- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I will start off by saying that I chose to enter a sociology class merely to defy my parents' wishes for me not to. They certainly did attempt to brainwash me. They articulated an aggregate of intersecting theories, such as the patriarchy (b.s.), intersectionality (b.s.), heteropatriarchy (some call it business), and white privilege (what about asian privilege). My teacher even asserted that it is impossible to be racist against white people by making the semantic argument that presupposes the sociological definition to be the correct one. It's not. If implemented as law, the sociological definition of racism would possess inherent injustice due to the resulting double standard. She even posited that the debunked, wage gap is true. I could create a list.
Hillary certainly does think the Media Environment is very difficult for the Democrats. And... she is wrong. She was coddled during the election primary as well as the general election, and her opposition was relentlessly vilified by the mainstream media. Donald Trump won despite not having an approval rating above 40%... She lost to a man during his first attempt, with no political experience, who also could not say anything uncontroversial, and... she lost. I guess I can understand why this old deluded fool may want to make excuses for her ignominious failure.
Respect must be earned, because providing respect unconditionally is just like lowering the currency. It merely closes the disparity between individuals in terms of how much respect they elicit. In the long term, this would likely lead to an entitled society in which teenagers begin whining about not being respected by others' viewpoints. Oh wait. But anyways, it inflates the perceived, introspective value which is projected onto oneself.
First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning. In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily conducive to survival. In other words, truth only promotes survival under certain circumstances. I would add that a complex knowledge of physics and philosophy does not promote survival in any way. I would even posit that it does the opposite. So why should we trust our 'cogent' arguments? Maybe we should not. However, if we choose to trust our reasoning, it should be to reason that God exists, because the predicate for studying the stars was in order to apprehend God's works. Is it reasonable to dissociate our reasoning of the universe from the presupposition that God exists? I think not. After all, the scientific movement would likely not have happened without a religious foundation. Thus, reasoning would not have developed if not for theism. A common argument proposed by atheists is that the universe can be derived from nothing. I find this to be a straw man, because to make this argument, one must redefine nothing to mean condensed anti particles and particles. This is clearly not nothing. I would propose that God fills the role well as the first cause, because he, hypothetically, is immaterial and timeless. Only a being beyond time could create time, and only a being beyond space could create space. Moreover, the argument that something came from nothing creates the problem of infinite regression. What created that 'nothing.' If that can be answered, what created that? All of this being said, science should still be approached from an atheistic perspective, and values should not be imposed on large masses with little or no basis for the assumptions that they are founded on. But this is predominantly a metaphysical argument, and thus it goes beyond mere science.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!