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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does a Debater Need Allies? Is there a Point Behind Declaring Enemies?
I may agree or disagree with any given debater, on any particular debate, or even any given point. I'm not genuinely a 'hostile' person, no matter how much I disagree, though some points I may debate aggressively. I'm an old hippie, and very liberal, but there are "conservative" points I'll agree with. I'm an atheist, but don't assume I won't agree with a theist on some issues.
People are complex, and I assume that's generally true of all but the most simple-minded - who probably don't like debating, anyhow.
I've been offered alliances, and pretty much ignored them. One turned hostile. I'm not here looking for allies, or enemies - just differing points of view...and similar ones, too, I suppose.
Oh...and in the real world, I'd have no problem sitting down with a cup of coffee with any of you...unless you don't do coffee.
Debates should be fact based. Arguments are emotional. I'm not here for argument
There are very few "facts" that we know of relative to humanities generally accepted scope of knowledge. Unless you are stating a pure Logical or Mathematical definition (where the rules of the game are internally constructed), then one necessarily must make an argument in an attempt to justify a point.
Sure, I get that we refer to one major point in any debate as an argument, but it shouldn't be an emotional argument. The point I'm trying to get to is that objectivity is a goal in a good debate.
Finally a good post by you to someone talking shit. I am proud of you.
The post that you are referring to is logically connected to many of my other posts that you are suggesting "not good". That is, nothing in my reasoning has shifted, only your perspective has
Unless you are stating a pure Logical or Mathematical definition (where the rules of the game are internally constructed), then one necessarily must make an argument in an attempt to justify a point.
And when that argument consists of stamping your feet and repeatedly calling your opponent mean names like "conspiracy theorist" and "child", one can be sure you are being emotional.
@Nomenclature. If there were an ignore/block function on this site, I would certainly take advantage of it in your case without hesitiation so that I did not have to see your feed any longer..
If you have ever once written an article about the "truths" of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Genetic Code (as you see it), than that is outrageously irresponsible. Furthermore, it is a huge factor in why the public becomes so hostile to Scientists and Science. That is, they see what "Science" and "Scientists" say (i.e. journalists who don't understand it) about a topic and then see it "flip-flop" all of the time (while the actual Science is only shifting at the very edge frontiers of current human scientific knowledge). That is why much of the public ends up saying/thinking, "Look, I have my Religion/quasi-religious beliefs, you have your Science. The fact is, neither of us know wtf is going on, so who do you Scientists think you are to tell us what to believe?"
Now, I will repeat (because I know that you are bound to misunderstand this point based on our previous exchanges), Science Journalism and teaching more generally are very laudable professions if and only if one stays inside what they are properly qualified to be a spokesperson of. That is, if you are a High School math teacher, you clearly should have an Undergrad. or higher in Math as High School can go up to Calculus I-II. Thus, you should know the topic very well and be comfortable with some level of higher material that gives you a greater depth of insight and comfortability with the lower level material. If you are a 2nd grade teacher, I think any college educated adult can teach basic Arithmetic without a Math degree but rather a Teaching degree. Now, if you are Science/Physics Journalist and you have zero technical training in Physics/Math/Science while the topics you cover range from Undergrad. Level science all the way through the highest levels, and you are not even sticking to the “Arithmetic Level" portion of science comparatively but rather discussing extremely advanced topics in Physics/Science as though one “basically understands the gist of what is going on” and is therefore able to relate the "general concept" to the public; honestly---what do you think such a person would be able/qualified to teach about these topics with their “classroom” (i.e. their audience/the public). Do you think they may make quite a large number of glaring errors? Does it even sound possible to do correctly?
Could you imagine if you found out that your College intro to Chemical Principles teacher didn't have a degree in either Chem/Phys/Bio./or other closely related material but rather had an Education degree and has "power point" presentations to go off of and a Teachers Solution Manual Textbook? What if your German Language teacher didn't speak German but rather had a lessons plans, vocab lists, and YouTube videos? This literaly is damn near the current state of affairs in the K-12 system as well as Sci. Journalism.
One obviously needs a background with the topic that they are “teaching” (how is that controversial?). It is a HUGE problem. Now, having said that (and by this point I'm sure your fuming Nom. although I have not said even one thing that is at all unfair or even less than obvious so far), I read and enjoy Scientific American, Science News, Discover, ect. regularly which is a mix of Scientists and Sci. Journalists (as well as the pop. sci. books). My problem is not with Science Journalism as a profession at all (I think it is a very good profession and I think a Journalism degree is useful/beneficial).
