This generation is so full of itself. I think a paradigm shift is long overdue. While people are no more intelligent than before (if not less - so much for human evolution), robots are the only ones getting smarter. Can you prove it otherwise?
You know, I haven't yet caught up with any MMOs, and neither have I ever really taken up a serious RTS (unless 'Worms' qualifies)!
But titles I do find myself purchasing more often and enjoying on a regular basis are action-adventure exploration games that are usually third person shooters or beat 'em ups as well, requiring stealth and weaponry/ combat skills and a creative, immersive story line.
I guess you've proved that keyboarding with mice is definitely for pro-gamers that need high-performance hardware.
But what you and Bradford are leaving out is that "Game controls maketh the gaming experience, and you gotta admit, sticking keys in to the enemy is pretty dull when compared to vibrating organ-like hand-held devices in which you only spend half as much time looking for which button to press.
To me, there's keyboards at one end of the spectrum that's so last generation that you're almost programming in your moves. On the other end is stuff like the Wiimote which is a truly virtual gadget, and therefore much more immersive and new gen.
Hey you and geoff need to get this straightened out in my other debate: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ That_game_controls_maketh_the_gaming_ experience
Hey you and bradford need to get this straightened out in my other debate: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
"There is no better way to control yourself in a game than with a mouse and keyboard."
I dunno, I kinda like game controllers, especially since they vibrates and seem much more 'natural' or intuitive, increasing the immersiveness of the game.
I can't imagine playing Tekken on a keyboard for example, that would be awful.
You know what I mean :p
For me there's a big difference in my gaming experience between playing a vampire and playing a cop.
The former is pure fantasy and the latter is more contemporary, or 'characteristic of the present'. Same with Grand Theft. Unless you have a better word for me.
However, if you're talking about a game involving mythology or with highly fictionalized main characters that may have super-human abilities, then I guess that could be categorized as fantasy.
Anyway, I'm not too concerned about hard-coded definitions, so you can place your coolest games in whichever column you feel is more appropriate.
Just make sure you list 'em all, in separate arguments if you like for tag ratings.
Yes, I quite agree with your controversial stance. Raising your kids to know the difference between right wrong is better than protecting them indefinitely. But since I’d rather ignore obnoxious people who are selfish enough to do what they please without respecting the common space between people, I’d appreciate it if they kept it private. For example, if you’re one of those people who likes to get obscene in front of kids, I’d rather someone puts you away than having to go out of my way to avoid you.
What do you mean by censorship? If you’re talking about taking provocative art out of the public arena and making sure that nobody that can be negatively affected, such as children, is the audience, then yes, art should be censored. If you mean censoring art in a selective forum that has a mature audience only, or an audience that is fully aware of the subject matter and will not be offended, then no, that would be awful. For example, I damn well appreciate it when a sleazy scene in a movie is left out of family entertainment on television. People who want to see it in full can rent the DVD or subscribe to an adult channel and view it in private.
Being an ordinary person, putting your faith in prayer is different from pressing a button.
That way I see it, God is all-knowing, wise and ‘listens to all your prayers’ - how and when He chooses to answer them is His decision. Like your prayer, your patience will be rewarded. The same way as a good child would respect his/ her parent’s wish to, I don’t know, not eat too much ice cream and grow up not obese.
At the same time, if you pray with true conviction, would you not agree that the effect your love for the patient and for God would have is a medicine for the soul (which in fact, I consider the true self)?
To me, it’s not wasted time at all, unless you were too busy praying to attend to the physical needs of the patient, which would just be shirking.
I suppose my minimalist statement didn’t come across as clearly as I thought it did. The atheists can whine all they want about how there’s no God and throw tantrums to say that God is a foolish, silly concept but in the end it doesn’t make the slightest difference – the atheists will continue arguing, and believers will continue to hold on to their beliefs.
However, and the reason I’m on this side along with others who say that god is fake, is that God is too easily attributed to anything and everything. I mean, you have sensible people who worship everything from idols to animals as well as people who call a human (who was no doubt a manifestation of God), God Himself, so I guess pasta can have its merits too.
Anyway, I’d just like to add that God is above petty spaghetti, invisible pink unicorns and the like. Anyone who’d like to fool around with noodly appendages is free to do so on his/ her own time, but all that silliness doesn’t get more than a smirk.
I find your argument spot on, but it does not provide a solution.
