You pick any Fox News pundit show (Greta, O'Reilly, Kelly, Hannity), we pick a start date (presumably the first Monday after challenge is accepted), and I'll watch yours for a week and you watch Rachael Maddow for a week and we compare.
All attributes up for discussion - newsworthiness, contextualization, errors/misinformation/corrections, guests, etc.
Conceded: these are pundits and opinion is to be expected.
The shows on both networks are repeated later that night and with PVRs, etc. you would not have to miss your favorite show.
Alright These are two of the weirdest and craziest people on the planet. Steve Kardynal is known as the "Most outgoing man on Youtube" and Lady Gaga is known as the weirdest woman in the musical industry. So i challenge Someone to defend Gaga against me as the weirdest of the two. also the pic is of Steve Kardynal Because i couldn't find a Vs pic of them both.
Okay I've had this Debate afew times on multiple Facebook debate groups and it is never concluded. I'm Taking the side of James Bond because I like a challenge. I want to Challenge someone to this debate for a final conclusion! Who wants to take me on?
I wish to not only try and convince people that I am right here, but am also asking for a challenge for someone to debate this with me.
(Note to Reader: I have provided a brief summary here in bolded words which is all the numbered arguments below. If you are asking why can't I just summarize this, then if I were to just say a brief statement such as that "Life is all about pleasure and that pleasure is the only greatest thing in life," then there would be plenty of people who would be able to argue against that. Therefore, I must argue my points to where it is very convincing which would make my hypothesis that more important to test later on through science. Some scientists might say that quoted message is nothing but something subjective and cannot be tested and demonstrated as objectively true or false. But based on what I'm saying here, pleasure is objectively good while pain and despair are objectively bad while everything else in life is objectively neutral (neither good or bad). I must go into great convincing detail in order to make it something important to be tested. For that very reason, I suggest that you read all of it anyway besides just the summary here. But if you absolutely can't read all of it, then I will provide the summary right here):
1.) You can create neutral sounds, images, words, etc. in your mind that are bland to you and provoke no good or bad emotional response.
2.) Therefore, all meanings we create in life are neutral (neither good or bad) since they are the exact same functioning of our brains that come up with these neutral sounds, images, words, etc. in the first place and are nothing but these neutral things just stated. There is nothing different (just the fact that they are different words, images, sounds, etc. and nothing more). Whereas, emotions such as pleasure is the only good thing in life while pain and depression as well as anger or sadness are the bad things in of themselves and all emotions are separate functioning of our brains separate from the functioning of our brains that come up with thoughts, knowledge, meaning, etc. So it would make no sense for you to say that bad emotions in of themselves have good meaning while pleasure in of itself can have bad meaning. It's only these emotions in of themselves that arise from our created meanings that are good and bad. The meanings themselves are, again, neither good or bad (they are all neutral) and do not somehow make our emotions good or bad or neutral.
Yes, all meanings are different in that they are different words and such. But they are all the same in the sense that they are all neutral (neither good or bad). Any perceived logical fallacies in my argument here might hold true for other things in life, but not for what I'm saying here. You might say something such as that "Your logic is false and that what you are saying here is that you can create an 'ooooh' vowel sound when you sing. Therefore all words you sing have 'oooooh' vowel sounds" in order to try and disprove my argument here. But the fact is that all things in life besides pleasure, pain, and despair are nothing but chemical processes, atoms, molecules, etc. that are neutral (neither good or bad). But it is only pleasure, pain, and despair in of themselves that are the only good and bad things despite the fact that these things are the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. in our brains. If you read my entire post, I say that only the emotions themselves that arise out of our created meanings in life are good and bad in of themselves and that everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral.
(Note to Reader: This debate (post) is continued below)!
Yes, i really think that grades decide the future of a student as i have two elder sisters who are fighting for grades in every step of there life and are really hardworking. Now as i can see that they are having a piece of cake to their endless efforts. Now as they are going to have admission in a really reputable university and i got to know that grades do matter a lot. If god forbid there were less grades they might have suffered to go and have their admissions.
This is a formal challenge debate.
Part 1) on your side post a 300-500 word opening statement for why you believe your side (do not respond to each others opening statements). Include things like what arguments you think the other person will use, what led you to believe your side, and what would compel you to change your mind [if anything].
Part 2) Make your first argument, then I will rebut it, then you can counter rebut it.
Part 3) I'll make my first argument, then you rebut it, then I counter rebut it.
Part 4) Q&A. You ask 3-5 questions that I will respond to.
Part 5) I ask you 3-5 questions and you respond to them.
Part 6) 300-500 word closing statement from both of us assessing the debate and what was discussed.
No ad hominem attacks, insults, or cussing.
Stay on topic.
No out of turn responses.
No overly long responses, limit 300 words except for the opening and closing statements.
No asking the other person to watch a video or read an article. Please summarize the source and then post the link below for reference.
Refrain from using caps lock.
Refrain from using more than 2 graphics per section.
Many Theologions debate rather we have any say in our salvation. Knowing that you must recieve Jesus and trust him as his son. Calvinist and Infralapsarianist agree that you must be saved. We agree that Holy Spirit comes to us first before we choose him. Heres the issue:
There is 7 men at the Diner. 2 are Christians. Does God not love the other 5? Or does he choose some based on their choice to except God? Why does God choose some and not others? Would you hold to a Supralapsarianism(Calvinism) or an Infralapsarianism notion on Free Will and Predestination.
It is inherantly sexist to say one biological sex is better than another. My opponant has challenged me to a debate, so here I am. Upon request, I shall set out to prove that difference does not equal a lack of worth.