The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourney

[zippypinhead]

Also - is there a debate thread? Anywhere?

Now there is. And it's got your name written all over it.

Personally, lately it seems to me that every thread on ACF has been a "debate thread", and I'm all debated out for the time being, so I'll just build the podium and let others have the mic.

Ready....

FIGHT!

 

[southsamurai]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

any rules and regulations? limitations to length, requirements for citing sources etc? other wise it isnt debating its just arguing lol.

i suggest two rules.
1: if you are quoting someone, using statistics or raw data you must link your sources, or foul out and suffer everyone pointing at you and screaming noob.
2:no insults of any kind whatsoever (see my first statement)

also as far as format goes there should be statement, then rebuttal by the next person. the next person should do rebuttal then statement. this would keep the debate flowing forward instead of having each new post rebutting the first ad nauseum. posts should probably be kept to no more than 300 words or so (enough that the statement and rebuttal will fit on the average monitor with no need to scroll.)
i also suggest that each statement or rebuttal be kept to under 3 paragraphs, cuz aint nobody got time for that.

any suggestions as to first topic? (anyone suggesting mila, agent 99 or any other already derailed insanity thread will receive noogies and an atomic wedgie)

 

[Aella]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

:O OMG A DEBATE THREAD IN MY HONOR. I am thrilled.

Yeah, I second the whole 'no insulting' rule. I love heated, passionate debate, but it all goes to shit once someone starts getting angry. You've gotta be careful to be overly respectful and understanding, and remember a lot of what you say that you 'think' is respectful doesn't always come through text.

So yeah. Anyway. So we should all be allowed to have guns. I don't know if abortion is something that should be legal or not. Religion is damaging. What's up with the variation of women's unemployment? Is it actually real? When should a country go to war?

Or do you have any strong opinions about anything related to camming? Why is camming something only women are successful at? Is it promoting the objectification of women?

Does time extend backwards for an infinity? Is it possible to extend forwards for an infinity? Do you believe all we are is purely material? Do you believe in a soul, or something 'more' as a part of us? What about animals - how are they like us in regards to 'soul,' and how are they different?

Where does morality come from? What creates it?

Should we tolerate Muslim cultures and sharia law that, on one hand, preserves culture, but on the other hand, subjugates women?

Ok I planted like three billion things there.

 

[southsamurai]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

:O OMG A DEBATE THREAD IN MY HONOR. I am thrilled.

Yeah, I second the whole 'no insulting' rule. I love heated, passionate debate, but it all goes to shit once someone starts getting angry. You've gotta be careful to be overly respectful and understanding, and remember a lot of what you say that you 'think' is respectful doesn't always come through text.

So yeah. Anyway. So we should all be allowed to have guns. I don't know if abortion is something that should be legal or not. Religion is damaging. What's up with the variation of women's unemployment? Is it actually real? When should a country go to war?

Or do you have any strong opinions about anything related to camming? Why is camming something only women are successful at? Is it promoting the objectification of women?

Does time extend backwards for an infinity? Is it possible to extend forwards for an infinity? Do you believe all we are is purely material? Do you believe in a soul, or something 'more' as a part of us? What about animals - how are they like us in regards to 'soul,' and how are they different?

Where does morality come from? What creates it?

Should we tolerate Muslim cultures and sharia law that, on one hand, preserves culture, but on the other hand, subjugates women?

Ok I planted like three billion things there.

wellll im awake, and online so i'll do an initial statement. i'll pick the pro side because im lazy tho lol and im going to pick a gentle one to start things off since i can't see any venom coming from either side of a debate on it. my topic: do animals have a soul and is it like that of humans?

taking the pro side here, so remember that the next response (if any) should take a con side or it isnt a debate, just a discussion

It is my opinion that animals do have a soul. It is also my opinion that their souls are essentially the same as that of humans.
In my lifetime i have had the pleasure of encountering and living with many animals of many species. Without fail any of them other than fish, insects and arachnids had some difference in personality from others of their species. Dogs and cats in particular bond with humans and creatures of other species very deeply and in such a way that reminds us often of the bond between parents and children. I have seen animals who sense the coming of their human friends from a distance further than hearing or scent could possibly account for. I have also seen animals grieve for the loss of one of their family. Even among rats i have observed these behaviors.
It is my supposition that whatever it is that we call a soul must therefore exist within a majority of creatures with whom we have a domesticated partnership. By extension it follows that if several types of animal have soul, then a soul must be something that is within every living thing (even if that thing is unable to express it).

Following that logic into a less metaphysical realm i look at the basics of energy. within each and every atom in existence there is energy of some kind. We refer to them as forces (gravity,electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear). whatever the soul may be it would seem that it is as universal as any of those forces and binds all living things together. Using occam's razor on that premise there is no logical reason for a soul energy to be different from one species to the next. Thus, we humans share the same type of energy which is called soul with other animals.

 

[Aella]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

It is my opinion that animals do have a soul. It is also my opinion that their souls are essentially the same as that of humans.
In my lifetime i have had the pleasure of encountering and living with many animals of many species. Without fail any of them other than fish, insects and arachnids had some difference in personality from others of their species. Dogs and cats in particular bond with humans and creatures of other species very deeply and in such a way that reminds us often of the bond between parents and children. I have seen animals who sense the coming of their human friends from a distance further than hearing or scent could possibly account for. I have also seen animals grieve for the loss of one of their family. Even among rats i have observed these behaviors.
It is my supposition that whatever it is that we call a soul must therefore exist within a majority of creatures with whom we have a domesticated partnership. By extension it follows that if several types of animal have soul, then a soul must be something that is within every living thing (even if that thing is unable to express it).

Simply because animals have differing personality, heightened senses, and express behaviors similar to human emotion does not mean they have a soul.
A soul is not 'personality,' or else brain damage would also be soul damage. A soul is not heightened senses, or else the blind and deaf would be soul-disabled.

A soul being emotion is a harder thing to disprove, I think, but there are things that indicate it is not so. Emotion has a very definite origin in chemicals in the brain, and an even more definite source in evolution designed for survival. All 'bonding' activities that animals do directly benefits survival. If emotional behavior can be completely explained by evolution, then I don't think we should be so quick to point a soul as the cause.

I believe the greatest arguments for a 'soul' are things that have little to no basis in natural evolution - such as the concept of morality, of shoulds and should nots, of blame, of some types of love, of the ability to formulate concepts (like math and art).

Following that logic into a less metaphysical realm i look at the basics of energy. within each and every atom in existence there is energy of some kind. We refer to them as forces (gravity,electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear). whatever the soul may be it would seem that it is as universal as any of those forces and binds all living things together. Using occam's razor on that premise there is no logical reason for a soul energy to be different from one species to the next. Thus, we humans share the same type of energy which is called soul with other animals.

Agreed on that - I believe there is a soul, that humans possess it and animals probably do not, but whatever a soul is, it is entirely explainable by math and exists simply in a dimension or size or additional 'layer' of existence that we do not yet understand.

 

[Red7227]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

Simply because animals have differing personality, heightened senses, and express behaviors similar to human emotion does not mean they have a soul.
A soul is not 'personality,' or else brain damage would also be soul damage. A soul is not heightened senses, or else the blind and deaf would be soul-disabled.

...

I believe the greatest arguments for a 'soul' are things that have little to no basis in natural evolution - such as the concept of morality, of shoulds and should nots, of blame, of some types of love, of the ability to formulate concepts (like math and art).

None of those behaviours are exclusively human. Animals dream, engage in lifetime relationships, are sometimes gay, lie, steal and cheat. Art and maths are far more recent than the latest significant change in humanity when they be came modern humans or homo sapiens sapiens around 200,000 years ago. Art and burials only date to round 35,000 years ago. For the previous several million years there was no significant difference between human and animal behaviour.

Social animals like ants, whales, dolphins, chimps and baboons display behaviours that are superficially similar to human behaviour.

Animals don't have souls, because humans don't either.

 

[Just Me]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

:O OMG A DEBATE THREAD IN MY HONOR. I am thrilled.

Yeah, I second the whole 'no insulting' rule. I love heated, passionate debate, but it all goes to shit once someone starts getting angry. You've gotta be careful to be overly respectful and understanding, and remember a lot of what you say that you 'think' is respectful doesn't always come through text.

So yeah. Anyway. So we should all be allowed to have guns. I don't know if abortion is something that should be legal or not. Religion is damaging. What's up with the variation of women's unemployment? Is it actually real? When should a country go to war?

Or do you have any strong opinions about anything related to camming? Why is camming something only women are successful at? Is it promoting the objectification of women?

Does time extend backwards for an infinity? Is it possible to extend forwards for an infinity? Do you believe all we are is purely material? Do you believe in a soul, or something 'more' as a part of us? What about animals - how are they like us in regards to 'soul,' and how are they different?

Where does morality come from? What creates it?

Should we tolerate Muslim cultures and sharia law that, on one hand, preserves culture, but on the other hand, subjugates women?

Ok I planted like three billion things there.

I am somewhat confused about what this is all about. All of these topics have been touched in some form or another in other threads. Some more vehement and crazy than others. :lol: I enjoy a good debate but there are so many questions here this thread will become unreadable if people start commenting on each question or different questions. May I suggest starting a new threads for each question you would really like to debate? :twocents-02cents:

 

[rexcode]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

Does time extend backwards for an infinity? Is it possible to extend forwards for an infinity?

Time is a way to qualify motion. If before the big bang, there was just a void, I'd say that time did not exist then. Similarly, if eventually the universe runs out of energy and everything comes to a stop, time would not exist either. Space doesn't exist either without at least two definable points. If there's no light, no energy, and no way to observe anything, would the matter in an energy-dead universe still exist? It's a tree falling in the woods.

 

[southsamurai]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

I am somewhat confused about what this is all about. All of these topics have been touched in some form or another in other threads. Some more vehement and crazy than others. :lol: I enjoy a good debate but there are so many questions here this thread will become unreadable if people start commenting on each question or different questions. May I suggest starting a new threads for each question you would really like to debate? :twocents-02cents:

well the point of it is to have a structure to the debate, you know like they do for debate clubs and presidential stuff etc... by limiting the size of posts and how many times a subject can be rebutted it keeps things more organized. plus debate is inherently civil when done as intended, hence the initial rules.
the reason for keeping it in one thread is that it allows it all to be kept under the heading of a debate instead of a discussion, which if you start a new thread on a new subject isnt a likelihood at all.also by keeping it to a statement/rebuttal/rebuttal and statement format it lets it flow along with little repetition so readability shouldnt be a problem... i hope lol

 

[Aella]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

None of those behaviours are exclusively human. Animals dream, engage in lifetime relationships, are sometimes gay, lie, steal and cheat. Art and maths are far more recent than the latest significant change in humanity when they be came modern humans or homo sapiens sapiens around 200,000 years ago. Art and burials only date to round 35,000 years ago. For the previous several million years there was no significant difference between human and animal behaviour.

Social animals like ants, whales, dolphins, chimps and baboons display behaviours that are superficially similar to human behaviour.

Animals don't have souls, because humans don't either.

Animals and humans behave very similarly, yes - we've evolved to survive and reproduce, and the ways in which we do that are nearly exact. I don't believe dreaming, monogamous lifetime relationships (which is NOT a naturally human thing, by the way), homosexuality, or lie/cheat/steal is a thing that is proof of a soul.

The concept of morality, however, might be. The idea that something is 'right' or 'wrong,' and the fact that we have a moral compass based on things other than pure survival, is odd, and there they haven't come to any real scientific explanation for it.

Also the ability to formulate concepts. If we are entirely a product of a physical world, how can purely physical chemical connections create something that has no basis in a physical world - that is, a concept? If we can play with advanced equations in our minds, then we are handling something nonphysical with... with what? Many do argue that it is impossible to create the conceptual with simply the physical.

I may differ here because I believe in some sort of design. Not by anything religious, hell no - but I mean abiogenesis is something that just doesn't happen. Ever. There are lots of issues with the current theory of naturalistic evolution, and while it's a wonderful explanation, and I'd love to believe it, I'm definitely keeping my options open for something larger (though still COMPLETELY scientific and explainable).

 

[Red7227]

Re: The Aella Commemorative Dogpile Debate Round Robin Tourn

Also the ability to formulate concepts. If we are entirely a product of a physical world, how can purely physical chemical connections create something that has no basis in a physical world - that is, a concept? If we can play with advanced equations in our minds, then we are handling something nonphysical with... with what? Many do argue that it is impossible to create the conceptual with simply the physical.

Actually you can't prove other animals aren't doing that. The evidence is that animals can to a degree. Maybe not calculus, but a predator predicting when a prey animal is going to go so it can lay an ambush, or a whale travelling thousands of miles to a specific location requires more than instinct.

The concept of morality, however, might be. The idea that something is 'right' or 'wrong,' and the fact that we have a moral compass based on things other than pure survival, is odd, and there they haven't come to any real scientific explanation for it.

All morals are based on altruism. Any anthropologist can show you that any specific human behaviour also appears in nature and and has some impact on getting ones genes into the next generation.

My point is simply that, yes we have diverged dramatically from other animals, but 50,000 years ago were we just like those animals. Did we have a soul then and just didn't know it? Do other animals have souls and they have just not had the opportunity to display it?

 

[RoseCavilla]

Re: Abortion

I think changing the subject field to be whatever subject you're replying to should solve some organizational issues.

Abortion: I think all women should have the option to have an abortion up until four months or so. This gives them some time to consider their situation and options. A woman should not be allowed to decide at eight and a half months that she's too apprehensive and surgically abort the child. I also believe that men should not be allowed to make the laws regarding abortion. If a man impregnates a woman, he should not be allowed to legally bar her from receiving abortion. It's not his body that will endure the months of imbalances hormones, stress, and pangs of labor. Any woman requesting an abortion should be legally required to consult adoption services, government programs for low income families, and watch a video detailing what happens during an abortion down to every detail.

 

[Red7227]

Re: Abortion

I think changing the subject field to be whatever subject you're replying to should solve some organizational issues.

Abortion: I think all women should have the option to have an abortion up until four months or so. This gives them some time to consider their situation and options. A woman should not be allowed to decide at eight and a half months that she's too apprehensive and surgically abort the child. I also believe that men should not be allowed to make the laws regarding abortion. If a man impregnates a woman, he should not be allowed to legally bar her from receiving abortion. It's not his body that will endure the months of imbalances hormones, stress, and pangs of labor. Any woman requesting an abortion should be legally required to consult adoption services, government programs for low income families, and watch a video detailing what happens during an abortion down to every detail.

And that is pretty much the way its done across the parts of the world that aren't god-ridden.

 

[southsamurai]

Re: Abortion

I think changing the subject field to be whatever subject you're replying to should solve some organizational issues.

Abortion: I think all women should have the option to have an abortion up until four months or so. This gives them some time to consider their situation and options. A woman should not be allowed to decide at eight and a half months that she's too apprehensive and surgically abort the child. I also believe that men should not be allowed to make the laws regarding abortion. If a man impregnates a woman, he should not be allowed to legally bar her from receiving abortion. It's not his body that will endure the months of imbalances hormones, stress, and pangs of labor. Any woman requesting an abortion should be legally required to consult adoption services, government programs for low income families, and watch a video detailing what happens during an abortion down to every detail.

alas! i have to take a con position! (im pro choice most of the time personally, but it is a debate)

Abortion is not a matter of choosing not to reproduce. It is the cessation of an unformed but still living being. It does not matter if the unborn is two weeks along or 8 months and 29 days, once the spermatazoa and the egg have fused and cell division begins it is a new life form of it's own. Since (barring rape and incest) the mother to be chose to have sexual relations knowing the possible consequences she has already assumed the possibility of the stresses and physical changes that come with pregnancy. Ending the development of the fetus is no different that ending the development of a 2 day old newborn ethically. Thus, abortion should be limited to only the most extreme cases where sexual interaction was involuntary on the part of the mother to be.

part 2: Fathers should be able to legally bar abortions under limited circumstances. While it is very true that the mother takes all of the physical stress and pain, it does not mean that the child is her property to dispose of as she wishes. Again, as long as the mother consented to the sexual union, both parties assumed the risk inherent in such activity. As long as the father who wishes to bar the abortion intends to raise the child and support it, while also absolving the mother of any responsibility then he should certainly have a say in the ending or keeping of the fetus. the only exception to that should be if the mother's health and life are in danger.

(now part 2 is mostly where my personal beliefs are, though not quite as strident or arrogant, but again, debate format means that we're taking a viewpoint which might not be our own)