Debates

If I'm passionate about something I can have an excellent debate about it. However, the only thing I am passionate about is runescape. So unless they start teaching about ge price floors in schools I'm useless.

the only thing I am passionate about is runescape.

Fail. :wall:

Lateralus: wouldn't it be much cheaper to roll your own cigarettes?

I enjoy debating, but I prefer doing it anonymously. The amount of social stigma associated with these topics generally deters me from discussing them in public.

Lateralus: wouldn't it be much cheaper to roll your own cigarettes?

 

 

 

I enjoy debating, but I prefer doing it anonymously. The amount of social stigma associated with these topics generally deters me from discussing them in public.

I've been rolling my own lately to try and save some money, because I was smoking 20+ every day and it was hell on my wallet. Rolling your own is much cheaper, and it seems like you get to smoke more too, but it's just not the same.

I enjoy debating, but I prefer doing it anonymously. The amount of social stigma associated with these topics generally deters me from discussing them in public.

I agree with the anonymity being much nicer. I'm not much of a debater myself though.

Lateralus, you were my hero. :cry:

Eh, I wont wage a crusade against smokers but I don't see the logic behind it. Hell, I might even try it one day. Who knows.

Lateralus, you were my hero. :cry:

 

 

 

Eh, I wont wage a crusade against smokers but I don't see the logic behind it. Hell, I might even try it one day. Who knows.

I used to think smokers were idiots when I was younger. I've changed a lot over the years and now I do it quite a bit myself. I look at it this way. Every person has the right to weigh their pros and cons - for example, eating candy and playing video games. Those are detrimental to your health, but people still do them anyways for their own enjoyment. As long as it doesn't have a negative effect on others, I don't see it as a bad thing.

I enjoy debating, but I prefer doing it anonymously. The amount of social stigma associated with these topics generally deters me from discussing them in public.

 

 

 

I agree with the anonymity being much nicer. I'm not much of a debater myself though.

I personally don't enjoy anonymity in a debate. With that hidden identity, people tend to change their personal ideals. Also, I don't enjoy debating online when half the time the person has several minutes to think their decisions over, not to mention use the internet to slap a link to some unreasonable statistic :thumbdown: .

I also believe that a person's attitude and identity in real life should follow them off and on the debating field. A person can be totally opposite of what they are really like, not to mention those that troll without any real consequence. I remember seeing someone's signature here but it said something like "tip.it, where everyone's hard a nails, 6 feet tall, and has an IQ of 150." That saying's true anywhere you go on the internet :wall: .

Well, on the internet I think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but if the topic is brought up in real life then I tend to stay quiet. My teachers can't tell me who they voted for because they don't want their students to like them any more or any less just based on their own personal ideals. It's just the way it works.

I heard of a philosophy where you should be the same person everywhere you go, but I just don't think it would work. If you seek acceptance, you have to be respectful in front of bosses and teachers and you have to be cool in front of peers. I'm not saying to be two-faced or to lie, but it's not unreasonable to act a little differently depending on who you're with.

With that hidden identity, people tend to change their personal ideals.

I disagree. My personal ideals remain the same regardless of my anonymity. What changes is my loyalty to these ideals, so to speak. I have a reputation and image to uphold in public life, and so I conform to what is expected and avoid being associated with any serious "taboos" or social stigmas.

Take, for example, a debate surrounding "responsible" hard drug use, or a debate about whether we ought to support (indoor) prostitutes, i.e. view it as a legitimate and respectable career.

An even better example is pedophilia. Hell, it's hard to have an honest discussion about pedophilia online without being associated with child rapists and psychotic child abusers. If you aren't taking the side of "Kill/Arrest all pedophiles," then you are often associated with them.

I wouldn't dare express my personal ideals of hard drug use, prostitution, pedophilia etc. in public, even though I have a great amount of reason to support them.

Also, I don't enjoy debating online when half the time the person has several minutes to think their decisions over

This is the beauty of an online debate: it gives you time to think about your own perspective. The most influential changes in my beliefs come from taking the time to mull them over (often in response to something I see/hear/discover/etc). I find that rapid-fire verbal debates all too often devolve into a mere defense of your own fixed beliefs, rather than an attempt to analyze and discuss the different perspectives.

Just my two cents.

 

Also, I don't enjoy debating online when half the time the person has several minutes to think their decisions over

 

This is the beauty of an online debate: it gives you time to think about your own perspective. The most influential changes in my beliefs come from taking the time to mull them over (often in response to something I see/hear/discover/etc). I find that rapid-fire verbal debates all too often devolve into a mere defense of your own fixed beliefs, rather than an attempt to analyze and discuss the different perspectives.

 

 

 

Just my two cents.

That's true, but sadly many don't debate that way or accept my style of debating. Since I choose not to research data thoroughly (not that I don't know my subject generally, I just don't go and read up on more articles before posting) and post links to articles left and right, I'm often considered a poor debater that lacks the skill to research information.

It honestly just really irritates me when I can lose a debate to a 12 year old just because he has the "skill" to link to an article and repeat everything that person says.

Also, in real life debates, people respect opinions more and (obviously) don't ridicule or insult you much like what happens on the internet frequently.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I believe that arguing should be done face to face, where a reputation really matters and you can't just yell at a person before running off.

An online debate is not about who "wins" or "loses." As I'm sure you are well aware, these debates are never declared finished. An online debate is an exchange of knowledge and perspective motivated by truth rather than skill or victory.

If a 12 year old only needs to cite an article to dismantle your argument, I would question its validity. :lol:

An even better example is pedophilia. Hell, it's hard to have an honest discussion about pedophilia online without being associated with child rapists and psychotic child abusers. If you aren't taking the side of "Kill/Arrest all pedophiles," then you are often associated with them.

Pedophilia? Please do explain. You can PM me if you don't want to talk about it on here, but I'm very interested in seeing what you have to say about it.

PS: Funny thread. There is a debate about debates. 8-)

I'm horrible at debates. I can maybe point out flaws in people's reasoning, but I've never been one for debating.

 

 

 

The only formal debate I've done was about legalizing medical marijuana, which turned out quite boring since few people of the opposition actually opposed it. And those who did had little factual support.

I remember that; it was a great topic. And, as one said in that thread, I couldn't support anything because testing was and is illegal. I just don't understand why the government should be taken with a grain of salt (though, that's given) and everyone else should be taken as law.

Pedophilia? Please do explain. You can PM me if you don't want to talk about it on here, but I'm very interested in seeing what you have to say about it.

Credible and objective research seems to suggest that:

- Pedophilia (medically defined as the preferential attraction to prepubescent children) is a sexual orientation; i.e. not a simple "choice" of the individual, and it is highly unlikely that past child abuse causes pedophilia in later years

- Child abuse is not pervasively harmful to children

- Most convicted child abusers are not preferentially attracted to prepubescent children, i.e. are not pedophiles by medical definition (e.g. "situational" sexual behaviour). Research suggests that aggressiveness/violence is rare among pedophiles (as it would be rare among any other group, i.e. homosexuals)

- The mere label of "the sexually abused child" and the stigma attached to it can potentially exacerbate the problems of child abuse

etc... I can dig up some sources if you want.

Pedophilia? Please do explain. You can PM me if you don't want to talk about it on here, but I'm very interested in seeing what you have to say about it.

 

Credible and objective research seems to suggest that:

 

- Pedophilia (medically defined as the preferential attraction to prepubescent children) is a sexual orientation; i.e. not a simple "choice" of the individual, and it is highly unlikely that past child abuse causes pedophilia in later years

 

- Child abuse is not pervasively harmful to children

 

- Most convicted child abusers are not preferentially attracted to prepubescent children, i.e. are not pedophiles by medical definition (e.g. "situational" sexual behaviour). Research suggests that aggressiveness/violence is rare among pedophiles (as it would be rare among any other group, i.e. homosexuals)

 

- The mere label of "the sexually abused child" and the stigma attached to it can potentially exacerbate the problems of child abuse

 

 

 

etc... I can dig up some sources if you want.

Actually, I'd be very interested to have those sources. I got into an argument with a friend over lunch over pedophilia, he seemed to take the line that all pedophiles should get the death penalty whereas I was arguing that there's a difference between pedophilia and child abuse, and the vast majority of cases are of the former type and should be seen as a mental illness rather than a choice. He wasn't listening to reason at the time, but if I had some credible sources I'd like to send them to him.

Here are the sources I have used in past debates, and the material I've quoted.

[hide=]"A large number of studies show that a majority of child molesters are not preferentially attracted to prepubescent children or adolescents, and therefore are not pedophiles or ephebophiles.3 Many engage in sex with children because of situational factors such as marital problems, alcoholism, or unavailability of adults.4"

[1]

"The distinction between pedophiles and sex offenders is crucial since most studies (the authors list 14 of them) find that only a small portion of convicted sex offenders against minors are actually preferentially attracted to children [ie. pedophiles]."

[2]

"The general public and professionals likely overestimate the degree of aggressiveness in sexual offenses involving children; the media gives the most attention to violent cases, and criminal and clinical researchers see a biased population with significantly higher levels of aggression. ... The available evidence suggests that in reality, aggressive behavior is rare in pedophilic incidents."

[3]

"It can be hypothesized, based on empirical findings within the two domains, that the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon and/or the influence of negative expectations and biases may possibly be contributing to the negative symptoms cited in the clinical CSA literature. The sexual abuse label may increase the potential for negative outcomes by triggering various mechanisms of influence that may maintain or exacerbate negative symptomatology manifested by sexually abused children."

[4]

"Results of the present review [suggest that] CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population. The finding that college samples closely parallel national samples with regard to prevalence of CSA, types of experiences, self-perceived effects, and CSA-symptom relations strengthens the conclusion that CSA is not a propertied phenomenon and supports Constantine's (1981) conclusion that CSA has no inbuilt or inevitable outcome or set of emotional reactions." (emphasis added; CSA = child sexual abuse)

[5]

(For mainly political reasons, the Rind study was heavily criticized and rejected. See here for more details. Also; note the word pervasive in their conclusion!)

"a large proportion of [child sex] offenders fabricate childhood sexual abuse as an excuse or form of exoneration for their behavior"

[6]

Further reading

The more recent recognitions of zoosexuality as a possible sexual orientation serves as a good analogy.[/hide]

Good points, but I still think a lot of children might just be confused or even scared so they comply with the adult who is pressuring them into it. It's a form of taking advantage if you ask me. What do you think the cutoff ages should be? Surely you see something wrong with a 9-year-old and a 30-year-old having intercourse.

Good points, but I still think a lot of children might just be confused or even scared so they comply with the adult who is pressuring them into it. It's a form of taking advantage if you ask me. What do you think the cutoff ages should be? Surely you see something wrong with a 9-year-old and a 30-year-old having intercourse.

hes not saying sex with minors is okay, hes saying that most cases of child sexual abuse arent actually by pedophiles, and having a "natural" attraction to children doesnt mean you are a criminal. Someone who loves fire isnt necessarily an arsenist

Good points, but I still think a lot of children might just be confused or even scared so they comply with the adult who is pressuring them into it. It's a form of taking advantage if you ask me. What do you think the cutoff ages should be? Surely you see something wrong with a 9-year-old and a 30-year-old having intercourse.

 

 

 

hes not saying sex with minors is okay, hes saying that most cases of child sexual abuse arent actually by pedophiles, and having a "natural" attraction to children doesnt mean you are a criminal. Someone who loves fire isnt necessarily an arsenist

No, but they are a pyromaniac.

No, but they are a pyromaniac

which is fine if they arent hurting anyone else

Good points, but I still think a lot of children might just be confused or even scared so they comply with the adult who is pressuring them into it. It's a form of taking advantage if you ask me. What do you think the cutoff ages should be? Surely you see something wrong with a 9-year-old and a 30-year-old having intercourse.

 

 

 

hes not saying sex with minors is okay, hes saying that most cases of child sexual abuse arent actually by pedophiles, and having a "natural" attraction to children doesnt mean you are a criminal. Someone who loves fire isnt necessarily an arsenist

So the attraction is fine as long as you don't act on it? Fair enough, I guess I misunderstood what pedophilia was defined as here.

Yeah, we have a debate club every Friday at lunch. I don't debate, I watch and give my opinion at the end.