- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Disagree Content
-
Should Marinara Be Legal?
@Factfinder ;I haven't heard of anyone getting addicted to marijuana before.
Well I have. Me. But that was ians ago when I didnt have to much happening between the ears. And like any addiction you think your not addicted. You have a joint when you get up and then one for breakfast then one for smoko of course then one for lunch then one when you get home then one after supper then one before you go to bed then one when you want to do your girl friend then one to watch a movie then one to listen to some music then one when you need to see the land lord and then you smoke 2 more. So believe me it is addictive and it creeps up on you.
-
Should Marinara Be Legal?
I haven't heard of anyone getting addicted to marijuana before. But when I don't taste marinara or pizza sauce for a while I go crazy!GiantMan said:
Marinara is indeed very different than marijuana. Some differences:JulesKorngold said:
It's MY debate. The topic is MARINARA. Comply or rot in hell.RickeyHoltsclaw said:@JulesKorngold ; No it's not...Marijuana is the topic...stop the stup-idity.
1) 1 in 6 of those under 18 who use marijuana are addicted to it. Marinara, while tasty has not been found addictive.
2) Marijuana can damage the functioning of the brain and permanently lower IQs. Marinara has not been found to permanently damage one's brain, maybe appetite.
3) Marijuana affects reaction time, perception, and bodily movement which could result in driving accidents. While marinara has caused occasional heart burn, it has not impaired people's ability to move or drive.
4) People who use marijuana are more likely to have relationship problems, worse educational outcomes, lower career achievement, and reduced life satisfaction. Marinara has not been shown to make a person's life worse - maybe they get fat from the pasta they eat with the marinara, but not from the marinara itself.
So there are lots of differences between the two. So enjoy your marinara. -
Is this MAGA or Animal Farm by George Orwell?
Hello:Of course you can tell the difference... Can't you??So, the pigs took over the farm...- Four legs - GOOD. Two legs - BAD.
- They had enemy's. It
was given out that the animals there practiced cannibalism, tortured
one another with red-hot horseshoes, and had their females in common.
This was what came of rebelling against the laws of Nature..
- "They had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes."
- "Some
of the animals remembered -- or thought they remembered -- that the
Sixth Commandment decreed, 'No animal shall kill any other animal.'
And, there's more - much more here:The ending, although seemingly impossible to imagine when I read it, scared me to death.. It suggested that the pig knocking on your door, is wearing a MAGA hat and carrying a Bible.excon
-
Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?
First, I wanted to say how much I appreciated your post. Thanks for the link to the article. It was by far my favorite post of the day.OakTownA said:@just_sayin
"Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it?"
No one has directly observed the start of any novel life form, so I don't see the point of this question.
"Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?"
The "primordial soup" hypothesis is outdated, and no longer the predominant hypothesis for abiogenesis. If you are going to make claims, you may want to check if scientist are still making those claims.
"Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?"
Do you mean in a lab? No, but why would we need to, as they form naturally? There are over 500 amino acids, yet all life, that we know of, utilizes the same 20-22. Why is that? "The new study suggests that life’s dependence on these 20 amino acids is no accident. The researchers show that the kinds of amino acids used in proteins are more likely to link up together because they react together more efficiently and have few inefficient side reactions....
For the experiment, the researchers compared “proteinaceous” amino acids—those used by organisms today—to amino acids that are not present in living things. The researchers knew water evaporation could have created the conditions necessary for amino acids to link together on early Earth, so they used a drying reaction—water evaporates and heat is applied—to mimic the natural conditions that cause amino acids to form peptides...The proteinaceous amino acids seemed to prefer reactivity through a part of their structure called the alpha-amine. They mostly formed linear, protein-like backbone “topologies” (geometric formations). This tendency could have given these amino acids a head start in folding and binding, leading eventually to proteins." Article here, if you don't want to read the paper linked above.
"Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?"
See study cited above.
"Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?"
I have no idea what you are asking. Are you talking about DNA? DNA consists of chemicals, no different than any other chemical reaction. DNA contains no more "information" than H2O.
"Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?"
No, otherwise it wouldn't be a hypothesis. There is, however, support for it, like this recent study, which found an enzyme that allows RNA to self replicate. I, personally, don't know enough about it to say one way or another. There are multiple hypotheses on how life started on Earth. This is one.
"Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue. 1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help. And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions."
See study cited above. RNA does not need to "perform all the necessary cellular functions..." because modern cells are much more complex than primitive cells. If you think that biologists are claiming that the first cells to form looked and functioned like modern cells, you are mistaken.
"Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe. (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)"
Where did he get these numbers? In order to calculate probability, one must have one or more objects/items that actually exists to compare. For example, if one wants to find the probability of pulling a purple marble out of a pouch, one must first know how many total marbles are in the pouch, and how many of them are purple. The quote above has used speculation to create a probability that enforces the authors perspective. What does the author mean by "chance?" How did he come up with that "probability?" In my example above, I can show my math on how I calculated my chances of pulling a purple marble. Dembski has not shown his work similarly.
"As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it 'The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.'"
Okay. So what? Like I said, the RNA HYPOTHESIS is just that; a hypothesis. Not everyone is going to agree. He is NOT a creationist, but supports a different mechanism for abiogenesis.
"Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?"
Yes. DNA consists of amino acids, which are chemicals. Complex, yes, but chemicals none the less.
Evolution occurs regardless of how life started on this planet, which is why discussing abiogenesis is pointless in a debate about evolution. Do you believe that the Bible is literal and 100% true? If so, do you believe Noah's Flood was an actual global flood that wiped out all life on Earth except that which was on the Arc? Do you think natural and artificial selection occur?
The Nature article to the 2010 study, is not the study itself. But no problem, the study can be found in the National Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve any of the problems that I mentioned. First, it did not create the 20 - 22 amino acids from scratch in the same environment. While the amino acids , except one of them, play nicely with each other, the chemical reactions needed to create the amino acids are deleterious to the creation of other amino acids. It did not solve that problem. It did not create the enzymes that it theorized interacted with them. Further, it didn't create proteins at all but what it called 'protein like' or pre-proteins. Its 'pre-proteins' by their own admission can not form RNA or be used in DNA, so they are essentially useless. It would be like being tasked to build a bridge across the bay and building a sand castle instead. It might be an awesome sandcastle, but it can not be a substitute for the bridge. It doesn't solve the problem of water breaking down proteins either. They applied lab conditions to remove the water (a high powered blow dryer) to avoid the process. Not sure where this kind of environment would have existed in a prebiotic world where all the amino acids would have needed to be gathered together.
You asked about the calculation of the odds for RNA for a 250 nucleotide structure that is useable. All DNA, RNA, and their building blocks are all right-handed, whereas amino acids and proteins are all left-handed. Again, the proto-proteins from the study, didn't have the right 'charge' to work. But even if they did, you can see that random reactions would not produce even a short 250 nucleotide RNA strand.
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
@maxx ; you can act like dee all you want and pretend you won.
You are the one who does not want to continue, Max. I am still full of fight and rearing to go. You are the one who dodges every reasonable question that I put to you, which hardly supports the idea that you have any knowledge of what you are claiming is valid. You are the one who ignores most of what i write and only focuses on what you can get some mileage out of. And finally, you are the one who can not think up any argument supporting your position, and can only use links as "evidence", that any countervailing argument exists at all. . And when I pick apart one of your links and show quite clearly how unscientific it is, you make no mention of what I wrote. If you really thought that these "scientific" links had nailed it, I would have thought that you would have at least gone through my critique of your "scientific" link and addressed what I wrote, point by point? But you could not even manage that. The fact that you did not, seems to me that you either do not even read all that I write? Or, that you, yourself could see that my criticism of your "scientific" link was right on the money? And you did not know what to do about that?
It is quite interesting. You have this idea that religious people think that 2+2=3, and then you are unable to fathom your own similar religious mindset? I do not know why you think that races are equal? I can only presume that it has been banged into your head for so long that you have simply internalized it as a Absolute Truth. And this potty idea is constantly reinforced in your head by your culture and your peers, so it never occurred to you to ever question it? It is child's play to prove that this premise is wrong to any thinking person who has an impartial mindset. That this is why so many young people have this religious like belief which they themselves can not justify. It is also the reason why so many of my opponents refuse to even submit an argument as to why they think that races are equal. They never thought that they would ever have to. They know that they have no way of proving what that so desperately want to believe is an Absolute Truth. That is why so many of them like Factfinder just get angry and try and stifle the debate. Which is definitely a religious mindset. Refusal to put your side of any argument in a debate is a major weakness of my opponents, and continued refusal to do so constitutes dishonesty. You, however were smart enough to know in your heart that races are not equal, even though you obviously want to believe that they are. So, you retreated to a more defensible position.
You more defensible position was to claim that races do not exist, when they self evidently do exist. Once again, it is easy to prove that they exist, especially since lefties quite obviously see races themselves when it is convenient for them to do so. But no amount of proof can ever make anyone accept anything that they just do not want to believe. Human races equate to sub species, and once again, that is quite easy to prove. You did your best by submitting "scientific" links which denied this to support your view, but they were hardly scientific,. All I had to do was provide you with a definition of sub species, and list the characteristics which apply that define sub species, to prove to you that humans conform to that definition, and to those same characteristics. . I asked you the crucial questions as to how humans races do not conform to the scientific definition of sub species, and the defining characteristics of a sub species? And once again you refused to answer a couple of very simple but very crucial questions. Then you then headed for the door. Checkmate. -
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@Dreamer
Your going to use an example of 1 person on 1 issue to make that conclusion?
Also little ironic when the left stance on this issue was essentially to authoritatively force people to take the vaccine.
-
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@Factfinder
Which is like Al Capone saying to the cops "Yeah I did it copper, but you can't prove it!" I engaged in a "debate" with you in good faith, where you never submitted a reasoned argument justifying your own position. All you did was attack my reasoned arguments, usually with sneery one liners, the identifying feature of the ignorant and the intellectually challenged. You refused to answer pertinent questions, even ones I labelled as crucial questions. You refused to acknowledge even the simplest and most obvious logical connections, which is just prevaricating. Finally, you resorted to using a chatbot because your low IQ means that can not think for yourself. All of these factors mark you as a troll whom is not on a unbiased search for the truth, or a genuine person who wishes to test their beliefs against an informed opponent, but as a low IQ narcissist more interested in stifling debate to hide a truth he fears to face. As such, like a lot of people on this particular debating site, you are not worth debating with. -
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
I did not claim that the majority of the world's population is non-heterosexual. That is a lie of your own invention. Why do you feel the need to make up lies?
You actually did , I don't mind you lying I expect that of you it's your only resort when beaten yet again , sold you at least own up to your lies?
I previously stated .......
The obvious fact that the vast majority of the world's population remain with the same sexual identity they were born with?
Your reply ......
You don't get to make a false claim. Back it up.
You called that a "false claim" all in your own words , so man up and apologise for lying again......watch now as Just Lying tries to cover his lie with more lies.
I have repeatedly pointed out that the research shows that there is a lot of fluidity in sexual orientation
"A lot"? 80 / 90 percent of the worlds population is heterosexual , so what's " a lot" ?
Why do you continue to lie about this?
Lie about what exactly? A link to a study showing a very low minority of deepressd American kids may be confused regards sexual orientation?
What a "searing" revelation
. With various studies showing between 10 to 50 percent of those identifying as non-heterosexual changing their sexual orientation at some point. I mentioned several studies that show this:
Oh it's 50 per cent now of 10 percent wow! A staggering 5 percent ......seriously that's it?
So you still refuse to admit openly you think sexual orientation is a choice yet that's what you believe ......good ole yellow as usual, what a coward.
-
Gay at birth?
Something very obvious that I would like to insert in this discussion is that the question of what causes homosexuality is separate from the question of whether it is changeable at will. Even if homosexuality was purely environmental (which it very well might be), it still would not imply that it can be changed intentionally. Human psychology has incredible memory, and 90-year old people are still chiefly run by their childhood traumas. Someone who had a very traumatic confrontation with their parent when they were 5, may still experience painful flashbacks every time they enter a confrontation at the age of 95. They were not born with these flashbacks, but they are so deeply ingrained in their psychology that they might as well be an inherent part of their brain.
Changing one's behavior is difficult enough. Changing one's preferences is downright impossible without very serious and long inner work. Take someone who hates the taste of carrots and try to get them to love it - most likely will not happen. And changing disliking one vegetable to liking it is a billion times easier than changing being sexually attracted to one gender to another.
Lastly, I invite anyone who seriously believes that homosexuality can be changed into heterosexuality at will - conduct the opposite experiment. Pick a month and, assuming you are heterosexual, live it as if you were homosexual. Go on dates with guys (involving making out), share bed with them, watch gay porn... Then let us know how it went.
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
ARGUMENT TOPIC : JUST SAYIN STATES THAT TO SAY THE WORLDS POPULATION IS MOSTLY HETEROSEXUAL IS A BLATANT LIE , ALSO THAT WE ALL PICK OUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION WHEN WE REACH ADULTHOOD
You once again did not provide any sources for your spurious claims - particularly the claim that people are born gay
To say that the majority of the worlds population is heterosexual is according to mentally unbalanced Just Lyin a "spurious claim" .....ROFLMAOSurveys in Western cultures find, on average, that about 93% of men and 87% of women identify as completely heterosexual, 4% of men and 10% of women as mostly heterosexual, 0.5% of men and 1% of women as evenly bisexual, 0.5% of men and 0.5% of women as mostly homosexual, and 2% of men and 0.5% of women as completely ...
Are you going to want their names too? LOL.
Yes sure , you hardly think I'd take your word for it.
I've provided peer review studies from the US and New Zealand.
No , you've provided a study saying depressed kids may be undecided on their sexual orientation, I'm waiting on you to prove a peer reviewed paper saying we pick our sexuality.
You provided nothing
Why you don't accept 90 percent of Americans identify as heterosexual, seriously?
. I provided studies that have been cited by Harvard, and are the basis of policies at the National Institutes of Health.
I'm waiting for your links that prove we choose our sexual orientation.
You provided no evidence. I'm seeing a pattern here.
So do you want a link to the rather obvious fact that the majority of humans identify as heterosexual?
You once again did not provide any sources for your spurious claims - particularly the claim that people are born gay.
Yes sorry I forgot you think we all mostly decide to choose our sexual orientation in our teens after studying the various options available ,this nonsense has really taken a grip in the US it seems.
I'm sorry you think it undecided the fact that the majority of the worlds population identify as heterosexual, I can just see the shock on your face at this revelation.
Time to prove it or admit you're just lying as usual.
Just sayin thinks we pick our sexual orientation on reaching maturity ........Seriously LOL
