I will debate almost anything

[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.

Damn it. Ok, what games and shows and movies DO you know?

Problem is if this get into a "verse thread" the Mods will come. So far I still have hopes for my Neo badge.

 

[Kurokami]

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.

Terrorism. If you said that one word after 9/11 to argue for it you'd have passed with an A+.

It shows great ingenuity and guile in the United States', or whoever you wish to blame for it's, ability to maneuver around those inconvenient Geneva conventions. It employs Americans, feeds and accommodates people from various other cultures and leaving no rock (person) left unturned (tortured) looking for clues as to terrorism.

Oh and location, why shut the place down when you can turn it into a resort!

 

[FalloutJack]

Batman is not wearing a mask. The mask is his real face. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

 

[FirstPersonWinner]

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.

Yes but if China invaded the US it would already be a world war. And since when did the UN ever have any actual punishment for use of nuclear force and arms build up other than a wrist slap? Also if we are doing China vs America in crisis now as an example may I say two things:

1) The US is probably the only major power who allows its citizens to keep, carry, and store arms. It is our second most protected right. I mean the founding fathers top list of rights goes: 1) freedom of speech, 2) freedom to arm yourselves.

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).

I mean I can just see Chinese forces trying to take LA, Detroit, any place in the south, New York, Most of south California (and North for that matter), Texas, Most of those crazy north eastern cities (Philidelphia, Chicago, Cinncinatti, etc.) and so on. I mean they could probably get away with taking Hawaii, Alaska, and Florida, and then maybe the Carolinas & Virginia but that is about it.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Here is one, try to convince me a katana is (as many proclaim) the best sword and that samurai are deadlier than knights.

I am certain you can't do it. Katanas may cut well, but you can't cut mail (the armor variety, not the stuff from the post office). They are too light to do much blunt damage, and they aren't overly good for stabbing. They are stopped cold by something invented around 500 bc (mail, which was invented by the Celts and has been used by every major western power since, it is still in use today to reinforce Kevlar to protect against knife attacks). If they can't best mail, how could they defeat full plate?
The knight on the other hand has a lot of anti-armor weapons that will easily best samurai armor. Samurai generally used leather reinforced with small plates or lamellar (small overlapping plates laced together). They were good at stopping a katana, but they would be worthless against maces and other blunt weapons. They were also not too good against piercing.

 

[Chefodeath]

Well, this guys a Master Debater

 

[X10J]

Batman is not wearing a mask. The mask is his real face. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

To clerify, is what you mean to say that Batman is wearing a mask, and that that mask is Bruce Wayne?

 

[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.

Yes but if China invaded the US it would already be a world war. And since when did the UN ever have any actual punishment for use of nuclear force and arms build up other than a wrist slap? Also if we are doing China vs America in crisis now as an example may I say two things:

1) The US is probably the only major power who allows its citizens to keep, carry, and store arms. It is our second most protected right. I mean the founding fathers top list of rights goes: 1) freedom of speech, 2) freedom to arm yourselves.

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).

I mean I can just see Chinese forces trying to take LA, Detroit, any place in the south, New York, Most of south California (and North for that matter), Texas, Most of those crazy north eastern cities (Philidelphia, Chicago, Cinncinatti, etc.) and so on. I mean they could probably get away with taking Hawaii, Alaska, and Florida, and then maybe the Carolinas & Virginia but that is about it.

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

Batman is not wearing a mask. The mask is his real face. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

To clerify, is what you mean to say that Batman is wearing a mask, and that that mask is Bruce Wayne?

In one comic or another (I want to say Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum, though I may be wrong), someone said that it was pointless to remove the mask, because the mask WAS his real face. Namely, Batman is the real person. So, perhaps Bruce Wayne being the false identity is what I mean.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Well, this guys a Master Debater

You are the 3rd person to make that joke. Do you still fell proud?

 

[Gilhelmi]

Batman is not wearing a mask. The mask is his real face. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

To clerify, is what you mean to say that Batman is wearing a mask, and that that mask is Bruce Wayne?

In one comic or another (I want to say Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum, though I may be wrong), someone said that it was pointless to remove the mask, because the mask WAS his real face. Namely, Batman is the real person. So, perhaps Bruce Wayne being the false identity is what I mean.

Wow that is deep. I should read batman comics again.

 

[Jewrean]

All Devil-Worshipers that sacrifice people to Satan are immoral because killing people is just plain wrong.

 

[milkkart]

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.

the earth drags the atmosphere round with it as it rotates, higher up the atmosphere is less affected by the spin of the earth and you get massive winds. this doesn't work in reverse (i.e. earth remains still everything else drags the atmosphere, closers to the earth there is less drag from everything else) as outside the atmosphere is a vacuum and therefore there is no matter cause friction and any mass sufficient enough to cause the dragging by gravity would not have its gravitation sufficiently depleted in the distance between the upper atmosphere and the surface of the earth to account for the difference in wind speeds.

there is also the coriolis effect which causes specific air patterns due to the interaction between air currents and the earths rotation.

there are probably more complete ways to disprove that but this was the first one i thought of and i want to go to sleep.

All Devil-Worshipers that sacrifice people to Satan are immoral because killing people is just plain wrong.

morals are personal, relative and defined by culture, if their cultural reference point is satanism where human sacrifice is morally fine then your judgement that it is immoral is irrelevant to them. whether something is moral or not is not a property which actually exists outside of the mind of the person making the judgement.

of course this doesn't stop it being illegal and them being prosecuted for it because its murder. which makes it a nice way of point out that morals are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to making laws and you're better off basing it on the harm and benefit caused to the people concerned.

(i hope you realise this is just a thought experiment and human sacrificing satanists don't exist outside the fevered imaginations of bible belters hopped up on JAYZUS and moneyspinning preachers)

 

[Vohn_exel]

My favorite color is green! Debate that!

 

[Boom129]

here's one
I think you will debate this

 

[Engarde]

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

Ah, but is it justified to have such a system with the current 'trial by media attitude? Since as we all know, humans are not perfect, is it truly fair to say the system could work?

Not to mention, will the poor who may have had to steal to survive deserve execution, thus also most likely dooming their family?

Anyway, was just a bit of fun, we can let it drop there if you wish. I am thouroughly amused.

 

[Sammi Costello]

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)

You can't do the bold step (ie, you can't divide by (a - b)). This is because a is equal to be, and so, (a - b) = 0. You can't divide by zero (in this instance at least). Therefore, by this proof, 2=/=1.

 

[TeeBs]

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

I think this guy has a valid argument.

I also second this.

 

[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

Ah, but is it justified to have such a system with the current 'trial by media attitude? Since as we all know, humans are not perfect, is it truly fair to say the system could work?

Not to mention, will the poor who may have had to steal to survive deserve execution, thus also most likely dooming their family?

Anyway, was just a bit of fun, we can let it drop there if you wish. I am thouroughly amused.

The most I could see is non-violent crime not being punishable by death.

But even those Hobos are hurting our utopia by being poor. Now if we make poverty punishable by death that should motivate them to get jobs or start a business.
Disclaimer: no I do not really think this

OK; this was a fun and silly one

 

[SeaCalMaster]

The Axiom of Choice is correct.