Total posts: 258
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@bsh1
From the vote:
"when Con made any argument, he would provide a source (and often quote from that source) which explicitly said the same thing as the argument he was making. For example, when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, he both links to and quotes from a source which says exactly that. "
Come on!!!!
ANY ARGUMENT?
EXPLICITLY SAID THE SAME THING???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Ok, well i'm raising these questions now.
As I see it, this is what happened in the vote in my debate?
Your thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Hey where in your sources did it mention socially constructed hemispheres?
Created:
Posted in:
Hey just wanted to hear people's thoughts on voting issues here on DebateArt
As a voter, is it ok in my reason for voting to:
1. award source points to a debater because I feel they used sources that exactly state what the debater's saying even though their source doesn't reflect or state anything about what their saying at all, in fact is an unrelated video?
2. ignore when Con affirms the resolution twice, i.e. in a god exists debate Con clearly agrees that god exists twice in the debate, because I feel Con did a better job?
3. dock a debater for linking something that I felt was unclear despite the debater writing exactly what each link was for, because after all I felt it to be unclear?
4. ignore a debater's relevant sources so I can claim that the debater did a poor job with sources without having to explain why I ignored the crucially relevant sources?
5. ignore the requested rules of the debate that ask to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters and only focus on the debaters performance who I am trying to vote source points for?
The mods have told me they are totally fine with this, so I want to see what the public thinks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
For example, I'm agnostic on whether or not life outside of earth exists.
While it's extremely likely that life in fact does exist outside of the earth, I don't claim to have absolute knowledge on whether or not life outside of the earth exists, and as such I remain agnostic on the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Agnostic means nothing. It's a pointless word.
Nope.
It means that you admit to not knowing or concede that something may be unknowable.
The "gnostic" root of the word means knowledge, i.e. agnostic means one who claims to not have absolute knowledge of some proposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why? All votes are reported and deleted.
Well, the rules say that you can't put up a dishonest, shitty vote, so as long as you don't lie about debater performance, ignore clear concessions, or vote based on your emotional whims instead of how the terms of the resolution were fulfilled, then your vote won't be removed.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Hey check out this debate and give it a thorough, honest vote.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If you think I am AI, your begging me to interact with you becomes highly suspicious no?You can beg. All you will get is tossing. You will understand that I do not have to do what you want, no matter how long it takes to seep into your liberal noggin.
You admitting here that you're not actually interacting is enough.
I also noticed you're trying to dodge me by not including my name in your "replies."
You really need to stop being such a pussy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm a well-known teacher and researcher in a thriving school district in Maryland....
Sure you are slick.
I actually am, full disclosure.
I won't respond because there is no evidence for abiogenesis, and from you not knowing this means you're too stupid to debate.
It's not something to know, you can't articulate how none of the 9 pieces of evidence I gave you is not evidence.
Explain it AI.
And your posts have confirmed it. Thus you get tossed, cause that is how to treat moron trolls.
Or you could actually toss me by responding to WHY the evidence isn't evidence.
That's all you have to do AI.
Lol. You're so predictable it's like being in high school again. You have a graduate degree and your students read your debates? Only the uneducated, not knowing what it is, think that they can fake an education.
Huh?
Along with being stupid, it's written poorly.
I bet you think you're original. Lol. You're a dime a dozen internet immature moron. Pull out More 3rd grade taunts. It's all you have.
Why would you bet that I think I'm original...did I do something that you found to be original?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Ok but do you take the point about gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism?
Was the chart helpful at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I also love that i can say fucking here....god that feels good...I mean, god that feels fucking good.
Fuck DDO for that too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I like to imagine that ethang5 is a very sophisticated AI.The thing is simply grasping at straws because it scores points when you reply to it.
hahahahahha Yeah, I mean he's basically the text version of a soundboard with his responses anyway...but yeah that makes me less angry about him.
I mean I get the troll thing, but...I fucking hate that guy/AI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You should be able to defend your positions with logic.
Can and have.
With this guy though, he attacked first and I'm all about self-defense.
That's actually logical.
I provided evidence and logic and he's just dismissed it all.
So now we're in idiot town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Oh yes. You may be too dumb to know it, but you are getting tossed sherlock.
Nah, you just have no real rebuttal to all of the evidence and you have to say things like "3rd grader tattoo trash."
You're the worst.
It's used by emotionally stunted trailer park adult trash who left school in the 3rd grade.
Nope.
Later you even mention that I have a graduate degree negating one of those erroneous claims about me.
Ever notice its always the tattooed, missing tooth, hillbillies who will call others inferior? Why are bigots always the most stupid in s society?
Though I have a tattoo, I have all of my teeth, and I'm calling you inferior not because I'm a bigot, I'm calling you inferior because you run away like a little coward bitch when asked to respond to something. You're objectively, without bias, without bigotry, inferior, in every way.
You should spit at the image you see in the mirror.
Once a day to be sure.
Oh yeah. You'd still be a moron troll if you weren't anonymous. Lol, do your tuff guy troll thing again.
I'm actually not a troll, I'm a well-known teacher and researcher in a thriving school district in Maryland, USA and everything I would say here, I would admit to having said IRL. My students even read my debates and...so do their parents. Even as I type now, I know that a student may be reading this, so let me be really fucking clear.
You are a gigantic coward pussy, because you will not respond to the evidence yet assert childishly that it isn't evidence.
Pussy bitches need to be called out, even by teachers.
You suck sir, you suck the most among the masses of those who suck.
This is the grammar of a person with a graduate degree. Lol.
I used among correctly. Spit.
I would guess you to be about 15 years old emotionally. Tossing someone that immature won't even be a challenge. But I'll enjoy it!Come on Mr. Graduate. Tell us again how your gutter mouth means you're an adult.
Oh, I will.
Students listen up.
If you ever go on the internet and claim that something doesn't have evidence and refuse to back up your claim yet assert it childishly, then you are also a cowardly pussy bitch and should look in the mirror everyday and spit at the image you see because it's made of the scum of a little weak minded coward bitch.
Just like ethang5 here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sounds like you still don't get the concept. But growing up malnourished in a trailer park can do that to a young brain.Third grade taunts bounce off me. No matter how stupid you get, I can and will toss you. You will learn.
Nope.
You couldn't toss me if I let you lift me up...
Pussy is not used in third grade, it's used by adults who can clearly see when someone is a coward, a scared person, a little bitch, a pussy bitch, a hide-behind-the-internet-so-there's-no-argument-accountability bitch pussy, and of course, an obviously inferior human, debater, and whiny little bitch.
These are all adult concepts used by adults who see idiots run their mouth knowing they will not be held accountable because of the vale of the internet.
You suck sir, you suck the most among the masses of those who suck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I'm sorry but I think you are mistaken.
You may be using the ancient definition of gnosticism, but in modern philosophy, agnostic and gnostic refer to KNOWLEDGE (gnostic) and atheist and theist refer to BELIEF (theist).
There are agnostic atheists.
There are gnostic atheists.
There are gnostic theists.
There are agnostic theists.
There is no hierarchy between agnostic and atheist, i.e. agnosticism is not weak atheism nor is it even on the same scale.
Check this image, it should explain it well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And since gods are nothing more than a man made claim, no gods exist is the natural conclusion once you reject the god claim.
Well...obviously god is a man made claim, but rejecting the god claim is about belief, while concluding no gods exist is about knowledge; belief and knowledge are two different things.
While I cannot naturally conclude there are no gods, like I cannot naturally conclude there are no unicorns, I can find no reason to believe in any gods' existence, and thus do not believe in gods while also not naturally concluding that they don't exist.
I don't know if it is so, but have no reason to believe it is so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I recently lost a boat load of respect for an atheist...She states that "atheists" who claim that atheism is defined as a "lack" of belief in gods or deities are morons, and that true atheism is the affirmative claim that gods indeed do not exist.
Well, there's different types of atheism.
Agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.
Agnostic atheists, which I identify with and I imagine you do as well, don't claim to know if gods exist, yet do not believe in gods/reject the claim of gods.
Gnostic atheists, like this woman you're referencing, affirmatively claim to know no gods exist and do not believe in gods/reject the claim of gods.
She's just painting all atheists as gnostic atheists, and she's wrong.
How could atheists stoop to the considerably low intellectual level of theists?
I don't know if she's stooping so low that she's committing argument from ignorance fallacies like theists are wont to do, but she's clearly wrong for over generalizing.
If this is the definition atheists insist upon taking, then I refuse to call myself one,
That is the definition that gnostic atheists may take on.
Agnostic atheists do not claim to know affirmatively if god exists, yet they reject the claim that he does.
Just specify that you're an agnostic atheist.
Of course, if that all doesn't work out, you could become a heliolater.
Why not worship the sun?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Yeah it's hard to calculate the score when you've defeated someone who is such a coward...how about
MagicAintReal...1
ethang5...pussy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
The first cells metabolized with amino acids and replicated with RNA...that's it. You don't need to make "biological bilateral souls" or whatever nonsense you were talking about to explain abiogenesis.
MagicAintReal...1
mustardness...-4
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ok, if none of it is, then producing one example should be immediate and easy, yet I just get more of the same "muh...muh none of it's evidence because muh...muh...it's not evidence (in a whiny voice)" from a clearly uninformed coward on the internet.
Yeah, since you've not responded to any of the evidence in any way, you cannot continue to post your anti-abiogenesis crap, unless you are open to being referred to as a cowardly pussy, which I'd be cool with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Right. Showing us that you grew up gay in a seedy trailer-park will convince us that you have evidence for abiogenesis.
I fail to see the reference here.
Because I'm asking you to specify which piece of evidence "isn't evidence" by your standard and you keep childishly saying "nah-uh because nah-uh" I'm therefore from a trailer park?
Come on man.
If you don't already know why, you won't understand why when told. This requires an education, net mining is not a substitute for learning.
So you cannot explain to me WHY the evidence isn't evidence?
You can't mention quality, methodology, logic, anything?
I suspect you don't have any response and you're just, well, an intellectual pussy.
So what specific piece of evidence is "not evidence?"
None of it is. English not your native language?
To be clear, your response to "What SPECIFIC piece of evidence is 'not evidence' and why?" was "none of it."
If English were your native language, you'd be able to tell the difference between a question about general concepts and an open-ended question about specific components.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Must be why you're chasing me. Sorry, I'm not gay, though I should have known you were.
I'm not chasing any one, you said that you responded to the evidence, you still haven't and you're demonstrating how much of a pussy you actually are.
So what specifically from the peer reviewed evidence I shared with you is "not evidence."
None of it is. If anyone ever got real evidence for abiogenesis, it would be heralded by the leftist media as if it was the second coming of the Beatles. The simple existence of amino acids is not evidence that life spontaneously generates.
Right, which is why the majority of the evidence talks about the replication of genetic polymers, but you already know all that right?
Oh wait you don't?
Then you're an ill-informed intellectual pussy who claims there's no evidence and runs when given push back.
I responded. It isn't evidence.
So you're just going to assert that it isn't evidence without explaining why it isn't?
No actual response?
Noted.
It isn't evidence. Deal with it.
Why do you think assertions make things so.
WHY isn't it evidence, and more specifically, what from the mountains of evidence you've ignored is not evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"I don't have to respond to any of it. But I did."
Where?
All I keep seeing from you are excuses; you're kind of an intellectual pussy.
It isn't evidence for abiogenesis
Specifically what from the evidence I sent you, which is numbered, isn't evidence?
and does not become so by you slapping that label on it. You aren't a court, and I have no obligation to respond to you. And if I do, I respond how I like.
Or not at all, right?
You have no scientific evidence that shows life can start from inorganic materials.
Yes I do; you ran way from them.
You have no response, and in fact you've said that you don't have to respond...to the very thing you claim doesn't exist.
You think that you can just assert that there's no evidence and then when presented with the literal foil to your stupid "nah-uh" argument, run away from it.
I don't care if your poor science education makes you mistake fluff for scientific evidence. But I do not have to agree with you.
I said respond, not agree.
You have yet to respond to the evidence, let alone agree with it.
Don't you have a debate to attend?
Don't you have learning to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Hot air "stop it" bag is what, Gee thanks for your intellectual insight of "stop it".Maybe you turn it into a M. Jackson type tune, jus stop bop, boop, stop itttt, stop ittt, oh stop it boop boop.
