and/or somehow keeping them in the sun, locking them in coffins and allowing them to suffocate, staking them through the heart and otherwise torturing, maiming and killing them. Think about it this way. You are a vampire. You are of the type that have vampiric traits in your appearance, such as pale skin and red eyes. You cannot go into any public place without experiencing persecution and having everyone else there afraid of you. You want to make friends, or even just ask someone something, but you cannot get near anyone without them backing away, insulting you and trying to ward you off, even though you have no intention of harming them. They just think that, because you are a vampire, you want to kill them. All you want to do is just ask them something or befriend them, and/or mind your own business, but you cannot do this because are so feared and persecuted. Everyone thinks that you just want to drain their blood, but you don't. | Society | 5 | Are-vampires-always-evil-Con-if-you-do-not-think-that-they-are-always-evil/1/ | 6,042 |
First, Dracula, pretty much the prince of darkness, evil incarnate, and vampires were literally made to suck life and blood out of people and corrupt them to the cause, if that doesn't show anything, I don't know what will. | 0 | mkatkannon |
First, Dracula, pretty much the prince of darkness, evil incarnate, and vampires were literally made to suck life and blood out of people and corrupt them to the cause, if that doesn't show anything, I don't know what will. | Society | 0 | Are-vampires-always-evil-Con-if-you-do-not-think-that-they-are-always-evil/1/ | 6,043 |
Now, unless a vampire has thirst for blood, it's not a vampire, and trust me, the vampire would thirst, making it tempted to suck the blood of anyone near it. Now if something kills something, i don't consider it as good. But also a vampire is considered as an unholy creature, and it is hurt by the sun, which many believe represents kindness and happiness. If a cross hurts it, then it is clearly something more satanic. Making it highly evil as a creature. As long as it's a vampire, there is no good. | 0 | mkatkannon |
Now, unless a vampire has thirst for blood, it's not a vampire, and trust me, the vampire would thirst, making it tempted to suck the blood of anyone near it. Now if something kills something, i don't consider it as good. But also a vampire is considered as an unholy creature, and it is hurt by the sun, which many believe represents kindness and happiness. If a cross hurts it, then it is clearly something more satanic. Making it highly evil as a creature. As long as it's a vampire, there is no good. | Society | 1 | Are-vampires-always-evil-Con-if-you-do-not-think-that-they-are-always-evil/1/ | 6,044 |
The fact they would even give someone something like the flu, or the fact that they would actually need blood still makes the vampire an intensely evil creature. But what if the vampire was locked in a room with 50 humans and there was no escape? The vampire would kill the humans and drink their blood. No matter which vampire. | 0 | mkatkannon |
The fact they would even give someone something like the flu, or the fact that they would actually need blood still makes the vampire an intensely evil creature. But what if the vampire was locked in a room with 50 humans and there was no escape? The vampire would kill the humans and drink their blood. No matter which vampire. | Society | 2 | Are-vampires-always-evil-Con-if-you-do-not-think-that-they-are-always-evil/1/ | 6,045 |
Violent video games are bad because they create violence in society. They have a psycological effect on the minds of people, which leads to violence and eventually to crime. It gives different ideas to kill people and harm them. Therefore it his promoting violence. Therefore violent video games are bad. By the way, I am playing the devil's advocate. | 0 | aradhya22 |
Violent video games are bad because they create violence in society. They have a psycological effect on the minds of people, which leads to violence and eventually to crime. It gives different ideas to kill people and harm them. Therefore it his promoting violence. Therefore violent video games are bad.
By the way, I am playing the devil's advocate. | Games | 0 | Are-violent-video-games-good/1/ | 6,070 |
Are you pro violence and crime? What are you trying to prove. Your argument is really petty. With violence the strong can also die. Are you pro eugenics? I'm sorry to say, but your thoughts are low and restricted. You are mistaken, violence does not bring us back to the real roots of human nature and excellence, but indeed one day, it will kill us all. And violent video games are contributing to that killing. | 0 | aradhya22 |
Are you pro violence and crime? What are you trying to prove. Your argument is really petty. With violence the strong can also die. Are you pro eugenics? I'm sorry to say, but your thoughts are low and restricted. You are mistaken, violence does not bring us back to the real roots of human nature and excellence, but indeed one day, it will kill us all. And violent video games are contributing to that killing. | Games | 1 | Are-violent-video-games-good/1/ | 6,071 |
How can you be so sure that your so called newer species will be stronger than us. They would be as violent and would kill each other within days. And a trigger for such a situation would be violent video games. Your thoughts are really poor. | 0 | aradhya22 |
How can you be so sure that your so called newer species will be stronger than us. They would be as violent and would kill each other within days. And a trigger for such a situation would be violent video games. Your thoughts are really poor. | Games | 2 | Are-violent-video-games-good/1/ | 6,072 |
I'll accept that debate and thank Pro for the opportunity. The burden of proof will be on Pro to establish that the Rapture is at hand. I'll assume that last days indicates a relatively short period of time, not final years or months or weeks but final days . | 0 | Oromagi |
I'll accept that debate and thank Pro for the opportunity. The burden of proof will be on Pro to establish that the Rapture is at hand. I'll assume that last days indicates a relatively short period of time, not final years or months or weeks but final days .
| Religion | 0 | Are-we-living-in-the-last-days-before-the-return-of-Christ/1/ | 6,083 |
I note that my opponent has more to say in the comments section than in his argument. I'll ask that we try to confine the argument to the text of the debate, he can debate other folks in alternate venues. Pro is arguing that we are in the last days before the Second Coming of Christ. By way of evidence, Pro has offered four lines of prophesy from the Bible that predict: *Jerusalem will fall. Half of its citizens will be captured, houses will be robbed and women will be raped. *God will fight against the invaders. *God will stand on the Mount of Olives. *The Mount of Olives will experience some kind of seismic event. I don't think my opponent argues that any of these events have yet to pass, rather he argues that they are imminent in the short term. For evidence of imminence, my opponent has offered: *Two television networks have webcams monitoring the Mount of Olives. *Thousands of angry Muslims surround Israel. *Barack Obama is the Antichrist. *US backing of Syrian Rebels. Based on the incomplete nature of the argument, I suspect Pro is assuming his readers have some familiarity with Christian eschatology, a study in which I will not pretend any expertise. Therefore, I think Pro has an obligation in the next round to establish the connection between his arguments and conclusion. I'll take exception to Pro's characterization of the two networks who have webcams in Jerusalem as "major." Certainly, Daystar Television Network and Trinity Broadcasting Network are two of the largest Christian TV networks in the US, but that doesn't put them on an equal footing with the big five networks, or pay cable operations like HBO, or even PBS or shopping channels like QVC. As a reliable source for predicting the end of the world, I'd hardly call these operations unimpeachable. Both maintain non-profit tax exemption while funneling tens of millions of dollars to a few executives at the top. Both pretend to teach Christian values while continually provoking accusations of sexual and financial misconduct. TBN exec Jan Crouch for example travels in a $50 million dollar private jet and maintains a luxury mobile home for the exclusive use of her two dogs. Here's a picture: I suppose none of this obvious chicanery necessarily disqualifies these entertainers as Christ's heralds, but any skeptic has to question their status as prescient disciples. Nor is the fact that some people are anticipating the Second Coming evidence of that event's imminence. Most experts, for example, expected last week's Superbowl to be a very good match up and the Broncos were 2.5 point favorites in the view of Las Vegas odds makers. The fact that many TV network commentators anticipated a Broncos win was in no way evidence that the Broncos would win and as it turned out, the Broncos were utterly outmatched. I won't argue Pro's point that there are thousands of Muslims in the Middle East who might wish modern Israel harm, but this has been true for nearly 70 years now and Israeli has proved highly competent in the defense of Jerusalem. In fact, I would argue that Israel's defensive position is as strong as it has ever been in light of Egypt's civil turmoil and Syria's abject implosion as a state. Israel's strongest enemies, Hamas and Ba'athists, Al Qaeda and Shia Radicals are now engaged in brutal war against one another wiping out the boldest fighters of each group while wasting billions of Saudi and Iranian dollars. Israel's position on the Syrian war has been clear, hoping that every participant is destroyed by this contest and counting every bad day for Syria as a good day for Israel. So if Jesus is waiting for an invasion of Jerusalem before putting in an appearance, that day seems further away than it did a few years ago. I'm amazed that anybody would tag the label "Antichrist" on a congenial bureaucrat like Barack Obama. I suppose it is not surprising since there is little evidence to suggest that any international figure has escaped the accusation of Antichrist since the time of Emperor Nero. In response to Pro's offering of websites as evidence, I would argue that I could probably find a website or essay accusing virtually any famous person of being the Antichrist. Here is a website arguing that Justin Beiber is the Antichrist: <URL>... Since the qualifications for Antichrist are deliberately vague and adaptable, it is easy to establish than any human has fulfilled "many prophecies concerning Antichrist." Ronald Wilson Reagan for example, had 6 letter in each of his three names= 666, survived a mortal wound in fulfillment of prophesy, and lived at 666 St. Cloud Rd. Also vague and highly adaptable are the prophesies of Zechariah. After all, Zechariah was an Orthodox Jew. When he spoke of the Lord standing on the Mount of Olives and fighting Israel's enemies, he was clearly envisioning Yahweh not the Messiah. Zechariah lived 700 years before the notion of a Trinity although he believed in a coming messiah who was separate and distinct from Yahweh. The idea that his prophesy would be used to predict a Second Coming of the Messiah rather than a first and final coming of the Lord would have certainly been seen by Zechariah as heresy. Orthodox Jews believe that Yahweh will accomplish all his goals on his first attempt and will require no second tries. Further, Jerusalem has fallen, its women raped and temples plundered many, many times in the 25 centuries since Zechariah's forecast. I count eight major historic sackings and assume many additional minor events that might qualify. Why would Zechariah fail to mention these? Shouldn't we assume that Zachariah meant the next fall of Jerusalem, which would have been Alexander's conquest? And if not then, why not the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus and the Great Diaspora? And if we are to disregard all these historic sacks of Jerusalem as "not the sack in question," why assume that a modern fall of Jerusalem is necessarily the fall Zechariah envisioned? Likewise, earthquakes and landslides are not that uncommon along the fault on which the Mount of Olives sits. So, to some extent, the Mount of Olives has already cracked and fallen apart a number of times since Zechariah. Even if the Mount of Olives had another earthquake and landslide tomorrow, how would we know that this is the event Zechariah predicted. I guess until we see an actual deity standing on that hill and fighting a bunch of guys, we won't have certain evidence that Zechariah's prophesy is at hand. Lastly, what kind of a religious figure expecting human admiration uses death and looting and rape as the herald of his return? Are we expected to rejoice at the Lord's return or mourn the piles of the dead on which the Lord insisted? Should we grab our AK-47s and run to the aid of the Lord in his fight against Jerusalem's enemies or should we first carry the women that were raped per the Lord's specification to the hospital? Given this deity's bloodthirsty disposition and his fighting mood, perhaps it would be best not to assume we're on his side. I, for one, would be reluctant to stand with an angry, fighting god like Zechariah's. A moral man, it seems to me, would comfort the raped and the refugees demanded by god and disregard or flee the intent of that dark and angry deity. As far as I can tell, Christian eschatology does more harm than good and is in full discordance with Christ's sermon of love, forgiveness, and creating a heaven on Earth now rather than waiting for some divine gift. Look at Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite who focused on the end of the world to the exclusion of Jesus' message with result of mass suicide for all they loved. I think most Christians are afraid the loving, unselfish Christ and prefer to concentrate on the frenetic errata of those paranoid later disciples who devised the Book of Revelations with a such a perverse perspective of Christ. | 0 | Oromagi |
I note that my opponent has more to say in the comments section than in his argument. I'll ask that we try to confine the argument to the text of the debate, he can debate other folks in alternate venues. Pro is arguing that we are in the last days before the Second Coming of Christ. By way of evidence, Pro has offered four lines of prophesy from the Bible that predict: *Jerusalem will fall. Half of its citizens will be captured, houses will be robbed and women will be raped. *God will fight against the invaders. *God will stand on the Mount of Olives. *The Mount of Olives will experience some kind of seismic event. I don't think my opponent argues that any of these events have yet to pass, rather he argues that they are imminent in the short term. For evidence of imminence, my opponent has offered: *Two television networks have webcams monitoring the Mount of Olives. *Thousands of angry Muslims surround Israel. *Barack Obama is the Antichrist. *US backing of Syrian Rebels. Based on the incomplete nature of the argument, I suspect Pro is assuming his readers have some familiarity with Christian eschatology, a study in which I will not pretend any expertise. Therefore, I think Pro has an obligation in the next round to establish the connection between his arguments and conclusion. I'll take exception to Pro's characterization of the two networks who have webcams in Jerusalem as "major." Certainly, Daystar Television Network and Trinity Broadcasting Network are two of the largest Christian TV networks in the US, but that doesn't put them on an equal footing with the big five networks, or pay cable operations like HBO, or even PBS or shopping channels like QVC. As a reliable source for predicting the end of the world, I'd hardly call these operations unimpeachable. Both maintain non-profit tax exemption while funneling tens of millions of dollars to a few executives at the top. Both pretend to teach Christian values while continually provoking accusations of sexual and financial misconduct. TBN exec Jan Crouch for example travels in a $50 million dollar private jet and maintains a luxury mobile home for the exclusive use of her two dogs. Here's a picture: I suppose none of this obvious chicanery necessarily disqualifies these entertainers as Christ's heralds, but any skeptic has to question their status as prescient disciples. Nor is the fact that some people are anticipating the Second Coming evidence of that event's imminence. Most experts, for example, expected last week's Superbowl to be a very good match up and the Broncos were 2.5 point favorites in the view of Las Vegas odds makers. The fact that many TV network commentators anticipated a Broncos win was in no way evidence that the Broncos would win and as it turned out, the Broncos were utterly outmatched. I won't argue Pro's point that there are thousands of Muslims in the Middle East who might wish modern Israel harm, but this has been true for nearly 70 years now and Israeli has proved highly competent in the defense of Jerusalem. In fact, I would argue that Israel's defensive position is as strong as it has ever been in light of Egypt's civil turmoil and Syria's abject implosion as a state. Israel's strongest enemies, Hamas and Ba'athists, Al Qaeda and Shia Radicals are now engaged in brutal war against one another wiping out the boldest fighters of each group while wasting billions of Saudi and Iranian dollars. Israel's position on the Syrian war has been clear, hoping that every participant is destroyed by this contest and counting every bad day for Syria as a good day for Israel. So if Jesus is waiting for an invasion of Jerusalem before putting in an appearance, that day seems further away than it did a few years ago. I'm amazed that anybody would tag the label "Antichrist" on a congenial bureaucrat like Barack Obama. I suppose it is not surprising since there is little evidence to suggest that any international figure has escaped the accusation of Antichrist since the time of Emperor Nero. In response to Pro's offering of websites as evidence, I would argue that I could probably find a website or essay accusing virtually any famous person of being the Antichrist. Here is a website arguing that Justin Beiber is the Antichrist: http://thebreakbeataxiom.wordpress.com... Since the qualifications for Antichrist are deliberately vague and adaptable, it is easy to establish than any human has fulfilled "many prophecies concerning Antichrist." Ronald Wilson Reagan for example, had 6 letter in each of his three names= 666, survived a mortal wound in fulfillment of prophesy, and lived at 666 St. Cloud Rd. Also vague and highly adaptable are the prophesies of Zechariah. After all, Zechariah was an Orthodox Jew. When he spoke of the Lord standing on the Mount of Olives and fighting Israel's enemies, he was clearly envisioning Yahweh not the Messiah. Zechariah lived 700 years before the notion of a Trinity although he believed in a coming messiah who was separate and distinct from Yahweh. The idea that his prophesy would be used to predict a Second Coming of the Messiah rather than a first and final coming of the Lord would have certainly been seen by Zechariah as heresy. Orthodox Jews believe that Yahweh will accomplish all his goals on his first attempt and will require no second tries. Further, Jerusalem has fallen, its women raped and temples plundered many, many times in the 25 centuries since Zechariah's forecast. I count eight major historic sackings and assume many additional minor events that might qualify. Why would Zechariah fail to mention these? Shouldn't we assume that Zachariah meant the next fall of Jerusalem, which would have been Alexander's conquest? And if not then, why not the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus and the Great Diaspora? And if we are to disregard all these historic sacks of Jerusalem as "not the sack in question," why assume that a modern fall of Jerusalem is necessarily the fall Zechariah envisioned? Likewise, earthquakes and landslides are not that uncommon along the fault on which the Mount of Olives sits. So, to some extent, the Mount of Olives has already cracked and fallen apart a number of times since Zechariah. Even if the Mount of Olives had another earthquake and landslide tomorrow, how would we know that this is the event Zechariah predicted. I guess until we see an actual deity standing on that hill and fighting a bunch of guys, we won't have certain evidence that Zechariah's prophesy is at hand.
Lastly, what kind of a religious figure expecting human admiration uses death and looting and rape as the herald of his return? Are we expected to rejoice at the Lord's return or mourn the piles of the dead on which the Lord insisted? Should we grab our AK-47s and run to the aid of the Lord in his fight against Jerusalem's enemies or should we first carry the women that were raped per the Lord's specification to the hospital? Given this deity's bloodthirsty disposition and his fighting mood, perhaps it would be best not to assume we're on his side. I, for one, would be reluctant to stand with an angry, fighting god like Zechariah's. A moral man, it seems to me, would comfort the raped and the refugees demanded by god and disregard or flee the intent of that dark and angry deity. As far as I can tell, Christian eschatology does more harm than good and is in full discordance with Christ's sermon of love, forgiveness, and creating a heaven on Earth now rather than waiting for some divine gift. Look at Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite who focused on the end of the world to the exclusion of Jesus' message with result of mass suicide for all they loved. I think most Christians are afraid the loving, unselfish Christ and prefer to concentrate on the frenetic errata of those paranoid later disciples who devised the Book of Revelations with a such a perverse perspective of Christ. | Religion | 1 | Are-we-living-in-the-last-days-before-the-return-of-Christ/1/ | 6,084 |
My opponent is judging my argument based on me, answering a question in the comment section. Not a judgement, but a request. The reality of TBN and Daystar spending millions of dollars to film the Mount of Olives as Christ returns. Simply because they are not as big as other networks. Matters not! My research suggest that a network could buy a reliable webcam for $100-$200 and maintain it for less than $50/month. What evidence can you produce to support the claim of millions of dollars? I notice that you glossed over the fact that both these organizations dodge taxes and accumulate a lot of claims of sexual impropriety. Shouldn't we consider the credentials of potential prophets? The bible is not a religious book, It is a book about REALITY! Well, that's another extraordinary claim that you will have to establish. I am confident that many stories in the bible have a genuinely historical context, but I'm equally certain that many do not. Noah's Ark, for example, is a re-telling of a myth that was once popular throughout central Asia. If a man could survive for days inside the digestive tract of a whale, I would think we'd have better evidence than this one telling from a place where whales are extremely rare. Next You posted a picture of a white hippy Jesus coming to fly people away? When the rapture is not even in the bible at all. God said make no images of Him. Exo_20:4, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: I guess my oppenent never saw this verse. rapture (Found 0 times in 0 verses) All the rapture stuff comes from popular Christian eschatology, for which I don't pretend any expertise. I'll leave it to Pro to define the exact characteristics of the Second Coming he anticipates. There are many Antichrist's is what the bible teaches. My opponent should actually read a bible before debating against it. Pro's burden is to prove the imminence of the Second Coming. My job is to refute that claim using resources as I see fit. 1Jo_2:18, Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1Jo_2:22, Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1Jo_4:3, And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 2Jo_1:7, For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Could be Obama, could be Beiber. The point is that the text is so vague that it could be anybody. The fact that 1000's of other people see exactly what I see! Counts as a valid point. Well, that's hardly admissible evidence, is it? Thousands of people believed the world would end on Dec 21st 2012 at the end of the Mayan calendar. Thousands of people believe all manner of things, many of which are contradicted by thousands of others. Thousands of people believed in Thor and Zeus, does that necessarily validate those beliefs? The fact that mockers fulfill the bible as well! Well, that's only an established fact once the prophesy of the Second Coming has been fulfilled. If a book said that the Earth is flat because thousands of people believe the Earth is flat and skeptical people will sail over the edge into nothingness, would that be sufficient to refute pictures taken by astronauts from the Moon? The fact that God said within one generation all prophecy will be fulfilled. We currently live in a 70 year generation=average live of man today. He said that in the bible? And there's been, what, 60 or so generations since that writing? Wouldn't that suggest that the prophesy failed attainment or else took place without being recorded by history? Here is something interesting. Damascus is one of the oldest cities in history. How did the bible guess it's destruction? To call Damascus destroyed would be hyperbole. In fact, downtown Damascus has managed to escape the worst of the Syrian uprising. The shopping malls and apartment complexes of the city remain inhabited and there's even an ice skating rink in the center of town that still opens every day. Like Jerusalem, Damascus has a long history and has seen many collapses, many have been far worse then present: Egyptian, Greek, and Roman invasions, the Crusades, in 750AD the city was depopulated and desecrated and remained mostly unpopulated for a century. Black Death wiped out half the population in a few weeks in the 13th Century. So the same question as Jerusalem applies: when the bible speaks of Damascus' destruction, which destruction is meant and why would we assume that the present trouble is necessarily the day of reckoning? I finally refute your false statement calling me Christian. I am not!!!!!! I follow Christ. Christians do not follow the bible or The God therein. Not my fault you know not the difference between biblical facts, from fiction=false traditions of man! I didn't make any pronouncements regarding Pro's religion, nor am I interested. I'm waiting for some arguments that might convince me that the Second Coming is at hand. So far, we have a few disconnected quotes from an old piece of religious literature and some claims that some people believe those quotes represent unimpeachable prophesy. The exact same evidence can be produced to support the claims of Nostrodamus or the Mayan Calendar with similarly unconvincing results. | 0 | Oromagi |
My opponent is judging my argument based on me, answering a question in the comment section. Not a judgement, but a request. The reality of TBN and Daystar spending millions of dollars to film the Mount of Olives as Christ returns. Simply because they are not as big as other networks. Matters not! My research suggest that a network could buy a reliable webcam for $100-$200 and maintain it for less than $50/month. What evidence can you produce to support the claim of millions of dollars? I notice that you glossed over the fact that both these organizations dodge taxes and accumulate a lot of claims of sexual impropriety. Shouldn't we consider the credentials of potential prophets? The bible is not a religious book, It is a book about REALITY! Well, that's another extraordinary claim that you will have to establish. I am confident that many stories in the bible have a genuinely historical context, but I'm equally certain that many do not. Noah's Ark, for example, is a re-telling of a myth that was once popular throughout central Asia. If a man could survive for days inside the digestive tract of a whale, I would think we'd have better evidence than this one telling from a place where whales are extremely rare.
Next You posted a picture of a white hippy Jesus coming to fly people away? When the rapture is not even in the bible at all. God said make no images of Him. Exo_20:4, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: I guess my oppenent never saw this verse. rapture (Found 0 times in 0 verses) All the rapture stuff comes from popular Christian eschatology, for which I don't pretend any expertise. I'll leave it to Pro to define the exact characteristics of the Second Coming he anticipates. There are many Antichrist's is what the bible teaches. My opponent should actually read a bible before debating against it. Pro's burden is to prove the imminence of the Second Coming. My job is to refute that claim using resources as I see fit. 1Jo_2:18, Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1Jo_2:22, Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1Jo_4:3, And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 2Jo_1:7, For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Could be Obama, could be Beiber. The point is that the text is so vague that it could be anybody. The fact that 1000's of other people see exactly what I see! Counts as a valid point. Well, that's hardly admissible evidence, is it? Thousands of people believed the world would end on Dec 21st 2012 at the end of the Mayan calendar. Thousands of people believe all manner of things, many of which are contradicted by thousands of others. Thousands of people believed in Thor and Zeus, does that necessarily validate those beliefs? The fact that mockers fulfill the bible as well! Well, that's only an established fact once the prophesy of the Second Coming has been fulfilled. If a book said that the Earth is flat because thousands of people believe the Earth is flat and skeptical people will sail over the edge into nothingness, would that be sufficient to refute pictures taken by astronauts from the Moon? The fact that God said within one generation all prophecy will be fulfilled. We currently live in a 70 year generation=average live of man today. He said that in the bible? And there's been, what, 60 or so generations since that writing? Wouldn't that suggest that the prophesy failed attainment or else took place without being recorded by history? Here is something interesting. Damascus is one of the oldest cities in history. How did the bible guess it's destruction? To call Damascus destroyed would be hyperbole. In fact, downtown Damascus has managed to escape the worst of the Syrian uprising. The shopping malls and apartment complexes of the city remain inhabited and there's even an ice skating rink in the center of town that still opens every day. Like Jerusalem, Damascus has a long history and has seen many collapses, many have been far worse then present: Egyptian, Greek, and Roman invasions, the Crusades, in 750AD the city was depopulated and desecrated and remained mostly unpopulated for a century. Black Death wiped out half the population in a few weeks in the 13th Century. So the same question as Jerusalem applies: when the bible speaks of Damascus' destruction, which destruction is meant and why would we assume that the present trouble is necessarily the day of reckoning?
I finally refute your false statement calling me Christian. I am not!!!!!! I follow Christ. Christians do not follow the bible or The God therein. Not my fault you know not the difference between biblical facts, from fiction=false traditions of man! I didn't make any pronouncements regarding Pro's religion, nor am I interested. I'm waiting for some arguments that might convince me that the Second Coming is at hand. So far, we have a few disconnected quotes from an old piece of religious literature and some claims that some people believe those quotes represent unimpeachable prophesy. The exact same evidence can be produced to support the claims of Nostrodamus or the Mayan Calendar with similarly unconvincing results.
