Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Issues I want to debate

BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:39:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At the moment, I'm very short on time.
In fact the only debate I have going right now, I'm having ot have my opponent wait for long perionds of time before posting his own responses just so I won't time out.

However come this monday, I will finally have enough time to be back on here regularly. So I thought it would be a good idea to make a thread regarding resolutions that I either want to debate, or that others would like to debate with me.

I know I could just frame a debate and set it in the challenge period section, but I really want to avoid putting a lot of effort into framing a debate only to have it accepted by some-one who wouldn't be serious about debating it. I would rather debate some of these with people I know wouldn't just slam their face into the keyboard, and those who visit the forums are usually pretty reliable about not running random no-substance arguments.

All of that said, I can't really think of the list of debate resolutions I wanted to argue right now; so instead I'm just going to make a general vauge list of a few areas I'd like to debate.

LD Style Debate
-I'm open to various resolutions

Philosophy
-I'd like to debate various Philosophical theories, and whether the general idea behind them is valid or not

American Politics
-Surprisingly enough, I actually do want to debate some topics akin to, or at least peritant to current politics. Honestly, I really don't know enough and having to debate them would give me more incentive to do some research.

Appologetics
-I'd like to have plenty of debate regarding the bible. The only rule I set in place however, is that in the course of the debate; the bible itself cannot be an issue of debate. Now I'm almost certain that What I just said makes no sense, so let me clarify it a bit.
When debating appologetics I want to debate whether the bible supports, or does not support certaint things; I am not up to a debate on whether the bible is inherent, inspired, or true. Those would not be grounds for debate.

So yeah.
Comment if interested!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:48:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
anything about energy? green energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels? How about environment?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:09:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:48:27 PM, OreEle wrote:
anything about energy? green energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels? How about environment?

Energy- sure

Green Energy- Yes, I would love to debate this. I am for it, but I'm against pushing it in the way we do in our society. I feel we put way too much emphasis on green energy.

Nuclear Energy- Do mean just in general, or like in reference to Japan. Either way I would be willing, but your answer will determine my enthusiasm entirely.

Fossil Fuels- YES! What do you mean exactly?

Enviroment- Meh. I'm kin dof apathetic about the who green movement. If you want to content that the enviroment is in danger of human destruction, then I'm game. Otherwise I would be willing to hear your idea out, I just don't know how good of a debate I would put up.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:17:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:09:29 PM, Hello-Orange wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:48:27 PM, OreEle wrote:
anything about energy? green energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels? How about environment?

Energy- sure

Green Energy- Yes, I would love to debate this. I am for it, but I'm against pushing it in the way we do in our society. I feel we put way too much emphasis on green energy.

I feel that we don't put enough emphasis on it.


Nuclear Energy- Do mean just in general, or like in reference to Japan. Either way I would be willing, but your answer will determine my enthusiasm entirely.

I'm very pro-nuclear energy, so long as adequate safety is applied (though I feel that safety should be mandatory for everything, to a degree, I don't support the free market "you can be safe if you want and let the market decide if it is safe enoug").


Fossil Fuels- YES! What do you mean exactly?

I support that we should expand our MINING of coal and oil and that we should not restrict the USE of coal or oil (or natural gas and the like). Namely, I'd like to see us migrate towards green energy and nuclear energy, but still mine the resources to drive down their costs so that other nations (3rd world nations in particular) can better afford those energy sources so that they can bring cheap energy to their people, industrialize, and then slowly transition to green/nuc energy.

Though I'd be willing to focus on and debate any simple point in there, rather than the whole thing.


Enviroment- Meh. I'm kin dof apathetic about the who green movement. If you want to content that the enviroment is in danger of human destruction, then I'm game. Otherwise I would be willing to hear your idea out, I just don't know how good of a debate I would put up.

