Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics"

Revision as of 02:15, May 6, 2008

Hello! My name is ANGELICA!! i am new here! my username is Blah44!!!!!!

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]==
+Hello! My name is ANGELICA!! i am new here! my username is Blah44!!!!!!
-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? [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
-==Unicorn==
-i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........
-Concerned intellectual
-==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.{{Unsigned|Take13}}
-== 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…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}
-:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|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]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
-== How to add debate topics ==
-Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) <small>moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]</small>
-: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. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
-==Dead links==
-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! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
-:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|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. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
-==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
-Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
-==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
-Please add this to [[Debate topics]].  It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
-==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|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 [[User:Argonaut|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. [[User:Jinkas|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 oil|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.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
-==Locked forever?==
-Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|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.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
-*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 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.
-STATS:
-new users
-bans
-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. --[[User:JonL|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! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 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 --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
-*LOL...really scared! :p  Godspeed to you! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 17:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
-== Why do we need debate topics? ==
-This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.
-==Archive==
-Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)
-==Oops==
-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? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)
-::Ah! I think I've got it! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics"

Revision as of 02:15, May 6, 2008

Navigation menu

Search