| Religion | 2 | Are-we-living-in-the-last-days-before-the-return-of-Christ/1/ | 6,085 |
If the US Navy actually studied the design of Noah's Ark. Is a lot more creditable than my opponents opinion. Remember the ark only needed to float for 40 day's and not actually go anywhere. <URL>... ... Broken link. This actually makes for an hysterical image. Imagine an enemy fleet approaching Pearl Harbor: *************************************** "American Fleet is in sight, Commander." "Very good, Ensign. What are they bringing?" "Um..." "Ensign?" "Um, yes, sir...It look like a single gigantic wooden boat, sir." "What? What kind of armaments, ensign?" "No apparent armaments, sir." "What means of propulsion?" "No apparent means of propulsion sir." "What's that mess on the deck there, ensign?" "Hmmm.... looks like a couple of tigers eating an old man in dirty robes, sir." "Tigers, you say...? Very well, ensign. Don't waste the shells. Have somebody lob a grenade at that crap as we pass." "Aye, Aye, Commander!" I refute my opponent false statement that Daystar and TBN runs TV stations for $50 bucks a month with a cheap webcam. Pro's argument is that "two major networks are facing the Mt. of Olives waiting on Jesus." And the article he links to describes: "Texas-based Daystar Television Network already beams a 24-hour-a-day live webcam from its terrace. Not to be outdone, Costa Mesa-based Trinity Broadcasting Network last month bought the building next door." Here's a link to Daystar's webcam: <URL>... If TBN is still livecasting, I can't verify. The only link I found was closed due to inactivity. I'm not claiming to know how much it costs to run those networks, I'm just estimating the investment they've made in preparing for the Second Coming at the Mount of Olives. In fact, nobody can claim to know how much it costs to run those networks, since the Govt. is often subpoenaing them for underreporting. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. I again refute your false statement concerning the type of sea life in that area. <URL>... ... So in an argument where Pro needs to establish the Bible as irrefutable fact, he presents as proof of Jonah a 300 million old dinosaur: That's another astonishing claim requiring astonishing evidence, but Pro is out of arguments. I also refute your statement concerning other false teachers and religions using the bible to deceive people. The end could not come before all prophecy is fulfilled. Israel became a nation just sixty five years ago. And the prophecy concerning the end happens in one day. If all the fulfillment of prophesy happens in one day, then how can anybody conclude that the fulfillment of prophesy is at hand. Isn't this statement an admission that are no certain signs of the Second Coming and that your argument is entirely anticipatory? In fact, you have no more evidence that the Second Coming is hand than Pope Sylvester did when he predicted the Second Coming would take place in 1000 AD, or Martin Luther did when he predicted 1600 AD, or Pat Robertson when he predicted 1982 AD. By this admission, the Second Coming might be tomorrow or it might be ten millennia from now. Pro refutes his own argument, the Second Coming is at hand, by stating that the detectable signs of the Second Coming will all take place on the same day as the Second Coming. Until that day comes, Pro should desist from pretending he has some unproven foreknowledge. Damascus is a reality. I'm sure our readers will detect the difference between refugee camps on the Syrian border and the statement that Damascus is destroyed. Nobody denies that Syria is a state of revolution and near-collapse, but Damascus is, by all accounts, the least impacted region in the conflict and downtown Damascus is a relative oasis of calm. <URL>... Israel is the only country that regained their biblical land in reality after losing it for over 1000 years. Egypt fell to Alexander the same year as Israel and did not regain independence until 1952. Not sure how Pro meant to prove the Second Coming there, but in any case his facts continue to be weak. The fact that the Jewish people exist is proof for anyone with common sense. By definition, Jewish people reject the Second Coming, believing instead that the first and only epiphany has yet to pass. If the Second Coming happens in Jerusalem, few Israeli Jews are likely to be pleased. I finally refute your statement that the bible is a religious book. It is not! I ask my opponent what religion teaches the truth about the bible. 99.9% of all religions do not teach the bible anyway. And as it is written Satan has deceived the whole world. And yet you continue to offer this non-religious, deceptive, satanic manuscript as your only piece of evidence. Since Pro now concludes that his only source material is a deception authored by evil supernatural beings, I think we have to find Pro's argument wholly unsubstantiated. And if anyone uses God given common sense would know Obama has deceived all of USA one nation under God! I know of no historic or current global leaders who are not ardent liars. Any politician foolish enough to tell only the truth under every circumstance is by definition unelectable and weak. Therefore, I won't deny that Obama must have lied, nor in the absence of specific circumstance would I criticize him for lying. Since lying is Pro's proof of Antichrist and since all politicians must lie to achieve office, the evidence submitted so far might implicate any elected official and, indeed, most of humanity. If virtually any human qualifies as potentially Antichrist, than that supernatural presence is by definition undetectable and not particularly useful as proof of the Second Coming. In conclusion, I would argue that Pro has failed to build a rational claim, much less offer convincing evidence in support. Pro never once offered evidence to establish "last days," some heraldic piece of information that might only be interpreted as the imminent return of his God. Pro argues that setting up webcams is proof, but mere anticipation of event does not serve as evidence of an event's likelihood. Pro argues that some biblical prophesies might come true, in spite of also asserting demonic authorship of that same book. Pro argues that Jerusalem is threatened, but that is not especially true this year. Pro argues that Damascus has been destroyed. While possible, that is clearly not true. Pro argues that Obama is the Antichrist of prophesy. While possible, simply claiming Obama has lied is clearly insufficient and in no way distinguishes the man from the rest of humanity. Pro's argument, never really made, stands unproven and likely unprovable. Thanks for the debate. Please vote CON! | 0 | Oromagi |
If the US Navy actually studied the design of Noah's Ark. Is a lot more creditable than my opponents opinion. Remember the ark only needed to float for 40 day's and not actually go anywhere. https://www.google.com... ... Broken link. This actually makes for an hysterical image. Imagine an enemy fleet approaching Pearl Harbor: *************************************** "American Fleet is in sight, Commander." "Very good, Ensign. What are they bringing?" "Um..." "Ensign?" "Um, yes, sir...It look like a single gigantic wooden boat, sir." "What? What kind of armaments, ensign?" "No apparent armaments, sir." "What means of propulsion?" "No apparent means of propulsion sir." "What's that mess on the deck there, ensign?" "Hmmm.... looks like a couple of tigers eating an old man in dirty robes, sir." "Tigers, you say...? Very well, ensign. Don't waste the shells. Have somebody lob a grenade at that crap as we pass." "Aye, Aye, Commander!"
I refute my opponent false statement that Daystar and TBN runs TV stations for $50 bucks a month with a cheap webcam. Pro's argument is that "two major networks are facing the Mt. of Olives waiting on Jesus." And the article he links to describes: "Texas-based Daystar Television Network already beams a 24-hour-a-day live webcam from its terrace. Not to be outdone, Costa Mesa-based Trinity Broadcasting Network last month bought the building next door." Here's a link to Daystar's webcam: http://www.daystar.com... If TBN is still livecasting, I can't verify. The only link I found was closed due to inactivity. I'm not claiming to know how much it costs to run those networks, I'm just estimating the investment they've made in preparing for the Second Coming at the Mount of Olives. In fact, nobody can claim to know how much it costs to run those networks, since the Govt. is often subpoenaing them for underreporting. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. I again refute your false statement concerning the type of sea life in that area. https://www.google.com... ... So in an argument where Pro needs to establish the Bible as irrefutable fact, he presents as proof of Jonah a 300 million old dinosaur: That's another astonishing claim requiring astonishing evidence, but Pro is out of arguments. I also refute your statement concerning other false teachers and religions using the bible to deceive people. The end could not come before all prophecy is fulfilled. Israel became a nation just sixty five years ago. And the prophecy concerning the end happens in one day. If all the fulfillment of prophesy happens in one day, then how can anybody conclude that the fulfillment of prophesy is at hand. Isn't this statement an admission that are no certain signs of the Second Coming and that your argument is entirely anticipatory? In fact, you have no more evidence that the Second Coming is hand than Pope Sylvester did when he predicted the Second Coming would take place in 1000 AD, or Martin Luther did when he predicted 1600 AD, or Pat Robertson when he predicted 1982 AD. By this admission, the Second Coming might be tomorrow or it might be ten millennia from now. Pro refutes his own argument, the Second Coming is at hand, by stating that the detectable signs of the Second Coming will all take place on the same day as the Second Coming. Until that day comes, Pro should desist from pretending he has some unproven foreknowledge. Damascus is a reality. I'm sure our readers will detect the difference between refugee camps on the Syrian border and the statement that Damascus is destroyed. Nobody denies that Syria is a state of revolution and near-collapse, but Damascus is, by all accounts, the least impacted region in the conflict and downtown Damascus is a relative oasis of calm. http://bigstory.ap.org... Israel is the only country that regained their biblical land in reality after losing it for over 1000 years. Egypt fell to Alexander the same year as Israel and did not regain independence until 1952. Not sure how Pro meant to prove the Second Coming there, but in any case his facts continue to be weak. The fact that the Jewish people exist is proof for anyone with common sense. By definition, Jewish people reject the Second Coming, believing instead that the first and only epiphany has yet to pass. If the Second Coming happens in Jerusalem, few Israeli Jews are likely to be pleased. I finally refute your statement that the bible is a religious book. It is not! I ask my opponent what religion teaches the truth about the bible. 99.9% of all religions do not teach the bible anyway. And as it is written Satan has deceived the whole world. And yet you continue to offer this non-religious, deceptive, satanic manuscript as your only piece of evidence. Since Pro now concludes that his only source material is a deception authored by evil supernatural beings, I think we have to find Pro's argument wholly unsubstantiated. And if anyone uses God given common sense would know Obama has deceived all of USA one nation under God! I know of no historic or current global leaders who are not ardent liars. Any politician foolish enough to tell only the truth under every circumstance is by definition unelectable and weak. Therefore, I won't deny that Obama must have lied, nor in the absence of specific circumstance would I criticize him for lying. Since lying is Pro's proof of Antichrist and since all politicians must lie to achieve office, the evidence submitted so far might implicate any elected official and, indeed, most of humanity. If virtually any human qualifies as potentially Antichrist, than that supernatural presence is by definition undetectable and not particularly useful as proof of the Second Coming. In conclusion, I would argue that Pro has failed to build a rational claim, much less offer convincing evidence in support. Pro never once offered evidence to establish "last days," some heraldic piece of information that might only be interpreted as the imminent return of his God. Pro argues that setting up webcams is proof, but mere anticipation of event does not serve as evidence of an event's likelihood. Pro argues that some biblical prophesies might come true, in spite of also asserting demonic authorship of that same book. Pro argues that Jerusalem is threatened, but that is not especially true this year. Pro argues that Damascus has been destroyed. While possible, that is clearly not true. Pro argues that Obama is the Antichrist of prophesy. While possible, simply claiming Obama has lied is clearly insufficient and in no way distinguishes the man from the rest of humanity. Pro's argument, never really made, stands unproven and likely unprovable. Thanks for the debate. Please vote CON!
| Religion | 3 | Are-we-living-in-the-last-days-before-the-return-of-Christ/1/ | 6,086 |
This is a fun debate. My opponent and I will each have to pick a movie by Quentin Tarintino,andd then argue why it was his best movie. It can be any movie he's ever made. The catch, though, is that your argument must be completely composed of words from that particular movie (after round 1). No exceptions, no additional words, nothing except words from the film. Good luck! | 0 | SayWhat |
This is a fun debate. My opponent and I will each have to pick a movie by Quentin Tarintino,andd then argue why it was his best movie. It can be any movie he's ever made. The catch, though, is that your argument must be completely composed of words from that particular movie (after round 1). No exceptions, no additional words, nothing except words from the film. Good luck! | Arts | 0 | Are-you-gonna-bark-all-day-doggy-or-are-you-gonna-bite/1/ | 6,117 |
Doggy. [1] It's my personal favorite. [1] Was that as good for you as it was for me? [1] You don't need proof when you have instinct. [2] Doggy [1] is good. [4] It's [5] hilarious. [5] I don't know what you think you know, but you're wrong. [4] Got the goddamn message? [3] [1] Mr. Blonde [2] Joe Cabot [3] Mr. Pink [4] Mr. White [5] Eddie Cabot | 0 | SayWhat |
Doggy. [1] It's my personal favorite. [1] Was that as good for you as it was for me? [1]
You don't need proof when you have instinct. [2] Doggy [1] is good. [4] It's [5] hilarious. [5]
I don't know what you think you know, but you're wrong. [4] Got the goddamn message? [3]
[1] Mr. Blonde
[2] Joe Cabot
[3] Mr. Pink
[4] Mr. White
[5] Eddie Cabot | Arts | 1 | Are-you-gonna-bark-all-day-doggy-or-are-you-gonna-bite/1/ | 6,118 |
Quesntin tarantino is possibly my favorite Director, and I love every single movie of his. While my favorite of his movies is Kill Bill, I find that the movies Pulp Fiction, and Resevoir Dogs Carry more artistic value in their story line. This debate will be both challenging and fun. I will let my opponent go first, as indicated by his R1 post. MY movie will be: PULP FICTION | 0 | TUF |
Quesntin tarantino is possibly my favorite Director, and I love every single movie of his. While my favorite of his movies is Kill Bill, I find that the movies Pulp Fiction, and Resevoir Dogs Carry more artistic value in their story line. This debate will be both challenging and fun. I will let my opponent go first, as indicated by his R1 post. MY movie will be: PULP FICTION | Arts | 0 | Are-you-gonna-bark-all-day-doggy-or-are-you-gonna-bite/1/ | 6,119 |
Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfvcker, say what one more Godd@mn time! I don't remember askin' you a Godd@mn thing! You were saying? [1] You, flock of seagulls, you know why we're here? Why don't you tell my man Vincent where you got the sh1t hid at? [1] Normally, both your @sses would be dead as fvcking fried chicken, but you happen to pull this sh1t while I'm in a transitional period so I don't wanna kill you, I wanna help you. But I can't give you this case, it don't belong to me. Besides, I've already been through too much sh1t this morning over this case to hand it over to your dumb @ss. [1] You feel that sting, big boy, huh? That's pride FvCKIN' with you! You gotta fight through that sh1t! [2] Whether or not what we experienced was an According to Hoyle miracle is insignificant. What is significant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved. [1] You must be Jules, which would make you Vincent. Let's get down to brass tacks, gentlemen. If I was informed correctly, the clock is ticking, is that right, Jimmie? [3] Now boys, listen up. We're going to a place called Monster Joe's Truck and Tow. I'll drive the tainted car. Jules, you ride with me. Vincent, you follow in my Acura. We run across the path of any John Q. Laws, nobody does a fvcking thing unless I do it first. What did I just say? [3] We should have shotguns for this kind of deal. [1] What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' n1ggers, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a d@mn sight. I'ma get medieval on your @ss. Nobody's gonna hurt anybody. We're gonna be like three little Fonzies here. And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda what's Fonzie like? [1] [1] JULES [2] BUTCH [3] THE WOLF [4] Marcellus | 0 | TUF |
Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfvcker, say what one more Godd@mn time! I don't remember askin' you a Godd@mn thing! You were saying? [1] You, flock of seagulls, you know why we're here? Why don't you tell my man Vincent where you got the sh1t hid at? [1] Normally, both your @sses would be dead as fvcking fried chicken, but you happen to pull this sh1t while I'm in a transitional period so I don't wanna kill you, I wanna help you. But I can't give you this case, it don't belong to me. Besides, I've already been through too much sh1t this morning over this case to hand it over to your dumb @ss. [1] You feel that sting, big boy, huh? That's pride FvCKIN' with you! You gotta fight through that sh1t! [2] Whether or not what we experienced was an According to Hoyle miracle is insignificant. What is significant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved. [1] You must be Jules, which would make you Vincent. Let's get down to brass tacks, gentlemen. If I was informed correctly, the clock is ticking, is that right, Jimmie? [3] Now boys, listen up. We're going to a place called Monster Joe's Truck and Tow. I'll drive the tainted car. Jules, you ride with me. Vincent, you follow in my Acura. We run across the path of any John Q. Laws, nobody does a fvcking thing unless I do it first. What did I just say? [3] We should have shotguns for this kind of deal. [1] What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' n1ggers, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a d@mn sight. I'ma get medieval on your @ss. Nobody's gonna hurt anybody. We're gonna be like three little Fonzies here. And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda what's Fonzie like? [1] [1] JULES [2] BUTCH [3] THE WOLF [4] Marcellus | Arts | 1 | Are-you-gonna-bark-all-day-doggy-or-are-you-gonna-bite/1/ | 6,120 |
Please vote TUF! | 0 | TUF |
Please vote TUF! | Arts | 2 | Are-you-gonna-bark-all-day-doggy-or-are-you-gonna-bite/1/ | 6,121 |
The Falkland islands are obviously more geographically located to Argentina than the UK All i will say for now is that England gave up most of its other colonies but has kept this one for no apparent reason. Argentina deserves it as the people on the Islands feel more Argentinean than English I will debate more after i have been responded to | 0 | philadam |
The Falkland islands are obviously more geographically located to Argentina than the UK
All i will say for now is that England gave up most of its other colonies but has kept this one for no apparent reason.
Argentina deserves it as the people on the Islands feel more Argentinean than English
I will debate more after i have been responded to | Politics | 0 | Argentina-deserves-the-Falkland-Isalnds/1/ | 6,131 |
the statement you just made is completly wrong the falkland isalnds are a colony, and would not be able to survive by governing themselves. They need a country to support them and what better one than Argentina which is geographically and culturally related to them | 0 | philadam |
the statement you just made is completly wrong
the falkland isalnds are a colony, and would not be able to survive by governing themselves.
They need a country to support them and what better one than Argentina which is geographically and culturally related to them | Politics | 1 | Argentina-deserves-the-Falkland-Isalnds/1/ | 6,132 |
I have lived in the Falkland Islands and i have witnessed first hand the disagreement of an English rule. There is more to surviving as a nation than trade a peace, it isa proper government that appeals to the people, which there isnt with British, and also the amount of resources and support Living in the Falkland islands a couple of years ago, i respect your opinion but I have witnessed the problems with the British rule and how the citizens consider themselves more argentian than British | 0 | philadam |
I have lived in the Falkland Islands and i have witnessed first hand the disagreement of an English rule.
There is more to surviving as a nation than trade a peace, it isa proper government that appeals to the people, which there isnt with British, and also the amount of resources and support
Living in the Falkland islands a couple of years ago, i respect your opinion but I have witnessed the problems with the British rule and how the citizens consider themselves more argentian than British | Politics | 2 | Argentina-deserves-the-Falkland-Isalnds/1/ | 6,133 |
The people of The Falkland Islands deserve to govern themselves, and should not be subject to either Britain, or Argentina. | 0 | sleepiB |
The people of The Falkland Islands deserve to govern themselves, and should not be subject to either Britain, or Argentina. | Politics | 0 | Argentina-deserves-the-Falkland-Isalnds/1/ | 6,134 |
Small nations do not need to be subject to the governing rule of a second party in order to survive. There is vast precedent of it only because of rampant fear mongering and power jockeying, by the leaders of the more historically militant and territorially competitive countries(Most notably, Portugal, Britain, Spain, The United States, and The Soviet Union). By remaining neutral, and focusing on international trade, small countries can ask for military and disaster assistance from any or all of their trading partners. There is nowhere near as much threat from rogue states as there once was, and there are defensive options, even without UN intervention. All other public services are most efficiently provided by government of much more limited scope. | 0 | sleepiB |
Small nations do not need to be subject to the governing rule of a second party in order to survive. There is vast precedent of it only because of rampant fear mongering and power jockeying, by the leaders of the more historically militant and territorially competitive countries(Most notably, Portugal, Britain, Spain, The United States, and The Soviet Union).
By remaining neutral, and focusing on international trade, small countries can ask for military and disaster assistance from any or all of their trading partners. There is nowhere near as much threat from rogue states as there once was, and there are defensive options, even without UN intervention.
All other public services are most efficiently provided by government of much more limited scope. | Politics | 1 | Argentina-deserves-the-Falkland-Isalnds/1/ | 6,135 |
Whether or not Argentina deserves control of the Falkland Islands has absolutely nothing to do with the British, the British don't deserve control either. There is no justification for such a proclamation of entitlement. | 0 | sleepiB |
Whether or not Argentina deserves control of the Falkland Islands has absolutely nothing to do with the British, the British don't deserve control either. There is no justification for such a proclamation of entitlement. | Politics | 2 | Argentina-deserves-the-Falkland-Isalnds/1/ | 6,136 |
I propose a debate on an argument for existence of a god. In my opponenets first post he/she should provide one argument for the existence of a god, along with a definition that follows this argument. This debate will be on that one argument. Give me whatever you got: Kalam, TAG, Ontological, what ever you got I'll attempt to disprove it. There is 4 rounds and 5000 character limit. Dropped points infers conceding of point. Sources can be put in comments so as to save room. I hope to get a challenging debate and wish my opponent good luck and quick wit. | 0 | muzebreak |
I propose a debate on an argument for existence of a god.
In my opponenets first post he/she should provide one argument for the existence of a god, along with a definition that follows this argument. This debate will be on that one argument.
Give me whatever you got: Kalam, TAG, Ontological, what ever you got I'll attempt to disprove it.
There is 4 rounds and 5000 character limit.
Dropped points infers conceding of point.
Sources can be put in comments so as to save room.
I hope to get a challenging debate and wish my opponent good luck and quick wit. | Religion | 0 | Argument-for-god/1/ | 6,159 |
I'd like to start this by thanking my opponent for giving me this chance to debate him. I'd also like to ask my opponent where he stands on this subject, are you atheist or theist? Now onto the debate. I would completely agree with you if you had said it is impossible to put forward evidence that something created the universe, but you decided to use the word intelligent so I will have to disagree. For instance, what intelligent being would make such things as black holes? What kind of intelligence would think that using the same pipe for food and oxygen is a good idea? Why do all beings not have a similar ability to sponges or algae in attaining food, then we could eat very easily and it would almost remove starvation from the world. Why is it that alot of attributes we show are inferior to many animals? But I digress, I can agree it is impossible to disprove a creator. What I cannot agree is that it is impossible to disprove a definition or personal idea of a creator, and if your willing to give me one I can work at that. You said I would probably ask who created this being, but I would not. I would ask you how this Being came into existence, but the usual reply is that it has always been. All I ask of you is that you posit a logical argument for the existence of a god. You ask where all the energy from the big bang came from, I ask you what energy? In our universe the total energy equals 0. Ill allow wikipedia to give you a summary of this since I don't fully understand the concept. "The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations. The amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity." What I do understand about this is that it would allow the universe to come into existence the same way that virtual particles do. Virtual particles only stay in existence for an inversely proportional amount of time based on the amount of positive energy in them. Since the universe's energy is 0 it could always exist. Thus allowing for an Ex nihilo existence. I believe the "simpl buitiful nature of physics and mathematics" could only show an artist of a lower intelligence level then most of humanity. If you disagree please show me why. Sources: <URL>... | 0 | muzebreak |
I'd like to start this by thanking my opponent for giving me this chance to debate him.
I'd also like to ask my opponent where he stands on this subject, are you atheist or theist?
Now onto the debate.
I would completely agree with you if you had said it is impossible to put forward evidence that
something created the universe, but you decided to use the word intelligent so I will have to disagree.
For instance, what intelligent being would make such things as black holes?
What kind of intelligence would think that using the same pipe for food and oxygen is a good idea?
Why do all beings not have a similar ability to sponges or algae in attaining food, then we
could eat very easily and it would almost remove starvation from the world.
Why is it that alot of attributes we show are inferior to many animals?
But I digress, I can agree it is impossible to disprove a creator. What I cannot agree is that it
is impossible to disprove a definition or personal idea of a creator, and if your willing to give
me one I can work at that.
You said I would probably ask who created this being, but I would not. I would ask you how this
Being came into existence, but the usual reply is that it has always been.
All I ask of you is that you posit a logical argument for the existence of a god.
You ask where all the energy from the big bang came from, I ask you what energy?
In our universe the total energy equals 0. Ill allow wikipedia to give you a summary of this since I
don't fully understand the concept.
"The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is
exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view,
zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations. The amount of positive energy in the form
of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity."
What I do understand about this is that it would allow the universe to come into existence the same
way that virtual particles do. Virtual particles only stay in existence for an inversely proportional
amount of time based on the amount of positive energy in them. Since the universe's energy
is 0 it could always exist. Thus allowing for an Ex nihilo existence.
I believe the "simpl buitiful nature of physics and mathematics" could only show an artist of
a lower intelligence level then most of humanity.
If you disagree please show me why.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org... | Religion | 1 | Argument-for-god/1/ | 6,160 |
I will accept that you have forfieted this debate based on the fact that you have not followed the rules set forth when the debate began. You put forward more then one argument. You did not define god. I gave you a chance to follow the second one when I stated that If you give me a definition of god I can attempt to disprove it, you strawmaned this by saying that I said I can disprove any personal god then preposing a definition that is illogical and irrefutable. Since you broke two rules I laid out for this debate you have forfieted. | 0 | muzebreak |
I will accept that you have forfieted this debate based on the fact that you have not followed the rules set forth when the debate began.
You put forward more then one argument.
You did not define god.
I gave you a chance to follow the second one when I stated that If you give me a definition of god I can attempt to disprove it, you strawmaned this by saying that I said I can disprove any personal god then preposing a definition that is illogical and irrefutable.
Since you broke two rules I laid out for this debate you have forfieted. | Religion | 2 | Argument-for-god/1/ | 6,161 |
You misspelt sane. And Iv no idea what your talking about. You mean they wont agree that you broke the rules of the debate? | 0 | muzebreak |
You misspelt sane.
And Iv no idea what your talking about. You mean they wont agree that you broke the rules of the debate? | Religion | 3 | Argument-for-god/1/ | 6,162 |
Greetings & Good Luck! Because the character limit restrains me from providing an adequate opening argument, instead I will get right to the punch: In regard to my opponent's first point, I agree with him entirely that young minds are like sponges that are able to absorb knowledge and information at a higher rate than older individuals. Therefore it is necessary to promote education at a young age. However, one must ask themselves why receiving an education is so important in our society and around the globe. History and Anthropology alike show us that one's education has a lot to do with their success in life; brain power is increasingly becoming favorable over brawn, even in blue collar jobs where workers are now required to read and write more than ever before, in addition to working with computers and dealing with a large amount of paperwork. Additionally, higher levels of schooling lead to new job opportunities and open more doors for an individual. This is a fact. Over time, different aspects of education were included to reflect the views of society. For instance, religious education was taught in public schools during the colonial era in the United States; at other points in history it was essentially required that women attend finishing school to learn proper etiquette. However the subject matters that have withstood the test of time regardless of the times are indeed the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic. Rather than spending time in the classroom finger painting or singing (this could be an option during recess, but should not take up valuable class time), I would rather children in this country practice and improve on those three R's for a number of reasons. First, it has come to our attention that education in the United States is lacking in comparison with countries from other nations. This type of set back, while not too threatening now, could pose a huge problem in the future if other nations including our enemies use their superior education to promote actions and ideas that could hurt the United States. Second, the job market in this country is becoming more and more competitive with each passing year. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain a good job and earn a decent living without receiving higher education, particularly a college degree (at least). Because it is absolutely true that one's value in the workforce is almost always judged at least somewhat by the institution they receive their education from, admission into "good" colleges is becoming more and more competitive. One of the main ways a college admission group determines whether or not a student is eligible to receive admittance into their university is that student's performance on the infamous SAT exam. The current SAT exam is divided into three parts that are composed of the three R's - not art or music. Thus, I have proved that reading, writing and arithmatic are more important than the arts. If my opponent wishes to argue that participation in regards to art and music helps stimulate the brain to better perform the three R's, I would like them to prove to me that NOT participating in art or music actually HURTS your performance in those areas. Chances are Pro will not be able to supplement such a request. This is because while some studies show that art and more specifically music can improve one's grasp of certain skills, not only is it not a guarantee but children and adults alike are just as capable of succeeding and excelling at the three R's regardless of whether or not they have any comprehension of music or art. Additionally, I would like to counter this argument by also stating that becoming so fascinated with art and/or music can actually hurt or hinder a student's performance. You see or hear of it all the time -- students becoming more interested in the arts than they are with other aspects of their education. Furthermore, not every student is artistically inclined. While this also leads to a subjective grading experience, it can also deter students from wanting to go to school or participate in other activities because of their embarassment at not being good in these particular fields. Not only will this hurt the child emotionally, but it can also lead to teasing, frustration, and the rejection of school in general. Keep in mind that grade school refers to young children; they might not have the capacity to understand why they are being forced to participate in activities that do not interest them or have any practical use in their every day lives. And finally, just because learning about art or music can help a child better grasp other aspects of education does not necesarilly mean that we should implement it as a mandatory part of the curriculum. For instance, certain video games (not just 'educational' ones) have been known to help children learn communication skills, hand-eye coordination, strategy, levels of math including statistics and of course reasoning. Not to mention that video games can also promote social skills such as winning gracefully and being a good competitor. However, would you, Pro, want to see video games included in the mandatory curriculum as well? At last I get to move on to my opponent's second point. I couldn't disagree more that an artist who took art classes in grade school had a greater competitive edge over the ones that didn't. So first, I ask that Pro show me proof that this is the case. That said, let's be real -- we don't learn advanced art techniques when we are little kids. In grade school art classes, we color, finger paint, draw, and make shapes out of pipe cleaners. Now, it is true that one who learns a skill from a young age has more of an advantage over a later learner, however, this is not always the case. Typically the skills learned that would even be useful when reaching a level of competitive art (getting into art school...?) would be taught later on in a child's life anyway, say in HS or during other outside art lessons. Which brings me to my next point. I believe that it is fair to say a child who learns a skill and then refines it throughout their life has a definite advantage. Example: Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Williams who have each been playing their respective sports since the age of 2. However, neither golf nor tennis is part of the mandatory curriculum in grade school. Therefore, if one wishes to hone a talent, they can do so outside of the parameters of school. On that note, I will move on to my opponent's third point: elementary knowledge of music --> composers that provide entertainment. Maybe, but not always. I'm willing to bet that not everyone who knows 'Every Good Boy Does Fine' can write or even play an arrangement close to Bach's. And speaking of Bach, do you think he learned his skill at grade school? (No, his brother taught him). My point is that while not everyone who can write will pen a best seller, writing is a functional skill that individuals apply to their every day lives, whereas reading, writing and playing music in particular are not as useful or necessary. Also, even without music education in grade school, composers and musicians will still find a way to flourish. Some of the greats don't even have ANY formal training! This negates my opponent's fourth point that jobs in art and music would be limited. If he is referring to education specifically, then yes, but otherwise artists can still be artists regardless of whether or not they are teachers. Regrettably I have run out of characters! However in this round I have responded and refuted each and every of my opponent's points as well as made an abundance of my own. In the next round I will continue by addressing how art and music education affects the economy and tax resources, as well as alternative options to removing them from the curriculum. I welcome my opponent to address these topics first if he so chooses. | 0 | Danielle |
Greetings & Good Luck!
Because the character limit restrains me from providing an adequate opening argument, instead I will get right to the punch:
In regard to my opponent's first point, I agree with him entirely that young minds are like sponges that are able to absorb knowledge and information at a higher rate than older individuals. Therefore it is necessary to promote education at a young age. However, one must ask themselves why receiving an education is so important in our society and around the globe. History and Anthropology alike show us that one's education has a lot to do with their success in life; brain power is increasingly becoming favorable over brawn, even in blue collar jobs where workers are now required to read and write more than ever before, in addition to working with computers and dealing with a large amount of paperwork. Additionally, higher levels of schooling lead to new job opportunities and open more doors for an individual. This is a fact.
Over time, different aspects of education were included to reflect the views of society. For instance, religious education was taught in public schools during the colonial era in the United States; at other points in history it was essentially required that women attend finishing school to learn proper etiquette. However the subject matters that have withstood the test of time regardless of the times are indeed the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic. Rather than spending time in the classroom finger painting or singing (this could be an option during recess, but should not take up valuable class time), I would rather children in this country practice and improve on those three R's for a number of reasons.
First, it has come to our attention that education in the United States is lacking in comparison with countries from other nations. This type of set back, while not too threatening now, could pose a huge problem in the future if other nations including our enemies use their superior education to promote actions and ideas that could hurt the United States. Second, the job market in this country is becoming more and more competitive with each passing year. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain a good job and earn a decent living without receiving higher education, particularly a college degree (at least). Because it is absolutely true that one's value in the workforce is almost always judged at least somewhat by the institution they receive their education from, admission into "good" colleges is becoming more and more competitive. One of the main ways a college admission group determines whether or not a student is eligible to receive admittance into their university is that student's performance on the infamous SAT exam. The current SAT exam is divided into three parts that are composed of the three R's - not art or music. Thus, I have proved that reading, writing and arithmatic are more important than the arts.
If my opponent wishes to argue that participation in regards to art and music helps stimulate the brain to better perform the three R's, I would like them to prove to me that NOT participating in art or music actually HURTS your performance in those areas. Chances are Pro will not be able to supplement such a request. This is because while some studies show that art and more specifically music can improve one's grasp of certain skills, not only is it not a guarantee but children and adults alike are just as capable of succeeding and excelling at the three R's regardless of whether or not they have any comprehension of music or art. Additionally, I would like to counter this argument by also stating that becoming so fascinated with art and/or music can actually hurt or hinder a student's performance. You see or hear of it all the time -- students becoming more interested in the arts than they are with other aspects of their education.
Furthermore, not every student is artistically inclined. While this also leads to a subjective grading experience, it can also deter students from wanting to go to school or participate in other activities because of their embarassment at not being good in these particular fields. Not only will this hurt the child emotionally, but it can also lead to teasing, frustration, and the rejection of school in general. Keep in mind that grade school refers to young children; they might not have the capacity to understand why they are being forced to participate in activities that do not interest them or have any practical use in their every day lives.
And finally, just because learning about art or music can help a child better grasp other aspects of education does not necesarilly mean that we should implement it as a mandatory part of the curriculum. For instance, certain video games (not just 'educational' ones) have been known to help children learn communication skills, hand-eye coordination, strategy, levels of math including statistics and of course reasoning. Not to mention that video games can also promote social skills such as winning gracefully and being a good competitor. However, would you, Pro, want to see video games included in the mandatory curriculum as well?
At last I get to move on to my opponent's second point. I couldn't disagree more that an artist who took art classes in grade school had a greater competitive edge over the ones that didn't. So first, I ask that Pro show me proof that this is the case. That said, let's be real -- we don't learn advanced art techniques when we are little kids. In grade school art classes, we color, finger paint, draw, and make shapes out of pipe cleaners. Now, it is true that one who learns a skill from a young age has more of an advantage over a later learner, however, this is not always the case. Typically the skills learned that would even be useful when reaching a level of competitive art (getting into art school...?) would be taught later on in a child's life anyway, say in HS or during other outside art lessons. Which brings me to my next point. I believe that it is fair to say a child who learns a skill and then refines it throughout their life has a definite advantage. Example: Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Williams who have each been playing their respective sports since the age of 2. However, neither golf nor tennis is part of the mandatory curriculum in grade school. Therefore, if one wishes to hone a talent, they can do so outside of the parameters of school.
On that note, I will move on to my opponent's third point: elementary knowledge of music --> composers that provide entertainment. Maybe, but not always. I'm willing to bet that not everyone who knows 'Every Good Boy Does Fine' can write or even play an arrangement close to Bach's. And speaking of Bach, do you think he learned his skill at grade school? (No, his brother taught him). My point is that while not everyone who can write will pen a best seller, writing is a functional skill that individuals apply to their every day lives, whereas reading, writing and playing music in particular are not as useful or necessary. Also, even without music education in grade school, composers and musicians will still find a way to flourish. Some of the greats don't even have ANY formal training! This negates my opponent's fourth point that jobs in art and music would be limited. If he is referring to education specifically, then yes, but otherwise artists can still be artists regardless of whether or not they are teachers.
Regrettably I have run out of characters! However in this round I have responded and refuted each and every of my opponent's points as well as made an abundance of my own. In the next round I will continue by addressing how art and music education affects the economy and tax resources, as well as alternative options to removing them from the curriculum. I welcome my opponent to address these topics first if he so chooses. | Education | 0 | Art-and-or-music-are-important-in-grade-school./1/ | 6,211 |
Because my opponent did not reply in Round 2, I will take this opportunity to continue with the points I promised to address at the end of Round 1. 1. Funding Not only are art and music classes unnecessary to have in grade school, they are also very expensive. These classes often call for the purchasing of pricey supplies such as musical instruments including at least one piano, music stands, paints, oils, canvas, sheet music, etc. Keep in mind that these things (especially the art supplies) need to be replaced on a continual basis. If you add up all the costs, it could be thousands and thousands of dollars spent needlessly whereas there are other more practical and useful school programs that could make better use of the money instead. Even if that were not the case, instead of charging tax payers the burden of providing these often unappreciated classes for many disinterested students, perhaps taxes could be lowered to save citizens/residesnts money and instead put that cash back into our struggling economy. 2. Alternative Options I do recognize the value of a music education and/or art appreciation in society today. However that does not mean that art and music have to be an essential part of the grade school experience. For instance, I see all of the positive aspects of being involved in athletics. You learn teamwork, discipline, time management, good sportsmanship, school spirit, and most of all take active strides in trying to stay healthy and fit. However sports are hobbies and activities that people can choose to join and take part in outside of school paramaters. If they play a sport in school, it is by choice and many times people are responsible for providing their own equipment, gear, etc. Sometimes people even have to pay for practice time. For instance my HS was a private school; students on the golf team had to pay a local country club for using their golf course for games. And such is an option for students who wish to partake in art or music programs. Another perspective I can offer is this: Physical fitness classes or Gym are required to take in grade school. It is an important thing to learn and take part in. However sports in general are not stressed; just the act of staying fit and doing different things to promote physical wellness. In comparison to art and music, I support learning about these topics in a historical context or in a way that they relate to the school work at hand, such as if it corresponds to a lesson regarding a social science, for example. However going into detail and spending time learning special artistic skills is unnecessary. So basically, while I think it is important for children to know about Jackie Robison and his contribution to society, I don't think it is important for kids to know how to play baseball and spend a great deal of money teaching it. Similarly, I think a child should be aware of Leonardo da Vinci and his feats but not necesarilly learn how to draw or paint. Thus my proposition is this: allow for classes or programs regarding art or music to exist in grade school, however, not be funded by government spending. Instead children can be exposed to these fields via their parents, friends and family; television; volunteer programs; specialized institutions that their parents can pay for them to learn; etc. Because again learning these things is a want, not a need. Money can be better spent elsewhere in the education system today. Thank you and back to my opponent. | 0 | Danielle |
Because my opponent did not reply in Round 2, I will take this opportunity to continue with the points I promised to address at the end of Round 1.
1. Funding
Not only are art and music classes unnecessary to have in grade school, they are also very expensive. These classes often call for the purchasing of pricey supplies such as musical instruments including at least one piano, music stands, paints, oils, canvas, sheet music, etc. Keep in mind that these things (especially the art supplies) need to be replaced on a continual basis. If you add up all the costs, it could be thousands and thousands of dollars spent needlessly whereas there are other more practical and useful school programs that could make better use of the money instead. Even if that were not the case, instead of charging tax payers the burden of providing these often unappreciated classes for many disinterested students, perhaps taxes could be lowered to save citizens/residesnts money and instead put that cash back into our struggling economy.
2. Alternative Options
I do recognize the value of a music education and/or art appreciation in society today. However that does not mean that art and music have to be an essential part of the grade school experience. For instance, I see all of the positive aspects of being involved in athletics. You learn teamwork, discipline, time management, good sportsmanship, school spirit, and most of all take active strides in trying to stay healthy and fit. However sports are hobbies and activities that people can choose to join and take part in outside of school paramaters. If they play a sport in school, it is by choice and many times people are responsible for providing their own equipment, gear, etc. Sometimes people even have to pay for practice time. For instance my HS was a private school; students on the golf team had to pay a local country club for using their golf course for games. And such is an option for students who wish to partake in art or music programs.
Another perspective I can offer is this: Physical fitness classes or Gym are required to take in grade school. It is an important thing to learn and take part in. However sports in general are not stressed; just the act of staying fit and doing different things to promote physical wellness. In comparison to art and music, I support learning about these topics in a historical context or in a way that they relate to the school work at hand, such as if it corresponds to a lesson regarding a social science, for example. However going into detail and spending time learning special artistic skills is unnecessary. So basically, while I think it is important for children to know about Jackie Robison and his contribution to society, I don't think it is important for kids to know how to play baseball and spend a great deal of money teaching it. Similarly, I think a child should be aware of Leonardo da Vinci and his feats but not necesarilly learn how to draw or paint.
Thus my proposition is this: allow for classes or programs regarding art or music to exist in grade school, however, not be funded by government spending. Instead children can be exposed to these fields via their parents, friends and family; television; volunteer programs; specialized institutions that their parents can pay for them to learn; etc. Because again learning these things is a want, not a need. Money can be better spent elsewhere in the education system today.
Thank you and back to my opponent. | Education | 1 | Art-and-or-music-are-important-in-grade-school./1/ | 6,212 |
Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited this debate. I wish him luck in the next round. Perhaps we shall meet again! | 0 | Danielle |
Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited this debate. I wish him luck in the next round. Perhaps we shall meet again! | Education | 2 | Art-and-or-music-are-important-in-grade-school./1/ | 6,213 |
Art and music programs are important to children in grade school as young minds are the most able to be cultivated and the benefits of both art and music on developing minds have been shown in various research publications. Art programs are able to cultivate developing artists to help gain jobs as artists -- as when competition arises for artistic competitions in later forms of education, those educated with art programs in grade school are more likely to succeed due to having more experience in their craft. Music programs are able to help instill knowledge in grade school kids at an elementary level of musical theory that could flourish into intermediate and advanced knowledge of music theory that creates future composers of music used in both commercial uses as well as uses that could entertain and inform the world in the future. If art and music programs were removed from grade schools, knowledge of art and music would be stalled which would limit the amount of jobs in art and music. | 0 | sdquinn |
Art and music programs are important to children in grade school as young minds are the most able to be cultivated and the benefits of both art and music on developing minds have been shown in various research publications.
Art programs are able to cultivate developing artists to help gain jobs as artists -- as when competition arises for artistic competitions in later forms of education, those educated with art programs in grade school are more likely to succeed due to having more experience in their craft.
Music programs are able to help instill knowledge in grade school kids at an elementary level of musical theory that could flourish into intermediate and advanced knowledge of music theory that creates future composers of music used in both commercial uses as well as uses that could entertain and inform the world in the future.
If art and music programs were removed from grade schools, knowledge of art and music would be stalled which would limit the amount of jobs in art and music. | Education | 0 | Art-and-or-music-are-important-in-grade-school./1/ | 6,214 |
The SEC is totally overrated. Just because they won 7 of the past 8 national championships, over the past 15 years have consistently had the most NFL draft picks. (23% of the first 100 players drafted in 2014 were SEC players , and in 2013, the SEC had 63 players selected, 19 more than the Big Ten and Big 12 COMBINED ) they think their players are better than everybody else. Never mind that the SEC plays a brutally physical brand of football week after week, where tackling ISN'T optional ! They're slow and dull to watch. REAL football is played by the teams with the flashiest uniforms, ie Maryland in the fourteen team Big Ten, or Baylor and West Virginia in the 10 team Big 12, with scores like 85 to 79 in regulation. And finally, SEC teams like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, or Arkansas, could never compete with schools like , Kansas, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Michigan, or Wake Forest. Those schools are not afraid to play and be crushed by out of conference opponents like those pretenders Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, and the two Mississippi cream puffs. The SEC is a PAPER TIGER ! | 0 | BigRedHog |
The SEC is totally overrated. Just because they won 7 of the past 8 national championships, over the past 15 years have consistently had the most NFL draft picks. (23% of the first 100 players drafted in 2014 were SEC players , and in 2013, the SEC had 63 players selected, 19 more than the Big Ten and Big 12 COMBINED ) they think their players are better than everybody else.
Never mind that the SEC plays a brutally physical brand of football week after week, where tackling ISN'T optional ! They're slow and dull to watch. REAL football is played by the teams with the flashiest uniforms, ie Maryland in the fourteen team Big Ten, or Baylor and West Virginia in the 10 team Big 12, with scores like 85 to 79 in regulation.
And finally, SEC teams like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, or Arkansas, could never compete with schools like , Kansas, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Michigan, or Wake Forest. Those schools are not afraid to play and be crushed by out of conference opponents like those pretenders Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, and the two Mississippi cream puffs.
