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.
We are rapidly destroying THIS planet with abuse and overpopulation ... like the Duggars ... We had better hurry and find a NEW place to destroy or this one will destroy US, (which we deserve).
So overpopulation is a horrible, dreadful thing, but we need to bring in more immigrants and illegals...
You know that the population stays constant in that example, right? Moving stuff around doesn't increase it. If I have five oranges in my left hand and I move them to my right hand, they don't suddenly become ten oranges.
You know that the population stays constant in that example, right?
It stays constant on the planet, but not in the United States. The latter is the point...
Moving stuff around doesn't increase it.
Depends how much you move where. If you are responsible for nation A, and all of it is moved to nation A, you have a problem.
If I have five oranges in my left hand and I move them to my right hand, they don't suddenly become ten oranges
You're right. And now your right hand is overwhelmed with five oranges.
The point? If you move everyone to the West, the West collapses. It can't sustain it. The problems of overpopulation are now the problems of the West in the example.
If the planet simply needs more space to put people in, you'd think people would want to find ways to inhabit under the water, in the air, through skyscrapers, or in the cold parts of the world where no one lives rather than find some planet (that hasn't been found to this day), that's good parts are most likely less habitable than Earth's bad parts....
It stays constant on the planet, but not in the United States. The latter is the point...
No it isn't, retard. Read the opening post. Particularly read the part which says: "planet Earth".
Either you can't read or you don't understand you're not allowed to arbitrarily change someone else's debate topic. This thread is about space colonisation, so nobody is interested in your anti-immigrant hate speech.
So you are using a thread about space colonisation as a platform for anti-immigrant hate speech. It isn't complicated. Either stick to the topic or fuck off back to the disease-infested hole you crawled out of.
you're an idiot
Except I'm the one of us capable of sticking to a topic and you're the one bringing neo-Nazi politics into a discussion about space travel. Lol.
Shut up, idiot. There are seven comments in my entire posting history. You literally just say the first thing which comes into your fucking stupid mouth, regardless of truth.
Shut up, idiot. There are seven comments in my entire posting history.
You are nomenclature, and you use puppets because you get tired of me destroying you, and thus, need do overs because you are afraid to face me as the same account.
you literally just say the first thing which comes into your fucking stupid mouth, regardless of truth.
I'm not speaking. I'm typing. Do you need more explanation?
I've just been through your entire posting history for the last four hours and every single post you have made in that period has been upvoted to plus three.
Not only are you a total fucking liar, but the things you are accusing other people of are things you are actually doing yourself!!!
I am reporting you to the site owner because I believe you are a paid shill.
You are acting pretty extreme. Accusing him of hate speech and being a neo-nazi just because he doesn't want a massive influx of migrants is pretty illogical to be honest. Notice, he isn't saying anything hateful about migrants or even saying he doesn't want migrants generally speaking, it seems to me he is just saying that too many migrants would overburden a country which is a very reasonable and benign thing to say. It's pretty obvious really, you don't want to just tell everyone to go fuck themselves, and that's not what he's saying at all, it's just that you shouldn't just haphazardly let everyone in.
Bullshit. I am being honest, which is a concept you are clearly unfamiliar with. It is predictable that you would play down abuse of this platform because you have been banned numerous times for exactly that!!! You open a different account every time you write a reply.
Frankly, you both need to be permanently banned or this site will never build unique traffic. Nobody wants to read your "NIGERSHITBITCHPUSSY" debates, your plagiarised insults or your giant walls of spam.
Who is FactMachine? Let me check. Hmm, looks like a belligerent fool who was banned for good reason, although I didn't see "niggershitbitchpussy" anywhere. How am I playing down abuse of the platform? You mean the cussing or bronto upvoting himself? Those things are not ideal, but you haven't proven that bronto has done this. You merely accused him, but I can see quite plainly you are this nomenclature guy and you are acting like a freak. Who just goes around labeling people neo-nazis baselessly and making hate speech allegations over nothing? You sound like a paid shill trying to make the left look bad by acting out the alt-left stereotype.
Who is FactMachine? Let me check. Hmm, looks like a belligerent fool who was banned for good reason
You can try to hide your identity as much as you like you desperate troll, but the fact remains that you have been banned from this website. You have been banned through numerous different accounts, yet you still diligently abuse the platform and its members on a daily basis.
We do not HAVE TO destroy this planet, we could just drastically alter society in favour of a resource based economy and stop using outdated technology so the big corporations can keep raking in the prophets while the military hoards secret technologies that could be used to improve human lives rather than destroy them.
It could be both. We could both lessen the burden we put on this planet by colonizing others AND solve many of our problems before we even begin colonizing.
We solve all of our "problems here on earth" by colonizing the right planets. Overpopulation? Not anymore. Hunger? Plenty of new room for crops and new people to run farms. Refugees? Start a new government over there, with lots of new jobs. Need new metallic or chemical resources? You can probably find it on other planets, too. Besides that, any crisis happening on one planet won't affect the other.
By the way, . Stephen Hawking once said "I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load."
He always goes OCD and talks about us colonizing other planets when the blatant obvious is right there...
Build your own planet, space station, etc.
Why would we try to colonize a planet light years away, that we know nothing about, that we do not have even near the advancement to reach in several lifetimes, when we could build life supporting systems in space that can be reached from Earth?
It's right there. It's common sense.
It'd take thousands of years to reach any theoretical life supporting planet. If Earth will be dead in 100 years (his claim), why would we try to reach Alpha Centuri?
Build a colony of death stars, space stations, etc and branch out with more manmade, life supporting stations from there, and then build more from there out into the vast beyond like a space bridge, all while you advance your technology on space travel. And if the Earth keeps healthily going on as usual, even better...
Hawking's statements/positions on the matters you outlined are largely hyperbolic, and some of which border on Sci-Fi. The larger context of his vision of potential threats facing humanity, and conceivable futures aren't "bat-shit crazy" but rather in some ways on the right path, and in other ways Sci-Fi.
Also, on this point, it would seem obvious that developing the Sci. & Tech. to geo-engineer the Earth toward more suitable means would logically come before attempting to terraform other planets. In which case, why would we have to leave Earth to escape such internal planetary/environmental disasters here if we had the technology to terraform a planet?
I'm contending that claiming Stephen Hawking is "bat-shit crazy" is entirely unjustified as your taking a small sample of his views/world-view and expanding it to be all-encompassing
If Hawking is "bat-shit crazy", than I certainly fear for the sanity of the (extreme majority) rest of us who are of lesser minds--although that may in fact be right
I never said he was bat shit crazy. I said he has said bat shit crazy things, and he has.
than I certainly fear for the sanity of the (extreme majority) rest of us who are of lesser minds
1)Prove we have "lesser minds".
2)If you are claiming he's a "genius", it must be noted that real geniuses tend to lack common sense. Einstein lacked basic fundamental abilities. You might like his theories and conceptualizations, but you wouldn't want him dictating policy or coordinating groups of people.
There is nothing to justify here that a half-reasonable person would not already understand. Should I also justify why Edward Witten, Alan Turing, Frank Wilczek, Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Paul Steinhardt, Andrei Linde, ect. ect. are of "greater minds" than the extreme majority of Humanity?
Also, remember, Hawking does all of his work in his head due to his condition--he often has graduate school assistants that help him record it.
Just read up on this and develop novel (peer-reviewed) research:
2)If you are claiming he's a "genius", it must be noted that real geniuses tend to lack common sense.
(A) Hawking is certainly not a first-tier "genius"; He is more 3rd, 4th or so. Therefore, this depends on how expansive one's definition/conception of "genius" is
(B) The idea that "most geniuses tend to lack common sense" is (overwhelmingly) nonsense promoted by a public that can't comprehend the concerns/priority list of such people are very different than the general publics--and with good reason, as the public largely hold completely irrational, fatuous concerns/priorities
(C) Brontoraptor: Einstein lacked basic fundamental abilities.
Name them
you wouldn't want him dictating policy
This is a separate realm. Just because one has advanced knowledge of Physics does not therefore mean they have any knowledge of World affairs, History, Economics, ect. ect. Many Physicists, ect. tend to be so absorbed in their work that they don't seriously contemplate the politics (and such) of their time. Having said that, many of such people tend to be more informed than the "average" person since they are generally curious and read books, articles, research, ect. ect. This really comes down to the individual more than a class of people (of Physicists, ect.). Einstein was in fact quite involved in politics, for instance while many are not at all interested.
I don't want any one person dictating policy for 100s of millions.
coordinating groups of people.
He does--Hawking is a project leader over Graduate students and also can call on Scientific conferences if he is under the impression a new, notable contribution has been discovered (which he has done before)
He does--Hawking is a project leader over Graduate students and also can call on Scientific conferences if he is under the impression a new, notable contribution has been discovered (which he has done before)
You just said he can't physically do anything and needs help.
You just said he can't physically do anything and needs help.
He needs help in some ways, not in others. Hawking physically needs people to write down his work for him, however he is still capable of "speaking" through the assistance of a machine. Then, it is his mind and ideas that are in demand, he "talks", states he would like to organize a conference in which he delivers a lecture, those lower on the chain of command follow through on his request. Thus, he coordinated a group of Physicists, Journalists, ect. to organize in a particular area to listen to him & others
He also manages Grad students work along with his own on a weekly basis
That is how setting up such a conference would work for essentially anyone of his caliber. Then, his disability is not holding him back much in that respect.
Very good. Anything else?
I'm not the one making extraordinary claims about the state of Hawking's (or similar caliber person's) sanity nor intellect. Everyone has failings/shortcomings, that is hardly representative of a person in entirety. Then, when a person does attempt to take a few factoids and claim that represents the whole, it is wise to challenge that assertion and question what the person's motives may be.
We both know Hawking is an intellectual giant compared to the standard person, he even stands out amongst modern Theoretical Physicists (which aren't your average group of people). Also, we know that he doesn't say things that are truly "bat-shit crazy"--at least, certainly not compared to the average person, that is. Then, what is the point in arguing to this effect?
That is how setting up such a conference would work for essentially anyone of his caliber. Then, his disability is not holding him back much in that respect
He has an ancient voice box when better ones are available.
You've missed the point--it is not that one cannot surpass the understanding nor challenge the ideas of such great figures (they should be challenged, contended with, and ultimately surpassed, which is already standard procedure), it is that they have amassed an incredible body of work deserving of onlookers respect, regardless of whether they are wrong in certain area. Again, this is already standard in the Scientific community, as such people go down in Textbooks for the ages credited with their work (which is often named after them; e.g. Hawking Radiation).
If someone can seriously look on at a person such as Hawking, Turing, Weinberg, Wilzchek, Higgs, Penrose, Von Neumann, ect. ect. ect. unimpressed, underwhelmed, and in fact even disregard & mock them as such, it doesn't mean they have profound insight and fearlessly challenge authority--rather, it indicates that said person is an insolent imbecile
Thus, again, I don't know why you would be at all tempted to throw yourself into such a category as you appear intent upon here(?)
When someone addresses a 180 day old post, my policy is to troll them.
That's strange. Whenever anybody brings up Trump you address a black man who hasn't been President for over 380 days.
Well, I say strange, but what I actually mean is that it is strange to anybody who doesn't already know what a disingenuous, lying little hypocrite you are.
Either way, SH says bat shit crazy things. Anything else to add?
Yes--one does incredible amounts of harm to their own reputation and tends to discredit themselves when they make overtly hyper-over-reaching statements, particularly when attacking Alphas. Stephen Hawking is one amongst the better Theoretical Physicists of our time, which themselves are quite removed (intellectually superior) to the standard human. He (and others of his kind) deserve our respect--if anyone is to be respected (which I thought was one of the ideas behind Conservatism(?))
If I argued that we can disregard, mock, and condescend Newton as a quack due to him making "bat-shit crazy" statements elsewhere (which he did), people would naturally pick up on how out-of-line that is, ultimately damaging my own reputation since I'm clearly in no position to do so with Newton (or others)
Thus, I do not understand why you would be tempted to submit this line of argument(?)
If I argued that we can disregard, mock, and condescend Newton as a quack due to him making "bat-shit crazy" statements elsewhere (which he did), people would naturally pick up on how out-of-line that is, ultimately damaging my own reputation since I'm clearly in no position to do so with Newton
I would respect you more for challenging Newton that suckling at the alter of his feet. What if you are smarter than he or know more about a topic than he did? Should you shut your pie hole? Absolutely not.
I'm contending that claiming Stephen Hawking is "bat-shit crazy" is entirely unjustified as your
* You're.
You need not explain why one of the greatest scientists of our lifetime is not "bat-shit crazy". Bronto attacks anybody who challenges his regressive, narrow-minded neo-Nazi political rhetoric, regardless of what the facts are.
Perhaps you should consider bronto's contempt for reality the next time you accept his support in bullying other people, rather than having the basic humility required to educate yourself in what you are talking about.
