CreateDebate


Protazoa's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Protazoa's arguments, looking across every debate.
2 points

The fundamental problem with your argument is that you qualify everything with "I think".

I know you think. You are clearly capable of forming an argument. However, It seems that you are drawn into the excitement of a discrepancy- a discrepancy that John Pilger (a writer known for making controversial, ant-western articles) made quite clear. However, even in non sensationalist issues there are discrepancies. The fact that Osama had a gun within reach compared to open firing is a "lie" by the technical definition in that it is not the truth, but it is not a "lie" on the order of magnitude that you are implying.

"This i find absolutelty hilarious" That was the point. It was facetious. The p test is invalid anyways, because no count is allowed to be under 10- let alone zero. I thought that was clear to a person familiar with statistics.

Unfortunately I have not had nor will soon have time to elaborate, as I have finals and subject SAT's to study for. Until then, feel free to send me articles if you wish, but I will not be able to reply for another week or so.

1 point

"why can't I brainstorm everything in my mind, and let other people try to fill in the blanks?"

you physically can. It just seems to defeat the purpose of a debate site.

1 point

"it is considered a sin"

then again, so is judging other people (judge not lest ye be judged)

"I beleive in the word of God"

obviously not, considering ye judge

"When a man and women has sex it has the potential to result in a baby"

generally an unintended consequence. Does that make condoms immoral as well? Or oral sex?

"It is disgusting to be honest with you"

I am at least relieved that you were lying the entire time up to this.

3 points

so it went from being a red state (#FF0000) to being a red state (#FF1000)

1 point

I feel we have had a misunderstanding. I do not feel that religion is a good thing.

I find it to be equally moral as a hammer. Depending on the method with which it is used, it can aid in construction, destruction, or a variety of other purposes. However, if you take away a hammer, it is no guarantee that people will not continue to act with a saw, screwdriver, crowbar, or protractor (totally counts as a tool).

Also: evidence suggesting correlation between latent homosexuality and homophobia. Essentially, because homosexuality is frowned upon (Darwinian circumstance possible to increase reproduction within a group) , resulting in Freudian repression and ultimately irrational anger directed at the desire in question.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/assault/roots/freud.html

2 points

"I agree with you that we need equality of outcome"

and yet you disputed my argument?

And I am not doubting your motives- I was merely noting what has in the past proved to be point farming- but whatever your reasons, you can let other people make the arguments you find "obvious". There is no need to go at it with yourself to prove that you are a master-debater who sees both sides of an issue.

2 points

"I didnt realise that you were actually looking for conclusive proof that Obama and memebers of the american adminsitration dont care"

Yes, I wanted conclusive proof. I do not care much for inconclusive conjecture.

"Now the proof is staring you in the face, you just need to recognise it, lets look at the facts"

actually, you stated that the evidence doesn't exist- a statement that is mutually exclusive with proof staring me in the face.

"your government"

I am Brazilian

"government instigated an illegal war in Iraq that has led to the deaths of thousands of american soldiers"

I am sorry- but I think you have your American presidents mixed up. Obama is the one who killed Osama. Bush Jr. is the one who instigated the war.

"your asking for something that no researcher can prove and you know it"

I managed to find evidence based on economics. If you want me to give you some pointers on how to construct an argument against myself, message me and I can help you out.

"if you want to call me a liar"

I believe you read through articles. I was intending to emphasize the fact that you have no evidence despite your research.

"im sure you could find them yourself if you really wanted"

well, yes, but seeing as I am researching my arguments, not yours, it would e helpful for you to cite something

"circumstancs by which Bin Laden was assassinated have effectively been proven to be lies"

Are you surprised that Osama's family places more emphasis on US brutality than the US did? And that is not even my choice of words- the subtitle states

'Details emerge of what really happened when Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan – according to the survivors, at least'

and in that vein, there was still a firefight

"Kuwaiti's brother was killed as he prepared to fire a gun"

"[Osama had]an AK-47 assault rifle, most...[and] a Makarov pistol [within reach]"

I will definitely admit that the US version of the story was exaggerated. However, the first person they encountered did try to shoot them-which generally makes soldiers less likely to assume the rest of the house is friendly. And Osama did have two guns within reach. So- the US definitely exaggerated the story- but to say the have proven to be lies is taking it a bit far...

Also- your article from presstv is an opinion piece. That generally means it is not 'completely based on fact', and in fact is in conflict with your source from the guardian (a credible source)

And I seem to recall you stating that they assassinated him because he had information that Obama did not want to leak- which I claimed ridiculous. I was the one who said they killed Osama because he was shot at (as pulled from the guardian source, conveniently left out of your presstv 'source')

"Osama was killed to keep him from exposing shady dealings with the cia may have been a bit if a stretch"

my point entirely. I think there was little chance of Osama being taken in alive- simply because I would not suspect him of going down peacefully (again: first person encountered open fired, Osama had two guns)

"to be honest i think now it is more likely that he was assassinated solely for the political gain"

and convenience.

I disagree with that assessment though i think if an actual hypothesis test was performed on the incident (not that it would or could) the past dealings of Osama Bin Laden with the cia would have to be accounted for in the calculation, which would at the very least raise the probabily of the null hypothesis above 0

Actually, I am yet to find any news articles discussing peaceful Al-qaeda interactions.

a google news search: 1 result for: al-qaeda "acts of peace": an article which discussed Obama's lack of acts of peace against al qaeda. that makes 0 articles for peaceful al-qaeda interactions

a google news search: About 87 results: al-qaeda "acts of violence"

so, with

the proportion of violent actions =87/87

the proportion of peaceful interactions =0

and n=87

since an SRS was not used, I will conduct a robust chi square goodness of fit

Ho: peaceful=0

Ha: peaceful =/= 0

standard alpha level =5%

A chi test is robust, so the randomization of google search engine satisfies this condition

The sample size is large

Unfortunately, the expected values are not all greater than 10, so my results may be questionable

chi^2 value=0, significant at 5% alpha level

p value=0

All you need to do is find a single peaceful interaction to prove this analysis questionable, and I suspect that you will. But you have not. So, technically, p value=0. I suppose I did that more for my own geeky fun rather than to actually prove a point.

Oh-also, the null hypothesis would still be zero. You would simply reject the null hypothesis. Are you sure you took an advanced statistics class? (just kidding, you seem to have a good grasp of the subject)

1 point

You can always walk.

You know, just extending the metaphor.

Without religion, people would still have the natural inclination to hate. People have used various methods of hate- as a species we seem to be rather good at hating. Whether on the grounds of militant religion, Social Darwinism, or jingoism, people have a knack for taking what has the potential to be peaceful- religion, science, national pride- and using it however they see fit.

Also: I would argue that the inclination to hate homosexual people is not learned directly, but rather indirectly. People learn that it is normal for a man and a woman to have sexual relations, and then homosexuals simply fit in the 'other' category which is hated as a method of self preservation. If my hypothesis is true, all that would be necessary is to accept homosexuality as a normal- rather than unusual- practice.

And if nothing else, religion is a product of the human condition. Unless you believe that religion was divinely inspired, a group of people determined what was wrong or right, leading people (not religion) to the root of the problem anyways.

also- your argument seems to be pro-homosexuality... you might want to change the tag

while you are at it, the correct spelling "pseudo", not "suedo".

1 point

You can always walk.

You know, just extending the metaphor.

Without religion, people would still have the natural inclination to hate. People have used various methods of hate- as a species we seem to be rather good at hating. Whether on the grounds of militant religion, Social Darwinism, or jingoism, people have a knack for taking what has the potential to be peaceful- religion, science, national pride- and using it however they see fit.

1 point

well, lets not fall prey to a common logical fallacy. Correlation is not causation.

We can, however, say that the correlation between proportion of atheists and average intelligence in a country is 60%- a rather strong correlation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000238

1 point

I think the fundamental problem with this argument is that socialism is not necessarily the same as capitalism. The two main schools of thought are "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome".

You are describing equality of outcome- in which every person is exactly equal.

I personally would prefer equality of opportunity, which is more along the lines of every person getting what they need to survive, but still earn capital in order to purchase better items, luxuries, etc.

Thus, people can be given the opportunity for life, without dissociating work input from monetary output. Also, there is no need to debate yourself. It seems like a ploy at boosting your own debate score (which is, quite frankly, not that important anyways)

1 point

of course there is evidence to refute your claims. It is made even easier by the fact that your only cited sources are a war from a previous administration and a poem.

If you have been watching news reports from multiple sources, reading various news articles, and conducting online searches- why haven't you found any evidence to support what you yourself claimed would be "impossible to prove".

Are lying through your teeth about conducting research? Or did you not find any supporting evidence despite your research?

You should be sick of people countering you. You have no evidence to support any of your claims, and no evidence to suggest that "Washington propaganda" is false.

It is rather obvious what you are talking about. Historically, people have spouted conspiracy theories, claiming that the government is lying to them.

USS Maine conspiracy

Obama birth certificate conspiracy

9/11 conspiracy

Alien conspiracy

and, new to the list:

Osama is not really dead

Osama was working with the US the whole time

Osama was executed before he could expose US behind terrorist attacks

Osama is really Obama

Admittedly, you do not have the same level of conviction of many of the sources I have read through.

You only claim that your theory might be right, and every other theory is wrong.

Which, as far as I am concerned, makes you just as irrational.

I will admit that there is a chance that Washington killed Osama so he could not expose information. lets call that chance "p". the null hypothesis is, by default, p=0. You have no evidence to suggest that p>0.

and for the record- eu sou Brasileiro, truão.

1 point

So in effect, the only evidence you have is a war led by a different administration, a poem, and a gut feeling.

You said I asked for something impossible to prove.

This is true. Standpoints with no evidence to support them generally are impossible to prove. I, however, have a bit more substantial grounding for my stance.

First of all, the Vietnam war was not during Obama's administration- a rather large hole in your evidence that the Obama administration does not care for soldiers.

However: the Vietnam war was particularly difficult war on the soldiers because veterans were very poorly received by the American public.

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/The-Vietnam-War-and-Its-Impact-American-veterans.html

In the Iraq war (which was also not instigated by Obama, but he has failed to discontinue), it is a different story. Although much of the American populace is not supportive of the war, the public is generally supportive of the troops themselves. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-06-20-iraq-vietnam-vets_x.htm

which, according to Vietnam vets, makes this operation far less terrible than the extreme, unrelated Vietnam war which you ited.

And soldier's lives are expendable in that they risk their life- not that they are intended to die. They are not pawns in a game: each soldier is outfitted with a $4,000 suit of body armor to protect them.

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,131806,00.html

This resulted in fewer casualties which resulted in death- meaning more casualties, less dead

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

If the Obama administration viewed soldiers as expendable, they would not place body armor that keeps soldiers alive. The cost of compensation for a death is under $1,200 per month, comparable to the 70% disability rating of the soldier.

http://usgovernmentbenefits.org/hd/index.php?t=death+benefits+for+veterans+of+foreign+wars&retry;=yes

http://www.veteranprograms.com/id118.html

so why would a government that views its soldiers as expendable pay more if they are wounded than dead, and provide them with body armor that increases the likelihood that they are kept alive?

Admittedly, the US is not the greatest with money, but I would lean towards "value of human life" over "inability to economize"

2) this was considered to be "an especially dangerous operation" by the Senior Administration Official. Considering Osama died in a firefight, this is not difficult to believe.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/press-briefing-senior-administration-officials-killing-osama-bin-laden

additionally, I recently read that Osama was originally asked to surrender- but instead he fired his own weapon. Maybe I misread the quote...

"Bin Laden himself fired his weapon during the fight, and that he was asked to surrender but did not." -no, pretty unequivocal.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firefight/story?id=13505792

3) Information was actually recovered from Osama's home. In fact, "it is the largest cache of intelligence information gotten from a senior terrorist"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2011/05/sec-110508-voa03.htm

of course, if it was all a conspiracy, then my evidence may be called into question. But I have no reason to believe it is a conspiracy, and you have no evidence to sway me.

And are you talking about the Mujahidin stingers? man, that was cryptic to decode. It made it marginally more difficult to find evidence. The information is already out there. The stingers were "given out like lollipops" in a reemerging cold war. What information would you think they were hiding? 'oh, we gave them nuclear warheads for fun, just to see what they would do'

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011002-attack03.htm

Are you sure that Osama did not catch Obama watching porn? That seems like it would be a bigger secret than the Reagan-era mishaps you described.

(and because I like sources- http://www.osamabinladenmartyr.com/2011/ 05/barack-obama-watches-pornography.html) )

2 points

I know, I was just kidding (because much of geometry is of Greek origin, like the Pythagorean theorem)

1 point

"I dont what made you think tey met the kind of resistance that could kill all of them, given that they are the probably among th ebest in the world at what they do."

Which is probably why they made the decision to kill him. Being good at what do you does not allow you to take risks, it means you make smarter decisions.

it is becoming increasingly apparent that, whatever my statements, you will hold adamantly onto your beliefs. I, however, pride myself on being able to admit when my initial beliefs were false. So, if you can find evidence, as opposed to speculation, that:

1) the Obama administration does not care about soldiers

2) Osama would have been taken alive without excessive difficulty or risk

3) Bin Ladin had had information which Obama would not want to have

If your evidence is sufficiently convincing, I will be happy to amend my views.

2 points

Actually, algebra is of Arabic etymological origin, not Greek.

2 points

I always wondered why a dog owned a dog as a pet. Doesn't that just seem... wrong?

3 points

In addition to its relatively minuscule size, it does not dominate its orbit. It has failed to "clear the neighborhood"- with a scattering power only 1.95 × 10−8 that of Earth

2 points

Algebra is the mathematics of functions. It is the mathematics that explain relations between any empirical values. geometry, however, is limited to relations between sizes and proportions.

1 point

It is not a matter of a single marine dying- which is not a matter of "cannon fodder" as you so bluntly claimed but simply the fact that people die on missions (if death was unimportant, why is it that these marines were trained for weeks on how to safely execute the mission?)- no, the proble is primarily with many marines dying. How do you suppose dead marines are able to carry out a mission?

Secondly- if he did in fact have a bomb vest, many marines would die, and Osama would still be dead.

There is only a small probability that Osama would peacefully allow himself to be captured, and an even smaller chance still that he would cooperate and give information.

and yes, there were two definitions of success- alive or dead. However, capturing alive was riskier, and so would be less likely to result in a success. If you attempted a live capture, and failed, it is NOT a success. Two possible events does not imply equal probability. Either you die in the next five minutes or you do not. Hopefully your odds are above 50/50.

Cease your ignoramus stance. You obviously do not like the Obama administration- which is another debate entirely. To claim that he does not care about the marines sent, or that he is conspiring to silence Osama, is irrational. Defamation of such ludicrous proportion is ridiculous. If you do not like his policies, discuss his policies. His birth certificate, his empathy for human life, an insane proposal that Osama was really working for the US- all of these ideas have nothing to do with politics. Apparently you are unable to criticize policy and instead focus on false pretenses.

For instance: why would Obama be working secretly with Osama when Bush Senior was the president who aided the taliban effort against Russia? And Bush Junior was the president during the 9/11 attacks? and yet you claim that it was the democratic president who was working in cahoots with terrorists.

Think politically. Think rationally. Apparently, simply thinking at all would be an improvement.

1 point

is there no way? of course there was a way. However, it involved putting the marines, and the entire mission, in great jeopardy. As mentioned before, he ran into a room with two high powered guns. He may have had a bomb vest. I would fear for the american army if they would believe the good faith of a man who used civilians as both targets and weapons...

2 points

Through the "gay uncle" theory:

homosexuality is a recessive trait. which is why a homosexual child can be born from heterosexual parents. Additionally, there is a selective benefit to holding the recessive gay gene: even if the phenotype of the heterozygous carrier is unchanged, a non-reproducing offspring could aid in the caring of their sibling's progeny, thus causing a net gain in the genetic success rate. After all, if one views a species as a system of replicating genes-rather than themselves as individuals- it would be beneficial for humans, with such long prepubescent developmental stages, to have back-up parental systems should the biological parents, through sheer chance, die before their offspring are self sufficient.

1 point

would a kind and compassionate G-d send homosexuals to hell? This sounds more like a malevolent entity, who sends a group of people to eternal damnation because of rules that are illogical and not verified to be true.

Even by your 'concern' for homosexuals, you outright state that you are wrong they are right end of story. When Abraham came across an idol worshiper, it was G-d himself who told him to treat him well. Obviously, a kind and benevolent G-d would want people to act in a manner that they see as correct. Only a sadistic mind would punish people for laws that are not even proven to have any merit whatsoever.

1 point

I personally am a fan of bisexual women. By your definition, nearly all men are homosexual...


1 of 20 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]