- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
What's not clear to you?
You can't do everything, You can't know everything, you can't always do and have what you want, you can't stop death, you can't endure all the pain, you can't fix all your problems on your own, you can't make impossible possible. That's your limit.
and sometimes you need to lean on something when you reach your limits
tough you don't notice your already doing it such as believing on science.
You're deranged! I don't know Andy in real life. And you're acting like a child... it's the internet, who cares? You've hacked this site and cost Andy money and you have the nerve to act like I should be banned for something?
We've both insulted each other... so what? It doesn't bother me... I thought it was all in good fun? You know I just troll around on here. Anyway, it doesn't matter... bug off.
You just called me stupid here. In every 5 posts you give to me, 3 are abusive on average. This frequency of taunting and bullying given that 0 out of the 5 are ever nice to me results in me not liking you.
I am not stupid, nor a virgin boy for life and your abuse is not something you'd have had the right to do to me if the admin wasn't your real-life friend. :)
One of the most common angles that atheists (which this debate-maker is not) is 'you can't prove that God doesn't exist so we don't need to prove a lack of correlation in order to conclude there isn't a God'. This debate's creator has issue with that and wanted to see what her supporters and opposition bring on this angle that atheist's take (which I agree, is a cop-out).
Can YOU prove S/HE/IT exists?? Certainly a book of myths and contradictions does not. There is another book, scroll, whatever, that tells of a different "god" with different rules, and MILLIONS of people believe THAT one just as fervently (even more so unless you pray 5 times a day), as you believe yours. THEY would try to convince me that they could disprove YOU. I think you are BOTH wrong, and will continue killing each other "in the name of GOD" for even MORE centuries because you insist on "disproving" each other!
I say, forget about this idiocy and try following a little common sense and compassion for our fellow humans! WORK TOGETHER INSTEAD OF "DISPROVING" one another!
No the victim was killed without consent but we don't want to be like the murderer.
Murderers didn't follow the law yet we don't want to do what the murderer does.
No, the victim didn't have protection while being killed but if we do the same to them we're not far away from being violent, cruel and inhumane as they are.
Yes, I agree that the terminology doesn't matter at the end of the day.
I'll say this about theoretical physics; perhaps you are partially correct to compare some of it to religion, but I think it has some merit. Theoretical physicists can make predictions about how certain things will behave, and then eventually find these predictions to be accurate or not through experiment. Take the example of the atom - people had to theorize about what they were first in order for the right kind of experiments to be conducted, which showed certain predictions to be correct (and incorrect), allowing actual discovery to be made. So long as we don't assume hypotheses to be correct they can be quite useful in directing experiment. I feel like that might be a bad explanation.
You've never seen me angry and you never will... it's the internet, nothing on here matters to me enough to get angry? I've never hated you regardless what you think AND I was on record many times saying I didn't think you should be banned. I was just fucking around and I thought you were too for the most part... I guess you are just too stupid to realise that?
The sob stories rule the American scene, too. They even invaded the Winter Olympic coverage with a competitor whose granddad had recently died.
I understand the desire to add human interest, and trying to evoke an emotional reaction, but there is a better tack to take.
In the US, there is a game show called The Wall that only has contestants who have done some significant service or made some sacrifice for the good of others. The stories about these people are just as schmaltzy as the sob stories on shows like Britain's / America's got Talent, and they elicit the same sort of emotional response, but they are oriented toward encouraging and rewarding POSITIVE behavior.
Instead of putting the spotlight on misery and victimhood, The Wall celebrates empowerment and virtuous action. Ideally this will encourage viewers to make life better for others, and perhaps reduce the number of people who have lives that can be portrayed as sob stories on other shows.