Total topics: 9
Regardless of ratings, who are some of the best debaters on this site and why. (I say regardless of ratings because at this point, Oramagi isn't being over taken, even if some have the potential to be as good, if not better)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People
I've seen many accomplished debaters of whom all seems to have remarkable analytical and debating skills. I'm interested to hear some of your "actual" achievements achieved outside of this cite.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People
This is a topic which I’ve gotten into some detail before, but I think deserves a forum to itself.
If you think about science and it’s origin, you can conclude that all science is observable in nature. Gravity is observable through day to day observation. Planets have been observed and calculations have been made to estimate the size of planets millions of years away. Evolution is observable through millions of years worth of evolutionary science and the interrelation between organisms.
What I’m getting at is that all scientific facts have come from nature and are observable. Science can be replicated by anyone. Given the right place to look, everyone can notice evolution. Given a good enough telescope and mathematics ability, anyone can calculate the size of Mars.
However, the same cannot be said for God and the Bible. I fail to see how nature proves the bible is correct in any way (like how nature proves evolution is right, or at least extremely plausible). When comparing the Bible to nature, there is almost as much correlation between the two than between an Aboriginal Dreamtime story and nature. Though the bible and Dreamtime stories mention nature, there is nothing testable within it’s pages. Take this as an example. The following is a quote from a Dreamtime story followed by a verse from the bible.
Now long, long time ago of course, in the beginning, when there was no people, no trees, no plants whatever on this land, “Guthi-guthi”, the spirit of our ancestral being, he lived up in the sky.So he came down and he wanted to create the special land for people and animals and birds to live in.So Guthi-guthi came down and he went on creating the land for the people-after he’d set the borders in place and the sacred sights, the birthing places of all the Dreamings, where all our Dreamings were to come out of.Guthi-guthi put one foot on Gunderbooka Mountain and another one at Mount Grenfell.And he looked out over the land and he could see that the land was bare. There was no water in sight, there was nothing growing. So Guthi-guthi knew that trapped in a mountain-Mount Minara-the water serpent, Weowie, he was trapped in the mountain. So Guthi-guthi called out to him, “Weowie, Weowie”, but because Weowie was trapped right in the middle of the mountain, he couldn’t hear him.
Followed by Genesis 1.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
It is clear that there are correlations between the two. Both of them include some mythical being coming down and creating parts of nature. However, neither of these accounts provide evidence. Essentially, an Aboriginal Dream Time is as testable as God. Neither are observable in nature. Neither provide facts, and neither are replicable. So I ask the religious readers, what makes God more evident than these Dreamtime stories? In fact, what makes Christianity more plausible than the Islamic faith? If you got a Christina and an Islam man together to discuss their religion, it would not be a debate, but a battle of blind faith.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Is it right to tell their child that they will burn for eternity if they do not believe a God for which there is no evidence to? Even if God was real, is it right to tell them that they will burn in fire forever for lying, something that all of us have done before?
I do not think it is right to enforce this ideology, especially since it’s so morbid, on a small child simply because you believe in it and want to pass it on.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The following are very summarised responses to common arguments Pro-Choice individuals use.
I have no obligation to them. You can say that about your 3 year old child.
The unborn are clump of cells. So are you, you're reducible to cellular structures. Also, this does not excuse 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, which involve much more than an unrecognisable clump of cells.
The unborn don't feel pain. Does this mean painlessly gassing people to death is moral?
Women have a right to comfort. Does this mean a murder is allowed to burn a village down for their personal comfort?
They are dependent on the mother to live. Babies are dependent on their mothers outside of the womb. The elderly are dependent on their caretakers outside of the womb.
Abortion is deeply personal. Murder can also be deeply personal.
I can't afford them or I don't think they will have a good life without me. Does this mean I will be doing good if I murder starving African children? Does this mean I will be doing good if I murder homeless people?
They will be born with terrible disabilities. Does this mean I can go to a disability learning center mow all the disabled kids down?
They are not alive yet. Not according to the science of embryology. Nevertheless, when do you believe human life begins then?
Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists. That’s like saying “banning cocaine means I have to get impure cocaine of the streets, you should legalise it so I can get access to the real and pure columiun stuff.
Women have a right to abort their baby to reach their full potential. Abortion is not something which happens spontaniously, you don’t wake up with a baby in your womb. If a women really cares about reaching their full potential, maybe they should use contraception or just walk away from sex.
Men cannot have opinions of a womanly matter. Does this mean doctors cannot have opinions on womanly matters? Does this mean a commentator cannot have an opinion on a game which he is not playing? Does this mean I am not allowed to intervene when my neighbor kicks their dog, which doesn’t affect me what so ever?
Women have a right to their bodies. This is completely true. However, the fetus is a different body unless you believe a pregnant woman has 20 fingers and 2 brains.
So there you have it. All the arguments I have heard in favour of abortion. Please feel free to add more to the list for me to debunk.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Something funny I would like to share.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
^A strong case against religion. I give all religious people the opportunity to address this.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This is a follow on to my last forum "Is meat eating morally justifiable", to which raised more questioned than answered. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5147-is-meat-eating-morally-justifiable
What is actually wrong about murder? There are four foreseeable answers which I will cover.
Subjectivism
According to subjectivism, to say that something is wrong is to claim that you personally disapprove of it. The problems with this is that murders would technically be justified as they believed what they did was right.
Inter-subjectivism
According to inter-subjectivism, to say something is wrong is to claim your community disapproves of it. The problem with this is that communities may be wrong, as the Roman Catholics endorsed slavery, an unacceptable practice in todays world.
Emotivism (My personal go-to)
According to emotivism, to say something is wrong is not to make a claim at all. It is simply express personal disapproval. The problem with this is that it essentially eradicates the idea of morality as a whole.
Religion
Personally, I view this standpoint un-kindly, as it simply just postpones the mystery and is the "lazy way out" of what would be a fruitful discussion. To those who go to religion as an answer, I have one question. Are things wrong because they are wrong, or are they wrong because God says they are wrong.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
The following are all the justifications for meat eating I can think of, all of which my rational self has debunked.
Animals are stupid
Does this mean we can eat new born babies whom are all stupid? Does this mean it is acceptable to eat retarded people?
Most people think it is morally acceptable to eat animals.
Just because most people think something, doesn't mean it's correct (although this in itself is debatable). After all, slavery used to be widely accepted before republicans put a halt to it.
We need meat to survive.
We don't.
Human beings are evolved to be omnivores. It is natural for us to eat meat.
A lot of things are natural. Genetically, male are prone to be violent, however, this does not justify violent behaviour.
Animals eat animals.
Animals kill animals. Does this make murder right? To compare the morality of a human to that of a vulture is hardly a good argument.
In conclusion, I guess the reason I eat meat is because it tastes good and I really, to put it bluntly, do not care about animals.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society