CreateDebate


Debate Info

35
14
That debate style is bad It's ok to debate that way
Debate Score:49
Arguments:33
Total Votes:55
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 That debate style is bad (22)
 
 It's ok to debate that way (9)

Debate Creator

Axmeister(4317) pic



I require a 3rd party opinion on an argument in a debate.

Once again, I've joined one of those religious debates. And unsurprising I ended up arguing with the same person I always end up arguing with in debates. The problem I have is the way this person debates.

Their Argument:

"I'd say yes, as religion is slowly fading. Now why do you think is that? Why is religion fading? I'll give you a hint - it's not because we are getting dumber."

My Argument:

"Care to support that with statistics? Oh wait, you can't. Why? because there isn't a global census on what people believe.

So unless you've interviewed 7 billion people on their faith (at which point you could inform the UN and several other governing bodies), I don't see how you can be in any position to claim "religion is slowly fading."

Their reply:

"Care to support that with statistics?

Statistics? If you got an adequate brain you should understand why there are no statistics needed. But still there have been done just that and I am not going to waste my time searching them just so you could deny hard facts, again.

Oh wait, you can't. Why? because there isn't a global census on what people believe.

This is too stupid for me. My mind works on a higher level. Try to tune up yours and then try again.

So unless you've interviewed 7 billion people on their faith

What is religion? What is faith? Religion is a means of keeping people stupid so they could be easily controlled. Faith is trust without evidence. If you think they are good things then you have proved yourself an idiot.

Anyway, that's what religion was before, now it primarily just keeps people stupid. But I'm sure I've said that previously a couple or even several times and not because I like to think so but because I know so.

Faith is faith, it's blindness by definition.

at which point you could inform the UN and several other governing bodies

Do you really like providing stupid comments so much? It's just so... worthless. Could you try providing something that actually has some substance?

I don't see how you can be in any position to claim "religion is slowly fading.

The fact that humanity as a whole is becoming smarter and smarter, and then there's also the fact that atheism is growing. Those two are connected. Atheism is growing because humanity is becoming smarter; more and more people see religion as the idiotic shit it is and has always been.

Then there's the fact that science, logic, objectivity, and rationality disprove pretty much everything about religion. These are the things you so very much like avoiding and denying. Or you only avoid or deny those that hurt your feelings conceived from delusions, or you change available knowledge to satisfy those feelings. Either way, you suck big time - something only you can change but won't 'cause indoctrination seems to be far too deep and thorough, probably coupled with inherent stupidity. No hard feelings, they are simply observations, but unfortunately sad ones at that - the only kind you make derivable."

That debate style is bad

Side Score: 35
VS.

It's ok to debate that way

Side Score: 14

Sounds like Nummi.

Nummi or no, the person you are debating has their head so far up their ass it's hard to tell if they might be trolling.

Without actually addressing my opinion on the topic of the debate (and who I think it right in that regard), in terms of debating style you (Ax) are being relatively civil and rational, and the person you are debating argues like a child. To blow off and ignore reasonable challenges, like being asked to support your assertions with statistics, with responses like, "This is too stupid for me. My mind works on a higher level. Try to tune up yours and then try again," is infantile, and i don't know how any self-respecting debtor could make such a public utterance and still expect to have their opinions taken seriously, in any regard. What exactly is he trying to say, here, anyways? That his mind is so great it works on a level beyond cold hard facts? That his mind is so powerful it doesn't need statistics to back up its claims? That by "tuning up" your own mind you might come to see things from his perspective?

This is why it sounds like Nummi. Nummi is obsessed with the idea of some capital "T" Truth that exists out there in the universe, hovering like massive 3D Word Art, that you can attain (like he has) if you just think enough.

So I guess it is the massive ego complex of the person you are debating with that reminds me of Nummi.

Pleeeeeeease tell me I'm right.

Side: That debate style is bad
1 point

"So I guess it is the massive ego complex of the person you are debating with that reminds me of Nummi.

Pleeeeeeease tell me I'm right."

That's a very good guess.

I would like to know how you could pinpoint it on Nummi, there are quite a few atheists on this site whos argument consists of similar logic.

Side: That debate style is bad
2 points

I agree he comes across as being pretentious with an attitude of i'm better than you so I dont need to back up my arguments peppered with insults, unfortunately he's not the only person on here who uses this "style" of debate. There's too many people who are quick to start insulting people instead of debating them properly.

Side: That debate style is bad
nummi(1435) Clarified
1 point

I have a sort of unique writing style, still developing though.

Side: That debate style is bad

Nummi's clarification is correct; he has a fairly distinctive writing style, even if his arguments are not distinctive. His presentation of the arguments is unique, even though the arguments themselves are trite (and, if I may be so bold as to say, a shame to atheists).

Side: That debate style is bad
nummi(1435) Disputed
1 point

Ax established himself as a delusional moron first time in an England debate, or some debate like that. If I remember correctly I included in one of my arguments there something about atheism. I didn't even think about religion then but Ax brought that in and from there it went crazy. He is delusional, he has shown that many times over. Since Ax has established himself as a delusional moron who's not much worth debating with I tend to avoid starting a new mess with him, but if he replies to my arguments then I will reply to his. That's right, the debate he is talking about is of his own making; he began it by disputing my argument. He could've not done that and thus avoided the creation of this worthless and childish debate.

I argue like a child while Ax is keen on avoiding logic, rationality, all those good things? Since when is avoiding reality not childish?

The tune up his mind thing... he is stupid. That's all it means.

I guess it was part retaliation/trolling. Was rather amusing writing that argument.

i don't know how any self-respecting debtor could make such a public utterance and still expect to have their opinions taken seriously

So you would rather I lied?

Nummi is obsessed with the idea of some capital "T" Truth that exists out there in the universe, hovering like massive 3D Word Art, that you can attain (like he has) if you just think enough.

You could be more wrong, just let your imagination wonder. But seriously, you're dead wrong.

There is no truth, no right or wrong. Could you call that the truth about our universe? Very likely.

Side: It's ok to debate that way
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
4 points

"Ax established himself as a delusional moron first time in an England debate,"

Once again, whether I am a 'delusional moron' or not is entirely your opinion.

"If I remember correctly I included in one of my arguments there something about atheism."

If I remember correctly you claim that the Scandinavian countries were the best in the world because they had a high amount of atheism.

Side: That debate style is bad
2 points

Since Ax has established himself as a delusional moron who's not much worth debating with I tend to avoid starting a new mess with him, but if he replies to my arguments then I will reply to his.

I have this problem most frequently with Srom. He has, in my book, established himself as a delusional moron, and most of his arguments are on that level. So when they crop up I treat them like delusional, moronic arguments. But Srom does occasionally make coherent points and defends them in an intelligent way, and it would be foolish of me to dismiss the times he does this on the basis that he's acted like a moron before. Ax has his moments (he and I have had our heated disputes, too) but I dare say he is level-headed and reasonable a great deal more than Srom, so from my perspective it is incredibly foolish for you to ignore a coherent challenge just because you've had beef with the challenger. If I can put up with arguing with Srom, you arguing with Ax should be no problem; you shouldn't have to cop out of replying or providing support for your assertions.

That's right, the debate he is talking about is of his own making; he began it by disputing my argument. He could've not done that and thus avoided the creation of this worthless and childish debate.

So? This is a debate site, on on which you made an assertion, and Ax disputed (started debating) it. This seems kind of part-and-parcel of a debate site. As for the part about this being worthless and childish, this is essentially peer review; or an appeal to a third party to garner a fresh perspective on two peoples locked opinions. As that is a key aspect of the modern scientific method, would you really be so bold as to call it worthless and childish?

I argue like a child while Ax is keen on avoiding logic, rationality, all those good things? Since when is avoiding reality not childish?

That may have happened before, but it's water under the bridge; he's being logical and rational and all those good things right now.

So you would rather I lied?

No, no, I think it's good you spoke your mind. It would have simply been more effective to say, "I'm a troll and my mind is closed for business, now piss off," if you were really hellbent on making a public spectacle of yourself, but I think what you said does a pretty good job of showing you up as an ignoramus who hides behind words like "logic" and "reason," but proves he doesn't know the first things about either of those concepts.

Side: That debate style is bad
2 points

It is bad debate style...and they should know that there are statitics about this very thing happening. I don't think you will be able to help the situation though, other than just debate through it.

