Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics
- 1 Unicorn
- 2 Texas, presidents from
- 3 Spelling as a Commandment on here
- 4 How to add debate topics
- 5 Dead links
- 6 Idiotic jokes and pointless debates
- 7 What went wrong?
- 8 Request for a sysop to add Debate:The Vacillating Investor
- 9 Request for a sysop to add Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?
- 10 Request for a sysop to add Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?
- 11 Request for a sysop to add debate Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be
- 12 Request for a sysop to add debate Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?
- 13 Add: Conservapedia:There is no Fossil Fuel or Peak Oil
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)
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)