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.





Do We Need Any More Proof?

Debate Information

I didn't think I would pull it off but I have done it....won an almost unwinnable debate.....
https://debateisland.com/discussion/8719/does-god-exist
We had plenty of diversions and, without mentioning @Dee 's name, one challenger came out with a completely irrelevant sidetrack about burden of proof (and the usual personal crap) and stuck on them for some odd reason.

Then, again, without mentioning any specific names such as @OakTownA another challenger, after being prompted to actually say something, made a big blunder and completely killed whatever argument he was going to make.

So, it just goes to show that a good debater can win any debate buy using proper debating tactics without getting personal, side-tracking and making blunders.

Oh, and there is no such thing as God.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 21


    I didn't think I would pull it off but I have done it.

    Oh! You were finally able to get it hard enough to achieve (for you ) the impossible …..congrats mate …..



     We had plenty of diversions and, without mentioning @Dee 's name

    Translation from Swollowscum to English “ oh no Dee copied  and pasted my words from my other psychotic daily god rants and beat me to a pulp”………..Learn to take your whippings like a man son you’re starting to sound as bad as your non stop whining rugby team who are a laughing stock …..but hey that’s Australians for ya ……..yeeee haaaa ….
  • jackjack 81 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:

    I didn't think I would pull it off but I have done it....won an almost unwinnable debate.....
    Hello Swallow:

    Nahhh..  Ya didn't..  Declaring that you did, is PROOF that you didn't..

    excon

    Dee
  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    When I began debating on debate sites, 20 years ago, I had high hopes that people could be swayed from wrong opinions by the force of logic and reasoned argument.     How naive of me.   If there is one thing I have learned in 20 years of debating, is that no amount of reasoned argument, no matter how compelling or logical, can sway people who simply do not want to know.    The old adage that you can never convince anybody of anything, if their job depends upon them not understanding what you are saying, is very true.

    The tactics these people use is widespread.

    1.    They refuse to make the simplest of logical connections.
    2.    They argue against your submissions but never submit anything themselves that can be analyzed and refuted.
    3.    They only reply with sneery one liners which they think makes them look smart, but in fact displays the opposite.  
    4.    They argue from a position which they themselves know is wrong because their position  is just a Trojan Horse for their real agenda.

    All you can do is to debate honestly and explain your position, in the hope that an audience will compare your position against the obvious dishonesty or deliberate water muddying of your opponent, and draw their own conclusions.

  • jackjack 81 Pts   -   edited November 21
    Bogan said:

    All you can do is to debate honestly and explain your position, in the hope that an audience will compare your position against the obvious dishonesty or deliberate water muddying of your opponent, and draw their own conclusions.

    Hello B:

    Nahhh.. 

    You explain your position, that is true..  But, as you write above, if your opponents DON'T agree with you, they're dishonest liars who deliberately muddy the waters..  And, then you proceed to talk about THEM, as you're doing here, thinking you're making valuable debating points, all the while sounding like an angry F()()L. 

    Hence my repetition of the tome:

    Intelligent people talk about ideas,
    Average people talk about things, and
    Ignorant people talk about other people..

    Dunno WHY you don't get that..

    excon
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @jack
    Declaring that you did, is PROOF that you didn't

    You mean, your comment is proof that I did.

    That sort of (nil) reasoning would not win any argument, now would it?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    .but hey that’s Australians for ya

    I may live in Australia but I am a New Zealander.

    Now, back to the subject of rugby???

  • BoganBogan 203 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Fair point, Jack.   Yes, I do deliberately belittle my opponents by saying that they are , and there is a reason for that.      I have read the book "The Art of Persuasion" and it stressed that whenever you attempt to change another person's opinion, you must never attack their self esteem.  This is because your opponent's self esteem is extremely important to them and they will deny to the death that they are wrong, because to admit that you are right, would be to admit that they are stu-pid.     Okay, I get that.   But I think that this line of thinking does not always apply, especially in these woke times.

    You see, Jack, we live in a time where the number of university educated people is so significant that they have formed an entirely new class of people.    These people always existed in small numbers, but in previous decades, most university educated people were most definitely the children of the Establishment.     Of course, they still are today, but the demographic which makes up the establishment today is different from the Establishment of yesterday.       This new class of people think that they are God's gift to the human race and that they are oh, so ferking smart.      They think that they are smarter than their middle class parents, and so much smarter than the working class, who they publicly profess to champion, but who they privately despise.      This has led to an odd inversion of politics.    Once safe conservative seats are now turning Left and Green.    Once safe leftist seats full of working class people are turning conservative (or Republican in the USA, or Liberal in Australia)

    Now, this new class of people look for wider electoral support so they champion all sorts of minority groups against their conservative opponents.     But they still hope to capture the young from the working and lower middle class.     They do this using psychology.      Their pitch is, that they are the far seeing intelligent social progressives.  The fashionable ones,  the "intelligensia" as they love to call themselves.   They appeal to the young of their social inferiors by saying that all a young person needs to do to be considered an intelligent, far seeing social progressive, is to chant the mantras of the socialist left.     This has great appeal to many young people.    Every person loves to think of themselves as smart, and here is the socialist left telling them jhow they can display their supposedly high intelligence.

    So what we get on debate sites is a lot of young people who just KNOW that they are right because they have been programmed to think that just chanting the socialist mantras displays how smart they are.  As a deprogrammer, my job is to first show them that their programmed thinking is pretty dumb.    If the think that they are intelligent, then do some bloody research and know your topic.    Just coming onto a debate site with a sneery, superior attitude is not displaying high intelligence at all.     It is doing the opposite.     

    This leads to some interesting confrontations.    You get the dum-basses like Piloteer, Dee, and Barnodot  who I think are classic Manchurian Candidate lefties, who do not even try to engage me in reasoned debate.     This is because even though they have convinced themselves that they are smart,  they know that they are out of their depth, so all they can do is reply with sneery one liners and cat calls.     They deeply want to think that they are smart but they obviously have a problem there.

    Then there are other contributors who may come onto a debate site all full of vim and vigour, confident that they can show the cretinous masses how superior they are, and assuming that they can grind their low class opponents into the ground.      But when you engage with them in reasoned debate, they drop the arrogance and get more respectful.     They ask questions, and good questions too.     They stop their outright hostility and engage with me on a reasonable level.     These are the smart contributors,        And it has been my pleasure to sometimes show them the light.    My favourite one was a young woman with two degrees (including Law) who went from a contributor of "The Green left Weekly" to a much more moderate position.

    Think of me like a drill sergeant.    You have to knock down the recruits self esteem and value system to get them to accept a new sense of self and a new value system, based upon their loyalty to a platoon or regiment.


  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Swollow ;

    back to the subject of rugby???

    Rated 3rd in the world ? Your point ?
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Bogan


    This leads to some interesting confrontations.    You get the dum-basses like Piloteer, Dee, and Barnodot  who I think are classic Manchurian Candidate lefties, who do not even try to engage me in reasoned debate

    Your obsession with me tells the tale , everytime I kick your s-orrry b-utt you run whining ……your idea of “reasoned debate “ is engaging in your racist rants against anyone that’s not a brain dead member of the Klan like you 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    Rated 3rd in the world ? Your point ?

    My point is you are wrong.....were you talking about Union......https://debateisland.com/discussion/8726/Rated%203rd%20in%20the%20world%20?%20Your%20point%20?

    Or perhaps, League........https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/international-rugby-league-world-rankings/

    Do we need any more proof?

  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Your embarrassment is understandable the Kiwis never stoped bragging when they were worlds number one now swolliw goes into the pretend game Kiwis love when playing second fiddle as in “which rugby did you mean Union or league “……Seriously ?
  • Do we need anymore proof?
    Why Is Alcohol Measured by Proof? | Britannica

    We the people are at a liberty to hold the Freedom of speech it takes nothing more than a common defense that can be used to show no cost can take place in the holding of tranquility publicly. The freedom of Speech, freedom of press, and the freedom of religion are a united state of inalienable truths that can be held by liberty to be common in a question of cost which is measured in the keeping or loss of tranquility.

    Your proof is the measurement of magic held in a bottle of alcohol and is the filter used in your mind to deny representation to established justice.


  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    Seriously ?

    Yes, seriously...what the heck are you going on about? Except that you seem to be in a twist.

    The Kiwis is a Rugby League team whilst the All Blacks is a Rugby Union team.

    Whichever one you are talking about....it is number one....I have submitted the evidence to prove that your non-evidential assertion is completely wrong and you still haven't reasoned nor evidenced your convoluted personal crap.

    As usual. I win hands down.

  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    The only one in a “twist” is you …. the term Kiwi was attributed to all New Zealanders, who proudly embraced the moniker……

    You lose again …..just like your rugby team keeps doing ……ranked third up from an all time low though in fairness ……still third ………

    I lost count of the whippings I’ve given you it must equal the amount your father in law dished out to your uppity wife or have I exceeded that ? Yeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaasss…..
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    You are truly amazing, Mr Swolliw: you won a game with the rules of your own creation, where the primary rule is "Swolliw wins every game". Miraculous!  B)
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar @Dee @Maxx
     the primary rule is "Swolliw wins every game".

    That's not a rule, it just happens to be a fact which has a mountain of evidence, much of which I have already submitted. 

    If indeed it is a rule then I certainly didn't make it up. It would just simply be a rule of thumb that came about by default.

    The rules that I do adhere to are from the International Rules of Debate and from the DebateIsland rules, however, you would know anything about those, would you?....Especially the rules about making personal attacks and gaslighting; no sirrreee.

    Did you know that the Maori Haka has medicinal properties? That's right, because when the All Blacks perform it before every match it immediately induces enemas in the opposition by scaring the shite out of them. Which is one reason why the All Blacks are undeniably the world's number one team.

  • @MayCaesar
    You are truly amazing, Mr Swolliw: you won a game with the rules of your own creation, where the primary rule is "Swolliw wins every game". Miraculous!  B

    The fact is SwoIIiw has only proven he is incapable of collecting evidence while also establishing that as a witness to a grievance a person’s account of argument can be held accused. GOD is an only grievance based on if GOD is a religion or not. There is an admission of possible negligence required to deny representation when making a statement openly something is not real and therefore is undeserving of judicial representation equally.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:

    That's not a rule, it just happens to be a fact which has a mountain of evidence, much of which I have already submitted. 

    If indeed it is a rule then I certainly didn't make it up. It would just simply be a rule of thumb that came about by default.

    The rules that I do adhere to are from the International Rules of Debate and from the DebateIsland rules, however, you would know anything about those, would you?....Especially the rules about making personal attacks and gaslighting; no sirrreee.

    Did you know that the Maori Haka has medicinal properties? That's right, because when the All Blacks perform it before every match it immediately induces enemas in the opposition by scaring the shite out of them. Which is one reason why the All Blacks are undeniably the world's number one team.

    I am sorry, but I have read both of those and have never encountered anything related to someone "winning a game"; none of these suggested that this was a game with clear rules leading to a clear winner and a clear loser.

    You can proclaim all you want your superiority and victory, but at the end of the day it exists only in your head. Just like any religious fanatic, you have created a story in your head that in no way is connected to reality, but that makes you feel warm inside, and without that story you are nothing, for you have to face the actual facts of reality according to which you inherently are nothing to others, and your success is to be earned and demonstrated, not just claimed verbally.

    And on that note, I have met many people whose logical skills truly impressed me - and I do not count you among them. A huge irony is that in a thread about proof you have demonstrated deep confusion about what "proof" actually entails. Your "proof" literally came down to you linking another threat and proclaiming yourself a winner. Well, buddy... This proof might work on someone on one of those events you have a habit of attending, involving a lot of spicy beverages - but it does not work when you are talking to someone who has done actual proofs for living. "Proof", my friend, is a sequence of statements in which the next statement logically unambiguously follows from the previous one, and the logical connections between subsequent statements are indisputable. Your "proofs" look very differently: they mostly consist of trying to make your opponents feel crappy by throwing a lot of sarcastic humor at them. I believe, however, that the only person on this website who takes this methodology seriously is you yourself.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Poor ole Swollow is posting up his militant Atheist rage filled posts for years screeching “there is no god , cause I say so “ now recently revised “ to say there is a god cause I say so “ …….this joker calls others delusional yet he’s not sure if a god exists or not ……further proof of his delusional mind state is his ridiculous contention that the All blacks are “undeniably “worlds number one when their own fans , team and coaches admit Ireland and France are superior …..you keep demonstrating what we all know buddy you’ve lost touch with reality …….

    World Rankings ……ZING ……..you lose …..again ……ZING …..

    (1) 
    Ireland 
    90.63
    (2) 
    France 
    90.01
    (3) 
    New Zealand 
    88.98
    (4) 
    South Africa 
    88.01
    (5) 
    England 
    84.62
    (9) 
    Scotland 
    81.55
    (6) 
    Argentina 
    80.72
    (8) 
    Australia 
    80.64
    (7) 
    Wales 
    79.26
    10 
    (10) 
    Japan
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    Apart from the fact that you had already lost the argument by default (I quoted two authoritative sources, you didn't...twice) you have merely, for all intents and purposes, made up those "statistics".....or got them from one of Maxx's weirdo websites. 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    I am sorry, but I have read both of those and have never encountered anything related to someone "winning a game"

    Quite right on both counts there. So you should be sorry for your sustained personal attacks and glaring concocted inaccuracies (e.g literally came down to you linking another threat and proclaiming yourself a winner)

    And, on the second count; quite right also.....never encountered anything related to someone "winning a game" There is no "game" here. This is no game, it's a debating site and I clearly won an argument as a matter of fact; you have not tendered one single viable argument to counter mine. Look up the rules of the site (if you dare) and read about making personal attacks. I'm sure you will find that any debating society worth its salt will disqualify anyone from an argument if they resort to personal attacks. You have been warned about that often enough and if you don't like it then, tough.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    GOD is an only grievance based on if GOD is a religion or not.

    That is a noble assertion based on God being an absolute authority. However, when it comes to debating we must rely on the rules, fair play and decency. And whilst the latter two may share commonality with religious ideals, the rules of debating are specific and it is regrettable that there are some people on this site (you not included) who, for lack of debating etiquette and common reasoning, resort to gutter tactics in some vain attempt at trying to impress others by showing their bravado in being a loose cannon. 

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:

    Quite right on both counts there. So you should be sorry for your sustained personal attacks and glaring concocted inaccuracies (e.g literally came down to you linking another threat and proclaiming yourself a winner)

    And, on the second count; quite right also.....never encountered anything related to someone "winning a game" There is no "game" here. This is no game, it's a debating site and I clearly won an argument as a matter of fact; you have not tendered one single viable argument to counter mine. Look up the rules of the site (if you dare) and read about making personal attacks. I'm sure you will find that any debating society worth its salt will disqualify anyone from an argument if they resort to personal attacks. You have been warned about that often enough and if you don't like it then, tough.

    Buddy... You are much less important to strangers than you might think. "Personal attacks"? Your persona is of no interest to me, and I would never discuss it at all - but you make a lot of claims about said persona, and, since this is a debate website, it is only just to contest the unwarranted ones. When you talk about how great of a debater and a winner you are, and I object to it and say that you are not that - then I am not making a personal attack, but participating in a legitimate debate. Narcissists like you might not understand it, because any disapproval of their persona on someone else's part they take as a threat to their very existence - but I genuinely am not interested in talking about you, and if you were so kind as to not initiate these discussions, then they would never happen. I only care about your arguments (that leave a lot to be desired), and when they happen to be about yourself, then have fun reaping what you sow.

    If there are no explicit rules of the game or whatever you call it, then it is impossible to "win" anything as a matter of fact. It is possible to share your delusions of grandeur with other people, but, unless you come across someone naive enough to take any person doing that at their word, you will have a hard time convincing anyone.

    Reminds me of the embarrassing case when, at a drunken party, I wanted to impress a girl who I liked, sit down and played some electric piano, thinking, "No way anyone else around here can play piano". Then 3 more people sit down and played far-far better than me; I ended up being the worst piano player in the room.'
    The girl is still one of my best friends, but that incident is not something we ever talk about. I wonder if you, Mr Swolliw, 2-3 years down the road will reread the comments from your dark past and regret making them. Realizing that you, in fact, are not nearly as good at something as you claim you are can be very painful.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
     "Personal attacks"

    That's right...personal attacks...you are getting well out of control.

    Now, would you be so kind as to stop it?

  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Apart from the fact that you had already lost the argument by default (I quoted two authoritative sources, you didn't...twice) you have merely, for all intents and purposes, made up those "statistics".....or got them from one of Maxx's weirdo websites. 

    Apart from the fact that you had already lost the argument by default (I quoted two authoritative sources, you didn't...twice) you have merely, for all intents and purposes, made up  "statistics".that the All Blacks were ever number one , a position you and I know they never held ....maybe you got them from one of Maxx's weirdo websites. 
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -   edited November 25
    Argument Topic: If God didnt exist, so wouldnt coders and programmers

    This is my first post ever, bear with me with patience :)

    If God and his creation didnt exist, so wouldn't coders and softwares.
    Because, at least in this dimension, what is created necessarily implies a creator.

    If God didnt exist, then, nothing would exist since nothing can exist out of emptiness/nothingness.

    Yet, everything that has been so has a function, a purpose and a beautiful design. Trees's purpose is multiple: to bear fruits for humans, shades for men, insects and birds, roots to stabilize the ground, oxygen for humans and animals, wood for us to write and heat, essences to make medication, branches for birds to nest etc etc
    This is one simple thing, probably vain to your eyes, yet it has multiple useful purposes.

    Emptiness cannot create a perfect thing which in turns will fully fill multiple purposes for other independently created beings.

    Or if so, whats the purpose of coders and programmers? Let's then just put a pen on a table and lets wait until emptiness creates a perfect software out of this pen...

    This emptiness has to create, lets make it easy, just one single perfect software. This software must be as perfect as the tree and thus, have the following requirements:
     - an awesome idea that perfectly fills at least one purpose (the tree fills multiple purposes but lets make it simple for the coder..)
    - be long lasting
    - have a perfect design done with the less possible design (no futility)
    - perfect ergonomy with only well thought features
    - perfect clean code: both easily readable, understandable, consistent, easy to debug
    - if this software makes errors, then it must say what is wrong in an easily readable, understandable, consistent and easy to debug manner (like blood, fec-- and urin- analysis are enough to know if one is sick and from which sickness)
    - perfect algorithm (dna)
    - practical and aesthetics user interface which requires empathy from the coder to understand the "user/human" experience

    Such a software would require from the coder-creator a full understanding of the objectives of this one single software, its environment, the best available technologies for such usage; but also to have a larger view of the environment in which the software will perform and its users etc etc etc.

    And I ask that such software should be done in ONE single try without any error: it must work to its full capacity at once.
    The coder must work alone, without any help from anyone or anywebsite: he must only use what his knowledge and capabilities are at a time T. There will be no peer review and no testing.

    Now, because the creation is made of billions of independent softwares, more or less complex, I ask that this programmer then builds billions of fully and perfectly interconnected softwares, with the requirements mentionned above. Also, each will need to be beautifully integrated within multiple and different environnements and technologies with keeping in mind that each software will need to perfectly and aesthetically cater to different purposes and audiences (such like the creation's different environment and audiences in the forms of space, oceans, underground environment etc).

    I have kept it simple. I havent asked that such softwares must fully and perfectly perform despite physical, biological, psychological constraints.

    Remember, as the creation would not have been fit to life it one unit had been added or suppressed to 10.-27; the requirements of this "universe of softwares" is to have no bug and no error. The "apparent self declared" bugs must only be perfect, clean and straight to the point ways for the coder to detect anomalies that may be harmful to the good functioning of the software, nothing else.

    So please, programmer, will you please stand up? Nobody?..

    Then we agree, that at this time, no human being out of the billions that have been born and dead, even if all worked simultaneously together, wouldnt come up with this simple one software.

    But if such a programmer existed, what would you think of such a programmer?
    Be honest: that he is a perfect genius right? Yet, most geniuses are good at one thing but sucks at another thing (like empathy, communication. Most of "geniuses" like Einstein have been later diagnosed with some form of autism like Asperger s syndrom).

    Let's be easy on programmer and say it would MAYBE require, just for one single software, to gather up a team of hundred of geniuses and experts. Yet, there would still to be one "leader" otherwise there would be chaos in the team.
    Yet, even a team of such a hundred of geniuses unseen before would not able to do that.

    And if they do make one, after 50 years of attempt, like some kind of artificially intelligent robot endowed with some deep learning capabilities, lets say like God did with us when giving us free will and a "conscious"/knowledge; then look at what these robots have been able to do in such a limited time: they outperform their creatorS.

    We havent outperformed nobody.

    Yet, while we are being dangerously outperformed by our own creation, we arrogantly believe that our poor abilities and knowledge are enough to declare that God doesnt exist.

    If He didnt, so wouldnt coders and programmers; proof that without an intelligence behind a thing, nothing can be created.

    Consequently, God exist and so do coders and programmers.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername

    If God and his creation didnt exist, so wouldn't coders and softwares.

     Coders  and softwares exist we have proof of such , you have zero proof for a god so your assertion fails as it’s based on an unjustified speculative assumption which is why you use the speculative term “ if “ 

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername
    .........bear with me with patience

    No, because I have absolutely no patience nor respect for someone who is posing as some sort of anonymous half-wit (when he already has another avatar...am I right or am I right here?) extolling a load of utter crap that has nothing at all to do with the topic.

    So, do everyone a favour and make this also your last post.

    NoUsername
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: A creator is necessarily needed to create a software, since each single element of the Creation is more complex, a Creator was needed to create the Creation

    @Dee

  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    So much anger isnt good for your hear man.

    I do not have 2 accounts, unless I forgot about it. I have created this account a long time ago and just remembered it once i tried to create one now.

    I saw some of your comments. Man, so much evil on earth..

    But I dont care. Dont read me and dont be patient, my participation here is not for you so, leave me alone :)


  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername

    : A creator is necessarily needed to create a software,

    Yes human beings do it all the time 

    since each single element of the Creation is more complex a Creator was needed to create the Creation

    Nonsense , you keep making utterly ridiculous arguments and the tragedy is you do not even comprehend the fallacies you’re guilty of 
    NoUsername
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    it read on this site that "Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything ".

    First, your reply isnt "civil".

    "Nonsense": show me where it is a nonsense, you cant just label it "nonsense" to prove your point

    "you keep making utterly ridiculous arguments": which ones?

    "tragedy": if there is one, its only in your head

    "you do not even comprehend the fallacies": I have never debated, I am learning. Writing such comment implies that you know which one I made yet, you dont bother to specify with ones.

    " you’re guilty of ": I am guilty of nothing. In your mind, maybe I am guilty of "reasoning" in a way which you dislike. That tells a lot. If my reasoning doesnt fit with your beliefs, lets then share. If my reasoning doest respect a debate format, I came to learn. Not everywhere do we get to have "debate" lessons at school. Plus, in a language that is not my birth language.
    You dont want to exchange with people having different opinions, then ignore me.
    You dont want to share "your experience" which you imply you have by asserting this is a "non sence" "fallacies", help me or be quiet.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername

    it read on this site that "Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything ".

    First, your reply isnt "civil".

    It certainly was here it is in full …..and it’s perfectly civil …….

    if God and his creation didnt exist, so wouldn't coders and softwares.

     Coders  and softwares exist we have proof of such , you have zero proof for a god so your assertion fails as it’s based on an unjustified speculative assumption which is why you use the speculative term “ if “ 


    Show me where it is a nonsense, you cant just label it "nonsense" to prove your point


    The term nonsense is used to let you know that your argument is nonsense it’s an informal fallacy called special pleading 

    "you keep making utterly ridiculous arguments": which ones?

    Read above , I only had to take one sentence from your original post and found 1 fallacy ,  I read the rest you’re guilty of a further 9 

    "tragedy": if there is one, its only in your head

    No , I said the tragedy was your lack of comprehension and right on cue you demonstrate your lack of such again 

    Now can you stop whining put on your big boy pants and post up your best god proof or was that it ? ……Seriously ?
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: We agree that a relationthip exists between creator and the thing created. Therefore, the world having been created is a prima facie evidence of the existence of a creator

    @Dee

    After all this wasted energy and dubious "perfect sense of civism", thank you for taking the time to provide me with some useful feedbacks..
    Exit the negative and arrogant semantics of "ridiculous" "non sense" "guilty" "tragedy": is this Plato speaking here?... 

    In case you wonder, my thanks arent sarcastic :)

    The term nonsense is used to let you know that your argument is nonsense it’s an informal fallacy called special pleading 

     Ok. I checked the meaning of it : it gives examples where "one's apply a certain set of criteria to other people and circumstances while exempting themselves from the same criteria"
    and this example: "Teacher, I agree that cheating on an exam should be punished, but please consider my situation: I just made a mistake"
    What did I apply to whom here?

    I only had to take one sentence from your original post and found 1 fallacy ,  I read the rest you’re guilty of a further 9
    For a first try, i'm not ashamed, especially when I dont even know the list of the fallacies. I am going to take a look at them all and rephrase my arguments later.

    Now can you stop whining put on your big boy pants and post up your best god proof or was that it ?
    I never said I was a boy.
    So I understand all the fallacies I have done, I would like to rephrase the same argument  until its no more a fallacy, can you assist ?
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 25
    @NoUsername

    Thank you for your response , I have never seen a good argument  for a god that is fallacy free , most are just assertions with zero proof to back them up.

    Believers claim a supernatural entity that cannot be seen heard or touched somehow exists yet there’s zero evidence for this assertion 

    Incidentally I class all arguments for a god as nonsense,  so I’m sorry if you took it as unfair but I actually base it on a statement by David Hume philosopher who said for a god argument or any other argument to be a coherent truth claim it must be based on relations of ideas which is purely conceptual or matters of fact which are only verifiable by observation , otherwise it’s most likely nonsense masquerading as sense 

    Otherwise known as Humes fork https://www.amyhileyart.com/essays/humes-fork



  • maxxmaxx 983 Pts   -  
    again go drink your cheap beer and leave me off posts i am not debating.  all 3 of you need to do so, dee, may and you. i do not call n ot put any of you on posts that you do not debate upon.@Swolliw
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    again go drink your cheap beer and leave me off posts i am not debating.  all 3 of you need to do so, dee, may and you

    Ah yes the usual cognitive dissonance from Mad Maxx don’t mention his name in posts but at the same time mention 3 names in your post …..at least your insanity in print is consistent in keeping with your character 
  • maxxmaxx 983 Pts   -  
    i do believe my name is all over this post
    @Dee
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    i do believe my name is all over this post

    Whats that got to do with me?
  • maxxmaxx 983 Pts   -  
    because i have seen you mention my name upon other posts that i am not engaged with. You can lie and say no, for that is typical of you, not owing up to what you said, but I do not care. You are only here on this site to ridicule and insult anyway, rather than debate.  @Dee
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    again go drink your cheap beer and leave me off posts i am not debating.  all 3 of you need to do so, dee, may and you. i do not call n ot put any of you on posts that you do not debate upon

    No, I don't drink cheap beer. It has no medicinal properties.


  • Bruh, if ya gonna come on this site and speak to everyone like a POS expect reciprocation. As the saying goes "if you can't take it then don't dish it" you pompous pr!ck.



  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    Bruh, if ya gonna come on this site and speak to everyone like a POS expect reciprocation. As the saying goes "if you can't take it then don't dish it" you pompous pr!ck.

    Okay, I have campaigned many times about others making personal and vulgar attacks but if you are intent on showing your true colours, that's your business. 

    The one distinct feature about such ire that I have observed is that those who make such attacks concoct baseless accusations...you have been asked before to explain or give an example as to what on earth you are talking about but have never done so and I know you certainly won't in this case, will you? Because whatever you are trying to accuse me of simply doesn't exist, does it?'

    And, I have found that it is simply down to a case of sour grapes.


  • Forgive me but I have had a bad day at work. So, I am taking out on anyone on Debateisland.



  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    That's cool, it's best to get it out.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername
    I have created this account a long time ago and just remembered it once i tried to create one now.

    Yeah, sure you did.....not.

    Dont read me and dont be patient, my participation here is not for you so, leave me aloneI

    ......I think not.......this is a public, open debating forum and members (should) follow the rules of the site, not the rules dictated by some ignorant, arrogant control freak.
    https://debateisland.com/discussion/8735/how-prevalent-is-ai
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    You may think whatever you want. What is in your head is just a projection of your frustration and your "understanding" (very wrong) of others' motivations. You calling me names and pretty much everybody here, but you despite being the number 1 to deserve them, are proof enough of your mentality.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Oh do dry up you childish troll 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @NoUsername
    You may think whatever you want.

    Thank you for allowing me such a privilege sir. I feel most honored.

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