NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone here who feels their debate skills match up to the rest of the forum... even when they're argueing an almost completely indefensible position? (eg: The Trademark arguement for God's existance, Aliens at Roswell, Mind/body dualism, corporeal-continued afterlifes, that sort of thing.)

Want me to argue that black is white?

Arguing indefensible positions seems to be a bit of a passtime around here! :p

Arguing indefensible positions seems to be a bit of a passtime around here! :p
Yes, but usually not by people who are aware that their position is indefensible.

Want me to argue that black is white?
You could, but you'd get killed on a zebra crossing soon after.

Hey, i'll give it a shot. Topic?

Hey, i'll give it a shot. Topic?
Trademark arguement
(We know god exists because he stamped an idea of himself onto our minds in the same way that a silversmith stamps his trademark onto his work)

OR
Corporeal-continued afterlife
(That your body, be it decomposing, burnt to cinders or cut up and contained in the bellies of various different fish, comes with you into the afterlife)

Ouch. Umm. Wow, this really is indefensible, I don't know bible quotes or anything. Heh. Let me meditate zen like on an initial argument for either of the above for 5 minutes or so. :p

*runs out the door*

j/k :D

Corporeal-continued afterlife must be true, because every incident that you suffer that leaves a permanent mark on your body shapes your soul in a specific way. To assume that the body remains in its original form would imply that your spirit never changes, which it can in mysterious ways.

Furthermore; if you die at Age 80, do you expect to be re-endowed with the body of, say, a 30 year old? This would be removing all the marks left upon your spirit by 50 years of life...

Give me a position and I'll see what I can do.

this sounds hilarious, whats the topic

Corporeal-continued afterlife. Now, prove me wrong :D

2+2=5

Read 1984.

Ah, Stalinist arithmetic :)

Anyone here who feels their debate skills match up to the rest of the forum... even when they're argueing an almost completely indefensible position?
take a look what i did in the interracial thread...

Trademark arguement
(We know god exists because he stamped an idea of himself onto our minds in the same way that a silversmith stamps his trademark onto his work)

OR
Corporeal-continued afterlife
(That your body, be it decomposing, burnt to cinders or cut up and contained in the bellies of various different fish, comes with you into the afterlife)

To take an argument used against me elsewhere in the forum, We know that God must exist because so many people have come to accept the existence of God and we are all impinged by the same existential universe. In simpler terms, we can know that there is a God because everyone has the same understanding of the concept of God despite differences in experience.

Of course that argument is complete bullsh-t and doesn't hold up under any logical scrutiny, but that's not the point is it?

No one argues that there is a corporeal afterlife. The argument is that at the end of corporeal life the body dies and decomposes, but it doesn't matter any more because the soul undergoes a second baptism and exists in the Kingdom of Heaven or Hell as an incorporeal entitiy.

2+2=5

Read 1984.

2+2 plainly equals 22. Don't you know anything?

I belive god does'nt exist. The idea of it is impossible, the only reason so many people belive is because they were eithier raised that way or they cant use an objective mind and dissmiss what the populous tells them to belive.

2+2 plainly equals 22. Don't you know anything?

NO! It plainly equals 5. Why can't you ignorant fools see this. I know! You must be a liberal atheist terrorist scumbag! From now on I will listen to nothing you say and clearly ignore all logic.

Trademark arguement
(We know god exists because he stamped an idea of himself onto our minds in the same way that a silversmith stamps his trademark onto his work)

I understand. :)

I belive god does'nt exist. The idea of it is impossible, the only reason so many people belive is because they were eithier raised that way or they cant use an objective mind and dissmiss what the populous tells them to belive.

The same argument could be argued by saying the only reason so many don't have faith is because they chose to believe in the way they were raised. Actually you make a fine argument on why to know and understand God. If you dismiss what any populous tells you to do and just had faith in you're own abilities to lead then once again you will truly find the source of this matter. God
I still can not figure out why it took me so long to understand but then again all it takes is understanding the truth when it is sitting right in front of you. No more dwelling on false tales here, only dredging for the truth for me. Yes

I belive god does'nt exist. The idea of it is impossible, the only reason so many people belive is because they were eithier raised that way or they cant use an objective mind and dissmiss what the populous tells them to belive.

