Ukraine Crisis Fund
We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → THE GREAT DEBATES! (Rd. 6 Results)
| 224 | 155418 |
Some of you may remember The Great Debates thread from years past. Some thought it was fun, and some thought it was just too heavy.
So I thought I'd bring things back, but with a twist! The basic idea is still the same: two users will debate on a topic. The difference is that you won't get to pick the topic or which side you'll be arguing for.
Oh, and I almost forgot - the topics are going to be somewhat ... silly But that doesn't mean your argument has to be silly. In fact, if you can defend your silly point in a serious way, you might just earn yourself a merit! So it's not about winners or losers, it's about whether you can argue for, well, just about anything!
RULES:
- I will provide three possible topics for debate. If you'd like to participate, then you can SIGN-UP HERE in the Art, Music, and Writing forum: click here
- Once 6 people (at least for now) have signed up for the current three topics, the signup thread will close and the debates will begin
- Assignments will be given on this thread (who will be debating for which topic and what side).
**NOTE** You are signing up to play. Which topic you get and what side you'll be arguing for will be decided randomly. So be prepared!
- You will only have 1 post in which to give your argument, so make it count! Keep in mind that your argument should stand on its own. So don't quote your opponent and just shoot down their arguments. But you should also anticipate potential objections and try to respond to them.
- Merit-earners will present well-reasoned and genuine arguments in favour of their position - even in the face of some pretty silly topics. What that means is that, if users on opposite sides each give great arguments, they would both earn merits!
- A loosely enforced time limit (which has yet to be officially established) will be in place. Once that time limit is reached, the next round will begin.
Good luck! And let the return of The Great Debates begin!
- 224 Replies
I'm against HahiHa? Not much I can to do to beat that reasoning...
Bananas are more valuable than carrots.
yes, because 1: bananas take longer to grow than carrots. 2: bananas are rarer than carrots (banana tree seeds are also rarer than carrot seeds, but banana tree seeds are waaay rarer than carrot seeds around here.) 3: bananas are more delicious than carrots, everyone knows that. 4: in lots of local grocery stores, bananas are more expensive than carrots. 5: banana yellow is my 4th favorite color, 3rd being dark blue, 2nd emerald green, and brick red being my 1st favorite color. 6: usually bananas are shinier and more perfect than carrot. 7: my and most of my friends favorite fruit is banana. 8: banana is an berry, and one of my most favorite words is berry. 9: bananas are softer than carrots, thus making it easier to eat. that is why I think bananas are more valuable than carrots. to me.
carrots are more valuable than bananas because we naturally like roots and carrots are roots.
Before I take my stance, I have a question: Are the debates strictly secular, or can I bring theology into this?
You're welcome to bring in theistic belief to support your conclusion. Just make sure that your argument is consistent and that you explain how theism links to the conclusion.
I'm against HahiHa? Not much I can to do to beat that reasoning...
The only person you're really against is me In other words, I'll take it upon myself to respond to arguments. All you need to worry about is your own argument.
We can't tell whether or not we're in a simulation.
So basically, I have to make an argument about how the world is not real?
Bananas are more valuable than carrots.
âEl unico fruto del amor/ es la banana, es la bananaâ -Ben Sa Tumba & Son Orchestre; âLa bananaâ-
Some definition:
âValuableâ: very useful or very important; worth a lot of money. -2010 Oxford dictionary-
âCultivarâ: a plant or grouping of plants selected for desirable characteristics. -2014 Wikipedia-
Bananas are more valuable than carrots? Yes, they are.
Why? âValuableâ refers to a lot of things, so:
1)Historical value
There is evidence that banana cultivation started in 8000-5000 b.C. Carrot cultivation started in 3000-2000 b.C. This make the banana one of the first fruit cultivated.
Bananas were introduced to the Americas in early 1500 , carrots in the 17th.
There is no evidence that preistoric men(or monkeys) preferred roots rather than fruits, but it's probably that they started to eat fruits(like bananas) before roots(like carrots) because they are more obtanaible(and visible on a tree) than roots. So, I would assume that more human beings are survived eating bananas rather than carrots.
2)Biological value
Banana has an enormous number of cultivars(between 300 and 1000), some created using artificial techniques with the purpose of satisfy several needs. Also there are green, yellow, pink,purple, red,, silvery, with seeds, seedless, oval,curved bananas.
Carrots, although have a similar variety of colours, don't have a such number of cultivars and the focus on the cultivation of the classical orange variety have suppressed the other ones.
Most of the bananas cultivated are sterile, so the farmers create a plantation by removing and transplanting suckers.This is an operation that require minimal care. The plants produce fruit in about 6 months and live for 25 years and more.
Carrots, instead, grown in 4 months(then it needs sow the field again) , but require a lot of care, plow and sowing.
3)Economical value
Banana's production is about 110 million tonnes. Carrot's production is about 36 million tonnes.
Major producers of bananas are developing nations like India, Ecuador, Philippines which find in banana's exportation a source of money for national investment. Major producers of carrots (above 40% of mondial production) is China... -FAOstat 2013-
Bananas is the most eaten fruit in the world. This means there is a very very large economic platform based on bananas commerce that encourages multinational corporation to invest in the above developing nations. Also bananas commerce(and other type of commercial exchange) encouraged EU to write and sign the Cotonou agreement: the first article says âSustained economic growth, developing the private sector, increasing employment and improving access to productive resources shall all be part of this framework â
Banana is one of the food wich take part of the Fair Trade movement.This means better trading conditions and sustainability for exporters (and importers). Carrot not.
4)Cultivation value
One of the major problem of bananas is that they are disease-sensitive: luckily there are a so big number of cultivar that is easily replace an infected one.
Carrots suffer disease too, but, in addition to that, their problem include phisical damage that carrots inflict themselves during growth. This can affect over 30% of carrots produced and reduces drastically their commercial value.
5)Cultural value
Everybody knows the gag of a person slipping on a banana peel and the songs like "Yes! We have no bananas" and âLa bananaâ. The debut album of The Velvet Undergrond features a banana designed by Andy Warhol, the leader of the pop art. There are some urban legend regarding bananas. The banana takes part in the religious beliefs of several popolation and is a fertility symbol. Bananas are quoted in Buddhist writings.
Carrots simply have none of the above. Well, onestly carrots are quoted in âDe re coquinariaâ written by Marcus Gavius Apicius (III century A.D). If you've never been interested in Latin literature, you know him. But, seriously, that treaty speak about cooking...
6)Nutritional value
Bananas are source of vitamin B and potassium. Often we see athletes eat a banana. It's scientifically proven that eating bananas decreases the risk of cancer.
Carrots, instead, are source of beta-carotene.
Surprisingly, it is scientifically proven that high doses of b-carotene in smokers increases the risk of cancer -CARET âthe Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial" 1996 National Cancer Institute-
7)Other use value
Banana leaf are often used as umbrella.
Banana peel have the capacity of purificate water from heavy metal. -2007 Master Thesis of M.R. Boniolo, Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares-
Also banana peel is a cheap way to polish shoes.
Banana plants are often used for ornamental purpose and are source of fiber for textiles and paper.
Carrots are food for humans e animals, have no other uses. Well, their wild variant is a weed. They says:âThe grass is always greener on the other side of the fenceâ. Maybe some wild carrots can be useful.
Horses are better than ferrets because...
1. They are in minecraft.
2. They appear in many movies.
3. They are more cute.
So basically, I have to make an argument about how the world is not real?
Not quite, but close! Remember, you're starting with this claim as given:
(1) We cannot tell whether this is real or just a simulation.
So (1) is just true - either side of the debate will grant that. The claim that you're arguing for is this:
(2) Given that (1) is true, we cannot know that we're not in a simulation.
In other words you're arguing that, because we can't tell the difference, we cannot know.
If no one produces an argument against mine, do I just argue with myself?
If no one produces an argument against mine, do I just argue with myself?
In this most recent incarnation of TGD, I've moved away from users actually debating against one another (yes, I realise the name is misleading in this respect, but bear with me). I had hoped to make this clear in the OP and subsequent rules, but just to reiterate: the point here is to develop and defend a clear a compelling argument.