The SEC is a PAPER TIGER ! | Sports | 0 | As-a-whole-is-the-SEC-the-strongest-conference-in-collegiate-football/1/ | 6,276 |
sec is better | 0 | rdub |
sec is better | Sports | 0 | As-a-whole-is-the-SEC-the-strongest-conference-in-collegiate-football/1/ | 6,277 |
I accept this debate :D | 0 | Romanii |
I accept this debate :D | Miscellaneous | 0 | Assuming-moral-superiority-is-possible-rape-is-a-morally-superior-crime-to-commit-than-burglary./1/ | 6,356 |
How unfortunate. I was looking forward to this debate, RM... | 0 | Romanii |
How unfortunate. I was looking forward to this debate, RM... | Miscellaneous | 1 | Assuming-moral-superiority-is-possible-rape-is-a-morally-superior-crime-to-commit-than-burglary./1/ | 6,357 |
*sigh* | 0 | Romanii |
*sigh* | Miscellaneous | 2 | Assuming-moral-superiority-is-possible-rape-is-a-morally-superior-crime-to-commit-than-burglary./1/ | 6,358 |
Bleep bloop blop blarp | 0 | Romanii |
Bleep bloop blop blarp | Miscellaneous | 3 | Assuming-moral-superiority-is-possible-rape-is-a-morally-superior-crime-to-commit-than-burglary./1/ | 6,359 |
Vote Con :/ | 0 | Romanii |
Vote Con :/ | Miscellaneous | 4 | Assuming-moral-superiority-is-possible-rape-is-a-morally-superior-crime-to-commit-than-burglary./1/ | 6,360 |
Hello! Please debate. :) Astronomy is, I believe, the most interesting type of science. There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area. It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out. While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science. | 0 | InkSlinger4 |
Hello! Please debate. :)
Astronomy is, I believe, the most interesting type of science. There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area. It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out. While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science. | Science | 0 | Astronomy-is-the-Most-Interesting-Type-of-Science/1/ | 6,382 |
My opponent claims that I overuse opinions. To clarify, let me assert: What is the most interesting to someone personally IS their opinion. You may criticize my use of such in my argument, but when you start an argument, it is difficult to decide which facts to prove or disprove. However, I shall now augment with fact. Despite my opponent's claim that astronomy relies on all other sciences, let me input that because it includes all these other sciences (even as all other sciences do) it makes it even more fascinating and variable, not less. The challenges that precede many other discoveries in Astronomy make it a field welcoming to all specialists, and cement its flexibility in appealing to those from all fields and interests. And bringing your own opinion into this (scorned by yourself) while acceptable to me, may be scorned my others. It isn't really relevant. Just a heads up. Thanks for debating. | 0 | InkSlinger4 |
My opponent claims that I overuse opinions. To clarify, let me assert: What is the most interesting to someone personally IS their opinion. You may criticize my use of such in my argument, but when you start an argument, it is difficult to decide which facts to prove or disprove. However, I shall now augment with fact.
Despite my opponent's claim that astronomy relies on all other sciences, let me input that because it includes all these other sciences (even as all other sciences do) it makes it even more fascinating and variable, not less.
The challenges that precede many other discoveries in Astronomy make it a field welcoming to all specialists, and cement its flexibility in appealing to those from all fields and interests.
And bringing your own opinion into this (scorned by yourself) while acceptable to me, may be scorned my others. It isn't really relevant. Just a heads up.
Thanks for debating. | Science | 1 | Astronomy-is-the-Most-Interesting-Type-of-Science/1/ | 6,383 |
My opponent fails to observe the true purpose of this argument. The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. Astronomy, by a definition from dictionary.com, means the science that deals with the material universe beyond the earth's atmosphere. If you did not know this, I apologize for not keeping you informed. This science, larger than your assessment, includes the entire universe. Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet. Thanks for debating. | 0 | InkSlinger4 |
My opponent fails to observe the true purpose of this argument. The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. Astronomy, by a definition from dictionary.com, means the science that deals with the material universe beyond the earth's atmosphere. If you did not know this, I apologize for not keeping you informed. This science, larger than your assessment, includes the entire universe. Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet.
Thanks for debating. | Science | 2 | Astronomy-is-the-Most-Interesting-Type-of-Science/1/ | 6,384 |
This is my first debate, so I will proceed cautiously. The subject at hand is what is the most interesting form of science. She has said that it is astronomy, but has failed to specify what she means by it. Since she hasn't, I will. Astronomy: The branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the universe as a whole. My opponent has neglected using facts and evidence, but instead has decided to simply post opinions. Here's an example "There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area." While I do enjoy astronomy, there are some major problems with it. First of all, we are limited in what we can accomplish by many factors (the atmosphere, backlight from the sun, even it's gravity.) And the only way around this is to make advances in other fields. For example, The voyager 2 spacecraft just recently left the solar system, and for the first time we saw that our solar system is shaped more like a flattened ball than a perfect sphere. But this could have not been found without advances in chemistry, plastics, and optical fibers. But besides Astronomy's reliance on other sciences more than any other, there is another science that is much more open and is very much required for astronomy to progress any further. Particle physics. While astronomy has been growing and improving over the past 500 years, it has been at a cap ever since we learned how to use x-rays for observing the night sky. This cap can only be crossed if we learn how to observe particles as we can atoms and light waves. Not only that, but we can possibly find ways to travel 100 times conventional speeds, (not light. sorry that's still impossible) or cure cancer by using particles to remove the cancer gene. And that is why I think particle physics is the coolest form of science. | 0 | zdog234 |
This is my first debate, so I will proceed cautiously.
The subject at hand is what is the most interesting form of science. She has said that it is astronomy, but has failed to specify what she means by it. Since she hasn't, I will.
Astronomy: The branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the universe as a whole.
My opponent has neglected using facts and evidence, but instead has decided to simply post opinions.
Here's an example
"There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area."
While I do enjoy astronomy, there are some major problems with it.
First of all, we are limited in what we can accomplish by many factors (the atmosphere, backlight from the sun, even it's gravity.) And the only way around this is to make advances in other fields. For example, The voyager 2 spacecraft just recently left the solar system, and for the first time we saw that our solar system is shaped more like a flattened ball than a perfect sphere. But this could have not been found without advances in chemistry, plastics, and optical fibers.
But besides Astronomy's reliance on other sciences more than any other, there is another science that is much more open and is very much required for astronomy to progress any further. Particle physics. While astronomy has been growing and improving over the past 500 years, it has been at a cap ever since we learned how to use x-rays for observing the night sky. This cap can only be crossed if we learn how to observe particles as we can atoms and light waves. Not only that, but we can possibly find ways to travel 100 times conventional speeds, (not light. sorry that's still impossible) or cure cancer by using particles to remove the cancer gene.
And that is why I think particle physics is the coolest form of science. | Science | 0 | Astronomy-is-the-Most-Interesting-Type-of-Science/1/ | 6,385 |
What my opponent has not realized is that she has just sealed her fate. What my previous point was is that astronomy is kind of like a resource sponge. It requires the advancement of all other forms of technology, while giving little or nothing of it's own. Since astronomy is the study of stars, what can we gain from that in the here and now. Since my opponent has not given any examples of positive bonuses from studying the stars, we must assume that there are none. Whereas particle physics (while requiring about the same amount of research) can give great things to us. Inter-stellar travel (not a part of astronomy since astronomy is the study of stars, not the actual process of going there and setting up colonies), we could even cure cancer with the proper use of particles. I call upon my opponent to present evidence that astronomy (the study of stars.) Will present anything helpful to society, healthcare, economics, or another science that benefits any of these three. | 0 | zdog234 |
What my opponent has not realized is that she has just sealed her fate.
What my previous point was is that astronomy is kind of like a resource sponge. It requires the advancement of all other forms of technology, while giving little or nothing of it's own. Since astronomy is the study of stars, what can we gain from that in the here and now. Since my opponent has not given any examples of positive bonuses from studying the stars, we must assume that there are none.
Whereas particle physics (while requiring about the same amount of research) can give great things to us. Inter-stellar travel (not a part of astronomy since astronomy is the study of stars, not the actual process of going there and setting up colonies), we could even cure cancer with the proper use of particles.
I call upon my opponent to present evidence that astronomy (the study of stars.) Will present anything helpful to society, healthcare, economics, or another science that benefits any of these three. | Science | 1 | Astronomy-is-the-Most-Interesting-Type-of-Science/1/ | 6,386 |
I will go over this step by step. "There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area." pro 1 "The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. " pro 3 1) I don't see how this is about astronomy's properties when my opponent's first argument was that it has the greatest capacity for learning (an obvious production of knowledge) and that it will have outstanding results. "It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out." 2) First of all, we have an almost complete grasp of the universe, and we now know that it is finite, whereas we have made almost no research into stem cells, particle physics, or robotics. And wouldn't particle physics be much less mundane, as the universe is made of mass traveling at a given velocity, and particles are literally points (point n. A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location.) that can move at nearly infinite speeds. And we have not began to find out about how the brain works. For all we know, de javu is very real. Perhaps we will literally be able to see the future. Doesn't that make neuroscience more mysterious than astronomy? "While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science." 3) First of all, many people are inspired by these fields and have caused great advances. Second, physics are a large part of astronomy. Third, it is a pure opinion to say that they are too close to home to instill anybody with the inspiration to do great things in science. "Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet." 4) As con it is not my job to prove any other science better than astronomy, just that they are the same or better. In addition, she has not shown what that material is. I will restate my argument: My opponent's first argument was that astronomy will yield outstanding results, and since then she has not presented any evidence that astronomy will give any benefits to humanity. There are many other sciences that are just as, if not more important than astronomy. Take reusable energy production and research. If we can't save our planet for at least another billion years, we won't survive long enough for astronomy to have any benefit on us anyway. And please. Vote for the better argument, not who you agree with. | 0 | zdog234 |
I will go over this step by step.
"There are many unexplored areas in it, so we still have much to learn, and it may produce outstanding results when we do make discoveries in that area." pro 1
"The point is not astronomy's production, but fascinating properties. " pro 3
1) I don't see how this is about astronomy's properties when my opponent's first argument was that it has the greatest capacity for learning (an obvious production of knowledge) and that it will have outstanding results.
"It is much less mundane, much more mysterious, and is so vast that one exploring it would never be at a loss for things to learn or find out."
2) First of all, we have an almost complete grasp of the universe, and we now know that it is finite, whereas we have made almost no research into stem cells, particle physics, or robotics. And wouldn't particle physics be much less mundane, as the universe is made of mass traveling at a given velocity, and particles are literally points (point n. A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location.) that can move at nearly infinite speeds. And we have not began to find out about how the brain works. For all we know, de javu is very real. Perhaps we will literally be able to see the future. Doesn't that make neuroscience more mysterious than astronomy?
"While physics, biology, etc. are very important, they have been explored very thoroughly and are too close to home to instill any real kind of awe or inspiration to explore-the very basis of science."
3) First of all, many people are inspired by these fields and have caused great advances. Second, physics are a large part of astronomy. Third, it is a pure opinion to say that they are too close to home to instill anybody with the inspiration to do great things in science.
"Such a vast area to study cannot produce less unique material than our singular planet."
4) As con it is not my job to prove any other science better than astronomy, just that they are the same or better. In addition, she has not shown what that material is.
I will restate my argument:
My opponent's first argument was that astronomy will yield outstanding results, and since then she has not presented any evidence that astronomy will give any benefits to humanity. There are many other sciences that are just as, if not more important than astronomy. Take reusable energy production and research. If we can't save our planet for at least another billion years, we won't survive long enough for astronomy to have any benefit on us anyway.
And please. Vote for the better argument, not who you agree with. | Science | 2 | Astronomy-is-the-Most-Interesting-Type-of-Science/1/ | 6,387 |
Vote CON for the following reasons: (1) PRO had the BOP to prove he was born without a face at age 6. He provides no evidence, and thus does not uphold his BOP. (2) Born means "brought into existence" ( <URL>... ). He cannot be "born at age 6," because to be 6 is to have been born 6 years ago. PRO provides no affirmative arguments or definitions, so you must prefer mine. Therefore, you vote to negate. | 0 | ResponsiblyIrresponsible |
Vote CON for the following reasons:
(1) PRO had the BOP to prove he was born without a face at age 6. He provides no evidence, and thus does not uphold his BOP.
(2) Born means "brought into existence" ( http://tinyurl.com... ). He cannot be "born at age 6," because to be 6 is to have been born 6 years ago.
PRO provides no affirmative arguments or definitions, so you must prefer mine. Therefore, you vote to negate. | Economics | 0 | At-age-6-I-was-born-without-a-face./1/ | 6,392 |
Yes. A R I N H A N S E N 2015 | 0 | correctwingrepublican |
Yes.
A
R
I
N
H
A
N
S
E
N
2015 | Economics | 0 | At-age-6-I-was-born-without-a-face./1/ | 6,393 |
I'm not sure why we are limiting the scope of this debate to the US as celebrities exist in just about every society and even cross borders with their celebrity status. Argument :"Celebrities can portray a negative impact." How do you portray a negitive impact? If you mean that sometimes actors play controversial roles that portray drug use and violence that impacts their characters life in that movie or show, then maybe, sort of that statement makes sense. Now if you mean that celebrities are letting their real life get out of control, or at least it is being marketed that way, is having an impact on the youth of apparently only America then that there is a more competent argument. Celebrities are individuals that life highly publicized and glorified lifestyles, which may or may not be of their doing. Some celebrities hire a PR person to help or deter these kinds of things. At the end of the celebrities are just people making a living, and living life. They have no responsibility to control how media outlets and the public as a whole want to portray them even if it is the truth. People, even celebrities don't need to live apologetic lifestyles. If Celeb A does an illegal drug, has a big downfall but then goes to rehab, shouldn't we be more concerned over the time and energy put into complaining, judging, researching, and covering the behavior rather than what this person actually did? Isn't it our fault just by mentioning the name of Celeb A that we helped preserve their celebrity status? Valuing a good media image can mean very little in real life terms. The majority of what media is, is a vehicle to sell you something. Most news is chosen on big outlets for its entertainment value, or in less appalling terms its ability to keep people tuned in so they can see the shiny ads that are being sold to keep revenue flowing. Show me an independent non ad revenue celebrity news source, just one. Now filter out the porn blogs and blogs in general, because trolls scraping up what they can find from paparazzi sources isn't news either. Now what do you have left? Nothing, because no one cares about a celebrity unless they can sell them. Do you believe that all people, everywhere should arrange their lives as to not possibly influence children or young teens in any way? If no then why should a celebrity? If little girls start being too slutty and little boys start thinking their street thugs in suburbia then responsibility is on the parents not the people who made it look cool. If you have a kid dumb enough to try a stunt from the Jackass movie then maybe you should have payed more attention to him and taught them not to set themselves on fire. If we removed what is percieved influential behavior from all media then there would be no media, people would have to shut their eyes and cover their ears and scream LALALALALA as loud as they could as to not be influenced, titillated, or excited by anyone or anything. | 0 | Daysuit |
I'm not sure why we are limiting the scope of this debate to the US as celebrities exist in just about every society and even cross borders with their celebrity status.
Argument :"Celebrities can portray a negative impact."
How do you portray a negitive impact? If you mean that sometimes actors play controversial roles that portray drug use and violence that impacts their characters life in that movie or show, then maybe, sort of that statement makes sense.
Now if you mean that celebrities are letting their real life get out of control, or at least it is being marketed that way, is having an impact on the youth of apparently only America then that there is a more competent argument.
Celebrities are individuals that life highly publicized and glorified lifestyles, which may or may not be of their doing. Some celebrities hire a PR person to help or deter these kinds of things. At the end of the celebrities are just people making a living, and living life. They have no responsibility to control how media outlets and the public as a whole want to portray them even if it is the truth. People, even celebrities don't need to live apologetic lifestyles. If Celeb A does an illegal drug, has a big downfall but then goes to rehab, shouldn't we be more concerned over the time and energy put into complaining, judging, researching, and covering the behavior rather than what this person actually did? Isn't it our fault just by mentioning the name of Celeb A that we helped preserve their celebrity status?
Valuing a good media image can mean very little in real life terms. The majority of what media is, is a vehicle to sell you something. Most news is chosen on big outlets for its entertainment value, or in less appalling terms its ability to keep people tuned in so they can see the shiny ads that are being sold to keep revenue flowing. Show me an independent non ad revenue celebrity news source, just one. Now filter out the porn blogs and blogs in general, because trolls scraping up what they can find from paparazzi sources isn't news either. Now what do you have left? Nothing, because no one cares about a celebrity unless they can sell them.
Do you believe that all people, everywhere should arrange their lives as to not possibly influence children or young teens in any way? If no then why should a celebrity? If little girls start being too slutty and little boys start thinking their street thugs in suburbia then responsibility is on the parents not the people who made it look cool. If you have a kid dumb enough to try a stunt from the Jackass movie then maybe you should have payed more attention to him and taught them not to set themselves on fire. If we removed what is percieved influential behavior from all media then there would be no media, people would have to shut their eyes and cover their ears and scream LALALALALA as loud as they could as to not be influenced, titillated, or excited by anyone or anything. | Entertainment | 0 | At-certain-points-in-their-careers-celebrities-should-move-on/1/ | 6,394 |
I provide the definitions for this debate. At certain times-varys from profession careers-a job the celebrity does celebrities-are well known U.S. people known in the U.S. media move on-To get a new job or project. A project is something that betters oneself. I value Good image in the media Con. 1 Celebrities can portray a negative impact. Many celebrities such as Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and various other sports figures, who do drugs, need to move on to rehab,make a foundation, etc., in order to portray a positive impact on the nation. Celebrities have a big influence on the younger nation and by having a negative impact it can harm so many individuals. | 0 | bigbass3000 |
I provide the definitions for this debate.
At certain times-varys from profession
careers-a job the celebrity does
celebrities-are well known U.S. people known in the U.S. media
move on-To get a new job or project. A project is something that betters oneself.
I value Good image in the media
Con. 1 Celebrities can portray a negative impact.
Many celebrities such as Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and various other sports figures, who do drugs, need to move on to rehab,make a foundation, etc., in order to portray a positive impact on the nation. Celebrities have a big influence on the younger nation and by having a negative impact it can harm so many individuals. | Entertainment | 0 | At-certain-points-in-their-careers-celebrities-should-move-on/1/ | 6,395 |
Finally, I am limiting it to the U.S. because this are the individuals effected most by this. To extend my arguements, the oppenent brought up, movies in acting is portraying a bad image. Yes and no if the movie glorifys the individual. They need to openly say it is wrong to do this action, If they are playing someone who is portrayed badly. For instance Sly Stallone's new movie, "Rambo", He said, "I personally do not condone this kind of violence anywhere", This was a very important arguement in that a celebrity must not promote negative acts, otherwise it can lead to Teen suicide, death and destruction, I.E. Columbine. Vote Aff just on the Fact that sometimes celebrities do need to better themselves, such as practice or get better, which my opponent dropped. | 0 | bigbass3000 |
Finally, I am limiting it to the U.S. because this are the individuals effected most by this. To extend my arguements, the oppenent brought up, movies in acting is portraying a bad image. Yes and no if the movie glorifys the individual. They need to openly say it is wrong to do this action, If they are playing someone who is portrayed badly. For instance Sly Stallone's new movie, "Rambo", He said, "I personally do not condone this kind of violence anywhere", This was a very important arguement in that a celebrity must not promote negative acts, otherwise it can lead to Teen suicide, death and destruction, I.E. Columbine. Vote Aff just on the Fact that sometimes celebrities do need to better themselves, such as practice or get better, which my opponent dropped. | Entertainment | 1 | At-certain-points-in-their-careers-celebrities-should-move-on/1/ | 6,396 |
Is there a difference between atheism and satanism? Yes. Many people live off of the belief that to be an atheist means that you worship the devil. However, this would be incorrect. We all know the story of how Satan was one of God's most beloved angels and was thrown to the underground for his sins. In that statement alone is the proof that Satan was created by God. If you are an atheist it means you don't believe there is a God, and if Satan was created by him then there would be no Satan either. Which brings out the Satanist position for those who do acknowledge the fact that there is a God, but they choose to follow Lucifer (Satan). | 0 | DonterikaBrown |
Is there a difference between atheism and satanism? Yes. Many people live off of the belief that to be an atheist means that you worship the devil. However, this would be incorrect. We all know the story of how Satan was one of God's most beloved angels and was thrown to the underground for his sins. In that statement alone is the proof that Satan was created by God. If you are an atheist it means you don't believe there is a God, and if Satan was created by him then there would be no Satan either. Which brings out the Satanist position for those who do acknowledge the fact that there is a God, but they choose to follow Lucifer (Satan). | Religion | 0 | Atheism-Vs.-Satanism.-Is-there-a-difference-Pro-yes.-Con-no./1/ | 6,432 |
Satan <3 | 0 | harist123 |
Satan <3 | Religion | 0 | Atheism-Vs.-Satanism.-Is-there-a-difference-Pro-yes.-Con-no./1/ | 6,433 |
Since my opponent didn't offer a definition of atheism, I shall do so now. Atheism: " Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." [1] My opponent claims atheism is stupidity and has no basis in facts. However, I contend that the most logical position to have on a specific topic when there is a lack of evidence, is to have a lack of belief. I have never seen any evidence presented in my lifetime of a god, so it is most logical to have a lack of belief in all gods. Unless pro can offer up some evidence of a god, it is not stupid to have a lack of belief in a god. All of the arguments in round 1 from my opponent don't seem to make any logical sense. Atheists can have hope and faith in a lot of things, they just don't have it in a god. Atheists experience forgiveness from other people all of the time when they have wronged someone. Sometimes they don't, as some people are unforgiving, but I'm sure most atheists have experienced it when someone forgave them. Source: [1] <URL>... | 0 | Capitalistslave |
Since my opponent didn't offer a definition of atheism, I shall do so now. Atheism: " Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." [1] My opponent claims atheism is stupidity and has no basis in facts. However, I contend that the most logical position to have on a specific topic when there is a lack of evidence, is to have a lack of belief. I have never seen any evidence presented in my lifetime of a god, so it is most logical to have a lack of belief in all gods. Unless pro can offer up some evidence of a god, it is not stupid to have a lack of belief in a god. All of the arguments in round 1 from my opponent don't seem to make any logical sense. Atheists can have hope and faith in a lot of things, they just don't have it in a god. Atheists experience forgiveness from other people all of the time when they have wronged someone. Sometimes they don't, as some people are unforgiving, but I'm sure most atheists have experienced it when someone forgave them. Source: [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-Stupidity-and-Based-on-Imaginings-having-no-Basis-in-Facts./1/ | 6,468 |
I'll just offer rebuttals to most things my opponent has said: "like not catching that Atheism is stupidity IS the title!" No, I just ignored it because it's baseless and insulting. I caught that you said this in the title. I don't see how I wouldn't have. "Like pointing out lack of definitions, that most could just READ in the title!" What was said in the title is not a definition, but a claim as to what describes atheism. Saying something IS something, is not defining it. For example, if I said a cheetah is orange, that is not defining the cheetah as orange, it's describing its attributes, everyone knows a cheetah is a species of feline and the definition of a cheetah is not orange. Now, moving on to the numbered points by my opponent: 1. lack of empirical evidence FACT-atheist refuse to look FOR evidence themselves in all cases, demanding instead that it be done for them I was actually once a theist, and I am constantly in search of evidence. I ask others for evidence because I have yet to find any, and I would assume that people who are theists believe in a god because they have found evidence, so I ask them to present it in hopes that they have something which proves a god exists. Science relies on multiple people corroborating, so that's what I do when I ask someone for evidence. Either way, what you said is baseless, as you provided no evidence that atheists refuse to look for evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And no, I am not too lazy to look for evidence of atheists refusing to look for evidence, nor am I refusing to look for evidence that atheists refuse to look for evidence. All of my experiences indicate that atheists have tried all of the same things theists have done in order to find evidence. Note* 99.98% of the Global population is in or searching to connect WITH God right now .... But, evidence of possible existence of God? Nope, not to the atheist! Indeed, and I am one of them. I have yet to find any evidence of a god with my searching. People believing in something is not evidence it exists. Note* two theories here? Born last night, or has lived under a rock since birth. The link above has BEEN there since 2010, so unless Con is 6 years old .... No excuse. I assume you're referring to that wikipedia link about the percent of atheists in the world. I've known about how many atheists are in the world for a long time, so you're just insulting for a baseless claim again. Claiming that something is true because majority believe in it is an argumentum ad populum. Surely you knew this right? The below link[2] has been around for many years too; arguing that because majority believe something, therefore it is true, is a fallacious argument. Demands I do the work for him? .... Are we learning yet? There is no work involved. If you've already found evidence of a god, all you'd have to do is present it. How hard is it to present evidence that you've already found? Also, I've been doing work for a long time on finding out if a god exists. I've already done much work and continue to do so. Note* Can't find God UNLESS YOU LOOK! Prove that I've not been looking. You can't. I claim that I have been looking. 2. The problem of evil: FACT- atheist ARE the performers of Evil! Course once they're in prison, they do get religious, quick, fast and in a hurry don't they. Note how my opponent once again offers unsubstantiated claims. No evidence whatsoever of this, and in my research, I've not found anything that confirms atheists convert once in prison. Just do a google search yourself, and you'll see there is nothing on the matter of people converting once in prison. 3. The argument from inconsistent revelations: Yet there are also people who believe in no hell or no god. Also, I've never made this claim, and you didn't offer evidence that a lot of atheists make this claim, so this seems to be a pointless argument. 4. The rejections of concepts that cannot be falsified: I argue that there is nothing which cannot be falsified. Note* Direct evidence that Con and all other atheist, "NEVER BOTHERED TO LOOK" demanding empirical evidence, but refusing to acknowledge them even when they cannot BE DENIED! None of the quotes you offered from me is evidence that I never bothered to look. Again, baseless claims. 5.The argument for non-belief: FACT: A philosophical argument that asserts inconsistency between existence of God and the World in which people fail to recognize Him, cannot seriously be considered facts for nonexistence! As has been shown and verified by record, the largest part of humanity not ONLY recognizes Him, but is either in active worship of Him, or are continuing their search FOR Him. I never claimed these were facts for nonexistence. This is a strawman as is most of what you're saying in this round. Number 4 was a strawman, as I never said I rejected concepts that can't be falsified, and I never made the claim in number 3. So, three strawman arguments in counting from this debate so far. (as has been established and demonstrated Atheist DO NOT LOOK!) That hasn't been established actually. You offered no scientific study on whether atheists look for evidence, no examples, etc. You merely assumed that I don't look, when I claim that I have. There's no reason to believe you, and there's no reason to believe me either. However, we do generally believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, which you haven't proven me guilty of not looking for evidence of a deity. Heck, I could disprove that claim right now as I can do a google search of "evidence of a god" for you [3]. I clearly had to type in "evidence of a god" so I just looked for evidence of a god. You can't claim I have never looked for it. 6.Many atheist hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than Theism: FACT- 6.67 Billion Theist is hemispheres away from 1.1 Billion atheist, clearly had one BOTHERED to live in the real world rather than the cage of their mind, thay would have easily known THE TRUTH. Nope not the atheist, their just on cruise control through life, until of course they crash and yes BURN! Snap out of it people, before it's too late! I think you don't know what parsimonious means. What you said here makes no sense at all pertaining to what parsimonious means: It means, " Very unwilling to spend money or use resources"[4] What you said doesn't have anything to do with spending money or resources. | 0 | Capitalistslave |
I'll just offer rebuttals to most things my opponent has said: "like not catching that Atheism is stupidity IS the title!” No, I just ignored it because it's baseless and insulting. I caught that you said this in the title. I don't see how I wouldn't have. “Like pointing out lack of definitions, that most could just READ in the title!” What was said in the title is not a definition, but a claim as to what describes atheism. Saying something IS something, is not defining it. For example, if I said a cheetah is orange, that is not defining the cheetah as orange, it's describing its attributes, everyone knows a cheetah is a species of feline and the definition of a cheetah is not orange. Now, moving on to the numbered points by my opponent: 1. lack of empirical evidence FACT-atheist refuse to look FOR evidence themselves in all cases, demanding instead that it be done for them I was actually once a theist, and I am constantly in search of evidence. I ask others for evidence because I have yet to find any, and I would assume that people who are theists believe in a god because they have found evidence, so I ask them to present it in hopes that they have something which proves a god exists. Science relies on multiple people corroborating, so that's what I do when I ask someone for evidence. Either way, what you said is baseless, as you provided no evidence that atheists refuse to look for evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And no, I am not too lazy to look for evidence of atheists refusing to look for evidence, nor am I refusing to look for evidence that atheists refuse to look for evidence. All of my experiences indicate that atheists have tried all of the same things theists have done in order to find evidence. Note* 99.98% of the Global population is in or searching to connect WITH God right now …. But, evidence of possible existence of God? Nope, not to the atheist! Indeed, and I am one of them. I have yet to find any evidence of a god with my searching. People believing in something is not evidence it exists. Note* two theories here? Born last night, or has lived under a rock since birth. The link above has BEEN there since 2010, so unless Con is 6 years old …. No excuse. I assume you're referring to that wikipedia link about the percent of atheists in the world. I've known about how many atheists are in the world for a long time, so you're just insulting for a baseless claim again. Claiming that something is true because majority believe in it is an argumentum ad populum. Surely you knew this right? The below link[2] has been around for many years too; arguing that because majority believe something, therefore it is true, is a fallacious argument. Demands I do the work for him? …. Are we learning yet? There is no work involved. If you've already found evidence of a god, all you'd have to do is present it. How hard is it to present evidence that you've already found? Also, I've been doing work for a long time on finding out if a god exists. I've already done much work and continue to do so. Note* Can't find God UNLESS YOU LOOK! Prove that I've not been looking. You can't. I claim that I have been looking. 2. The problem of evil: FACT- atheist ARE the performers of Evil! Course once they’re in prison, they do get religious, quick, fast and in a hurry don’t they. Note how my opponent once again offers unsubstantiated claims. No evidence whatsoever of this, and in my research, I've not found anything that confirms atheists convert once in prison. Just do a google search yourself, and you'll see there is nothing on the matter of people converting once in prison. 3. The argument from inconsistent revelations: Yet there are also people who believe in no hell or no god. Also, I've never made this claim, and you didn't offer evidence that a lot of atheists make this claim, so this seems to be a pointless argument. 4. The rejections of concepts that cannot be falsified: I argue that there is nothing which cannot be falsified. Note* Direct evidence that Con and all other atheist, “NEVER BOTHERED TO LOOK” demanding empirical evidence, but refusing to acknowledge them even when they cannot BE DENIED! None of the quotes you offered from me is evidence that I never bothered to look. Again, baseless claims. 5.The argument for non-belief: FACT: A philosophical argument that asserts inconsistency between existence of God and the World in which people fail to recognize Him, cannot seriously be considered facts for nonexistence! As has been shown and verified by record, the largest part of humanity not ONLY recognizes Him, but is either in active worship of Him, or are continuing their search FOR Him. I never claimed these were facts for nonexistence. This is a strawman as is most of what you're saying in this round. Number 4 was a strawman, as I never said I rejected concepts that can't be falsified, and I never made the claim in number 3. So, three strawman arguments in counting from this debate so far. (as has been established and demonstrated Atheist DO NOT LOOK!) That hasn't been established actually. You offered no scientific study on whether atheists look for evidence, no examples, etc. You merely assumed that I don't look, when I claim that I have. There's no reason to believe you, and there's no reason to believe me either. However, we do generally believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, which you haven't proven me guilty of not looking for evidence of a deity. Heck, I could disprove that claim right now as I can do a google search of "evidence of a god" for you [3]. I clearly had to type in "evidence of a god" so I just looked for evidence of a god. You can't claim I have never looked for it. 6.Many atheist hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than Theism: FACT- 6.67 Billion Theist is hemispheres away from 1.1 Billion atheist, clearly had one BOTHERED to live in the real world rather than the cage of their mind, thay would have easily known THE TRUTH. Nope not the atheist, their just on cruise control through life, until of course they crash and yes BURN! Snap out of it people, before it’s too late! I think you don't know what parsimonious means. What you said here makes no sense at all pertaining to what parsimonious means: It means, " Very unwilling to spend money or use resources"[4] What you said doesn't have anything to do with spending money or resources. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-Stupidity-and-Based-on-Imaginings-having-no-Basis-in-Facts./1/ | 6,469 |
All of the pointing to my previous debates is completely irrelevant from proving that I have never been a theist. I recently joined this site only 2 months ago, and have been an implicit atheist/agnostic for 2 years. So, of course my debates on here will be against religion since I've been an atheist for longer than I have been on here. I'm currently 21, and up until I was about 19, I was a practicing Mormon, I even served a Mormon mission for a couple of months(they're usually 2 years long, but I had to go home early due to medical reasons). My real name is Daniel Kirkham. I will provide a screenshot of me logged into my LDS.org account(which only Mormons can have those accounts) in the comments, hopefully tomorrow when I get my computer back. I'm not doing it now, because I am using another computer that isn't mine, as mine is still getting fixed. So, I would ask voters not to vote until I can post that in the comments. I'm answering now so that I don't forfeit the debate. Now, I suppose I'll address each of the attacks my opponent has made regardiny my debates: 2. You completely misread the debate, I took the con to the debate "Supporting Islam is terrorism". Actually, this itself, is a pro- religion debate since I was defending Islam here. Here is the link to the debate, to show that my opponent lied about it [2] 3. Again, this is all baseless, and clearly a strawman. I don't support child rapists(pedophiles are different from child rapists, as most pedophiles do not rape children, and some child rapists are not pedophiles), I support treating everyone as a human, even pedophiles. As a Christian, I thought you would believe in loving one another, no matter what, but apparently you don't. 4. See above 5. This is also a strawman, I didn't say I supported turning 5 year olds into sex objects. Being able to consent to sexual activity doesn't mean you're a sex object. So by your logic, everyone who can consent to sexual activity, is apparently a sex object, even you. 6. This is logical, innocent until proven guilty is a highly held belief in the court system. 7. Need I remind you that you believe in a book that had tons of incest in it? Also, try reading my debates for once. You'll see they are quite logical. 8. This one I didn't fully support, sometimes I do debates where I don't fully support the subject, such as when I argued against anthropogenic climate change. Sometimes I just debate for fun and to see responses from other people. Re: the next set of quote from me As for all the baseless insults that my opponent offers, I again, remind them of innocent until proven guilty. You have yet to prove that I am a fabricator, deceiver, that I bore false witness in these cases, etc. " You've no experiences, I suppose you tried Muslim, cause you denied them too .... When did you ever go to their mosque and study? Have you even been in a church at all? Other than when you were a child? You've been lying this whole debate!" You've not proven I've been lying, for one, and two, I am going to offer evidence that for majority of my life, I've been a Mormon just to prove to you that I wasn't lying when I claimed I was once a theist. It will be in the comments due to my circumstances, and I hope voters will understand why I'm not posting it here but in comments. I deny all religions which support a deity, as in my experience, I've not found a deity. Con- Either way, what you said is baseless, as you provided no evidence that atheists refuse to look for evidence - You don't why would they? You've still not proven that I don't. You keep making these unsubstantiated claims about me, also it's illogical to conclude that an entire group acts the same way as one individual in that group. It's called a Hasty Generalization. [3] Con - There is no work involved. If you've already found evidence of a god, all you'd have to do is present it. Still wanting me to do the work for you huh? .... No I won't! I've done the work already, you've yet to prove I haven't. Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods. Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. Making claims without true evidence again. Notice that they offered a link that didn't make that claim, and it isn't a reputable scientific study on this matter. Also, correlation doesn't mean causation. If neighborhoods with high degree of religious practice have a low crime rate, it could be because they are rural. Rural areas tend to be more religious, and the fact it is rural could be why there is not much crime. The demographics of the city in general could also influence this. re: religious affiliation of prisoners That doesn't even prove that people convert after they've been in prison. The article you linked to only provides the religious affiliation of prisoners, and it doesn't compare their religious affiliation from first entering prison, to many years later or when they are released from prison. Now, since my opponent is claiming that Atheists are stupid, I would like to present a study done on intelligence and the religiousity of people. According to the findings, religiousity and intelligence are negatively correlated[4] in other words, as you look at people who are religious, the less intelligent you are. As you look at people who are less religious, the more intelligent the people are. My opponent did not offer any scientific evidence, or even evidence of any kind, that atheists are stupid except for ad hominem attacks for most of the debate. To sum up why voters should vote for me: I offered scientific data on the intelligence of religious people versus non-religious people, and pointed out the many flaws in my opponent's "arguments". My opponent offered no evidence of their claims that atheists are stupid, except ad hominem attacks. I would implore voters to at least vote for me for conduct, as I didn't resort to insulting my opponent whereas my opponent clearly insulted me during this debate and attacked me on a personal level. I would ask for them to also vote for me for sources, as I provided a scientific study, whereas my opponent did not, and relied on sources that didn't even prove their points, which I explained above how they didn't. Sources: [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... | 0 | Capitalistslave |
All of the pointing to my previous debates is completely irrelevant from proving that I have never been a theist. I recently joined this site only 2 months ago, and have been an implicit atheist/agnostic for 2 years. So, of course my debates on here will be against religion since I've been an atheist for longer than I have been on here. I'm currently 21, and up until I was about 19, I was a practicing Mormon, I even served a Mormon mission for a couple of months(they're usually 2 years long, but I had to go home early due to medical reasons). My real name is Daniel Kirkham. I will provide a screenshot of me logged into my LDS.org account(which only Mormons can have those accounts) in the comments, hopefully tomorrow when I get my computer back. I'm not doing it now, because I am using another computer that isn't mine, as mine is still getting fixed. So, I would ask voters not to vote until I can post that in the comments. I'm answering now so that I don't forfeit the debate.
Now, I suppose I'll address each of the attacks my opponent has made regardiny my debates:
2. You completely misread the debate, I took the con to the debate "Supporting Islam is terrorism". Actually, this itself, is a pro- religion debate since I was defending Islam here. Here is the link to the debate, to show that my opponent lied about it [2]
3. Again, this is all baseless, and clearly a strawman. I don't support child rapists(pedophiles are different from child rapists, as most pedophiles do not rape children, and some child rapists are not pedophiles), I support treating everyone as a human, even pedophiles. As a Christian, I thought you would believe in loving one another, no matter what, but apparently you don't.
4. See above
5. This is also a strawman, I didn't say I supported turning 5 year olds into sex objects. Being able to consent to sexual activity doesn't mean you're a sex object. So by your logic, everyone who can consent to sexual activity, is apparently a sex object, even you.
6. This is logical, innocent until proven guilty is a highly held belief in the court system.
7. Need I remind you that you believe in a book that had tons of incest in it? Also, try reading my debates for once. You'll see they are quite logical.
8. This one I didn't fully support, sometimes I do debates where I don't fully support the subject, such as when I argued against anthropogenic climate change. Sometimes I just debate for fun and to see responses from other people.
Re: the next set of quote from me
As for all the baseless insults that my opponent offers, I again, remind them of innocent until proven guilty. You have yet to prove that I am a fabricator, deceiver, that I bore false witness in these cases, etc.
" You’ve no experiences, I suppose you tried Muslim, cause you denied them too …. When did you ever go to their mosque and study? Have you even been in a church at all? Other than when you were a child? You’ve been lying this whole debate!"
You've not proven I've been lying, for one, and two, I am going to offer evidence that for majority of my life, I've been a Mormon just to prove to you that I wasn't lying when I claimed I was once a theist. It will be in the comments due to my circumstances, and I hope voters will understand why I'm not posting it here but in comments. I deny all religions which support a deity, as in my experience, I've not found a deity.
Con- Either way, what you said is baseless, as you provided no evidence that atheists refuse to look for evidence – You don’t why would they?
You've still not proven that I don't. You keep making these unsubstantiated claims about me, also it's illogical to conclude that an entire group acts the same way as one individual in that group. It's called a Hasty Generalization. [3]
Con - There is no work involved. If you've already found evidence of a god, all you'd have to do is present it. Still wanting me to do the work for you huh? .... No I won't!
I've done the work already, you've yet to prove I haven't.
Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods.
Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents.
Making claims without true evidence again. Notice that they offered a link that didn't make that claim, and it isn't a reputable scientific study on this matter. Also, correlation doesn't mean causation. If neighborhoods with high degree of religious practice have a low crime rate, it could be because they are rural. Rural areas tend to be more religious, and the fact it is rural could be why there is not much crime. The demographics of the city in general could also influence this.
re: religious affiliation of prisoners
That doesn't even prove that people convert after they've been in prison. The article you linked to only provides the religious affiliation of prisoners, and it doesn't compare their religious affiliation from first entering prison, to many years later or when they are released from prison.
Now, since my opponent is claiming that Atheists are stupid, I would like to present a study done on intelligence and the religiousity of people. According to the findings, religiousity and intelligence are negatively correlated[4] in other words, as you look at people who are religious, the less intelligent you are. As you look at people who are less religious, the more intelligent the people are. My opponent did not offer any scientific evidence, or even evidence of any kind, that atheists are stupid except for ad hominem attacks for most of the debate.
To sum up why voters should vote for me: I offered scientific data on the intelligence of religious people versus non-religious people, and pointed out the many flaws in my opponent's "arguments". My opponent offered no evidence of their claims that atheists are stupid, except ad hominem attacks.
I would implore voters to at least vote for me for conduct, as I didn't resort to insulting my opponent whereas my opponent clearly insulted me during this debate and attacked me on a personal level. I would ask for them to also vote for me for sources, as I provided a scientific study, whereas my opponent did not, and relied on sources that didn't even prove their points, which I explained above how they didn't.
Sources:
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
[4] http://journals.sagepub.com... | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-Stupidity-and-Based-on-Imaginings-having-no-Basis-in-Facts./1/ | 6,470 |
I read your debate on "whether or not atheism exists". I thought it was a horrible blow out, in your favor. :) That said, I disagree with your position of atheism as not a faith. Atheism may not be an organized religion, but it is definately a faith. Atheism is "1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God 2) a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods " note: **Belief** that there is no God. My sole contention rests on the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. ============== Ex: Can you PROVE that striped elephants don't exist? You'd have to be able to check every place in the universe, and every possible elephant. Even then, it wouldn't be proof, because you may have missed it. And, of course, we don't know whether striped elephants have ever existed in the past. Proving that elephants DO exist simply requires finding 1. You CAN prove that things exist; but you can't PROVE that they don't. You can have reason to doubt, say, a purple elephant -- since that's just not a color critters like that come in; but it's not proof. You can prove you have a pen. Can you prove the pen doesn't think or feel? Well, no. ======================== Because there is no definitive, absolute way to prove that a G-d or gods does not exist, atheism entails (at least, to a very minute degree) an amount of faith. If something has faith, it is a belief. | 0 | PublicForumG-d |
I read your debate on "whether or not atheism exists".
I thought it was a horrible blow out, in your favor. :)
That said, I disagree with your position of atheism as not a faith.
Atheism may not be an organized religion, but it is definately a faith. Atheism is
"1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2) a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods "
note: **Belief** that there is no God.
My sole contention rests on the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative.
==============
Ex:
Can you PROVE that striped elephants don't exist? You'd have to be able to check every place in the universe, and every possible elephant. Even then, it wouldn't be proof, because you may have missed it.
And, of course, we don't know whether striped elephants have ever existed in the past.
Proving that elephants DO exist simply requires finding 1.
You CAN prove that things exist; but you can't PROVE that they don't.
You can have reason to doubt, say, a purple elephant -- since that's just not a color critters like that come in; but it's not proof.
You can prove you have a pen.
Can you prove the pen doesn't think or feel? Well, no.
========================
Because there is no definitive, absolute way to prove that a G-d or gods does not exist, atheism entails (at least, to a very minute degree) an amount of faith.
If something has faith, it is a belief. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-a-belief/1/ | 6,481 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.