I will debate almost anything

[Gilhelmi]

Ok, lets see how good you are.

Everything revolves around the Earth while the Earth remains motionless. You can prove the latter just by watching the heavens; they move as we stay put. The former is easily proven by a simple experiment. Imagine driving in a convertible. You throw a ball up. The ball will fly backwards. If the Earth was moving then you would fly back in the same fashion every time you jumped.

We first must prove the Earth is round we do this by showing the curvature of the Earth. Look out to the horizon as far as you can, the walk there. You can see the next horizon, continue on until you get back to your original point on Earth (I assume you have a boat).

By using a telescope we can chart the movements of the planets around the Solar System. Using this we see that the Sun is stationary (not really but that is another discussion) and that all the planets, including Earth, revolve around the Sun. The Moon is the only exemption to revolve around the Earth.

That doesn't so much prove the Earth is round so much as big[footnote]If you wanted to prove the Earth was round just look at sea as a ship sails towards you. You will always see the ships sails before the ship itself[/footnote]. Although I never said it was.

How can the sun be stationary? If you drill a hole in a wall and mark where the sun hits at a certain time of day, the mark will be different for each day.

This is where the telescope come in. If we have charted the movements of all the planets we know that they are not orbiting the Earth but rather the sun. If we look at the movement of the Earth, in relation to the other planets, then we know we are moving around the Sun.

(Now I know how Galileo felt, lol)

So you're a mass-debater?

[sub]Sorry, I had to [/sub]

Ok:- I think, therefore I am.

Prove you are thinking

Impossible task. I can not prove that joke came from a thinking being. LOL

 

[FirstPersonWinner]

How about these? Pick your side.

Be it resolved that:
a) As Stalin's massacres were much more widespread than the Holocaust, the U.S.S.R. was more evil/deluded than Nazi Germany?
b) Music can not succeed in expressivity unless the message is both coherent and subtle, the lyrics not being to exclusivity a measure of a song's depth?
c) Western society is doomed to failure as was the late roman empire?
d) 2012 will be the end of the world?

I invite others to join in as well as I'm not a particularly good debater myself.

Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed above may not be those of the author.

A) That is debatable on the terms of if the genocides described are a result of the country or the political party/leader in power. It is also relative depending on if you view selective focused genocide or genocide caused by a negligent authoritative leadership controlling the country and destroying the economy. If we are just going by who was worse: Stalin oder* Hitler, I would say Stalin since at least Hitler was a good economic leader who brought Germany out of a horrible depression.**

C) Well most likely all countries will eventually come to an end. If this will happen within our lifetime? Probably not. There may be minor changes but it is unlikely that all major Western Powers will just suddenly be destroyed. It's not like they can sack Rome.

D) We could debate that but it seems irrelevant. There is no scientific data suggesting this event is likely. Th thing is that this is testable. Wait until 2012, if the world comes to an end, then sure it was the end of the world. I personally just think the Mayans wen "We just made a calender for the next thousand years. I think that should do.

 

[crudus]

All numbers are equal to all other numbers.

A and B are equal non-zero quantities:
(a = b)

multiply by a:
(a^2 = ab)

Subtract b^2:
(a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2)

Factor:
(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)

Divide (a - b):
(a + b = b)

Substitute for a = b:
(2b = b)

Divide by b:
(2 = 1)

a=b
therefore
a-b=0 for all numbers.
you divided by zero which is a mathematical no-no

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip
c) Western society is doomed to failure as was the late roman empire?
snip

I invite others to join in as well as I'm not a particularly good debater myself.

Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed above may not be those of the author.

sinp

C) Well most likely all countries will eventually come to an end. If this will happen within our lifetime? Probably not. There may be minor changes but it is unlikely that all major Western Powers will just suddenly be destroyed. It's not like they can sack Rome.

snip

I disagree, You can sack modern western cities. All you need is multiple terms of poor leadership causing weakened economy, this leads to civil unrest that diverts military and police assets away from strategic points. This can lead to a collapse of an economy.

Look at the looting from most riots, the damage done to most infrastructure greatly outweighs the lose of the items stolen. Any invading army will have better equipment to loot with and will be encouraged to do so to gather supplies like food and other necessities. The US even did it to some extent in WW2, although mostly when we liberated concentration camps or POW camps and had many more mouths to feed.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

Socialism is good.
*incoming shitstorm*

 

[FirstPersonWinner]

All numbers are equal to all other numbers.

a=b
therefore
a-b=0 for all numbers.
you divided by zero which is a mathematical no-no

Yay! You figured it out! I was hoping someone would understand the mathematical fallacy in that equation.

snip
c) Western society is doomed to failure as was the late roman empire?
snip

I invite others to join in as well as I'm not a particularly good debater myself.

Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed above may not be those of the author.

sinp

C) Well most likely all countries will eventually come to an end. If this will happen within our lifetime? Probably not. There may be minor changes but it is unlikely that all major Western Powers will just suddenly be destroyed. It's not like they can sack Rome.

snip

I disagree, You can sack modern western cities. All you need is multiple terms of poor leadership causing weakened economy, this leads to civil unrest that diverts military and police assets away from strategic points. This can lead to a collapse of an economy.

Look at the looting from most riots, the damage done to most infrastructure greatly outweighs the lose of the items stolen. Any invading army will have better equipment to loot with and will be encouraged to do so to gather supplies like food and other necessities. The US even did it to some extent in WW2, although mostly when we liberated concentration camps or POW camps and had many more mouths to feed.

I see your point but you must also consider that most major powers that have the supplied military structure to do this would not be willing to war with a major nuclear power especially if it would lead to a situation where said nuclear power becomes cornered and out of options.

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

 

[Flig]

You are not, and you never were, alive.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Socialism is good.
*incoming shitstorm*

Socialism is the system that place full emphasis on the government. Even under democracy, the government can be corrupted. The best system is a combination of Capitalism and Federalism (see federalism. If you distribute the authority out along many Checks and Balances then you reduce the corruption.

 

[DasDestroyer]

1^1 = 1
and
1^0 = 1
Therefore:
1=0
Therefore all numbers are equal to all other numbers.

 

[PayneTrayne]

One: Jesus rode a velicoraptor.

Two: I believe that killing can be justified. Argue that it could never be.
e.g) There is a gun man at the head of a bus full of child geniuses. I kill the gun man, thus saving the bus full of children, the driver, and myself.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Vietnam was a US defeat, debate otherwise.

 

[Jroo wuz heer]

hitler was bad

 

[azurine]

this sounds like fun!

let's see... 1+1=2.

I dare you to try and prove me wrong.

 

[masher]

You disagree with this statement.

 

[eggy32]

O.K. here's a tough one. I actually had to do this in school once. It's about Guantanamo Bay. I was chosen to argue for it and tell fo it's fantastic advantages and why it really shouldn't be shut down.

Go and do that for me. I failed, so will you. Take all the time you want, btw.

 

[TeeBs]

Scott does not watch Child Pornography.

*looked at your profile.*

 

[norwegian-guy]

[sub]Sorry, I had to [/sub]

Ok:- I think, therefore I am.

Prove you are thinking

I can prove that one think by the following. I will atempt to doubt everything. When I do this everything can be doubted exept doubt itself, for to doubt the action to doubt, there must be someone that doubt. Therefore doubting exist. But doubt spring from something else: the action of thinking. thus there must be thinking in order to doubt. Thus I conclude that one cannot doubt doubt. Since it cannot be doubted it must exist, since thinking is necesary for doubt there must be a thinker. -> I think therefore I am.
-Descartes.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

If there was intelligent design, why do we breathe and eat through the same tube? Pretty critical design flaw.

 

[eggy32]

If there was intelligent design, why do we breathe and eat through the same tube? Pretty critical design flaw.

Because we have 2 tubes for breathing. Also food and air part ways very early on in the tube.

Sorry, OP, I wanted to take this one, it was just so silly.

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip

snip
c) Western society is doomed to failure as was the late roman empire?
snip

I invite others to join in as well as I'm not a particularly good debater myself.

Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed above may not be those of the author.

sinp

C) Well most likely all countries will eventually come to an end. If this will happen within our lifetime? Probably not. There may be minor changes but it is unlikely that all major Western Powers will just suddenly be destroyed. It's not like they can sack Rome.

snip

I disagree, You can sack modern western cities. All you need is multiple terms of poor leadership causing weakened economy, this leads to civil unrest that diverts military and police assets away from strategic points. This can lead to a collapse of an economy.

Look at the looting from most riots, the damage done to most infrastructure greatly outweighs the lose of the items stolen. Any invading army will have better equipment to loot with and will be encouraged to do so to gather supplies like food and other necessities. The US even did it to some extent in WW2, although mostly when we liberated concentration camps or POW camps and had many more mouths to feed.

I see your point but you must also consider that most major powers that have the supplied military structure to do this would not be willing to war with a major nuclear power especially if it would lead to a situation where said nuclear power becomes cornered and out of options.

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.