CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS Dan_Blayde

Reward Points:14
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
75%
Arguments:11
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

"...in the womb or out.."

"...or out.."

Are we to take it that you believe a child is not alive until some period after birth? If so, at what moment or in what period do they gain life? If so, what qualifies the child as alive when it reaches that developmental milestone, and why?

0 points

Read those first two sentences again. Slowly. The quote first. Then your correction below it. In your opinion, are scientists human?

Petty jokes aside, I concede that the reliability of such a poll is of a little more value than one of the general population, for some (not all) of the reasons you brought.

However, no interpretation of evidence is in itself evidence, no matter the brilliance of the interpreter. By extension, the collated interpretations of a great many scientists do not amount to evidence. The list of pervasive scientific theories which have since been disproved is a long one. If we are to choose between interpretations based on the cumulative intellect of their proponents, then and then only is such a poll of real use.

Dan_Blayde(14) Clarified
2 points

Gotcha. I'm new here so I didn't realise you two had history.

Dan_Blayde(14) Clarified
1 point

This could have done without the swear word. The best way to show up a person's flaws is just to ask straight questions and let them run their mouths. If the words they choose are stupid, it will be made more obvious by contrast to level headed questions. The longer that goes on, the more damning it gets. In my experience it's much more effective than calling people idiots to their virtual face. Just saying. Thanks for the back up though.

Dan_Blayde(14) Clarified
1 point

Actually excon, I am very sure. I was hoping for somebody to bring an argument that challenged that surety, so that I can learn. Perhaps I will learn more reasons to be sure. Perhaps I will have to change my mind. Either way I wanted to get out of my echo chamber and discuss with others, some of whom may disagree with me.

Since you're so eager to talk about the issue of rights though, let's do it.

You claim that the unborn child is a living human. You claim that the this living human being has no rights. Do you consider that other living beings have basic human rights? If so, why do you make an exception for a living human being who is yet to be born?

0 points

The proposed evidence was an opinion poll of human beings. Humans do not become infallible when they work in a lab or when they pass their degree. They do not become more truthful either, and they all have to put bread on the table. What do you suppose happens to a palaeontologist whose paper argues against the normal dating methods that 97% of his peers and forerunners staked their careers on? Generally, he doesn't get published, and then nobody funds him. So what separates scientific consensus from the mob; does education, does breadth of knowledge, does being "smarter"?

Even if this was a poll of microbiologists, biologists, biochemists, zoologists, palaeontologists and others from intrinsically related fields, a smart person can still be wrong. Except this poll doesn't say, "97% of scientists who work in related fields think theory X is true." One of them might be a mathematician. Another might study fluid mechanics on a Formula 1 exhaust manifold. So you can't even necessarily claim that all those polled are any more knowledgeable on the subject of evolution than you or I. Thus, the correlation between this poll result and the actual experimental data gets more tenuous the more you think about it.

If by "scientific consensus" you meant that the vast majority of evidence agrees with an idea, that would imply the idea was accurate. You would then be right. That is not a fallacy whose Latin name you so proudly googled. However, it actually means that the vast majority of people in the scientific community agree with an idea, and that is not evidence.

Thus, even scientific consensus is not evidence. To us it as such is still a fallacy.

Dan_Blayde(14) Clarified
1 point

With respect, this dispute is inane. Philosophy is "the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of the real world and existence, the use and limits of knowledge, and the principles of moral judgment". The very definition contains the word "limits" (synonymous with "constraints"), and requires that "reason" is the sole tool applied. In turn, reason is "the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts". The healthy mind reaches understanding using logic and fact. Thus philosophy is the use of logic to judge whether an interpretation of reality is logically sound, or not. "Contradiction in terms" this is not. Quite the opposite.

If you want the positive, then simply say, "what philosophically sound ideas..."

Finally, constraints are used all the time to achieve objectives. For example, "I need to build a house." Isn't enough for the draughtsman to draw it up. If he draws a mansion and you have only a small plot of land, you wasted your time on a fantasy. So you tell him the constraints, such as budget, land, a project deadline, etc. The same is true of philosophy and science. In order to further understand what is, it is often useful to understand what cannot be.

In short, instead of being negative and trying to deconstruct the question, find something constructive to say that might add value to the discussion.

1 point

Self-evident means "clear or obvious without needing any proof or explanation". If it obvious to you, how would you communicate it to the minority who disagree?

As to the question of rights, what conditions exclude the unborn child from the rights afforded to every other living human being, and why?

0 points

Consensus is not evidence. To use it as such is a logical fallacy. It does not follow that, "A majority think X, therefore X is true."

0 points

Spoken like a wannabe king, not a pursuer of truth.

Once upon a time, a banished monk came to the king to discuss their old disagreement. The king stood from his throne, irate, and pronounced, "Fairies HAVE been debunked and will continue to be debunked. You do not have the facts, hypocrite. You are a snowflake humanizing dragonflies. Your arguments are invalidated and you are silenced. Begone!"

Jokes aside, your failure is a shame. I too find evolution to be false. For the sake of next time, please take some advice. You are passionate. Reason and understanding are persuasive when spoken kindly. Insults, deaf assertions, and word salads are quite the opposite.


Winning Position: Are Human Beings Alive Before Birth?

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United Kingdom

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here