Undefined Topic

[Augusto]

I just came to the forum less than an hour ago, and I'm still finding my way. After thinking about where to post I decided to give it a try at the debate zone. However, being so new at this community, I'm not entirely sure about which subject I could propose for a debate. While this might sound like a disadvantage, I think it could be interesting.

How about this? You suggest a topic, any topíc and your position regarding such topic, and if we find ourselves in the opposite side of the spectre, well, we start the debate.

I'm an atheist. I'm pro abortion, gay rights and embrace everything that is seen as right by atheists in general.

I am interested in anything related to psychology, sociology, literature, phylosophy and religion.

A few ideas of mine:

- Psychopaths are better than regular people.
- A new world order would fail at improving our life quality in a meaninful way.
- Theists don't really believe in God.
- Marxism is an ideology similar to religion in general terms.

Let me know if you like any of those or if you have any other ideas. I'm listening and interested in what you might have to say.

[jimnyc]

- Psychopaths are better than regular people.

Never saw anyone shoot for a "one on one" debate so quickly before! I'm sure you'll find the majority disagree with your stances, but not sure if anyone will jump for the instant debate. If not, you are welcome to take individual ideas and start various threads in the appropriate forums above, and then anyone will be allowed to reply in return, not just one person in a debate. Just an idea.

I'm not feeling into a debate, but I do admit the above has me puzzled. I suppose the individual psychopath in question would be needed. But I can't imagine, for example, someone who goes on a shooting spree and kills a bunch of people, is somehow better than a "regular" person. Of course this assumes the person in question is clinically diagnosed as such.

And before fj1200 asks, how do you define "better"?

[Augusto]

Well, by better I mean better equipped for survival. My approach is pretty simple. For instance, what do you think of this guy?

<iframe width="640" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eu17Wuq3nI8?fs=1&start=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(231, 234, 239);"></iframe>

The way I see it, this guy is despicable because of being objectively and rationally functional.

There is a story of a poisoned river that made a full town mad. The king was the only sane, but looked mad to his people because they were the majority, so the king went to the river, drank water and went mad as well. Then he was accepted by his people. Everyone celebrated the king recovered his reason.

Imagine a world in which everyone were like the guy in the video. Societies and laws build and created by people like him. Imagine yo were the "exception" in that world. Can you think like this?

What the man doesn't have is empaty. He is operating for himself, therefore, in such alternative civilization, a civilization of people like that would still function. They would still need police, schools and everything. Empathy is not the base of our societies, otherwise we would all live in comunism and capitalism would be only possible in this "alternative society" we are talking about.

Also, in this alternative society he wouldn't be able to manipulate others, because everyone would be like him.

The weird thing is none of us would survive in their society, while they can survive in ours... until we discover they commited a crime, of course. What I'm saying is that the man is better equipped than us.

[tailfins]

Never saw anyone shoot for a "one on one" debate so quickly before! I'm sure you'll find the majority disagree with your stances, but not sure if anyone will jump for the instant debate. If not, you are welcome to take individual ideas and start various threads in the appropriate forums above, and then anyone will be allowed to reply in return, not just one person in a debate. Just an idea.

I'm not feeling into a debate, but I do admit the above has me puzzled. I suppose the individual psychopath in question would be needed. But I can't imagine, for example, someone who goes on a shooting spree and kills a bunch of people, is somehow better than a "regular" person. Of course this assumes the person in question is clinically diagnosed as such.

And before fj1200 asks, how do you define "better"?

What do I think of the guy in the video? He needs to meet his match and have a fellow psycopath throw boiling water on his face while he sleeps. You live in South America, buddy. Certainly you understand the "law of the jungle".

I have been referred to as a psychopath more than once on this forum. Since the laws are generally enforced here in the USA, this psychopath uses the law itself to slice people to ribbons. As an example, study "Three Felonies A Day" http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/You...6/Default.aspx . If you dig hard enough, you can have almost any enemy prosecuted or sued. That site only speaks of FEDERAL prosecution. There's also state and local prosecution as well.

If going after someone legally fails, you can always destroy their reputation.

There's no doubt in my mind that I'm superior. Augusto, if I may suggest a debate topic: Why women should obey men.

[Augusto]

Okay, "why women should obey men"... sounds interesting. Your approach would be to sustain the validity of this proposition and my job would be to debunk it?

[tailfins]

Okay, "why women should obey men"... sounds interesting. Your approach would be to sustain the validity of this proposition and my job would be to debunk it?

I'm not a professional debater, but I could sure try. Of course the logic for me is simple: "Because I want them to." However as a "teaser", I ask "Why are divorces rates low in India, Iran and South America?"

[Augusto]

Lol your methods are a bit unusual man!

I would recommend you to pick a subject you are interested in, rather than a joke topic.

[tailfins]

Lol your methods are a bit unusual man!

I would recommend you to pick a subject you are interested in, rather than a joke topic.

If you look at my posting archive, you'll see that's not a joke topic for me. I originally learned Spanish and Portuguese to get pussy, myfrien (d left off intentionally for Cuban Spangish usage).

[Augusto]

Hahaha, well okay. Let's do it!

I'm not really against the idea. My honest position is rather neutral, but I think I can make some objections to your case. Please, make the request and be the first to ellaborate your argument, I'll reply.

[jimnyc]

If you look at my posting archive, you'll see that's not a joke topic for me. I originally learned Spanish and Portuguese to get pussy, myfrien (d left off intentionally for Cuban Spangish usage).

It's going to sound hypocritical, after I just said that everyone is free to speak freely and speak their minds. But even so, I think sometimes it's best to avoid using certain words, out of respect to others. The "p" word if you will, is offensive to be used around the ladies. Given the debate idea, this may not be the best place to point this out!! And it's nothing personal. I've pointed this out a hundred times prior to this, and I'm sure others will use it again in the future. And yes, I have and do use the word if "with the guys". With a message board, when we talk it's sometimes difficult to remember that there are ladies sitting in with us.

[Augusto]

Okay, can you create the debate topic for us?

[jimnyc]

Okay, can you create the debate topic for us?

Tailfins, is that the topic you want to debate with him? I just want confirmation from both sides. And how many posts will each have before it's over?

[Augusto]

I read the rules and all, but since I'm new, I'll trust in Tailfins' choices. I'm okay with whatever he says.

[tailfins]

Tailfins, is that the topic you want to debate with him? I just want confirmation from both sides. And how many posts will each have before it's over?

I guess I could try it. Just don't expect too much. I'm not used to the give and take of a debate. Bludgeoning others into submission is more my speed.

[Perianne]

I just came to the forum less than an hour ago, and I'm still finding my way. After thinking about where to post I decided to give it a try at the debate zone. However, being so new at this community, I'm not entirely sure about which subject I could propose for a debate. While this might sound like a disadvantage, I think it could be interesting.

How about this? You suggest a topic, any topíc and your position regarding such topic, and if we find ourselves in the opposite side of the spectre, well, we start the debate.

I'm an atheist. I'm pro abortion, gay rights and embrace everything that is seen as right by atheists in general.

I am interested in anything related to psychology, sociology, literature, phylosophy and religion.

A few ideas of mine:

- Psychopaths are better than regular people.
- A new world order would fail at improving our life quality in a meaninful way.
- Theists don't really believe in God.
- Marxism is an ideology similar to religion in general terms.

Let me know if you like any of those or if you have any other ideas. I'm listening and interested in what you might have to say.

Augusto, finding anyone to debate here is nearly impossible. There are some great discussions, but I have never seen a formal debate. Your best bet for a debate is with me, but I can't right now.