So religious people are brainwashed but you're entirely objective... interesting... Have you ever exampled the possibility that you too have been brainwashed? And let us not forget that at some point these ideas about God had to originate, they can't be perpetuated though socialization but have no beginning. It is my contention that no judgment can be made as to the validity of your or any other arugment about metaphysical existence based on the flawed and limited evidence of human observation.

NO! It plainly equals 5. Why can't you ignorant fools see this. I know! You must be a liberal atheist terrorist scumbag! From now on I will listen to nothing you say and clearly ignore all logic.

Well I don't know about liberal, atheist, or scumbag, but aside from that I'd say you've got me down pretty well, though you are clearly ignorant of the mechanics of mathematics. When you position a "2" next to another "2" and "add" them together you get "22" not "5." To get "5" you need to rotate the "2" 180 degrees, not add another "2" to it.

The only problem I have with the whole religion thing is people are following stories from two thousand years ago, a time in which people were not known for being the smartest. The stories told are just ridiculous, maybe in another two thousand years after nuklear war kills all but a sprig of humanity the people will find a harry potter book and start worshiping the wizard god.

The only problem I have with the whole religion thing is people are following stories from two thousand years ago, a time in which people were not known for being the smartest. The stories told are just ridiculous, maybe in another two thousand years after nuklear war kills all but a sprig of humanity the people will find a harry potter book and start worshiping the wizard god.

Interestingly enough, people in Biblical times are suspected to have been smarter on average than people today, they just weren't as well educated because they did not have the knowledge we have since discovered. The smartest people on the planet now are isolated Pacific Islanders.

Your analogy isn't very good. We did not just now discover the Bible and start believing it, it has been around as part of Western culture for the entire time between its origin and today (excluding a short period in which all it's messages became corrupted, but that's another story entirely). A better analogy would be people today starting worshiping the wizard God and continuing for the next 2000 years.

Interestingly enough, people in Biblical times are suspected to have been smarter on average than people today, they just weren't as well educated because they did not have the knowledge we have since discovered. The smartest people on the planet now are isolated Pacific Islanders.

Your analogy isn't very good. We did not just now discover the Bible and start believing it, it has been around as part of Western culture for the entire time between its origin and today (excluding a short period in which all it's messages became corrupted, but that's another story entirely). A better analogy would be people today starting worshiping the wizard God and continuing for the next 2000 years.

I'll give you that but you cannot simply tell me that over the six billion years (estimated) the earth was around the one god made himself known two thousand years ago and suddenly just stopped when it gets to our turn.

i think we've strayed a bit from topic maybe

Want me to argue that black is white?

We did that im first year philosophy, is not so hard

I'll give you that but you cannot simply tell me that over the six billion years (estimated) the earth was around the one god made himself known two thousand years ago and suddenly just stopped when it gets to our turn.

It's actually a lot close to four and a half billion years based on geological evidence. If God decided to come only once it's not particularly surprising that it wasn't in our lifetimes. Also, many people argue that God shows himself through his works at all times.

i think we've strayed a bit from topic maybe

No, this is perfect, both sides of the argument are indefensible.

We did that im first year philosophy, is not so hard
Hey, go for it then.

No, this is perfect, both sides of the argument are indefensible.

Then why are we arguing... How bout them Astros!

The only problem I have with the whole religion thing is people are following stories from two thousand years ago, a time in which people were not known for being the smartest. The stories told are just ridiculous, maybe in another two thousand years after nuklear war kills all but a sprig of humanity the people will find a harry potter book and start worshiping the wizard god.

Actually, if you are specifically referring to Christianity, those "stories" start long before two thousand years ago....two thousand years ago would be when the second half of the bible started! And for those of us who believe in Christianity and creation, God (and our religion) has been around for all time - the book was written from the religion, not the religion formed from the book.

AND....I don't think anyone spelling nuclear as "nuklear" and making analogies with Harry Potter books should be knocking the intelligence of our ancestors...

From a Scientific stand point you can't prove God exists, nor you can you prove God does not exist. The idea of God is based off something that requires no scientific evidence whatsoever. So a person can say they believe there is a God becuase you cannot prove that there is not one.

AND....I don't think anyone spelling nuclear as "nuklear" and making analogies with Harry Potter books should be knocking the intelligence of our ancestors...

Calm down, you dont have to cry about it.

Calm down, you dont have to cry about it.

Sorry - I didn't mean to sound whiney, or snotty for that matter. I just think that if people are trying to debate something, it is more effective to sound educated (especially if one of your statements is regarding the intelligence of others).

I can logically argue that if you drop a pencil it will never hit the floor.

Here is the argument:

Say your hand (with the pencil in it) is four feet off the floor when you let the pencil go. Before the pencil can travel the entire four feet it has to travel half way, right? And before it can travel the two feet (halfway) it must travel half way again, correct? And before it travels that one foot it must travel half way yet again. And so on and so on.

Each unit of distance can be divided infinitely, so the number of units of space between your hand and the floor is infinite. How long does it take for an object to travel an infinite number of spaces? An infinite amount of time.

Therefore the pencil dropped from your hand will never logically hit the floor.

Does that qualify as arguing for an indefensible position?

From a Scientific stand point you can't prove God exists, nor you can you prove God does not exist. The idea of God is based off something that requires no scientific evidence whatsoever. So a person can say they believe there is a God becuase you cannot prove that there is not one.

You are right, we can´t prove that got does not exist, then again, you can´t prove that harry potter does not exist.

It is not the function of science to prove a negative. The onus is on the one with a hypothesis to prove or disprove it. This is something conspiracy theorists and alien abduction folks never comprehend.

It is not for science to "prove" the existance or non-existance of deities. Nor would any person of faith want them to.

Remember, the opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.

I argue that all of your arguments are wrong. Prove me wrong ;)

what the F are you talking about???
resurrection of the flesh is INDEFENSIBLE??
the bible says so, buddyboy
AND the catholic church backs it up
when jesus comes back we will all be put back into whatever body we died with. (what a disappointment, i would really rather have an upgrade)

What are you, some kind of godless athiest???

The Salem With Trials were right. They were essential to keep the community together in a hostile environment.

1 + 1 is 10

And as for the pencil idea, the summation of all of the series of distances is 4, and as you get to smaller and smaller units of space, the velocity of the pencil increases porportionatly, so if you have an infinitely small distance for it to drop, the velocity of the pencil is infinte, canceling out the infintesmal distance, therefore it reaches the floor.

what the F are you talking about???
resurrection of the flesh is INDEFENSIBLE??
the bible says so, buddyboy
AND the catholic church backs it up
when jesus comes back we will all be put back into whatever body we died with. (what a disappointment, i would really rather have an upgrade)

Our truth is that we will be put into our original shells (bodies), Yes. Something we have noticed is that there is no I in we or us and since when you are one with God then and only then are we able to truly say I with any meaning. We try to stray away from saying anything but us, we and so on. Until true meaning has formed from being one with God, until it is known for truth that one has become from Jesus it should be said in plural form. :) I is truly a selfish term until we all understand one another. I just learned this very recently.

The pencil argument is flawed. The infinity your are asserting is an infinity of divisions, not an infinity of discreet distances. You can slice a pie into how every man pieces you wish, but its' mass remains constant. In this case, without going into metaphysics, the distance is constant no matter how often you divide it via measurement.

2+2=5

Read 1984.

VERY easy.

Let '2' be the symbol representing the integer two

Let '5' be the symbol representing the integer four

Let '+' be the symbol indicating you take the sum of the adjaecent integers.

Let '=' be the symbol indicating that there is an exact correspondence between the two sides of the equation.

Therefore:

2 + 2 = 5. QED.



You see, the symbol '5' doesn't mean five anymore than 'V' does - it's just a symbol, one damn symbol after another.

How about something truly offensive...

Defend the statement 'Hitler was right.'

2+2=5

Read 1984.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Truth.

I'll happily argue those

I hate the fact that I'm such a bad writer (in English). I read my own posts and wonder how anyone can sound this simple and stupid. Honestly, I understand English very well, I read my Time every week and watch movies/tvseries mostly in English, but when I have to write it myself, I always forgot all the fancy words and use short sentences (except now...). And as I haven't had a need for it for a long time, I make a lot of typos and use bad grammar. But I suppose you all have used to it already.
But, I don't want to make this post too long, so I'll submitit now and get back to these issues very soon....

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Truth.

I'll happily argue those
Knowledge adds the pain

One of you must know what phrase I meant...that's just the straight translation ;)

VERY easy.

Let '2' be the symbol representing the integer two

Let '5' be the symbol representing the integer four

Let '+' be the symbol indicating you take the sum of the adjaecent integers.

Let '=' be the symbol indicating that there is an exact correspondence between the two sides of the equation.

Therefore:

2 + 2 = 5. QED.



You see, the symbol '5' doesn't mean five anymore than 'V' does - it's just a symbol, one damn symbol after another.

How about something truly offensive...

Defend the statement 'Hitler was right.'

Your whole argument is constructed of verbal symbols, many of which have no correspondence with the existential universe, how can we possibly hope to comprehend your meaning?

"Rightness" being subjective allows for a single action to be viewed as both right and wrong. From the point of view of the Allied Powers Hitler was "wrong" but from his own point of view he was "right" and the Allies were "wrong." Neither of them had any knowledge that the other didn't, they simply saw things differently. And then we kicked his ass, so we right the history, and he's not just "wrong," he's "bad" and even "evil."

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Truth.

I'll happily argue those

I need a white t-shirt.

I have t-shirt transfers and I'm going to put "Thought Criminal" on the front of a t-shirt in black writing and on the back it will have those three slogans in blue on white, white on red, and red on white, respectively.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Truth.

I need a white t-shirt.

I have t-shirt transfers and I'm going to put "Thought Criminal" on the front of a t-shirt in black writing and on the back it will have those three slogans in blue on white, white on red, and red on white, respectively.

Good idea!

Want me to argue that black is white?
Black is the lack of color (no visable light). On paper, the lack of color (nothing reflecting) is white. Ergo, black in some cases can mean white.

Black is the lack of color (no visable light). On paper, the lack of color (nothing reflecting) is white. Ergo, black in some cases can mean white.

I also have some bumper sticker stock.

http://www.geocities.com/ajprax/Divided_We_Stand_big.JPG for either a bumper sticker or a t-shirt

http://www.geocities.com/ajprax/TC.JPG for the front of the shirt
http://www.geocities.com/ajprax/WISFISISS.JPG for the back of the shirt
though I haven't settled on what font I want to use.

2+2=5

Read 1984.
2.4 (rounds to 2) + 2.4 (rounds to 2) = 4.8 (rounds to 5)

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Truth.

I'll happily argue those


1984's slogan was "Ignorance is Strength."

Just a heads up

1 + 1 is 10

And as for the pencil idea, the summation of all of the series of distances is 4, and as you get to smaller and smaller units of space, the velocity of the pencil increases porportionatly, so if you have an infinitely small distance for it to drop, the velocity of the pencil is infinte, canceling out the infintesmal distance, therefore it reaches the floor.
there are 10 kinds of people in the world

those who understand binary
and those who dont

Our truth is that we will be put into our original shells (bodies), Yes. Something we have noticed is that there is no I in we or us and since when you are one with God then and only then are we able to truly say I with any meaning. We try to stray away from saying anything but us, we and so on. Until true meaning has formed from being one with God, until it is known for truth that one has become from Jesus it should be said in plural form. :) I is truly a selfish term until we all understand one another. I just learned this very recently.
i dont understand what you said but since you agree with me (i think) ill defend to the death your right to say it!

The pencil argument is flawed. The infinity your are asserting is an infinity of divisions, not an infinity of discreet distances. You can slice a pie into how every man pieces you wish, but its' mass remains constant. In this case, without going into metaphysics, the distance is constant no matter how often you divide it via measurement.


Obviously my argument is flawed - I'm arguing in favor of an indefensible position. Since my position is indefensible my only option is to use linguistic smoke and mirrors. I think we all know the pencil really hits the floor.

I wonder if anybody could argue 'All your base are belong to us'