frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Best Recent Content

  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?

    @SnakesOfferingApples, good example.  But essentially that is what hapenning today In your example of tax collector. While there is no specific tax collected, there is a subsidy associated with affirmative action that in a way punishes all white people and benefits  african Americans.  Similarly, native americans get benefits subsidized by all others, effectively having a similar "native american" tax.
    the wealth can be transferred to a group of population over time and has been with such artificial taxation.
    Your original question is it fair to have this type of taxation levied on childten of those who committed crimes, especially so many generations later?  In some ways yes, because in case of native americans we took their land and we can think of paying for it over time.  In many ways though to your point it is unfair.
    ChangeMyViewSnakesOfferingApples
  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?

    @SnakesOfferingApples Since minorities receive more assistance from social benefits programs, we could already be considered to pay a tax such as what you described.
    ChangeMyViewaarongSnakesOfferingApples
  • The earth is flat

    @Erfisflat oh yes I think anti-vaxxer is a huge insult, and now it's no longer stereotyping, you've admitted you agree with them, so the insult isn't a fallacy anymore.

    I don't need a valid counter argument, you never disproved my video with valid arguments. Again I'm not a fan of discussing pseudoscience, but I enjoy debating and smack talk. If you can't tell that I'm participating in the debate make your really can count to potato! The video further supports 3 of my initial claims which you have never refuted. You put some religious nutjob up as your science expert whose all I don't know this, I don't know that, no one thinks this way anymore, it's not true because I say it's not true, and the scripture says this is the way it is, and act like that disproves something. 

    You sir are a detriment to our society. Anti-vaxxers are causing death where none needs to be. You push your anti-science agenda because you spent "2 years researching it on google" and you think you are smarter than an astrophysicist. Everything that proves you wrong is fake. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. You are hypocritical and ridicule books and websites and yet you lap it up when you find some obscure guy who agrees with you. 

    Religion had their time to force that flat earth BS on the masses. They killed scientists to protect it. But you... you think it's this HUGE cover up by the US, Russia, China, and everyone else just to make your bible wrong. MOST of those scientist believe your bible, but you still dismiss them.







    PowerPikachu21SilverishGoldNova
  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?

    That is a good debate @SnakesOfferingApples.
    good question: should all African Americans hold a grudge against white people for slavery? Should all jews hold a grudge against Germans for holocaust? Should all Native Americans hold a grudge agaist Americans?  For each of these examples there is some level of compensation put in place towards the victim group.  It is more of a negotiated agreement than a grudge
    joecavalry
  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?

    So essentially, is it socially acceptable for people to hold a grudge for historical events, like slavery. And if so, to what extent? How long can someone hold a grudge against someone else or even a group of people before it is considered to distasteful or socially inappropriate?

    Here are my two cents on the issue -
    Does it affect you or any significant loved one? If not, then perhaps it is distasteful to hold a grudge for a historical event. 
    On the contrary, if it did affect you in a significant way, locate the exact perpetrator, not the son, the grandson, the neighbour, etc, but the exact person that hurt you and benefited from your pain. 

    Post your argument down below.
    joecavalry
  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?

    @SnakesOfferingApples Since minorities receive more assistance from social benefits programs, we could already be considered to pay a tax such as what you described.
    ChangeMyViewaarongSnakesOfferingApples
  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?

    @kmelkevolution17

    Did I specifically say that it is bad to retain lessons from the past?  No, we can learn from the Holocaust for example that propaganda is bad because it can lead to the death of millions. My problem with what you said is that a person can hold a general grudge. Are people not a product of their own actions? Should I a Greco-Turkish person be held responsible for England's enslavement of African people?

    Here is an example of what I am against - In my debate class, we were debating affirmative action, and I said "Solving supposed discrimination by giving out special privileges is discrimination. Anyone can make it in America today." So I kept driving down this point and my opponent, (who is a great guy, by the way, I just don't agree with him) said this "But you are white, white people enslaved African people, you are in a position of power because of slavery" And some people nodded in agreement! They were essentially trying to devalue my opinion.

    Why should something that happened two hundred years, affect social interactions today in a way where I am not treated as an individual?
    If you HAVE BEEN HURT by SOMEONE then HOLD A GRUDGE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, not the collective.  
    Which is what I am for.
    aarong
  • The earth is flat

    @Erfisflat

    1 - Time Zones
    Yes I seriously said that. Yes I think mountains are curvature. (I don't think you understand what you are asking, mountains aren't flat, they curve)

    Refraction... Still has nothing to do with brightness of a light source. (look back at the street lights) Oh the insults are back because you have no argument this is like deja vu all over again. You ready for me to make you look like the lying fool you are again?

