“Maybe in fifteen years, she could run for president?” Ivana Trump writes.
-
+ New Debate
- Debate Clubs
- Debate News
- About
- Support Us More
frame
Best Recent Content
-
Trump supporters: What are you going to do if/when Trump is impeached?
Nothing will change for me as a taxpayer. I don't rely on govt for anything. I will just hate govt even more and wish everyone involved in said impeachment dies of aids or ebola. Won't affect me at all. I will still have to get up and go to work, pay bills and do what I always do. I will just figure out new ways to undermine and hide from govt. The only thing govt has ever done that has affected me personally is confiscate my wealth and devalue the dollars I have left. Fck the federal govt, it's a worthless usless pile of sht to me. Doesn't matter who is President it's all the unelcted aholes that run all the federal agencies that screw me.
-
What's the libertarian stance on environmental regulation?
There are as many stances as there are libertarians. What unites us is our preference of individual freedoms and liberties over collective values - but many of us also realize that individual freedoms and liberties often collide, and the collective sometimes has to step in to resolve individual conflicts. The difference between us and the conventional classical liberals is that we usually only allow for the most minor intervention and in the most urgent cases, directly threatening people's lives or assets. Beyond that, the specific policies we advocate for strongly vary between us. Not all of us are strongly against taxes, although we generally advocate for much smaller tax rates than, say, classical liberals do.
Personally, I do not support carbon taxes: they are too direct and invasive. Creating natural economical incentives is generally a more solid approach than penalizing non-abiding the desired behaviors. Rather than taxing companies for producing carbon dioxide, I would prefer to see tax exemptions to those companies that champion environment-friendly technologies. You could say that the difference is merely semantic, because the outcome is the same: those who produce carbon dioxide pay higher taxes than those who do not... It is not entirely false. However, in practice human behavior on the free market strongly differs for these two approaches, and I think that my suggestion will lead to a much softer transition towards environment-friendly technologies, than the brute force approach - which is more likely to lead to the companies falsifying data in order to stay competitive and to avoid higher taxation. -
Do you believe the discoveries that scientists are finding out about the universe?
The Universe is not a vacuum, because it is full of stuff and space is simply a reality and God is a figment of the human imagination and for the time being the answer is out of reach. Maybe someday, something will work it all out.Evidence said:JustIgnoreMe said:Evidence said:WilliamSchulz said:Casual debate that questions the proof that scientists will give us for certain discoveries in the universe. Do you believe what they tell us, or do you have a different point of view?
Actually I take that back, I do believe what "scientists" are telling us about what they observe in the world around us, including that we have stars in our heaven!
Stars, .. not objects called planets named after pagan Greek and Roman gods like Mars. Jupiter, Venus etc.
We Believers in Infinite God can see the I.D. in all of His creations, and studying His creation is what we Believers, or Flat Earthers do, but claiming that there is an expanding vacuum out there filled with giant balls of burning gas, planets and black holes that can suck an entire imaginary galaxy up into itself, .. or that animals and especially humans popped out of a rock that was sweating salt water for billions of years, which it held to the rock by a magical force called gravity keeping the mist from being frozen, or sucked up by the vacuum of space, which is what would happen according to scientific experiments where we put water in a vacuum, .. such claims are NOT science.
With the help of God, once we put an end to this Religion called Evolution and Big-Bang, we can once again reestablish the true meaning of "science". We are sick and tired of Organized Religions interpreting both God, and the definition of science for us!
1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or ...?
2) "expanding" universe
When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.
3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/
4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?
Sorry @JustIgnoreMe I honestly didn't mean to ignore you.
1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or …?
They are stars, and not like our sun but all kinds of different, beautiful stars, like Flat Earthers shown you with our telescopes and cameras, .. not artist rendered images of sci-fi planets.
2) "expanding" universe
When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.
13.75 billion years isn't eternal, nor does two distant stars that look like they are moving away from each other mean the heaven (whatever medium the stars are in) is stretching and is now Infinite. Cannot "stretch" Infinite.
3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/
Ever heard of a vacuum chamber? Here is one that we built for NASA:
Now let me see them put a hamster in his sealed ball in there, then open it up and see how many billions of years it would take for the air molecules in the hamster-ball to gradually dissipate into the vacuum chamber? Not to mention water, which instantly boils, then freezes in a vacuum.
Now imagine if the walls of the vacuum chamber were expanding at:
- Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years) - Google
So you still think your Globe, covered in air and water would last more than a few minutes in a giant expanding vacuum chamber called; Universe/space*(r)
(*Universe/space is a registered trademark of NASA and those who run the UN)
4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Light/order God called day, and darkness/chaos He called night. Before God fixed up the earth again in Genesis 1:2 there was no sun or moon, or stars, nor will we have a sun or moon on that New Earth and New Heavens that God and His son Word (aka Jesus Christ) is preparing for those who love him, because well be changed into incorruptible bodies that thrive on Gods love/order. But those who hate God and His order/light, will have a place without God, in darkness/chaos where they will have eternity to wait for a Big-Banged universe to live in.
-
Do you believe the discoveries that scientists are finding out about the universe?
JustIgnoreMe said:Evidence said:WilliamSchulz said:Casual debate that questions the proof that scientists will give us for certain discoveries in the universe. Do you believe what they tell us, or do you have a different point of view?
Actually I take that back, I do believe what "scientists" are telling us about what they observe in the world around us, including that we have stars in our heaven!
Stars, .. not objects called planets named after pagan Greek and Roman gods like Mars. Jupiter, Venus etc.
We Believers in Infinite God can see the I.D. in all of His creations, and studying His creation is what we Believers, or Flat Earthers do, but claiming that there is an expanding vacuum out there filled with giant balls of burning gas, planets and black holes that can suck an entire imaginary galaxy up into itself, .. or that animals and especially humans popped out of a rock that was sweating salt water for billions of years, which it held to the rock by a magical force called gravity keeping the mist from being frozen, or sucked up by the vacuum of space, which is what would happen according to scientific experiments where we put water in a vacuum, .. such claims are NOT science.
With the help of God, once we put an end to this Religion called Evolution and Big-Bang, we can once again reestablish the true meaning of "science". We are sick and tired of Organized Religions interpreting both God, and the definition of science for us!
1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or ...?
2) "expanding" universe
When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.
3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/
4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?
Sorry @JustIgnoreMe I honestly didn't mean to ignore you.
1) "Stars, .. not objects called planets"
Do you think the planets - Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. - do not exist? or, aren't planets? or …?
They are stars, and not like our sun but all kinds of different, beautiful stars, like Flat Earthers shown you with our telescopes and cameras, .. not artist rendered images of sci-fi planets.
2) "expanding" universe
When Hubble measured the expansion of the universe, it contradicted what most atheists thought at the time - that the universe was eternal.
13.75 billion years isn't eternal, nor does two distant stars that look like they are moving away from each other mean the heaven (whatever medium the stars are in) is stretching and is now Infinite. Cannot "stretch" Infinite.
3) "sucked up by the vacuum of space"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/16/why-doesnt-the-vacuum-of-space-suck-up-earths-atmosphere/
Ever heard of a vacuum chamber? Here is one that we built for NASA:
Now let me see them put a hamster in his sealed ball in there, then open it up and see how many billions of years it would take for the air molecules in the hamster-ball to gradually dissipate into the vacuum chamber? Not to mention water, which instantly boils, then freezes in a vacuum.
Now imagine if the walls of the vacuum chamber were expanding at:
- Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years) - Google
So you still think your Globe, covered in air and water would last more than a few minutes in a giant expanding vacuum chamber called; Universe/space*(r)
(*Universe/space is a registered trademark of NASA and those who run the UN)
4) according to the Genesis account of creation, there was an Earth with water and land, an atmosphere, night and day and fruit trees - all before a sun existed. You (rightly) demand evidence from scientists (and they provide it); what evidence do you demand/provide for the Genesis brand of "science"?
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Light/order God called day, and darkness/chaos He called night. Before God fixed up the earth again in Genesis 1:2 there was no sun or moon, or stars, nor will we have a sun or moon on that New Earth and New Heavens that God and His son Word (aka Jesus Christ) is preparing for those who love him, because well be changed into incorruptible bodies that thrive on Gods love/order. But those who hate God and His order/light, will have a place without God, in darkness/chaos where they will have eternity to wait for a Big-Banged universe to live in.
-
Man-made Climate Change is real
Oh wow, you've once again provided a graph with absolutely no evidence to back it up or show it's relevant or based on real data! So once again it can be ignored as trash because it doesn't meet the most basic requirements for valid evidence!CYDdharta said:
Is English a second language that you're struggling with??? What I said was "Other factors are affecting the climate. What those other factors are and how and how much they are affecting it has yet to be determined." This is the same thing the researchers found. Let's look at what they said, "In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny." In other words; the climate models are rising a lot faster than actual readings despite increased human activity. This is the fact that my graph pointed out earlier that you whined and moaned about. THE MODELS ARE WRONG!!! THE HIATUS IS REAL!!! If we can make accurate predictions, why aren't we??? Why are the models so wrong???Ampersand said:Lie.
As Pogue has pointed out, your own source specifically says global warming can be blamed on human activity.
You also make an illogical claim. Global warming being caused by human activity is not mutually exclusive with other factors affecting the climate which can lessen or enhance the overall impact of global warming, hence yours claim of "Other factors are affecting the climate" is worthless and pretty much every model in existence will take into account non-human factors which affect the environment.
Finally as has been pointed out many times, you making uneducated and baseless claims like "We don't understand the system well enough yet to make even an educated guess as to what the climate will be in the future" is not valid as it is completely lacking evidence, but it is an especially poor argument when not only other people's sources but even your own sources dispute what you are saying.
Now let's look at the other reference you made, where you quoted a study, because as we have the actual details claims and information for that I can actually show how you aren't able to understand what is being said and are making ludicrous claims.
You claim: "Actually, it says just the opposite. If global warming could be blamed on human activity, warming could be accurately charted according to such activity. It can't. The models are wrong. "
LIE. The study makes no such claim and in fact talks about increasing accuracy of predictions now we have learned more, e.g.: "As a result, the scientific community is now better able to explain temperature variations such as those experienced during the early twenty-first century33, and perhaps even to make skilful predictions of such fluctuations in the future. For example, climate model predictions initialized with recent observations indicate a transition to a positive phase of the IPO with increased rates of global surface temperature warming (ref. 34, and G. A. Meehl, A. Hu and H. Teng, manuscript in preparation)."
You claim: "Other factors are affecting the climate. What those other factors are and how and how much they are affecting it has yet to be determined."
LIE. Your own study identifies the factors and references studies showing how climate experts are now taking these into account: " This reduction arises through the combined effects of internal decadal variability11–18, volcanic19,23 and solar activity, and decadal changes in anthropogenic aerosol forcing32"
You claim: "In other words; the climate models are rising a lot faster than actual readings despite increased human activity."
LIE. The study states that this is interdecadal variability, e.g. in the 2030s we may well see the models be lower than the actual temperature by the same amount.
You claim: "This is the fact that my graph pointed out earlier that you whined and moaned about. THE MODELS ARE WRONG!!! THE HIATUS IS REAL!!!"
LIE. The hiatus has ended and global warming has resumed. Your own study says that it is supporting the scientific consensus on on going global warming: "Given the intense political and public scrutiny that global climate change now receives, it has been imperative for scientists to provide a timely explanation of the warming slowdown, and to place it in the context of ongoing anthropogenic warming. Despite recently voiced concerns, we believe this has largely been accomplished."
-
The Philosophy of Collectivism vs the Philosophy of Individualism
@MissDMeanor
The problem is that many individuals are getting neglected. Individualism helps individuals do whatever they want, but through collectivism, a society can recognize a talented individual and help him rise up.
In the Civil Rights movement, many black societies got together, and the successful black people gave support to the less successful so that they can show their own skills. This helped them all rise up together instead of only a few black people on the top.
The top one percent is composed of smart individuals, but there are more smart individuals than only one percent in the entire US. Collectivism will help the unlucky, but talented people rise up again. The top one percent has 40% of the nations wealth. I'm sure they can spare at least a little bit of their money to help other smart people. -
The Philosophy of Collectivism vs the Philosophy of Individualism
@MissDMeanor Collectivism believes the human system should work like a body. That a group of people should operate as a body. Just as an organ works individuals do have individual problems but collectivism values the group over the individual person. The individual needs to put apart their problems in order to create a more productive and a more collective society. Individualists only cater to the exact person. I also point @Fascism for his well established argument. The individual can only slow down the process and like a well oiled machine certain parts must be catered to. One part of a machine is not going to do much. The whole machine can make man go to the moon.
-
God doesn't exist - Change my mind
Hello @PyromanGaming Is that your name in online Gaming, .. "Pyroman"? My son is hooked on online gaming, .. burn them up buddy, raise all the demons of darkness with magic and scorch the earth!PyromanGaming said:I have always wondered why so many people believe in god because I have not seen any good arguments for his existence. I think that because this could be life or death I should remain open to opposition. You can argue for any religion, I should just let you know that I don't know too much about religions other than Christianity and Islam. I really appreciate anyone who wants to step in and challenge me as this will help me with my understanding of religions and I think that I can take some things out of this.
Thank you
I am awestruck at where online Gasming has evolved to in such a short time!? It's funny, but the name we choose says a lot about who we are and what we're about, don't it?
In my debates on God there was Goat with the pentagram in his avatar, then there was demonseed, .. and dozens more, and they all started a debate on the existence of God. If the word "Gaming" in your name has to do with online gaming, the whole thing revolves around gods, demons, demigods magic spells and demonic powers, so the name is like showing the sign what you're about something like this:
v
or
Over 20 some years, with 100's of debates I had with people who openly revealed in their name where they stand on the existence of God, not one was fruitful. Actually it became ugly, especially the more I revealed that both philosophically and scientifically God exists, and how the Powers That Be hid Him from the people. And I found that no one, and I mean no one theist or atheist likes to be proved wrong about their Religious beliefs! The theists like their god or gods, and the last thing an atheist would want is evidence for God.
The thing is, that God doesn't go around proselytizing, He doesn't need us, we need Him. The gods in all the Religions on the other hand do, .. their survival depends on it!
Now if I seen even a hint of genuine seeking God in your OP, I would go on. But I see @MayCaesar response was just what you wanted to hear.
-
God doesn't exist - Change my mind
Belief in God's existence is not based on rigorous logic, it is rather a consequence of traditions and folklore. You are correct in that there are no good arguments for God's existence - however, it does not mean that belief in God is impossible.
If you study mythologies and religions of various cultures, for example: Greek mythology and religion, Norse mythology, Christian religion, Islamic religion, Ancient Egyptian religion, Jamaican voodooism and Kenyan shamanism - you will see that they all contain a lot of stories that not only cannot be scientifically verified, but they often are even obviously exaggerated. For example, in the Norse mythology, Odin and his two brothers killed the giant Ymir and used his remains to create the world, mountains forming from his bones. You could ask: "How did they know this? Did they really believe in such an obviously nonsensical story?" The answer is yes and no. Vikings were not stupid, they understood very well that these tales were likely not true - however, they consciously integrated them into their world view, because the tradition demanded it, because they wanted to conform with the society they lived in, to abide by certain rules and beliefs, and following the Norse mythology was the best way to feel belonging to the society.
Islam was born as a tool for uniting people to facilitate smoother conquest of the surrounding lands, which was the primary activity of Muhammad: the resulting religion formed a core of the society and made sure that the people worked together towards the common goal. Similarly, Christianity was a product of a cult that was interested in taking power in Rome and uniting the society under the new ideology, and the belief in the single God served to facilitate those goals. Egyptian religion formed as an attempt to stabilize the society by attributing sacred legitimacy to the Pharaoh, preventing societal division and unrest. And in general, historians believe that religions and proto-religions, such as shamanism, were a response to the demand for stability in primal societies, including the demand to prevent violent struggles for power. Unity and stability were always the inherent factors facilitating religious development, and it is no different today.
When you take this all into account, you can see why religions and belief in Gods is so popular even today, despite all the advancements of science and philosophy. Religions will probably play some role for as long as a society exists. More individualistic people like us do not feel the need to conform with arbitrary traditions and beliefs, but collectives tend to look for banners to unite under, and folklore and religion are some of the most convenient banners available for this purpose.
-
Will Ivanka Trump ever run for President, her mom thinks so
In her new book, the proud mother writes that she wouldn’t be surprised if at least one more Trump occupies the White House in the years to come – daughter Ivanka.http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/07/in-new-book-ivana-trump-writes-contentment.html
