CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Well Lolzors it seems to me I was right after all. Most of the people here think you are not a troll.....so.....about the community not being open minded?
I'd say yea he's a troll, but mostly because his views just seem so blurry, it makes me question not what he says, but how a person can honestly say it.
I feel this is also worth mentioning (even if it invalidates my point) I am certain Srom, goodmale, and prologos are trolls. In all of those cases, it's not so much what the people are saying that makes me thinks they are trolls (I've defended religion and bestiality before) but it was how the things they were saying, they seemed to say with absolute belief that made me feel they were trolls. I felt that if I had met these people in real life, that they would not have been saying they felt the way they felt about these things, they just seemed too outside of the norm for me to see seeing them as normal, as genuine.
I'd say yea he's a troll, but mostly because his views just seem so blurry, it makes me question not what he says, but how a person can honestly say it.
Well a perfect example is this. On a recent debate with me you said that you don't consider Christianity blind faith, since the stories you believe are allegedly accurate retellings of historic events that happened to people from that time who documented it. I feel like no one could possibly actually believe this, so when I see someone say that they do, I feel because of my own sense of logic, and my own inquisitive nature that would never just believe that, that that person couldn't be sincere in that belief.
Thats simply a denial of sociological fact. People believe a wide range of religions. People honestly believe it; you might not, but people still do. The implied logical conclusion of what you are saying is (since a vast majority of people, according to sociological and anthropological fact, do believe these things) that no one can honestly believe anything that you do not believe and everyone is a troll who tries to proclaim otherwise. Do you not see how arrogant that is? And "I feel because of my own sense of logic, and my own inquisitive nature that would never just believe that, that that person couldn't be sincere in that belief" just proves that point I just made.
Well I don't really know what you're disputing, if you read what I typed with an open mind, you'd see from the beginning I stated this as my opinion, and stated that this is my opinion because these people think drastically, unrealistically different from me.
Well now we're off track since we've established that I stated an opinion, and then reiterated that it is an opinion. However, I wouldn't exactly call it a blind opinion. A blind opinion might be saying you're a troll, never having had met you before. It's an opinion based off my impression of you, in pretty much every encounter we've had.
Now onto asking you why you're still disputing. A dispute is supposed to be a tool used to say something opposing the person's previous statement, seeing as how I've yet to state anything new, and you've yet to state anything more than reiterations of my statements, I wonder why you're disputing. It is my opinion from personal experience with other's I've deemed troll, that those I've deemed trolls tend to dispute even when disputing isn't necessary. Just adding that to my list of opinionated reasons I believe you to be a troll.
1. Falsely accused me of using illogical fallacies even though he himself did.
In what way on both points: me accusing falsely and me using them?
2. Doesn't answer any of my questions directly and try's to avoid a lot of them as much as possible cause he knows they prove a point.
What questions did I not answer?
3. Says things that have nothing to do with the debate.
They were more along the lines of my side thoughts that came from the debate; so, they are relevant, insofar as they have to do with me.
4. Contradicts himself.
In what way?
5.Thinks murder is ok.
When did I say this?
Conclusion: Troll!
Thats a non sequitur. But, like before, you simply assert. What justification do you have for any (or most) of these premises?
Every single time I ask you to justify your points, you never give an answer. I could apply your argument, therefore, to you, and conclude that you are a troll.
I used to think he was a troll when he first joined the site, but I don't think he is anymore. I honestly wouldn't waste your time debating him. It's pointless because he thinks anything god says is moral. If god tells people to go on a massive baby killing spree he would think it's moral because god commanded it. To him the word moral just means whatever god says and most of his arguments seem to rest on this assumption. It's just a game of semantics he plays. Semantical games seem to be at the heart of many of his arguments, which is why I don't waste my time debating him anymore.
He also rarely tells people the point he's trying to make, he just expects them to read his mind. Your debate with him that you linked to is a perfect example. What he failed to say in that debate is the point he was trying to make is that you can't say something is immoral because god defines morality, so if god says slaughter entire cities and keep the virgins as plunder, then it is moral.
Lolzors is a Calvinist, so he believes god specifically created "wicked" people just so he could punish them to show his chosen people that he is a just god. The Calvinist version of god is even more sick and twisted than the god most Christians worship. However, I think it's a more accurate depiction of the god of the Bible, so at least Calvinists don't sugar coat things the way most Christians do.
To his credit, Lolzors is very knowledgeable about the Bible and can be a strong debater when he doesn't resort to semantics.
Like what semantics? Many philosophical arguments could be considered semantical, because they are analytic, but, then, who cares if they are semantics?
Moreover, what about God commanding all babies to be killed? Do you have a problem with that? Do you find that immoral? Why do you find that morally reprehensible? And are you not begging the question, if you are implying this, in neglecting how your moral intuitions would change, if God's commands were to change?
How does Calvinism make God out to be immoral? Does that not presuppose God, by presupposing morality? And does the Bible not already say that God makes Himself appear tortuous to the crooked (Psalm 18:26)?
Moreover, what about God commanding all babies to be killed? Do you have a problem with that? Do you find that immoral? Why do you find that morally reprehensible?
I don't want to die so I assume babies wouldn't want to die either. One of the nice things I experience in life is growing up and enjoying a variety of things, I want babies to do the same. The act of a baby dying makes the parents of the child suffer. It all comes down to minimising suffering and maximising enjoyment.
Morality with all its complexity is a difficult issue. However, giving up and saying "morality doesn't exist without my book, HA!" isn't the answer. We have to continue to analyse it and in many cases it is a matter of searching inside ourselves to discover what we consider to be immoral, whether that is shared by the structures of society, and then asking ourselves why. I think that is something you should be more open minded to. I don't believe you are as evil as you seem.
I don't want to die so I assume babies wouldn't want to die either. One of the nice things I experience in life is growing up and enjoying a variety of things, I want babies to do the same. The act of a baby dying makes the parents of the child suffer. It all comes down to minimising suffering and maximising enjoyment.
Who cares about your wants? I might not want to die as a criminal, but that has no basis for saying that I should not die by the hand of my executioner. You're applying the Golden Rule way to way too extreme of situations. And, you completely forget what I said after: how you moral intuitions would be shaped if humanity were to be commanded differently, in that, babies would be killed morally. So, you're begging the question.
Who cares about your wants? I might not want to die as a criminal, but that has no basis for saying that I should not die by the hand of my executioner
You can often tap into a criminal morality for him to understand why he has to be punished. "If someone else did this to you, would you think it is bad?" "do you think people should have to pay for the bad things they do?" "considering factors x y z, do you think that the punishment is about right?". Often criminals have the same basis of morals as the rest of us but they have not applied them the same (often due to lack of empathy for the victim or value themselves over others: amongst other things). It is not about wants but rather about shared values that appear to be inherent in human beings.
You're applying the Golden Rule way to way too extreme of situations
If you weren't a Christian, why would you consider killing babies to be immoral?
And, you completely forget what I said after: how you moral intuitions would be shaped if humanity were to be commanded differently, in that, babies would be killed morally. So, you're begging the question.
Well the idea that killing babies is wrong seems to be present in every society I have knowledge of. There are sometimes justifications but the reason why we call them 'justifications' is because there is a prime facie assumption that the act is wrong. You're right though... if human beings thought completely differently, tended to form family units and their societies differently, didn't tend to follow rules of law,to feel love, to value innocence etc etc etc then killing babies could be moral (or at least amoral). However, this isn't relevant to talking about moral values of this human race.
Don't have a reply for the rest? I guess a Christian can't really debate morals outside the scope of interpreting the Bible.
I suppose it is moral to kill a baby on the occasions that God tells you it is. There are a lot of people in forensic mental health units for doing things that God told them to do. Thank God for secular society ;)
Like redefining the world moral as whatever god says. Show me an English dictionary that defines it that way. It was obvious from the debate linked to in the description that animedude639 was referring to the common usage of the word morality, in which causing unnecessary harm to people is immoral. If you want to argue that the harm is necessary, that would be fine, and it looks like you finally did that at the end of the debate, but you still tried to redefine the word moral from the one he had intended for the debate to one that suits your arguments. If I defined moral as whatever Jar Jar Binks says, do you think we would have a very meaninful debate? Redefining words is fine as long as both parties agree upon the definition, but you never even told animedude639 that you were trying to redefine the word.
Many philosophical arguments could be considered semantical, because they are analytic, but, then, who cares if they are semantics?
If people can just change the definition of words willy nilly to support their arguments it makes debating impossible.
Moreover, what about God commanding all babies to be killed? Do you have a problem with that? Do you find that immoral? Why do you find that morally reprehensible? And are you not begging the question, if you are implying this, in neglecting how your moral intuitions would change, if God's commands were to change?...
I'm not going to waste my time debating this with you because you have redefined the word moral to one that I do not agree with.
And does the Bible not already say that God makes Himself appear tortuous to the crooked (Psalm 18:26)?
I don't care what the Bible says, because it's primarily a work of fiction. It means no more to me than the Vedas means to you.
How did I redefine it? I simply use God as the basis for morality. It's simply false to say that I redefine it.
You're redefining it by saying god is the basis for it, because that completely changes what the word means. Just like if I say Satan is the basis for morality it completely changes the meaning of the word.
Also, defining things with dictionaries in philosophical inquiry is never smart. Dictionaries give general notions, not technical. So, I don't see your point at all.
Unless we have a clear definition to work with it's impossible to have a coherent discussion. It doesn't have to be from a dictionary, it just needs to be a defintion that is agreed upon by all the participants of the debate. We could define morality as rabid kittens or Pee Wee Herman's nose hair. It really doesn't matter what definition we use as long as we both use the same definition. If we're using different definitions we'll be talking about two different things and won't get anywhere. Since most debates about morality don't specifically define the word, it's best to either go with the standard usage of the word or suggest a definition and see if you can get everyone to agree on it. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make now?
Redefining is not equivalent to saying that God is the basis of something. If I say that the physical is the basis of the psychological, it would not mean that the psychological is the physical. The definitions remain the same; the bases are not the same as definitions.
If you change the basis of the definition it alters the definition. If I say Satan is the basis for morality and you say God is the basis for morality, do you think the actions we describe as moral are going to be the same?
I agree mostly. A small argument with the guy has changed my opinion of him. I don't agree with the majority of what he says, but I now accept that he's genuine in saying it.
I'm noticing that a colloquial internet usage of "troll" that I believe has moved well beyond its intended meaning. A troll should be someone who gets a kick out of pissing people off, not someone who disagrees with you.
I do not agree with his stances at all, but there is a strong internal consistancy within his argumentation. I think he is quite sincere in these beliefs and comes to the site for the same reasons that the rest of us non-trolls do.
Also, I don't see him as being particularly rude, which is a hallmark of trolls far and wide.
He's far too commited to be a troll. If he were actually a troll, he'd be trolling himself the hardest.
No, these are his actual beliefs, and really aren't so extreme as to warrant assuming he is a troll. Debating him can be frustrating at times given the tactics he uses on some topics, and getting him to agree on basic premises for the sake of discussion can be difficult as well, but he can be very interesting to talk to if those pitfalls can be avoided.
Agh! Just like an atheist to start saying I'm a troll once proven wrong or pushed to justify beliefs... Its sad really. Stop being arrogant and open your mind.
CD is filled with atheists. You're looking for justification for your belief from people who are already biased against me. Thats just like an (new) atheist: only seeks after justification for one's own belief, nothing outside.
And, on the contrary, you're, in reality, making yourself look like a fool. If this debate were metaphorically a real life fight, you would be dead right now.
Actually most of the people here (despite being atheist) are very opened minded and aren't all that biased (except for Ave and Nox0 but you get what I mean).
You're a prime example of a person who is not open minded. I challenged you on a point, but when you cannot prove it, you start saying that I'm insane, illogical, and a troll. An actual person who is open minded would see that I had won that point, either absolutely or in the fact that you were not able to answer it. But, either way, it should have persuaded you in some manner, not to simply say "Hey, you're an idiot."
And because most people on here do that, most on here are not open-minded. Atheists, in my experience, want to seem open-minded for intellectual arrogance and pride.
Who here hasn't been called a troll here? Now if you're a member of an atheists' church then of course you're except from being a troll. All you have to do is a view that is not an atheistic view and you get called a troll here.
So you say, and yet the general opinion on here seems to be that lolzors isn't a troll. Imagine that!
It's not that theists are trolls and atheists aren't trolls. I wouldn't call Srom a troll either, for that matter, even if I disagree with him.
On the other hand, a number of trolls do seem to select a religious persona of some sort- probably because there is a sizeable atheist community here to troll. You yourself, as well as FromWithin, are examples of these. You know exactly why you're called a troll- you take poor reasoning, convenient lies, and twisted interpretations to a level far beyond obvious and well into obnoxious- nut instead of addressing that, you frame it as a theists vs atheists thing- just like you do with every other issue under this persona. You'd do a better job trolling if you were a little more subtle about it, honestly.
There are trolls portraying an atheist persona as well, but they're far less common. 'Horus' was one particularly nasty anti-theist troll, I believe he was one of prodigee's personas, but don't have conformation there.
It is your atheists friend who fail to say anything, they just up-vote and down-vote. If they were semi-intelligent, they would actually post something. How much intelligence does it take to click on an arrow? Little to none. The trolls are the vote casters, not the posters.
Oh come on, you know better. You can't inflame anyone or instigate things with votes without using tons of accounts. It's not even enough to have an unpopular position- though you can still work some up just with that, that's more on them. No, it's about choosing your words (and more importantly, your overall TONE) intentionally to be inflammatory.
