|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:04 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle You DID make presumptions. You have not debated me on every single subject, so you can not make the claim you can beat me in ANY debate. Once again Miranda, you're arguing an opinoin. Scientificly sex is an action. But I've never agreed with how science is being used today. In other words. I don't agree that sex is nothing more then an action that causes chainreactions of chemicles in the brain. I agree that its a physicle action, but I do not agree that it is just a physicle action. In other words. Its my opinoin. Trying to argue and refute my opinoin is futile and you will get no where. I don't know why I feel the way I do. Even before I converted to christianity in 2001 I saw sex as, mabey not sacred, but more then a physicle action. And Zin. I wasn't being arrogant about my claim that Miranda couldn't beat me in ANY debate. The word "any" was in refrence to her using the word "any" which was in refrence to the word "all" which was being used to describe "ever single." And no, she can not beat me in every single debate. There are subjects she couldn't beat me on, and there are subjects she can. I don't know why you thought I was being arrogant in my claim the she can't beat me in ANY debate. It can be broken down simply as follows: "I can beat you in any debate" "No, no you can't. There may be some areas you're better at then I am, but not all of them" I also never apposed sex education. I have no idea where you got that. I stated in two posts that I agreed with sex ed. I stated how ever I disagree with the current eaching methods, and that they need to be revised.
If debating was all about the materials then we would never put the wrong person in jail and people who commited crimes would always be put in jail (one they're caught). However if you have a really good defense lawyer and a half decent prosecutor than you have better hope to Hell that you have foolproof evidence.
Why do you think people hire lawyers? They don't hire them because the lawyer knows more about the situation than they do, they do it because a lawyer is TRAINED in debating. They are trained to take the evidence and twist it however they can to fit their purpose. They are trained to take the evidence given to them and make it work in their favour, they are trained to think ahead and know what the opponent will say, and figure out how to respond and they are trained to be able to argue effectively for things they don't even believe in themselves.
Am I as good at debating as a lawyer? ******** Hell no. However that doesn't diminish the fact that it is a skill that I have, and also I've had to train in it even just a little (because all teenagers argue with their parents and I've had to learn how to effectively argue with my mother).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:12 pm
Some one dosn't have to be provoked to be arrogant. You have a flaw in your argument. You don't know if you know more about a subject then I do. You were being presumptuois. You were being arrogant. You claimed oyu could beat me in ANY debate. Beware the Jabberwock Thirdly, I know I can beat you in any debate. There is nothing threatening about you, period. You did not claim you could beat me in certian areas. You claimed you could beat me in ANY debate, IE, ALL areas. An arrogant claim because you do not know what I know, you have not debated me in enough areas to make that claim factual. To mkae the claim you can beat me in any debate with out knowing what I know, how I may or may not present information in what way, in what areas is, in fact, arrogant, impudent, and insolent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:17 pm
Beware the Jabberwock Pyrotechnic Oracle You DID make presumptions. You have not debated me on every single subject, so you can not make the claim you can beat me in ANY debate. Once again Miranda, you're arguing an opinoin. Scientificly sex is an action. But I've never agreed with how science is being used today. In other words. I don't agree that sex is nothing more then an action that causes chainreactions of chemicles in the brain. I agree that its a physicle action, but I do not agree that it is just a physicle action. In other words. Its my opinoin. Trying to argue and refute my opinoin is futile and you will get no where. I don't know why I feel the way I do. Even before I converted to christianity in 2001 I saw sex as, mabey not sacred, but more then a physicle action. And Zin. I wasn't being arrogant about my claim that Miranda couldn't beat me in ANY debate. The word "any" was in refrence to her using the word "any" which was in refrence to the word "all" which was being used to describe "ever single." And no, she can not beat me in every single debate. There are subjects she couldn't beat me on, and there are subjects she can. I don't know why you thought I was being arrogant in my claim the she can't beat me in ANY debate. It can be broken down simply as follows: "I can beat you in any debate" "No, no you can't. There may be some areas you're better at then I am, but not all of them" I also never apposed sex education. I have no idea where you got that. I stated in two posts that I agreed with sex ed. I stated how ever I disagree with the current eaching methods, and that they need to be revised.
No, I'm reading you. I'll be more psucific form now on though so you don't missunderstand what I'm saying. Notice how I never said anythign about a subject, anythign about material. I only stated you do not know what I know. And, well, you don't. You don't know if you can present things in a better fationin a certian area then I can. I get the rest of what your saying. Your right, thats what lawers are for. You're right about your own skills. But you are wrong if your think you can do it effectivly in every single area os debate with me. As i said, you don't know me. You don't know what I know. You don't knwo how I react in certain areas, how I present information in certain areas, how I examine information in certain areas, how I analyse information in certain areas. People are diffrent in certian areas, they can be absolutly nothign in an area like, say, GUn control, and be the top dog in an area of...say...global warming. I'm not a very effective debater in certain areas. But do you think you are? With me? You have claimed as such. You have claimed you could beat me in any debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:35 pm
A good debator isn't good in certain areas. You have to read everything that I write. I good debator is someone who has skills in debating. It has nothing to do with the area in which they're debating and everything to do with the debating itself. Like I said, I'm sure there is a lot out there that you know much more about than I do (say the bible for instance) however that doesn't mean that I couldn't out debate you on it.
Not because I know an extreme amount about the bible, infact I know very little. I would HOPE that you know more about your own religion than I do. However in terms of debating it, if I was to debate something about it I could have all the material that I need right at my fingertips. The actual debating is something completely different. Yes knowing the subject helps a whole hell of a lot, and I would probably have a fairly difficult time debating you on something that I know very little about and something you know a great deal about. However the point of debating is the ability to take what you're given and argue effectively with that, whether you know the subject or not. And I know that I have better skills in that area than you do.
Just because someone can beat you in a debate doesn't mean that they automatically know more about that subject than you do. It means that they know how to take evidence and present it in a way that works for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:38 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle Some one dosn't have to be provoked to be arrogant. You have a flaw in your argument. You don't know if you know more about a subject then I do. You were being presumptuois. You were being arrogant. You claimed oyu could beat me in ANY debate. Beware the Jabberwock Thirdly, I know I can beat you in any debate. There is nothing threatening about you, period. You did not claim you could beat me in certian areas. You claimed you could beat me in ANY debate, IE, ALL areas. An arrogant claim because you do not know what I know, you have not debated me in enough areas to make that claim factual. To mkae the claim you can beat me in any debate with out knowing what I know, how I may or may not present information in what way, in what areas is, in fact, arrogant, impudent, and insolent.
But I've already covered all of this. I never said I knew more about every subject than you do, and you have to start reading everything that I write before you respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:44 pm
karllikespies http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=39819 The link above goes to a very interesting article. In short it states that democrats in the house of representatives are planning to introduce a bill seeking to limit the number of abortion by putting an emphasis on pregnancy prevention. So far many pro-life groups have opposed the idea because the emphasis on contraception. What do you guys think? I think that might be a good idea cause maybe then people would stop being so careless and try hard to PREVENT pregnancy from happening in the first place. If schools are going to teach health and sex ed then they should do a better job at it. My school basically said nothing about preventing pregnancies, only that people can get pregnant from sex and talked about reproduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