Ultimately, your opponent is me. I will soon (probably Wednesday) spend some time replying to the arguments on offer so far. My goal here is to make clear what I'm looking for, offer objections, and just give general feedback. I find this format much more friendly (especially since everyone could be a winner!) and, I hope, might help users in developing some fundamental skills in argumentation in a relaxed setting.
I suppose, though, I should seek some feedback on all this after this round. Hopefully I can remember to ask!
Ok, so basically I argue how we don't know someone is actually controlling the world? Seems easy enough.
Well, I am late. Here is my argument about this subject - People in affluent countries are *not* morally obligated to give to charity for those in poor countries.
I do not think this is good because I am a christian and we should give to the poor whenever we have the opportunity to. But I will argue against this subject just for fun and not that i do not agree with anything that i am saying here.
People in affluent countries(such as America, Europe, Asia, ect) do not have to give charity because they may not want to. We are not morally obligated because some people are not equipped to give to the poor, and they may not want to. When one goes to church, and they receive a flier about poor people in say, Africa, who need food and clothing to survive, that person has to consider what will the consequences be. He may not have the money for this, or he may simply not want to. 'The Bible does not force us to give to the poor, so i do not have to give if i do not want to'. (Made up quote). Some people may ask us to give to charity services but we are not obligated to do so because it does not say in anywhere that we MUST give to poor people. We have free will and we may do whatever we want.(Again, I do not agree with this, I am using my brain to think of a good argument if I were someone who was like this). So in conclusion, giving to the poor is a choice that we do not have to choose if we do not want to.
Here is my argument:
Are not dogs, cats and other pets considering living, breathing creatures? Is it not considered a crime to intentionally injure a dog/cat? Then why is it that we, as humans, can get away with what is tantamount with murder, to abort infants who have done nothing wrong?
I will agree with those who say that women have a right to choose what to do with their body, but their rights will only go so far. Why do women have the right to kill babies who, in fact, have done nothing wrong?
If, on the other hand, as in the case of Lori Grimes during childbirth. She had to choose between saving herself or saving her baby, chose to save her baby. This, however, is a different situation altogether. In this case, only one of them will make it out alive. If the mother chooses to save herself at the cost of saving her baby, that is okay. But on the other hand, if she chooses to save her baby at the risk of losing her life, that is also permissible.
To conclude, abortion is not permissible except in the case in which, at childbirth, the mother is forced to choose between her life and the baby's life. She may choose to say her life or the baby's life, because of the fact the only one of them might not make it alive.
If it were me, I would choose to save my child's life, since my baby has still a chance to live a life, while I have already lived a life.
Therefore, my stance is:
Not Permissible except in Extreme Cases (e.g. Lori Grimes Situation)
Sorry for the late post!
Ferrets are better animals than ferrets because they are easier to care for, financially, socially and spatially; ferrets are also less dangerous than horses, making owning one safer than owning a horse. Horses also consuming more resources and producing more methane gas would lead to the environment being hurt due to horses, ferrets do not consume the same amount of resources nor do they produce as much waste, making them superior to horses.
Ferrets are easier to care for because owning a ferret costs less than that of owning a horse, because of the space requirements and cost of owning a horse, they are a much larger commitment and as such, need to provide more joy in order to be worth it. By costing more and consuming more resources, it makes horses inferior by comparison. Because of this, ferrets with their easier to care for nature and their playful habits, it makes them more entertaining and better pets over all.
Since neither animal serves a realistic viewpoint anymore; horses being replaced by cars and other machines; it means their only value is that of the intrinsic use of them being pets and their love and affection for us. With horses consuming more resources and producing more waste, it makes them much more difficult to care for and they also do not have the exact same abilities as that of other animals. Because of their size, it makes them naturally harder to maintain and many horse owners will tell you that owning a horse means you make a huge commitment. Whilst with a ferret, you don't have to nearly be as involved and can focus on the positives of owning them.
You must be logged in to post a reply!