Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
I am Intelligent and articulate for my age. So if you can t handle defeat by someone younger, I suggest you pretend you never read this.
Contentio Contentio 18-21, M 10 Answers Apr 18 in Community

Your Response

Cancel

Pretty 'cocky' aren't you ?

Best Answer

No, I just have bad experiences with adults getting pissed cause I broke their logic "pain is the breaking of the shell of one's understanding"-kahlil Gibran

Best Answer

You can't 'break logic'...

Best Answer

Sure you can. You say something logical, I contradict it with something more logical, your argument becomes obsolete, thus your logic backing the argument is broken.

Best Answer

Nothing wrong with questioning authority at all.
I love it when my son's question things , even when they question me.

Best Answer

Where is my reply ?

Best Answer

Logical... in your opinion. Who's to say something is 'more' logical than something else. Surely subjectivity creeps in...

Best Answer

Try again .. I love it when my son's debate things with me . There is nothing wrong with questioning authority . It's healthy .

I replied to a comment above that is now deleted... maybe you question brainwashing .. that's a good thing .

Best Answer

Why can't I reply ?

Best Answer

Right above the one above this one

Best Answer

Ah, but logic is the very thing that pierces the veil of subjectivity. Logic is logic, it makes sense or it doesn't there is no gray area. That is why I love it. It is something constant in this ever shifting world :)

Best Answer
7 More Responses

So, even if you may be intelligent and articulate, that does not mean that you're intellectual. An intellectual debate is an open conversation ba<x>sed on experience and knowledge, a dialogue without any defeat or victory

Best Answer

Intellectualism is more of a state of mind than something that can be determined through some means of measurement. Therefore, I am intellectual because i think I am.

Best Answer

Aha *laughs*

Best Answer

Lol yeah its funny how philosophy works isn't it?

Best Answer

Do you own a fedora?

Best Answer

lol.. what does that have to do with it ? Old soul ?

Best Answer

I'm checking for a stereotype.

Best Answer

?

Best Answer

Reading the comments, this is like chess for you, isn't it? Can we play chess instead?

Best Answer

How?

Best Answer

I'm sure there are websites where you can play chess with other people.

Best Answer

Well, which subject is it that you would like to debate?

Best Answer

Democracy is not the best government system. Would you like the negative or affirmitive?

Best Answer

I shall take the position of going against this statement.

Best Answer

Ok, present your argument

Best Answer

We going to get a topic for this? And religion is a horrible subject. Leaps of faith are bad for logicery and reasonobilitudeness.

Best Answer

freedom of speech should be restricted. Would you like the negative or affirmitive?

Best Answer

To clarify:
Do you mean in general? Or only in extrodinary circumstances?

Best Answer

At anytime for any reason

Best Answer

I'll take the negative. But there's a good chance I'm going to crash soon so if this is good fun might have to take a recess and resume later.

Best Answer

Ok. I believe freedom of speech should be restricted, because words that are false and or hateful breed conflict among people.

Best Answer

You know what? I can't follow the layout on this site worth a damn and I have no idea what's going on. We'll do this another day. I'm always down for a challenge.

Best Answer

Ok thank you :)

Best Answer
4 More Responses

I will, name your topic.

Best Answer

Should the media be moderated to preserve morals? Do you want the negative or affirmative?

Best Answer

I really hope this isn't a way to gather more information about your high school research paper. The media should not be moderated, hiding the truth about the world and local happenings (even though the media is often wrong and they offer the 'new's in their own way) just blinds people and empowers them with a more biased view of the already biased events in modern society.

Best Answer

"even though the media is often wrong and they offer the 'new's in their own way" I love the point you made here, you are right, the media does obscure the truth, so why then should we allow yet another source of false bias information into our society. Isn't there enough conflict already? Isn't feeling false empowerment better than blind conflict?

Best Answer

We don't allow it, you have to acknowledge the fact that most people living under any type of pre-established society with governments and laws already blindly accept this type of "media" which is more commonly seen as a way of awareness. Most people believe what they're told and therefore pose no objection to the given information being delivered by the media. This does not directly harm anyone, so the conflict at hand is more of awareness than anything else. In that sense, false empowerment is not better than blind conflict.

Best Answer

False empowerment enables people to act on something, this in return MAY lead to an even greater conflict or give birth to a new one.

Best Answer

If this is a conflict more of awareness, then you mean to say that this is a matter of people being informed or not yes? If so, then once again we come down to the fact that such info is usually tainted with bias before reaching our ears, and bias information creates ignorant people who are not aware, they are merely under the illusion that they are aware. So I ask you, is it better to be undeniably unaware, or to falsely believing that you know what you speak of?

Best Answer

"or to falsely believing that you know what you speak of?" I don't know what you mean here, are you referring to ME not knowing what I'm presenting? Anyways. It's better to be unaware, why must you further this already spoken point?

Best Answer

When I say "you" I speak of all who receive the information. I'm sure you know what you are talking about. Anyway, I digress." It's better to be unaware, why must you further this already spoken point?" Because this is the whole point of the debate, if it is better to be unaware, then we should not allow the biased information into the ears of our country, and thus, moderate the media

Best Answer
5 More Responses

Does God exist?

Best Answer

Do you want to argue the negative or affirmative?

Best Answer

I'll let you decide that.

Best Answer

Alright I choose affirmitive.

Best Answer

Okay. So, God isn't real. Any documentation is from the creative mind of man. All experiences are fabricated due to mans desire to reason something beyond himself. All patterns seen to be provided as evidence of intelligent design are only done so in further attempts to live within reasoning of the existence of such an entity.

Best Answer

(Damn that was good, you didn't punch yourself in the face or anything like people normally do) I believe God exists. You may argue all you want with facts and statistics, however, if God has affected man so much that they feel the need to build monuments in his honor and spend lifetimes pondering him, and if he will continue to affect man like this long after both you and I are dead and dust, does that not make him more real than both you or I?

Best Answer

I agree that the idea of God exists within man, and that ideas are passed through lifetimes. This can be seen with in documentation and monuments: physical expressions that further the idea. However, many ideas come that aren't necessarily true: for example, the church of the flying spaghetti monster. This may not be as popular depiction of God, but it is an idea of God nonetheless that furthers the existence of itself.

The point is, that the idea of God is real, but doesn't prove the existence of God. All it proves is that the imagination of man hurtles both forward and backward in time to distill an understanding of something potentially infinite, which is impossible, for humanity is not. Therefore, proving the existence of God is impossible.

Best Answer

In order to disprove something, you must first have evidence. Ex: in murder cases, they cannot say the victim is dead unless they have a body to show. So I ask you, if my god is dead (by dead I mean non - existent), show me his body.

Best Answer

I say that there was never a body. And if there is no body, then the one said to be of it does not exist.

Best Answer

But by body I did not mean a literal body, .I meant (I didn't clarify, I apologize) proof that God does not exist. If proving his existence is impossible than surely proving he does not exist is. So I ask you to do so.

Best Answer

I promise I'll tie this bow after I've slept.

Best Answer

Thanks for helping me sleep. lol <3 I wasn't expecting a conversation like this to help but it did.

Best Answer

Ok goodnight :)

Best Answer
9 More Responses

Related Questions