The Official Debate Championship Shit Talking Thread!

Also, Dixtard, if you think you could have won, why didn't you volunteer to debate when Grind pretty much begged you to? Friggin' renob, just STFU already!!
 
Threedee said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I have some pretty significant sources for my viewpoints on science, Albert Einstein being one, Stephen William Hawking, another. You were in the impossible end of a horrible debate question. Macroevolution can never be "proven true" as the question seemed to indicate. It would contradict Science to do so, because science doesn't deal in faith. Science demands that you continue to ask why, and not draw conclusions or establish definitive facts. Whenever you establish something to be "the truth" it is defined, there is no more room to ever question or apply further scientific evaluation.

Is there validity to the theory of macroevolution? Totally different framing of the question, and what you wanted to debate. That would have been interesting, but once again, the question was framed in a rather ill-fated way, and you are fortunate Chicklet the Chucklet is such a wuss.. You really skated by on that one, I think.
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I don't miss the point of a good debate, I understand fully. In fact, I thought the one about reparations to Native Americans was awesome. And the 'side' of the argument that I actually don't support politically, won the debate on sheer debate prowess skill, it was a masterful debate by someone I generally disagree with on the board, that was the ironic thing about it. But the question was legitimate, the rest have been horrible. This was one of the worst.

You can't debate an non-debatable question! It's just STOOOPID!


...And that is precisely why I haven't participated in this travesty to good debates!
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

wrong wrong wrong wrong WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG
 
Rar Im a Dinosaur! said:
a scientific theory is not the same as your theory of which type of animal keeps shitting in your shoes.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it was. There is certainly a difference between a "scientific" theory, and a garden variety theory, I fully understand that. But there is a fundamental reason science 'borrows' the word. The essence of a theory is not a statement of factual truth or conclusion. It can't be, and still be a theory in science. Once the question of 'truth' has been determined, there is no further purpose or function of scientific evaluation, it becomes a matter of faith in belief of the 'truth' instead.
 
Ok, no offense to Zap, I think he put up a good OS, but he hasn't rebutted mine, answer my question, or asked me his. I know has a real life, but we set up these rules here, and haven't been following them very closely in nearly half the debates.
 
Stupid Superstition said:
Ok, no offense to Zap, I think he put up a good OS, but he hasn't rebutted mine, answer my question, or asked me his. I know has a real life, but we set up these rules here, and haven't been following them very closely in nearly half the debates.
Click to expand...
I say give him till 5 pm today and if he hasn't completed his arguments then you win by default. That would be a shame, His opening statement was very good. So was yours btw.
 
the rules state 24 hours. We've been lax with some people because the other debator didn't mind waiting, or we spent time getting an alternate so the alternate got to start at a later time. plus it's always better to get the debate finished if possible.

That said, bender is within his rights to call the debate. I think I have told others this after the 24 hour period as well. Some people let it run, some dont. Bender if you want to call the debate, let me know. I would try to give zappas a bit more time though just out of a show of good will
 
Rar Im a Dinosaur! said:
the rules state 24 hours. We've been lax with some people because the other debator didn't mind waiting, or we spent time getting an alternate so the alternate got to start at a later time. plus it's always better to get the debate finished if possible.

That said, bender is within his rights to call the debate. I think I have told others this after the 24 hour period as well. Some people let it run, some dont. Bender if you want to call the debate, let me know. I would try to give zappas a bit more time though just out of a show of good will
Click to expand...
I'll go till 5pm tonight, since afterwords I will be unavailable to answer his question.
 
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...

Typical Dix...too gutless to step up and participate, but always willing to complain about things from the outside...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Typical Dix...too gutless to step up and participate, but always willing to complain about things from the outside...
Click to expand...

LMFAOOooooo! Gutless? HAHAHAHAHAH! That's funny ZappedBrain!

So far, with the exception of one question, they all sound like something a 7-year-old came up with. The questions deal with substantive issues, with the exception of "Cats or Dogs", but it's mostly how the questions are framed. Just a really simplistic pattern of thought, with regard to context of the question.

At what point does human life begin, birth or conception?

Should have been: When should human life become protected by the constitution? Human life begins at conception, there is no debate on that. The question is flawed by an untenable premise, that life can begin at some point other than when it does begin.

Is Rap music torture?

Again, a terrible framing of a question. Should playing rap music to interrogate be considered torture? Completely different framing of the question, and it makes for an interesting debate. Instead, we get two morons arguing whether rap music is good or bad.

Should pot be legalized?
Good question, but there was no debate.

Is homosexuality a mental illness?
Again, do you mean, if the AMA doesn't classify it as such? It's kind of a hard topic to debate, because it is largely subjective to opinion and uncertain facts. Is liberalism a mental illness? would have been a better question!

Is the theory of macroevolution true?
And of course, theories can be neither true or false. The question answers itself. It's sort of like asking, is my opinion true? Again, a simple re-framing of the question could have made for a good debate topic.

I had several reasons for not participating in this thing, I saw what a clusterfuck it was going to be from the start, when I saw who was involved with it.... Grind, Mott, and Damo.... talk about a Three-Ring-Circus! The questions sucked, I think Grind or Mott came up with them in a few minutes, while taking a dump! Just real amateurish and dumb, from the perspective of actual competitive debate. I am really kind of surprised by this, I thought we had a contingent of pinhead egghead types who understood debating, and how to do this stuff, but we get this joke of a 'contest' instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top