    Erfisflat said:

    The sun is supposedly mathematically impossible to see for a short  time in your model, supposedly over the imaginary curve already when we see it setting.


    Supposedly impossible to see the sun? So you can see the sun at night? This is the part where you look like a fool and start back tracking. I think your next step is to claim "see" doesn't mean "see" and start a semantics argument, followed by saying you didn't say it, follow by accusing me of a strawman, or putting words in your mouth, followed by you curling up in a ball for a few days crying about how bad I made you look. Peddle your bullshit elsewhere, you have posted a video in this thread which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the sun sets below the horizon rather than fades away as my street lamps prove.

    2 - Coriolis effect
    Oh look you have videos of swirling water around objects again. (well at least it's not a toilet) AGAIN, explain it where there isn't a structure that could easily affect it. (think ocean where there are no pipes, river beds, or other obstructions to distort the coriolis effect)

    3 - Sun's height
    No in the video where the sun goes behind the mountain it does NOT get smaller, or fade away. Don't take what I say out of context. In that video you can see the sun disappear bottom up it falls below the curvature of the earth. You have not "gives the same results" with the scientific method, or demonstrated anything. Refraction displaces an object, perspective is actually several things, none of which make objects disappear, but it does make them get smaller, and make distances between objects smaller. (which has no bearing on the sun's height from different places on the planet)

    4 - Stars move
    No you do not see an inverted image... ever in your image you are looking from a different angle is all. I really don't want to have to make a video on this... sigh

    Small stars
    Oh look you finally figured out stars are small. It seemed like a big deal to you when you wrote this paragraph, but now that I proved you wrong... no big deal right?
    Erfisflat said:

    What makes you think that? Have you measured the size of an actual star now? Or are we taking NASA'S word for this? You ever seen a star under high magnification? Stars obviously aren't gas giant balls of flame trillions of miles away.


    Oh look even though the stars don't go to the horizon your "proof" is ... mutter mutter perspective.... mutter mutter refraction... mutter mutter your ignorant and don't understand ... mutter mutter I'm right because I say so. Um no you're not right, and you are most definitely ignorant. The stars move depending on the time of the year or your location on the planet. Some stars can only be seen from certain parts of the world, and they don't "fade away".

    A) Perspective
    So you admit your model only works when a small subset of environmental factors are at play, or you want to admit your perspective thing is BS?

    Reflection - Says the picture. You can see the light sources fade away as they get further away and don't intersect with the ground. So no heat distortion effect, or any of your other BS. You can clearly see on my picture the lights fade away... says the picture. I have sourced and demonstrated it very clearly. For you to just say "reflection and perspective did it" won't work like you're showing me hur-deedurr. (I don't like you but I have to admit the swedish chef reference earned you points...) 

    Bananas - You are totally debating irrelevant nonsense, and yes you missed that.

    5 - Horizon
    You don't see a way to disprove the argument so you use insults.

    Erfisflat said:

    You don't know the meaning of science. You are (attempting to) defend this scientific model (unscientifically).


    Oh look you admit round earth is the scientific model. I should frame that one as you finally let some honesty slip through while you were trying to insult me. You are the pseudoscience king, I'm sure you believe everything out of David Wolfe's mouth.

    Daddy issues, refraction and perspective banana distractions blah blah blah

    Look you want to keep going so I make you look even stupider than you do now, be my guest. I can rub salt in your wounds for as long as you like. You want to seem smart but really all you do is look stupid. You mutter about shit that proves nothing but sounds vaguely scientific without showing how it would account for reality. You say you don't trust books and websites, yet quote them when it suits you. You insult and ridicule rather than bringing clear and supported evidence. You somehow think the whole world is working together to protect the US. That all the pictures are fakes. That it's all this big scam for what? Oh you don't know. Just like you don't know why Russia, China, and the US would be working together. Or you don't know why no one has seen the edge. Or you don't know why your tests only work in certain environments under a specific set of conditions. You pretend to be an intellectual when really all you are is a bible thumping anti-intellectual.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaPowerPikachu21
  • FBI Director James Comey proof that Trump is corrupt?

    haha

    SilverishGoldNova
  • The earth is flat

    @Erfisflat

    1 - Time Zones
    Yes I seriously said that. Yes I think mountains are curvature. (I don't think you understand what you are asking, mountains aren't flat, they curve)

    Refraction... Still has nothing to do with brightness of a light source. (look back at the street lights) Oh the insults are back because you have no argument this is like deja vu all over again. You ready for me to make you look like the lying fool you are again?

