Best Persuaded Content - | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!

Best Persuaded Content

  • Does a Higher Being Exist?

    BaconToes said:
    Does a Higher Being Exist?
    EDIT: Changing the title since it is a bit misleading
    Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this debate!

    OK, this is for everyone here that answered on this O.P. and who read any, or all of it. I believe we all expressed our sincere thoughts on this subject, and as we can see we all have some casually, and some extremely different views of gods, or his/her/their/it's existence, or non-existence, right? This explains why we have all these different Religions.

    Now please reason this out, and by all means correct me if and where my questions, assumptions, facts, are wrong (forgive me for not being able to express myself in a more intellectual manner, but I will do my best with what I got.)

    Our debating friend @BaconToes has laid the eternal question before us: Does God exist?

    First, let's observe our world and all of humanity living on this earth, and we see that the majority of us believe in some form of a "Higher Being" (as your O.P. stated), and no one passed first grade can truly say: "gods don't exist", because even if brought up in an atheist household, the child can see gods, and people who believe and worship these gods in their morning TV shows, to movies like DC and Marvel, .. idols when going on a science fare trip (Lord Shiva at CERN, etc.) at museums, there is gods and symbols of gods just about everywhere, including their shoes, t-shirts, and even the brand of car their parents drive.

    So we can freely say, not just one, but that: "gods exist", .. do we all agree?

    As for the question: "Does a Higher Being exist?", that too every child agrees that it does exist, starting with their parents, then their favorite superhero characters, and when they grow up, those Higher Beings can be anyone from the god/gods in the Religion they have chosen, like: there are the theistic gods like the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. and then there are the atheistic gods like Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking, George Lemaitre, Hubble, Einstein etc.

    OK, so do we all agree that god/gods exist, .. or not?
    Please explain your position?
  • The Big-Bang Story

    I mean, this is what is required in the few posts on the first page, proving something via the scientific method... Since globular earth is an improved assumption in the equation that equals the big bang, I think it is entirely relevant, if not totally dependant...
  • McCabe says his dismissal part of Trump's 'war' on FBI

    That just shows how ruthless and heartless Trump is to destroy anyone whom he perceives as personal risk, willing to completely destroy their lives.  
  • How 'vital to our national security' is steel, aluminum?

    Not nearly as important to US national security as relationships and cooperation with allies; and not nearly as damaging as a shift in geopolitical power towards China and other leaders in Trade.
  • Is the Earth flat?

    Only clouds show this. They block out the majority of the light and show small portions. I posted a picture of parellel ones on a clear day (you need a clear day). 

  • The Big-Bang Story

    Reams and reams of argument, still getting nowhere nearer the truth.

    God. Big Bang. Flat Earth. All theories, no proof.

    Actually. I doubt that anyone really believes that the Earth is flat.

    Personally I accept that the Spherical Earth theory was unequivocally proved, 500 years ago by a couple of sailors.

    So is the Flat Earth a valid theory?


    Just deliberate antagonism and fun debating.

  • The Sum of the Gun Control Debate

    Spiffy, only Trump isn't living there now.  He was there in the 70s, 80s and 90s though;

  • The Sum of the Gun Control Debate

    Just off the top, much as you say you’re consolidating and analyzing arguments presented by the pro-gun control crowd, you don’t seem to have done that. You’ve provided, at best, a general overview of two points (not three, as your second point is just your interpretation of the actual argument behind the first point), dismissed the first as illogical based on what is already banned, and dismissed the latter based on… well, the former. Doesn’t seem like you’re getting into the actual argument behind each of these points, or even that you’ve addressed their underlying principles.

    1) Assault (Style) weapons should be banned.

    I have no doubt that some assault style weapons are banned. However, as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is now gone, and as there are still many legal guns classified as assault weapons, I don’t think there’s any question that some are currently not banned. I think there’s a lot of good debate regarding where we draw the line between assault weapons and non-assault weapons, but, contrary to your statement, people do clearly want to ban assault weapons, even if there is some variance in their definitions of what an assault weapon is.

    2) Firearms that look like Assault Rifles should be banned.

    It seems like your main point here is that aesthetics alone should not be used as a basis for banning any type of firearm. I don’t particularly know who’s making this argument. There are people arguing that toy guns that look an awful lot like firearms should be banned (and I’d be happy to argue for that), but that doesn’t seem to be your point. My experience with this type of argument is that people are concerned about certain firearms that are not classified as assault weapons and believe that they too should be banned. Those arguments are usually based on functionality, not aesthetics. I guess I’d agree with you that aesthetics alone shouldn’t determine whether a gun is considered for a ban, but again, I haven’t really seen this argument making the rounds. It seems instead that you’re presuming that this argument exists, when the argument is chiefly about functionality, not aesthetics.

    3) Stricter gun control laws need to be implemented to prevent people from obtaining Firearms with intent to do harm.

    I think, of all your responses, this is probably the most disquieting. If I have it correctly, your logic is as follows: this is rational (possibly even reasonable), yet because the same people who support this also support things that you find irrational, it should be opposed. Or, put another way, because there’s a policy that anti-gun individuals are presenting that you and others find ridiculous, any rational suggestions they make are tainted and therefore must be rejected. In what world is reasonable? Since when do we reject decent and rational policy ideas solely on the basis that you find fault with other, somewhat related policy ideas? You even state that most people would agree with, at the very least, improved enforcement of the laws we already have (which would likely include closing loopholes that have opened due to that lack of enforcement), yet those measures would be off the table because the people who show the strongest support for them also support actual gun bans. You’re quick to call their opposition insane, but you’re talking about a vast number of Americans working against what they feel is best for their country and their safety based on a perception that the other side might also want to implement supposedly illogical gun policy. Aren’t issues like this usually resolved by two sides coming together on the parts of the issue on which they agree? If that’s impossible here, then it takes two to tango. Pretending that this is all on the anti-gun crowd when you’re suggesting that pro-gun advocates are straight up rejecting policy ideas they agree with sounds absurd to me.

    It does sound like your argument runs a bit deeper, but not much. The idea is that you can’t trust someone to implement decent policy so long as they have some interest in implementing bad policy as well. Setting aside the fact that I don’t agree with your characterization of those arguments, why can’t we trust a law that clearly spells out changes to, say, background checks as being solely about background checks? Is the concern that anti-gun people are going to enforce beyond the scope of the law? Is it that people will feel like they’re emboldening them to pass more laws? Both sound like slippery slope fallacies without any support.

    The analogous story you’ve presented here is similarly fallacious. First, banning a gun is very different from banning a child, particularly from a school. The former is an item that would otherwise be available for purchase. The latter is a human being, which the state has an obligation to provide an affordable education. If a principal of a school started doing something like this, it would not only be against the law, but it would also challenge basic decency. An education is pretty much required for anyone to get anywhere in this country, and essentially denying a child access almost certainly relegates them to poverty. I don’t see how that applies to a gun ban in any way. Second, determining which child is “‘potentially’ violent” is an impossible task. There’s a stark difference between stating that a human is more prone to violence vs. stating that a gun has more capacity to inflict deadly injury. Third, you’re essentially characterizing the principle as a dictator capable of imposing his ideas for the school unilaterally unless there is outside intervention. Putting aside how that’s not even possible, policy doesn’t work that way. It’s not a single individual imposing their idea of how the country should work on the populace, and it comes with checks and balances internal to it.

    Lastly, no one is sitting here saying that we must solve this issue now and all other issues related to gun violence should be shelved. It’s a false dichotomy to state that, by attempting to restrict access to legally obtained guns, we are fundamentally pushing away or delaying responses to illegally obtained guns. We can endeavor to solve both problems at the same time. There is no reason why one must come after the other.

  • Is the Earth flat?

    Erfisflat said:
    So, boats have been claimed, repeatedly, to go over a curve. This is supposed to happen at just 3 miles on the globe, and every globetard agrees this is the case without the first test to prove it. When a test (with actual measurements) is performed to falsify the claim, and a boat's bottom is seen nearly 4 times that distance and everyone ignores it
    Boats go over the horizon. This is an objective and observable fact.

    We see it in your videos, images and almost every “disproof” of a flat earth.


  • Is the Earth flat?

    You can calculate the numbers. 

    You would have thought that on a flat earth that distance to the sun would and how far the sun has moved around it’s orbit would be the determining factors.

    Let’s ignore the fact that using the flat earth model the sun doesn’t set in the right place (If you ignore the fact it shouldn’t be able to set at all).

    At the equinox at midday, on the flat earth, observations indicate the day and night is separate by a straight line going straight through the North Pole. Literally one half of the flat earth circle is night, the other half is day. And the sun is directly above the equatorZ

    This means it’s sunset for all longitudes 90 degrees away, and Sunrise for all longitudes -90 degrees away; perfectly reasonable on a globe: but inexplicable in a flat earth as each specific point along a latitude is a different distance away from the sun.

    Even worse as the sun is in one place: you can draw a circle around the sun, some of which is in the dark, some in the light: this circle represents locations at which the sun is at the same angle and the same linear distance for all observers in the circle.

    This is odd: as Erf implies we haven’t “accounted for refraction”; to explain sunset and yet when the sun is the same distance away, at the same
    real angle, going through the same quantities of the same atmosphere: it’s magically sunset for some, day for others, and night time for the rest.

    Flat earth geometry is impossible for this and many other reasons; it doesnt work, and is literally no way you can make it work.

    Flat earthers also know it doesnt work; which is why people like Erf won’t say where the sun is: or provide any details: the moment they do, its falsifiable, and will likely
    be falsified.


| 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