Best Great argument Content - | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!

Best Great argument Content

  • The Big-Bang Story

    @Evidence Aliens are the ones we want to surrender to. AI and other humans are not.

    @someone234 ; aliens are not the ones who are putting up all these 5-G cell towers and spraying us with all the metals that we breathe in and get imbedded in our brain making us susceptible to microwave attacks, it is our NWO (NaziWorldOrder) government. And I don't mean the ones the poor sheeple vote on, the ones we see in office either. The ones behind this are our neighbors, coworkers, friends and even could be close as our relatives. Humans who have sold their souls to Satan, gave up all their rational God given free will reasoning.
    You need "eyes to see" to actually see them.
    What is even more surreal is that "They" know the ones that can see, which this scene from the Movie "They Live" portrays frighteningly accurately:

    This is almost EXACTLY how I go through life every day now, .. only God keeps me alive for whatever reason/plan He has for me!?
  • The Big-Bang Story

    It's a rather pertinent argument really.
  • Biblical Trinity

    @WilliamSchulz so where is the female counterpart for god?
    There is none, as mentioned, God created natural law and he can break this to do his own bidding. Therefore, he can create life without the presence of a female. However, natural law dictates that a female and a male must reproduce in oder to create new life. Therefore, if God can create life without a female, he must be able to act outside of natural law, which is exactly what he can do as God if he is natural law's creator. 
  • Gun Control

    I'm against gun control.  I understand that Gun Control is multi-faceted and cannot be simplified down to any single issue in reality. 

    So far, there is no correlation between reduction in crime or violence and Gun's as simple as that.

    With all the different organizations that track crime either as a government entity or a responsible organization that conducts research on statistics of violence, there isn't one study, research report or organization that can produce any conclusive evidence that Gun Control has or can reduce any type of crime.  Even in countries like Australia...there's no evidence to support that the Gun ban decreased crime or violence.

    I'm against Gun Control because it's the wrong focus.  Anytime innocent people are dying and the supposed solution misses the mark and doesn't do anything to solve the have to wonder why people would do that.  Why focus on something that is proven over time to have no impact on the issue that we're trying to solve?
  • Should you spend more time with your best or worst employees?


    Thank you, both of you have shared very interesting ideas.
    I suppose, the best thing to do would be to retain a good sense of flexibility in our judgement because there hardly ever is a "one size fits all" solution.
  • Is the Earth flat?

    Erfisflat said:

    Obviously, the sun is not just above the trees here, but if it were, and there was a tree on the opposite side of the sun, it would throw some rays in the opposite direction, as we see here in the original, largely ignored image that I presented.

    The two images display the same phenomenon.

    In the former you concede that the apparent point where the lines converge does not represent  the placement of the sun but is a trick of perspective.

    In the latter you would like us to think that for some reason now it does now represent the placement of the sun and isn't a trick of perspective, but offer no proof to support this and offer no reason why this should be treated exactly the same as the first image which is understood to be a trick of perspective.

    Oh FYI you are strawmanning again with your explanation of "you must think the atmosphere is concave". If you don't even know what the actual scientific argument is, don't look a fool by just making up whatever first comes to your head and pretending it's the scientific basis you're meant to be arguing against.
  • Are the new tariffs good or bad?

    Pogue said:
    Are the new tariffs on steel and aluminum good or bad?
    Trump said that the tariffs - 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum - would take place in 15 days. But he said individual countries could negotiate with the U.S., leaving open the possibility that some might be exempted from the tariffs.

    According to experts, it is bad.

    Slapping a tax on incoming steel and Aluminum; if the US capacity can't meet excess demand, this cost is just going to be passed onto the consumer. Even if the US Capacity can ramp up to meet excess demand, the chances are it's going to end up costing more than the price of the steel already was. If not, market forces would make it easy to ramp up producting and produce cheap steel within the US. So, either way, it's likely to increase prices for US consumers.

    Now, other countries can slap tariffs on US goods quite happily, agricultural products, other goods and services; but given that the US is on it's own, and the rest of the world generally allows free-er trade; in all likelihood it's going to be easier for consumers in Europe to find alternatives to US products being taxed. This mostly means that the US will broadly be hit harder than other countries if there's a trade war.

    Now, it may be okay, maybe not; but if there is a tit-for-tat trade war; this will cause increases in prices as more tariffs are added; even if consumers switch to US produced products. This will fuel inflation and you'll either have the scenario that wages and inflation have to rise; or more likely, that inflation rises faster than wages; and you have the same issues with wage stagnation.

    How much of an issue it ends up being, is difficult to say.

    The main issue with the Tariffs, is that the whole premise of the tariffs is backward thinking.

    There was a time and a place where Coal, Steel, car production, etc; would and should be the backbone of the US economic powerhouse. There was a time and a place where trivial manual labor, or minimally skilled production or manufacturing job earned $50,000/yr, and let you have a pension.

    Those days are gone, and they are never, ever, ever, coming back.

    Robots are too cheap, the world is too specialized, and moving to advanced technology to make it worthwhile in pay significant amounts of money to individuals to do the job of a Robot that can do the work for 1/10th of the cost.

    The future of the world economy, and the US economy does not lie in Coal, Steel and oil. It's in renewable and scalable energy technologies, AI, advanced computing technology, the internet, big data, etc, advanced engineering and precision technology.

    If the US spends it's time focusing on coal and steel, and other blue collar jobs: in 10 years, when trumps been out of office for a while, and you have an economy geared up to for the 1930's attempting to compete with the advanced technology of the rest of the world you're going to end up being left behind.


  • Is the Earth flat?

    Erfisflat said:
    I can't honestly address the very many "I have done this or that's" in your post, because it's not certain what you're speaking about.

    Let me jog your memory: Perhaps in the future you should try and defend the stuff you claim, it may make it easier to remember some of the more outlandish nonsense!

    "What made you foolishly conclude that the beam was traveling from a lower index to a higher index? Common sense tells me that the entire tank was of one consistency, ie. all sugar water. "

    The laser is clearly refracted in the video, it bends up and down, quite happily, moves, etc: with this response you claimed that this water is one medium, and being one medium is no barrier to refraction (because we clearly see refraction occurring in the video).

    "For refraction to be even the slightest bit responsible for over 60 feet of missing curvature, which hopefully, we are moving back towards in conversation, we would need to be changing mediums for one, this is in and of itself ignored, not to mention the proven fact that refraction has ever done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every experiment. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again."

    Here you have claimed that refraction requires a change of medium.

    The first comment, and the second comment can't both be true.

    So, in this example; you have contradicted your own position you made a few posts before.

    I also feel it important to point out the second part of that second comment:

    "not to mention the proven fact that refraction has ever done this action in any controlled and practical experiment, only the exact opposite is duplicated in every experiment. Refraction has been openly pointed out to cause an object to appear lower, if not inverted. I can site the experiments again."

    If you pay attention to these two sentences:

    - The video shows refraction can do that action in a controlled and practical experiment.
    - This is obviously not the exact opposite in every experiment.
    - This video clearly shows the light not appearing lower.

    What happened: is this video literally blew apart your entire position by proving every claim you just made. The only argument you had to offer to refute the video, was at first simply foot stamping at how it was irrelevant. And then when pressed, the first comment in this reply; where you basically contradicted what you just said before.

    So this basically handles the first example in the list where you contradicted yourself in order to try and dismiss an opponents argument.

  • Is the Earth flat?

    Erfisflat said:
    "What you are doing, is listing facts, and listing difference; then asserting that this means he is wrong. You havent
    explained, justified or presented an argument as to why these observable facts show his arguments are wrong, and you have provided no explanation, justification or argument that explains why you think these differences are relevant."

    Those obvious differences and facts is the justification and argument. The tracks appear to converge, because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. The rays i pointed out are not anywhere near the observer. They start in the clouds and go away from the observer. I really can't dumb it down any more, but feel free to continue denying that I've pointed this out repeatedly! I thoroughly enjoy repeating myself while you do a little rhetorical dance around every point I make.

    Once again, I've pointed out obvious differences in the circumstances and you strap on your blinders and lie about my refutations, it's quite dishonest and literally a waste of time, but these kids seem to look up to you, despite the countless rhetorical fallacies in your arguments, and thus I am facing 3-4 thoughtless individuals. One who cannot develop an original rational thought, one who thinks he's a resurrected alien, and of course the flip flopper. It's as though I don't stand a chance. My only hope is that someone with a critically able mind will chance upon this conversation and be able to think for himself, and recognize your blatant denial and rhetorical fallaciousness. 

    1.) I am completely acknowledging 100%, in it's entirety, that you are pointing out obvious differences in the circumstances. That's exactly what you're doing, I've said that's exactly what you're doing, and we agree that's' exactly what you're doing.

    Please don't pretend as if I'm not acknowledging what you're presenting. In each one of my replies on this point, I am pointing out EXACTLY what you're doing, and why I think it's completely irrelevant.

    2.) At the time I asked where on earth your refutation was that you claimed he ignored (I haven't seen much since, but don't care much for perusing the last 3 pages of posts that aren't addressed to me either): I pointed out that what you said is not a refutation.

    What you did, was simply listing the differences between train tracks on the ground, and light rays coming from a cloud; and then asserting that because they are different in some respects, that they can't both be the same thing.

    Rather than being dishonest; this is actually what you're doing, and you continue to do now; in fact, I think the problem is that you don't fully understand the argument I'm presenting, so I'll go into a little more detail.

    3.) To paraphrase Pogue a little, because I understand both of your arguments:

    His argument, is that the sun is producing a number of parallel rays of light to the earth: this means it becomes the vanishing point. On a 2d plane, such as rail road tracks, parallel lines will appear to converge at the vanishing point. His images and text explain that because it's not on a 2 plane, but an object in the sky producing parallel lines moving downwards onto the earth, it looks different than railroads, and could produce the effect.

    Whether or not you think that's right if you want to argue against it; for the purposes of a debate, you need to provide an argument as to why the sun in the sky at 95 million miles producing parallel lines to the earth wouldn't produce the effects seen there due to the examples of perspective that were given.

    Now; given that's your job; there are  multiple ways you can do that; but simply saying that one is different from the other means it can't be perspective is not an argument.

    Now; in your irate rebuttal here; you've gone on to point out a few examples of what is different.

    We get that.

    I know that.

    This is my point....

    What you don't do, is make any attempt to discuss or argue why anything you're saying is actually relevant.

    "The tracks appear to converge, because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. The rays i pointed out are not anywhere near the observer. They start in the clouds and go away from the observer.

    Perfect: Tracks appear to converge because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. You've just said that the rays go away from the observer. The example image Pogue provided showed the light going away from the observer.

    So indeed, according to your argument, and pogues, receding parallel lines will appear to converge as they move away from the observer. This is, like, Perspective 101.

    So, that's one fact, and observation.

    You then say the suns rays don't count, because they are "not anywhere near the observer".

    Why on earth does whether they are near the observer or not have any relevance? I don't know: you didn't say. It's kinda hard to say that this is a rebuttal when you don't explain the reason he's wrong and you're right. (You know, like I'm doing now, and you claim I don't).

    Pogue has pretty much said that if the earth is a sphere (which it is) the suns rays are receding parallel lines and thus appear to converge at the vanishing point (the sun). This means that you would get suns rays appearing to emanate from a single location in the sky, and perspective accounts for the rest when some of these light rays are blocked.

    Train tracks are on the ground, on a flat plane, with a vanishing point at 0 degrees at eye level. The sun i(according to pogues argument) is 95 million miles away, in the sky, with clouds or objects in the way at an orthogonal angle to the earths surface, and thus is going to produce different perspective effects.

    Unless your going to show some detailed examples that demonstrate why what he's proposed isn't explainable by perspective effects, and how being "near" or "far" effects perspective; then the problem with your argument is EXACTLY what I said it was; you're just throwing out differences, and asserting that the differences are relevant to the point at hand.

    That's not the way a scientific argument works.

    But please; go ahead and tell me why this detailed explanation is just "asserting" things, or "ignoring your refutation". Because quite frankly, if you think anyone believes you when I produce a detailed refutation like this, and you go on a dismissive rant about how I'm asserting things; you are sorely mistaken.
  • Is the Earth flat?

    Erfisflat said:
    So this is yet another fruitless conversation reminiscent of any other post, you've offered to repost your refutation, and when I point out that just claiming that the experiments were "botched" is not a valid rebuttal, your reply is just another I've already done this, that or the other, followed by a lie, that i haven't provided a reason that we should use line of sight in water, while claiming that shining a laser through laser water refutes every position I've put forth so far, which is itself hasty generalization, ad hoc, and irrelevant. 

    @goober I think we were here about refraction when you just started asserting things you've claimed you've done. 
    Please explain a laser shinting through water, presented as:

    a.) an experiment that demonstrates how light acts as it moves through area's of different refractive index.
    b.) Examples of light working in a way that is contrary to experiments through water you have produced, and the way you've claimed it working in the atmosphere.

    And presented with a detailed explanation of how the experiment is relevant and pertinent to the atmosphere (by comparing refractive indexes, showing the actual conditions above water are most likely to produce the same effect.)


    a.) A hasty generalization.
    b.) "Ad Hoc"
    c.) Irrelevant

    I think you're just throwing random accusations, with no attempt to explain them.

    "I think we were here about refraction when you just started asserting things you've claimed you've done."

    Okay then; having gone back through all the posts that you have ignored, I have one specific thing out of all of them I think you should address, I will bold the relevant question at the end:

    If the earth was a sphere:

    - If light from a region below the horizon travels to a location where it passes into a region of higher refractive index; Snells law states this light will bend downwards.

    - If the light is bent downwards; the light from the object beyond the horizon, instead of carrying on a path that maybe hundreds of feet in the air, (because the object would be visible at that height), the light is bent downwards, so is visible at a lower, lower level.

    - We know that the air above water, is often much more humid than air around it, and the air at ground level is very slightly more dense than air even a little higher up. These don't produce a huge amount of change to refractive index, but a small amount to deflect light by fractions of a degree.

    - We know that this type of refraction in this case is more than possible, and can be demonstrated easily by, say, showing how a laser beam deflects light as it passes through regions of different refractive index.

    - These all mean that if Earth was a sphere: taking images over water would be fully expected (based on the laws of physics) to show less curvature than should actually be there; and in cases where the temperature is particularly warm; there could be a lot of difference.

    - I also explained that there is often much less refraction higher up; so in this case, you can avoid a lot of the problems by having sight lines: objects that are a known height (or the same relative height) above the water you are measuring. Not only will light from these not be as refracted as much; it will generally reflect adjacent objects about the same amount, leading to an easy to compare line.

    - When you perform this type of experiment (Like power lines over lake pontecharin, which are demonstrably organized in a straight line, and show the same result when viewed from the left or the right), you invariably see the curvature of the earth.

    - This last point effectively means that when you provide a reasonable experiment that accounts for refraction effects, the curvature you want is seen.

    If the earth is not a sphere, and is flat:

    - With what I understand of snells law, and the refractive indexes of the atmosphere, there is no way to produce sunset; so sunsets and objects falling over the horizon are impossible.

    - You have claimed both of these are caused by refraction.

    - You have posted a video of a sunset that you claim "proves this"

    - You haven't used snells law, or pointed out the different area's of the atmosphere and their refraction to show how light bends in your conditions.

    - You haven't described how you can tell this overarching effect is present in the atmosphere.

    - You haven't provided any diagrams, or examples that show the path of light from the sun.

    - You don't know where the sun is, so you don't know how much refraction is required; nor have you calculated how much refraction is present to show the two match up.

    - You haven't attempted to show how the atmospheric properties of two observers separated by 1 hour of time can produce sunset for both observers.

    - You have provided no objective way to account for your refraction, so thus far I can't see any way of making an observation that could show, or refute your example.

    - You have offered no plausible experiments by which we can prove for ourselves that the refraction in the atmosphere works as you claim.

    So my question is this:

    You dismissed my explanation out of hand: Please give me a detailed explanation of why you feel that what I produced above is simply me asserting "But Muh Refraction", while you also feel that your inability to provide anything more than vague explanations, and little detail is "a scientific argument."


| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018, All rights reserved. | 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
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch