Let's get the ball rolling.

[Agent Intellect]

This is an open challenge to the first person that accepts one these topics:

Do the benefits of biotechnology (biologically engineered crops, gene therapy in the medical field etc) out weigh the detriments?
My position: that the benefits do out weigh the detriments.

Should religions be able to run a school, making it mandatory that the students participate in their religion (ie a 'catholic school' or a 'muslim school').
My position: no one religion should have precedent over any other; if one major religion is taught, they all should be.

Is string theory real science, or just fancy mathematics?
My position: string theory does not fall under the definition of what real science is.

Is global climate change only, or at least for the most part, due to human activity?
My position: humans are not the only, nor the main, cause of global climate change.

I will only accept to one debate at a time (first come, first serve).

Ground rules (open to change pending my opponents discretion):
48 hours upon thread innitiation the introduction is due
24 hours for each rebuttal
1500 word maximum for the intro, for every rebuttal, and for conclusion.
3 direct rebuttals each (6 total between the two of us) followed by a final conclusion entry - making a total of 5 entries each (1 intro, 3 rebuttals, 1 conclusion).

 

[The Fury]

Do the benefits of biotechnology (biologically engineered crops, gene therapy in the medical field etc) out weigh the detriments?

No

Should religions be able to run a school, making it mandatory that the students participate in their religion (ie a 'catholic school' or a 'muslim school').

No

Is string theory real science, or just fancy mathematics?

The latter.

Is global climate change only, or at least for the most part, due to human activity?

No.

That was easy.

 

[flow]

@The Fury: And why? Let's hear your reasoning.

 

[Waterstiller]

Not that I'm interested in debating, but just want to clarify some things.

Should religions be able to run a school, making it mandatory that the students participate in their religion (ie a 'catholic school' or a 'muslim school').
My position: no one religion should have precedent over any other; if one major religion is taught, they all should be.

Legally? I think they should be able to if they're private institutions. If public, no.

Is string theory real science, or just fancy mathematics?
My position: string theory does not fall under the definition of what real science is.

And what is 'real science'? This debate is probably going to be about what science actually is, which is kind of a tricky subject.


And I'm really looking forward to seeing this debate forum take off. Fantastic idea and the work you've put into it so far is admirable.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Not that I'm interested in debating, but just want to clarify some things.


Legally? I think they should be able to if they're private institutions. If public, no.

Bah, if you want to make that claim, you should defend it in a formal debate (yes, I am trying to goad you into it)

And what is 'real science'? This debate is probably going to be about what science actually is, which is kind of a tricky subject.

Okay, that was bad wording on my part, but I was trying to get ready for work while writing that post. I suppose what I mean is: is string theory a true scientific theory or nothing more then a hypothesis derived from fancy mathematics? There are scientists that talk about string theory as if it describes the way our universe works, which leads me to believe there are people who think it is a legitimate theory and not just a hypothesis. I reject that assertion and have opened up my rejection to debate.

And I'm really looking forward to seeing this debate forum take off. Fantastic idea and the work you've put into it so far is admirable.

I thought I was going to come home and have to pick from a plethora of people accepting my challenges. The debate forum doesn't seem to be working out too well yet (here's to hoping it's mainly just because people haven't found it yet).

 

[Claverhouse]

I thought I was going to come home and have to pick from a plethora of people accepting my challenges. The debate forum doesn't seem to be working out too well yet (here's to hoping it's mainly just because people haven't found it yet).

As it is still a workday in the States and early evening in Europe, you were a trifle optimistic. And our log-in times ( since last action ) are an over-generous two hours which means, I would assume that New Posts only shows posts since that end.

However, I've made a sticky on this sub-forum in Announcements, you and anyone have full permission to make buzzing posts in that thread at random to draw attention to any debates etc.. The posts may be subject to deletion long after they have served their purpose.



This is a one-time offer.



Claverhouse

 

[loveofreason]

Just a note on the first topic...

transgenic crops and biotech in the medical field are vastly dissimilar - lumping them together makes arguing either side of your proposition invalid.

 

[Agent Intellect]

They are both the same thing in principle - gene therapy is exchanging, altering, or adding new genetic material, generally with the purpose of treating disease development. GM crops are created the same way - exchanging, altering, or adding new genetic material. The only difference is that one is to fix problems and the other is to enhance the organism (although gene therapy to 'enhance' humans may be just around the corner (magic gene therapy diet pills anyone?)). I suppose what I was getting at is the people who are opposed to genetic enhancements or alterations because they are 'unnatural', but I do agree, the applications for both of them are dissimilar.

 

[loveofreason]

It's open to argument , but utilising the same or similar techniques of gene exchange doesn't make gene therapy and transgenic crop production substantially equivalent* for the purposes of a cost/benefit debate.

I just think the question needs re-defining as a debatable hypothesis.

Maybe posit "Gene transfer technology is ethically justified" to draw out the counter-argument you're looking for?

I'm almost tempted to take the part of Prince Charles and lock horns with you


*biotech crop joke. insincere apologies.

 

[Claverhouse]

I suppose what I was getting at is the people who are opposed to genetic enhancements or alterations because they are 'unnatural'

It would be somewhat difficult to argue that something which could not possibly happen in nature through evolution is not 'unnatural'.



Claverhouse



I saw the other day that some old chap, Nobel Prize winning Dr. Norman Borlaug was harvested the other day. He was undoubtedly deeply driven by the tragedy of starvation, and it is estimated that he saved a billion lives. Leaving aside the minor subjective value to me of those particular billion persons, it's quite easy to suppose that by continually saving a billion here and a billion there in order to breed more billions, eventually a lot more starvation will ensue than had one not let them alone. The christian determination to help the world is a terrifying thing.

 

[Linada]

I would love to debate, it's a great way to challenge and show up information bias. But i can only really offer the mental capacity or either scrambled egg, or toast, and my background knowledge is woefully inadequate as well I'm afraid.
I hope someone takes biotechnology, i am very curious about that.

 

[The Fury]

@The Fury: And why? Let's hear your reasoning.

I was just joking around. I prefer to debate with m fists anyway.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I just think the question needs re-defining as a debatable hypothesis.

Maybe posit "Gene transfer technology is ethically justified" to draw out the counter-argument you're looking for?

That sounds more like what I was getting at (me fail english thats unpossible).

I saw the other day that some old chap, Nobel Prize winning Dr. Norman Borlaug was harvested the other day. He was undoubtedly deeply driven by the tragedy of starvation, and it is estimated that he saved a billion lives. Leaving aside the minor subjective value to me of those particular billion persons, it's quite easy to suppose that by continually saving a billion here and a billion there in order to breed more billions, eventually a lot more starvation will ensue than had one not let them alone. The christian determination to help the world is a terrifying thing.

That almost sounds like support for eugenics - perhaps a suitable debate topic?

 

[Beat Mango]

Where was this debate stuff when I was bored and had no job.

 

[Latro]

Leaving aside the minor subjective value to me of those particular billion persons, it's quite easy to suppose that by continually saving a billion here and a billion there in order to breed more billions, eventually a lot more starvation will ensue than had one not let them alone. The christian determination to help the world is a terrifying thing.

I've thought about this a lot. "Helping" people the way we help them (directly giving them medicine and food) isn't helping overall. They're just gonna keep multiplying until you don't have enough resources to keep helping them, and then they're either gonna starve to death or just kill you and take over. Real helping would be establishment of infrastructure, agriculture, etc., but doing that creates independence, which isn't what is desired by the international powers unfortunately. Neocolonialism is a bitch, isn't it?

Sorry, this isn't entirely related to the topic....

 

[Claverhouse]

Then again, what doesn't ?

That almost sounds like support for eugenics - perhaps a suitable debate topic?

Eugenics is positive, letting things be is negative.

Just as socialism is positive, whilst buddhism is negative.

Coincidentally all the socialist greats from around the 1889s up to 1945 were interested in eugenics, both left and right. One might attribute this very partially to the tribal desire of whites to lift up their own working classes from the grinding poverty that destroyed them and defend their people from encroaching other races; and very partially to the jewish roots of much socialist thinking, with their own innate strong racialist ethos --- after all, they are the only people to have successfully practiced eugenics for recorded history.


All the above systems have their drawbacks.



Claverhouse

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Damn, I'd love to take you on except your topics are mostly out of my perview. The only two I might be able to take you on in, I agree with your position. Global warming and religious education.

I could try to take a contrary view just for the sake of argument but I'm best when I believe in what I'm saying and think I'd epic fail if I tried it on any of those two topics.

 

[Yellow]

Should religions be able to run a school, making it mandatory that the students participate in their religion (ie a 'catholic school' or a 'muslim school').
My position: no one religion should have precedent over any other; if one major religion is taught, they all should be.

I would be more than happy to debate you on this topic. I assume that you are referring to state-accredited private religious schools in the U.S.
My Position: They have the right to teach ther own religion as they please without having to teach the others.

Ground rules (open to change pending my opponents discretion):
48 hours upon thread innitiation the introduction is due
24 hours for each rebuttal
1500 word maximum for the intro, for every rebuttal, and for conclusion.
3 direct rebuttals each (6 total between the two of us) followed by a final conclusion entry - making a total of 5 entries each (1 intro, 3 rebuttals, 1 conclusion).

The word maximum seems awfully lengthy and cumbersome. Can we limit it to 1000 words for intro and 500 thereafter (not including references)? Oh, and I am only available to do this on weekdays. If that works for you, then I would definitely be up for a debate!

 

[Agent Intellect]

I would be more than happy to debate you on this topic. I assume that you are referring to state-accredited private religious schools in the U.S.
My Position: They have the right to teach ther own religion as they please without having to teach the others.

Sounds good to me. I'm not sure how well it will work with the forum going in and out, but I'll begin writing mine. Shall we say that the intro is due sometime on Thursday afternoon at some time?

The word maximum seems awfully lengthy and cumbersome. Can we limit it to 1000 words for intro and 500 thereafter (not including references)? Oh, and I am only available to do this on weekdays. If that works for you, then I would definitely be up for a debate!

The maximum is the upper limit. If it can be written in less then that, it's fine. I just don't like restricting myself too much because I never know how much I can write until after it's written.

 

[Yellow]

Sounds good to me. I'm not sure how well it will work with the forum going in and out, but I'll begin writing mine. Shall we say that the intro is due sometime on Thursday afternoon at some time?

Sounds good. If the forum is up, I can post Thursday, or Friday if need be. However, if it comes back during the weekend, it might be Monday before my intro is up.

 

[Yellow]

Where should I put my intro statement?

 

[Claverhouse]

It's prolly best to make a thread.



Claverhouse

 

[bananaphallus]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

...some food for thought.

[baseless/rampant conjecture below]

Personally, I think human's influence on the climate has been grossly exaggerated, and I still have a hard time understanding how all it took was a Powerpoint for people not to think Al Gore wasn't just another douche bag politician with ulterior motives.

That's not say we shouldn't make a bit more of an effort to think about the long term ramifications of our society's technological/general progression, but damn.

 

[Yellow]

AI -- It is late in the day.. it is likely that my response will have to wait until Monday morning.

 

[Agent Intellect]

AI -- It is late in the day.. it is likely that my response will have to wait until Monday morning.

That's fine with me - I had to work all day and couldn't get it up any sooner. I don't have a response written up for yours, either. Monday night sometime sounds like a good deadline. Since you posted first, I'll wait until after your rebuttal to post mine (but I'll write it in response to your intro).

 

[JoeJoe]

Another topic: Is religion necessary for moral education/values?

My opinion: Not for the individual, but for the masses yes.

But I'm not interested in formal debate.

 

[Kidege]

@Yellow and AI:

Do you guys have a judge? I have a shitload of work, so I'm not offering, I'm just wondering.

 

[Yellow]

@Yellow and AI:

Do you guys have a judge? I have a shitload of work, so I'm not offering, I'm just wondering.

I don't think we really discussed it.. I just kinda assumed that someone would wander by and volunteer.. unless AI already asked someone and I don't know about it.

 

[Kidege]

And now it's 4 people... rules?

 

[Agent Intellect]

I suspect that the formal debates section is turning out to be an epic fail.

 

[Kidege]

You need a judge with powers. Or just a mod to show up. And a judge.

 

[Yellow]

I suspect that the formal debates section is turning out to be an epic fail.

Should we just quit, or keep going?

 

[Da Blob]

This is an open challenge to the first person that accepts one these topics:

Do the benefits of biotechnology (biologically engineered crops, gene therapy in the medical field etc) out weigh the detriments?
My position: that the benefits do out weigh the detriments.

Should religions be able to run a school, making it mandatory that the students participate in their religion (ie a 'catholic school' or a 'muslim school').
My position: no one religion should have precedent over any other; if one major religion is taught, they all should be.

Is string theory real science, or just fancy mathematics?
My position: string theory does not fall under the definition of what real science is.

Is global climate change only, or at least for the most part, due to human activity?
My position: humans are not the only, nor the main, cause of global climate change.

I will only accept to one debate at a time (first come, first serve).

Ground rules (open to change pending my opponents discretion):
48 hours upon thread innitiation the introduction is due
24 hours for each rebuttal
1500 word maximum for the intro, for every rebuttal, and for conclusion.
3 direct rebuttals each (6 total between the two of us) followed by a final conclusion entry - making a total of 5 entries each (1 intro, 3 rebuttals, 1 conclusion).

Alas, I am willing to debate/argue with you - but i happen to agree with your position on these particular controversies...

 

[Kidege]

Hey guys, according to the ground rules the debate you had going has ended. Do you wish to hear people's opinion on who won?