Why won't Jom accept your challenge? Is he scarred?
I hereby challenge anyone who is willing to the following debate:
Religion (including all current religions and also any conceivable future religions based on sensible and tolerant holy scriptures) should be systematically, peacefully, and totally eradicated over the next 100 years.
Gentle opponent, please Private Message me if you are willing to take up the gauntlet. You may choose to support or oppose the motion.
Darwinism doesn't suggest that we should be all-wise and do what is going to be best for our selfish genes. Rather it builds into our brains rules of thumb which worked in our ancestral past - Richard Dawkins"A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.
The column ended (and I paraphrase): "think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
Bored with the current debates. Doubt I'll have any takers but:
A. Buddhism is primarily and atheistic religion/philosophy and is non dualistic in basis.
B. Buddhism is not atheistic and believes in reincarnation, dualism in the form of consciousness transferring on/to/into something after the body dies.
Position: Buddhism is atheistic
Drawing directly from core teachings without reference to school though my opposite may choose a particular school or belief system of course.
My aim is not to discuss what people believe but what is definitively and explicitly taught and shown, what was intended and why it is correct to think that way (or more properly to not care or dwell) in the context of being a buddhist and why it is actually counterproductive to believe in god or reincarnation of the self.
Topic Title: Did the US create the ISIS?
Details: Was it the US who created the ISIS that we know today?
Position: No., the group appeared on its own.
Going to be kind of busy so my replies in the debate might take a while.
Last edited by Banned; July 02, 2015 at 02:53 AM.
Наиболее полное истребитель в мире
Right: Conservative, strict. I don't want to get taxes into this because both sides have notorious pro-tax and anti-tax representatives. Left: more free, less power to the police and secret services, and the state in general, more freedom and governance by the people. I also don't want to bring guns into this since both sid have representatives that are both pro-gun and anti-gun. Looking at your history of debating on TWCenter and my lack of it I expect a steam rolling, but hey, I love to argue and debate so that is fine.
I feel like you're conflating Left and Right constituents. Obviously, I'm very much on the left. I'm happy to argue the right or the left however.
I'd prefer to use these sorts of definitions:
As for taxes/guns. Whether they support or oppose them is irrelevant, it's how they apply them that is significant IMO, but I'm happy to stick to whichever practical points you want to. I'll leave the opening post to you as long as we can use these more rigorous definitions.
I would like to challenge anyone especially the people casually tossing shade at my takes without actually supporting their own subjective opinion with ANYTHING, not a logical argument and not supporting factual evidence to debate on this topic:
Prove to me that USA States have "interests as states".
While this is some elementary school "received wisdom", it has never actually withstood university level academic scholarship. So, if you personally think this is so bloody obvious that you are just too superior to even engage in a debate, then this should be an easy internet victory for you.
General Retreat, alhoon, Char ?
Do any of you actually have logical arguments or just dead myths you are repeating en rote?
Last edited by chilon; February 25, 2016 at 06:25 PM.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."
Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder