CreateDebate


Debate Info

40
36
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:76
Arguments:58
Total Votes:100
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (22)
 
 Disagree (25)

Debate Creator

Nomenclature(1177) pic



People Are Dumb And This Site Proves It

Hi there.

Nobody can win a debate here because when one side proves their point the other becomes dishonest. I believe this evidences that debate has become a confrontation of ego rather than a confrontation of theories.

Let me present my experiences from last night as an example. I was attacked for six hours with misrepresentation and misunderstanding for simply explaining the principle of relative time. According to Einsteinian theory, there is no universal clock. All points in time exist simultaneously just as all coordinates in space exist simultaneously. One consequence of this is a phenomena known as time dilation, which theorises that any two frames of reference can exist at different points in time relative to each other. Hence, if I skip from one to the other I can move either backwards or forwards through time, relative to the other, dependent upon whether the place I move to is chronologically behind or ahead the place I came from. Hence, I can say:-

If point A is the Earth and point B is a neutron star (where gravity radically slows down time).

If it is 5pm on Earth and 4pm on the neutron star.

If I travel from point A to point B I have therefore moved back in time one hour relative to point A.

Based on a misunderstanding of what time travel actually means, I was given a six thousand word lecture from xMathFanx, who previously I had a great deal of respect for, and as per usual I had Amarel in the background using misrepresentation and Thesaurus.Com to pretend he had some form of counterargument.

If you are a physicist and want to criticise my rather basic understanding of physics, then absolutely fair enough. But xMathFanx is a philosopher and Amarel is simply a fascist who specialises in misrepresenting other people's arguments. I have a first class degree in journalism and I specialised in science journalism. In fact, that is not entirely accurate, because I specialised in physics journalism. Short of being an actual physicist, you are not going to find anybody more qualified to explain relativity to you. But these idiots think they can get away with a ten minute session on Google and use it to win a debate against someone who has had 4 years of training on the specific subject they are arguing about.

Honestly, I'm beginning to see the utter futility of arguing with people here.

Agree

Side Score: 40
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 36
3 points

Most debate websites are glorified chat rooms. And most chat rooms exist just for [email protected] to sound off and upstage each other.

If you see graffiti in a toilet stall, or across and old brick wall, and you notice parts are crossed off and written over in a game of one upsmanship, then you're having an experience close to a debate website. If you throw serious academic discussion up on the wall and come back to see "fart" defacing it then yes the critic was juveline in their response and yes you were foolish for believing no respondent was going to do that.

Side: Agree
Nomenclature(1177) Clarified
2 points

Most debate websites are glorified chat rooms. And most chat rooms exist just for [email protected] to sound off and upstage each other.

I agree with you, but being upstaged should be a matter of who has better command of the facts, not who is better at distorting the facts.

Side: Agree
Grenache(5564) Disputed
1 point

Depends on the audience/judge. In a university debate team contest with a trained judge in the back of the room you are right. In the court of public opinion with every average Joe Schmoe listening and making up their own mind then more often then not you are wrong. Heck, just look at who the President is now.

So tell me, is a chat room like CreateDebate more like a university debate contest or more like a popularity contest of soundbytes and personalities?... (Hint, it's the latter)

Side: Disagree

I don't come here for the high quality of debate but rather the high quantity of it.

Side: Agree

I don't come here for the high quality of debate but rather the high quantity of it.

Lol. The thing is, I'll debate politics and morality with people all day, because there is no universally accepted correct answer. But I draw the line when people want to debate the laws of physics with me.

Side: Agree
EldonG(538) Clarified
2 points

I keep seeing science as a debate topic...and all I can think is...the science itself is not debatable. If you disagree with a scientific conclusion, you test it. You may disprove it, but that's not a debate - that changes science. That's how science works.

Every scientific debate...when you look at them...they either want to deny science, or they want to substitute junk science...which isn't science, to begin with.

Side: Agree

Mathfan is completely wrong in that debate but I think it's because he's only thinking in numbers.

Side: Agree
2 points

Yes the world is full of morons and it seems that every single one of them is online.

As for me, I'm not actually here for serious debate. I'm more interested in observing the insanity and being entertained by it from a safe distance.

I do find myself offended by those who engage in malicious attacks and often respond to that so I do engage them occasionally but for the most part I simply have a life long interest in insanity and this is the laziest way I know of to observe it.

Side: Agree

As for me, I'm not actually here for serious debate. I'm more interested in observing the insanity and being entertained by it from a safe distance.

Brother, this is the only logical response to the insanity of the human race. You have to be a spectator rather than a participant, to paraphrase the late great George Carlin.

Side: Agree
xMathFanx(673) Disputed Banned
1 point

@Rusticus.

Yes the world is full of morons and it seems that every single one of them is online.

As for me, I'm not actually here for serious debate. I'm more interested in observing the insanity and being entertained by it from a safe distance.

Stated from the person who created a debate around some absurd ghost story that you somehow seriously believe in

Side: Disagree
EldonG(538) Clarified
1 point

Interesting take on it. I love films about insanity, but they're fictionalized. This makes them safer. So does this site, I suppose.

Side: Agree
jeffreyone(1137) Clarified
1 point

Talking of insanity... a guy saw a ghost (confirmed) and still says he is atheist(contradiction) and calls others insane...lol

is it ironical or a higher dimension of insanity..?

Take no offence. Not personal. lmfao

snigger snigger...!

Side: Agree
Atrag(5206) Clarified
1 point

There are currently millions if not billions of mentally ill people that are hearing a voice that they say is God. Many more think they are Jesus. I guess we should believe in God because of them? Lmfao

Side: Agree

It depends on who you interact with. But i treat this more as a debate forum than any kind of arena of intellectual debate. You do a little back and forth with someone until someone concedes (rare), someone gives up, someone disappears for a huge sum of time, or the debate disolves into insults.

Someone else said it above. Its quantity over quality.

Side: Agree
3 points

Are you here to presume you are intelligent ? Who cares ! Are you lacking the support your mommy and daddy didn't give you ?

Side: Disagree
1 point

I think it really depends on who you are debating against. There are a few people on here that I find highly enjoyable to debate against, we don't always agree but then that's the whole point. Granted for as many people that are on here there are only a few but I think it's really a matter of knowing who you want to debate and who isn't worth the time and who debates a certain way.

Side: Disagree
Nomenclature(1177) Clarified
0 points

I think it really depends on who you are debating against.

I suppose that is true. My problem is that whenever I post anything I usually have to deal with it being deliberately misrepresented by the likes of bronto and Amarel. I then make another post to clarify where and how I am being misrepresented and then of course that post too gets misrepresented, and so on, ad infinitum.

Side: Agree
Mint_tea(2531) Clarified
3 points

I know how frustrating that is. There is one on here that does that quite often, short of calling him out on it there isn't much one can do about it other than ignore or try to clarify as best you can so that others know what you mean while not trying to deliberately misrepresent what they say either. You may not be able to clear it up enough for them but for everyone else you can try.

Side: Agree
1 point

It is not so much that people are dumb it is people, like the OP, who resort to name calling and childish fits that make this site undebatable. Don't get me wrong, you are not the only one, many on here do the exact same thing. That is why I will never respond to one of your posts ever again.

Side: Disagree
3 points

it is people, like the OP, who resort to name calling and childish fits that make this site undebatable

So you are having a childish fit about me having a childish fit? Sounds legit.

Jog on bro.

Side: Agree
1 point

But xMathFanx is a philosopher and Amarel is simply a fascist who specialises in misrepresenting other people's arguments. I have a first class degree in journalism and I specialised in science journalism. In fact, that is not entirely accurate, because I specialised in physics journalism. Short of being an actual physicist, you are not going to find anybody more qualified to explain relativity to you. But these idiots think they can get away with a ten minute session on Google and use it to win a debate against someone who has had 4 years of training on the specific subject they are arguing about

I formally study Math/Physics at a major Uni. in the US instructed by Physicists/Mathematicians from Harvard, Cambridge, Berkeley, Princeton, other elite schools, and moderate level schools (i.e. Ohio State, ect.) I'm friends with people in the process of getting their PhD's in specialized areas of Math/Physics and other sciences. To say that you are more "credentialed" in Physics because you have a Journalism degree is laughable at best.. You don't have any experience in real science and are simply bolstering the point I made about the pride you take in not testing your knowledge and being confronted by your own misconceptions... I'll let other members of this forum decide who tends to reason with more clarity of mind between you and I and evaluate your claims accordingly..

It would not surprise me in the least if you were a science journalist, since one of the major problems about educating the public in science is that we have k-12 teachers, journalists, spokesmen, ect. talking about scientific disciplines as though they were an authority on the matter who do not even have any direct experience with real/technical science nor degrees in a scientific discipline (i.e. they are not properly educated/credentialed to do much of the "reporting" that they do). Rather, many of these "responsible" spokesmen of science read some Pop. Science books, documentaries, talks, ect. or just have a degree in Education (if they are part of the k-12 system) and think "they more or less understand it".

You have asserted on this site a deep misunderstanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics, as well as expressed your incredulity about what can occur naturally in nature (e.g. codes). Try and take that to a credible academic institution assert that to people such as my professors and see what happens... (Hint: You would be put in your place very quickly).

Note: k-12 teaching and science journalism is a very laudable profession. However, if you are going to be a Chemistry teacher, than get at least an undergraduate degree in Chemistry (preferably higher as time progresses), not simply an Education degree. Likewise, if you are going to be a Science Journalist, then get at least an undergraduate degree in science (e.g. Physics, Math, Chem, Bio, Neuro, ect.) and preferably continue with that education in graduate school so that you are actually qualified to report on these subjects

Side: Disagree
2 points

You make some excellent points, here. Math used to be the thing I could rely on most, incidentally - my scores were rather insane...but I couldn't get the instruction when I needed it, and slowly lost interest. Pretty much the same happened in science, too - as I became more interested in computer science, and just computers in general. I tried getting back into math, but after being out of it for so long, calculus stumped me.

I have two points in this - though there is rampant stupidity on this site, there are some damn smart people. You'd be one of them.

My other point - damn straight they need to keep up with scientific knowledge, and that's a challenge for anybody, even professionals. My life story is damn sure a testament to that.

Side: Disagree
1 point

I formally study Math/Physics at a major Uni. in the US instructed by Physicists/Mathematicians from Harvard, Cambridge, Berkeley, Princeton, other elite schools, and moderate level schools (i.e. Ohio State, ect.)

I think the difference between us is probably that I am not a liar.

You are just being stupid. I have already proved that you do not understand the concepts you are talking about, so telling transparent lies about yourself only further exposes you as the child you -- only minutes ago -- claimed me to be. Just for a start, you post here every day and have posted here every day for months. That is entirely logically inconsistent with the notion that you study anything at uni, let alone maths/physics, which I happen to know from colleagues takes up more time than a person actually has in their day.

In fact, let's continue our critical analysis of your claim with another line of reasoning. You have written quite a lengthy post in which you purport at the very beginning to be studying maths/physics. So why is your entire post after this claim an egregious personal attack? Why does it contain no maths or physics? Why do you throw a temper tantrum instead of simply and precisely debunking the premise I included in the OP?

Shall I tell you why?

Because you are a liar. That's why.

I was wrong about you and ordinarily I believe myself to be a good judge of character. Either you have some kind of mental problem, someone has hijacked your account, or you are just a duplicitous twerp with the emotional intelligence of a five year old goat.

Side: Agree
1 point

Nobody can win a debate here because when one side proves their point

You've never proven a point. You have managed to look like a dick with ears more than once or twice.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Nobody can win a debate here because when one side proves their point (note: bronto butchers the quote here, but it continues, "the other becomes dishonest")

You've never proven a point.

Which kind of proves the point really, doesn't it?

Side: Agree
1 point

Based on a misunderstanding of what time travel actually means, I was given a six thousand word lecture

What's sad is that you counted the words...

Side: Disagree
1 point

had Amarel in the background using misrepresentation and Thesaurus.Com to pretend he had some form of counterargument.

So you debated against the dictionary....again....

He debated against the dictionary definition of defense in another debate. By the time he was done, he had created a word salad consistent with his being an actual zoo chimp.

Side: Disagree
1 point

So you debated against the dictionary....again....

So you don't understand the difference between a thesaurus and a dictionary? One is for finding synonyms and the other is for defining words. Run along now, little troll.

Side: Agree
1 point

In fact, that is not entirely accurate, because I specialised in physics journalism. Short of being an actual physicist, you are not going to find anybody more qualified to explain relativity to you.

1)Bwahahahaha! Says the person with 105.654321 puppet accounts...

2)That journalism degree will ... well, let's just say...you might as well have saved your tuition money and went directly to McDonalds to work. Well, this explains why you want Socialism. You know you'll never make a dime as a journalist, and you want the laborers to buy your lunches for you.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Don't come here, then, you fuckbag..............................................................................................

Side: Disagree
0 points

@Nomenclature.

Honestly, you are a childish ignoramus. Your "proofs" include fringe Conspiracy Theory lunacy and then you throw a temper tantrum when someone doesn't surrender to your fantastical claims. For example, codes cannot be found in nature if they are not artificially constructed, your abuse of the Laws of Thermodynamics, 9-11 conspiracies, ect. Moreover, when a person does challenge your patently absurd "truths" it clearly strikes a nerve in you, and you proceed to show the world how emotionally unstable you are and the depth of your delusive dogmatic beliefs. None of this would fly in a serious intellectual arena (you wouldn't even be able to get away with it on the PhysicsForum.com let alone a serious academic environment)..

The respect I have for you is that your way of thinking and knowledge base extends beyond that of the general public and you demonstrate justified moral outrage toward many of the extreme social/political injustices/dysfunctions present in the world (i.e. your "heart" is in the right place). You have worth while contributions, however you are drastically overestimating your abilities/reasonableness based on the fact that you are more intelligent/sensible compared to the typical member of the general populace or below (who are incomprehensibly ignorant and stupid).

Bronto isn't even necessarily completely wrong about you in some areas, although I do not at all agree with nor support his antics either.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Honestly, you are a childish ignoramus. Your "proofs" include fringe Conspiracy Theory lunacy and then you throw a temper tantrum when someone doesn't surrender to your fantastical claims.

Oh yes. Clearly, I am the one making fantastical claims, Mr. I Study Physics At Harvard. Clearly, I am the one throwing a temper tantrum. That must be why everything you have written in the last half an hour has viciously attacked me.

You are being so stupid, obnoxious and childish that I refuse to believe you are the same xMathFanx I usually converse with. I am going to hope that you are simply the same idiotic troll who tried to hijack my own username and write posts on my behalf.

That said, I'm going to ban you, because you are attacking me with slanderous nonsense and debating absolutely nothing.

Side: Agree
1 point

(you wouldn't even be able to get away with it on the PhysicsForum.com let alone a serious academic environment)..

I actually referenced Physics.Org earlier in the thread when I was busy proving you wrong. Obviously you missed it. Must have been that spectacular eye-twitch problem you have whenever anybody wins a debate with you.

General Relativity says that the closer you are to a heavy mass, such as Earth, the slower time will move for you. This means that a clock on a satellite orbiting the Earth will run faster relative to one on the ground.

if the GPS satellites didn’t correct for the time difference due to relativity, then the signals sent to your device from the satellite would read a false time, your device would calculate the distance wrong and wouldn’t know where you were.

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=77

Side: Agree
0 points

Amarel is simply a fascist who specialises in misrepresenting other people's arguments

Amarel is not a fascist, that is another unwarranted slander product of the emotional outbursts from a man-child. He simply leans more to the "right" on the political spectrum.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Amarel is not a fascist

Believe me. Amarel is a fascist. I'm so confident I don't even have to use italics.

that is another unwarranted slander product of the emotional outbursts from a man-child.

No, what you are doing is actually a fascist technique in itself, since you are purposefully creating a problem in order to give yourself a proposed moral basis for an attack. In fact, your personal insults are downright hypocritical, given that you are the one slinging them, yet I am apparently the "man-child".

Do not embarrass yourself further. You have already shown yourself to be an intellectual troglodyte who resorts to fanatical personal attacks when things do not go his way in a debate.

Side: Agree
1 point

Believe me. Amarel is a fascist.

I believe you. That dude is like a coked-up version of Himmler.

Side: Agree
xMathFanx(673) Disputed Banned
0 points

Believe me. Amarel is a fascist. I'm so confident I don't even have to use italics

No, you throw that term around far to loosely in quite an unethical way I would add. That is why I said Bronto is not entirely wrong about you (amongst other reasons), although he is a bully and I do not support his tactics (nor in any way all of his views with respect to you).

Side: Disagree