The Debate Forum. Its quiet. Too quiet.

[DanDare]

Originally Posted by simonecuttlefish

Topic:
People who get executed for being homosexual only have themselves to blame. I'll take the affirmative.

I'd pay to read that debate!

[rayne]

Originally Posted by simonecuttlefish

Topic:
People who get executed for being homosexual only have themselves to blame. I'll take the affirmative.

That's an interesting side to take. Can you do it without resorting to religion or the "gay is a choice" arguement?

[simonecuttlefish]

Originally Posted by rayne

That's an interesting side to take. Can you do it without resorting to religion or the "gay is a choice" arguement?

Yes

[rayne]

I'm very interested in any arguements you can come up agreeing with the statement "People who get executed for being homosexual only have themselves to blame." that doesn't include religious justification for homophobic bigotry resulting in execution or the "gay as a choice" arguement as justification for homophobic bigotry resulting in execution. Unless your agruement is: It's their fault, they shouldn't have gotten caught, you may find it hard.

[Mjt]

My debate teacher at highschool always checked our feelings on a topic and then would often put us on the opposite side. It was the quality of our debate that mattered not our own feelings.
Debate for debates sake.
It taught us much.

[simonecuttlefish]

Actually on second thought I'll retract any involvement altogether on the 'only have themselves to blame' topic. I have some personal and practical reasons for it. I still think taking the side you disagree with is a potentially good intellectual exercise though.

[DanDare]

Keeping our minds sharp is a useful thing and a debate is one way to do it. That's why my initial cluster of topics involved things that touch on atheism and theism in Australia.

Here are some more possibles:

That atheists have a necessary political position.
That the global atheist convention is a waste of time and effort.
That chaplains in public schools can only be of benefit.
That all theistic beliefs should be honoured and protected in common law.

[Sanhedrin]

Well you're not gonna get much of a debate in this forum.

I usually debate with pastors and christians, lol of course i understand EVERYONE in this forum has done so aswell.

I understand group affiliation, even if we disagree about smoking or drinking, pokies etc. It would only come down to opinion and accepting others choice.

Its a different debate with creationists, for the fact that they ignore reality and dwell in fantasy and preconceived notions. Thats a different story.

Debates are getting stagnate and it seems the world is moving on, but at what cost?
Are we channelling into a singularity of pursuit?, or is it an illusion till the end and we'll see the motive for the multiple ambition for achievement in knowledge and understanding as a guise to preach their ambiguous assumption?

hmmm i wont sit and wait around, the track record indicates the sleeping giant is to be observed and disciplined.