Ugh.
mustardness = must be hard jizz which is exactly the cosine limit of eating hard jizz which must start this mustardness ridiculousness, which all human systems reject this because squirt squirt squirt mustard is just hard jizz.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Just to be clear, I posted up to 9 different sources that verify up to 30 pieces of evidence and you've failed to respond to any of it, right?
Noted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There was no evidence at all, much less "mountains" of it. Miller-Urey was not evidence for abiogenesis.Plus, you cannot force me to debate a silly issue. If you have any evidence for abiogenesis, post it. Otherwise, go do your debate.
1. With an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, volcanic activity, and UV rays representative of a prebiotic (before life) earth, inorganic compounds naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.
2. Amino acids make up proteins, in chains called polypeptides, and the sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active.
3. Biologically active amino acid sequences in fact metabolize compounds.
4. Amino acids are catalysts, because they increase the rate of chemical reactions, and in a prebotic network full of catalyzing amino acids and catalyzing hydrothermal vents, RNA emerges due to its auto-catalytic property.
5. RNA is also self-replicating, and because of this is able to thrive in a prebiotic amino acid network by replicating in a template-directed manner.
6. Available phosphorous in this network encapsulates and acts as a barrier for the biologically active, metabolic amino acid chains and auto-catalytic, self-replicating RNA, which, all components combined, is a collectively compartmentalized protocell.
7. These protocells can metabolize with amino acids and replicate with RNA, and this is the origin of genetic polymers.
8. A protocell with a phosphoric membrane and genetic polymers that can metabolize and self replicate is a full blown living cell, and these single cells are life; they're simple life, but they're life.
9. These simple life forms would need to eventually consume more, and the network of amino acids and other compounds in the region were in fact edible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The two main postulates of evolution are:1. Natural Selection2. Diversity of Species
You've got to include descent with modification as the 2nd step.
It's like saying:
1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Make profit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So no response to the mountains of evidence that indicate everything about abiogenesis in the debate link I sent you?
Noted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I think one of your givens, that anyone gives a shit about the word association fit you have every time you make a post, is invalid."When you have anything to share that invalidates any of my givens"
Stop it.
Nothing you post makes sense and it's so obviously just you writing lame word associations.
Stop.
Stop it.
I know what you're thinking about doing...posting more word associations...don't...don't do it.
Stop it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Wait, what would your definition of abigenesis be?
abiogenesis - the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
abiogenesis - a theory in the evolution of early life on earth : organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances
abiogenesis - the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex.
Are you actually thinking of spontaneous generation, a completely different antiquated term?
spontaneous generation - a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter
Don't commit an association fallacy between the two ideas.
No one's proposing spontaneous generation and you need to be honest and know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No spontaneous generation is an antiquated association with abiogenesis.
That's not at all what the explanation says, in fact, you should save your criticisms of "bogus" for when you actually look at the evidence provided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
One way you can always think about species is a reproductive community.
Like while tigers and lions are not the same species, they can make offspring with each other (tion, liger), because these offspring are not viable.
If two organisms can consistently reproduce viable offspring with each other, to create a reproductive community, then they are the same species.
Viable, consistent, reproduction.
Also of course it was the egg, because mutations occur in the zygote...two non chickens, but really close to chickens genetically, had sex and the egg that resulted mutated and became the first chicken egg, thanks to mutations such as those occurring in the zygote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sorry but saying something is alive and dead is a contradiction, not a tautology. Logical definitions included.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, but you can't be both alive and dead simultaneously.It's tautological.
I think you mean contradictory, but either way...
https://www.google.com/search?q=ugly+zombie+photos&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS798US798&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB-9HetbPeAhVRoFMKHTs6AwUQ_AUIDigB&biw=1536&bih=754#imgrc=N4Uv7-4_QEu3HM:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
I don't think that antonyms have to necessarily be completely dichotomous or even jointly exhaustive, i.e. alive and dead are certainly antonyms, but, with respect to humans, both are based on the human body, so it could be that objective and subjective are not a true dichotomy/not jointly exhaustive and that both could be based on something similar personal feelings, but have other qualities that make them nearly dichotomous.
Created: