I will debate almost anything

[Gilhelmi]

snip

Feel free to debate this view: This thread is boring, the premise is narcissistic and infantile, the title alone is grating and smacks of the combined teenage discoveries of rhetoric and the near-infinite amount of argument to be had on the internet, the discussion is largely pointless, and the overwhelming majority of the questions have been split between shallow, trite attempts at making you defend something that is universally hated and attempts to sound clever by presenting you with similarly puerile and obvious paradoxes.

To everyone else: Please stop talking about what a great rhetorician you are. If you managed to "win" a debate with your friends about the Holocaust being good and great, your friends are terrible, you're mistaken, or you're just making shit up. Also, if your hobby is debating the Holocaust, I'm not sure that I buy that you have friends.

Because I am not myself above arguing with people on the internet:

I would disagree partly, I did underestimate the number of people who would come on with mathematical paradoxes and 'obscene debate'. I intended for more discussion on subjects that have "No real answer". If I do another thread like this in the future I will try and avoid those mistakes.

Boring is a subjective term so I can not debate that. I found some conversions to be intellectually stimulating and forced me to look at the other side of some debates. I enjoy an intelligent debate and that in and of itself can be the point.

I do also dislike rhetoric. Note, I did not participate in any of those 'debate the holocaust' ones.

snip

Also which non-western power would have the supplied military force and cause to actually invade us?

China, Their military will blindly follow orders without thinking about it too much, they believe the propaganda. Also, the Chinese may come to the conclusion that the US would not us Nukes on our home soil, I think they are right. The US would avoid firing its missiles at China, because lets face it, no matter where it hits it will kill civilians. Then the UN will cry foul and may (I stress may) attack the US. So I do not know how likely it is that strategic (ie: affect large area, like a H-Bomb) weapons will come into play. We would probably use tactical (ie: affects smaller areas; like tanks, guided missles, small less-than kiloton nukes, ect). So mostly a world war could happen and be almost fully conventional weapons.

2) The US is flipping crazy. You think US citizens (the crazy ones not the others) would allow a full invasion or annexation of the US? I understand that countries like France just get used to being invaded but this is "Merica!" we are talking about. Even if fighting the enemy is irrational, futile, stupid, or crazy, we will do it. Heck Glenn Beck and people will lead the charge, they have been waiting for an actual threat to America to fight against (Now Mr. Beck just makes up threats to get by).

You make an excellent point. I am one of those crazies with an AR-15 and a 1911 by my side. and yes the UN is pretty useless.

However, I think you underestimate China just a bit. I mean they have a standing population of 1,300,000,000 or as I say in understatement "a lot of people". Assuming half are men (this is a big assumption because girls are less desirable in their culture) then that is still 650,000,000 people or as I say "TWICE THE US POPULATION" (Google both of them. I just did to make sure my facts were strait. I was 100,000,000 short on china and 200,000,000 over on the US.) Point is China might just start a war to solve their population crises. At first, I was going to make a joke but after looking up those stats I think I will be serious on that.

Yes, we could mount a successful resistance, and yes it would give Glenn Beck something to do (I partly agree with him but he is so bloody annoying I feel bad for agreeing)

Note: I am just amazed one-point-three BILLION people verses three-hundred million. I mean we are not that different is size.

I think you underestimate China a little bit in the wrong direction. Yes, they have 1,300,000,000 people. I agree that some large fraction of those people are able-bodied. What you ignore is that some large fraction of them are also still subsistence farming. There are huge swathes of China that do not have and have never had electricity. Geographically, we're talking about the overwhelming majority of the country here. This is a place where entire villages can still die of starvation if they have significant problems with the crops for a season. Perhaps even a majority of Chinese speak mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese (traditionally and politically they are referred to as dialects, not languages, but most are completely mutually unintelligible). The idea of organizing even a reasonable fraction of the population for a war, much less a war OVERSEAS, is ludicrous.

I can agree with that. I would say it is unlikely that China would bring 650,000,000 soldiers immedatly. Starting with a force of only 50,000,000 would still be vastly larger then our armed forces and leave many men left to tend the fields and be a reserve force for any loses sustained overseas. I would say that a force that size would establish a 'foothold' in say Alaska, shorter distance overseas. and they would bring 'noncombatant support force' to provide things there like farming, and manufacturing. Similar to "colony" operations.

 

[Gilhelmi]

2 > 1

Only if you use a different base for math mathematics.

I believe this will answer that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_prime

edit: I am only good at math, not super-great. You are talking graduate level probably.

How do Mersenne primes, that is, prime numbers one less than a power of two, make 2 less than or equal to one? The wikipedia page explains nothing of the sort.

Ya I know little about advanced math. I did not expect Mathematical paradoxes to come up.

 

[Gilhelmi]

pokemon is constantly improving in gameplay. I will let you have the first comment about this.

I will take the hard side.

Pokemon core gameplay has remained unchanged since its creation in 1995.

That is not a bad thing it works well, there is tactical thinking and placing the right poke in your party. There is a multitude of various options to choose from. The only thing that is different is the shear number of creatures. I think that has grow to over 650 now (including Black&White). but the gameplay is still train, capture, train, select team, fight, collect, repeat.

The new games are better but the gameplay is still the same.

 

[nuba km]

pokemon is constantly improving in gameplay. I will let you have the first comment about this.

I will take the hard side.

Pokemon core gameplay has remained unchanged since its creation in 1995.

That is not a bad thing it works well, there is tactical thinking and placing the right poke in your party. There is a multitude of various options to choose from. The only thing that is different is the shear number of creatures. I think that has grow to over 650 now (including Black&White). but the gameplay is still train, capture, train, select team, fight, collect, repeat.

The new games are better but the gameplay is still the same.

after the first gen the type system a major pat of combat and therefore gameplay got a complete overhaul adding multipal types including steel, dark and ice and many of the already existing types changed how they worked, they also added different types of pokeballs some which got stronger over time others which healed the pokemon caught by it adding a layer of depth to catching pokemons which makes catching legendaries the challange it is meant to be, also they split the special stat into two different stats changing how many moves worked and balancing a lot of pokemon.

in the third generation nature was interduced meaning that a pokemon could be very different from what it's meant to be like a slow pokemon getting a nature making it fast, as well as that they added abilities ranging from taking negative damage from a specific type to sleeping every second turn which meant that another layer of combat depth was added improving the gameplay, double battles were added as well which could make a fight more interesting as you could combine up to eight moves and four types and two abilities.

fourth generation changed how moves were classified as special and physicals making another much needed balancing of combat, also they made weather more important and useful in battle.

the fifth gen is adding two different types of triple battles both needing new tactics and depth, as well as that they made many unique type mixes that have never been seen before with cool designs and their own usefulness in combat ranging from a steel plant which will take a hyper beam to the face without flinching to a flaming moth that uses flaming dances to kill his foe.

through out all generation more move abilities, pokemon and balancing tweaks have been made to turn a pretty good piece of coal into a diamond that once you play you won't stop playing. improving the gamplay the entire time doesn't mean changing the core mechanic but it means to take a good system and tweak it into a great system.

 

[Gilhelmi]

pokemon is constantly improving in gameplay. I will let you have the first comment about this.

I will take the hard side.

Pokemon core gameplay has remained unchanged since its creation in 1995.

That is not a bad thing it works well, there is tactical thinking and placing the right poke in your party. There is a multitude of various options to choose from. The only thing that is different is the shear number of creatures. I think that has grow to over 650 now (including Black&White). but the gameplay is still train, capture, train, select team, fight, collect, repeat.

The new games are better but the gameplay is still the same.

after the first gen the type system a major pat of combat and therefore gameplay got a complete overhaul adding multipal types including steel, dark and ice and many of the already existing types changed how they worked, they also added different types of pokeballs some which got stronger over time others which healed the pokemon caught by it adding a layer of depth to catching pokemons which makes catching legendaries the challange it is meant to be, also they split the special stat into two different stats changing how many moves worked and balancing a lot of pokemon.

in the third generation nature was interduced meaning that a pokemon could be very different from what it's meant to be like a slow pokemon getting a nature making it fast, as well as that they added abilities ranging from taking negative damage from a specific type to sleeping every second turn which meant that another layer of combat depth was added improving the gameplay, double battles were added as well which could make a fight more interesting as you could combine up to eight moves and four types and two abilities.

fourth generation changed how moves were classified as special and physicals making another much needed balancing of combat, also they made weather more important and useful in battle.

the fifth gen is adding two different types of triple battles both needing new tactics and depth, as well as that they made many unique type mixes that have never been seen before with cool designs and their own usefulness in combat ranging from a steel plant which will take a hyper beam to the face without flinching to a flaming moth that uses flaming dances to kill his foe.

through out all generation more move abilities, pokemon and balancing tweaks have been made to turn a pretty good piece of coal into a diamond that once you play you won't stop playing. improving the gamplay the entire time doesn't mean changing the core mechanic but it means to take a good system and tweak it into a great system.

You win. I have played three Pokemon games. Blue, Yellow (special Picachu edition), and HeartGold.

 

[Gilhelmi]

PS: You could debate why uniforms are good/bad at school, it would very much help me in school when we do debating for Year 8

Because conformity is good and individualism is bad. If you went to a school like mine, you were brothers. You were all equal, you were all the same. The uniform was one of many ones of accomplishing this, granted, it didn't work on it's own, but that's still the point. You shouldn't go through life assuming you get to wear what you wan't. Be prepared to wear a suit, be prepared to look presentable, and for fuck's sake, learn how to tie a tie.

Especially, in the military and business lines of work. Most higher end jobs require some type of uniform.

 

[nuba km]

snip

I like debates and my friends have yet to beat in in a debate involving opinion, I also would have been imprest if you could have countered that. I though a head of time you would take the more difficult of the two argument so I picked a subject which would stretch you arguing skills to the limit it was either this or that you would have to argue that McDonald should say that their coffee is hot and give anyone that got burned by it $10,000.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

snip

Also which non-western power would have the supplied military force and cause to actually invade us?

China, Their military will blindly follow orders without thinking about it too much, they believe the propaganda. Also, the Chinese may come to the conclusion that the US would not us Nukes on our home soil, I think they are right. The US would avoid firing its missiles at China, because lets face it, no matter where it hits it will kill civilians. Then the UN will cry foul and may (I stress may) attack the US. So I do not know how likely it is that strategic (ie: affect large area, like a H-Bomb) weapons will come into play. We would probably use tactical (ie: affects smaller areas; like tanks, guided missles, small less-than kiloton nukes, ect). So mostly a world war could happen and be almost fully conventional weapons.

2) The US is flipping crazy. You think US citizens (the crazy ones not the others) would allow a full invasion or annexation of the US? I understand that countries like France just get used to being invaded but this is "Merica!" we are talking about. Even if fighting the enemy is irrational, futile, stupid, or crazy, we will do it. Heck Glenn Beck and people will lead the charge, they have been waiting for an actual threat to America to fight against (Now Mr. Beck just makes up threats to get by).

You make an excellent point. I am one of those crazies with an AR-15 and a 1911 by my side. and yes the UN is pretty useless.

However, I think you underestimate China just a bit. I mean they have a standing population of 1,300,000,000 or as I say in understatement "a lot of people". Assuming half are men (this is a big assumption because girls are less desirable in their culture) then that is still 650,000,000 people or as I say "TWICE THE US POPULATION" (Google both of them. I just did to make sure my facts were strait. I was 100,000,000 short on china and 200,000,000 over on the US.) Point is China might just start a war to solve their population crises. At first, I was going to make a joke but after looking up those stats I think I will be serious on that.

Yes, we could mount a successful resistance, and yes it would give Glenn Beck something to do (I partly agree with him but he is so bloody annoying I feel bad for agreeing)

Note: I am just amazed one-point-three BILLION people verses three-hundred million. I mean we are not that different is size.

I think you underestimate China a little bit in the wrong direction. Yes, they have 1,300,000,000 people. I agree that some large fraction of those people are able-bodied. What you ignore is that some large fraction of them are also still subsistence farming. There are huge swathes of China that do not have and have never had electricity. Geographically, we're talking about the overwhelming majority of the country here. This is a place where entire villages can still die of starvation if they have significant problems with the crops for a season. Perhaps even a majority of Chinese speak mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese (traditionally and politically they are referred to as dialects, not languages, but most are completely mutually unintelligible). The idea of organizing even a reasonable fraction of the population for a war, much less a war OVERSEAS, is ludicrous.

I can agree with that. I would say it is unlikely that China would bring 650,000,000 soldiers immedatly. Starting with a force of only 50,000,000 would still be vastly larger then our armed forces and leave many men left to tend the fields and be a reserve force for any loses sustained overseas. I would say that a force that size would establish a 'foothold' in say Alaska, shorter distance overseas. and they would bring 'noncombatant support force' to provide things there like farming, and manufacturing. Similar to "colony" operations.

Perhaps you misunderstand. They're not farming. They're SUBSISTENCE farming. As in they are providing food for themselves and their family and do not generate enough yield for others.

As for the number we're talking about realistically invading, China has an estimated 381,747,145 people eligable for military service (this is including the subsistence farmers who can't reasonably be drafted), of which an estimated 314,668,817 are fit for service. They have approximately 2,255,000 active personnel (the largest of any country by a fairly wide margin) and 1,200,000 reserve personnel. So even with the reserve, we're talking less than 4,000,000. But the real damning fact is their equipment. They simply do not have the resources to move that many people, nevermind the logistics nightmare it would entail. If they started drafting and built a 50,000,000 person army, they would have a 50,000,000 person army -- in China. For every person they paid to transport overseas to us, we could move an inordinately larger amount of personnel and munitions to wherever they went. And we'd know they were coming far, far before they got here. And if they were going by sea (the only reasonable way to move a fraction of that number of people), it would take quite a while, certainly long enough to attack them en route.

 

[Drakane]

I will lob you a bit of a softball but....

In mathematics a common expression is If A = B and B = C then A = C. Simply put, if 4+2 = 3+3 and 3+3 = 6, therefore 4 +2 must = 6.

If we transcribe this principle into accepted phrases of the English language then;

Racism is Ignorance, and Ignorance is Bliss. Therefore Racism must be Bliss.

 

[superbatranger]

The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.

If you can actually debate this, I will be slightly impressed.

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip

Also which non-western power would have the supplied military force and cause to actually invade us?

China, Their military will blindly follow orders without thinking about it too much, they believe the propaganda. Also, the Chinese may come to the conclusion that the US would not us Nukes on our home soil, I think they are right. The US would avoid firing its missiles at China, because lets face it, no matter where it hits it will kill civilians. Then the UN will cry foul and may (I stress may) attack the US. So I do not know how likely it is that strategic (ie: affect large area, like a H-Bomb) weapons will come into play. We would probably use tactical (ie: affects smaller areas; like tanks, guided missles, small less-than kiloton nukes, ect). So mostly a world war could happen and be almost fully conventional weapons.

2) The US is flipping crazy. You think US citizens (the crazy ones not the others) would allow a full invasion or annexation of the US? I understand that countries like France just get used to being invaded but this is "Merica!" we are talking about. Even if fighting the enemy is irrational, futile, stupid, or crazy, we will do it. Heck Glenn Beck and people will lead the charge, they have been waiting for an actual threat to America to fight against (Now Mr. Beck just makes up threats to get by).

You make an excellent point. I am one of those crazies with an AR-15 and a 1911 by my side. and yes the UN is pretty useless.

However, I think you underestimate China just a bit. I mean they have a standing population of 1,300,000,000 or as I say in understatement "a lot of people". Assuming half are men (this is a big assumption because girls are less desirable in their culture) then that is still 650,000,000 people or as I say "TWICE THE US POPULATION" (Google both of them. I just did to make sure my facts were strait. I was 100,000,000 short on china and 200,000,000 over on the US.) Point is China might just start a war to solve their population crises. At first, I was going to make a joke but after looking up those stats I think I will be serious on that.

Yes, we could mount a successful resistance, and yes it would give Glenn Beck something to do (I partly agree with him but he is so bloody annoying I feel bad for agreeing)

Note: I am just amazed one-point-three BILLION people verses three-hundred million. I mean we are not that different is size.

I think you underestimate China a little bit in the wrong direction. Yes, they have 1,300,000,000 people. I agree that some large fraction of those people are able-bodied. What you ignore is that some large fraction of them are also still subsistence farming. There are huge swathes of China that do not have and have never had electricity. Geographically, we're talking about the overwhelming majority of the country here. This is a place where entire villages can still die of starvation if they have significant problems with the crops for a season. Perhaps even a majority of Chinese speak mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese (traditionally and politically they are referred to as dialects, not languages, but most are completely mutually unintelligible). The idea of organizing even a reasonable fraction of the population for a war, much less a war OVERSEAS, is ludicrous.

I can agree with that. I would say it is unlikely that China would bring 650,000,000 soldiers immedatly. Starting with a force of only 50,000,000 would still be vastly larger then our armed forces and leave many men left to tend the fields and be a reserve force for any loses sustained overseas. I would say that a force that size would establish a 'foothold' in say Alaska, shorter distance overseas. and they would bring 'noncombatant support force' to provide things there like farming, and manufacturing. Similar to "colony" operations.

Perhaps you misunderstand. They're not farming. They're SUBSISTENCE farming. As in they are providing food for themselves and their family and do not generate enough yield for others.

As for the number we're talking about realistically invading, China has an estimated 381,747,145 people eligable for military service (this is including the subsistence farmers who can't reasonably be drafted), of which an estimated 314,668,817 are fit for service. They have approximately 2,255,000 active personnel (the largest of any country by a fairly wide margin) and 1,200,000 reserve personnel. So even with the reserve, we're talking less than 4,000,000. But the real damning fact is their equipment. They simply do not have the resources to move that many people, nevermind the logistics nightmare it would entail. If they started drafting and built a 50,000,000 person army, they would have a 50,000,000 person army -- in China. For every person they paid to transport overseas to us, we could move an inordinately larger amount of personnel and munitions to wherever they went. And we'd know they were coming far, far before they got here. And if they were going by sea (the only reasonable way to move a fraction of that number of people), it would take quite a while, certainly long enough to attack them en route.

That is an excellent point. I have nothing further to add to that. Good discussion.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I will lob you a bit of a softball but....

In mathematics a common expression is If A = B and B = C then A = C. Simply put, if 4+2 = 3+3 and 3+3 = 6, therefore 4 +2 must = 6.

If we transcribe this principle into accepted phrases of the English language then;

Racism is Ignorance, and Ignorance is Bliss. Therefore Racism must be Bliss.

The error in logic is that you cannot simply transpose mathematics and linguistics.

Math is relatively set, 2 always equals 2 (in base ten math), 2 cannot equal 3 because 2 is always going to be 2. But in language there is many different uses for words. Racism, for example, can mean true racism (ie, I hate you because you are not the same skin pigmentation as my own), intolerance against one or many religions or viewpoints (other then your own), intolerance of others in general. Ignorance can have a dozen interpretations depending on context or lack of context. Bliss, what it is for me is different from one person too the next.

Language and Math cannot be transcribe.

You were correct, That was a very easy one.

 

[Drakane]

I will lob you a bit of a softball but....

In mathematics a common expression is If A = B and B = C then A = C. Simply put, if 4+2 = 3+3 and 3+3 = 6, therefore 4 +2 must = 6.

If we transcribe this principle into accepted phrases of the English language then;

Racism is Ignorance, and Ignorance is Bliss. Therefore Racism must be Bliss.

The error in logic is that you cannot simply transpose mathematics and linguistics.

Math is relatively set, 2 always equals 2 (in base ten math), 2 cannot equal 3 because 2 is always going to be 2. But in language there is many different uses for words. Racism, for example, can mean true racism (ie, I hate you because you are not the same skin pigmentation as my own), intolerance against one or many religions or viewpoints (other then your own), intolerance of others in general. Ignorance can have a dozen interpretations depending on context or lack of context. Bliss, what it is for me is different from one person too the next.

Language and Math cannot be transcribe.

You were correct, That was a very easy one.

All you have stated is you believe their is a flaw in the formula, not that the statement made w/ in the formula is wrong. Also you logic is flawed. This is actually the leading "formula" in most ethic theories. The words elude me but in essence the premises (the original A + B and B + C) have to lead to the conclusion given, as has occurred in my argument.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Then the UN will cry foul and may (I stress may) attack the US.

No it won't.

Really really really won't.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Final Fantasy XIII is a god-awful game with no redeeming qualities other than that the visuals are very well done. The characters are all completely unlikeable and horribly under-developed and the gameplay consists entirely of running down linear corridors and fighting battles that can actually be won by pressing only one button repeatedly.

Debate this one; I'd like to see what you come up with.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Then the UN will cry foul and may (I stress may) attack the US.

No it won't.

Really really really won't.

One-in-one-hundred chance, still falls in the realm of possibility.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Final Fantasy XIII is a god-awful game with no redeeming qualities other than that the visuals are very well done. The characters are all completely unlikeable and horribly under-developed and the gameplay consists entirely of running down linear corridors and fighting battles that can actually be won by pressing only one button repeatedly.

Debate this one; I'd like to see what you come up with.

I cannot. I have yet too play the 20 hour tutorial. I stopped playing the series when X-2 came out and broke my heart (with buggy game play).

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I feel like it is time to "Sharpen My Sword" and by that I mean my mind. The mind is your greatest weapon.

So I will play Devils Advocate to anyone. Pick a subject and I will debate the opposite side, no matter how unpopular it is.

If the subject in question is something I really disagree with I will put a disclaimer at the bottom.
Disclaimer: I may not agree with what I will say. I am playing The Devils Advocate

I will try to maintain as many debate as possible.

SO LET THE GAMES OF THE WORDS BEGIN.

Edit thought of a new one:
LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WORDS

EDIT 2:
Please elaborate on your argument. Do not say "'blank' is good/bad."

Instead say "'blank' is good/bad, because..."

I can not practice poking hole in your argument if you do not have a full argument. Tell me why it is good/bad.

EDIT 3
I WILL NOT DEBATE THE PROS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. NEVER.

Debate with me then sir, Gay Marriage, I'm for and you are against, and no religous reasoning, please start this off.

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip

Debate with me then sir, Gay Marriage, I'm for and you are against, and no religious reasoning, please start this off.

Give me a day to think on this one. It is actually quite difficult.