At my Uni. if I (a senior Undergrad. Math Major) wanted to be an official UTA (Undergraduate Teaching Assistant/Tutor) than they limit me and other senior Math majors to teaching any Math subject up through and until Buisness Calc (which is less involved than Calc 1) even though we have done courses much higher/more involved than that by the time you are a Senior/Junior. For Grad school TA's/tutors, they limit themselves to what they truly, deeply understand well as well as attempt to grapple with what they are reasonably comfortable with, which is inevitably less than whatever level the Grad students are at the time (whether that is only up until Calc II or any Undergrad. level topic). Now, Science Journalism (like any form teaching) should be taken in the same regard. That is, if you are a Sci. Journalist and majored/double-majored in Jouranalism and Natural Science option say (Natural Science is "a little-bit of various sciences with no specific concentration), then great. When you get a job as a Sci. Journalist, then talk about the topics that were generally speaking covered in during your schooling. You could intelligently and responsibly discuss fundamental Math up through Calc 3, you could talk about some fundamental topics in Pyschology or Chemistry or Newtonian Physics, basic Evolution, ect. What they should not be doing is attempting to talk about String Theory (as though they could possibly understand it themselves, let alone relate to others with even less background). From there, one could continue their schooling in a particular topic, Psychology say by getting a Master degree. This would allow them to talk about quite a bit more with some real 'authority' and restrict themselves to the topics that are in their range at the moment. If they personally desired more formal education from that point, they could enroll as a PhD Cognitive Neuroscience student for example which would open up what they can authoritatively discuss quite further while staying inside of their wheelhouse. However, even if a Sci. Journalist has a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience, they should not be talking about String Theory. The only people qualified to talk about String Theory are people with training in String Theory.
Put simply, the training/education should match/restrict what they are teaching/reporting on. In many ways, this is a larger critique of the system because it should already be set in the manner that I discussed (and we are paying a tremendous price as a society for k-12 "education" and improper portion of journalism (there definitely are good journalists) by having a mass, misinformed, under informed, and confused public. We need more Sci. Journalists, many, many more, but they need to be properly qualified for what they report on.
If you went back to school for a degree in Psychology, Sociology, Natural Sciences, any other science, ect. and then restricted yourself to talk with 'authority' about the topics for which you are trained in, then I would respect what you are doing hands down (and I think you should be proud of yourself in such a case because we need more people in that respect). But, if you think I or any other reasonably intelligent/knowledgable person should "respect" your claim that "you are the next best thing to a Physicist" (when becoming a Physicist is an extremely rigorous 10-15 year process) because you have a Journalism degree (in the absence of any technical training) that somehow qualifies you to discuss General Relativity (which isn't even taught until Grad School Physics program because the Math is quite involved), Sting Theory (EXTREMELY advanced Mathematics, there aren't many people in the World who can do that sort of Math, even amongst Physicists with 10-15 years worth of training), Particle Physics, the mechanisms that may underlie consciousness, ect. ect. ect. than you seriously mistaken. We emphatically do not need anyone else as a teacher of any sort that pretends to know things that they do not know. In fact, it is one of the greatest issues in the World and has been for thousands of years (for as long as there is recorded Human History). Particularly if you are relaying your "truths" about the Laws of Thermodynamics, Genetic Code, Intelligent Design, Ancient Aliens, 9-11(?..please I hope not..), and whatever else (I'm sure there must be more that is bound to come out here sooner or later) ect.
@Nomenclature. If there were an ignore/block function on this site, I would certainly take advantage of it in your case without hesitiation
Hi xMathFanx old buddy. Still struggling with English I see. Could you possibly explain the disparity between saying you want to ignore me and then writing me a ten thousand word essay of pure, unadulterated bullshit?
Did you forget your meds today, buddy?
If you have ever once written an article about the "truths" of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Genetic Code (as you see it), than that is outrageously irresponsible.
THEN, you illiterate halfwit.
Sorry, but you are just delusional if you think I am reading through the deranged rantings of a catachrestic cod brain.
That's the problem with so many Liberals, Democrats, etc., on this site. They deny simple facts which makes them a waste of time to debate.
To all the deceptive people on this site, when you vote for the Democrat Party, and then say you do not support No Restriction abortions.... you are a complete liar and total waste of time to debate.
There can be no intelligent debate with someone, who simply denies who he is and what he supports with his vote, when it hurts their argument. Until you are honest with what you support, it is like debating a 5 year who denies the bad things about themselves.
Try being secure about what you support rather than denying it to hide your true colors.
Yes I realize that the truth many times shows your hypocrisy concerning tolerance towards others, but like an alocholic, until you admit what you support, you will never be able to overcome your inhumanity towards healthy viable lives.
The only benefit I see to an enemies list is to make it quicker to ban them from my debates. Wasting time with liars is not why I'm on this site.
Those are gimmicks, and not all that different from points and getting voted up or down. All that matters is the quality of argument you put forth. You don’t need a token reward for doing it or a posse to come to your aid.
Habitually I accept friend requests only to be nice and ignore enemy requests because they’re childish.
Anyone who believes strongly in their genuinely held views about a given topic should have the conviction of their belief(s) to state their opinions without needing the support of anyone nor be deterred from doing so by those who express opposition.
If people so decide to make allies or enemies of those with whose ideologies they either agree or disagree is immaterial and totally irrelevant.
Naww there's no point to them. Ally/Foe/Enemy means nothing really, it doesn't change how a person debates. Facts are important, sometimes emotion can be used to explain why a person feels a certain way but it's much easier to debate with logic.
So that's all our alliedship means to you? Nothing? Wait...., I just checked..., WE'RE NOT EVEN ALLIES!!!???!!! You think you know someone... oh well ;)
What?!? What over site it this? I thought we were, lol, goes to show how much I look at it. I'll send the ally request, if you find it in your heart to forgive me! ;D
Enjoy being alone. We will gang on you and eat you for breakfast when it comes down to it.
The kid who gets bullied and can't stand up for himself/herself isn't the weakest or the dumbest it's the loneliest.
It's not survival of the fittest but survival of the best adapted and part of adapting is being likeable to enough people to gang up with you against common enemies.
No, you won't. Feeling a bit predatory, there, are we? Trust me, if you want someone to bully, I'm not the one. I'll laugh in your face. I can stand up for myself. By myself.
For what it's worth, you're the only one that's gone hostile to me. I'm not hostile to you, nor do I intend to be. This is an internet debate site, and I have no problem debating anybody. There are debates I won't rule in on, for various reasons, but trust me, nobody will simply "eat me for breakfast".
I do see it as a pro-con issue especially when you ignore me completely asking you to be my ally and don't even explain why, treating me like I don't exist isn't pleasant.
Ah...ok, my apologies, there. I don't invest too much emotionally here, so I didn't realize that it might be an issue. Debates are mental exercise for me, not emotional to speak of. I wouldn't debate fascism for that exact reason.
LOL...I won't debate it because it's emotional to me. You may note, over a time, that if it starts to get emotional to me, I'll withdraw from it. Already, there are a few I'm not posting more on.
Feeling the necessity to be liked or to seek sanctuary by running with the herd is the true description of one of life's followers, a member of the 'SHEEPEOPLE' brigade.
World leaders and those strong individuals who forthrightly assert their views and/or political dogma will always attract a following of weak minded minions who are incapable of formulating and holding onto their own principles or opinions.
Some of those with strong personalities may find it interesting to present their viewpoints in a persuasive manner in order to see how many of those with sponges for minds they can fill with their own contentions, whilst other couldn't give a tinker's damn what other people think.
This is very much my opinion on the subject. I'm not here to follow, and I don't see any need to lead. If I influence others' opinions, fine, but I want it to be through facts, objectively presented. I'm open to my views changing, too, but it damn well won't happen because someone got emotional.
That said, I'm human. I won't always be objective, even if I try, but that's not a good excuse to simply not try. I'm also older than a lot of you here, and that's a lot of becoming set in my ways. It gets harder, as you become older, to be truly open...but it's important to me.
My brain is not as sharp as when I was younger. When I was a late teen, I literally knew almost no adults that could keep up with me. The brain degrades, if you don't actively use it, and I got very lax - I've never had a job that seriously challenged me that much, even when I worked as a troubleshooter in the tech industry. One thing good debate is, is mental exercise. I could use it.
You have requested me as an ally. I sometimes agree with things you say, but, here is an example of why I wouldn't be an ally of yours. This is an attitude the world does not need. Actually, I don't accept allies OR enemies, I'm not here for that. Debating here should be your opinion, not your TEAM'S opinion, even though that seems to be a conservative game plan.