Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics
Request for a sysop to add Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576
Sorry if this isn't the correct way to get a debate added, but it seems the only way I can spot, not sure where the best place would be for it? Raggs 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST) in time
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........
Texas, presidents from
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party. If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Take13 (talk)
- If you are referring in part to the Bush Presidents, I'm afraid you are mis-informed. Neither George H.W. Bush nor George W. Bush could be considered a "Texan" in the sense that they were born in Texas. Both were born in New England, the first in Massachusetts, the second in Connecticut. While it is true that George W. Bush spent much of his childhood in Texas, he also attended Phillips Academy, which is in Andover, MA, and is the same school his father attended, and both are alumni of Yale. Whatever disagreements you may have with their policies, you cannot blame that on "the mentality of Texans." You could just as easily blame it on East Coast Elitism. Or better yet, lay it at the feet of the men who actually made those decisions, not where they came from, or where they went to school.JEMBenton 13:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Spelling as a Commandment on here
The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!
The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.
The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.
Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heidilaide (talk)
- I'll leave it to Andrew to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.
- We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the United States was Noah Webster.--TerryH 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
How to add debate topics
- The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.
Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --Ephilei 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be no red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! Human 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... Totnesmartin 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Idiotic jokes and pointless debates
The last ones should be erased
What went wrong?
I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. Totnesmartin 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Request for a sysop to add Debate:The Vacillating Investor
Request for a sysop to add Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?
Request for a sysop to add Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!
Request for a sysop to add debate Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate Argonaut 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Request for a sysop to add debate Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. Jinkas 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Add: Conservapedia:There is no Fossil fuel or Peak oil
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will peak. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research abiotic oil (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.KirjathSepher 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?Maestro 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--JonL 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
- LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.
40 new users 35 bans 3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.
That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --JonL 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
- This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my righting back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --JonL 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Why do we need debate topics?
This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.
- so people can argue their points obviously-Greenmeanie 01:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- So you can flame them back?Flame.--Faizaguo 12:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! TheGuy 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Alright, I admit it... I mistakenly thought I was improving two questions under the Philosophical Debate questions heading, and I know I broke some links. What can I do to fix this? Alexander 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)
- Ah! I think I've got it! Alexander 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Why We Should Remove New Hampshire
As you know, the American government has accumulated a huge national debt, and they are having a bit of trouble getting rid of it. Getting rid of $8 trillion can be a bit tricky, so they are asking American citizens to come up with ways to help eliminate it. Of course I, like the helpful guy that I am, have come up with the perfect option: Let’s get rid of New Hampshire.
Why New Hampshire? It’s quite easy. New Hampshire has nothing special about it. Not since Old Man in the Mountain collapsed. I mean, it doesn’t have a professional sports team, it has no important colleges, and it’s really small, too. Only 1.2 million people live on 9350 square miles. We could easily get rid of this and no one would care!
Here’s how it happens: First, the government reclaims New Hampshire from private citizens with that wonderful eminent domain power that they have, give the citizens a couple hundred bucks to keep them happy, and then sell the land to another country. It doesn’t matter which one, we’re trying to save America here. Canada comes to mind. They’re already the second-biggest country in the world, so they wouldn’t mind having a nice patch of land south of the Great Lakes. Mexico could be fun. We’d have people complaining of the hundreds of illegal immigrants coming from “East of the border”. Heck, I’d bet Iran or North Korea wouldn’t mind having a small patch of land right next to America. I’d bet they’d be willing to pay top dollar!
Now, let’s get back to actually selling the place. The average price per acre of land in New England is $528,000. If we multiply that by the 2.2 million acres of land in New Hampshire, we’d get over a quadrillion dollars! Not only would we be out of debt, we’d be in in the black! We might even be able to spend a few more years in Iraq without bankrupting the country if we did this!
Hey, here’s another reason: New Hampshire is a bigger money pit than the educational system! New Hampshire spends over $2 billion a year. They also have the second-lowest tax burden in the country! So can you tell me why these people spend so much money with almost no taxes? In addition to that, New Hampshire has the highest per capita sales of alcohol in the country! And speaking of education, New Hampshire doesn’t publicly fund kindergarten! They don’t care about our children and their education! The only thing that they care about is filling their wallets with money and their hip flasks with bourbon. New Hampshirian-ites have the highest per capita income in the country, and none of it is taxed! These greedy, drunken, corrupt, penny-pinching misers deserve to be gotten rid of!
There are political reasons, too. For almost its entire history, God’s chosen political party has governed New Hampshire, but as a result of current trends, New Hampshire is now being ruled… by the left! How terrifying is that? I mean, liberals have wasted enough of this country’s money on health care and alternative energy; can you imagine what it would be like if one more state was ruled by these pagan tax-and-spenders? If we sell New Hampshire, these horrible people will be able to go back to those terrible states that spawned them: California, New York, and Minnesota.
Now, I can tell some of you are squeamish about this idea. You might say that it would cost too much to get rid of New Hampshire. You might say we’d have to redesign the flag to accompany the loss of one state. Surely you jest. Not many people know this, but Texas has a special amendment in its constitution that allows it to split into as many as five separate states if needed. So, after we sell New Hampshire, we can simply split up Texas into two separate states: South Texas and Souther Texas. It would be clean, easy, and efficient. Besides, if you still think it would cost too much, remember that in 2004, the federal government passed a bill that set aside $25,000 to be spent on researching mariachi music. I think that pretty much proves that this country can afford anything.
Now, my reasons to get rid of New Hampshire are quite clear: New Hampshire is worth a lot of money, incredibly small, and is losing money faster than the Automotive industry. It has no reason to exist, so it shouldn’t. And remember, if you don’t think that we should eliminate America’s national debt quickly and efficiently, it can only mean one thing: you hate America. Thank you and have a nice day.
Request for a sysop to add Debate:Should we end Medicare?
With the current healthcare debate and alleged waste, this could be a good topic. CMcFreeze 19:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
Request for a sysop to add Debate:Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal?
I'd like to see a debate like this. I mean, if the Christian right want to ban the choice abortion because it's against The Bible, then shouldn't it be mandatory to participate in government programs to help the poor? NP 18:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)
- Don't follow your reasoning there. The Bible doesn't support taxation or forced redistribution of wealth. It does have numerous explicit references to how a person exists as a full human being, one even capable of sinning, while still in his mother's womb.
- More generally, wouldn't your proposed debate topic be better address after we translate the Bible, rather than before?--Andy Schlafly 18:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)
- NP, I see no logic in your comment. I urge you to spend time translating the most logical book of all-time, the Bible. It works wonders for all of us.--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 16 December 2009 (EST)
- You seem to be confused NP, you see Big Gov. telling us what we can and cant do is bad. Unless what the gov. is saying coincides with the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. That is why its ok to ban abortions and gay marriage but its wrong to impose gun control or raise taxes. --JAiken 10:12, 17 December 2009 (EST)
- There is no logic in that comment either. Like my suggestion for NP, Like my suggestion for NP, I urge you (Jaiken) to give the Bible equal time, or even 5% of your time. Reading a logical book does wonders for all of us.--Andy Schlafly 10:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)
- Not only did I read the bible cover to cover in High School, I also attend bible discussion groups at my parish once a week. I am no stranger to how wonderful of a book it is. --JAiken 10:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)
- We hear that often about the Bible: "oh, I read it growing up!" Do people say the same thing about eating vegetables, or physical exercise? Of course not. It's what we do each day and each week that counts. Former professional athletes are in some of the worst physical shape today of anyone, for example, because they mistakenly rely on the exercise they did long ago.
- As to Bible discussion groups, they almost never translate the Bible and can be useless in even reading it, unfortunately. Chit-chat is no substitute for dissecting and grasping the logic of the Bible in an intellectual way.--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)
There already is a debate like this, see Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?. --OscarJ 14:28, 17 December 2009 (EST)
British political parties misrepresented on Wikipedia
Please see my talk page (HenriettaVanLaer)where I have described the recent experience I have of the dreadful bias of Wikipedia. It is simply not an encyclopedia. It is a propaganda tool for socialists, greens and gays. My attempts to inject a tiny bit of fact into their fantasies were firmly censored. I am interested to hear what other users of Conservapedia think. Maybe some of my material would be of interest in your own articles on these topics.
I am also interested to note that you are debating whether there is any successful Muslim democracy. I attempted to raise this question during the recent British election campaign and was treated like a leper!! My own view is that so far, there isn't one and this is a sign we would be foolish to ignore. Such a view is not acceptable to the liberal-left-wing-dominated media which controls discussion most of the time.HenriettaVanLaer 11:47, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
- Turkey. It's technically a secular state but with a 99% muslim population that doesn't mean much. --GeorgeLi 14:43, 4 February 2012 (EST)
America was founded by religious extremists?
Debate Suggestion:Can translating the Bible give you more insight?
What do you think? --WilliamMoran 22:26, 2 September 2011 (EDT)
Debate suggestion: Do genuinely saved Christians sin?
I'd like to see a new debate topic added: Debate:Do genuinely saved Christians sin?. This was recently a source of disagreement between me and another editor, although only one of us backed up his position with Scripture. Thanks. DavidE 09:22, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
- Done. - JamesCA 20:21, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
I'm slightly amused by the process so I'm curious about opinions...
"Do political endorsements actually carry any weight?" Ayzmo :) 23:30, 10 January 2012 (EST)
I was looking at the debate topics list and noticing a lot of stuff is wrongly categorized. It looked way too hard to find anything so I took the liberty of doing a massive revamp of the page's categorization structure. Everything should be much neater now and easier to find. I kept the basic structure but added a lot of subcategories to make it very obvious where everything is. I tried to keep everything in about the same order it was already; keeping stuff listed near the top near the top. --Joshua Zambrano 05:37, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Atheists and Christians: Unlikely Allies?
I had this idea kicking around in my brain for a while about how Atheists and Christians might actually have more in common than meets the eye, and I thought this might be a good topic for discussion and debate. My reasoning goes something like this: both atheism and modern Christianity are products of Western thought, and both groups of people generally tend to uphold western values (freedom of speech, democracy, etc). Western values, the set of principles that we both hold most dear, are under attack by Islam. They reject democracies, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These core western principles allow both Christians and atheists to hold their views without having to fear persecution. Islamists want to establish a worldwide caliphate, whereas Christians and atheists generally want to live in harmony with each other. Most atheists I know think Christianity is benign or even beneficial, but to them Islam is somewhat threatening. I wonder if Christians and atheists would make unlikely allies, united by a common opposition to Islamofascism. --Kennywillis 15:16, 8 January 2014 (EST)