Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
I'll take the con stance if you want beezer!
Sounds great! (dang, gotta do homework now!)
It's late for me now, but I'll be ready in about a day.
The new Debate Forum - Calling all Fighters, page 20
reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 02:36 PM by beezzer
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
Ok, you wanna go first or should I?
Allowing you would give me time. Please.
reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 02:39 PM by adjensen
reply to post by Druid42
I would be interested in taking "con" on this, but with my knowledge of physics and cosmology, I know that such a "machine" is not only possible, but already existent. We'd need to assume that we're talking H.G. Wells "can whiz about in time, mucking around as seems reasonable" time machines.
So, something akin to:
Is a Time Machine Possible?
I would be interested in taking "con" on this, but with my knowledge of physics and cosmology, I know that such a "machine" is not only possible, but already existent. We'd need to assume that we're talking H.G. Wells "can whiz about in time, mucking around as seems reasonable" time machines.
So, something akin to:
reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 02:40 PM by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
no problem
I'll write up my opening and probably post it later this evening, take your time with your responses, I'm not in a rush
no problem
I'll write up my opening and probably post it later this evening, take your time with your responses, I'm not in a rush
reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 03:01 PM by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen
Why not take the pro position, then? It's open to address any and all aspects of time machines, so are you willing to engage?
Why not take the pro position, then? It's open to address any and all aspects of time machines, so are you willing to engage?
reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 03:14 PM by adjensen
Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen
Why not take the pro position, then? It's open to address any and all aspects of time machines, so are you willing to engage?
It's not much of an argument then -- go out at night and look up into the sky and you're seeing the past and quantum entanglement allows one to see the future. Those are both "time machines", by a loose definition of it, so sticking to the H.G. Wells macro machine would be the only way an argument is really feasible. And I'd have to take con, because I'm about a million percent sure that such a thing is demonstrably impossible.
reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 03:45 PM by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Skyfloating
"What would you do if you had a time machine?"
" GO back 5 minutes and punch you in the face before you asked me that question."
Best reply ever
"What would you do if you had a time machine?"
" GO back 5 minutes and punch you in the face before you asked me that question."
Best reply ever
reply posted on 14-11-2012 @ 07:04 PM by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen
Is a Time Machine Possible? That's the premise.
You can have the con position. Do you want to alter the premise any?
Is a Time Machine Possible? That's the premise.
You can have the con position. Do you want to alter the premise any?
reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 09:30 AM by adjensen
Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen
Is a Time Machine Possible? That's the premise.
You can have the con position. Do you want to alter the premise any?
No, so long as we agree that we're talking about a device that allows a person to move forward and backward in time at a rate of their own choosing, and allows them to interact with material objects in different times. That would be a messy premise, so maybe more of an "agreed upon definition"
Would you like to go first, or allow me?
edit on 15-11-2012 by adjensen because: Smiley breakage
reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:27 AM by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen
That's completely acceptable for the underlying theme. Well stated.
However, the pro position always goes first.
I'll be arguing for the creation of such a machine, you the technical impossibility.
Now, it appears, all we need is approval.
I can have my opening posted this evening, once approval is granted.
That's completely acceptable for the underlying theme. Well stated.
However, the pro position always goes first.
I'll be arguing for the creation of such a machine, you the technical impossibility.
Now, it appears, all we need is approval.
I can have my opening posted this evening, once approval is granted.
reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:29 AM by tothetenthpower
Challenge Match: Druid42 vs RationalDespair: The USA is the world's police
force
Winner of this debate:
Druid42!
Congrats to our winner and thank you to our challenger RationalDespair.
Please see the link for the judges comments.
~Tenth
Winner of this debate:
Druid42!
Congrats to our winner and thank you to our challenger RationalDespair.
Please see the link for the judges comments.
~Tenth
reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 06:36 PM by RationalDespair
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Congratulations Druid42!
It was a great debate to take part in and I'll always be up for a rematch :-)
As of now, I'm free to engage in another debate, any takers?
Congratulations Druid42!
It was a great debate to take part in and I'll always be up for a rematch :-)
As of now, I'm free to engage in another debate, any takers?
reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 08:34 PM by Druid42
reply to post by RationalDespair
That was a good debate. I too, would like a rematch someday, but it is important to debate other members to round out your skills. Everyone has a different approach to a debate, and by learning from your losses is the best way to hone critical thinking skills.
Thanks for the challenge, and I'll be watching your further debates with interest.
That's thrice now a debate has required a tie breaker, a third judge. The debates are tight arguments, and it's often hard to predict the winner.
However, I read all the debates here, and follow the rulings. Your character shines, often, through your position. Just because a loss is levied towards you doesn't mean you didn't have a valid argument. It simply means the other guy won.
A debate lost today is another won in the future. A debate loss stirs desire, requires you to look within, and in the end, you become a better person participating in debates. Your arguments become more refined, more focused, and stay strictly on-topic.
That was a good debate. I too, would like a rematch someday, but it is important to debate other members to round out your skills. Everyone has a different approach to a debate, and by learning from your losses is the best way to hone critical thinking skills.
Thanks for the challenge, and I'll be watching your further debates with interest.
That's thrice now a debate has required a tie breaker, a third judge. The debates are tight arguments, and it's often hard to predict the winner.
However, I read all the debates here, and follow the rulings. Your character shines, often, through your position. Just because a loss is levied towards you doesn't mean you didn't have a valid argument. It simply means the other guy won.
A debate lost today is another won in the future. A debate loss stirs desire, requires you to look within, and in the end, you become a better person participating in debates. Your arguments become more refined, more focused, and stay strictly on-topic.
reply posted on 16-11-2012 @ 08:48 AM by adjensen
Originally posted by Druid42
First post in the Time machine debate is posted.
Hmmmmmmm.
I wonder.
Now you've got me wondering, too, lol.
Had a bunch of work dumped in my lap overnight, I'll try and get a response posted by this evening. Which I shall type while watching The Time Machine (George Pal version,) probably my second favourite film of all time, after 2001.
