Another way to debatePosted 7 years Ago

It's interesting you mention this kind of debate, as I've had the opportunity to be in such a debate myself once here. Sort of. It was a debate on abortion, and how the morality of abortion should be determined. Both arguments presented implied abortion was morally permissible, it was just a matter of which argument was stronger for that line of thinking. You can read it here:

http://www.debate.org...
Forums Home > Debate.org

Privatized PrisonsPosted 7 years Ago

Privatized prisons are a disgrace. People are making money off of locking people up. The more people they lock up, and the longer they have them locked up, the more money they get. This is why he war on drugs has dragged on for so long; you think private prisons are going to give up such an easy and plentiful cash flow so easily?

Privatized prisons should be abolished. People should not be making profit off of getting citizens in jail. If there's one thing Capitalism is good at, it's maximizing productivity, by increasing output, so as to gain the most amount of profit possible. What do you think happens when you apply such a system to prisons? It begins to maximize productivity, as expected. Or in other words, the number of inmates...
Forums Home > Politics

nation states and warPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/19/2013 3:11:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think its a reasonable argument, especially if you state that its the institutions that both "true" communism and the soviet union shared.

The fact that you think it's a reasonable argument is evidence for why you should properly understand a subject before commenting on it. The economic structures the Soviet Union utilized, and the economic structure of a Communist society, are vastly different. In addition, the social and political pressures on the Soviet Union are nothing like what a global Communist society would experience. The two are incomparable in every sense. They don't share the same set up, nor the same external pressures.

Honestly, I can't believe I'm seeing someone defend the idea of arguing about something you are not acquainted with. That's like trying to argue with your doctor about medical issues, when you yourself have no background in medicine. Sure, maybe you'll come up with something valid, but most likely you'll just make an @ss of yourself and put on a perfect display of ignorance. It's foolish.

"At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom..."
Forums Home > Politics

Do you think that afterlife is a lie.Posted 7 years Ago

I generally disagree with religious notions of the afterlife and the soul, so I'm inclined to agree with you, but there are some objections to what you've written here.

At 2/17/2013 2:53:44 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
1. Vengeful spirit does not exist: memory is stored in the brain, if the brain is not functional or even partially non-functional (as in case of amnesia or Alzheimer) memories are damage or gone. Spirit (if exist) can not hold grudge against any body or anything because its mind is blank.

The mind soul does not necessarily need the mind to know and process information. It would be that the mind is merely the vessel by which the soul communicates these things to the physical body, and when damaged, while the soul may retain them, the mind cannot process them.

2. Spirit can not feel pain: If your preacher said you will burn in hell, boil in a copper pot or left on the cliff for a crown to stop by take a piece. They are probably wrong, we need nervous system to feel pain and that's gone with the rest of our sense when our body is lost. You don't feel pain when the doctor drug you up before a surgery, you shouldn't do so when you died.

The soul may be capable of feeling non-physical pain, which could be how "Hellfire" works; a spiritual flame, instead of a real one.

Alternatively, some religious sects believe in physical reanimation in the afterlife, which would solve the problem of feeling physical pain.

3. Spirit can not be reason with: If somebody said they can communicate with spirit, they probably lie. Most if not all of our cognitive function is coming from the brain, and of course if you lose your brain you are probably unable to think of anything (and therefore can not communicate). Think of a patients whose brain is seriously damage and look at their thought pattern. It mostly blank (correct me if I am wrong). So talk to a spirit should not be of anything more than talk to the flower (anything more = flower at most, probably less) and of course the flower does not said "I miss you too son, it is a heaven here I hope you came along".

Spiritual communication could be possible, if again, information imprints upon the soul. A medium could communicate with a soul, using her own spiritual energy.

4.You are a pious man you will have 4000 mansion in heaven and your sons will also have 1000 each in addition!: Of course, if this isn't sound wrong enough, sense of number and calculation also need brain functionality and so you shouldn't be able to count how mush when you died.

A body and mind may not be necessary to function in a spiritual world. But beyond that, prophecy could allow for information from a spiritual realm to be handed down to a physical world.

If these sound like unfalsifiable arguments to you, it's because they are. Because every religious argument will eventually boil down to an unfalsifiable premise. Which is why I tend to ignore them.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/12/2013 4:36:56 AM, GWL-CPA wrote:
You must not read well; I am not backing down from anything.

Oh yes you are. Anytime I challenge any of your claims, you refuse to defend them. You back down, saying "we'll just have to disagree", without even attempting to put up a fight.

Some "master debater" you are. *rollseyes*

I have presented by proof; if you disagree; so be it. Jesus lady, you are a piece of work!

No, you have presented no valid evidence for your position, either on homosexuality or gambling. You provided absolutely no evidence for h=the homosexual issue, and when it came to gambling, while you cited information about gambling and those who become addicted to it, you did not give information for why it was innately immoral.

So, no, you've presented no proof for either of your cases. You've literally done nothing but write huge paragraphs of nonsense.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/12/2013 3:10:08 AM, GWL-CPA wrote:
I am sorry you do not agree with me; you are entitled to your own opinion.

You have presented no proof for you position on anything yet. So I am tired of your nonsense.

Nonsense. It is your burden of proof. You are trying to make a claim, and yet, you have provided no a shred of evidence for your position, and further more, refuse to defend it when it is challenged.

My evidence is your lack of evidence. There is no observable harm, ergo, it is not harmful. Defend your case, or still your tongue.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/11/2013 7:43:08 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
It is a huge problem in our society. But, the states instead of trying to solve the problem are making it more available just because they want the tax revenue.

What does that even mean? "It's a huge problem in society". You toss that round, but its completely nonsensical. It doesn't mean anything. Not unless you explain WHY it is a problem. Simply labeling it a problem is meaningless.

Anyway, sorry you don't see it as a problem. We will have to agree to disagree once again.

I love how you back down immediately under the guise of "we have to agree to disagree".

When you back down immediately, everyone knows it means you have nothing valid to say in response. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just regurgitating nonsense you heard on Fox News.

By the way, I am a poker player and have studied the game of Texas Hole'em for years and actually win money, both online and at the Casinos. I have a small positive lifetime ROI, at least as of today. That being said, I still believe it is too harmful to society and should be very limited. You would hate to live in Utah or Hawaii, where it is totally illegal; and it is very limited in in many of the Bible belt states.

1) You have no idea what I would like and dislike.
2) Your personal anecdote about yourself doesn't have any suport for your argument.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/11/2013 7:35:04 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
No, I am against abusive parents; those kids should be put in heterosexual homes.

Why? You have yet to explain on what grounds homosexual parents are inferior to heterosexual parents, except for your notion that they may grow up to be homosexual too.

So why? Why should homosexuals not be allowed to raise children?

And, I never said it was a crime; just that it should not be allowed.

That would make it a crime.

You want to raise a kid, get married to someone of the opposite sex and have one, or if a heterosexual can't have children, adopt one.

I can see that we will once again have to agree to disagree.

Or you could, you know, actually defend your position, instead of trying to run away when it's shown to be pathetically flawed.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/11/2013 6:55:37 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
I am a Behaviorist and believe that children who are exposed to same sex experiences (e.g., rape, foundling, masturbating, etc.) at a young age and enjoy it grow up thinking it is normal behavior and have a greater chance of becoming a homosexual as an adult.

1) This is unfounded. There is no sound evidence for this.
2) So what? Who cares if someone becomes homosexual?

And, the ones who feel ashamed at their gay feelings never get the help they need to understand why they don't want a heterosexual relationship.

People only ever feel ashamed of being homosexual, because people like YOU tell them they should feel ashamed. Stop demonizing homosexuality, and, gasp, people will stop feeling ashamed about it!

Most rapes and sexual abuse (e.g., rape, foundling, masturbating, etc.) of young boys and girls by adults of the same sex go unreported. So the stats are not that available. Look at the Priests that rape young boys; priests have been raping young boys for hundreds of years.

I fail to see what this has to do with homosexuality.

Then there are the boys who do not have a dominate male figure (e.g., boys of single moms) who start dressing up in Mom's clothes and putting on her makeup and heels, and Mom telling him what a good little girl he is; they grow up confused too.

Only becomes we live in such a sexually restricted society; why should boys wearing "girls" clothing be something bad? It's just cloth.

Anyway, you will not find a study whereby a large population of gays were interviewed to see if they were raped or sexually abused by an older member of the same sex when they were kids, be it a relative or not, e.g., clergy, teacher, babysitter. You will most like never see it. And, if they had those experiences and liked the activity; they might not even consider it abnormal. But, you will see nonsense studies that can't be proven that there is a gay gene that causes homosexuality.

They aren't nonsense studies; even if they do not prove the existence of a "gay gene", there is no sound reason to think it is the result of how one was raised, nor that it is a choice. Ergo, we default to biology, because it is the only sound conclusion based on the current (lack of) evidence.

Anyway, that is my proof. I don't care if you accept it. My wife does not agree with me either. She loves to watch that gay fashion show; she thinks love is love, even between homosexuals - gay men and gay women.

But, let's make sure you know my position. I don't care what your sexual preference is; but, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman;

Why? Why should it not be between people who love one another?

and gay couples should not be allowed to raise children.

Why? There is no harm in it. You say you don't hate gays, but then you say they aren't fit to raise children, because those children might become gay too. So...yeah. You do hate gays, and you do care what people's sexual preferences are.

Even the state of California voted against gay marriage, which was too funny. And, President Obama supported The Defense of Marriage Act, which is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. Now President Obama has proven how two-faced or duplicitous he really is; just to get more votes for the Democratic Party.

That's a problem with Obama, not homosexuality.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/11/2013 2:53:55 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Many people think gays are sick, including Doctors. Most were raped with they were young by older people of the same sex. They need help.

Bullsh*t. That's a wide-spread myth.

So, I am doubting that there are many at this site that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman;

Marriage is whatever we choose to make of it. To bar two people who love one another from being married, simply because they don't have the right set of genitalia, is ridiculous and cruel.

and children, when possible, should be raised by a married couple

Agreed. Double incomes tend to help.

- a man and a woman, never by a gay couple

Gays should not have the right to raise children. Children need to be raised in a heterosexual environment to grow-up normally.

False. The genitalia of the parents have no bearing on whether or not they will grow up to be "normal" (unless by normal, you mean, hating homosexuality).

And, yes, there are bad heterosexual parents, but that does not mean gays are better or should be allowed to raise children.

So you're basically saying letting homosexuals raise children is the worst crime to them imaginable? That loving, doting homosexual parents, would be objectively worse than physically and emotionally abusive heterosexual parents?
Forums Home > Debate.org

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.