- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Your argument for those facts are that you think my sources aren't credible? People like you make me laugh.
Just out of curiosity, what is your education level? Newsmax is not an unbiased scholarly scientific source. Newsmax is a very politically biased "conservative" propaganda source. I know. I used to be a "conservative" when I was young and uneducated, and I trusted Newsmax. Now I know that the words of scientists are more credible than the words of propagandists and spinmasters who have no education in science.
-Go ahead and look up ClimateGate. There will be multiple sources so you can go ahead and pick the most credible, in your opinion. My source for that is The Wall Street Journal.
There are plenty of places on the internet that say the Holocaust didn't happen too, but that doesn't mean they are credible and written by historians.
Climategate. Okay, so we're back to you claiming that science is a global conspiracy. I am well-versed in this nonsense. The Wallstreet Journal is not a scientific source. It is a great place to go for information on stocks, and capitalistic activities, but not science.
-There are plenty of credible people who know that global warming is not caused my human actions. The definition of global warming is the increase in the earth's temperature that, according to most scientists, is occurring as a result of the carbon dioxide that is produced when fossil fuels are burned collecting in the atmosphere and trapping energy from the sun. That's a definition straight from a textbook. Notice how is says MOST SCIENTISTS, not all. Not all scientists agree with you and to say that all scientists think that we cause global warming is ignorant. There are plenty of scientists who say that we ARE NOT the cause.
You're right. There are people, like YOU (people without an education, who don't understand science) that deny science, but actual scientists (98% and growing) don't deny science. You would have to deny fundamental basics of science to deny that global warming is caused by people, which you are doing. This is not a debate to people who understand how science works. It's only a debate for people like you.
There are hardly any recently written peer-reveiwed journals that deny science. Sure, you can find Newsmax, Wallstreet Journal, and Fox News Entertainment, but NASA, NOAA, IPCC, ANY .edu, ANY research University around the world, supports that science is real.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: between November 2012, and December 2013, there were 2259 peer-reviewed articles written by 9136 scientists (people who understand science), and only 1 denied science. This isn't a 50/50 debate that could go either way. It's actually 99.0009/0.0001. So, by "plenty of scientists," you mean 1 in 9136.
Only people who don't understand science or people who want to fool you into denying science to give more liberty to oil companies that are causing this, want you to think this is even debatable.
-The fact that over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that humans are not the cause of global warming can't be denied. Go ahead and google it for yourself if you still don't believe me.
Do you know how many scientists exist in the world? That's nothing. According to CIA Factbook and AAAS, there are 5.8 MILLION scientists in the world. I'm going to assume you're telling me the truth (even though not everything on the internet is true, as I've shown), so let's get the percentage of "scientists" that deny science (being paid by big oil), versus the scientist who understand science let's see: 31,000/5,800,000=.00534483 OR .5%
So, good for you! You have .5% of the world's scientists on your side, and I have everyone else.
-You're telling me that I don't understand the basic fundamentals of science, but you're ignoring the facts that I'm stating about specific heat.
That's because you don't understand basic fundamentals about science. You said that the only way our atmosphere can trap heat, is if we had a glass bubble around it, and, since I've taken science classes and astronomy classes at the University Level, I can tell you how it actually works, and you're wrong on a very fundamental level. If the greenhouse effect didn't exist, our planet wouldn't be habitable because of the natural amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by our active geology!
-I never even mentioned anything about gravity because that's not the main focus here.
Gravity is important to understanding why we have an atmosphere.
All you're doing is taking what I said, twisting it, and then saying something irrelevant.
No. I'm bringing up very relevant scientific facts that are necessary to explaining how this all works. You're just ignoring it because it's more important to you that you believe what the "conservative" party line is, than the truth.
While doing all of this, you fail to actually prove me wrong of anything.
I've proven your wrong repeatedly using scientific facts. You've used politically biased websites, and non-scientific sources to refute me.
Back to what I was saying, the little amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere cannot do a thing.
