I will debate almost anything

[Exort]

NP-hard is a hard problem (or easy problem).

You can take any side.

 

[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.

But if all people learn to work their jobs, and benefit to society equally, everyone gets the same amount of things, over time, envy and jealousy have been bred out of humans, so corruption would not happen in a socialistic society

Not really, two people have the same job, same benefits. One man buys a nice new car, the other buy a nice new lawn. Both items are equally priced. The car guy can still be envious of the lawn guy, and the lawn guy can still be envious of the car guy.

Now say one man gets promoted because he brown nosed the boss. Someone who may have worked hard to get that promotion, who was just passed over, might be jealous.

Corruption happens because it is a flaw in human character.

I'm sorry but you guys are discussing communism not socialism. It sorta bugs me because I'm a socialist not a communist.

Neither am I, but the debate is still fun, and helps to form your own opinions.

Not what i meant. Sorry if i come across a little unclear but it's late here in Denmark

Denmark, Sweden and Norway are examples of socialistic states. Just saying they're aren't communists.
A communist state would be with no differences and all under government control.
Socialism is the not so extreme edition =). The government provides free health care, education and other social services, but does not "own" the national economy.

Yes, I misread your statement. I have been at this for an hour and a half. I understand now. I guess me and RamirezDoEverything started into more of a debate on human nature since then.

 

[A random person]

That you don't exist.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

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.

But if all people learn to work their jobs, and benefit to society equally, everyone gets the same amount of things, over time, envy and jealousy have been bred out of humans, so corruption would not happen in a socialistic society

Not really, two people have the same job, same benefits. One man buys a nice new car, the other buy a nice new lawn. Both items are equally priced. The car guy can still be envious of the lawn guy, and the lawn guy can still be envious of the car guy.

Now say one man gets promoted because he brown nosed the boss. Someone who may have worked hard to get that promotion, who was just passed over, might be jealous.

Corruption happens because it is a flaw in human character.

I'm sorry but you guys are discussing communism not socialism. It sorta bugs me because I'm a socialist not a communist.

Neither am I, but the debate is still fun, and helps to form your own opinions.

Not what i meant. Sorry if i come across a little unclear but it's late here in Denmark

Denmark, Sweden and Norway are examples of socialistic states. Just saying they're aren't communists.
A communist state would be with no differences and all under government control.
Socialism is the not so extreme edition =). The government provides free health care, education and other social services, but does not "own" the national economy.

I never said communism, everyone still receives same pay, and in small numbers in the beginning, eventually growing to large enough state can be successful WITHOUT human greed

 

[erto101]

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.

But if all people learn to work their jobs, and benefit to society equally, everyone gets the same amount of things, over time, envy and jealousy have been bred out of humans, so corruption would not happen in a socialistic society

Not really, two people have the same job, same benefits. One man buys a nice new car, the other buy a nice new lawn. Both items are equally priced. The car guy can still be envious of the lawn guy, and the lawn guy can still be envious of the car guy.

Now say one man gets promoted because he brown nosed the boss. Someone who may have worked hard to get that promotion, who was just passed over, might be jealous.

Corruption happens because it is a flaw in human character.

I'm sorry but you guys are discussing communism not socialism. It sorta bugs me because I'm a socialist not a communist.

Neither am I, but the debate is still fun, and helps to form your own opinions.

Not what i meant. Sorry if i come across a little unclear but it's late here in Denmark

Denmark, Sweden and Norway are examples of socialistic states. Just saying they're aren't communists.
A communist state would be with no differences and all under government control.
Socialism is the not so extreme edition =). The government provides free health care, education and other social services, but does not "own" the national economy.

Yes, I misread your statement. I have been at this for an hour and a half. I understand now. I guess me and RamirezDoEverything started into more of a debate on human nature since then.

As fun as debates might be, i gotta finish my physics paper
Night =)

 

[Cyberjester]

Videogames are a legitimate form of human expression due to their interactive nature and the player's ability to imprint themselves onto the main character.

Barbie Island Adventures.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

lol, my friends challenged me to do this once... They went with "Pros and Cons of the Holocaust" and made me "Pros"... I still won though...

Heres a good one... Debate with me on "Pros and Cons of Modern Medicine"... You be Cons just to make it interesting...

Modern Medicine penetrates the body with chemicals that were only recently started to be used. Most of the modern drugs have nasty side effects.

A better solution is Natural medicines, these do not have the nasty side effects and can be just as effective (in some cases more effective) then the artificial drugs.

I hate to go all conspiracy theory, but in 1987 the AMA tried to dispose of the Natural approach of Chiropractic medicine (see Wilk_v._American_Medical_Association). Chiropractic medicine rarely passes out drugs or prescriptions but instead uses more natural approaches like realigning the body and mild electric-stimulus on tense muscles.

Chiropractic emphasizes more on the natural side of how the body interacts with itself and pressure points and immediate non-drug treatment, unlike modern medicine that tells doctors to give 2 pills and call in the morning.

I actually agree with this one.

Sorry for taking forever on the response... Watching "How to Train Your Dragon"... Good movie...

*whistles* That's pretty nice, I never even thought of Chiropractic Medicinal techniques! Mind if I use this come Debate Class next week?

Although I originally meant that Natural Medicines were to be included with modern medicines, and that you were to debate the cons about medicine period... but that's more of my fault for not explaining more thoroughly...

You get bonus points either way!

 

[Gilhelmi]

I argue that cookies are better with whip cream than milk.
prove me wrong...prove me wrong.

Milk provide a more fulfilling taste when dipped in milk. It also softens the crust and eases chewing to allow it to slid down the throat in one smooth motion.

 

[Cyberjester]

Assisted suicide.

I'm all for it, i think people who are ill should have the right to die without fear of the people who help them getting prosecuted.

No, they should kill themselves, not get others to do it for them. If they can't consent to it, then it's murder and should be treated as such.

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.

You weren't trying if you failed.

Think of the theory of evolution, and take it to it's logical conclusion. People are worthless. Here by a fluke of heat and materials, the strong survive, survival of the fittest. Then take the old systems and show them to be archaic. Chivalry is sexist, prolonging the life of the old is harsh and against their wishes, keeping the sick alive is faulty, they should be culled. Euthanasia.

Then take the systems of battle. The USA is restricted by the rules of conduct, the militants are unrestricted, firing from inside occupied buildings, dressing as women and then pulling out AK's, dressing civilians as suicide bombers and sending them against check points under threat of their family being raped and killed.

Now go to the logical conclusion, Guantanamo is a needed structure, it operates outside of the confines of USA'ian law and thus gives needed information from prisoners. The rights of PoW's need be granted only to countries which reciprocity said rights, any country that executes it's prisoners on live TV doesn't deserve the same treatment. Information about training camps, about tactics, about troop strengths cannot be gotten by any other means and thus Guantanamo Bay has it's advantages.

this sounds like fun!

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

I dare you to try and prove me wrong.

1+1=3 for large enough values of 1.

The average size of a bun/bread roll is 150 grams. You have 4 of them. One bun = 150 grams, but another is 200, another 200, another 200. You have 4 buns, but 5 worth in materials. 1+1+1+1=5.

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

Welcome to the club. If you like doing this, I advise studying creation and science then going to an evolution forum.

Those things last for ages, until the name calling starts. Then it's time to move on. If you like debates and run out of opponents, just start learning. And learn, and learn. Read encyclopaedias, wiki doesn't count. Then random thread just argue against the masses. It's fun and entertaining.

 

[Joshimodo]

Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and we have proof due to Carbon dating and fossil records.

Debate.

 

[KuwaSanjuro]

No, you can't!, couldn't be arsed to check whether someone else has said the same thing.

 

[Gilhelmi]

lol, my friends challenged me to do this once... They went with "Pros and Cons of the Holocaust" and made me "Pros"... I still won though...

Heres a good one... Debate with me on "Pros and Cons of Modern Medicine"... You be Cons just to make it interesting...

Modern Medicine penetrates the body with chemicals that were only recently started to be used. Most of the modern drugs have nasty side effects.

A better solution is Natural medicines, these do not have the nasty side effects and can be just as effective (in some cases more effective) then the artificial drugs.

I hate to go all conspiracy theory, but in 1987 the AMA tried to dispose of the Natural approach of Chiropractic medicine (see Wilk_v._American_Medical_Association). Chiropractic medicine rarely passes out drugs or prescriptions but instead uses more natural approaches like realigning the body and mild electric-stimulus on tense muscles.

Chiropractic emphasizes more on the natural side of how the body interacts with itself and pressure points and immediate non-drug treatment, unlike modern medicine that tells doctors to give 2 pills and call in the morning.

I actually agree with this one.

Sorry for taking forever on the response... Watching "How to Train Your Dragon"... Good movie...

*whistles* That's pretty nice, I never even thought of Chiropractic Medicinal techniques! Mind if I use this come Debate Class next week?

Although I originally meant that Natural Medicines were to be included with modern medicines, and that you were to debate the cons about medicine period... but that's more of my fault for not explaining more thoroughly...

You get bonus points either way!

That is a good movie, made me cry.

Yes, you may use it in class as long as you credit me for thinking of it

Lastly, thank you for the compliment.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Argue that dinosaurs never existed.

Argue that Justin Bieber is a talented musician.

Argue that Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious of Sex Pistols fame are examples of perfect human beings.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

That is a good movie, made me cry.

...and here I am, thinking I was the only one

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

I assumed, that most of the responders here would not choose a topic I do not know anything about because I am usually more studied then they are.

Don't you think it's a bit arrogant?

Maybe a little. But so far I have not been wrong.

But a debate isn't about being right, now is it? It's not about flattering your ego, it's about finding the best position. You can't be right about every subject, otherwise that would defeat the purpose of a debate. What's the point of debating everything, even a position you don't support? If I said "God doesn't exist, prove me wrong" and subsequently said "God exists, prove me wrong", It would only amount to rhetoric if you'd try to prove both positions one after the other. You'd have to take a position (even if it's "we can't prove nor deny the existence of god").

Don't you agree?

 

[Gilhelmi]

Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and we have proof due to Carbon dating and fossil records.

Debate.

Creationist *facepalm* OK let me think.

How did the bumble bee evolve? Everything it has, it needs to survive. At no point could the Bee live without wings or it sense of smell.

There are many examples of Carbon dating being wrong, The shroud of Turin was originally dated to the 15th century even though we have records of it existing before that. Anything can throw of the process; fire, chipping, cracking, even cleaning, and UV radiation.

How do we really know that those fossils are not from 5000 years ago?

Disclaimer: no I do not really think this

 

[Blobpie]

This will be fun!

Question: Are pants beneficial to mankind, and if not how?

(I'll be the pros of pants you be cons )

Pants are so restrictive. Without the restraint of pants we would be able to move faster. I know we would be without pockets, my solution is a messenger bag. They hold more then pockets.

Also, who needs that pesky modesty. Animals run free, why should I not be free?

Disclaimer: no I do not really think this

lol

But pants not only keep our legs warm but they also help protect our legs from being scratched. And not only that, but you can just add more pockets to pants. Or even modify tights to have pockets!

 

[Gilhelmi]

I assumed, that most of the responders here would not choose a topic I do not know anything about because I am usually more studied then they are.

Don't you think it's a bit arrogant?

Maybe a little. But so far I have not been wrong.

But a debate isn't about being right, now is it? It's not about flattering your ego, it's about finding the best position. You can't be right about every subject, otherwise that would defeat the purpose of a debate. What's the point of debating everything, even a position you don't support? If I said "God doesn't exist, prove me wrong" and subsequently said "God exists, prove me wrong", It would only amount to rhetoric if you'd try to prove both positions one after the other. You'd have to take a position (even if it's "we can't prove nor deny the existence of god").

Don't you agree?

This is true. But most debate classes do have these exercises. It helps you to look at the other side of the debate so that you can come with a reasonable response and not be caught 'flat-footed'. Also, you are right I do not want to debate God here. I do not want that standard rhetoric.

Nothing in life is right or wrong, but it is the search that drives me to do this. By thinking "what is their point of view" I have to study my own. I use to be a creationist, through years of debate, I realized that my God could create using evolution. Now I believe in theistic evolution. Without debate, I would still be a creationist not even thinking why I am.