- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Recent Content
-
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@Dreamer
Your going to use an example of 1 person on 1 issue to make that conclusion?
Also little ironic when the left stance on this issue was essentially to authoritatively force people to take the vaccine.
-
Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear codes?
@MayCaesar
You´re not someone I care to debate with. I don´t trust you. You sound like a gaslighter and I question YOUR character. Is this your professional job? It´s psychological abuse.
-
Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear codes?
Where did I express the belief that it is a narcissistic trait? Please provide the exact quote where I suggested so.Delilah6120 said:The question posed was: ¨Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear code¨
This is not a loaded question. I did not pose this question to trap or manipulate anyone. I am interested in what Americans think.
I asked if you believed he was a narcissist and you replied
´I do not characterize people by labels. If your question is whether I think that Trump has little regard for the well-being of those around him, then yes, it seems likely to me.´
You stated that you think Trump has little regard for the well-being of those around him. And you believed it was a narcissistic trait.
My question to you is Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear code?
I said earlier that I believed that Trump had a very strong character. Whether it is strong enough to be trusted with the nuclear codes, I do not know, for I do not have a standard in mind for what makes one worth trusting with the nuclear codes. I would not trust myself with the nuclear codes, for simply having the ability to kill millions of people at a whim would affect me in unacceptable ways. -
Gay at birth?
MayCaesar said:
This is why I am not a biologist... While in most disciplines there are rules and rare exceptions, in biology exceptions are the rule!ZeusAres42 said:
This seems pretty much on par with a chapter I recently came back to from the book called "Reason: Book I & II: A Critical Thinking- Reason-and Science-based Approach to Issues That Matter (Dr Bos Critical Thinking Series).
Without potentially infringing too much on copyright, I will say that there is a bit in this section where the Author says that even if a trait is a certain percentage, that doesn't necessarily mean that when forced upon by environmental factors, the result will be the same percentage of an expression of those genes.
@MayCaesar
Okay, we know that cells of this type are associated with lung cancer, and we know how to kill those cells off without dealing much damage to the rest of the organism - so, problem solved, right? Oops, those cells are smarter than that, see the treatment coming and diversify, leaving a viable offspring that keeps the tumor developing. No problem, we know pretty well how they diversify, so we can adjust the treatment... Oops, they adjust to the adjustment. Okay, whatever, let us just go full chemo and slaughter them all. What, you say that now the entire angiogenesis mechanism is out of whack? Okay, we can adjust the chemical treatment to make sure it does not happen. Wait, the cancer cells are back? Nooooooooo!
I have deep respect for people who can make any progress with this stuff. If everyone was like me, we would still treat everything with hot herbal teas.
lol. I also forgot to add that regarding this bit, the Author also said something along the lines, "There are just some things we cannot definitively conclude and best all we can is just 'We don't know!'
@MayCaesar
-
Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear codes?
Delilah6120 said:Do you believe Trump has the strength of character to be trusted with the nuclear codes?
Hello Delilah:Uhhh... Which nuclear codes are you talking about?? The ones in his shower, or the ones he threw on the floor? Maybe they're the ones he sold to the Saudi's. I dunno. He said he LOVES Kim Jon Un. Maybe he gave them to him..Du*de!excon
-
Gay at birth?
This is why I am not a biologist... While in most disciplines there are rules and rare exceptions, in biology exceptions are the rule!ZeusAres42 said:
This seems pretty much on par with a chapter I recently came back to from the book called "Reason: Book I & II: A Critical Thinking- Reason-and Science-based Approach to Issues That Matter (Dr Bos Critical Thinking Series).
Without potentially infringing too much on copyright, I will say that there is a bit in this section where the Author says that even if a trait is a certain percentage, that doesn't necessarily mean that when forced upon by environmental factors, the result will be the same percentage of an expression of those genes.
@MayCaesar
Okay, we know that cells of this type are associated with lung cancer, and we know how to kill those cells off without dealing much damage to the rest of the organism - so, problem solved, right? Oops, those cells are smarter than that, see the treatment coming and diversify, leaving a viable offspring that keeps the tumor developing. No problem, we know pretty well how they diversify, so we can adjust the treatment... Oops, they adjust to the adjustment. Okay, whatever, let us just go full chemo and slaughter them all. What, you say that now the entire angiogenesis mechanism is out of whack? Okay, we can adjust the chemical treatment to make sure it does not happen. Wait, the cancer cells are back? Nooooooooo!
I have deep respect for people who can make any progress with this stuff. If everyone was like me, we would still treat everything with hot herbal teas. 
