No, but Geofram said I should be muted, and he hasn't responded to me directly. I can only assume has followed his own advice. Especially since he does not have the temperament to ignore responses to him otherwise.

Bullshit, maybe. But horseshit? Never.

You say that. Draugnar, but this site randomly plucked from the internet proves you wrong... (for a given value of proof)

http://www.horsemart.co.uk/horse_advice/horse_manure_uses/640

It is true... there is a website for everything...

LOL! Touche', Oct!

That article is hilarious.
I like the opening. "Horse manure is a fact of life,". Is it?
I can honestly say I don't think I've ever encountered horse manure in my life.

Also the last suggestion for what to do with horse manure. "Give it to your friends"
"Share your left over horse manure with your friends. There are so many uses for horse manure that they might be glad to receive some." They MIGHT be glad to receive some.

@Oct

Debate has a bigger purpose than entertainment and distraction. The challenge of the ever-rare mental battle of words is healthy and inspiring. The brain needs exercise just like the body. Putin was not this. He was a troll that only served to raise blood pressure and help people discover the mute button.

Damn, that didn't post...

Stupid connection, HATE IT when it fails JUST when I'm posting and it's too late to copy and paste...! :p

OK, short version:

@Santa:

I do NOT pretend to be the paragon of logic, stop putting words in my motuh, sir...I freely admit when I'm wrong, as I just DID a few days ago, which is my problem with Putin, he NEVER concedes his point to another, won't ever say the other person has won...if someone bests me in a debate, I'll tip my hat--so to speak--and say they're right, I'm wrong, etc. Putin never does that, and it just takes a lot of the...well, yeah, the "fun" out of it, it almost comes across as being a bad sport, so to speak.

You cannot tell me Putin is ALWAYS right...it doesn't annoy anyone else, at all, that he never concedes a point or at least says "OK, I can see where you're coming from, that's interesting," and so on? It's always his way or the highway?

That's my biggest knock on Putin, that it's almost like arguing against a brick wall, sometimes, for as little as he is willing to shift or give-and-take...maybe that's just me, but hey, this IS just my opinion, after all, not the paragon of logic here. ;)

@Draug:

LOL.

I know her first name's Melissa, I don't know why I put just "Joan Hart," I guess pecause I figured everyone would get who I meant...so...yeah...just sort of weird on my part, I guess, if I have two names and not the other. XD

As for why I prefer Putin over CM:

I REALLY DISLIKE Putin's method.

I think I've made that clear.

But as far as his ideas go...I find them totally distateful, but that's a matter of taste, and I can respect them as being--in most cases--a sort of converse to what I might suggest or think, and Putin really does stick by his positions (to such an extent that he can be immovable, as I've already sadi, but still, I find it a positive thing, gives him an argumentative identity, and some substance, if that makes sense.)

CM doesn't really back up his points or stand by them, I think...he started that thread, and right in the opening said "How about we debate the existence of God?"

And then, when Smiley--another good debater--and others call him out and say, quite rightly, that the burden of proof for his Pro position is on him, he NEVER gives it, but rather abandons his topic and point and instead says "Oh, my point is ACTUALLY is it better to believe in God or not?"

Putin doesn't abandon his points, he stands by them and tries to defend and argue them to the best of his abilities--and, for that, I respect him (I think he could do better as far as give-and-take and not acting as if every point he makes is the only correct answer, but I'm sure he and others could and probably do take issue with my citing other authors incessently and giving posts so long that "Obi-Long" is this clsoe to being added to the dictionary.) ;)

So, yeah.

And, just for me personally, I find Putin's views more developed than yours, CM, and I think Putin substantiates his points better.

I think a lot of your points and views need to be fleshed out more, CM, and that you need to work on sticking to your points more and giving adequate evidence and arguments.

But, then again, I had the same problems when I joined--and some would say I still have problems, which is true, to be sure, I'm not pretending to be the "paragon of logic" here, just a poster with an opinion--and TGM and other folks helped me out, so jsut keep at it and keep posting.

You can do it. :)

@obi: Yeah, I do need to develop my views more. I think last time I was here, my political views changed at least have a dozen times, probably more. On the subject of my debate thread, I never actually meant to try to prove God's existence, or to debate whether God definitely existed or not. I just messed up the wording of my original post. So I don't think I actually abandoned my point in that case. But that's beside the point.

@ Geo

You are far too much of an idealist. Not all debates can be as enjoyable as watching a bowler on top his form cutting through an enthusiastic but underskilled tail-end. If it was it would become boring. Every now and then you come up against a Mike Atherton type character... The master of the forward defensive stroke... The sort of man who is happy to watch most of the balls bounce cheerfully past him and not bother to even swing at them... The sort of man who you can spend a day trying to get out without any joy, filling you with anger and frustration... But men such as this are just as much part of the game as any other, and we must be able to beat them all if we are to master the game.

(I may have got a tad carried away with the cricket metaphor there...)

No, the metaphor was perfect.
Putin was the bowler who swings at everything, gets a few hits, but is always out in a flash and hardly worth caring about.
A good debatesman is your second bowler. The one that can't be beat, not filling you with anger and frustration but only more will to challenge yourself to new methods of attack.

It's more rewarding to be beaten in a debate than it is to have won it. But you're correct on me being an idealist. Good debates are rarely found outside of professional rings and courtrooms.

@CM "I think I have discovered why you guys don't like arguing with me.
Like Putin, I do this: "he has generally already considered the points you intend to make to counter his argument, weighed them up , and dismissed them. Thus in his reply he has a tendancy to come across as somewhat inflexible and closed minded."
But unlike Putin, I don't do this: "he has far greater reserves of energy to dedicate to finding evidence and writing detailed arguments than most of us can ever be bothered to gather.""

No, stop comparing yourself to Putin, CM. I disagree with Putin quite a bit (when i bother to get involved) and find his political views absurd. But, I respect him. He is very good at writing detailed responses and finding actual sources/ evidence.

You fail to do that, CM. We don't dislike you because you back up your claims too well, we dislike you because you never logically back up your claims. Or at least, rarely do. In addition, putin has literally gone through figuring out what is right and wrong in his own mind. He didn't grow up with Communism and instantly think it's the best thing ever. You grew up with Christianity and fail to critically analyze your religion or your beliefs. You think you do, because you have somehow convinced yourself that you are a paragon if theological intellectualism. When in fact, you have tried to find detours and ways around all of the things that don't make sense, rather than critically thinking about and altering your opinion to fit the most logical thing.

tl;dr You are nothing like Putin. Stop making the comparison.

@Kingdroid: I know it does seem like I haven't been critically analyzing my religion. But I have been in the back of my head. I just never brought it to the front of my head (i.e. my posts) because I'm a bit scared of it. I do realize there are some logical fallacies to it, as there were in my areguments. But I believe that EVERY belief system has logical fallacies to them. In the end, for me, it really comes down to what Draugnar said on the other thread: "You need to accept that what you and I believe is taken on faith and the only evidence we have is what we feel in ourselves and others will view us as delusional." I have accepted that, and that's why I believe in the Christian God.

Some is quite an understatement. And okay, then stop trying to debate it. You have no evidence to support it as a logical hypothesis/theory, stop trying to debate it like you do. i don't mind you believing something, or even explaining your beliefs to me, jsust stop going on these stupid posting sprees where you think you have some sort of evidence/logical claim to even be worth our time.

And please remember the part where I said to stop comparing yourself to Putin. You aren't similar to him.

"And please remember the part where I said to stop comparing yourself to Putin. You aren't similar to him." You may think differently if you saw me debating something besides religion. I don't know. A religious debate is a horrible sample to decide how someone debates, because of the extreme bias a religious person has.

"And okay, then stop trying to debate it" Yeah, posting that thread was a bad idea. I had just read some questions on the religion and spirituality section on yahoo answers (it's like open warfare between atheists and Christian's over there), and so I suddenly had an extreme desire to debate about religion.

*nobody* on this site is like Putin, especially not you. i know you want to be likened to a great debater here on this site, but you just aren't. Putin could have taken your thread and made it seem legit, to be honest, even if he was full of shit.

I totes have a mancrush on Putin.

"we dislike you because you never logically back up your claims, Or at least, rarely do"
First of all, thank you for adding in the 'or at least, rarely do'. Now, the thing is, Putin is very well-versed and knowledgeable about the things he debates about. I, on the other hand, am not a Christian apologist. I don't know enough. I know the basics of Christian apologetics, but that's it. I managed to convince myself I knew more about Christian apologetics than I do, which is why I thought I could hold my own in a debate with you. And I think an actual, professional Christian apologist could, actually hold his own in a debate with you. I would like to see that, but unfortunately I don't know any Christian apologists.

Oh easily, I'm terrible at debating. I'm lazy and unorganized.

In other words, if I actually knew more about things, I probably would debate similarly to Putin. Not exactly the same, because everyone is different. But Putin is a lot more knowledgeable than I am, I'll freely admit that. Note that I'm 14, while he's in college. So obviously his debating skills are greater.

I think it comes down to more of a critical thinking level. Putin seems to have the ability to critically analyze and remember every point that he makes and is made.

I don't have that, and neither do you.

Ina ddition, waiting for just growing up to give you experience in debating isn't going to help. You need to start researching, and critically thinking about your beliefs. At 14 years old, believe it or not, your beliefs are *not* a product of your own thinking and experiences, they're a product of what your parents/environment have taught you.

I'm only 28 and I can freely admit that I'm more liberal because my dad was more opinionated than my mom and talked to me about politics more. But, I am also getting less and less like my father as I grow older, politically because now that I'm not under his control, i have my own free access to information (this site is a great place for me to learn of other intelligent opinions and ideas).

So, Cm, what I want you to do, is to start analyzing your beliefs, and weighing them against other things. try to disassociate yourself from your current beliefs and objectively analyze them. Read works from both sides of every debate. Read Conservative articles, read Liberal articles. *That* is how you will get better at debating, not just by learning about what "experts" say in your current beliefs. You may be surprised to find your beliefs changing. or, you may not, but at least you'll be more educated.

Okay, thank you Kingdroid. That is what I'll do. But not about religion. At least not yet. I'm not ready for that yet. But on everything else, I'm nowhere near as opinionated or biased as I am on religion, so I'm more open to new ideas.

Fair enough, but remember that about when you start being able to make your own decisions. i cam from an extremely religious household and I am not religious at all. As soon as I was allowed to make my own decisions I was able to start analyzing what i was told. So yeah.