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

[Saladfork]

Some organism is alive at this moment.

BOOM.

That is actually pretty easily disproven. I'll let Douglas Adams explain it.

"Although you might see people from time to time, they are most likely products of your imagination. Simple mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero."

Dorian nailed this one. Good job.

Abortion. Inefficient?

Depends on how you do it. For example, five minutes with a coat hanger may be five minutes that you're not playing Skyrim, but it's also several years that you will be playing whatever comes after.

Karl Marx believed the essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labour. Wage labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Do you agree?

Ah damn it, I'm getting too tired to do economics.
What I will say is that Karl Marx wrote in a time when government and business had certain understandings with each other that are fortunately nonexistent today. His predictions may have been accurate had the middle-class economies of the later 20th century not come into being.

I'm decently sure you've satisfied my will to combat your arguments, And seeing as I/we are the same person doesn't that mean your the first test subject.
...so by this logic
You have no sexual organs. My stance you cannot impregnate a woman, go?

Not sure what that first part was about but I can guarantee that I have aformentioned organs. or at least I did last time I checkedOHMYGOD where did they go!??
GIMMIE BACK MY JUNK WORDS

Okay, here we go...

Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 was crap, through and through.

Sonic '06 was incredibly fun to play through in the same way that the room or batman and robin or manos the hands of fate were fun to watch.

"Glitch saved me! Glitch saved me! Glitch saved me!...Glitch killed me."

Anywho, I'm off to get some sleep. Good arguments guys, maybe I'll do something like this again. In the meantime, feel free to argue amongst yourselves.

G'night!

 

[OrokuSaki]

All of existence is dependent entirely on he/she whom perceives it and therefore nothing has any absolute value, instead holding only the value that he/she gives it.

Ex: The sky is pink, the sun is a horrible ball of death, and this thread is intellectually stimulating.

These are all opinions and cannot be proven or disproven (apparently not a word, but fuck it) because they are opinions based on my perception of reality.

Argue that!

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Ok, Al-Qaeda, I think they are bad, my I hear your opposition?

 

[Aeonknight]

Puppies, they are adorable.

I DARE you to argue against that.

*cracks knuckles*

Puppies suck. Cats are infinitely better.

 

[SillyBear]

Ok, Al-Qaeda, I think they are bad, my I hear your opposition?

"Bad" is a completely subjective term and is almost meaningless. I think pineapple is "bad". It means nothing.

Anyway, Al Qaeda are certainly not the barbaric boogey men everyone make them out to be. Many of the members were horrendously betrayed by the USA and the Western World during the Cold War.

In the early days of the beginning of Al Qaeda, they were called freedom fighters by the Western media. They fought against aggressive intervention in their home. Today, now they have bit back at the west - they are called "terrorists".

So, there you go. It's very very simple and I realise it doesn't even paint half the picture - but hopefully it's enough to make you realise you can't claim Al Qaeda are objectively "bad".

Just as you thoughtlessly label Al Qaeda as bad, people in the Middle East are thoughtlessly labeling the USA as bad. Both of you have a very similar argument and the same amount of ground to stand on.

 

[chiggerwood]

Nickleback is a formulaic, safe band that never takes any risk with their music. Let's see your argument here.

 

[SillyBear]

Nickleback is a formulaic, safe band that never takes any risk with their music. Let's see your argument here.

One could argue that they do take risks with their music. By constantly releasing the same type of music, they take a huge risk that almost the entire internet community will despise them.

That is pretty ballsy.

Whilst Nickleback aren't my cup of tea, they certainly are the target of a lot of shit from people who have done nothing but fuck all in their lives. I like to ask Nickleback haters, what risks do you take in your profession? Are you constantly seeking to experiment and evolve the field in which you work? Do you look down on all your friends who don't either?

For 99.9999% of people, the answer is a big fat no. It's just a thinly veiled self esteem attack really. People love to take down famous people.

 

[Shadow flame master]

Mountain Dew needs to stop selling so many different flavors for a limited time. Also, the Kingdom Hearts franchise needs to need after KH3 so it doesn't get too stale in the gaming community.

And before I forget, there are too many rappers that aren't needed/good. Yatzee is the best video game reviewer ever.

Edit: Tea is the best hot drink ever. I dare you to disagre.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Ok, Al-Qaeda, I think they are bad, my I hear your opposition?

"Bad" is a completely subjective term and is almost meaningless. I think pineapple is "bad". It means nothing.

Anyway, Al Qaeda are certainly not the barbaric boogey men everyone make them out to be. Many of the members were horrendously betrayed by the USA and the Western World during the Cold War.

In the early days of the beginning of Al Qaeda, they were called freedom fighters by the Western media. They fought against aggressive intervention in their home. Today, now they have bit back at the west - they are called "terrorists".

So, there you go. It's very very simple and I realise it doesn't even paint half the picture - but hopefully it's enough to make you realise you can't claim Al Qaeda are objectively "bad".

Just as you thoughtlessly label Al Qaeda as bad, people in the Middle East are thoughtlessly labeling the USA as bad. Both of you have a very similar argument and the same amount of ground to stand on.

And this justifies the killing of innocent people? Revenge against the decisions of the American government? So we deserved to be attacked? Yeah, sure they started with a good cause, just like the IRA, but that cause was lost because the ends don't justify the means.

 

[SillyBear]

Ok, Al-Qaeda, I think they are bad, my I hear your opposition?

"Bad" is a completely subjective term and is almost meaningless. I think pineapple is "bad". It means nothing.

Anyway, Al Qaeda are certainly not the barbaric boogey men everyone make them out to be. Many of the members were horrendously betrayed by the USA and the Western World during the Cold War.

In the early days of the beginning of Al Qaeda, they were called freedom fighters by the Western media. They fought against aggressive intervention in their home. Today, now they have bit back at the west - they are called "terrorists".

So, there you go. It's very very simple and I realise it doesn't even paint half the picture - but hopefully it's enough to make you realise you can't claim Al Qaeda are objectively "bad".

Just as you thoughtlessly label Al Qaeda as bad, people in the Middle East are thoughtlessly labeling the USA as bad. Both of you have a very similar argument and the same amount of ground to stand on.

And this justifies the killing of innocent people?

The US Army has killed far more innocent people than Al Qaeda has. Not always intentionally, but still - a death is a death.

Revenge against the decisions of the American government? So we deserved to be attacked?

And an Afghan mother deserves to lose her sons and daughters because the USA has a revenge fantasy over a group of people who are living in the country that have almost nothing to do with the vast majority of the population? Once again, the opposition can say the same thing as you. Objectively, they have more of a case than you do too - because they've lost their whole country and their family over it. You've only lost 3,000 people that, chances are, you didn't know.

Yeah, sure they started with a good cause, just like the IRA, but that cause was lost because the ends don't justify the means.

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

To be fair - their campaign goals have always been the same. Crush enemies of Islam. When they were crushing the Russians everyone in the USA was saying "Yay! Yay! Freedom fighters!" but when the USA betrayed them and the Mujahadeen started wanted to get the USA back everyone like you started saying "NO! BAD! NOT US! ONLY KILL PEOPLE WE DON'T LIKE!"

--

NOTE: The above post may not reflect my personal opinion. I am merely arguing from an objective stance and abiding by the rules of the thread.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

The creator of this thread likes to play Devil's Advocate.

EDIT: Well, I think I win. I've made the ultimate paradox post here.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Ok, Al-Qaeda, I think they are bad, my I hear your opposition?

"Bad" is a completely subjective term and is almost meaningless. I think pineapple is "bad". It means nothing.

Anyway, Al Qaeda are certainly not the barbaric boogey men everyone make them out to be. Many of the members were horrendously betrayed by the USA and the Western World during the Cold War.

In the early days of the beginning of Al Qaeda, they were called freedom fighters by the Western media. They fought against aggressive intervention in their home. Today, now they have bit back at the west - they are called "terrorists".

So, there you go. It's very very simple and I realise it doesn't even paint half the picture - but hopefully it's enough to make you realise you can't claim Al Qaeda are objectively "bad".

Just as you thoughtlessly label Al Qaeda as bad, people in the Middle East are thoughtlessly labeling the USA as bad. Both of you have a very similar argument and the same amount of ground to stand on.

And this justifies the killing of innocent people?

The US Army has killed far more innocent people than Al Qaeda has. Not always intentionally, but still - a death is a death.

Revenge against the decisions of the American government? So we deserved to be attacked?

And an Afghan mother deserves to lose her sons and daughters because the USA has a revenge fantasy over a group of people who are living in the country that have almost nothing to do with the vast majority of the population? Once again, the opposition can say the same thing as you. Objectively, they have more of a case than you do too - because they've lost their whole country and their family over it. You've only lost 3,000 people that, chances are, you didn't know.

Yeah, sure they started with a good cause, just like the IRA, but that cause was lost because the ends don't justify the means.

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

To be fair - their campaign goals have always been the same. Crush enemies of Islam. When they were crushing the Russians everyone in the USA was saying "Yay! Yay! Freedom fighters!" but when the USA betrayed them and the Mujahadeen started wanted to get the USA back everyone like you started saying "NO! BAD! NOT US! ONLY KILL PEOPLE WE DON'T LIKE!"

--

NOTE: The above post may not reflect my personal opinion. I am merely arguing from an objective stance and abiding by the rules of the thread.

[sarcasm]Ah yes, an eye for an eye solves everything, its a brilliant plan to continue the cycle of hate![/sarcasm]

Still, innocent lives were taken, and that isn't bad? It can all be justified until they get even with their kill count? The decisions and actions of the US government do not reflect the opinions and decisions of the citizens.

MORE QUESTIONS!!!
So if an Al-Qaeda terrorist decides he's going to shoot me in the head (because I am a US citizen), it's perfectly fine even though I had nothing to do with anything that happened?

 

[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.

Saladfork: I dunno what this guy's talking about.[/quote]

Well, its still a Pokemon trainer in a trench coat.

 

[SillyBear]

Still, innocent lives were taken, and that isn't bad?

Nope. Not always.

You would be surprised to learn how many fantastic things you take for granted came out of innocent people dying. The allied victory of World War 2 is one of those things.

edit: Many members of Al Qaeda do not classify anyone who died in 9/11 as "innocent". Just like many hillbilly Americans don't classify any dead Arab as "innocent".

"innocent" is subjective.

Sometimes people only listen if enough blood has been spilled. This is the nature of the beast. You cannot deny it without also denying history.

The decisions and actions of the US government do not reflect the opinions and decisions of the citizens.

And the decisions and the actions of Al Qaeda do not reflect the opinions and decisions of the Afghan people. Or the Iraqi people.

That still didn't stop your country going in and killing tens of thousands of innocents, did it?

So if an Al-Qaeda terrorist decides he's going to shoot me in the head (because I am a US citizen), it's perfectly fine even though I had nothing to do with anything that happened?

So if a US soldier decides he is going to shoot me in the head (because I'm an Afghan) it's perfectly fine even though I had nothing to do with anything that happened?

As you can see, every single one of the points you've raised can be equally applied towards your country. If you want to call Al Qaeda "bad" you may as well the US government "bad" too. Because the US government has killed more innocent people over just as ridiculous justifications as Al Qaeda has.

You're just very biased. Which is fine. Am I too.

 

[Julie Julieonic]

This statement is false.

 

[Streetfighter]

There is nothing special about human beings. We are merely highly intelligent apes. Our pre-occupation with deities is a a cultural leftover from when we could not rationally explain our surroundings

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Still, innocent lives were taken, and that isn't bad?

Nope. Not always.

You would be surprised to learn how many fantastic things you take for granted came out of innocent people dying. The allied victory of World War 2 is one of those things.

Sometimes people only listen if enough blood has been spilled. This is the nature of the beast. You cannot deny it without also denying history.

The decisions and actions of the US government do not reflect the opinions and decisions of the citizens.

And the decisions and the actions of Al Qaeda do not reflect the opinions and decisions of the Afghan people. Or the Iraqi people.

That still didn't stop your country going in and killing tens of thousands of innocents, did it?

So if an Al-Qaeda terrorist decides he's going to shoot me in the head (because I am a US citizen), it's perfectly fine even though I had nothing to do with anything that happened?

So if a US soldier decides he is going to shoot me in the head (because I'm an Afghan) it's perfectly fine even though I had nothing to do with anything that happened?

As you can see, every single one of the points you've raised can be equally applied towards your country. If you want to call Al Qaeda "bad" you may as well the US government "bad" too. Because the US government has killed more innocent people over just as ridiculous justifications as Al Qaeda has.

You're just very biased. Which is fine. Am I too.

Okay, we're both biased, lets just agree that the my government is filled with violent dumbasses and Al-Qaeda is filled with violent dumbasses, fair enough?

I think its right to do what I do best, not to pick sides and just say "f**k off" to both.

 

[maxmanrules]

The very fact that laws of physics exist disproves the existence of all non-deistic Gods.

Bah, no it doesn't, it merely makes miracles more impressive if gods can bend the rules that otherwise make up our universe

 

[CulixCupric]

green and purple are not the same color. i dare you prove me wrong.

 

[ninetails593]

(Ooh yes, I am mentioning the game that shall not be named)
The complaints of Call of Duty being similar to its predecessors are invalid, as these games are sequels, and are thus not required of any major innovation or change, other than a graphical update and a handful of new features. The complaints of Call of Duty saturating the market and making too much money are also invalid, as its profit is a major contributor to the gaming industry. If the franchise stopped, the industry would suffer. The complaints of there being too much Call of Duty is also invalid, as there is nothing forcing people to play these games. Therefor, the only fault of Call of Duty, is that it is too perfect.
Your turn