I will debate almost anything

[Megacherv]

(4 ? 5)² = (6 ? 5)²

4 ? 5 = 6 ? 5

That bit there

Sure the top part works fine, but the bottom doesn't because of the 2 outcomes of root-1: 1 and -1

You could say, however, that |4-5| = |6-5|

 

[Skorpyo]

You want a debate? HERE'S a debate:

?Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

You`ve got to be kidding me. I`ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It`s just common sense.

Congratulations.

You win +5 Internets.

 

[DasDestroyer]

You want a debate? HERE'S a debate:

?Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??

You`ve got to be kidding me. I`ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It`s just common sense.

Congratulations.

You win +5 Internets.

And where do I go to claim said Internets?

 

[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.

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.

Yes China has a lot of people, and if they drafted all their males at age to war they would have a huge standing force, but they would find themselves unable to supply all of them without a MASSIVE arms build up. It will be like the Russians in WW2, and before you say they won, the only reason for this was that the country they were fighting was fighting several other countries at the same time.

A smaller more well armed force has throughout history been known to maim/beat a less well trained or equipped force. Along with this guerrilla warfare, especially with being defenders of a home nation, America would be all set up to fight the heck out of that battle. Also China being overseas would have it harder to equip their soldiers and keep up morale. (Remember this is China not north Korea. While they are under a scary totalitarian leadership they only follow by force and not by zealous mind control.)

And again I say: "Mericans be crazy." Just think of the things that crazy random Americans would do to defend their country? Think about it and say to yourself: "Would I not be freaked out fighting those people?"

Just telling you, it's not going to be easy when you have people riding around with no shirt and cargo pant with an American flag and a cape in a truck throwing molotovs and bottles of urine at your troops while randomly discharging automatic fire at them as their radio sub-woofer plays some kind of insane patriotic song like "America, F*** Yeah!" loud enough that the base shakes the area for about 100 yds. And we just call that Sunday Night Football.

 

[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.

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.

Yes China has a lot of people, and if they drafted all their males at age to war they would have a huge standing force, but they would find themselves unable to supply all of them without a MASSIVE arms build up. It will be like the Russians in WW2, and before you say they won, the only reason for this was that the country they were fighting was fighting several other countries at the same time.

A smaller more well armed force has throughout history been known to maim/beat a less well trained or equipped force. Along with this guerrilla warfare, especially with being defenders of a home nation, America would be all set up to fight the heck out of that battle. Also China being overseas would have it harder to equip their soldiers and keep up morale. (Remember this is China not north Korea. While they are under a scary totalitarian leadership they only follow by force and not by zealous mind control.)

And again I say: "Mericans be crazy." Just think of the things that crazy random Americans would do to defend their country? Think about it and say to yourself: "Would I not be freaked out fighting those people?"

Just telling you, it's not going to be easy when you have people riding around with no shirt and cargo pant with an American flag and a cape in a truck throwing molotovs and bottles of urine at your troops while randomly discharging automatic fire at them as their radio sub-woofer plays some kind of insane patriotic song like "America, F*** Yeah!" loud enough that the base shakes the area for about 100 yds. And we just call that Sunday Night Football.

OK I admit this. If China invaded, I would fit the description of your last two paragraphs. I, for fun, have thought of many way to defend against an invading army. You are right China would have a near impossible time of winning.

That was fun, Thank you

 

[milkkart]

Spoiler: snip

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.

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.

Yes China has a lot of people, and if they drafted all their males at age to war they would have a huge standing force, but they would find themselves unable to supply all of them without a MASSIVE arms build up. It will be like the Russians in WW2, and before you say they won, the only reason for this was that the country they were fighting was fighting several other countries at the same time.

A smaller more well armed force has throughout history been known to maim/beat a less well trained or equipped force. Along with this guerrilla warfare, especially with being defenders of a home nation, America would be all set up to fight the heck out of that battle. Also China being overseas would have it harder to equip their soldiers and keep up morale. (Remember this is China not north Korea. While they are under a scary totalitarian leadership they only follow by force and not by zealous mind control.)

And again I say: "Mericans be crazy." Just think of the things that crazy random Americans would do to defend their country? Think about it and say to yourself: "Would I not be freaked out fighting those people?"

Just telling you, it's not going to be easy when you have people riding around with no shirt and cargo pant with an American flag and a cape in a truck throwing molotovs and bottles of urine at your troops while randomly discharging automatic fire at them as their radio sub-woofer plays some kind of insane patriotic song like "America, F*** Yeah!" loud enough that the base shakes the area for about 100 yds. And we just call that Sunday Night Football.

OK I admit this. If China invaded, I would fit the description of your last two paragraphs. I, for fun, have thought of many way to defend against an invading army. You are right China would have a near impossible time of winning.

That was fun, Thank you

theres something else you didn't seem to consider, how the hell would china get those millions of troops to america? especially without getting shot out of the sky/sea on the way there.

 

[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.

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

I loved how we turned that to 'being poor is punishable by death.' Thank you for brightening my day!

 

[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

I loved how we turned that to 'being poor is punishable by death.' Thank you for brightening my day!

You are welcome. I am surprised by that as well.

 

[skeliton112]

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.

I want to take a shot at it.

Guantanimo bay is a testement to the power and brutality of the current world superpower, the United States of America. Its methods, while being unortodox and "inhumane", have show those who would destroy this land of plenty how powerful its wrath can be. It has also shown those liveing in the land of the free herself how safe they are in the arms of their elected officials, safe due to the three arms of government. /arguement

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

Prove (or at least argue for) the existence of God.

 

[milkkart]

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.

I want to take a shot at it.

Guantanimo bay is a testement to the power and brutality of the current world superpower, the United States of America. Its methods, while being unortodox and "inhumane", have show those who would destroy this land of plenty how powerful its wrath can be. It has also shown those liveing in the land of the free herself how safe they are in the arms of their elected officials, safe due to the three arms of government. /arguement

but the enemies it is used to combat don't care about wrath except that of their god so it has no effect on them. how safe can you feel when at any time you can be declared an enemy of the state, imprisoned and potentially tortured without trial or evidence?

 

[crudus]

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.

All that proves is that there is in fact a thinker. Our thoughts could very easily either not be our own or pre-determined. Say we were characters in a book. We really don't have thoughts. We are just following what is written on the book whether the actions are determined yet or not(the 2006 movie Stranger Than Fiction is a good example). Now, lets move on to a little more real and likely. It has been proven that your brain is functioning a full 2 seconds before a thought occurs to you. Essentially, a machine can read your thoughts before you can. Can you be the one thinking if your thoughts are just a biological process that can be read before you even know it is there? Granted, that is a little flimsy but also think about the nature vs nurture debate. Every agrees that these are the two causes for our personality is some way. Neither of these are something we can control. Are your thoughts really yours at that point if you have no control over what influenced them?

 

[Nouw]

Argue that Justin Bieber is a talented musician.

Hell anyone could do that. Music is subjective so Justin Bieber could be talented from 1 person's perspective and to another, they'd be rubbish. Talented=Good right?

Don't let BonsaiK read your post >.>

Oh yes OP, argue that Starcraft was the founder of Powered Armour and Space Marines.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

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.

I'll do this. Why should Gitmo be kept open? Because it is a holding cell for terrorists and suspected terrorists. Here is the one place where we can get close to playing the same game they play, we're about as equal as we'll ever be. DO you know what their interrogation techniques consist of? First they take off your fingernails one by one, then they go on and cut off your fingers one by one. Then, when they're done with you, they'll hang you or publicly decapitate you. Waterboarding is definitely not as bad as that. Keep in mind. These are people that believe with all their hearts that the American Western influence is the devil and is a direct threat to the Qu'ran. They are religiously devoted to this cause and there is no defeating them short of wiping them all out. Pulling out will do nothing, adding more troops will do nothing. There will never be peace. Guantanamo Bay is a place to put those people, the ones that are planning on hurting and killing innocent civilians, behind bars. It is a place to find out what makes them think these crazy thoughts. Another reason that it is extremely important is because American Justice will do nothing to them. The American public is too stupid to accept certain facts that they don't want to believe. The jury, in this case, would have that shadow of a doubt that will let the terrorist go free. All because the American public has to allow the defense an attorney that might actually win the case with fallacies and bullshit "facts." This is proven in that recent case. A guy from Gitmo was tried in a New York(I think it was NY) court. They dropped over 200 charges against him and he will be out in a few years, ready to kill more Americans, Europeans, and Israelis.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

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.

There have been many a story of people with Cancer and other such afflictions who have resorted to natural medicines. When they have done this they have attempted to increase their Vitamin C and other parts of the body thinking this will help them, it does not, it increases the intensity of their affliction and ultimately making it worse. Most people who supply natural medicines to the community are not trained professionals and are not always sure of the consequences of the product they are giving out. True, the medicine we have in a hospital to treat fatal illness often has some side effects, but the positive side easily outweighs the side effects. You can't treat a brain aneurysm with herbal tea or other natural remedies which are said to make the body healthy. You can't repair a cancerous limb with natural medicine. The only time natural medicine sometimes outweighs actual modern medicine is when someone has a small illness like perhaps the common cold, and even then it is far cheaper to just grin and bare it.

Personally I would take the modern medicine, deal with the side effects, and get cured from my fatal illness rather than put my money in some new age natural medicine which don't even help half as much.

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

 

[norwegian-guy]

-clip-
I think therefore I am.
-Descartes.

All that proves is that there is in fact a thinker. Our thoughts could very easily either not be our own or pre-determined. Say we were characters in a book. We really don't have thoughts. We are just following what is written on the book whether the actions are determined yet or not(the 2006 movie Stranger Than Fiction is a good example). Now, lets move on to a little more real and likely. It has been proven that your brain is functioning a full 2 seconds before a thought occurs to you. Essentially, a machine can read your thoughts before you can. Can you be the one thinking if your thoughts are just a biological process that can be read before you even know it is there? Granted, that is a little flimsy but also think about the nature vs nurture debate. Every agrees that these are the two causes for our personality is some way. Neither of these are something we can control. Are your thoughts really yours at that point if you have no control over what influenced them?

Actually it proves that I think. As my own doubt and thus my own thoughts are the only one I can actually without a doubt aknowledge. Descartes has a wellmade presentation on how this is valid beyond the the one who aknowledges, but to present the whole thing would take far too long, and I'm far too lazy to do this. But your point about us living in a fiction is a valid argument as presented not only in 'Stranger Than Fiction' but also in 'Sofies Diary' wich actually picks up this point. The problem with your argument is that it focuses on the question about: are we pre-determined? While 'I think therefore I am' is a matter of existence.

 

[Redingold]

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.

 

[TheYak]

Argue that Justin Bieber is a talented musician.

Hell anyone could do that. Music is subjective so Justin Bieber could be talented from 1 person's perspective and to another, they'd be rubbish. Talented=Good right?

Music is neither objective or subjective. Preference is subjective and quality is objective. Music is a form of media.


Also I'm now deeply depressed due to my subject being ignored. What are the benefits of me flaming you to great extent and questioning your sexuality?