• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Challenge To DP Members

Do you agree/accept the Challenge?

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
cpgrad08 said:
True enough. People do this because I believe there afraid that might lose the debate and actually change sides on side topic. Most people are afraid of true open debates because what they can mean to one self. Two things most Humans hate or afraid of. Admitting oneself is wrong and change.
Click to expand...

And spiders. Spiders suck.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
1. Change is neither good nor bad. 2. Change is life.

3. Only dead things cease to change.
Click to expand...

1. Maybe. Depends.
2. Partially true. Depends on what's after death.
3. False. Decay, petrification, change of matter, dust, bones, etc. *4

4. Depends significantly on what happens after death, or if there are spiritual elements in our existence.
 
soccerboy22 said:
1. And spiders. 2. Spiders suck.
Click to expand...

1. True.
2. True partially. Spiders tend to pierce and then suck. *3

3. If you meant the derogatory term, then that claim is false. The spider may think you "suck". Who's correct now?
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
2. Partially true. Depends on what's after death.
Click to expand...

Since it can't be clearly demonstrated, it's kind of silly to bring it up as a point for argument.

Wake said:
3. False. Decay, petrification, change of matter, dust, bones, etc.
Click to expand...

You are failing to see the difference between changing and being changed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've got a challenge for those here at the DP.

In 99% of my posts I try very hard to not even mention a party when I respond to <insert political topic post here>. And I would dare anyone to go through my past posts and prove this wrong.

Anyways...

In alot of the posts around here you can see the various sides always commenting, blaming, flaming (when possible), and thinly making derogatory remarks against the opposite side.

So, here's a challenge to everyone that is designed to promote a new form of debating at DP. That of Debating from a neutral standpoint in regards to a political party standpoint.

Do not mention, type, hint anything about ANY party. Just discuss the topic. Its fine if a website that you link to mentions a political party. But don't let yourself mention a political party. Lets give this a try for one week and lets see how interesting the discussions REALLY get. ;) (note that if a thread is SPECIFICALLY about a party then its ok to mention the party..just try and keep it as neutral as possible though. ;) )

Now I'm making this into a poll so that we can use it as a sort of "sign up sheet". If you want to try it out just hit "agree". Don't want to? Just ignore the poll or hit "disagree". The poll will be open to the public so that we can all keep an eye on each other. :)
Click to expand...

Didn't someone already make a social group for this?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
1. Since it can't be clearly demonstrated, it's kind of silly to bring it up as a point for argument.



2. You are failing to see the difference between changing and being changed.
Click to expand...

1. Many things can't be clearly demonstrated in life. You can't clearly demonstrate why your political views are correct, yet you do so anyways. "Depends" was the qualifier. That statement was targeted not just at you, but everyone. Because everyone does not hold your same view, said statement was deemed correct. Hence why qualifiers are so useful.

2. Silly me, let me bring depth to the issue. *3.

3.1 ~ Physically, my prior statement #2 to you was correct.
3.1 ~ Conceptually, in regards to #2 "Change is life", we feel the floor to the pool we're in disappear. I'll backtrack and revisit that point from a more conceptual view. *3.3

3.3. What is life? How can you prove life is "being changed?" Is the purpose of life to "be changed?"
 
Wake said:
1. Many things can't be clearly demonstrated in life. You can't clearly demonstrate why your political views are correct, yet you do so anyways.
Click to expand...

The difference between politics and religion, or politics and the spiritual, is that politics involves differing perspectives on events happening "in front of" all parties involved in the discussion, whereas religion or the spiritual involves differing perspectives on that which can't be observed beyond the perspective of the individual.

I'd appreciate if you restricted your argument to things happening in the more-or-less physical world, otherwise we're going to run out of room to discuss anything very quickly.

Wake said:
3.3. What is life?
Click to expand...

Life is the individual's ability to change exceeding the environment's ability to change the individual. Death is the individual's inability to change in any meaningful way.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The difference between politics and religion, or politics and the spiritual, is that politics involves differing perspectives on events happening "in front of" all parties involved in the discussion, whereas religion or the spiritual involves differing perspectives on that which can't be observed beyond the perspective of the individual.

I'd appreciate if you restricted your argument to things happening in the more-or-less physical world, otherwise we're going to run out of room to discuss anything very quickly.



Life is the individual's ability to change exceeding the environment's ability to change the individual. Death is the individual's inability to change in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

An internally generated wave, such as that from a storm, is not the motion of water, but energy moving through water. The water itself moves very little. In this way are religion and politics both about the movement of power and idea through the people.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
An internally generated wave, such as that from a storm, is not the motion of water, but energy moving through water. The water itself moves very little. In this way are religion and politics both about the movement of power and idea through the people.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify what you mean by "internally generated," and could you rephrase how your comparison relates to what I said?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Could you clarify what you mean by "internally generated," and could you rephrase how your comparison relates to what I said?
Click to expand...

The key difference is whether or not a foreign object is introduced to the body of water.

To compare, an externally generated wave might be a meteor impact. In such an event, where the water is displaced, and the water itself moves a great deal.

An internally generated wave might be a storm out at sea string the ocean creating swells, or an underwater landslide creating a tsunami. In these cases, the water itself moves moves very little, it's the energy transmitted through them which is great.

I would argue that if we consider the people as a body of water, then both politics and religion are already within us, so when politics or religion compel us to move, we move in the manner of storm swells cresting on the beach and not like a meteor impact.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Exactly.




.
Click to expand...

Oh you're trying to end trolling. Good luck with that :2wave:

We've petitioned for social group prives, privileged members sub-forum for the very civil., but in the end, it doesn't hold water. Hell they even shut down the private/reverse/true debate forums due to lake of participation.
 
Wake said:
Tried that, too. Over time your (everyone's) frustration will build. You may think otherwise. Heh, you may last months. Your frustration will undoubtedly cause you to label and dismiss.
Click to expand...

I have been debating this way for years now. In my experiance political party bias just gets in the way of the actual issue.

Wake said:
A test only 1-2 weeks long? Sure. But what does that accomplish if you can't last indefinitely? It's akin to not eating fast food for 2 weeks, and then resuming your bad habit.
Click to expand...

Shows that it can be done.

Wake said:
Furthermore, why ban only fast food? As in just labeling and dismissing? We're told we're inherently good, right? That in account, why not try to stop all bias, bad grammar, bad spelling, ad nauseum? Why only target a certain patch of skin for a certain spance of time, when we could and "inherently" should target all for a permanent length of time?
Click to expand...

Because you can't force change. You can offer it and show the effects of doing something, but thats it.
 
Jerry said:
Oh you're trying to end trolling. Good luck with that :2wave:

We've petitioned for social group prives, privileged members sub-forum for the very civil., but in the end, it doesn't hold water. Hell they even shut down the private/reverse/true debate forums due to lake of participation.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily trolling...though that would certainly be nice. More along the lines of trying to end partisanship. I think that if people approach an issue without thinking along party lines an issue can be ultimately resolved. Sure might still take a good long while to accomplish..but maybe a bit less time since there won't be as much hate.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If you're not going to vote on the poll or contribute to the discussion, why are you even in this thread at all?
Click to expand...
Make little boys like you ask questions. :doh

.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not necessarily trolling...though that would certainly be nice. More along the lines of trying to end partisanship. I think that if people approach an issue without thinking along party lines an issue can be ultimately resolved. Sure might still take a good long while to accomplish..but maybe a bit less time since there won't be as much hate.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't belong to an official party to have party lines to talk down, but I am an unapologetic partisan of the conservative way of thinking. IMO, both the right and the left are wrong because they are both arms of the same government who is over-reaching. Anything I can do to help the government trip over itself with Repub-v-Dem in-fighting while it reaches to take more personal liberties unjustly can only be a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom