73 replies to this topic

[Fox Fire]

Argue for why red is objectively better than blue. 

[Sister Midnight]

Argue for the abolishing guns then argue for forcing every citizen to carry a loaded weapon.  

[onbekende]

Argue why this was a bad idea.

[Kitkat16]

Argue for you becoming the world's supreme leader and how people will love you without you forcing them, threating them with death, or brainwashing everybody.

 

"Argue for you becoming the world's supreme leader" --- I'm assuming this is the first part of the question and that you want me to explain why I would make a great world supreme leader. Well, it has been said (by wiser people than me) that the people most suited to rule are people who have absolutely no interest in power, which sums me up extremely well. I'm not ambitious, have no desire to rule, dislike politics. I'd make a great dictator of the universe!

 

How will people love me without forcing them/ threatening them with death/ brainwashing everyone? Well, that's really quite straightforward. As dictator of the entire world, I can impose massive taxes on multibillionaires without them taking their businesses overseas. The abolition of borders would resolve this problem. So, impose massive taxes on multibillionaires and bribe the rest of the population. Problem solved.

 

Argue that Jar Jar Binks is secretly Supreme Leader Snoke.

 

Jar Jar was such an incredibly annoying character that nobody could seriously have come up with a movie script including him if he didn't play some more nefarious purpose. If he was actually Supreme Leader Snoke it would explain this apparent serious lack of judgment on George Lucas' part!

 

Argue how jar jar is awesome and is loved by all and is the best star wars character.

Argue for jar jar being a sith lord.

 

As to him being a Sith Lord: Jar Jar seems to kick butt in battle, despite apparently being completely incompetent, and comes out totally unscathed. He demonstrates Jedi/ Sith abilities throughout the movies such as an impressive force jump. Additionally, there are a few clips where Jar Jar's mouth seems to be moving in sync with other characters' dialogue, which is kinda spooky... it could be explained by him using Jedi mind-control and helping to will the events of the first movie in his favour! (I think this also covers Jar Jar being awesome/ best star wars character)

 

As for loved by all.... um.... well who couldn't love such a friendly, silly, comedic character? The apparent mass hatred for Jar Jar is just because people feel peer pressured to hate him when actually they all love him deep down and delude each other into thinking that he is unpopular, when actually he is uniformly loved. If they would just be honest with each other, they would come to realise that he is universally loved.

 

Argue for the non-existence of God

 

Well there's just no evidence, other than like, the kalam cosmological argument, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from beauty, the argument from consciousness, the argument from the historicity of the Resurrection, the ontological argument, Pascal's Wager, the argument from personal experience, the Leibnizian contingency argument, etc etc etc. I mean, apart from that, who could believe in sky daddy?

 

The argument from evil means that God simply could not possibly exist. If he's all knowing, all powerful and omnibenevolent, suffering could not logically exist.

 

Argue for why red is objectively better than blue. 

 

Blue is such a drab colour. I mean, the sky is blue all throughout the day, and it's nothing exceptional. With a sunset, the sky turns red and it is objectively beautiful, which is to say, in God's eyes it is more beautiful than a blue sky. 

 

Argue for the abolishing guns then argue for forcing every citizen to carry a loaded weapon.  

 

Getting rid of guns amongst the citizenry would be a great idea. If people aren't armed, it means they aren't able to shoot each other. Simple. In Australia and New Zealand, we don't have an armed citizenry, and we also don't have endless high school shootouts! Funny that.

 

Of course, forcing every citizen to carry a loaded weapon would also be a great idea, because if someone goes on a shooting rampage, other armed citizens can shoot back and stop them. If guns aren't legal they'll simply be got off the black market and ordinary citizens will b defenceless.

 

Argue why this was a bad idea.

 

Arguments lead to squabbles and dissension and can lead to people falling out with each other.

[Fox Fire]

This does make for an open mind though. I used to do similar things. It can be fun.

[Robert2424]

Argue for God's exsistance.

[Kitkat16]

Argue for God's exsistance.

 

As a militant atheist I had an encounter with the Risen Jesus and His Spirit lives within me. Enough said.

[Sister Midnight]

Argue for getting rid of all trees.

[Kitkat16]

Argue for getting rid of all trees.

 

Environmental concerns are an obstruction in the 21st century. We need to get on with the important business of drilling oil in Western countries and becoming less dependent on the likes of Saudi Arabia. There's plenty of oil in the US, it's just that the tree huggers get in the way. Plus all those trees could be converted to wood and sold to raise money for orphaned chihuahuas.

[SeaBeeGipson]

Argue why I should be the next President of IRON and TW should resign immediately.

Argue why TW should be the last President of IRON.

[Kitkat16]

Argue why I should be the next President of IRON and TW should resign immediately.

Argue why TW should be the last President of IRON.

 

With regard to the second one, easy. This game was dead years ago. The server should be shut down already. IRON should just disband and stop persisting with such a crappy game. That would make TW the last president of IRON.

 

As for why you should be next president of IRON. Um. Well I suppose seeing as you're such a wildly charismatic and popular individual you would make a great leader of IRON, whereas I haven't seen TW that active recently.

[Fox Fire]

Argue for getting rid of all trees.

Even suggesting that almost triggered me. Am I a militant environmentalist? That makes me feel bad. But at the same time it doesn't. 

[SeaBeeGipson]

Argue for getting rid of all trees.

Even suggesting that almost triggered me. Am I a militant environmentalist? That makes me feel bad. But at the same time it doesn't.

Global warming isn't real!

Did that trigger you?
(Not my actual beliefs)

Also doesn't an argument require a rebuttal? So, who shall carry the torch to challenge the almighty KitKat

[Fox Fire]

 

 

Argue for getting rid of all trees.
 

Even suggesting that almost triggered me. Am I a militant environmentalist? That makes me feel bad. But at the same time it doesn't. 

Global warming isn't real!

Did that trigger you?
(Not my actual beliefs)

 

Almost, yes. 

Course I've also been drinking so it doesn't take much ATM. 

[Sister Midnight]

Argue for attending an IRON meet up in London next April, no matter how far away a person is.

[Kitkat16]

Argue for attending an IRON meet up in London next April, no matter how far away a person is.

 

Because my fellow IRON members are incredibly cool (and there's actually a possibility I am going to be in Europe roundabout then anyway )

[Robert2424]

Argue for God's exsistance.

 
As a militant atheist I had an encounter with the Risen Jesus and His Spirit lives within me. Enough said.

I'm dissapointed.

[Kitkat16]

 

 

Argue for God's exsistance.
 

 
As a militant atheist I had an encounter with the Risen Jesus and His Spirit lives within me. Enough said.

I'm dissapointed.

 

 

Your spelling is a disappointment. :v

[Robert2424]

You lack effort.

[Kitkat16]

You lack effort.

 

Alright, alright. Here's an argument for the existence of God: in human experience, we often find certain things beautiful. I cannot visit the Blue Mountains in Sydney and not find them overwhelmingly beautiful. Other examples include sunsets, seashells in perfect spirals, symmetry, flowers, rainbows. There is far more agreement among human beings on beauty than postmodernists would care to admit.

 

I think this phenomenon is best explained by the existence of God (and specifically, the Judaeo-Christian God.) According to a Christian worldview, God created human beings in his image. An image of something is a likeness of something: what Christians mean when we say that we are in the image of God is that we are like him in various important respects, in this case the most pertinent of which is that we received his aesthetic preferences. He also created the world, which is a reflection and an outworking of his own aesthetic preferences. That is why we find so many things in nature beautiful. 

 

I find this a more convincing account of human experience than atheism can provide. To really go into this would go beyond the scope of a post on a CN gaming forum, but I'll make a couple of remarks. I think the only real explanation for objective beauty other than the one I have outlined is that beauty is some kind of Platonic form. For those of you unfamiliar with Plato, he believed in two different kinds of reality: the physical world, and the world of the forms. The forms were non-physical ideal versions of stuff we find in the physical world. So for example, in the world of the Forms an ideal chair exists. Chairs in the physical world are a sort of imperfect instantiation of the ideal chair. What defines a chair in the physical world as being a chair is that it instantiates the ideal chair in the world of the forms. If you're finding this a little confusing, think about whether numbers exist: according to Plato, the Forms exist in a similar way that numbers exist. One of the Forms which Plato focuses on most is the Form of Beauty. Beauty is a sort of ideal in the world of the Forms which provides an objective standard against which we can judge whether something in the real world is beautiful. 

 

Firstly, atheist philosophers increasingly reject the existence of this immaterial world of the Forms. The whole point of metaphysics since the Renaissance is that Westerners have increasingly rejected an immaterial world, and the world of the Forms comes far too close to the spiritual world for comfort. The physical world is all there is and that's it. There's no room for beauty in that paradigm, it's just a social construct.

 

Secondly, philosophers have questioned how exactly this vague immaterial Form out there is instantiated and what the process of instantiation looks like and how it works. Furthermore, if there is an ideal version of everything in the world of the Forms, you would have to have Forms of Forms: so for example the ideal chair, the ideal table and the ideal bed would come under the form of furniture. The form of furniture and the Form of boats, buildings and cars might come under the form of things made by human beings. What I'm driving at is that when you get forms of forms you can in the end generate infinitely large numbers of Forms, which seems absurd.

 

But thirdly, and I think most importantly, even if the Form of Beauty exists out there somehow, how would human beings know what beauty is? I don't see how human beings have access to it, on a Platonic view. It's in an entirely different kind of reality: we can't get there. A Christian view explains human experience by saying that God created us with his aesthetic preferences. But although if an atheist accepted the reality of the Forms he/ she explains the origin of objective beauty, he/ she does not have a plausible explanation of how we know that Form and *why* finding certain things beautiful is such an entrenched part of human experience. 

 

Of course, the atheist can say "well the Form of beauty doesn't exist, and objective beauty does not exist, but human beings have particular aesthetic preferences for evolutionary reasons." But I think this reasoning is weak. I think explanations of why it is to our evolutionary advantage to appreciate beauty are contrived, and better explained on a theistic model.

 

I could make this argument a lot better in an essay, but it's for an online gaming forum and I am writing off the top of my head, so yanno. Satisfied with my effort now Robert?

 

P.S. This argument entails that God is profoundly beautiful, which He is.