    Erfisflat said:

    The sun is supposedly mathematically impossible to see for a short  time in your model, supposedly over the imaginary curve already when we see it setting.


    Supposedly impossible to see the sun? So you can see the sun at night? This is the part where you look like a fool and start back tracking. I think your next step is to claim "see" doesn't mean "see" and start a semantics argument, followed by saying you didn't say it, follow by accusing me of a strawman, or putting words in your mouth, followed by you curling up in a ball for a few days crying about how bad I made you look. Peddle your bullshit elsewhere, you have posted a video in this thread which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the sun sets below the horizon rather than fades away as my street lamps prove.

    2 - Coriolis effect
    Oh look you have videos of swirling water around objects again. (well at least it's not a toilet) AGAIN, explain it where there isn't a structure that could easily affect it. (think ocean where there are no pipes, river beds, or other obstructions to distort the coriolis effect)

    3 - Sun's height
    No in the video where the sun goes behind the mountain it does NOT get smaller, or fade away. Don't take what I say out of context. In that video you can see the sun disappear bottom up it falls below the curvature of the earth. You have not "gives the same results" with the scientific method, or demonstrated anything. Refraction displaces an object, perspective is actually several things, none of which make objects disappear, but it does make them get smaller, and make distances between objects smaller. (which has no bearing on the sun's height from different places on the planet)

    4 - Stars move
    No you do not see an inverted image... ever in your image you are looking from a different angle is all. I really don't want to have to make a video on this... sigh

    Small stars
    Oh look you finally figured out stars are small. It seemed like a big deal to you when you wrote this paragraph, but now that I proved you wrong... no big deal right?
    Erfisflat said:

    What makes you think that? Have you measured the size of an actual star now? Or are we taking NASA'S word for this? You ever seen a star under high magnification? Stars obviously aren't gas giant balls of flame trillions of miles away.


    Oh look even though the stars don't go to the horizon your "proof" is ... mutter mutter perspective.... mutter mutter refraction... mutter mutter your ignorant and don't understand ... mutter mutter I'm right because I say so. Um no you're not right, and you are most definitely ignorant. The stars move depending on the time of the year or your location on the planet. Some stars can only be seen from certain parts of the world, and they don't "fade away".

    A) Perspective
    So you admit your model only works when a small subset of environmental factors are at play, or you want to admit your perspective thing is BS?

    Reflection - Says the picture. You can see the light sources fade away as they get further away and don't intersect with the ground. So no heat distortion effect, or any of your other BS. You can clearly see on my picture the lights fade away... says the picture. I have sourced and demonstrated it very clearly. For you to just say "reflection and perspective did it" won't work like you're showing me hur-deedurr. (I don't like you but I have to admit the swedish chef reference earned you points...) 

    Bananas - You are totally debating irrelevant nonsense, and yes you missed that.

    5 - Horizon
    You don't see a way to disprove the argument so you use insults.

    Erfisflat said:

    You don't know the meaning of science. You are (attempting to) defend this scientific model (unscientifically).


    Oh look you admit round earth is the scientific model. I should frame that one as you finally let some honesty slip through while you were trying to insult me. You are the pseudoscience king, I'm sure you believe everything out of David Wolfe's mouth.

    Daddy issues, refraction and perspective banana distractions blah blah blah

    Look you want to keep going so I make you look even stupider than you do now, be my guest. I can rub salt in your wounds for as long as you like. You want to seem smart but really all you do is look stupid. You mutter about shit that proves nothing but sounds vaguely scientific without showing how it would account for reality. You say you don't trust books and websites, yet quote them when it suits you. You insult and ridicule rather than bringing clear and supported evidence. You somehow think the whole world is working together to protect the US. That all the pictures are fakes. That it's all this big scam for what? Oh you don't know. Just like you don't know why Russia, China, and the US would be working together. Or you don't know why no one has seen the edge. Or you don't know why your tests only work in certain environments under a specific set of conditions. You pretend to be an intellectual when really all you are is a bible thumping anti-intellectual.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaPowerPikachu21

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 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
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch