is violence and aggression inherent in humans? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




is violence and aggression inherent in humans?

Debate Information

yes. prove me different. 
Dee
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    Human beings are tribal and territorial.     Those tribes which were aggressive and who drove more placid tribes off their own rich territories, became stronger, while the placid people either moved on, were absorbed, or died out.   Therefore human beings are intrinsically violent.   People living in well provided for societies can be placid people, but when catastrophe strikes, it can be every man for himself.     One reason why there is so much trouble in western societies today with rising crime rates, is because we are importing people from dog eat dog societies into our co-operative and high trust societies, and we wonder why they are so violent and untrustworthy?

    That violence is part of our DNA can easily be appreciated by a simple fact.    Men are much more violent than women.   In every country around the world, males make up 93-97% of prison inmates.    Most prison inmates are incarcerated for crimes of violence.
    maxxDee
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    agreed  @Bogan
    Dee
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  





                                                       No . prove me different. 
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @Bogan ;


    Human beings are tribal and territorial.     Those tribes which were aggressive and who drove more placid tribes off their own rich territories, became stronger, while the placid people either moved on, were absorbed, or died out

    There was aggression and hostility in the past as there is in the present  that in no way proves that humans are inherently violent and aggressive 

    Early tribes were no more savage and aggressive than others you watch to many b movies 


     Therefore human beings are intrinsically violent.   

    That’s an opinion like many different others using the term “therefore “ doesn’t make your opinion right , what do you base your assertions on?

    People living in well provided for societies can be placid people, but when catastrophe strikes, it can be every man for himself.   

    Can it indeed? Maybe you can explain how your “Everyman for himself “ theory is playing out in Europe as every European country is taking in sheltering and feeding millions of Ukrainians , you  haven’t a clue 

    One reason why there is so much trouble in western societies today with rising crime rates,

    Crime rates have been falling worldwide for 30 years or more now 


    is because we are importing people from dog eat dog societies into our co-operative and high trust societies, and we wonder why they are so violent and untrustworthy?


    Thats it blame foreigners 

    That violence is part of our DNA can easily be appreciated by a simple fact.

    It’s not violence is learned acquired behaviour 

        Men are much more violent than women.   

    Men are more physically violent than women do you not realise there are other types of aggression and violence women are tops at ? Do some research 

    In every country around the world, males make up 93-97% of prison inmates.    Most prison inmates are incarcerated for crimes of violence. 

    Yes physical violence , also if humans are intrinsically violent and agressive how come such a small percentage worlwide are in jails ? Sort of blow holes in your opinion piece right ……..

    On the bright side your new buddy mr “prove me different” gave you an award for your efforts as the coward waits as usual for others to debate before he starts to shoot his f-ool mouth off 
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited July 22
    one can easily see this in young children.  They have to be "taught" to behave. If not, then they will be aggressive  If there were suddenly no law at all, most humans would resort back to this aggression. Humans evolved from lower animals and we still have the natural instincts to fight/flight ! according to the recent statistics published in January  of 22,violent crime overall has increased steadily.  If we were not inherently violent, then we would not have been born with the automatic flight/fight response.  we evolved violence as did all animals as a survival tool. . A new study identifies 40 genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and mice: On mice and humans: Genes, evolution and aggressiveness -- ScienceDaily .@Bogan
    Dee
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited July 22
    I am not sure what you mean by "inherent". Violence and aggression are something that humans commit sometimes, and there are certain physiological processes that make them prone to commit them - but humans also have conscious agency that allows them to (at least, to some extent) override them and control themselves. There are certainly times when I am angry at someone and want to punch them, but end up not punching them, because I do not like the expected consequences of doing so. In martial arts, one learns to control their urges very deliberately, because proper application of force requires precision, restraint and even thinking, and giving in to your emotions and letting them guide your body is the best way to lose a fight against an experienced opponent.

    As for the young children, nobody has ever taught me not to be aggressive. I just naturally learned early on that if I get along with other kids, then the consequences are much better than if I do not. Being aggressive has never gotten me anything good in life, and life naturally taught me the drawbacks of this approach. Then again, where and when I grew up, children were not as sheltered and guided by parents at every step as they are in the modern Western world; we were running around, disappearing from the neighborhood for many hours without any supervision by parents, pretty much as soon as we could walk (I played on a playground without any adults in the vicinity when I was 4, and I was going for multi-hour cycling trips in the wilderness alone when I was 8). On the West, there is this strange notion that children are going to die almost instantly, should their parent just blink once and lose sight of them for a millisecond. Maybe that is where these bizarre ideas about "inherently violent children" come from: zero information and experience => nonsensical conclusions.

    As for humans becoming violent without a law... Listen to Michael Malice on this. Most of the human interaction appears without any legal involvement, without any laws guiding that interaction. In fact, it is typically when the laws arrive that people start trying to use them to their advantage and to others' disadvantage. Laws are coercion, and humans are not friendly towards each other where coercion is abundant.
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    There, (yes I read through your ideas) are 2 schools of thoughts on this. One, it is a learned behaviorand two, it is an evolutionary survival tool built into us and passed down through out DNA since humans became humans; actually before that, for we evolved from earlier primates and other animals where violence us a way of life,  not something that is taught or learned.   We see anger, aggressive behavior,  and conflict in children at a very early age.   When you said that you control your violent behavior,  that is just a social aspect.  You understand that it is not acceptable and serves no purpose,  yet that is something you learned at one point in your life.  Take crying,  I can control that if I wish,  for in public,  it is not really acceptable.  I can control my laughter,  even my breathing up to a point. Violence and aggressiveness is or was a survival tool. @MayCaesar
    Dee
  • @maxx
    You are missing some fact.
    The course of egress...
    Established justice...


  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    I believe you should elaborate. @John_C_87
    Dee
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    In other words, exactly as I said, it is something that humans can do or not do, and have control over. So, once again, I do not understand what you mean by violence and aggression being "inherent" in humans.

    And it is certainly an evolutionary tool. And, like any evolutionary tool, it has its utility and can also be misused. And the degree to which an individual is prone to use/misuse it is certainly influenced by their experience, so it can also be a learned behavior. Just like anything else humans do.
    I am not sure how violence and aggression in this respect are differentiated from any other activity, say, programming. We know how to do programming after learning how to do it, but learning how to do it is only possible because of how we have evolved and how our organisms function. There are people who do not exert much control to programming, who are "addicted" to it, who are prone to spend sleepless nights working on some fun machine learning application.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    maxx said:

    according to the recent statistics published in January  of 22,violent crime overall has increased steadily.
    This statistic (which, by the way, is false, if you look at the long-term trend and not just nitpick the last couple of years), actually, speaks against your hypothesis.

    If violence was inherent to humans, then it would have peaked a long time ago, all other things being equal. The fact that it is increasing now, on a time scale much smaller than that of evolution, speaks very strongly against it being somehow biologically hardwired in humans. Crocodiles are not becoming more violent; lions are not; wolves are not - even though their survival is conditional upon them employing violence all the time.
  • Well???
    Shouldn't I move to prove you as indifferent not different for one?
    When moving into new areas looking live food is not something that is perminate we may instead farm food.

  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    i fail to see what that has to do with my post john sir  @John_C_87
    John_C_87
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    what i am saying when it is inherent, i mean it is built into us at birth, it is in our dna, and is not something that we have to learn.  @MayCaesar
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited July 22
    perhaps the statistic are wrong.  i do not know and i can not see how  statistics that you find may be prove either.  no, animals are not as a whole becoming more violent, for unlike humans, the aggression and violence is simply hardwired  as a survival tool. needs are simple.  humans however, reason, and their needs and wants are different and more profound. face it, we are a greedy bunch and that is why we are mor violent that the lower animals.  you agree it is a survival tool, so i ask since you seem to be saying as such. do we learn violence or is it something we evoled into and had passed on to us through our genetics?  @MayCaesar ;  Fine hands, fists of fury: Our hands evolved for punching, not just dexterity -- ScienceDaily   very interesting
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Keyboards at thirty paces, eh, Dee?       I see you are using the "slice and dice" method of debating.    Instead of just submitting a reasoned argument yourself explaining why you think that human beings are not intrinsically violent, you instead use a variation of Piloteer and MayCaesar's dirty tactic of only attacking your opponents argument, while submitting nothing yourself.

     Tell ya what ma-a-a-a-ate (sorry, bud-dee) I will let you get away with it for a few posts, and then I am going to insist that you use do some research and come up with an argument to support your own position.    I like debating against honest people on important matters, but "debating" hecklers is a waste of time.    Okay, here we go.

     Dee wrote

     There was aggression and hostility in the past as there is in the present  that in no way proves that humans are inherently violent and aggressive 

    I think that any person who read what I wrote about the territorial imperative, can appreciate the validity of my statement.     Just saying " that in no way proves that humans are inherently violent and aggressive"  is a miserable comeback.     Regardless of whether an impartial person agrees with you or I on this topic, most people with a brain understand that aggressive humans and animals who drive out less aggressive humans or animals from rich territories, will increase their chances of survival.   And with it increase the chances of aggressive genes being a factor in genetic success.      I would love to hear a countervailing argument by you on that subject, but I know you won't give one.      You are a person with opinions that you can not even justify to yourself.

     Dee wrote

     That’s an opinion like many different others using the term “therefore “ doesn’t make your opinion right , what do you base your assertions on?

     It is an opinion which, unlike you, I can back up with reasoned arguments.     And I base my "assertions" on a working knowledge of psychology, social psychology, sociology, applied psychology, and watching the beautiful rainbow lorikeets outside of my sun room window.    Now, since you oppose the concept that humans are intrinsically aggressive, what do you base your "assertions" on?    My prediction is, that you will squib out on that question because you do not even know yourself why you hold this opinion.    Go ahead and dodge the question.     Make my day.

     Dee wrote

     Can it indeed? Maybe you can explain how your “Everyman for himself “ theory is playing out in Europe as every European country is taking in sheltering and feeding millions of Ukrainians , you  haven’t a clue. 

     Haha!   The only person who is proving that they don't have a clue is you, Mr Dee.    Look, could I give you a tip?     Moderate your aggressive delivery and be more polite.      That way, you won't look like such a fool when I prove you wrong.    Perhaps you have trouble controlling your aggression because it is innate?

     Vladimir Putin is dragging Russia into a war of expansion with Ukraine because Ukraine is a rich territory which will greatly expand Russian power and influence.    If his invasion succeeds, he will commit genocide on the Ukrainian people by completely destroying their language and culture.   He will drive out those who will not submit, and he will "Russify" those who will submit.     Europeans are horrified at one state invading another sovereign state and absorbing it's territory into their own.    Humans look upon other tribes as either allies or competitors.     The Europeans are behaving exactly like allied tribes have always acted since the beginning of time.    They recognise an aggressive tribe bent upon territorial expansion which is a threat to all tribes, and they are banding together to defend their own territory and helping the threatened tribe, whom they identify with, defend theirs.

     Dee wrote

     Crime rates have been falling worldwide for 30 years or more now 

     I have no idea how you could say something so .    Crime rates have been rising steeply in the western world since the 1970's, and this despite huge advances in crime detection, like security cameras everywhere, huge advances in  forensic testing, and DNA testing.     If there has been any reduction in crime anywhere, it is because western jails are full to bursting.    Here in my own state of NSW, Australia,  in the last twenty years we have opened four new prisons and one new university.  Even ancient Victorian prisons like Berrima and Parramatta have been put back into reuse to handle the overload.    And that despite all manner of new non custodial punishments like "community service" and home detention.    In the USA, I hear the Democrats have a new crime fighting tactic.    Jails are so full that the Democrats have given up and they just let the most dangerous offenders, (who are their political supporters)  go free so that they can rob and kill again.   

     Dee wrote

     That's it blame foreigners 

     It is imperative with people like yourself, who know nothing, but have strong opinions, to dismiss well reasoned arguments with sneery one liners.    To any impartial observer, this is a tell tale sign that you are drowning and will reach for any stick to keep your sinking opinion afloat.

     Here in Australia, there is a very real connection to ethnicity and crime.    Ethnic crime is so bad in Australia that in 1993, the sundry ethnic spokesmen successfully lobbied the socialist Labor government to prevent the Australian Bureau of Statistics from compiling and collating any data on ethnic related crime.    But one set of ABS statistics they could not censor.   That was the ABS publication "Prisoners by Country of Birth."    This publication clearly displayed that people from Lebanon, Vietnam, Africa, The Pacific Islands, as well as people identifying as "aboriginal" were very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour in Australia.

     I wait with baited breath to read your countervailing argument on that.    But once again, I know you will squib out.

     Dee wrote

     It’s not violence is learned acquired behaviour 

     Actually, it is both.    Human behaviour is a product of both nature (genetics) and nurture (social learning.)    Take for example dogs.    Here in Australia there are breeds of dogs who are so dangerous that they must be kept within secure enclosures, and can not be in public without a muzzle.    But when kept by loving owners in a loving environment, even these dangerous breeds can become quite placid, although they can never be trusted around children.  

     Humans are subject to the same genetic imperatives as dogs.    Some humans are born extremely violent.   Maternity ward nurses and professional baby sitters can identify "difficult" babies who usually turn out to have anti social personalities.     It is well known in the judicial system that some individuals are extremely violent and they get arrested and charged with violent crimes, all of the time.   These people can, and do, get leniency from the courts if they admit that they have uncontrollable urges to be violent, and agree to medical treatment.    New drugs like Prozac have been invented to keep these genetically violence prone people placid.