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
maxx won debate and dismissed you like the ignorant child you are. And you concede another debate. Wow do you have any brain cells at all? Part of being a racist Bogan means you can't use cognitive abilities even if you had any. Thanks for admitting your many flaws.Bogan said:@maxx ; well, we are done.
Checkmate. Thank you for at least trying to debate. That puts you head and shoulders above the trolls on this debate site.
-
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@MayCaesar
I think that these issues are a logical conclusion to their fundamental values. Both parties are fundamentally collectivist, and now they are starting to show their true colors. Ayn Rand warned that it would come to this: it is impossible to base one's political platform on collectivistic values and not have it eventually get out of control.
That all may very well be true to some extent. But I might interpret them in a slightly different way. For instance the 'true colors' you bring up are not representative of the collective but rather of individuals who use the party of their choice because it aligned closer to their more extreme views. We live in an imperfect world so there are not going to be any perfect solutions for self governing as a society and culture. We must have a collective perspective when it comes to dealing with issues of crime and justice, because of our imperfection as a species we need mutual policing. We must collectively come to some agreements on how we as a society and as individuals can act towards one another and remain a civilized people. Sure the checks and balances get distorted at times but it's worth the effort to reign them in if and when possible. Furthermore both parties have room for individual rights and needs in their own ways on their perspective platforms. The problem is we can't make it a constitutional issue in every case. We just seem to be at a point in time where we're lacking the knowledge and wisdom of true leadership.
The world needs a new political movement, one that promotes individual fulfillment and happiness, rather than the old "All for One, and One for All" adage. The old ones are unlikely to be reformed given how much historical, economical and political baggage they have. It is strange that we are expecting General Artificial Intelligence soon, yet are clinging to the same forms of political organization as 2,500 years ago.
I wouldn't be so quick to discard our political system even when you consider the political baggage. I look at it much the same way as the acquiescence of knowledge over time. Eventually no matter how absurd new information appears when first discovered, as it's tried and tested that once absurd notion becomes fact and accepted, even common knowledge. Or it's tossed as the garbage it was but over all, generally speaking building on knowledge only happens if we do not give up on what we know and start all over again. In a similar way, over the centuries we've made progress in reforming governments in more humane and altruistic directions. Some forms have been tossed, others have been refined and built upon. I do not think the U.S. and some other governments around the world need a political complete restructuring. What is needed most in my opinion is an injection of leadership qualities. Perhaps we as a people can start electing not simply according to party affiliation; but for the people who make sound arguments and proposals and who are not defensive in the face of criticism but those who learn from it? Without that I don't see much good in starting all over.
-
Is Religion a Mental Illness?
It was by means of sorcery that He [Jesus] was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed; - Origen book 1:6Factfinder said:
No, you're called out again...just_sayin said:@Factfinder
Not trickery - that's a definitive lie. He said 'sorcery'. That means he believed Jesus demonstrated magical powers. He even listed healing the lame, and healing the blind.
You lied and got called out on it.
On Christ’s miracles, Celsus argues that he worked his miracles by “sorcery” and that they were no more superior to the deeds of the Egyptians and others in the magic arts (6). The miracles are just fables invented by the disciples. Further, Christ’s prediction of his own death was invented by the disciples and his purported resurrection is nothing unique in comparison to the likes of Zamolxis, Pythagoras, and Rhampsinit (7). In fact, the resurrection has its origin in a hysterical female as well as in the wishful thinking of Christ’s followers (8). This is why Celsus ridicules Christians for their use of blind faith instead of reason: “For just as among them scoundrels frequently take advantage of the lack of education of gullible people and lead them wherever they wish, so also this happens among the Christians… some do not even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe”
https://jamesbishopblog.com/2020/06/23/greek-philsopher-celsus-on-the-historical-jesus/
He may not of used the specific word 'trickery' but intelligent people not driven to lie for a false god know for a fact his description inferred trickery. As 'magic' relies on deception as in making up stories and creating illusions. "Sorcery" was considered part of the magic arts and you knew that. So you were 'tricked' by the sorcery or you're simply lying again Just_sayin, which is it?48 [Celsus' Jewish critic]: the Christians deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind. and moreover, because, as they assert, he raised the dead. 49. O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan. - Origen book 2:48-49
-
Is Religion a Mental Illness?
I see you are upholding Celsus. You know he said that Jesus performed miracles right? Tell me, was he 'reveling in his ignorance' or was the evidence so strong that Jesus preformed miracles he couldn't deny it?Factfinder said:
