The "I've had it with madness" Challenge!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Find another dude to help you and I'll gladly jump on Madness' bandwagon to help him....2vs1 wouldn't be fair

Thats something to consider

reply to post by Skyfloating


I'd be up for that as well.

I'll give you some time to come up with an appropriate proposal for a debate title and to find someone else to make this a nice 2-vs-2 debate.

Our Debate is Up

reply to post by Skyfloating


Let's give it a week before we start posting. I'm quite busy still. 2 papers, a video assignment, and 2 exams left. Will be ready by next Friday.

I look forward to the debate!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Good luck for your exams. Take all the time you want. I´ll hold off the Debate until then...

reply to post by Skyfloating


I am really looking forward to this.

Of coarse you know who I hope wins.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Find another dude to help you and I'll gladly jump on Madness' bandwagon to help him....2vs1 wouldn't be fair

Thats something to consider

Just let me know whenever you want me to chime in

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Just let me know whenever you want me to chime in

Let`s have a separate Debate afterwards.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


You shouldn't hope anyone wins. You shouldn't care about who wins or who loses. You should care simply about the arguments being presented. If my arguments are incorrect and Sky's are better, I'll happily concede my own fault.

Of course, at times debate can boil down to not who is right but who presents their position better. That's why I hope that both myself and Sky put forth our arguments thoroughly, because I'd hate for one of us to win on argumentative ability alone...hell, I've won debates (not on here, but in the National Forensics League when I was in High School) in that way and it doesn't always feel too good.

Bottom line: Let's all just look at this thing neutrally and give a nice to whoever does best.

I do

I have to watch this myself...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Have you had it up to here with madnessinmysoul's 'evolutionist' ramblings?

Feel like stopping his 'evolutionist' lies?

Why not try taking him down?

I'm here to announce the "I've had it with madness" challenge, whereby you can challenge me to a debate. We'll have a debate on more or less any topic you want in whatever format is suitable for the debate forum.

Any takers?

Wow. Quite the ego you have. Please say you are trying to make a joke. Or that you are kidding.

But just in case you are not, let me remind you of how I put you in your place...easily out debated you I might add.

Let me jog your memory, does the three questions I posed to you jog your memory?

We debated them for a time.

Here's the link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You finally I admitted I was right in each of my assertions, albeit begrudgingly, very begrudgingly.

So I guess that means no one else here needs to out debate you since I have aleady done so quite easily.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


So science hasn't created life (yet)...and that's your point?? How does that prove or disprove anything?

Either way, this thread seems to have achieved something...debate is happening...so your rant looks a bit silly imo. Hell, even a mod took him up on it

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

So science hasn't created life (yet)...and that's your point?? How does that prove or disprove anything?

Either way, this thread seems to have achieved something...debate is happening...so your rant looks a bit silly imo. Hell, even a mod took him up on it

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

So science hasn't created life (yet)...and that's your point?? How does that prove or disprove anything?

Either way, this thread seems to have achieved something...debate is happening...so your rant looks a bit silly imo. Hell, even a mod took him up on it

I'm glad to see he still has others fighting his battles for him.

My rant, as you call it, was factual and true.

And no, my point was not that science has not created life "YET", my point was just what you wrote.

That you and he and most all of you evolutionists throw out lies as facts.

The fact is science has not produced life - PERIOD. - Not YET.

By saying "yet" you are implying they will - which may or not be true. But you imply it to be a fact- which in fact it has not.

By saying that I proved science has not created life, you are admitting that I did in fact out debate him, correct?

I'm sure the mod here will also more than hold his own against madness, but I still stand by my original statement that I am praying that madness is kidding around about this. His whole op reaks of egotism.

As a matter of fact, I only clicked on the post because I thought someone finally had enough of madness long winded, double talk tirades. That's what I get for skimming the recent posts and not looking at who started the thread.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Wow. Quite the ego you have. Please say you are trying to make a joke. Or that you are kidding.

Ego? I'm just put out a challenge for a formal debate.

But just in case you are not, let me remind you of how I put you in your place...easily out debated you I might add.

You didn't...you just repeatedly declared yourself the victor with a non sequitur argument.

Let me jog your memory, does the three questions I posed to you jog your memory?

Yes, your three questions that prove nothing.

We debated them for a time.

Here's the link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You finally I admitted I was right in each of my assertions, albeit begrudgingly, very begrudgingly.

I also pointed to them being entirely irrelevant to the questions at hand.

So I guess that means no one else here needs to out debate you since I have aleady done so quite easily.

Your assertions being correct doesn't mean your conclusion was correct. Hence why it is a non sequitur. Your conclusions weren't derived from your premises by any logical means.

You shouldn't laugh while wallowing in logical fallacies.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Whether or not science can replicate a phenomenon had no bearing on whether or not that phenomenon ever took place. We may simply not have the resources to reproduce it or it might simply be out of the scale of humanity to do.

Now, if you'd like to take me up on a debate in the debate forum after Sky and I (grammar note: it should be "Sky and me" but that doesn't rhyme) have had it out, go ahead.

I say there should be some stakes in the debate...

the loser has to change their avatar...

hint to MIMS: nobody likes Darwin dude

Idolatry should be forbidden on ATS !

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Plenty of people like Darwin. Hell, there's an entire branch of science that thinks he's the most influential person to ever work in their field...hint, it's Biology. And it's not idolatry, I'm using this avatar because it's clever.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
But just in case you are not, let me remind you of how I put you in your place...easily out debated you I might add.

That wasn't a debate. That was you making statements and insinuating that they somehow disproved evolutionary theory, and then the rest of us telling you how pointless your statements were and how they were pretty irrelevant.

Not to mention that you actually changed at least one of your statements. How consistent and honest.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Plenty of people like Darwin. Hell, there's an entire branch of science that thinks he's the most influential person to ever work in their field...hint, it's Biology. And it's not idolatry, I'm using this avatar because it's clever.

not as many as you would like to think, and I am sure chicks your age only view Darwin as a prude...

not to mention the racist ideals associated with him. The world is getting rather tired of social Darwinism being taught to children in their schools, Darwin is just a tool of the NWO, his ideals are planted like a seed in the minds of the youth in order to pit the population against eachother and hopefully curb the population not mentioning another perk of Darwinism which is to get people to keep their eye off the ball and instead on one another.

Darwin and his image only represents to me, and alot of others, the face of Racism.

Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them. At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the "White European" was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism. At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics.

all about science

Darwin's proponents preach it so well, if not by their composure alone.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


No one ever acted in a racist way and justified it with "Darwin told me to"

Bad things happened because of money, land, power, control, or whatever else...insanity if you want. But saying the theory of evolution caused (oxymoron in itself because a theory describes something, it doesn't act) racism is beyond laughable