I will debate almost anything

[TeeBs]

I think Child Pornography is bad, why do you support it?

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

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.

I see. I find it a bit funny, because I am a Christian, but believe that religion and science both have a different purpose that do not conflict with each other. So while I do believe in the existence of God, I'm still an evolutionist. I believe that the Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, that the dinosaurs existed, that evolution is the result of luck and natural selection etc.

My father has the exact same position as me, even though he goes to church and is a teacher in theology at the University of Montreal. His is held in high regard in the protestant religious community in Canada, and uses his position to prevent what could be called "religious nut-jobs" from spouting their non-sense to gullible or naive individuals/groups. He is in constant feud with creationists, and it has become an inside-joke between him and me that they would never change their opinion. Of course, as you have proven me, you just need to be open-minded.

I'm sorry. I really got off-topic here.

Though I think the title should be changed to "I will debate almost anything".

 

[Gilhelmi]

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

The primary theory of evolution is via a combination of natural selection and genetic superiority. Ergo, bees are likely a step ahead from things such as wasps, which are in turn evolutionary descendants from ants. It's senses and abilities are a result of genetic mutations being passed on by successful parents being able to breed more often.

There's also reasons why certain species haven't evolved much, such as the Dragonfly - Their goal is to simply mate, rather than mate with superior partners. Ergo, little mutation has occurred, only size reduction.

I can go no farther with that one. You have won. (I started to tune out the creationist a long time ago, mostly after the 'banana incident'. The banana is evolutionist nightmare because it fits so perfectly in our hands *facepalm*.)

As for Carbon dating, the main issues still do not account for millions of years of rock and other sediment to build up. Besides, where is your proof of the myth surrounding the Turin shroud?

14 facts

I know that is only a quick Google search but I did see the same thing on the History Channel so it give credence to this. From the article

Now, by 2008, few scholars think that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin is correct. As reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta and by PBS and National Geographic, forensic evidence clearly shows that what was tested is chemically unlike the main body of the Shroud.

Even scholars are questioning the 1988 results, not just the faithful. in 88 they choose a bad sample from an area that was probably damage in a 15th century fire. The fire is part of the recored lore of the shroud.

Lastly, every depiction of Adam and Eve, even those that were shown in dreams, have bellybuttons. What gives?

I suspect that those depictions were wrong. We never have actually seen Adam and Eve.Disclaimer: no I do not really think this

This is fun. So few people I know can actually give a good debate, and even less enjoy doing so.

Thank you. This was one of the harder ones so far.

In this one there are parts I do believe and parts I do not. I found it interesting when I was debating both at the same time.

 

[Joshimodo]

As for Carbon dating, the main issues still do not account for millions of years of rock and other sediment to build up. Besides, where is your proof of the myth surrounding the Turin shroud?

14 facts

I know that is only a quick Google search but I did see the same thing on the History Channel so it give credence to this. From the article

Now, by 2008, few scholars think that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin is correct. As reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta and by PBS and National Geographic, forensic evidence clearly shows that what was tested is chemically unlike the main body of the Shroud.

Even scholars are questioning the 1988 results, not just the faithful. in 88 they choose a bad sample from an area that was probably damage in a 15th century fire. The fire is part of the recored lore of the shroud.

Marvellous, in regards to the completed areas of debate. Let's continue.

Carbon dating is fairly reliable, at least to get a grasp on the general age of an object. However, your response was somewhat confusing - Primarily down to double standards. On one hand, scholar approval of the Turin shroud and carbon dating of it is acceptable (beyond the previous mistake), however the sampling of thousands of fossils and approval of thousands of scholars isn't?


Also, on a less debate-hungry point, bananas are just evolutionary, much like the existence of the orange carrot. It's evolution, but in the carrot's case, forced. Genetic engineering at the most simple level!

 

[Gilhelmi]

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.

I see. I find it a bit funny, because I am a Christian, but believe that religion and science both have a different purpose that do not conflict with each other. So while I do believe in the existence of God, I'm still an evolutionist. I believe that the Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, that the dinosaurs existed, that evolution is the result of luck and natural selection etc.

My father has the exact same position as me, even though he goes to church and is a teacher in theology at the University of Montreal. His is held in high regard in the protestant religious community in Canada, and uses his position to prevent what could be called "religious nut-jobs" from spouting their non-sense to gullible or naive individuals/groups. He is in constant feud with creationists, and it has become an inside-joke between him and me that they would never change their opinion. Of course, as you have proven me, you just need to be open-minded.

I'm sorry. I really got off-topic here.

Though I think the title should be changed to "I will debate almost anything".

I agree with you. That is the exact same position that I hold. And being Off-topic gives me a break. I think I will change the title to that.

This is what I tell creationists. "I have a theory that the creation of Man and Woman is a separate act then the creation of Adam and Eve. Man and Woman are the physical bodies we have, and Adam and Eve were the first souls to use these bodies. All souls are decedents of Adam and Eve. So the story of creation is true but it leaves out a lot of details our ancient ancestors could not understand."

I do still like the Creationists and I only tell them this in proper debate settings

 

[X10J]

I have a tough one.

Support this statement:

So far, I am correct, no one has given a topic I do not know anything about.

While acknowledging the existance of this discussion:

Debate which would win in an all-out fight: The Deadites, The Necromorphs or the Flood. Pick any side and try to convince me.

I only know who the Flood are.

*Gil hands over his Nerd Club members badge*

*Sorry, could not resist.*

 

[Flying Dagger]

seems more of a forum game than an off topic post

argue with that.

 

[Gilhelmi]

As for Carbon dating, the main issues still do not account for millions of years of rock and other sediment to build up. Besides, where is your proof of the myth surrounding the Turin shroud?

14 facts

I know that is only a quick Google search but I did see the same thing on the History Channel so it give credence to this. From the article

Now, by 2008, few scholars think that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin is correct. As reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta and by PBS and National Geographic, forensic evidence clearly shows that what was tested is chemically unlike the main body of the Shroud.

Even scholars are questioning the 1988 results, not just the faithful. in 88 they choose a bad sample from an area that was probably damage in a 15th century fire. The fire is part of the recored lore of the shroud.

Marvellous, in regards to the completed areas of debate. Let's continue.

Carbon dating is fairly reliable, at least to get a grasp on the general age of an object. However, your response was somewhat confusing - Primarily down to double standards. On one hand, scholar approval of the Turin shroud and carbon dating of it is acceptable (beyond the previous mistake), however the sampling of thousands of fossils and approval of thousands of scholars isn't?

Darn, you caught that. OK, well now I am out of ideas on this one too. I agree that Carbon Dating is relatively reliable if you take multiple samples from multiple places.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I have a tough one.

Support this statement:

So far, I am correct, no one has given a topic I do not know anything about.

While acknowledging the existance of this discussion:

Debate which would win in an all-out fight: The Deadites, The Necromorphs or the Flood. Pick any side and try to convince me.

I only know who the Flood are.

*Gil hands over his Nerd Club members badge*

*Sorry, could not resist.*

You are correct, I have been bested.

 

[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.

Your despicable....(pick up cookies and whip cream)Nomnomnom.....
But with milk you risk the chance of losing the cookie or it falling apart lifting it up and while I like drinking milk with cookies it does not enhance the taste of the cookie but lessens it causing your taste buds to react more to the chocolate chips, which i detest.

That is your opinion, mine is that it is enhanced. We are at a stalemate. DUN DUN DUUUUUUU

 

[TeeBs]

I think Child Pornography is bad, why do you support it?

I think this guy has a valid argument.

 

[X10J]

This is a nice thread. Its cool to see people debating without getting into a rage about the topics.

This isn't a topic for debate; just my opinion.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

I see. I find it a bit funny, because I am a Christian, but believe that religion and science both have a different purpose that do not conflict with each other. So while I do believe in the existence of God, I'm still an evolutionist. I believe that the Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, that the dinosaurs existed, that evolution is the result of luck and natural selection etc.

My father has the exact same position as me, even though he goes to church and is a teacher in theology at the University of Montreal. His is held in high regard in the protestant religious community in Canada, and uses his position to prevent what could be called "religious nut-jobs" from spouting their non-sense to gullible or naive individuals/groups. He is in constant feud with creationists, and it has become an inside-joke between him and me that they would never change their opinion. Of course, as you have proven me, you just need to be open-minded.

I'm sorry. I really got off-topic here.

Though I think the title should be changed to "I will debate almost anything".

I agree with you. That is the exact same position that I hold. And being Off-topic gives me a break. I think I will change the title to that.

This is what I tell creationists. "I have a theory that the creation of Man and Woman is a separate act then the creation of Adam and Eve. Man and Woman are the physical bodies we have, and Adam and Eve were the first souls to use these bodies. All souls are decedents of Adam and Eve. So the story of creation is true but it leaves out a lot of details our ancient ancestors could not understand."

I do still like the Creationists and I only tell them this in proper debate settings

Yeah. Every time I tell my father "Hey, why don't you just like make a big conference about it and challenge any creationist to a debate?" he answers with something like "Because that's just a good way to damage one's reputation. You need to be polite, kind and respect the opinion of others. I just prevent extremists from going too far."

 

[Kadoodle]

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.

Wrong. If you throw a ball up while inside a moving car, it will not go backwards. However, if you throw the ball up while the car is still, and midair the car starts moving, the ball will go backwards. It works like this. As you throw your hand up to toss the ball, your hand is also moving with the car, meaning that the ball will go both up and forward (at the same rate as the car), and land back in your hand.


If you are in a convertible, then the ball goes back simply due to air resistance; ie friction. If the ball has a greater mass (and therefore greater inertia and weight), it will be less likely to fly back.

Your "simple experiment" isn't very controlled.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I see. I find it a bit funny, because I am a Christian, but believe that religion and science both have a different purpose that do not conflict with each other. So while I do believe in the existence of God, I'm still an evolutionist. I believe that the Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, that the dinosaurs existed, that evolution is the result of luck and natural selection etc.

My father has the exact same position as me, even though he goes to church and is a teacher in theology at the University of Montreal. His is held in high regard in the protestant religious community in Canada, and uses his position to prevent what could be called "religious nut-jobs" from spouting their non-sense to gullible or naive individuals/groups. He is in constant feud with creationists, and it has become an inside-joke between him and me that they would never change their opinion. Of course, as you have proven me, you just need to be open-minded.

I'm sorry. I really got off-topic here.

Though I think the title should be changed to "I will debate almost anything".

I agree with you. That is the exact same position that I hold. And being Off-topic gives me a break. I think I will change the title to that.

This is what I tell creationists. "I have a theory that the creation of Man and Woman is a separate act then the creation of Adam and Eve. Man and Woman are the physical bodies we have, and Adam and Eve were the first souls to use these bodies. All souls are decedents of Adam and Eve. So the story of creation is true but it leaves out a lot of details our ancient ancestors could not understand."

I do still like the Creationists and I only tell them this in proper debate settings

Yeah. Every time I tell my father "Hey, why don't you just like make a big conference about it and challenge any creationist to a debate?" he answers with something like "Because that's just a good way to damage one's reputation. You need to be polite, kind and respect the opinion of others. I just prevent extremists from going too far."

That is just, if not more, as important as changing peoples minds. Extremists are not fun people and hurt our religion reputation more then one belief. Here is a group you might be interested in.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Religious-Escapists-unite
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Theist-Discussion-Group

They are people just like us, but from all walks of faith.

 

[captaincabbage]

You'll debate the opposite side of this argument

No he won't.

 

[Kadoodle]

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?

Hitlers massacres were very carefully planned, and EXTREMELY systematic. Every name was recorded, every event carefully documented.

Stalin may have massacred, be he wasn't trying to eradicate the "inferior race." Hitler was attempting ethnic cleansing.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Debate which would win in an all-out fight: The Deadites, The Necromorphs or the Flood. Pick any side and try to convince me.

I only know who the Flood are.

*Gil hands over his Nerd Club members badge*

Ok then, debate who would win in a fight between Noble Team (Halo: Reach) and Blue Team (Kelly, Fred, Linda and John, Halo books).

I know Master Chief is my Avatar, but I have never read any of the books.

 

[Engarde]

I have a one.

All crimes deserve equal punishment, here meaning the death penalty.
I'll argue negative, you argue positive.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I have a one.

All crimes deserve equal punishment, here meaning the death penalty.
I'll argue negative, you argue positive.

Well it would reduce the population which is starting to get overcrowded.

Also, it will give very good incentive to not commit crimes. I will assume accidental crimes like occasional speeding and the like are only ticketable offenses (unless you are a repeat offender). As long as the justice system is fair we will have no problems.

Disclaimer: no I do not really think this