frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Best Agree Content

  • Did Kathy Griffin go way too far?

    Although I don't agree with what she did, and I think she went too far, she still had the right to do that.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • The earth is flat

    Erfisflat said:

    @AlwaysCorrect
    "You think the basis of the scientific method is based on based on a random image sourced from google"

    sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
    noun
    1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

      Still no "peer review" or let the other guy's do it for you...

      "That makes no sense and is very stupid"


    "Here's a link which explains in details"

    Dead link.

    "Lastly, you've already admitted your ignorance - asking very basic questions about the process of peer review."

    I guess my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I meant it to be. Are you suggesting that only a certain group of people are worthy of being my peer? If not, the experiment is there, it has been reviewed (by peers) and you choose to ignore it (you are my peer, review it). So keep cherry picking.

    Also I've not inserted any opinion anywhere in the experiment, if you have a problem you'd like to point at, do so, until then you're just kicking the stone.
    You'll note that you do not defend your argument of relying on random images to provide definitions. Do you therefore concede that it was stupid of you to make that argument.

    You also show your ignorance by misusing logical fallacies. Your argument made no sense in the most literal definition of the word. Did you provide any evidence or reasoning why a random image should be trusted as to the basis of the scientific method? Refusing to accept illogical, unsupported and insensible argument is actually logicalyl sound. the burden of proof is on you to support your claims, dieas and theories. As you cannot and indeed here retreat, my assessment is vindicated.

    As the your new defence, a dictionary definition, that suits you perfectly. The most simplistic definition with no thought or analysis and no desire to understand anythign except the msot superficial aspec ts of what something means - and even then only to try and defend yourself from looking stupid. On the other hand, see what an expert opinion says: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01

    "this version (e.g. the one you suggest) of the scientific method is so simplified and rigid that it fails to accurately portray how real science works"

    It goes on to explain how peer review is a key component of the process. Indeed fi you continue to read you'll see that even when I've expanded on it, in practice there is far more to the scientific method. Lastly you'll note that even by your own standards you fall short. You've yet to provide anything to my requests, let alone "systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". What is this, the fifth post in a row you've refused to back up your claims? Even if you wanted me to peer review your evidence, how can i peer review what doesn't exist?

    Lastly, to peer review something you should be an expert. A random person isn't going to be able to assess an ancient script was written in the 3rd or 4th century BC. They won't be able to tell whether a complicated quantum formalae is right. The sort of inwards navel gazing you indulge in where fellow flat earters agree with each other without any thought is not peer review.
    CovenyErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • 9/11

    I agree with @1Hacker0, that picture is pretty clearly photoshopped. 
    1Hacker0
  • The earth is flat

    Erfisflat said:
    "Of course the fact you seem unaware of even the basic workings of the scientific method really shows that all your claims about proving things scientifically is nothing but a farce and you in fact have no idea what you're talking about."



    Hmmm. I don't see "peer review" Or "trust the other guy's opinion" anywhere in the steps of the scientific method. Of course the fact you seem unaware of even the basic workings of the scientific method really shows that all your claims about proving things scientifically is nothing but a farce and you in fact have no idea what you're talking about.
    You think the basis of the scientific method is decided based on based on a random image sourced from google? Rather then any actual knowledge or understanding of the scientific method? That makes no sense and is very stupid.

    If it were actually a valid argument I could respond with images of my own, but of course it's a nonsense argument. Here's a link which explains in details some of the steps which apply to running scientific experiments: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/how_science_works.pdf. ;

    Lastly, you've already admitted your ignorance - asking very basic questions about the process of peer review. Why on earth would your opinion be trusted on something you've shown yourself to be ignorant of?

    I note that you still don't provide any of the requested evidence.
    ErfisflatCovenyEvidence
  • Cannabis

    @passedbill There is no evidence that cannabis is harmful, that's just an excuse to keep marijuana illegal and the actual dangerous drugs legal. On the contrary there is a ton of proof that it is beneficial, but of course we have to protected by being put in a giant cage if we dare stop taking pharmaceuticals
    ErfisflatWoodenWood
  • The earth is flat

    @Erfisflat @SilverishGoldNova Interesting coveny can't say anything or else he's a troll or using fallacies. Also I think the reason you're calling TFES shills is because you realize it makes you seem hypocritical
    Coveny
  • What is Devil's Tower?

