Why won't Jom accept your challenge? Is he scarred?
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.
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.
A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And 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
To anyone who is willing to accept:
The right wing is superior to the left wing in political dealings, oh, and I can take either side.
Last edited by Bobington; January 24, 2016 at 05:18 PM.
As God wills it.
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.
As God wills it.
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
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.
Last edited by Elfdude; January 24, 2016 at 10:00 PM.
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
There doesn't seem to have been a Fight Club debate for some time now. I hereby challenge anyone who is willing to the following debate:
'Donald Trump is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton for the next POTUS'.
I would prefer to argue in favour of the motion but will also be willing to argue against. Please private message me. There are 5 months to go before the US election, so even if you are reading this a couple of months after the time of posting then message me anyway, I may take a week or two to respond but I am never too far away from TWC.
Last edited by Copperknickers II; June 26, 2016 at 05:27 PM.
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.
A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
I'll take that challenge. I can argue either way but I'll take HRC.
Replied.
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.
A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
Go ahead and put together your thesis post, I prefer the response.
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.
A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
Civil war myths
Topic- Causes of Southern secession
Position- The south left primarily over states sovereignty
Topic- Did the north go to war to end slavery?
Position- No,the north invaded the south to preserve the union and collect tariffs
Topic- American Slavery
Position- American slavery was not the vast evil it is portrayed as
Topic- Black confederates
Position- Southern blacks willingly fought as soldiers by the thousands and supported the confederacy in other ways by the tens of thousands.
Topic- Abraham Lincoln and Race
Position- Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacists
Topic- Abraham Lincoln the Constitution, and the founders republic
Position- Lincoln radically transformed the founding republic
Topic- Was Abraham Lincoln a tyrant?
Position- Yes Lincoln was a tyrant
Topic- George B McClellan
Position- McClellan was the most underrated military commander of the civil war
Topic- William T Sherman
Position- Sherman was the most overrated general of the civil war
Last edited by twc01; October 16, 2016 at 02:37 PM.
I'll argue against either of those positions.