Arguing the opposite side?

68 Comments

It's always nice to see a good debate on here. However, could you have a debate arguing the opposite side, for something you feel very, very strongly about? If so, then please leave your attempt to argue the opposite of what you believe about a certain topic as a comment. As much as I like seeing people express their own opinions, seeing people have a debate expressing what is probably the other debater's view sounds very interesting to me. If you do (thanks!), then a topic you are very opinionated about would be preferable.

Other 1
I will leave my opposite argument as a comment 9
What? 17
No 5
I just can't do it! Never! 8
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 68 )
  • dappled
    11 years ago

    Hmm, okay. We shouldn't worry about the oil we use. The earth's resources are only "resources" if we use them. If we're not using them, they're useless. Therefore we "have" to use them. It doesn't matter when they run out because we'll either find something else or just do without for a bit.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • dappled
      11 years ago

      But what about the other usages such as the reliance of the pharmaceutical industry? Shouldn't we deem the last of our oil a precious, life-saving resource which can prevent death, rather than for occasions we're too lazy to walk or our city planners were too short-sighted to plan mass transit that doesn't involve oil.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • NiceKitty
        11 years ago

        I like this argument more than the latter =]
        I like your style.
        (That's when you say; 'I like your moves' but its okay)
        You are absolutely right in my opinion. Damn, I wish we could share some tea sometime and calloborate our way thinking.
        Oh well... I'd like to hear what you have to say about this topic.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • dappled
          11 years ago

          Ha! I don't know which side you are arguing on there. :P

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • NiceKitty
            11 years ago

            Oh yeah.. The argument in which oil is life saving. Not arguing opposite, I'm being cereal. I like that argument.
            Or I guess I should say that I don't? To imply that I really do?
            I could be over-thinking this..

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • dappled
              11 years ago

              You've had me over-thinking it too, so you're not alone! And something about the way you phrased your reply appealed to me.

              I know this is a new account and all and I don't know what happened to make you have a new account but I hope you stick around with this one!

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              1
              1
      • dappled
        11 years ago

        You're placing too much importance on the role of oil in pharmaceuticals. Most pharmaceuticals can be synthesised and oil keeps industry moving. I would have thought, given how often you mention the fiscal crisis in Europe, you would care about this more than making a point that is irrelevant.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • dappled
          11 years ago

          If it was cheaper to synthesis all pharmaceuticals, we would synthesise all pharmaceuticals. You're European too and given the "fiscal crisis" where would you like cuts to be made? Getting to the shops a few minutes quicker or in the life of death matter of your healthcare.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • dappled
            11 years ago

            There you go again with your "life or death". What if it's just an ingrowing toenail? Then I *need* my car to get around, don't I?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • dappled
              11 years ago

              And before people had cars? I presume ingrowing toenails still affected people. You've been locked into assuming "need" where "need" doesn't actually exist. This makes you weaker as a person because you now have a dependency.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • IDiGAFi
    11 years ago

    Psychiatry is a salvation for mankind. We must all obey their commands, they know what's best for everyone else. The whole truth about life lies in those textbooks they read.

    There you have it. I'm sorry, I couldn't help the sarcastic tone to it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Gravy
      11 years ago

      98% the population are insane. The other 2% are in denial. The inversely correlation between the percentage of insanity in general populous and the decline in free roaming pirates is conclusive evidence it is almost certain your therapist / psychiatrist is also mentally ill and therefore should not be treating you without full disclosure prior to commencing thepapy. Therefore psychiatry is not the solution. I use Bobby Henderson's global warming and decline in pirates statistics to support my argument as the maths are equally applicable to rate of insanity in the populous.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • IDiGAFi
        11 years ago

        By the way, if I was to start correcting...

        - If the other 2% are in denial, that means 100% of the population is insane, which would clash with almost any coherent definition of insanity.

        - it's "inverse", not "inversely"

        That's just the first line. I could go on, but I'd rather you remain ignorant.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Gravy
          11 years ago

          Now hang on, I was sleeping when all this was going down. Who the fuck wrote on my behalf.
          Inverse and inversely proportional are both used.Rather than revert to intellectual innuendo in an attempt to appear superior,put evidence or at least put forward an responsible opposing argument. Play the ball not the man. The post was about debating an opposing view, not prove yourself a cunt debate.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • IDiGAFi
            11 years ago

            Really? What the fuck am I supposed to respond to your original answer to me?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • IDiGAFi
              11 years ago

              PS: I know both inverse and inversely EXIST, it's not about that, it's about when each one is used. It's not rocket science, really. One is an adjective and the other one is an adverb.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
        • Gravy
          11 years ago

          please do, I appreciate waiting your time. If not, I accept your defeat.
          Yes, 100%, phew you've passed kindergarten maths. I didn't say completely certifibly insane. To clarify, to a degree should be inserted.
          Thanks for helping with grammatical grammatical errors

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • Gravy
    11 years ago

    It is merely the lack of social acceptance in the west that places judgment on sex with children and environmental conditioning that teachers children to be traumatised for something as normal as eating cornflakes, portraying the practice as morally wrong. In many large populations of peoples with complex cultures, some older and more developed than western Abrahamic based law systems, it is perfectly normal to copulate and to have meaningful sexual relationships with children, whom receive no emotionally disturbing experience or physical injury. Marriage at 10years is not uncommon as with motherhood at 12 and 13yrs. Western non-acceptance denies both men and children satisfying relationships with non-sensible concepts such as 'children not knocwing how to love or what is love' which is ideological reasoning rather than science, not dissimilar to all of a sudden a soldier can go to war at 18yrs. It can equally be argued that cultures that practice deflowering by a loving uncle, father or honoured relative in the gentle, safe and loving home environment, provide greater love, security and respect for their children than societies that leave it to chance by a stranger in potentially unsafe environments often involving alcohol or a male secretly breeching a society taboo in the black of night with an unprepared child.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • IDiGAFi
      11 years ago

      98% the population are pedophiles. The other 2% are in denial. The inversely correlation between the percentage of pedophilia in general populous and the decline in free roaming pirates is conclusive evidence it is almost certain your uncle is also a pedophile and therefore should not be fucking you without full disclosure prior to commencing intercourse. Therefore pedophilia is not the solution. I use Bobby Henderson's global warming and decline in pirates statistics to support my argument as the maths are equally applicable to rate of pedophilia in the populous.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Gravy
        11 years ago

        Pretty ferking sure me ol 'uncle was a pedophile as well, so I concede to your well supported argument. So I'm on the prowl for an underage pirate to keel haul however they seem to be scarse on the ground. So it's the lonely pirate routine again, eye patch on for protection and shiver me timbers, there she blows.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • NeuroNeptunian
    11 years ago

    Don't tell ME how to spend my money! The Earth has plenty of oil and what about all of the other, crazy ass drivers on the road? Isn't my life worth protecting?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Gravy
      11 years ago

      I'm a rock doctor and can give factual support to your oil reserve argument.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • NeuroNeptunian
        11 years ago

        Thank you! See? It's not lib-tard bullshit, Neuro-Nepretardian!

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • NeuroNeptunian
          11 years ago

          Fuck you! Fuck you, just because some anonymous internet guy says he is a "rock doctor" does not mean that he actually is one!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • NeuroNeptunian
            11 years ago

            Shut the fuck up, you knew that the evidence was out there!

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
    • NeuroNeptunian
      11 years ago

      First of all, oil is a finite resource. Second, SUVs and large trucks are more dangerous than regular cars due to their high center of gravity and multitude of blind spots. What's it worth to you if your vehicle is more safe in a head on collision? Head on-collisions do not make the entirety of potential car accidents.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • NeuroNeptunian
        11 years ago

        Of course oil is a finite resource, but with alternative forms of energy will come alternative ways to fuel my vehicles!

        And for your second, where is this proof that head-on collisions do not at least make the majority of car accidents? Is my life not worth protecting? What about those that will hit me from the side?

        You lib-tards are all the same. When are you going to draw the line between human life and this "environmental" bullshit based off of biased scientific studies and hole-filled evidence!?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • NeuroNeptunian
          11 years ago

          Head-on collisions can almost ALWAYS be avoided by paying ATTENTION to what is in front of you! No massive, hulking SUV can make you more attentive to the road!

          You could easily purchase a Toyota Sienna or another large, people-hauling vehicle with better gas mileage and THE SAME SAFETY RATINGS! You know that SUVs and Trucks don't even get rated for rollovers? No, they don't! Why waste all of that oil and material for your own security issues! You can get the same quality of safety in a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle!

          It's not an issue of my political affiliation, it is an issue of the American culture of excess for the sake of social status, "security" or one's own feelings of inadequacy!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • NeuroNeptunian
            11 years ago

            ONCE AGAIN, where is your proof that head-on collisions aren't even the majority of collisions? It's funny how you lib-tards like to avoid arguments regarding FACTS, not this theoretical "global warming" bullshit. So what, the climate never changed before-hand? The Earth NEVER experienced climate change? Or is it so different now that we humans are here? Is that the only reason why we're noticing now? Science, lib-tard, actual science. Not this bull-shit, Al Gore funded fixed statistical science.

            Sure, these mini-vans may get SLIGHTLY better gas mileage, but what will they do for my family in the event of a side-collision or head-on collision that a truck or SUV with a BODY ON FRAME (i.e. safer and more resilient) design will do for me? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

            Can I tow with a van? Not nearly as much as I can tow with my SUV. Can I haul with a van? Not if I want to keep the interior in semi-decent shape. It's not just about safety, it's about usage. Trucks and SUVs serve a function, and people who need that function, of course, will purchase that vehicle!

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • NeuroNeptunian
              11 years ago

              http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/tests/hazardperceptiontest/novicedriversareatrisk/5mostcommoncrashtypes.html

              Rear end collisions are the most common and FYI, an SUV won't do more for you than a van can in that condition. Not to mention, your SUV will likely kill whoever hits you. And no, don't say that someone deserves to die for making a mistake. No. Just, no.

              That Toyota Sienna get 24 mpg. hwy. An Expedition gets 12. That's DOUBLE THE GAS MILEAGE. You call that slightly? Where's your proof that the studies are fixed? Is it that hard to believe for you? You make the claim, you give the proof. That's basic debating 101. I'm sure there are non-biased scientists out there, why not ask them what they think?

              And dipshit, how often do you tow and haul? You can't possibly expect me to believe that everyone that owns a big, shiny Escalade uses it to bail their buddies out of mud-holes or that everyone that owns a big, shiny truck uses it for work-related purposes. Get real.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • NiceKitty
    11 years ago

    I ABSOLUTELY HATE what dappled and suckonthis9, have to say.
    They are basing there 'theories' off of opinion and doctrines created by LUDACRIS BUMBLE HEADS. Their way of thinking is out of the social norm. Which must mean they are WRONG and there brains must have an issue! Propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda

    ^i hate people who say things like this. Even though their ignorance was created by those who are in power, and thus it's going according to their plan. We are dependent, wasteful, blind, beings that are easily susceptible to false beliefs.
    We deem what we cannot comprehend as not existing or 'wrong' which I find very ridiculous.
    We also find ourselves dependent among things we do not need to be dependent upon. Such as refrigerators. We don't need one, why? Maybe we could all just eat fresh fruits and veggies, basically fresh food in general and not have to hoard all of our food.

    This is a real argument instead of a fake one.. Sorry...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • suckonthis9
    11 years ago

    I am the Universe. Everything revolves around me. The rest of the things that I can't sense (or can't make sense of) don't exist.
    Everybody and everything is put here for my amusement, and I can use them without regard of the consequences,
    The people, who aren't really real, will place me on a pedestal and adore me. For I am a deity.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • suckonthis9
      11 years ago

      And so it was written, and these sacred writings ARE THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, and these should never be questioned.
      Other knowledge can never be learned, and should any person wish to question my ignorance, they will be banished to a very real netherworld. Other people will be unrewarded with everlasting bliss, in some nondescript region of thingamajiggy.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • suckonthis9
        11 years ago

        And if new knowledge is ever learned,
        They will not ignore it, just as was not done before.
        They will turn reality into falsehood, and we will never, ever hide truths from the unreal ones.
        This is everlasting and unchanging.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • suckonthis9
          11 years ago

          And those who are most responsible,
          Will be subject to delightful terror.
          And those who act irresponsibly,
          Will be given warm and fuzzy things.
          For there are no real problems in the world,
          And they will never use deception to hide them from you.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • suckonthis9
            11 years ago

            Nothingness.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • [Old Memory]
    11 years ago

    Huhuhuh! 8D
    *whispers "yessss"*

    Many of my IIN stories and polls are written that way and I'm sure if people here knew which ones they all were, I'd look like a massive freak. For me, it's a private sort of thing.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • howaminotmyself
    11 years ago

    Both my boss and my husband are devils advocates. It gets annoying because you don't know what their opinion actually is. And I use to do this with a coworker all the time on issues that neither of us felt strongly about. We'd just argue for the fun of it.

    Depending on my level of passion for the topic, I may not be willing to argue an opposing side. Especially if the opposing side uses fear tactics or encourages ignorance.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0