    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm surprised there are no arguments against this, @Coveny,you pretend to know alot, care to take a stab?
    So what bats*** are you two spreading this time? 
    "you two" im pretty sure I wasn't arguing for anything in this thread, but I'm pretty sure by you 2 you're secretly refering to me
    Don't feed the troll
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Feminist intersectionality is absurd

    I can easily see that while @JuicyMelonTech didn't specify "Feminist" instersectionality each time the reference of intersectionality was made, it's implied through the title of the debate.  Therefor there has been no misrepresentation of what intersectionality is.  One could argue that Feminist Intersectionality has been misrepresented in this case but that would require evidence or logical reasoning that shows that Feminism doesn't hold the OP's listed ideology.  There also isn't a reference anywhere in the OP's opening argument that states "Intersectionality is innately feminist", instead @JuicyMelonTech is making a statement specifically about "Feminist" Intersectionality.  An example of this would be the difference between Conservatism and Roman Catholic Conservatism.

    While I can agree that @JuicyMelonTech hasn't necessarily provided proof or substantial evidence that Feminism is characterized by this ideology...I doubt you'd find many people here that would disagree.  3rd wave Feminism has a bad reputation for being characterized by angry, man-hating feminazis and there's no secret Man-archy out there that's filling everyone's head with that idea.  Feminists are doing a great job all by themselves of making the movement look like an angry mob of fat lesbians who are out to crush Men.

    Consider the following polls and explanations.  You'll see a distinct pattern that a majority of Americans aren't willing to either agree with Feminism or accept the Label but for some reason still agree that Men and Women should have equality in all aspects.  Feminism is the advocacy of Women's Rights on the basis of equality of the sexes and while polls show that a vast majority of the U.S. agrees in the idea of Women's Rights and equality of the sexes...they don't agree with Feminism.  Might I offer that this is because Feminism has transformed over the years from a passionate movement for Women's Rights into an ugly, nasty hateful movement characterized by mean Women who shriek and scream at people that simply disagree with them?

    http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/09/82-percent-of-americans-dont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/6715/feminism-whats-name.aspx
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/25/poll-most-americans-think-feminism-is-too-extreme/
    https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/02/23/less-than-third-women-feminists/

    I only know a few people who are proud feminists...and they're all insufferable Women with extreme ideas about how Men are the root of all evil, Men are on the warpath to force women into domestic slavery, and Women can't rise up to greatness in our society because Men are oppressing them.  IF Feminism truly is a good thing, then it's a shame that the Feminists who appear in the Media are screwing it up for the good ones...who coincidentally I've never met.
    If you don't look at any of the polls, look at this.



    joecavalryJuicyMelonTech
  • The earth is flat

    Coveny said:
    If only @Erfisflat, @Evidence, and @SilverishGoldNova knew the pain they cause others...




    Yes, @Coveny ;this describes me before I learned of the F.E. truth, .. stupid. Also when I first remarked on @Erfisflat F.E. Posts,  that came from my stupidity, .. but now that I've seen the light/information/evidence I am not stupid anymore, because: "I'm a Flat Earther". No more tinfoil hats, no more ignorantly posting pictures of NASA sci-fi planets on my wall, no more getting all excited over pictures from NASA of the Mars Rover in Greenland, no more talking about wishing I've become an Astronaut, or telling my children to become one, but instead, I have this deep felt sympathy for Glober's, .. it's like seeing a lady in a wheelchair struggling to open the door, .. I just want to run there and help, and I'm sure my fellow F.E's feel the same way.

    "We feel your pain Coveny!" because while you're still alive, you are dead, .. dead wrong.

    And no, .. we don't see you as someone in a wheelchair trying to open a door, but we see you as someone perfectly healthy who is pushing on the door with all his might, when there is a big sign on the door stating: "Pull to Open".

    What's even worse is that we point to the sign on the door for you, .. you read it, .. and you keep on pushing!? What can we do but watch?
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • Social justice is absurd

    @AlwaysCorrect I accept that the claims you are making are baseless and useless.  I'm pointing out the fundamental weakness of affirmative action which you refuse to address.  Only when you address the core flaw can we have a discussion.
    JuicyMelonTechVaulk

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch