73 replies to this topic

[Flying Kiwi]

Argue a reasonable case for the abolition of lawyers

[Kitkat16]

Argue a reasonable case for the abolition of lawyers

 

This is quite an amusing one, given I'm a law student. XD Well, I think that law actually isn't that complicated. It is possible for ordinary people to understand statutes and case law. If lawyers were abolished, it would save everyone a lot of money. It would also save the state a lot of money as people would not have to fund criminal legal aid anymore. Oh, plus, more socialist-inclined nations (such as my own) wouldn't have to subsidise law degrees (there are waaaaay too many law students these days.)

[Robert2424]

Much better. Surely your more satisfied also.

[Kitkat16]

Much better. Surely your more satisfied also.

 

In all honesty, I just got frustrated because I couldn't do justice to the argument in a post on an online forum

[ccabal86]

 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 don't really want to hijack this thread, as it really belongs in the other one (which I keep meaning to revitalize), but my biggest problem with most of your arguments is that they are overly reliant on Philosophy. I have found that while Philosophy can be useful in certain situations, it's frankly given way more credit than it deserves. The world cannot be explained from an armchair alone, at one point one has to take "reality" into account when trying to explain things. Of course the next question would be, but what IS reality, how do you define it, do we really exitst, etc, but this is not really helpful. Perhaps some concepts do not need absolute definitions, a loose understanding if enough.

 

Is "God" part of reality? Yes and no.

 

• The scientific perspective is that at present there is no empirical data that would hint at the existence of a supreme being in the universe or a grand designer.
• My perspective is that the answer is most likely NO.
• Your perspective is that you have seen evidence of God's existence, so YES

Obviously God (or the perception there is one) is real enough for you to have an impact on your life. For me, it's the other way around. How do we resolve this? The resolution has to be rooted in the lowest common denominator - pieces of empirical evidence. What we do with the evidence is another question though, but as I said, don't want to hijack the thread

[Blade 619]

Argue why discussing religion online is a bad idea.

[Sister Midnight]

Argue that you stand up for falling down.

[onbekende]

Argue that breathing is overrated

[Kitkat16]

Argue why discussing religion online is a bad idea.

 

You are entirely correct. I didn't mean this to turn into a religious discussion thread. :v Discussing religion online gets nowhere, nobody changes their mind, and it just leads to squabbling.

 

Argue that you stand up for falling down.

 

Not a terribly well phrased premise. In my case (and this is actually true) I suffer from something called orthostatic hypotension, which means that when I stand up suddenly, my body doesn't register quickly enough that I have stood up, which means that it doesn't pump blood to my head for a couple of seconds. I see stars and often have to crouch down. So it is true that I stand up for falling down.

 

Argue that breathing is overrated

 

Breathing is so overrated. I mean, fish don't breathe, they have gills, which means they are able to explore the depths of the sea. That would be so cool to do. At the moment, diving equipment only allows us to go so far underwater.

[Kitkat16]

[Fermion]

this thread is awesome

[Kitkat16]

this thread is awesome

 

I reckon Come on guys, more arguments plz.

[Fermion]

Let's take things up a notch!

 

Argue that Twilight is better than Harry Potter

[Kitkat16]

Let's take things up a notch!

 

Argue that Twilight is better than Harry Potter

 

Oh. Um........................

 

Completely stumped. XD Mostly because I can't think of a single positive thing about the Twilight series...

 

Oh, I've got it. Harry Potter doesn't have Taylor Lautner, who is one of the hottest men alive.

[onbekende]

Argue against Taylor Lautner

[Kitkat16]

Argue against Taylor Lautner

 

Oh man. Taylor Lautner is just the ugliest guy alive. srs. Dat nose. Anyway, he's incredibly superficial. I am inclined to think intelligence and thoughtfulness and depth shows in a person's face, without that he just couldn't be genuinely attractive.

[Sister Midnight]

Argue that cats are much better than dogs. Give several reasons.

[Kitkat16]

Argue that cats are much better than dogs. Give several reasons.

 

Cats are not scary. Nobody I've ever encountered has a phobia of cats, whereas plenty of people get scared because of dogs.

 

Cats can wander over other people's properties without getting their owners into trouble, whereas the law discriminates against dogs!

 

Cats do not bark.

 

You don't have to walk a cat, which also means you don't have to do the disgusting job of picking up dog poo in a plastic bag when you walk them.

 

Cats have a phenomenal ability to jump high distances, whereas dogs cannot.

[Sister Midnight]

Argue why kale tastes better than chocolate

[Kitkat16]

Argue why kale tastes better than chocolate

 

Over the past few years, chocolate has steadily gone downhill. Chocolate companies are skimping on ingredients to make more money, so you're actually eating crap like palm oil. I was actually eating a Cadbury caramel egg earlier this afternoon which tasted absolutely revolting and I resolved never to eat Cadbury again. I'd much rather have some nice, healthy cabbage with a beef stew and potatoes.