You say this as if it were a fact, but you do not have a PhD in science, and don't even understand how the atmosphere works! What you should have said is, "I don't think the little amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can do a thing, but I'm not a scientist, and I'm still learning basics about science."
-If you're going to say that carbon dioxide is harmful, then explain to me how water vapor hasn't killed us by now.
Well, for one, they are chemically different. One is CO2, and the other is H2O. Go have a gander at a periodic table.
WATER VAPOR is the thing to worry about, NOT carbon dioxide.
This makes no sense, scientifically.
-I have not mentioned anything even remotely relevant to politics. All I'm doing is simply giving you the scientific facts, which you can't seem to comprehend.
I find it strange that you say that, and use sources like NEWSMAX, ClimateGate, a tiny amount of scientists who were paid by big oil, and other non-scientific sources to refute scientific facts. For someone who hasn't brought up politics, you're keeping awfully close to the GOP's party line.
-The fact that you're denying me on how the temperature of earth has not changed and the polar ice caps are increasing just means that you are living proof of someone who fell into the propaganda.
The Average Global Temperature of the earth HAS changed (increased) since the 1890s. Any credible scientific source will show you this. I WILL NOT deny facts. You can, if you want. If by "propaganda" you mean, "educated to facts and science," then you're right.
Do. The. Research.
You mean like, hang out with people with PhDs in Science and take lots of University Level classes in science, and read peer-reviewed articles written by scientific experts? Yeah. I already do that.
-You're treating scientists like they are gods. Whatever they have to say, you aimlessly follow them and what they say.
No, not really. I just know that they have more education about science and more expertise in science because that's what they do for a living. I am not arrogant enough to think that I know more about science than someone who has a PhD, and decades of research under their belts.
It's not that scientists are gods, they just know more about science than I do, and I know more about science than most uneducated people do. The logic, evidence, and facts behind anthropogenic global warming is really solid, and if you bothered learning about it, you'd see what I'm talking about. You aren't more open-minded than me, you are just denying facts. If you want to talk about who's more open-minded, I used to deny science too, but now that I've seen the evidence, and truth behind the scientific explanation, I've changed my mind because I realized it would be stupid not to.
It's like this: if you took your car to a shop, and every single mechanic in the shop said that your wheel bearings are going bad, and you have no understanding of how cars work, would you defer to the trained car mechanics who have decades of experience? Or would you, someone who doesn't know how cars work at all, and have never gotten under one, going to argue and tell them that they don't know what they're talking about?
-Call me a conservative, call me a liberal, call me a republican, call me a democrat, call me whatever you want. I don't believe something just because the politicians said it was true.
Good, then we're on the same page: trust scientists about science over politicians and political spin-doctors.
I'm not like you. I'm an individual who did the research myself. You should try it sometime.
I not only did the research (which is why I changed my mind), I also have the education to be able to evaluate sources; you should try it sometime.
Now that you've gotten into ad hominem attacks, can you get back to trying to make claims about science, so we can stick to facts?
Just because there's a website on the internet that tells you something doesn't mean it's true. There are websites devoted to the Holocaust being a global Jewish Conspiracy, but any reputable historian would tell you the Holocaust actually happened. Likewise, as there are a few websites and .5% of "scientists (on the payroll of big oil)" in the world that deny global warming, doesn't mean it's the truth. Science is not a "liberal" conspiracy.
Science, as a discipline, is actually open to being proven wrong, but so far, the attempts at proving science wrong have been refuted. Scientists need evidence for a theory to be scrapped, and so far, nothing any of these "scientists" have brought to the table, has disproven anything, and if you think you, someone who just has google, knows as much about science as an actual scientists with a PhD and decades of research, you're wrong. Truth is not subjective, especially in science.
If you can not see the facts of how the Media is liberal biased, then you must live in a hole.
SOME media, like MSNBC has a "liberal" bias. Not all media does; some has a "conservative" bias. That is just the facts. I do not live in a hole, I just have an education, and can think critically, and see things in light of objectivity.
I thought you were smart enough not to have to have me give you example after example of how the Liberal media buries stories that hurt the Democrat agenda.
I am sure that a MSNBC has done things in the past that hurt the Democrat agenda. I don't know. I don't watch 24 hour news cycles from political propaganda channels. I can tell you that not all mediums are politically polarized one way or the other.
Are you aware that there are information sources out there that are not garbage, actually report news, and don't put overt spin on the stories? They exist. Not all media is left/right biased. You can also do what I do, and go look things up for yourself.
If you truly are that ignorant then here is an obvious one ok?
I have a much higher level of education than you have, so if I am ignorant, then what does that make you?
Jonathan Gruber! You've heard of him right? Maybe not because other than Fox news the Liberal media refuses to play up that huge story of how the Democrats lied to the American people to get Obamacare passed.
Well, here's something from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
Is ABC a "liberal" media outlet to you? LOL
Do you remember when those Black men made racists comments & killed that Australian Basketball player? The media buried that story also.
Well, not really. That story was on my local news, which is owned by Fox.
First of all, black men cannot be racist, as I'm sure you've read in my comments when I explained what racism is. They can be racially prejudiced, but not racist because racism is a system that awards advantage and disadvantage.
Secondly, why do you like talking about how "dangerous" black men are? Remember when you told me that I had to be afraid of black people with hammers?
The media choose to hardly mention a story that hurts Democrats are they sensationalize it every day for weeks if it hurts Republicans.
There are an awful lot of stories on the news that criticize the Obama Administration. I get them on NPR all the time. Is NPR a right wing medium?
Have you noticed how the Liberal media keep the boring old news story of Bill Cosby's rape allegations going non stop day after day?
The corporate for-profit media corporations sell the story that gets ratings. Americans love their celebrities, and they love when they fall from grace. That's actually really capitalist to do that.
When was the last time you heard the Liberal media bring up Bill Clinton's rape allegations when he was Governor?
A lot when it was actually relevant. Why would they keep talking about something that is no longer relevant anymore? That would belong on the history channel, at this point. Bill Clinton's sexual escapades were almost constantly talked about when he was President; you should know that.
I could go on forever but why waste my time.
You're not wasting your time.
Facts mean nothing to you because you will just excuse them away.
Facts are actually what drives me in forming my opinion, not values. So, that's false. If you notice, I am the one presenting you with facts, which you don't even deny, you just avoid and call me names.
I don't "excuse" anything. If you notice, I showed you a link to a "liberal media" website that reported a story you denied it reported. So...that means you're wrong on that point. The rest of those, I used fact and/or logic.
Why I've wasted this much time makes me the fool.
That's not what makes you the fool. Denying facts and insulting people does that.
For every bad story put out by Fox, I could find you 20 stories put out on all the Liberal biased news network.
Fox News Entertainment does not report stories. They have pundit commentary shows that present a right wing argument in light of what happened in the story.
So, let's take Ferguson for example. Fox News Entertainment did not solely tell the who, what, when, why, where, and how. Rather, they spun the story to create a right/left false dichotomy. It goes back to, why wasn't Fox News Entertainment concerned about the suppression of the 1st Amendment?
That is exactly why I don't watch corporate 24 media cycles. They are bullshit, and politically-charged nonsense. For every accusation you levy on the so-called "liberal media," you can say the EXACT same thing about Fox News Entertainment. The thing is, FW, there is only ONE TRUTH. If you think Fox News Entertainment is the only channel in which professional political pundits tell the truth (that would be the first time for that in the history of the world), you are doing exactly what your corporate masters want you to do. Good boy!
The Liberal media controls the people's minds by only reporting on stories that hurt the GOP or help the Democrats.
That's what the "conservative" media does. If you deny that, you're out of touch with the nature of reality in a polarized political culture where for-profit companies compete for ratings.
CBS was censoring journalist Cheryl Atkinson's news when it hurt Obama and the Benghazi lies, etc.
Censorship comes from the government. Corporations are not the government. CBS decides what CBS airs. If they think brining up right wing propaganda and lies is bad for ratings, they won't let him on their station. For better or for worse, that's the nature of for-profit media. I can't say I agree with it, but that's how it is.
FW, please just stop talking to Elvira. You are perpetuating the negative stereotype that people have for Americans: we are stupid, we are barbaric, we are uneducated, we are superstitious, we are racist, and we are backwards. That stereotype exists for a reason, please do not make it worse.
We have MEDICAID for those who can not afford going to doctor or hospital.
That's only because of the ACA. My wife, who is low income could never have access to healthcare before the ACA. If she could begin to afford it, she would be charged a higher price for being a woman--another thing the ACA fixed about out "healthcare system."
We realize that Government screws up and bankrupts everything it touches.
LOL, like the military? Like the roads? Like the fire departments? Like the libraries? "We" don't realize your claim. We realize that if the USA wants to do something, and we fund it properly, it will be the best in the world. Remember when we used to value education? We had the best education system in the world, and it was publicly funded.
We are 18 trillion in debt and those who want the low income vote pander to them with tax payer dollars while our nation is going bankrupt.
If the corporate community actually performed a function in society, there wouldn't be as many people in need of government assistance.
Keep your socialism over in your nation please.
You don't know what socialism means. The military, the road, the library, the FAA, the FDA, Social Security, MEDICAID, public education, the fire department, and the justice system are all socialism. All of those things were privatized at one point, and they were horrible when done for profit.
Please learn what socialism is before you go railing against it. You would not benefit from less socialism. In fact, healthcare would be cheaper FOR YOU if we had a universal healthcare system like EVERY DEVELOPED COUNTRY HAS. We are ranked 37th in the world in terms of healthcare by the World Health Organization.
We don't want it.
We don't? I would love for every American to have access to free healthcare. The developed world has that, and they have a much better quality healthcare system than we have.
The people are what made America great, not big Government.
That's funny. Our middle class grew out of the New Deal and WW2, both of which were a period of "big government." If you had an education, you'd know that.
FW, calling someone a liar does nothing to prove them wrong or convince them that you are right. You need to used facts. I don't think you can find many facts to prove your argument though, because your argument is based on falsehoods and partisan rhetoric; it is not based on facts. I have no reason to think it is based on facts because you never use them. Moreover, I am more educated and well-read than you, and thus more privy to the nature of reality, and I know that you're wrong beyond that.
Well gee, what a shock.... another blatant anti Fox attack without one example to prove your point.
You are my example to prove my point. I actually used you as my example. I also used their programming as an example. Did you read what I wrote?
I always give many examples explaining my stance.
You never use any facts. You use claims. You use opinions. You use slogans. Claims, opinions, and slogans are not facts. A "stance" has nothing to do with the truth of reality, especially your "stance."
Tell me where Fox has lied about some issue.
Well, for one the full blind support of the two phony wars Bush and Cheney started (that I fought in). For another, the pundits on Fox News Entertainment deny scientific facts. Mostly, though, what Fox News Entertainment does though, is distort and obfuscate. Fox News Entertainment does the EXACT things that you accuse MSNBC of doing (and they DO do it, so you're right on that): present facts in a biased, politically-charged manner so to mislead the viewer. Pundits do not exist to inform. They exist to mislead and convince. THAT is my problem with Fox News Entertainment and MSNBC: they aren't news. They are political pundit shows meant to mislead the viewer into blindly accepting a party line, like you. The "conservative" line, is to support the present power structure and status quo; thus, my claim that FNE is just another chapter of aristocrats selling a false consciousness to the peasants is EXACTLY right.
All I have seen is Fox proving the lies of Obama's Obamacare & the lies from his administration scandal after scandal.
Many of those "scandals" were created by Fox News Entertainment to fool people like you, or they were portrayed falsely to fool people like you, and it worked. I can give you examples of this, if you'd like.
Please use facts. That is all I ask. That's what debating is. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it is true. In fact, as I've shown you, it isn't true most of the time. Unfortunately, your education level does not allow you to think critically, I conjecture.
Here's the thing FW, just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true objectively. That's where using facts come in. You can't change my mind using pundit talking points that you were spoon-fed. I need facts to change my mind. Abstract claims and opinions are not facts. Facts are facts. If you can present me with facts from a credible unbiased source, we'd have a discussion. Can you please stop being such a chickenshit and debate with me? It looks like I've got you cornered almost every time we debate because I used facts, and you ignore them, and retaliate by calling me names, like a five year old on a playground.
There is no debating indoctrinated fools!
Tell me about it.
No matter what I say you will deny it.
I won't deny something that is true and fact-based. We haven't even gotten to the part where you try to use facts to dispute the facts or points I raise (which is how debating works).
For example: in your attempt to deny that Separation of Church and State is real (which it is), I presented you with two historical facts that are supported by primary historical sources from two founders of this country. Instead of disputing those facts, you just called me names--that is not debating. If you'd used logic or facts to attempt to dispute me, we'd be debating. Name-calling is not debating. Why do you not understand that?
I've presented you with tons of facts, and you've just avoided them, and called me names. How "Christian" of you.
What person with an IQ more than ten does not know that Democrats play the race game PURELY for the Black vote.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Probably not. This would be a good time to have some facts from a credible unbiased source to support your argument. Anyone with an IQ higher than 10 knows that.
What person does not know the media is mostly Liberally biased other than Fox news who uses the blatant Left bias to their advantage by speaking on behalf of the vast majority of Conservative and moderate thinking people in this nation.
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MEDIA BIAS, IT'S ABOUT FERGUSON.
Fox News Entertainment isn't news; it's extreme right wing police pundit shows. Most of our media is run by for-profit corporations who are out to make money. The only truly "liberal" media outlet is MSNBC, who nakedly do the same thing Fox News Entertainment does. The rest are just selling stories, and don't have a bias except for that which sells, and that leads to sensationalism.
If you had an intelligence worth debating you would say things like..... yes I agree the media is mostly Liberal leaning & I agree Democrats use race as an election strategy (regardless the harm it does to this nation's race relations).
So wait, you think that your opinions are the 100% truth, and anyone who disagrees with you (especially ones with much higher levels of education than you), are less intelligent? That's argumentum ad hominem. Can you please provide evidence?
And then you would explain why you ignore those facts and still vote for these corrupt liars.
I don't ignore any facts. YOU are the one ignoring facts on this debate website. I promise you that if you presented me with facts, I would address them. I address all your partisan rhetoric with facts, essentially taking the high road and not getting into the dirt with you.
But no, you sit there and deny the obvious and try to explain how it is the GOP's fault for all these issues.
I'm not the one denying the obvious. As with my example of your denial of the Separation of Church and State, I've presented you with obvious facts that can be looked up (I'd be glad to give you links, if you ever asked for them), and you just "denied the obvious" and called me names or changed the subject. Are you that afraid of the objective truth?
I refuse to debate that ideological irrational denial.
I am not the one with irrational ideological denial, you are. You aren't even using facts to support your argument, and I think it's because facts do not support your argument. You believe in falsehoods, actually, and cling to them as if they are your life raft in a sea of facts.
Not so much lie, but obfuscate, divert, give the party line, and offer political entertainment to "conservatives." It isn't news. It's entertainment. There are no news segments. It's all pundit shows.
Sadly, calling what they do "news" makes people like FromWithin, think it's journalism and information. It's really just "conservative" propaganda in an attempt to fool working class, uneducated people, like FromWithin, into thinking the interests of the aristocracy are also his interests.
Institutions like Fox News Entertainment have been around for millennia. Their job is to keep the peasants believing the power structure is good for them, when they do not benefit from the power structure. In the Middle Ages, it was the clergy, for example, that told the peasants that God put the King on the throne, and that peasants were further down the chain of being by divine mandate, and people, like FromWithin believed it, and if you questioned it, like Gallileo, you would be turned over to the authorities by the peasants that bought what the clergy said.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!