Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If you were to arrange a debate...

Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

27 Jan 2010, 6:48 pm

AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
Oscar Wilde VS Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


Oscar Wilde vs. John McCaine

Topic: homosexuality


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

27 Jan 2010, 7:25 pm

George Lucas vs. Emperor Palpatine

Subject: Isn't "only the Sith think in absolutes" an absolute?


_________________
.


AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,618
Location: Portland, Oregon

27 Jan 2010, 8:26 pm

Magnus wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
Oscar Wilde VS Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


Oscar Wilde vs. John McCaine

Topic: homosexuality


John McCain vs. John Kerry


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,526
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2010, 8:44 pm

Magnus wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
Oscar Wilde VS Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


Oscar Wilde vs. John McCaine

Topic: homosexuality

Arguments over their tolerance credentials?


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

27 Jan 2010, 8:52 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Magnus wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
Oscar Wilde VS Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


Oscar Wilde vs. John McCaine

Topic: homosexuality

Arguments over their tolerance credentials?


No, Oscar Wilde was bisexual. He was sentenced to prison for homosexuality. McCaine's daughter is gay and he is very much opposed to it. I think Oscar Wilde could put up a good debate with him and win.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

27 Jan 2010, 8:54 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Magnus wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
Oscar Wilde VS Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


Oscar Wilde vs. John McCaine

Topic: homosexuality

Arguments over their tolerance credentials?


No, Oscar Wilde was bisexual. He was sentenced to prison for homosexuality. McCaine's daughter is gay and he is very much opposed to it. I think Oscar Wilde could put up a good debate with him and win. McCain seems to be on the fence but he is unable or unwilling to say that homosexuality is not immoral.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Jan 2010, 8:56 pm

Cicero on one side defending intelligent design and Dawkins on the other declaring lack of intelligence.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,526
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2010, 9:10 pm

Magnus wrote:
No, Oscar Wilde was bisexual. He was sentenced to prison for homosexuality. McCaine's daughter is gay and he is very much opposed to it. I think Oscar Wilde could put up a good debate with him and win. McCain seems to be on the fence but he is unable or unwilling to say that homosexuality is not immoral.

He is an Episcopalian though, I get the impression that he's one of those people who's torn between what God's commandment seems to say vs. his full awareness that its not a choice and that the subject matter of the issue are by and large good people. In that sense I'd have to wonder what angle of it they'd argue - I'd imagine it would be Oscar Wilde asking hard questions while McCain would be constantly backpetaling and trying to explain how he's social liberal on so many issue but that he has certain lines in the sand on marriage for what he'd insist are other reasons (I think he'd be sincere on that as well - the quality of the debate would be whether Wilde actually engaged that sincerity and dealt with it for its merits or just decided to plow over and flame the topic - the later way it likely mimic a rather mediocre thread here).


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,526
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2010, 9:12 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Cicero on one side defending intelligent design and Dawkins on the other declaring lack of intelligence.


I don't think it would be fair unless Cicero could prime himself on the current state of scientific reality (unless his being dead and coming back to life for the debate would bring more knowledge than anyone has - it would be completely unfair the other way at that point).

I would like though: Cicero vs. Machiavelli, ie. Natural Law vs. The Prince


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,526
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2010, 9:15 pm

Another one that may be fun if we bridged history (though admittedly it's a bit unlevel):

Barrack Obama vs. Pascal Paoli

Two very big 'hope and change' guys with very different ideas on the topic.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Jan 2010, 9:20 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Cicero on one side defending intelligent design and Dawkins on the other declaring lack of intelligence.


I don't think it would be fair unless Cicero could prime himself on the current state of scientific reality (unless his being dead and coming back to life for the debate would bring more knowledge than anyone has - it would be completely unfair the other way at that point).

I would like though: Cicero vs. Machiavelli, ie. Natural Law vs. The Prince


He wouldn't really have to so much. Sure, he could update his arguments in De Natura Deorum to be consistent with current knowledge, but the concepts he presented over 2,050 years ago are timeless in regard to the design versus natural phenomena debate.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,526
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2010, 9:30 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
He wouldn't really have to so much. Sure, he could update his arguments in De Natura Deorum to be consistent with current knowledge, but the concepts he presented over 2,050 years ago are timeless in regard to the design versus natural phenomena debate.

He'd have to understand his beliefs and have them settled within the framework that evolution is real - that may be quite easy for him, or it could take a minute, or he may completely rethink his beliefs and agree with Dawkins (the third somewhat unlikely but - who knows).


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Jan 2010, 9:38 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
He wouldn't really have to so much. Sure, he could update his arguments in De Natura Deorum to be consistent with current knowledge, but the concepts he presented over 2,050 years ago are timeless in regard to the design versus natural phenomena debate.

He'd have to understand his beliefs and have them settled within the framework that evolution is real - that may be quite easy for him, or it could take a minute, or he may completely rethink his beliefs and agree with Dawkins (the third somewhat unlikely but - who knows).


I don't suppose you know of the situation of his day where there were already evolutionists, namely the Epicureans, and most of the concepts which Darwin is given credit for were previously developed by the Greeks? Cicero was already opposed to it then, on the basis of the design arguments of Plato and Aristotle and those which he developed himself. I don't think he'd change his mind on the basis of it being regarded as axiomatically factual in this era, just as he didn't back then when there was academic freedom.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,526
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Jan 2010, 9:46 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I don't suppose you know of the situation of his day where there were already evolutionists, namely the Epicureans, and most of the concepts which Darwin is given credit for were previously developed by the Greeks? Cicero was already opposed to it then, on the basis of the design arguments of Plato and Aristotle and those which he developed himself. I don't think he'd change his mind on the basis of it being regarded as axiomatically factual in this era, just as he didn't back then when there was academic freedom.

I agree its unlikely that he'd change his mind, so it would really be him explaining to Dawkins how evolution or even chance abiogenesis are no more meaningful in a metaphysical sense than knowing that gravity exists.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

28 Jan 2010, 12:40 am

iamnotaparakeet vs Richard Dawkins

subject: The loser of the debate won't be able to post in WP anymore.


_________________
.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Jan 2010, 1:18 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
iamnotaparakeet vs Richard Dawkins

subject: The loser of the debate won't be able to post in WP anymore.


The subject of the debate is, "The loser of the debate won't be able to post in WP anymore"? There's a circle.