    The first court to recognise that some people can not control their own violent behaviour came from Italy in the late 19th century.     The case involved an upper class woman known for her sweet disposition who turned into a fire breathing shrew during her monthly periods, often violently attacking people around her.    Knowing nothing of genetics or hormones, the court concluded that something innate within the woman's body which she could not control was causing her to become violent during her periods, and she was found not guilty on that account.

     Now, I look forward to reading your countervailing argument, which I know already I will not get.

     Dee wrote

     Men are more physically violent than women do you not realise there are other types of aggression and violence women are tops at ? Do some research 

     Hahahaha!   "Do some research?"     I am outwriting you 15 words to one and you say I need to do some research?   Hahahaha!    Stop it, Dee, you are killing me!  

     At least you are indirectly agreeing that males are more physically aggressive than females.   Generally speaking, males are physically stronger than women and so women channel their aggressive needs into more social means.    This can consist of malicious gossip and character assassination.     But this does not negate the premise that human behaviour, including aggression, is a product of both nature and nurture.     Aggression is innate.    It is always there as a survival tool when needed, and usually manifests itself in stressful situations.    People get angry when stressed.    Angry people get violent.

     Dee wrote

     Yes physical violence , also if humans are intrinsically violent and aggressive how come such a small percentage worlwide are in jails ? Sort of blow holes in your opinion piece right ……..

     Easy peasy, Dee.   Because if a spaceship landed on Earth, the crew of that spaceship may wonder why a puny species such as humans became the top of the food chain?    Lacking teeth, claws, talons, spines, or armour, humans should be classic prey animals.    What made humans so dangerous was our ability to form self protecting groups which fought AS A GROUP to fight off predators, both four legged and two legged.    Human being are very social animals.    Socialisation begins in childhood and is designed to teach children that they are not the center of the universe, and that if threatened, they need to band together.     Socialisation in every human group tries to instill peace and harmony within the group, and channels aggression to outside groups.     Killing within the group is usually denounced and punished.   Killing without the group, on behalf of the group, can win you fame and heroic status.

     But within every society, there are around 2% of mostly males, who never stop thinking that they are the center of the universe, and who routinely treat the other 98% as their prey.      Their behaviour has a real genetic basis.    Some families and ethnicities are renowned for their violent behaviour.   In the USA, I am told, that 50% of African males between 18 and 50 are either in jail, or on parole.    

     Dee wrote

     On the bright side your new buddy mr “prove me different” gave you an award for your efforts as the coward waits as usual for others to debate before he starts to shoot his f-ool mouth off 

     While I will wait forever for a countervailing reasoned argument from you which supports your BELIEF that humans are not naturally aggressive.     The reason why, is because you don't know yourself why you believe what you do.    It is a value which had been inculcated into your spongy brain by one of your own tribal cultures, and your peers.   It is a mental barrier which you have never questioned because your need to conform to your tribal affiliations, means that you must never oppose their groupthink.    You also believe that defending their tribal groupthink, no matter how it is,  will get you praise from your peers.    Could I congratulate your left wing teachers?    They taught you what to think, not how to think.


  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited July 22
    good luck on that, the said individual has a history on here of nothing but insults, not even trying to debate.   i have sent so many top quality science links on subjects, in the past year, but since it went against his beliefs, he just resorts to random insults.  i muted him !!  tired of it  perhaps[s if everyone else does; he will get the point and learn to debate. .  @Bogan
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    You absolutely have to learn to employ violence effectively, either via martial arts, or via weapon/vehicle training. You can try to employ some violence with no training at all, but you are unlikely to do much damage to anyone this way. Similarly, you can try to write a computer program with no training at all, but your program is unlikely to run. Again, I fail to see the difference here.

    I am a greedy person, and I am less violent than any average carnivorous/omnivorous animal I know of. Greed does not produce violence. Now, the desire to satisfy that greed and seeing taking away others' stuff as the best way to do that may produce violence - but that, again, is not a biological inevitability. I respect others' property and prefer to work for my stuff; taking it away from others feels like cheating to me, a shortcut that will deal me a lot of damage in the long run, even if I manage to superficially get away with it.
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Which is why you have got punished several times by mods for harassing members ,bullying , stalking , refusing to debate and lying ….your last ban was for 3 months remember?

    I will deal with your equally brain dead bu-tt buddy in the morning , I hope you two “boys” have a nice sleep over later , are ya all excited?
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited July 22
    no greed does not necessarily produce violence; at least not today.  yet greed in ancient humans, or shall i say prehistoric time, things were much different. 'IF' it is a learned behavior, it can only be learned from observation because parents do not teach 2 or 3 year old children to be aggressive. so who are they learning such tendencies?  i am sure you have heard of the terrible twos, where such aged children, suddenly become rebellious, throwing tantrums, argumentive  and other conflicts with the parent[s] alone. the parents do not teach this behavior, nor is it learned from peers at that age.,   @MayCaesar
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    "Greed" is simply self interest.     Everybody is self interested to one degree or another.     The process of "socialisation" is to teach children that they can not be entirely self interested and that begins around "the terrible two's" when children find out that they can no longer get want they want by spitting out the dummy, crying, and having hissy fits.    To become a valued member of a tribe, the individual needs to moderate their own self interest for the good of everybody in the group.   People who are entirely selfish are no use at all to the group and such behaviour appears to have a genetic basis.    Psychopaths are people who are entirely selfish and according to CAT scans their brains work differently to other human beings.     Take a normal human being and CAT scan their brains, then say words to them like babies, murder, sex, torture, mother, and cute, and their brains will light up on the scan in predictable ways.     Put normal people on lie detectors and say the same things, and their chart results will reveal the same thought patterns.

    Put a psychopath on a CAT scan and do the same thing, and the brain scan will light up differently.   Put them on lie detectors and you can get no emotional response at all that is measurable.   Psychopaths are famous for beating lie detectors.    Psychopaths are not all serial killers, they just happen to make really good serial killers.    They also make great blood thirsty dictators, great corporate raiders, great embezzlers, great insider traders, and great con artists.

    Socialism failed because it thought it could create a society where everybody could be altruistic.     Capitalism recognises that people are naturally self interested (greedy) but if properly socialised can moderate their self interest for the good of society as a whole.   Such a society can then utilize the drives of greedy people to get ahead using their own intelligence and talents to create wealth for themselves, which trickles down to the entire community through taxation scales.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited July 22
    @maxx

    If the state of civilization has such a strong impact on violence and aggression, then they certainly must be, at least, for the most part learned behaviors. If they were mostly biologically hardwired, then there would not be much difference between violence in modern societies and in ancient humans, since humans have not evolved much biologically over the past several tens of millennia.

