Devil's Advocate: Proving the Unarguable

  • Thread starter Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a creative exercise where participants argue in favor of positions they do not genuinely support, starting with the assertion that "killing is not wrong." Participants explore various controversial topics, such as the merits and flaws of democracy, scientific progress, and even absurd claims like teddy bears being ugly. Arguments are made sincerely, often highlighting the contradictions and moral dilemmas inherent in the topics. The thread encourages deep reflection on societal norms and the nature of morality through this unconventional debate format.
  • #31
Originally posted by steppenwolf
knowing we will one day not too far off be disposed of naturally or otherwise will motivate us to actually get off our arses and do something productive. how easy is it to sit around for 80 years saying 'oh i'll do it tomorrow', if we actually had a deadline there might be more mozart's, jeff buckley's, rimbaud's and maiakovski's in the world, all of whom did all they had to do within 30 years! not to mention the drain on the economy, geez! humanity will thus benifit culturally and economically from such an initiative.

ummmm; marriages should all be arranged by your parents?

It's long been accepted that parents know what's best for their children. However, even if this is not true, a person left to their own choice of a mate is so much more likely to make a mistake (since falling in love impares judgement) then his/her parents (who are not at all affected by whether their child is in love or not, but are just thinking of how compatible their child is with the propective mate).

(To get Ben-CS's question some recognition) Role-playing games can be useful for teaching science.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
(To get Ben-CS's question some recognition) Role-playing games can be useful for teaching science.

Clearly most people are bored out of their skulls with dull facts and awful math problems. Their minds turn off and they don't learn any science at all. But pretending you're a photon or an RNA plasmid is FUN. People learn much better from fun, and they might even retain something past the next exam.


Quantum Field theory does not exist.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Clearly most people are bored out of their skulls with dull facts and awful math problems. Their minds turn off and they don't learn any science at all. But pretending you're a photon or an RNA plasmid is FUN. People learn much better from fun, and they might even retain something past the next exam.

well i just HAVE to disagree there, and you sounded so sarcastic

what could possibly be more traumatising for two prepubescant kids then being forced to stand out the front of a class of giggling kiddies and hold hands to close a circuit with the teacher inevitabely cracking all those terrible jokes about the electricity between little tommy and susan, OH THE SHAME! that sort of thing turns kids of science for life! ugh this is bringing back too many bad memories, excuse me while i go cry in a corner!

but anyway, back to selfadjoint's topic:
Quantum Field theory does not exist.
 
  • #34
That is impossible if it was i would understand it...duh
 
  • #35
Originally posted by The Grimmus
That is impossible if it was i would understand it...duh

This is your answer?

Well, OK, what's your new question?
 
  • #36
oh well i figured that some one would elaberate on that. Also it got the fourm posted at the top agian, kind of like this post. But if someone dosent eleaberate on it i will post a question
 
  • #37
Existence implies reality. Reality is defined as that which does not go away if you stop believing in it. It all those who work on Quantum Field theory cease to study it and to belief that it is worth studying, then it would as a theory cease to be present. Therefore, it is not real, but an abstract, imaginary entity. Therefore it does not exist.
Really, too easy...

Freedom is not worthwhile.
 
  • #38
may i just take time out to thank you for creating this.

ok enough sucking up
Freedome is anything but worth it's prices. let's take Africa, it was imperlized by england mostly and they fought it. Many died and never saw freedome, others were weeded out and their villages burned down and sufferd that burdan of guilt. And the onese taht did aviod this never saw freedome it never happened it their life time. And when freedome finally came those who recived it did nothing comparead to the ones before. Freedome is a slow procces and gradually England let Africa free law by law village by village, so those living at the end of their imperlism did not appreciate it as much s thos ewho fought and died for it. also i am too lazy to do it so as*es to that...

Ok Question: i can not be charged if i where to say "i thouht the cop was a prostitute"
 
  • #39
Originally posted by The Grimmus

i can not be charged if i where to say "i thouht the cop was a prostitute" [/B]

Plead insanity. (brought on by the clap or Karposi Sarcoma on the brain)

Your statement:

"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"
 
  • #40
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Your statement:

"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"

Hey I thought "General Discussion" was supposed to be an escape from the world of physics! Us ignoramuses can't answer those kinds of questions.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Plead insanity. (brought on by the clap or Karposi Sarcoma on the brain)

Your statement:

"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"

Well, there is not other known particle to satisfy QM's need for "force-carrier" particles to attribute to each of the forces. I can't really prove this one though. How about a suggestion, quantumcarl?
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, there is not other known particle to satisfy QM's need for "force-carrier" particles to attribute to each of the forces. I can't really prove this one though. How about a suggestion, quantumcarl?

Try looking at the magnetic field of a planetary body and superimposing the gravitational field of the same body onto the former field. Now find the similarities and the variations.

Use rate of change (calculus) when introducing other bodies (such as the moon or asteriods) to determine any synergistic relationships between the actions (changes) in the two afore mentioned fields (gravitational and magnetic).

The magnetic field is electromagnetic in terms of static resulting from certain alignments of trace and random particles and their relative reactions to one another.

Does this help with your statement?
 
  • #43
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Try looking at the magnetic field of a planetary body and superimposing the gravitational field of the same body onto the former field. Now find the similarities and the variations.

Use rate of change (calculus) when introducing other bodies (such as the moon or asteriods) to determine any synergistic relationships between the actions (changes) in the two afore mentioned fields (gravitational and magnetic).

The magnetic field is electromagnetic in terms of static resulting from certain alignments of trace and random particles and their relative reactions to one another.

Does this help with your statement?

Good enough. Are you going to post a new statement for us?
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Mentat
Good enough. Are you going to post a new statement for us?


You don't need proof to prove something.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by quantumcarl
You don't need proof to prove something.

Man! You come up with some really hard ones. Here goes nothing (please no debates about "nothing", it's just an expression :wink:)...

Well first off, you could just appear to have proof, and someone could still believe you.

But, more importantly, Godel's theorems show that to attempt to prove a system by use of that system leads to paradox. Since proof itself is technically a system, I can't prove my proof, without resulting in paradox. However, I have, on numerous occasions, proven something to someone. So, obviously, since proof doesn't exist outside of paradox, I have never used proof to prove any of things I've proven.

That's the best I could think of, off the top of my head.
 
  • #46
Here's my point, for you to try to defend:

Shooting someone in the stomach is better than shooting them in the head.
 
  • #47
well when you pop a cap in the head their dead but when u pop a cap in nthe stomache they may die whcih will help the autopsy report by mkaing a huge gaping "insicion" in the stomache. I they don't die then they are rushed ot the hospital and their stomach is sewed back together, this makes it smaller and helps them lose weight. So by shooting in the stomahc your just calling them fat.

a hostage situation is like a tea party with EDIT:guns
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Originally posted by The Grimmus


a hostage situation is like a tea party with gund

I assume you meant "guns".

At a tea party, you sit; do what the host/ess tells you to do; leave after being formally dismissed (please note the possibility of applying the term "formally dismissed" to being shot); try not to speak, and when you do, to speak of things that you hope the host/ess will find appropriate; most of the people that are at a tea party are trying to get out (as quickly as possible) and those that aren't are probably insane anyway.

Alright, enough goofy ones.

The next statement to be defended:

Evolutionary Psychology rules, in spite of the fact that the H and G tribes were relatively non-violent. (If you don't understand what I'm talking about, I reference you to RageSk8's reply to me, on the last page of the thread, entitled "Free Will. A hoax?".)
 
Last edited:
  • #49
i don't have a good defencse but i wanted to revie this thread..if i think of soemthing i will edit this
 
  • #50
Here, I'll just post a new point to defend:

Prophecy is solid proof of God's existence. (I can't argue this one, but I could argue it's inverse - "Prophecy is not solid proof of God's existence. I only posted it the way I did because most PF members are atheistic, in my experience.)
 
  • #51
Mentat, there is a common misconception of the word "prophecy." Most people believe that the word means to predict the future, the word simply means to speak for.

So, if the prophet is a prophet of God, it means they are speaking for God, if they are speaking for God then God exists (if he did not exist, they would be a prophet of nothing).

My turn. I have to admit that I haven't been following this thread completely, so if I use a point that has been used, let me know.

Please defend this:

The United States should go back to being an English Colony.
 
  • #52
What a truly excellent idea!
Think of the billions and trillions of dollars that could be saved by not having to provide its own defence. Sure, the Crown would get ticked off about this eventually and want to raise taxes, but a simple tax on tea and a 'stamp act' would cost nothing in comparison.
The events of 9/11 would likely never have happened either, or if they did it would have happened over there on 'the Island' which is certainly better a place than NYC. Besides, everyone secretly loves having a King and Queen anyway, and those who disagree are simply lying to show they have pride in their independance rather than admit the truth that they are frightened little sheep who need a mommy and daddy to look out for them. Not only that but it is such a natural thing to pin the blame on someone else that people would be much relieved to blame someone overseas for their problems...

Now defend this;
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.
 
  • #53
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.

They say that eunicks (sp?) could (can) actually create and sustain large erections for many hours (they just can't impregnate).

So who needs the pesky things hanging around anyway?

Here is the next one:

Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value.

(Actually, in a science forum the inverse may be the popular opinion, just state which ever you want to defend)
 
  • #54
Originally posted by BoulderHead
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.

That reminds me of some words Jesus once spoke: "If your left hand causes you to masturbate, then cut it off."

eNtRopY
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Artman
They say that eunicks (sp?) could (can) actually create and sustain large erections for many hours (they just can't impregnate).

So who needs the pesky things hanging around anyway?

Here is the next one:

Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value.

(Actually, in a science forum the inverse may be the popular opinion, just state which ever you want to defend)

Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value. Think of the great artists that existed in times past. When did their work become truly recognized? Many years after their death. They obviously can redeem nothing from this now, they are dead. The truth is, if you are good at art, it will not be appreciated until the world is ready to handle it, and by then you'll be dead. If you are not good at art, then others may recognize it, but you will redeem no self-respect/self-esteem from it, because you will know (even if you never say it) that it could have been better.

Defend this:

Homosexuality is actually natural.
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Mentat


Defend this:

Homosexuality is actually natural.

well it is an oft observed phenomenon that men find lesbians to be a real turn on, the opposite is also party true although there have been no studies, homosexuality is therefore beneficial to the mating process and thus logical from an evolutionary and thus natural point of view.

and now... woman's right to vote should be abolished
 
  • #57
Originally posted by steppenwolf
well it is an oft observed phenomenon that men find lesbians to be a real turn on, the opposite is also party true although there have been no studies, homosexuality is therefore beneficial to the mating process and thus logical from an evolutionary and thus natural point of view.

and now... woman's right to vote should be abolished

Women's right to vote should be abolished. Think about it. In the last Michigan election (for governor (sp?)), studies showed that most women were voting for Senator Grantholm (sp?), because they wanted to have the first female governor of Michigan. If women are easily swayed by gender, while men would vote for males or females equally (and believe me, quite a few men voted for the female candidate :wink:), then men are (demonstrably) more reasonable in their choice of leadership.

Plus, other studies have shown that women are more emotionally influenced than men. While this is ok in some areas of life, do you really want the majority of votes (there are more women than men) to be based on emotion, when choosing leadership?

(Please note, these are not my views. While it may seem that that goes without saying (because the name of the thread) I just want to make sure that I don't give offense.)

Point to defend
Only men should be nurses.
 
  • #58
Now, it is a matter of fact that the evolution of society is based on the idea that men do the dangerous work.
*Hides from attacks of enraged feminists*

Look at primitive societies for example. The fact remains that the male sex is adapted towards risk taking, somewhat excessively, and that physically we are suited to this kind of work. It can come as no surprise therefore that males take on the majority of harzardous professions, and hence get most exposure to all threats biological, chemical, mental or physical. So men simply end up in hospitals more often. Obviously.

Now, hospitals in reality serve a double function. (a) actually treat the patient, but (b) discourage the patient from getting in the same predicament. The secondary function has been suppressed lately (damn you international convention for human rights), but it certainly fills an important function in society. And without it, we observe the problems in the medical service we currently suffer.

Now, a key part of the failure of area b is, dare I say it, sexual attraction. Remember your old films and fantasies about affairs involving nurses? Given that the majority of males are not homosexual, populating the system with ugly men would work well to generate a negative sexual impulse. Given time, this can insinuate itself into the subconscious, and reinforce the will to keep out of danger. There are further purposes too. Women are in general more empathic and gentle than men. Empathy is something to be avoided in the medical profession. At such high stakes, objectivity is paramount, and the ability to ignore distractions - eg. screams of pain, pools of blood etc etc. A cold blooded man would be far better suited in this category.

From a pure economic aspect, single sex occupations are cheaper. No longer having to design two uniforms. Having unisex toilets instead of wasting an extra room. The possibilities are endless...

Next:
The minimum age allowed to vote should be lowered to 4.
 
  • #59
A lot of voters have a mental age of two. If we let them vote, why not individuals who actually are?



Topic: Regardless of age, only individuals with an I.Q. over 150 should be permitted to vote.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Ben-CS
A lot of voters have a mental age of two. If we let them vote, why not individuals who actually are?



Topic: Regardless of age, only individuals with an I.Q. over 150 should be permitted to vote.

Simple, we just plain know better (he said, grinning because of being almost exactly 150 in I.Q. :wink:).

New Topic: I.Q. should determine social status.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
18K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
13K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K