I suppose I'd call myself an environmental intetionalist (I think I made that up, but not sure). Meaning that we shouldn't do things un-intentionally. Everything has consequences and side-effects, and we should only do things that we know what the side-effects are, understand them, and conciously choose that we accept those side-effects.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:42:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:30:07 PM, Hello-Orange wrote:
I like it!
Give me some mock resolutions and wait until monday and we can debate this!

Oil drilling in the USA should be expanded (I'd be pro)
Coal mining in the USA should be expanded (I'd be pro)
The USA should increase its production of fossil fuels (I'd be pro)

Nuclear Energy should relax some regulations to encourage growth (I'd be pro)
Nuclear Energy is not inherently dangerous (meaning that it is only dangerous if done incorrectly, and that there is a safe way of doing it)(I'd be pro)

You can flop the "increases" with "decreases" if you'd rather be Pro.

I'll try to think of some others.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll debate you on whether utilitarianism is a more sound ethical framework than the categorical imperative
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:46:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
OreEle, i'll debate you on oil drilling; should be fun
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 4:00:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:46:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:
OreEle, i'll debate you on oil drilling; should be fun

BOP related to convincing rather than to status quo?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 4:12:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 4:00:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:46:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:
OreEle, i'll debate you on oil drilling; should be fun

BOP related to convincing rather than to status quo?

I dunno what that means; like oil = good in the abstract, not the practical aspects of actually drilling more in the US?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 4:20:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 4:12:52 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/28/2011 4:00:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:46:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:
OreEle, i'll debate you on oil drilling; should be fun

BOP related to convincing rather than to status quo?

I dunno what that means; like oil = good in the abstract, not the practical aspects of actually drilling more in the US?

Meaning that the Burden of Proof goes to whoever wants to convince other people to change their mind, as opposed to the status quo (typically viewed, that both sides should be attempting to prove their point and not only argue to refute the other side).

Classic example is religious debates. If you have Atheist vs Christian, and the debate is held in a church, full of christians, the BoP falls on the Atheist, while if you go to a location that is all atheists, the BoP falls on the Christian.

But simply it means that BoP falls to both sides to try to prove their case.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:07:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
oh for sure, I accept equal BOPs
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:09:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 5:07:22 PM, bluesteel wrote:
oh for sure, I accept equal BOPs

okay, I'll try to get something slapped together tomorrow. The opening round will just be for definitions and acceptance. Are you on during the weekends?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:11:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 5:09:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 5:07:22 PM, bluesteel wrote:
oh for sure, I accept equal BOPs

okay, I'll try to get something slapped together tomorrow. The opening round will just be for definitions and acceptance. Are you on during the weekends?

Yeah, should be.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:47:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 5:11:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/28/2011 5:09:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 5:07:22 PM, bluesteel wrote:
oh for sure, I accept equal BOPs

okay, I'll try to get something slapped together tomorrow. The opening round will just be for definitions and acceptance. Are you on during the weekends?

Yeah, should be.

okay, if I send the challange to you tomorrow, can you wait until at least saturday night to accept and push to round two? That way I have Monday and Tuesday to post my argument. If you accept and send to round two Friday afternoon, I'll only have a few hours on Monday to create an arguement.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 6:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:42:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:30:07 PM, Hello-Orange wrote:
I like it!
Give me some mock resolutions and wait until monday and we can debate this!

Oil drilling in the USA should be expanded (I'd be pro)
Coal mining in the USA should be expanded (I'd be pro)
The USA should increase its production of fossil fuels (I'd be pro)

Nuclear Energy should relax some regulations to encourage growth (I'd be pro)
Nuclear Energy is not inherently dangerous (meaning that it is only dangerous if done incorrectly, and that there is a safe way of doing it)(I'd be pro)

You can flop the "increases" with "decreases" if you'd rather be Pro.

I'll try to think of some others.

I don't like the ones about Oil, I agree with you there.
But I'm open to either about Nuclear Energy.
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 6:36:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:45:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I'll debate you on whether utilitarianism is a more sound ethical framework than the categorical imperative

Yes please!
Can you send me a PM so we can hash out the details?