    Throwing a tantrum and arguing with your parents is not the same as resorting to violence and aggression. As for where one learns aggression, they do not have to learn it from someone else: they can learn it through personal experimentation. Two kids play with toys, one wants to grab another one's toy, that one resists, a mess ensues, and suddenly the kids realize that employing force against each other is a way to compete for this toy. When they grow up, they (hopefully) learn of more... civilized ways of resolving such conflicts. Or, if you were me and grew up reading a lot of books, then you learn it before a situation in which you learn about violence first-hand even materializes for the first time.
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    There is a difference between the degree of violence in ancient times and today.     Ancient, Roman, and medieval combat normally consisted of killing opponents at very close range where you could hear your opponent scream, and see the blood.       Such combat was physically demanding, which completely destroys the popular belief today that female warriors once pitched in with the boys with swords and axes.     Killing another person can be extremely stressful for people today, which is why police officers, who are obliged to kill offenders in the course of their duty, must undergo mandatory grief counseling by experienced psychologists.   Today's weapons are much more stand offish, and usually crew served.   But the phenomenon of PTSD is now plaguing every army that sees combat.    Wars often end today with a wave of suicides by serving soldiers who can not live with the fact that they have killed another human being.  

    One reason why people were more violent in pre modern times was because the act of killing was fairly routine.    In 1850, if you wanted a chicken dinner, you did not go down to McDonalds and get a chickenburger.    You went to your chook shed, selected a chicken, and killed it yourself.    People were much more conscious of the need to kill to survive, and they could ignore the cruelty to the chicken in the same way as a medical team can ignore a child's screams, and concentrate on the child's wound.

    Another reason proposed as to why people are less intrinsically violent today is because for the last 3000 years of organised fighting, the most violent individuals in every society, (those who would be attracted to a military lifestyle)  have been happily slaughtering and genetically eradicating each other for generations.   It is very much like the Catholic Church today.    For 2000 years, the Catholic Church's most devoted and religious adherents refused to breed with each other.  Thus, the Catholic Church should be applauded for aiding the advancement of the human race, by genetically eradicating religious fanaticism.    It is a pity that mullahs and Imams don't do the same thing.

    The link between genetically controlled violent behaviour and learned violent behaviour can be explained using the example of dogs again.    Only a fool would insist that violent breeds of dogs do not exist.       I have already submitted that such dogs, if raised by people in a loving environment, may not become violent at all.     So too, a normally placid breed like a Labrador can become very violent if brutalised by a cruel master.    But I think that most people would agree that it is much easier to make a dangerous breed of dog into a dangerous dog if you brutalise it, rather than to make a Labrador into a brutal dog using the same methods.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1444 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    Human beings are tribal and territorial. 

    I think that the human race has come a long way since the days when tribalism was an accepted part of culture and everyday life. Of course, there are still poor and backward societies where tribalism is virtually a way of governance and even within decent, civilised society we see evidence of tribalism seeping through the cracks in the form of bikie gangs and mafia. And, to a lesser degree I suppose, we still see tribalism on a more individual, nuisance scale in the form of......um, let me think of an example......oh yes......self-confessed Bogans.

  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    I am using the term "tribal" metaphorically, not literally.       It is another way of writing "identity".    People have multiple identities.   A person can have a sexual identity.   A national identity.  A regional identity.  A sporting identity.   A social identity (parent, grandparent, hard rocker, educated elitist) all at the same time.      But what i am mainly referring to when I say that people are tribal and territorial, is that they form group of like minded people and they support each other, and often have a territory they defend.     One example in my own state of inter tribal identity was the fights which broke out between hang gliders and cliff top glider enthusiasts.       Cliff top model gliding has a very long history in Australia, and one of our pioneering aviation heroes used to fly gliders at a particular cliff top on the South Coast of NSW.     Model glider enthusiasts had been tossing their gliders off this cliff for 80 years before hang gliding became a popular sport.    When hang gliders started turning up at the model gliders favourite clifftop, fit fights soon broke out as it was obvious that the two sports were incompatible in the same territory.  Eventually, the government had to step in and adjudicate who could use what clifftop at any point in time.  

    The war in Ukraine can be seen as a war of tribal expansion versus a tribe defending it's territory. 
  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -   edited July 23
    @Bogan Well your got to realise that being aggressive and violence is what red necks still do so they are the modern tribes.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    If we all worship the same God then we won’t have tribes either.
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 23
    @Bogan

    Here are the 3 main fallacies you are guilty of committing in every post ……….You do know what a fallacy is or am I assuming to much?

    Bandwagon Fallacy

    The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right or good) because others agree with it. In other words, the fallacy argues that if everyone thinks a certain way, then you should, too.


    Hasty Generalization

    A hasty generalization is a claim based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. Arguments based on hasty generalizations often don't hold up due to a lack of supporting evidence: The claim might be true in one case, but that doesn't mean it's always true.


    I have a right to my opinion is an informal fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion






    Poor old Bogan when asked to defend his rambling pile of starts out by making demands LOL …..listen ole pal you no doubt are wetting yourself that I even deemed to address you , also a little heads up for you if you’re going to shoot your mouth off with your personal rambling opinion pieces it’s up to you to defend your BU-LL CR-AP claims with links etc etc until you can do that you’re just making it up as you go along 

    I see you accuse most your opponents of being homosexual , you blame “those foreigners on all crime “ and claim 50 percent of blacks are criminals , you’re a pretty narrow minded bigot aren’t you? Nearly forgot I see you also think global warming a hoax …..dear oh dear 


    Now regards your novel sized pile of nonsense you typed as a reply , you totally ignored my questions so I will give you one more chance to redeem yourself can you try? I’m rooting for you buddy …..


    Human beings are tribal and territorial.     Those tribes which were aggressive and who drove more placid tribes off their own rich territories, became stronger, while the placid people either moved on, were absorbed, or died out

    There was aggression and hostility in the past as there is in the present  that in no way proves that humans are inherently violent and aggressive , prove it?

    Early tribes were no more savage and aggressive than others you watch to many b movies 

    Prove earlier tribes were as savage as you claim?


    .   Therefore human beings are intrinsically violent.   

    That’s an opinion like many different others using the term “therefore “ doesn’t make your opinion right , what do you base your assertions on? Try giving a reasoned answer links etc , etc ?

    People living in well provided for societies can be placid people, but when catastrophe strikes, it can be every man for himself.   

    Can it indeed? Maybe you can explain how your “Everyman for himself “ theory is playing out in Europe as every European country is taking in sheltering and feeding millions of Ukrainians , you  haven’t a clue 

    You have totally backtracked again you fo-ol from “Everyman for himself”  to “ and they are banding together to defend their own territory and helping the threatened tribe, whom they identify with, defend theirs.

    So which is it you fo-ol?

    One reason why there is so much trouble in western societies today with rising crime rates, 

    Crime rates have been falling worldwide for 30 years or more now where are your citation, links etc ,etc ?


    is because we are importing people from dog eat dog societies into our co-operative and high trust societies, and we wonder why they are so violent and untrustworthy?


    Thats it blame foreigners , citations links for your latest “theory “ to prove that the cause of crime is foreigners?

    That violence is part of our DNA can easily be appreciated by a simple fact.

    It’s not violence is learned acquired behaviour prove otherwise or STFU 

        Men are much more violent than women.   

    Men are more physically violent than women do you not realise there are other types of aggression and violence women are tops at ? Do some research have you done that search  I asked you to do? You really are taking quiet the pasting here not one link or citation for your made up nonsense 



    In every country around the world, males make up 93-97% of prison inmates.    Most prison inmates are incarcerated for crimes of violence. 

    Yes physical violence , also if humans are intrinsically violent and agressive how come such a small percentage worlwide are in jails ? Sort of blow holes in your opinion piece right …….. Still no response boy ?

    On the bright side your new buddy mr “prove me different” gave you an award for your efforts as the coward waits as usual for others to debate before he starts to shoot his f-ool mouth off 

    So instead of posting of a pile of utter nonsense based on your bigoted narrow minded mind set have you got even one link citation for your hilarious opinion piece …..What ? No ……I thought so 

    Your Bu-ll Sh-it opinions ain’t facts slow Joe try doing a bit of research next time , I will grade your next piece on a 1 to 10 basis so get to it



  • SwolliwSwolliw 1444 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    I am using the term "tribal" metaphorically, not literally.  

    You are using the word "tribal" literally; and, quite literally you said........"Human beings are tribal and territorial."   

    I don't think that a group of mundane train set has-beens chucking lumps of balsa wood over a cliff and clashing with a bunch of adrenaline-addicted thrill-seekers jumping off said cliff with a piece of Kevlar hardly constitutes tribal warfare as we know it. Mind you, from an evolutionary perspective, it does take time to absolutely rid ourselves of that primal mentality. Take a look at football fans who do tend to regress a tad from friendly rivalry depending upon their degree of intoxication and, lest we forget, the pathetic jousting between lovers of Holden and Falcon, neither of which will ever make it into the annals of international automotive excellence and ingenuity. Neither was ever a bad car yet they were always sub-standard and crude compared with almost all other imported offerings. One would have to confess that they have always been the choice of.....well.....self-confessed bogans.

  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    ah the science denier.  not tribal nor territorial huh? let me see you accept a bunch of strnagers walking into your house and say get  out swalliow. as well we are still tribal; but of course, when you  think of tribe YOU think of half dressed savages, with spears and dancing around the fire.  grow up. your family, your relatives and your friends are your tribe.  @Swolliw
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    yes we can curtail violent behavior; yet that certainly does not mean we have not inherited it from our ancestors as the following excerpt states.  Nature or nurture: is violence in our genes? (phys.org)  @MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    So what exactly is your claim then? I do not understand, as usual, what it is you are trying to argue. What does it mean to "inherit behavior"? One can inherent a part of the body or a piece of property; one cannot inherit (in the biological sense) morals, ideas, choices or combat techniques.

    The article demonstrates that violence among humans has a long history, but I have not seen any demonstration of specific biological processes that make humans somehow specially prone to violence.
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Dee said:
    @Bogan

    Here are the 3 main fallacies you are guilty of committing in every post ……….You do know what a fallacy is or am I assuming to much?
    The topic under discussion is, 'Is violence and aggression inherent in humans"?      If you believe that violence and aggression is not inherent in humans, could you please submit a reasoned argument supporting your opinion, instead of tossing very smelly red herrings all over the place?

    Dee said:
    @Bogan

    Here are the 3 main fallacies you are guilty of committing in every post ……….You do know what a fallacy is or am I assuming to much?

    Bandwagon Fallacy

    The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right or good) because others agree with it. In other words, the fallacy argues that if everyone thinks a certain way, then you should, too.


    Hasty Generalization

    A hasty generalization is a claim based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. Arguments based on hasty generalizations often don't hold up due to a lack of supporting evidence: The claim might be true in one case, but that doesn't mean it's always true.


    I have a right to my opinion is an informal fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion



    What has this to do with the topic under discussion?    I think you just ran around the internet and found a site entitled something like "how to debate" and you found some principles on that site you thought could substitute for a reasoned argument, and you thought it would impress me.    It doesn't.       If you want to win a debate, then the first thing you need to do is to research your subject thoroughly.  You skipped that bit and it shows. 


    Poor old Bogan when asked to defend his rambling pile of starts out by making demands LOL …..listen ole pal you no doubt are wetting yourself that I even deemed to address you , also a little heads up for you if you’re going to shoot your mouth off with your personal rambling opinion pieces it’s up to you to defend your BU-LL CR-AP claims with links etc etc until you can do that you’re just making it up as you go along 

    Well, as a matter of fact, I really enjoy making a fool of you, although you don't need much help from me on that score.     Please keep this up.  It is fun.


    I see you accuse most your opponents of being homosexual , you blame “those foreigners on all crime “ and claim 50 percent of blacks are criminals , you’re a pretty narrow minded bigot aren’t you? Nearly forgot I see you also think global warming a hoax …..dear oh dear 

    Now you are using character assassination as a substitute for the reasoned argument that you have neither the brains, nor the skills, to write.   Who do you think that will impress?


    Now regards your novel sized pile of nonsense you typed as a reply , you totally ignored my questions so I will give you one more chance to redeem yourself can you try? I’m rooting for you buddy …..


    Okay, so instead of submitting a reasoned argument supporting your opinion about the topic under discussion, you intend to bury me with questions?

    Once again, who do you think that will impress?   Do you think that any impartial observer will be swayed by your refusal to ever say why you think that humans are not intrinsically violent?     Everybody can see that you are dodging the issue.    What is worse, is that you are not only embarrassed about it, you are actually very arrogant about it.      I gave you some very good advice on my last post that you should take a more moderate tone, but you can't can you?       You are trying the old todge that "an angry man is always right" and you are trying to bluff it out.    You have no idea yourself as to why you think the way you do.     I think our readers are laughing their heads off at you.     Keep it up.  You are funny.


    There was aggression and hostility in the past as there is in the present  that in no way proves that humans are inherently violent and aggressive , prove it?


    I submitted a very lengthy reasoned argument with examples explaining why I think that humans are intrinsically aggressive.    This is a debate site.  The onus is now upon you to give a countervailing argument.     But this is beyond you, isn't it?       Everybody who is reading this can see that you have an opinion that you can not justify.     That means Bogan 1 and Dee 0.


    Prove earlier tribes were as savage as you claim?


    I submitted a reasoned argument to that effect, which is more than you can manage.      I can not even prove to Pamela Johnson that the world is not flat, and I can not prove to you anything that your mind is closed to, which you just do not want to know.    I get the impression that you have used these dishonest tactics on other debaters and it worked a treat for you, tying them up in knots by making them explain every self evident fact, while you just play the role of naysayer.    But I am an experienced debater and that c-r-a-p  won't work on me.



    Can it indeed? Maybe you can explain how your “Everyman for himself “ theory is playing out in Europe as every European country is taking in sheltering and feeding millions of Ukrainians , you  haven’t a clue 


    Already addressed at length in my last post.       Perhaps you did not even bother to read what I said before you launched into your present tirade of abuse?    Which is your substitute for being unable to present a reasoned argument addressing the topic under discussion.


    You have totally backtracked again you fo-ol from “Everyman for himself”  to “ and they are banding together to defend their own territory and helping the threatened tribe, whom they identify with, defend theirs.

    So which is it you fo-ol?
    I did not "backtrack" at all, although I realised that a fool like you, who seems to have comprehension problems, could either accidently misconstrue what I said.    Or more likely, deliberately misconstrue what I said.


    Crime rates have been falling worldwide for 30 years or more now where are your citation, links etc ,etc ?


    If they are, then do what I did, and submit a reasoned argument with examples supporting your premise.    Then I will take you seriously.     I will then submit a counter argument to explain why I think that you are wrong.   No links please.    I want your opinions, not the opinions of the fake news press.

    Thats it blame foreigners , citations links for your latest “theory “ to prove that the cause of crime is foreigners?


    I got the information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics pamphlet, which is sitting right here beside me, and I quoted it in my last post.    Now, you are claiming that imported foreigners and certain dysfunctional ethnicities are not responsible for very high rates of violent crime.    The onus is upon you to support your position.     Submit a reasoned argument to that effect and like me, try and support your opinion with some sort of evidence.

    It’s not violence is learned acquired behaviour prove otherwise or STFU 

    Yeah, I think making people STFU is what you really want.    Just like in the Soviet Union, your left wing worldview is coming apart at the seams, and the only thing you lefties can do is try and shut people up.

    I have submitted reasoned arguments as to why human beings are intrinsically violent.     No response from you other than herring tossing and STFU.   Do you really think that you can impress intelligent young people into supporting your bizarre worldview if you can not engage your opponents in reasonable debate?        You are not a descendent of Voltaire, you are a descendent of Robespierre.    I was once a trendy lefty like yourself.    But unlike you, I had the brains to figure out that the whole left wing position was a contradiction.    And people like you, who just want to shut people up, can not support their own passionately held convictions.    I began to realise that the smart people were on the right side of politics.    This exchange between you and me simply confirms my belief.


    Men are more physically violent than women do you not realise there are other types of aggression and violence women are tops at ? Do some research have you done that search  I asked you to do? You really are taking quiet the pasting here not one link or citation for your made up nonsense 


    Women do not go to jail for gossiping, do they, i-d-i-o-t?      God knows who you think you will impress with that logic.


    Yes physical violence , also if humans are intrinsically violent and aggressive how come such a small percentage worldwide are in jails ? Sort of blow holes in your opinion piece right …….. Still no response boy ?


    Because they are more or less successfully socialised to suppress their violent tendencies, and to not be violent within their own community, that's why.     Even Barnodot is smart enough to understand that.(with a bit of coaching)    I think you might be smart enough to understand it too?    You are just responding to my reasonable premises with sneery one liners, because it is one of your favourite ways to get your opponents to STFU.






  • @maxx
    i fail to see what that has to do with my post john sir
    Let's look at the actions of a vegitairian or a professional fighter.

    Let's look at the actions of a vegetarian. The process is noted for being non-violent alternative of living, but it promotes the idea that when a representation of truth is not detailed violence is not existent. Vegetarians do not understand the nature of their own attack on living subjects the vegetables, therefor it is not supposed to exist.

    The characteristic of violence is to be in the meat eater not the vegetarian when the aggression and level of violence is equal in all those who eat.

    Another comparison is in the trained professional fighter these people do not fight at all and it is not violence it is a process of skill and self-regulation in the line of conditioning. These things are not typical nor are they permanent as strength, stamina, and agility have a shelf life.


  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 23
    @Bogan

    The topic under discussion is, 'Is violence and aggression inherent in humans"?      If you believe that violence and aggression is not inherent in humans, could you please submit a reasoned argument supporting your opinion, instead of tossing very smelly red herrings all over the place?


    This is like shooting fish in a barrel , how can one even attempt debate with id-iots like you when you don’t even know the basics?

    Bogans fourth fallacy and he still hasn’t a clue why he is so hopelessly out of his depth ,so much fun to be had toying with you son 


                                                                             Burden of Proof 

    Bogan said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

    Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.




    As anticipated poor ole Bogan still thinks his infantile opinions are facts they’re not but they’re pretty much up there with Pamela Johnson’s type of lunacy , are you two related by any chance?

    Posting walls of text blaming blacks and foreigners on crime just demonstrates what a narrow minded racist , bigot you are , also accusing anyone who puts you in your place of being a “leftist” and a “homosexual “ just demonstrates what a nasty little bigoted tu-rd you are

    Incidentally your “ prove me wrong “ cr-ap is exactly what your buddy Maxx does and gods believers do as in “prove there ain’t no god “ , it up to you to prove your nonsense this you cannot do unless that is you quote some bile from a Klan site or some whacko Christian conservative site 

    I gave you a chance 7 simple questions and you couldn’t answer one you didn’t ever try ……Dee 7 Bogarse 0 

    Did my mentioning your 3 fallacies really upset you? It seems you didn’t know what the term even meant ….LOL 

    I laughed out loud at your description of that world famous glider ( tribal ) war in Australia , seriously buddy where do you get this hor-se sh-it ?

    That was only bettered by you trying to use the terms  “literally” and “metaphorically “ and getting hopelessly confused and then trying to weasel your way out when corrected ……please keep it up mate you’re comedy gold ……





  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 23
    @Bogan

    I am using the term "tribal" metaphorically, not literally.     

    Hilarious stuff you haven’t a clue what either term means you Id-iot , I really enjoyed seeing  you getting corrected ….LOL 

    I’ve taken the liberty of posting up your long winded boring account of (you say) a famous tribal conflict involving (wait for it folks ) hang gliders ….bwahahahahahaha …….

    Try not to fall alsleep folks as you read boring Bogans tripe below …….

    One example in my own state of inter tribal identity was the fights which broke out between hang gliders and cliff top glider enthusiasts.       Cliff top model gliding has a very long history in Australia, and one of our pioneering aviation heroes

    I’d say you put insomniacs to sleep as you relate this pile of tripe in your local boozer for the millionth time as everyones eyes glaze over …..yet again 

  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    It still has little, if nothing to do on if violence and aggression is built into humans. @John_C_87
  • @maxx
    It still has little, if nothing to do on if violence and aggression is built into humans

    Yes, it does have a connection violence and aggression are built in by interoperations of instruction and education. A person can be self-disciplined to apply lethal force without violence of any kind. Just as some people can interpret a level of violence in only others and not themselves.

    The vegetable does not have a mouth the cow does. Chopping the cow into pieces alive is violent chopping the vegetable into pieces alive is violent. A dead vegetable is a rotted vegetable thus a interpreting is needed the process is not inherent.g 


  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited July 23
    i believe  as well states that violence  is in our dna; so it is an innate part of us.  we do not have to learn to be aggressive or to be violent. It comes naturally to us for it is how we evolved.  That is what i am saying. @MayCaesar ; you made the claim that a 2 year old throwing a tantrum  is not aggressiveness. I fail to see that.  A tantrum is from anger, and this anger turns into a rebellious act by perhaps throwing or breaking things.  a child at that age has not LEARNED to be aggressive, so it is a natural behavioism . @MayCaesar ;
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    if you are trying to say that we learn violence>>>?  @John_C_87
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    like i said; good luck.  he just gets on the merry-go- round and stays on it..@Bogan
  • exconexcon 562 Pts   -   edited July 23
    maxx said:

    is violence and aggression inherent in humans?


    Hello m:

    It IS.. 

    Since the get go, we carried spears ourselves, or hired the carriers.  Today's gun slinging cops are the spear throwers of our day.   And yes, we wear nice suits and drive nice cars, but we're as VIOLENT as we've ever been.

    excon
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    like i said; good luck.  he just gets on the merry-go- round and stays on it..@Bogan

    Yeah, Maxx.   I have seen this thing before with other ratbags on other sites, and through long experience, I know how to deal with it.    You will notice that three posts in, Dee has not made even an attempt to present an argument, either on the topic under discussion, or even to support any of his stand alone statements?       And he never will, because he really has no idea why he believes what he does.    It is not something he has researched or tried to justify, even to himself.   He is very much like Pamela Johnson, who really does believe that the earth is flat, and no amount of reasoned argument can make her believe otherwise.;   Pamela does not even think that she needs to justify her belief.    The people who surround her are from the same fundamentalist mindset as Pam and their groupthink has made them all think that the earth is flat.     Like Dee, Pamela actually thinks that she is smart and people who think that the world is a globe are just .    She even gets offended when people try to make her justify her beliefs, and she also gets offended when they will not accept her crazy explanations as to why the earth is flat.

    What we see with Dee is a person with low self esteem who is very sensitive about his self image.     He believes that the university educated caste are the smartest guys around and he thinks they know everything.   I will bet that he is not a university type himself, because he really does appear to have low intelligence.      His constant refusal to submit an argument on the topic under discussion seems to bear this out.   First, it is obvious that he can not do any research himself, so this suggests that he is either too lazy or too dumb to do so.    Next, he refuses to realise that always dodging the issue can not convince anybody of the validity of his position.  That's dumb.    Next, his angry, arrogant delivery would even put off anybody who might support his position.   Smart people who can remain calm and think, avoid emotional types who's usual response to a stressful situation is to get angry.    They know that he must be a ratbag, and people who are smart want nothing to do with the opinions of emotional idiots. 

    Dee is a dumb bloke who desperately needs to feel that he is a smart bloke.    So, he has adopted the causes of the left wing socialist socialite caste that he admires so much and who he wishes to be seen as being a part of.    He has also found a way to convince himself that he is smart.     He has figured out that coming onto a debate site and just being a naysaying troll, and buggering up the debates of people who he knows his fashionable caste oppose. convinces him that he is intelligent.   So he goes at it with a gusto.     Notice how he threatened to destroy me in one of his posts?     The tactics he uses have worked a treat before and God knows how many decent and well intentioned debaters he has previously frustrated with his dirty tactics.    But he can't do it to me.   I know what he is doing and have got him by the balls.      

    One way to display to intelligent readers that the left wing cause is bankrupt, is to display to them that left wingers are not real bright..    I don't know if any intelligent and doe eyed young lefties are reading my exchanges between Dee and me, but one hopes that they are.   Watching the antics of Dee might begin the process of getting them to think straight.
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 23
    @Bogan

    Hey Bogarse tell us all about those famous (cough ,cough ahem ) hangliders tribal war you guys had in O…..read on folks this bogarse guy is comedy gold ……..

    I am using the term "tribal" metaphorically, not literally.     

    Hilarious stuff you haven’t a clue what either term means you Id-iot , I really enjoyed seeing  you getting corrected ….LOL 

    I’ve taken the liberty of posting up your long winded boring account of (you say) a famous tribal conflict involving (wait for it folks ) hang gliders ….bwahahahahahaha …….

    Try not to fall alsleep folks as you read boring Bogans tripe below …….

    One example in my own state of inter tribal identity was the fights which broke out between hang gliders and cliff top glider enthusiasts.       Cliff top model gliding has a very long history in Australia, and one of our pioneering aviation heroes

    I’d say you put insomniacs to sleep as you relate this pile of tripe in your local boozer for the millionth time as everyones eyes glaze over …..yet again 
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 24
    @Bogan

    The burden of proof is still on you,  all you’re doing is shooting your mouth off with not one link ,citation , source etc ,etc for your claims which are backed up by zilch , zero , nada

    You foo-lishly think voicing opinions makes them fact which is why you most likely always believe the loudest and biggest mouth in the room , no sources links or citations needed

    My first response to your opinion piece when you claimed humans are inherently violent was …….

    .   Therefore human beings are intrinsically violent.   

    That’s an opinion like many different others using the term “therefore “ doesn’t make your opinion right , what do you base your assertions on?

    Your infantile opinions are all you have  because you cannot back even one of your claims BTW despite you ridiculously thinking I have to counter your nonsensical opinions I don’t , the burden of proof is still on you and it’s something you cannot do which proves you’ve never actually debated anyone in your life because on any debate site you would have already have been issued a loss by mods for not being able to support your opinion piece

    Also yet again I do not have to offer an alternative position to you the debate asks one question I have not nor have I got to offer an alternative opinion , the burden is still on you you cannot meet it you’ve taken another beating , your fallacy is explained below ….again 





    Here ya go tough guy a little piece explaining  to you that fallacy you keep using , Maxxs favourite also two b-um chums one mind it seems ……




                                                                             Burden of Proof 

    Bogan said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

    Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 23
    @maxx

    like i said; good luck.  he just gets on the merry-go- round and stays on it..
    @Bogan

    Hey buddy you out on bail again? What is it about you that you think greasy hair , thick spectacles and a beer gut is going to lure kids into your white van? 
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    believe me i know.  when he does not want to believe in something, there is no amount of scientific evidence that will sway him.  if i created a post and someone gave as much evidence to me as i have to dee, i would accept it. yet all dee does and say, is state that we lost the debate.  crazy.  ive sent over the past year through various posts, links from nasa, science daily, science direct, world health organization, and so many more. in return i get nothing but" you are wrong." then ridicule and insults. @Bogan
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 24
    @maxx

    Maxxs and @Bogans whole defence of the question he asked …….

                             is violence and aggression inherent in humans?



                                                                         yes. prove me different. 


                                                                             Burden of Proof 

    Maxx thinks that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

    Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  

    Dee wrote

    This is like shooting fish in a barrel , how can one even attempt debate with id-iots like you when you don’t even know the basics?

     The basics of debate, is that two or more people hold opposing views on a particular topic.    Both sides present reasoned arguments supporting their particular position, and then both sides attack the other sides explanations.     I have submitted a lengthy explanation as to why I think that human beings are intrinsically violent, and when initially challenged by you to support my explanation, I then submitted even more reasoned arguments to better explain the points you raised.   That is debating honestly with good intent.

     Because I presumed you were debating this interesting question with good intent, I waited for you to give your explanation as to why you think that human beings are not intrinsically violent.    Because I thought you may have an interesting different perspective on this question.   But when you dodged the issue, post after post, I realised that you are just another dishonest troll who knows nothing, and who just comes onto debate sites to frustrate people who really want to debate.

    Dee wrote

    Bogans fourth fallacy and he still hasn’t a clue why he is so hopelessly out of his depth ,so much fun to be had toying with you son 

     You are still dodging the issue.     Submit a reasoned argument, preferably with examples, as to why you think that human beings are not inherently violent, or far cough, Mr Troll.

    Dee wrote
                                                                         
    Bogan said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.




     

    That is an outright lie, Mr Dee.     I challenge you to submit any quote from me where I have said that.      When people feel that they need to lie to win an argument, they have already lost.




    Dee wrote

    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

     That won't wash.    The topic under discussion is, 'Is violence and aggression inherent in humans?" There are two sides to this question, so both sides are making a claim by taking opposing positions.    I have submitted lengthy reasoned arguments giving examples as to why I think that violence and aggression is inherent in humans.      The onus is now upon you to argue out your own claim..     Just saying that I need to support my claim while you do not, makes any impartial reader understand that you have no intention of debating honestly, or with good intent. 

     Dee wrote

     Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

     The trouble with that logic, is that I am not making a wacky claim that everybody knows is probably wacky.    I am responding to a reasonable and very interesting question which asks whether or not humans are intrinsically violent?     My opinion is, that intelligent people from both sides of the political divide do find such a question interesting, and they do appreciate people who try their best to answer this question.     They do not appreciate people like yourself who just want to make the contributors to this question STFU.

     

     I think that people are inherently violent and have given lengthy explanations with examples as to why I think the way I do.     If you oppose my position, then the onus is upon you to explain why you think the way you do.     The more you try to justify why you need not do that, the more your own supporters look askance at you and wonder if you have any brains at all?     The obvious fact that you are doing everything possible to dodge the issue and make other people STFU, simply makes your own supporters doubt their own passionately held views.

     Dee wrote

    As anticipated poor ole Bogan still thinks his infantile opinions are facts they’re not but they’re pretty much up there with Pamela Johnson’s type of lunacy , are you two related by any chance?

     The topic under discussion is, "Is violence and aggression inherent in humans?"     The more you dodge responding, and just resort to red herring tossing, character assassination, and claims that you need not even submit a reasoned argument to support your position, the more s-t-u-p-i-d you look.     Which helps my side immensely.    Keep it up.

     Dee  wrote

    Posting walls of text blaming blacks and foreigners on crime just demonstrates what a narrow minded racist , bigot you are , also accusing anyone who puts you in your place of being a “leftist” and a “homosexual “ just demonstrates what a nasty little bigoted tu-rd you are

     Back to character assassination, then Dee?    Like Maxx said, around and around you go.    You will do anything to dodge responding to the question under discussion.    Even your own supporters must be getting embarrassed watching you duck and squirm?

     Dee wrote

    Incidentally your “ prove me wrong “ cr-ap is exactly what your buddy Maxx does and gods believers do as in “prove there ain’t no god “ , it up to you to prove your nonsense this you cannot do unless that is you quote some bile from a Klan site or some whacko Christian conservative site 

     What maxx and I do is, we respond to the topic under discussion with reasoned arguments, something that you are not smart enough to emulate.

     Dee wrote

    I gave you a chance 7 simple questions and you couldn’t answer one you didn’t ever try ……Dee 7 Bogarse 0 

     I will be very happy to answer any reasonable question from you after you submit a reasoned argument explaining why you think that people are not intrinsically violent.     But I will not fall for the trap of you just swamping me with questions, while you continue to play the troll and dodge the issue forever.

    Dee wrote

     Did my mentioning your 3 fallacies really upset you? It seems you didn’t know what the term even meant ….LOL 

     No.   I recognised it as another smelly red herring who's intent is to throw off the hounds off the trail, who are trying to stay on topic.

     Dee wrote

    I laughed out loud at your description of that world famous glider ( tribal ) war in Australia , seriously buddy where do you get this hor-se sh-it ?

     From reading my local newspapers and watching TV.    I presume that you do the same thing?     You look at all those university types marching around everywhere on TV, and you see all of those filthy rich celebrities supporting them, and you say "I want to be like them".     So you parrot everything they support without ever bothering to figure out if what they are saying is right.     Then you come onto a debate site, where you are completely out of your depth, because you know nothing.   Unable to formulate any argument to support your culturally transmitted beliefs, you instead disrupt the debate by acting the troll.    This somehow convinces you that you are smart.     When challenged to respond with a resoned argument to the topic under discussion, you come out with an "explanation" as to why do not need to, which even disappoints anyone who may be supporting your humanitarian position.

     Dee wrote

    That was only bettered by you trying to use the terms  “literally” and “metaphorically “ and getting hopelessly confused and then trying to weasel your way out when corrected ……please keep it up mate you’re comedy gold ……

     Well, my opinion is, that you are making a complete fool of yourself which helps me immensely.    One reason why I come onto these sites is to hopefully engage with some doe eyed and well meaning young trendy lefties, that I can deprogram.      You are doing a splendid job of making them understand how s-t- u-p-i-d and dishonest the loony left position really is.

  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited July 23
    again, nice try.  he wont submit.  he is only on this site to argue and insult.  it gets him off. not a debate at all.  that is why i muted  the brit.  it's a waste of time.  however if you wish to continue with him, then by all means; however this is my post and you both are way off the topic.  @Bogan
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch