Give me a topic and your position and I will argue with you.

[Shakomaru]

Sharks are delicious and attack humans, they should be killed and eaten.

 

[Fusioncode9]

Molesting children is wrong. Argue that!

 

[Saladfork]

1. Not all stereotypes are true
2. Humankind has been wrong before
3. The Bible is wrong in some areas

1. NO! ALL stereotypes are true!
/angrily leaves igloo to ride moose to the nearest poutine vendor

2. No; There has never been a point in history when every human in existence believed the same thing, and were wrong about it. This is because the universe is not static, but is built in real-time by evrey human brain in the world. If we all believed there was a god, there would be a god. If we all believed the center of the earth was a giant jawbreaker, it would be a giant jawbreaker.

3. The bible is right about EVERYTHING! There really was a man who killed a giant several stories tall with a weapon that routinely fails to injure 7-year-old girls, and I can prove it!
/angrily leaves igloo to ride moose to the nearest toy store

Baptist Westboro Church, I don't agree with them.

They're right, though. They're just using gays and war veterans as examples, though. God hates everybody. You may not have realized because he's very passive-aggressive; he likes to leave nasty notes for you on the fridge, for instance.

Five random thoughts from my head.

1. Internet trolls aren't funny.
2. Alan Moore is insane.
3. Citizen Kane is considered by many too be the greatest film ever made.
4. The Holocaust was the Nazis' fault.
5. You can't argue against facts.

Give me your best shot.

1. FIRST!!!!11 is not only the most hilarious joke ever made, it is also apt social commentary. You just didn't get it.
2. Alan Moore is completely normal, he just really likes writing blue wangs into his stories. Hey, we all have our quirks, I guess.
3. What? Citizen Kane is so bloody obscure it didn't even make it onto Metacritic. Transformers 2 is clearly the better movie (a score of 35/100 is better than no score at all, right?)
4. No, the holocaust was the Jews' fault. If they hadn't kept dying, there wouldn't have been so many deaths.
5. You can, and I submit Fox News as my example.

In the broad spectrum of the universe life has no purpose.
Humans, animals, plants and microbes have no further purpose than to play its part in producing an environment on this planet.

If living things had no purpose whatsoever they would just sit there until they died.
Given that most evolutionary adaptations involve living long enough to reproduce, I have to conclude that the meaning to life is sex.

Jack Thompson shouldn't have tried to ban games.

Now argue with me! MUWHAHAHA!

If it weren't for Jack Thompson, we wouldn't have a name to shout in rage every time some restriction on gaming was introduced. He personifies such laws and he gives us a face to hate.

due to spite/curiosity/boredom, a few people will try to make positions that are impossible to argue on this thread.

I disagree; I think they're doing it because they are sadists and enjoy the thought of me banging my head on my table until I come up with something.

The world and all that it encompasses have no intrinsic, objective value. The only value that exists is purely subjective. Humans(And maybe other animals) invented the very idea of "Value".

There is one thing that has objective value: Human life. Everybody values their lives, and value of things like food and water derive from value of life.

OP you are a human in the strictest biological sense of the word. I win.

I mentioned before that Krofdalas, the OP, was my evil twin, but I may have neglected to mention that he was also a robot vampire zombie ninja.
From space.

 

[Crazy]

I'm better than you.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Pb Zeppelin]

Any topic you can think of. Pick your position, I will argue the opposite viewpoint.

Your avatar is a Pokemon trainer in a trench coat with a Gible standing next to him.

 

[Jack Rascal]

Mankind would not survive if people had no sex organs.

In Vitro fertilization.
Surgically remove gametes from both sexes. If the gemete-producing organs are also gone, then we could attempt to heat-shock cells from other areas in our bodies to induce meiosis and then try to combine these fake gametes with each other.

Can I counter your argument?

You may be able to produce fake gametes, but if women had no sex organs, no fetus could survive.

P.S. You are doing fantastically. If I had a hat, I would raise it to you.

 

[Hasido]

is this the right room for an argument?

 

[st0pnsw0p]

I believe you argue more than I do on these forums.

is this the right room for an argument?

I'm sorry, this is Abuse. Try 12A next door.

 

[Anomaly001]

Ok. I honestly joined this forum because I loved this thread. OP, you are hilarious. Thus, here is my argument and position. I expect a sound refutation.



Alright. Many believe that knowledge is justified, true belief. Thus, in order for an individual to know something (ie: a bachelor is an unmarried man), a number of conditions must be met: (1) the individual must believe the proposition in question, (2) the proposition must be true, and (3) the individual requires (formally) logical justification to believe the proposition.

My position is that this analysis of knowledge is false, based upon the following counterexample.

Consider three men. Their names are Adam, John, and Todd. Adam believes that John owns a car. This is not, in fact, the case. However, in believing this to be true, Adam makes the following logical inference:

Premise 1. If John owns a car, then either John owns a car or Todd is in Boston.
Premise 2. John owns a car.
Conclusion. Either John owns a car or Todd is in Boston.

Note that this is a fully valid logical argument. It is not sound (which is to say that it is not correct), but the logic of the argument is indisputable, which is all justification requires. Consider, if a bachelor is an unmarried man, then either a bachelor is an unmarried man or the moon is made of cheese. Both sides of the disjunction need not be true for the disjunction itself to be true. As such, Adam has perfectly logical justification to believe that either John owns a car or Todd is in Boston.

Here's the rub in this situation, however: Todd is indeed in Boston, and Adam is not aware of this. As such, the disjunction inferred by Adam (either John owns a car or Todd is in Boston) is also true. Therefore, Adam has acquired a justified, true belief. He believes the disjunction, which is indeed true, and he has perfectly logical reasoning to believe it.

It is obviously the case, though, that Adam does not know this disjunction to be true. Adam has no evidence whatever as to Todd's whereabouts, and so believes what is true only because of luck. As knowledge cannot be achieved through pure chance, it is therefore not the case that Adam knows the disjunction, despite the fact that it is a justified, true belief. Therefore, the conditions of justification, truth, and belief are insufficient conditions for knowledge.

Knowledge is not justified, true belief.



There are definitely a couple pieces of this position to be argued. As such, I'm interested in seeing your refutation.

 

[Saladfork]

I am a ancient weapons specialst, so let us partake in my favored form of internet combat.

1- A katana armed samurai stands no chance against a poleaxe armed medieval knight.

2- William the Conqueror is NOT French. He and his army were Norman. Normans are not French, they are Norman (north men, men of the north). They settled in modern day France, then took down the Saxons to take England.

3- Pressing the red button is a good idea.

1. A samurai's armour would be just about useless against a poleaxe wielding knight, so I assume he would ditch the armour. Being much lighter and more agile now, he should be able to, if not sneak up on him, than at least outmatch the knight in terms of speed. Still not a good chance, but better than none.

2. William identified himself king of the area known as England.
William was therefore English.

3. Of course it's not a good idea, what kind of moron hits buttons without knowing what they do?

...

/hits button

Molesting children is wrong. Argue that!

I asserted before that sex is the meaning of life. Might as well let em know, right?

I'm better than you.

Prove me wrong.

You are 2 points closer to being banned from the escapist than I am.
I R TEH WINNAR!

Any topic you can think of. Pick your position, I will argue the opposite viewpoint.

Your avatar is a Pokemon trainer in a trench coat with a Gible standing next to him.

I dunno what this guy's talking about.

 

[yman15]

You can understand and write in English

 

[Hasido]

I believe you argue more than I do on these forums.

is this the right room for an argument?

I'm sorry, this is Abuse. Try 12A next door.

thank you, i was hoping someone would catch that (not that its very hard to miss)

 

[Saulkar]

Zbrush is superior to Mudbox in terms of tool creation, options, and sculpting abilities while Mudbox is more simplistic and intuitive thus easier to learn and easier to use. Argue against that!

 

[Tucker154]

This thread is of people creating statements for the OP's(who is a robot vampire zombie ninja from space.) twin brother to argue against.

 

[ShadowDude112]

Schools (in the U.S. as far as I know) don't teach us that the U.S. did have a big Nazi party during the Holocaust and we only came into the war to save the day due to the genocide but really it was because Germany declared war on us. I think they don't teach us this because they don't want their own country to look bad and want students to think we were doing no wrong during that time period. Your thoughts?

 

[holy_secret]

If doctors are so smart, why are there so many of them?

 

[Pinstar]

Any topic you can think of. Pick your position, I will argue the opposite viewpoint.

This Statement is a Lie.

 

[Saladfork]

Can I counter your argument?

You may be able to produce fake gametes, but if women had no sex organs, no fetus could survive.

P.S. You are doing fantastically. If I had a hat, I would raise it to you.

Well, we could try implanting the zygote into a sheep's or pig's uterus and seeing if that works.
And here, you can borrow mine. /tosses hat

I believe you argue more than I do on these forums.

Quantitatively, perhaps.
Qualitatively, however, I think you'll find every single one of my arguments is complete bullshit. Therefore, because you've stated an honest opinion and have evidence to back it up, you are providing a better argument and could therefore be said to me more argumentative.

Knowledge is not justified, true belief.

First off, howdy. Always nice to see new escapist...ists.

Secondly...

Your example appears to ignore your third point; that knowledge requires 'logical justification to believe the proposition'. Your premises and conclusion are logical (if random), true, but knowledge is built on knowledge. Adam is assuming John owns the car seemingly without any reason at all, so he appears to have no justification for doing so.

I also think you've left out an essential tidbit in the definition of knowledge, that being that belief cannot become knowledge unless it's been proven. Otherwise Adam could say that he knows John owns a car after thinking about John and this one car he said looked nice once (and after drinking heavily) and be right about it if he thought it was true.

Until Adam sees proof of ownership, he does not know that John owns the car.

Of course, for many things, it is impossible to prove beyond doubt certain ideas, which is why most scientific explanations for things remain theories instead of theorems.

Good job on that one, took me awhile to think of a decent argument.

 

[Dango]

I believe that this:
Is a bad song.

 

[alandavidson]

Awesome, a systematic rhetoric thread!