Your concept of human understanding of truth as a Boolean that goes through algorithmic processes effectively turns humans into robots. However, I believe that there is a path to understanding the truth for humans.
Rather than a simply a human process, finding this path is more likely a spiritual process – to bring us face to face with the final, pure, absolute truth that transgresses the limits of our mental cognition – that can be nothing that we would have ever known before, or anything that needs further elaboration.
This enlightenment has been referred to in many religions – as nirvana, or in the case of monotheistic religions, as heaven – though your argument still holds true as by then we would be likely far from human (condition).
As for those who would rather limit themselves to being robots, the ‘truth’ is lost to them as they are unable to grasp anything beyond their immediate, inadequate perceptions.
I believe that divine revelation regarding this path to enlightenment for mankind has been conveyed through prophets as a guide for those who seek it in earnest.
These enlightened messengers of God with divine inspiration in their understanding of the truth were able to achieve a level of perfection that is not commonly known to humans – an essential quality to lead the way to enlightenment.
If humanity would be put on a scale ranging from barbaric animalism to saintly virtue, these messengers of God were considered the highest on the scale, so much so that many humans went as far as to deify them.
Through this ‘agency’ of God (that has prevailed in all adversity) I believe there is way out of the finite, limited possibilities that humans can ever know, to the infinite boundless universe beyond – and a final, complete, perfect understanding of the truth.
That’s another reasons that its impossible to discuss religion with a bunch of new age self-enlightened individuals who are suckers for consensus with the scientific community and think that they can, or have, defined everything in the universe and completely ruled out that there is a God - the creator of the universe in which they are no more than tiny pip-squeaks: they’re so goddam inebriated most of the time that you can’t even make out if they’re rational enough to realize the truth if it was spilling over them like hot coffee. It’s rather difficult to find out what God is and what the truth is (which I believe is the highest form of knowledge that humans can ever know) if you’re not even letting yourself use half the mind that God gave you in the first place.
I didn't really get the discussion I was looking for in my last debate about fav role-playing games. What I really meant was action-adventure. Or what-ever. So this debate's less restricted by semantics: Your bestest video game please, and why.
Hey, not that I'm Christian, but just bein' the Devil's - er, God's, - er, Jesus' - er, Bible writer's advocate here for a cotton pickin' minute: It don't say you go to hell, just says that its dirty, y'now. You should know, you water fowl you.
Okay, I confess. While always having been a big fan of story telling games, I never really got around to the sophisticated industry-standards - homebrew was always good enough. When I was making this debate, I was really thinking about the wonderful third person action adventure / shooter games I’ve played on my PC and on various consoles.
While this includes the more RPG-oriented Vampire: the masquerade type games, I wouldn’t mind it one bit if the lot of you tell me all the juicy details about why you love GTA. I dunno, 3, or RE4 for example, or in my case how I just can’t get enough of action-packed GOW2. Tell you what: Blood Omen 2 is still one of my favs, though playing it several years later and sober just wasn’t the same, though the camera angles that you can maneuver for the perfect perspective of some very romantic vampyric imagery is still hard to compare.
Reminiscing about all the wonderful RPGs that I’ve lived in is quite a trip down memory lane, even if I never got around to some of the most popular titles.
One of my all time favs is years old now, but still deserves one of the highest ratings for an overall gaming experience: excellent gameplay, an unlimited universe to explore, a fantastic, immersive story line with intriguing characters, themes and plots and breathtaking challenges. But maybe one of the best things about it was the soundtrack, as I remember the thrill of flying low over the parched desert sands on my dragon as the beats to some strange outlandish music colored the drama that eventually unfolded.
Drakan: the ancient gates takes my top spot.
Yeah me too. 'Cept I gotta drive around the city with some revs under me or I'm gonna get left behind. Suprisingly, a 125cc cruiser motorcycle, that really just looks like a macho Shadow, is more than enough vroom to get me there, in style, in league with the big boys, and at a fraction of the consumption and cost you get on twice the wheelage. I don't even need to bother too much about traffic! (Just wear as much armour as you can and drive carefully).
I also remember my days back in the woody subs, with my fixed up Trek 700 trail bike (reclaimed from a dumpster) that got me off- and on- the road as I rode the wind.
I like companies that say no evil, do no evil (do we hear no evil?). And jack up the internet till you wish you could install 'em in yer brain.
Anyway, I also think that Microsoft is so last decade, even though you gotta hand it to them, they made computer geeks out of a bunch of nobodies.
So I'd pick GOOG. How about you?
I agree with Nikobelia completely.
I have two arguments to prefer 'politically correctness' over and above our god-given right to free speech.
The first is an observation that human interaction is only fruitful through mutual respect. Thus the situation, the audience and other factors influence the appropriateness of the spoken word. For example, between friends who have an established relationship and mutual understanding, strong or colloquial language may be mutually permissible but may not be so with the general population that includes strangers or people likely to be offended. A person who is not conscious of political correctness in his/ her interaction with other people therefore risks being obnoxious or abhorrent. The interaction is no more productive for either party (unless the purpose is to be offensive) and only serves to create barriers.
Secondly, the purpose of many discussions is, in fact, to attack other peoples’ opinions, ideals or beliefs simply because it does not appeal to the speaker. This is an abuse of the right to free speech, and is anti-social in nature. Such bigots should find an appropriate forum that is not aimed at attacking others who are the subject of their intolerance and ensure that people who are likely to be offended are excluded, rather justifying it as ‘free speech’. It is natural to have conflicting beliefs but it is the hallmark of a civilized nation to be able to co-exist in harmony.
A wonderful debate! While ‘Sure. Absolutely’ may not sound exactly what I mean, I would like to propose two views that conclude that you really can know.
The first is that if knowledge is a result of your beliefs and perceptions, then you ‘know’ what you know, therefore you know, and have no reason to believe otherwise.
The second one, that is my personal belief, is that the human soul is in pursuit of knowledge that it senses somehow, but knows is out of its reach due to its human constraints. The personal search for knowledge thus transcends worldly limits and seeks communion with divinity in a state of being next to Godliness, though the “I”, or “you”, ceases to exist.
This is of course the spiritual path that one cannot ‘know’ without the knowledge that they know nothing, and take their first steps towards enlightenment.
So if this makes any sense, I guess that you can know without knowing anything, or you can know that you know nothing. In either case, you know and you don’t know at the same time.
LOLS! Told you it would get you squawking mad! Okay here's what you'd really love to hear, before you start writing me another essay. And I'll try not to make any spelling mistakes this time, though I try to focus on the message not the spelling. But yeah, here it is: "YOU WIN". I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove (you might want to try this debate: “Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?” (http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Does_all_the_scientific_evidence_we_have_today_prove_(or_disprove)_every_damn_thing ). Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered, with tons of stuff you can’t explain with documented proofs on the internet, such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes. Well, it’s nice do go out and do a study when you are bothered enough to do so, but in my case, I take a debate on the internet only so far as I can afford to. Good luck with your skepticism, I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning. But thanks for reading so far. Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case? (Here, you can try this guy: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
The Neumann's were silly to depend solely on prayers to restore their daughter's health. At the very least, I hope the Neumann's really do have enough faith in God to be able to trust his decision to take their daughter from them, in his infinite wisdom.
‘Prayers work’, you can’t always understand how so with your limited understanding of the universe, so it really comes down to a question of belief. It would be unrealistic to try and prove it, the same way as you can’t make a blind man see.
I punch you hard on the head. You lose your memory, it slips out of yer head, u dont remember a thing. However, in history (001, for kindergarteners), I punched ya.
You haven't seen me (probably). You don't know what I look like, but I exist. When you do see me, your brain will create an image of me in your head through your vision (duh) and a memory will be created. I think I got that even if I can't take out time to read through each of your repetetive lines and the links you send.
"The memory encoded within your brain exists" - you said it, the encoded memory exists in yer brain. The memory itself, or the instance, did not oringinate from yer brain, which is what I'm sayin.
So supposing for a second 'we' did operate within our bodies, like those japenese robots in cartoons. Your brain will create memories that your senses perceive in this world. And when you die, your brain will stop creating any more memories.
But I'D SAY, heck, who needs to create memories when you die? I'm talking about a state of being that obviously doesn't need a body, or a brain to create or process memories.
However, since I haven't taken this site up as an occupation, I don't have the motivation to post detailed discussions that invlove my personal research. There is, however, a wealth of knowledge available, though not nearly on the internet. May be I'll share it sometime, but its futile if you're thick as a walnut. (I'm gonna love it when you start squawking mad now)
The topic of the debate is whether prayer is nonsense. You're out to prove that God doesn't exist. Not the same, as I argued from a psychological perspective aside from religious views.
However, I do trust in God. My ultimate objective is to do things right, rather than just get what I want. God helps me with that, so my prayers aren't futile in any case. In your case, however, your objectives come before your beleifs, it seems (since you don't have any).
When a child throws a tantrum, a wise parent doesn't always gratify his whims. God is all knowing. You can be sure you'll get exactly what you deserve.
Maybe that's how it works for you. When I pray, I feel that I am increasing my chances of being successful so I know I can't go wrong. I also feel better in case it doesn't actually work out since I know my intentions are pure (since I could put prayers in to the equation). Either way, makes me feel good about life, so its not nonsense for me. Depends on how you pray, what you pray for and to whom you pray I guess.
Also, I feel a need to pray and remember God, irrelevant of whether I'm begging for something or not.
So you think a majority view is irrelevant because it may not be the truth. That's what I say too, but you disagree when it comes to arguments that "are widely accepted facts" in other debates.
Fact is Jesus is among the best humans in history to be considered as 'the most respectable person', whether you like to believe in him or not.
I vouch for InvisiaWoman.
Aside from arguing that 'God answers prayers', I'd just like to say that there's a lot of psychological advantages to believing in prayer. Confidence, committment and the power of vocalizing your ultimate objectives that you want to see through would definitely improve your efforts. Of course, you gotta work it, not just say it, then 'God' may help ya.
Thanks for being one of the first to bring in a discussion from other belief systems, such as the hindu religion. 2 things I could dispute: 1) the self may infact not lose realization of itself (I think this realization will be amplified) 2) self-realization in the worldly sense may not be the same as in the afterlife. There are many different states of conciousness, the Buddhist concept of 'nirvana' is close to what I believe may be the applicable state of realization you are talking about, provided you have walked the path in search of it, rather than being bound to 'this life'.
I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a qualification requirement to this debate (I didn't set one). No I'm not a neurobiologist, the same way as you aren't a religious scholar, a philosopher or a sea monkey. I am an ordinary guy, who has had a lot of questions, and satisfied himself to the answers, while retaining a healthy scepticism and logical base.
I'm pretty sure that conciousness and self-awareness are seated in the brain (it's pretty damn obvious). But that just proves that there cannot be any mental activity related to self-awareness and conciousness in the physical realm, since our brain stops functioning when we die.
I'D SAY that yes, we do continue to exist when our bodies die, not only physically speaking because our 'atoms get recycled' like someone else here has said (meaning 'we' is not just what you see in the mirror), but also because I believe that the 'self' is occupying our human form for this instant, and using this organic machinery to operate in the physical realm (which includes the complex processing unit we call the brain). When we die, we discard our shells, like the driver that steps out of her car when the destination has arrived, and get on with the rest of our existence. O and I'm not speaking of science, not just, which by the way is an opinion (or hypothesis) through good observation taken to the next level and considered in detail. You should also check out my other debate: Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?
Yes, I guess you're right. The burden of proof does lie with me. At this point we're only debating. And even I don't have a complete understanding of it myself, though I have spent years trying to understand what it really means.
How it works though is: 1) You start believing in what your heart tells you, not your head (allegorically speaking, of course) and 2) You begin a long journey to realization (some may call it nirvana), where you leave the physical boundaries of the universe and seek a path to enlightenment. Hey, if it takes volumes to prove something scientifically, you can't expect an ordinary person like me to prove this just like that do you? I wish I had something zennish I could tell you right now, but maybe later.
Thanks for proving one thing though, that till I show you the platypus, you won't accept it might exist, which says a lot about how open you are to considering anything outside the box, if I'm not mistaken.
You're not simply an atheist, you're a hateful wretch.
There, I'm blatantly saying it. You're debate is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at anti-islamization, devoid of common sense (you say a prophet that brought civilization to a land of revelers is amoral?) or concrete facts (you have no real knowledge of the Quran and the hadith or the life of the prophet - you just love to bitch on whatever information you can conveniently mistrue).
Well, you’ and me agree on one thing: that the truth will prevail and all illusions and lies will be shattered.
The prophet is known for the purity and goodness in every aspect of his existence. He lived a simple, exemplary life and no other person can compare to the perfection he attained and passed on to his true successors, paving a straight path to divinity and godliness for all of humanity. His deeds and actions are remembered as the most noble and ideal centuries after his death and will continue to be held in close regard by the righteous till the end of time, for he is the last of the prophets of God to have walked the earth.
And you have the audacity to think that he would have engaged in such a repugnant act? Either you and your interpretations are just plain stupid, or, which is more likely, your cause is to put down the Prophet and all things related to Islam. Why don’t you go ahead and bring your sources to light instead of just making generalized statements so we can all see for our selves?
For all your hate filled lines and petty insults, you are a vile creature that has chosen a cursed path. You can rot in hell, that’s where you belong.
Which also brings us to the topic of my other debate, that I do hope you'll participate in: "Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?"
"I don't need to disprove it as I'm the one who is thinking clearly and rationally about the situation."
Well, I guess you stick to the conventional school of thought and like just the popular ones going around in the idea box. Just because its so damn obvious that the body dies you think your logic is foolproof. But the moon's not made of cheese once you've used your telescope and looked closer.
I've argued in several other places that the brain can infact be merely an organ that processes our conciousness and thoughts, rather than its orignation. That's why a damaged brain may not retain identity though the person exists. 'We' is more than our brains or our bodies.
The evidence is not so tangible. I guess you get this sense of beleif that tells you this isn't it, there's more you gotta work for, there's a reason for all this hardship and heartbreak through which you you have to live your ideals and be a better man. But the beleif comes first, the answers and 'evidence' follows, possibly as result of your beliefs, but that's your human capacity for understanding.
Well, glad that you hypothetically did consider that you'd look back. "I missed absolutely nothing, because I was the one taking full advantage of the ONE chance we get to live our lives." Humor me, how's that?
Excellent argument. Thanks for your wonderful answer, I agree with you completely.
However, I think you'll agree with me when I say that all of the scientific knowledge we have today is insufficient to prove or disprove just about anything. A lot remains explained. And theories are THEORIES, not necessarily facts that can't be refined further, or are 100.0% correct.
Which brings me to the question of my next debate. I hope you'll participate.
Science fiction or religious belief, whatever. Not that these futuristic, unconventional or unpopular concepts eventually do come to be accepted eventually. People would've scoffed you had you told them your conciousness resides in the brain before it wass scientifically discovery.
I argue that the brain is part of the husk you call the body. Our 'being' is really the soul that occupies the body, using its lungs to breathe, its heart to contniue functioning, its brain to think and so on. But once the soul has vacated the 'husk' as you so aptly call it, the soul continues its existence, perhaps outside the physical realm.
'Empty husk of human tissue'? If you think so, you should pull the plug on all those unfortunate people with brain damage in comas etc.
I didn't ask if our bodies continue to exist, I said we. Your analogy of the Pepsi bottle is inappropriate as it refers to the Pepsi bottle not, for example, the glass which continues to exist in another form.
I agree with you. Science does hold a high regard for me and always has. I was trying to say that sceintific analysis is independant of the truth, which may or may not be explained through scientific reasoning at this point of time. I am also trying to make a statement that you shouldn't fall back on science to provide you with all the answers, its boundaries will confine you to being a robot.
:P you're misconstrued perceptions says a lot about what you feel about muzzies. You don't like 'em.
I don't like you 'cos good guy you ain't. (Not necessarily cos you hate muzzies - I don't like the blow up types myself).
You're right: the Koran and Islam is all about hatred, violence, bloodshed - that only Islam can overcome. Islam is a religion of peace and truth, which is the bane of the evil hordes that try so desperately to shroud it.
If you really wanted the truth, you would find the answers in history. But what you want is quite different.
O, sorry, you all thought mr. muzzie was making a death threat.
Btw, I'm not muzzie, not exactly. I do believe in Allah tho, and I do believe you all should fear HIM, 'cos Muhammed was his messenger, and you're being quite impolite (to put it mildly) with your opinions. (If I have something against the pope, I won't expect Christians to appreciate it when I get cheeky. They'll all tell me the same thing: that you're goin down boy).
Anyway, big deal, I guess you all can celebrate that you're all going to hell, have fun.
Just in: a reliable new historical fact says that your great granddaddy was a monkey (old news for y'all Darwinians)
O and before you get your creative juices fired up again, please allow me to explain that when I said "may be you're the one who should be fearing for your life, and I don't mean because of some fatwa", I didn't mean that I'm gonna punch you (or blow you up for that matter). I just meant maybe you'd like to take it easy, just in case there is an Allah, who's gonna strike you down silly for your hatred-inducing comments. But I guess you're free to go around spreading hateful comments if you wish, I don't care. It's not like its gonna make a difference.
Really? Do you understand Arabic, then? Or have you lived in the time of the Prophet and seen this for yourself? You 'sources' are crap. I'm not being emotional, I'm trying my best to coldly explain something. Here's a great analogy: If someone (a polularly known 'source' of information) said your mother was a whore, would you believe him/ her? Please, I'm not insulting your mother (since you're not really insulting the prohet either), and neither do I ever really intend to punch you in the face.
Just because you copy-pasted some text out of a web page somewhere doesn't mean that it's true. There have always been sick twisted folks who have given their best shot at defaming one of the greatest personalities of all times, who swayed the hearts of all the people around him with no more than an offering of the truth, without dazzling miracles.
The arrangement with Ayesha was not a marriage of consumation. She is rejected by dedicated followers of Islam who pledged their alleigiance with the Prophet's true successors, not the corrupts political caliphs of the time who turned tables against the prophet's family to take power into their own hands.
And Ayesha was the daughter of one of these political caliphs. Her true history is not so readily available, especailly on the internet, but she is considered one of the true villains in Islam, who attempted several times to destroy it.
And because of her, and these political caliphs, the world does not know the true face of Islam without making much effort. Facts have been distored and ignored to suit the whims of the fatwa-making clerics that unfortunately represent the Islamic majority today.
While they have been successful in tarnishing its image and in manufacturing a dynasty of fanatical misled Islamists, they could never completely destory it.
Islam in all its purity exists till today. Unfortunately for you, you probably may never know it.
Great wars have been fought over these questions. And time and time again, the truth has had to be subdued, for as natural as it is for humans to beseech the truth, it is also to destroy it. My truth is within my self, I cannot force you to believe it nor stop you from attacking it.
Aaah yes.... I would have to say you're right (why do I have to keep telling you that you should be in the other goddam column??!!)
At the risk of sounding like I'm Neo, I'll just tell you one thing that I realized some time back...
There's a way out
Wonderful argument. Flawed! More than my own, since netiher you nor me has actually discovered the ultimate truth, that both know exists beyond the capacity of modern boundaries.
First off, just because you (or anyone) can't disprove something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
"It is also demonstrable that if our brain in general is damaged, we lose our memory - short term or longterm."
If you use this argument to prove that 'self' is actually the brain, I can use the same to argue that the brain is just an organ that allows you to process the memory into your physical form, not the memory itself, which exists in history regardless of whether your brain has lost its ability to recall it. The same way as I argue that your self exists regardless of your physical ability to realize it.
"Everything we do on this planet - in practice - expresses the fundamental notion that we know that this physical existence, the thing you call "I" or "self" is all that there is."
Not true, I say, since that would apply more to anmals than humans. I had argued that humans (the good ones, at least) follow a code of ethics that is not necessarily correlated to self-interest, which is selfish in nature and does not evaluate the sum of all good (unless you believe that "I" and "we" are the same). In fact, often times the greatest good may be in complete conflict with your selfish desires, yet 'humanity' refers to the achievement of the greatest good, not self-fulfillment. For that reason, I beleive that humans tend towards an idealistic state that is beyond the physical.
Not that I have anything against, you but I'm adding you as my enemy to see how this works, okay. Thanks for your rhetoric any day.
I love you guys. I was wondering how I could tell ya, and here it is.
Your concept is fab. There are a few things you all can probably do to make it even better, like havin a place readers can post suggestions. Sometimes when ure arguin' for or against, 'you think' isn't always in sync with what you think, so I think you need to solve that prob. Also I'd really like to transition some of my debates into a new topic, inviting the debaters from my previous debate and all, but can't figure out a way to do that. I think that you can work on buliding more of a community here, or may be I just haven't been able to appreciate all of your features yet.
I really hope you all evolve nicely so you can keep your thunder.
Once again, I really love ya. And you know what? I think you guys are from the future. Web 3.0, here we come.
I think I'm gonna cry now.
I just loved the character of the Eskeleto guy in Nacho Libre, remarking that "I believe in Science" just because it made him sound like he actually gave 2 pennys to the thought and mainly because he didn't want to bother about religion. Here's to all the guys and gals who've really contributed to my earlier heated debate "Do we continue to exist even when our bodies die?"
