The Official Debate Championship Shit Talking Thread!

Ring_Girl.jpg
 
OMG... Chicklet the chucklet loses what is arguably one of the easiest debate positions in the history of debates, to 3d? WOW!

Is the theory of macroevolution true?

The question answers itself. A "theory" is neither "true" or "false" it is a theoretical consideration. You can argue if your believe the theory is true or false, but the theory itself, makes no distinction, it is just a theory. In actuality, it could be true, false, or somewhere in between, meaning certain parts of the theory could be true while other parts are false. Needless to say, the person proposing the theory, certainly believes the theory to be valid, but true? Most scientists would shy away from proclaiming anything related to science so definitively, as this is a basic fundamental aspect to science, the continuous questioning of the universe around us. When we establish conclusion, we have stopped asking questions and have stopped practicing science, we have adopted a faith in something.
 
Dixie said:
OMG... Chicklet the chucklet loses what is arguably one of the easiest debate positions in the history of debates, to 3d? WOW!

Is the theory of macroevolution true?

The question answers itself. A "theory" is neither "true" or "false" it is a theoretical consideration. You can argue if your believe the theory is true or false, but the theory itself, makes no distinction, it is just a theory. In actuality, it could be true, false, or somewhere in between, meaning certain parts of the theory could be true while other parts are false. Needless to say, the person proposing the theory, certainly believes the theory to be valid, but true? Most scientists would shy away from proclaiming anything related to science do definitively, as this is a basic fundamental aspect to science, the continuous questioning of the universe around us. When we establish conclusion, we have stopped asking questions and have stopped practicing science, we have adopted a faith in something.
Click to expand...

He lost it because he was "too busy".

Suddenly, "chronology of the posts is your undoing", "willfully ignorant neocon parrot", and "your done!" take too much of his time to type.
 
Dixie, scientists frequently refer to the "fact of evolution," they have so much data to support it. By using the scientific definitions of micro and macro, there has been plenty of evidence found for macroevolution.

*sigh*
 
Threedee said:
Dixie, scientists frequently refer to the "fact of evolution," they have so much data to support it. By using the scientific definitions of micro and macro, there has been plenty of evidence found for macroevolution.

*sigh*
Click to expand...

God, I would have shredded your ass in this debate. Almost makes me wish I signed up! Good god, listen to yourself man?

There is no such thing as definitive "facts" in science, that is the antithesis OF science! Whenever you dismiss the question; Why?, you have abandoned science for faith. Whenever you have established that something is definitively determined for all eternity, you then rely on faith with any challenge to that belief. Science establishes placeholders, points at which we know with reasonable certainty, based on current understandings and findings, but these are not to be mistaken for benchmarks or carved-in-stone proclamation of some empirical proof. They are placeholders for what we know and understand of our universe at the present time. We don't know everything, we'll never know everything. Science has ZERO explanation for a vast array of things related to our even being in existence, to presume it all can be explained or even fully comprehended. I mean, 200 years ago, we were still shitting in the woods, we just aren't all that advanced yet.

Is a scientific theory true? It's neither "true" or "false" it is neutral, as are all theories in science. This is why they are called "theories" and not "truths" of science.
 
So, basically, you would commit the fallacies of appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad adserdum, and appeal to proles. That would make my job more boring, as I would have to explain myself to a 5-year-old rather than really talk about macroevolution facts, but you sure as hell wouldn't win. Not even 1/3 of the judges points.
 
Are you serious? You can't prove your faith anymore than I can prove mine. If they were were to cleverly engineer a clone of you that's the exact same article, except intelligent, the things we we would find common ground on would be scientific facts.
 
Dixie said:
OMG... Chicklet the chucklet loses what is arguably one of the easiest debate positions in the history of debates, to 3d? WOW!

Is the theory of macroevolution true?

The question answers itself. A "theory" is neither "true" or "false" it is a theoretical consideration. You can argue if your believe the theory is true or false, but the theory itself, makes no distinction, it is just a theory. In actuality, it could be true, false, or somewhere in between, meaning certain parts of the theory could be true while other parts are false. Needless to say, the person proposing the theory, certainly believes the theory to be valid, but true? Most scientists would shy away from proclaiming anything related to science so definitively, as this is a basic fundamental aspect to science, the continuous questioning of the universe around us. When we establish conclusion, we have stopped asking questions and have stopped practicing science, we have adopted a faith in something.
Click to expand...

Dixie, you continue to miss the entire point of this competition. Whether either side is is right or wrong is irrelevant. This is a debate competition. How you present your argument is all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top