All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
This is not a matter of morals, but hopefully a matter of standardization.
When do you find it acceptable to downvote an argument?
when it is poorly written?
when it is against your perspective?
when it is by a person you do not like?
when it is insulting people without an argument?
when it is insulting people embedded in an argument?
Yes, the flying spaghetti monster is a facetious deity designed to advocate atheism.
However, if creationists argue that the universe was designed by "being"
why is it that this being could not have been made of spaghetti?Why does this being *HAVE* to be an old man with a flowing beard?
Being interested in green energy, I was wondering what some favorites were out there. Not the most efficient or practical (necessarily), but simply the *BEST*.
for those of you unaware, TSA scanners use sonic scattering to view non-metallic objects that could be hidden in clothing. In the process, it generates a silhouette of a nude body that is visible to the security guards.
It has come to my attention that many people never cite the various sources they claim to have read and base their argument off of. Any person could, on the spot, make a statistic such as"20% of people do not cite their sources"and you have absolutely no idea whether or not it is true!Should people on CreateDebate cite their sources? This is not a matter of anybody should be forced to cite everything all of the time"- only a general opinion of if the benefits of verification outnumber the disadvantage of preventing arguments from people without time to find the article they mentioned.
according to George A. Manning, organized crime is a major industry of the united states, in 1986 single handedly forming 1.13% of the american economy, employing over 500,000 people, with around $150,000,000,000 income.After leaving a recession, and still in the midst of an economic slump, should the united states government consider easing up on organized crime in order to maximize american profits from the black marker?
http://books.google.com/books?id=lgE7At4AdD0C&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=US+income+from+organized+crime&source=bl&ots=zAvZLlZpj2&sig=tV-k2FP-rCTIdhXsubyAJ9GM_rs&hl=en&ei=3DL3TKfpMIT7lwf21v2PAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=US%20income%20from%20organized%20crime&f=false
During my various debates, my logical arguments have been often ignored. My serious debates were left bare. My logic useless, my appeal to authority fails to sway.When I employed humor, however, I received various one-ups, replies, and comments. My 'silly' debates attracted some attention. Emotional appeals win again. According to Socrates, logos- that is, appeals to logic- are the only true form of debate, that all other appeals are based on human fallibility. Is it not, then, a testament to this fallibility that only pathological appeals make any sway? Perhaps this phenomena is exacerbated by the Internet, perhaps it has only recent come to my attention through the Internet as a medium... and the sad truth is that this human fallibility is exactly why so precious few will read this perspective debate.Were it not detrimental to both the integrity of this argument, or even my integrity as a sophisticated member of human society, I would be want to load this description with various jokes, memes, and other illogical devices that appeal to the primitive rhetoric of the human consciousness.
Yes or no. You do not know what will happen if you agree, or disagree. There is no right answer, no wrong answer. Instinctively, do you feel compelled to enter a situation unaware of its details?
Stem cell research is fairly mainstream, if you are not aware of the basic information please do yourself a favor and look it up on google news and googls scholar
Genetically modified organisms have many uses:
better foodbetter medicine
and you can even make trees that glow
but is it safe and ethical to tamper with nature at the molecular level?
if you begin with2 moles of H2 gas
1 mole of O2 gas
2 moles of H2bar gas (antimatter hydrogen) and
1 mole of O2bar (antimatter Oxygen)Combust the H2 and O2 to yield 2 moles of H2O and 571 KJ of energyCombust H2bar and O2bar to yield 2 moles of H2Obar (antimatter H2O) and 571 KJ of energyannihilate the 36 grams of H2O and the 36 grams of H2Obar yielding 6,500,000,000,000 KJ of energy (E=M*C^2)convert the 6,500,000,000,000 KJ of energy (E=M*C^2) into:
2 moles of H2 gas
1 mole of O2 gas
2 moles of H2bar gas (antimatter hydrogen) and
1 mole of O2bar (antimatter Oxygen)
The net reaction would be shown as 2H2+O2+ 2H2bar+ 2O2bar-> 2H2+O2+ 2H2bar+ 2O2bar+ 1142 KJ (from the combustion)this violates the laws of thermodynamics, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.Did I make an error in my calculations, or is the second law of thermodynamics flawed?