Side: That debate style is bad
1 point

I often end up just leaving the debate.

Side: That debate style is bad
2 points

Of course the argument may be rash, and not backed up with evidence, but the statement it is making is correct. So correct, in fact, that it may excuse it's lack of self-explanation and degrade you in your lack of knowledge on this matter- because it is so obvious.

I'm going to go a step further than he did, and provide for you the proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/08/14/american_atheists_1_in_20_americans_say_ they_are_atheists_.html

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/646077-atheism-is-increasing-at-the-expense-of-theism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/poll-shows-atheism-on-the-rise-in-the-us/2012/08/13/90020fd6-e57d-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

Read them. Or skim through them.

Do whatever; at least get the truth into your head.

Side: That debate style is bad
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
1 point

You think I didn't do any research?

The wikipedia article doesn't state how fast atheism isgrowing compared to religions.

The rest of your sources ony apply to the United States as I had said before, there is no global census asking people what they believe in.

Side: It's ok to debate that way
Dremorius(861) Disputed
1 point

there is no global census asking people what they believe in.

Don't blatantly claim that to be true, without checking yourself to be correct.

The wikipedia article doesn't state how fast atheism isgrowing compared to religions.

Well, if you looked deeper, it showed how much Atheists exist in those countries currently in comparison to how little they were before- and how religious beliefs were depleting.

The rest of your sources ony apply to the United States as I had said before, there is no global census asking people what they believe in.

All countries add up to 'Global'. England has changed from almost 90% Christian to 50% in the span of a few decades. The United States is a country that is powerfully religious. It's more religious than the country that gave them the religion, and this is giving birth to the Westboro baptist church- yet the number of Atheists is growing dramatically. The Global percentage of Atheists is in 4th place behind Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, (Atheism almost above Hinduism.) There are currently 850 million Atheists in the world, and a few centuries back, there was pretty much 0. How can you explain those changes? Or how can you be this buried in your own beliefs to deny the obvious? If those links are not good enough for you, how about this: http://www.atheistalliance.org/news-a-articles/archive/519-global-survey-finds-fewer-religious- people-more-atheists

And about that previous debate we had, where you were ever so reluctant to reply; were you defeated? If not, I'll ask for you to dispute my argument that has been waiting there for so long.

Side: That debate style is bad

All I can say is, never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience ;)

Having said all that..., it is now up to you guys to determine who's the idiot ;)

Side: That debate style is bad

"Only a fool argues with a fool."

Care to debate me ?

Side: That debate style is bad

No..., I don't want you to beat me ;)

Side: That debate style is bad

Statistics? If you got an adequate brain you should understand why there are no statistics needed

---

This is too stupid for me. My mind works on a higher level. Try to tune up yours and then try again.

---

A debate style like this, if its a serious discussion, is undeniably bad. Very condescending. Another thing it is though, is it's funny. Only because it's totally messed up to debate that way lol.

Side: That debate style is bad
1 point

Lol this is so hilarious! I read a few of his arguments for humor. This guy needs classes

Side: That debate style is bad
1 point

I ended up arguing with the same person I always end up arguing with in debates.

I have avoided messes like this with you but if you reply to me I will respond.

You didn't end up arguing with me, you began arguing with me. There's a difference, in case you didn't know it before.

I have a problem with the way you debate also - you ignore reality.

Side: It's ok to debate that way
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
1 point

"You didn't end up arguing with me, you began arguing with me. There's a difference, in case you didn't know it before."

I never said you always start arguing with me, I just stating that I end up arguing with you.

Side: That debate style is bad
nummi(1435) Disputed
1 point

I just stating that I end up arguing with you.

In this case you did not end up, you began, you initiated it.

The "always"... Your mind must be pretty fucked up if I'm always on your mind. I mean, I actually forgot about you for quite some time. I don't obsess with people, no reason to.

Seriously, what are you doing? Is your life really that boring?

Side: It's ok to debate that way
1 point

hey man youre quite difficcult to understand !! first you start an argument and then you start to include someone else and then you fight with him and then he fights with you and then the third person fights the second and then you all three start fighting and seeing you all a fourth person starts to fight ofuck!!ofuck!!ofuck!!

Side: It's ok to debate that way