Thursday, November 6, 2014

Debate Round 5

19,707 characters? Wow, ok, whatever, it's your debate. I've only got one round left. Before closing, I would like my opponent to define what he thinks the following mean:

Rationalist group
Judge (like in a court)
Jury (like in a court)
Common Sense

He keeps using these words.
It is because that you keep repeating your points in every round and do not include any new reasons for the debate.
But they do not mean what he thinks they mean.
It means that you are changing the meaning of those words which are written in the dictionary.
I think he believes that "religious" = "paranormal." Therefore to him, because the positive existence of the Loch Ness Monster cannot be proved or explained by science, the Loch Ness Monster, to him, is a religious phenomenon.
It has some connection with religion as it was reported first in 7th century AD by Irish monk who showed a cross when the beast attacked a man and the beast stopped on seeing the cross. Here is the link --à  
In his mind, rationalist means "anti-religious." But rationalists, "rational" groups, and rationality mean so much more. His error is in thinking that rationalism involves ONLY attacking religion, when they are against any and all pseudo-scientific, medicine, or history claims. But again, anything that cannot be proved, like the positive existence of UFOS, is to him, religious. And that's just religulous.
Honorable Judges, point to be noted that an error of spelling (if he or she does not mean the 2008 movie 'Religulous', but seems not likely so as this does not have any relevance here) has been made by my opponent which is “religulous” instead of “religious”. Even if he/she meant the movie 'Religulous' then the error made by him/her is that R should be capital in 'Religulous'. I hope you penalize him/her for that and also proves that his/her  allegation of my English being second language is completely baseless. He/she did not provide any evidence of any errors in my English but I have provided evidence. Thank you, now I’ll move further for countering his/her statement with my reasons.
If it means much more then prove it by giving links. Give me links where they are attacking pseudo-scientific, medicine or history claims. Whatever protest he or she has shown, is somewhere or the other connected to religion.
Honorable Judges, merely making claims other than providing links or any evidence proves that my opponent does not know how to debate and for this also I hope that there is penalization from your side.

Since he seems too lazy to Google, here are four, concrete examples, of awesome rationalists, talking NOT about religion. and Michael Shermer on JFK conspiracies:
Firstly, it is your duty to investigate and provide evidence when you are making a claim. The judge does not go and investigate, the police does as it is them who file charges against the suspect. If I do your job, it would affect mine, just as you said that if you do someone else’s job, you would leave your own job unfinished.
Secondly, this is also has some connection with religion because if you see the paragraph titled, “CIA: The Enemy Within?”, it states that, “Conspiracy theories involving secret societies have been with us for centuries, frequently oriented along religious lines. Religious themes are largely passé among modern conspiracists, but there is one secret society of sorts that may inspire suspicion among Americans from every walk of life and of all political persuasions”.

Thirdly, if I have to Google sites which have no relevance then I can post and quote not just 4 but 400 sites. If you want to prove that you are the only hardworking person and I am lazy then you did not prove it correctly. You did not get the reason of my not searching in Google correctly as it was due to no reason that it has relevance to your point of debate rather than my laziness.
Even if it is something related to other than religion, then can you send some more links to prove that they broadly focus on other issues as well as my starting statement in round one was, “Rationalist groups all over the world are just or mainly just against religion”. So, therefore even if I take that, then this is just one issue.

Richard Dawkins on the anti-vaccinnation movement.
Honorable Judges, please note that this is the second time that my opponent has committed a spelling mistake. It is “vaccination” and not “vaccinnation” as he/she has typed. I am sure that you would penalize him/her for that and again it clearly proves that his/her allegation of English being my second language is unfounded and baseless.
When I entered Richard Dawkins in Wikipedia, nowhere in the description it was shown that he was member of any Rationalist group. It defined him as, “Clinton Richard Dawkins /ˈdɔːkɨnz/, DSc, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist,[1] and writer.”, but not a Rationalist Group member or even a rationalist.
You can check it out here --à

Ultimate rationalist Christopher Hitchens' views about socialism:
Again, whom you even described as ultimate, Christopher Hitchens' was nowhere described in Wikipedia as a rationalist or a member of any Rationalist Group. Even he was a member, he was also a journalist and journalists do express their views so he did not express it as a rationalist but as a journalist.
A member of any Rationalist Group at home states that my children should go to school X as it is cheaper, will you say that he being a member of a Rationalist group stated that? Every father thinks that which school should his children go to, so give me that link where a member of a Rationalist Group protested clearly as a member and not as any other person.
Anyways, Christopher Hitchens was not a member of any Rationalist Group anyway and this is defined in this site -à
Also, I do not think that he was a rationalist by his heart or mind also, most contrarily when you called him as a ‘ultimate rationalist’ probably just copied from my nickname in this site as The-Ultimate-Debator, as he got addicted to drinking and smoking causing his death as a cancer. Had he been a rationalist, he would have judged the decision of starting to smoke and drink very judiciously that he might be addicted to it and it may cause him cancer.

And here's Bob Aganoosh talking about the flying spaghetti being:

This site also is not opening and Bob Aganoosh is so famous that he does not have any article in Google, not just in Wikipedia.
However, even if there is, flying spaghetti is connected with religion as the Wikipedia defines it as, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism (aportmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian), a movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.[3] Although adherents describe Pastafarianism as a genuine religion,[3] it is generally seen by the media as a parody religion.
The remaining you can read here -à

My opponent's argument now seems to consist of I am a horrible, horrible human being for not chaining myself to court house doors, therefore he is right in saying rationalists only protest religion.
Honorable Judges, the above statement of my opponent proves that he/she himself/herself agreed that rationalists protest only against religion. You would surely agree that there cannot be a bigger evidence than that.
Ok, I'm a monster, lowest of the low, thank you, you've made me cry... I need to call my mother. Feel better now? You have attacked me, called me lazy, prideful and arrogant, and accused me of being selfish and basically a bad, bad man. I think I need a tissue. Does this mean, in any way, by any rule of debate, that you have proven your argument? No, no it does not.
I also gave links and reasons other than saying that if you have ignored or you are not smart enough to realize that.

I've given you EVIDENCE and PROOF. You have given me examples of TWO (2) guys who are anti-religious and you say that is ALL every rationalist group ever does. You have in no way proven your argument.
I also gave reasons and links which you have probably missed out due to your carelessness, inefficiency  and incompetency in smartness.

"You never mentioned quack medicine."
- Define quack medicine.
If you again goto Wikipedia, then quack medicine also includes magical therapy and that is the only reason that Rationalist Groups are against it.
Also, if they really protest, then why do you not give me links and evidence?

"Protests against wrongful convictions, quack medicine, crypto-zoology etc are done by people who maybe rationalist in their hearts and minds but they are not "member of any Rationalist Group" or go around the television to blab that they are rationalists."
- So Amnesty International is not a rationalist group?
Yes, it is not a rationalist group. You make me go to Wikipedia again and again to prove you wrong. In that site, the definition of Amnesty International nowhere has the word, ‘rational’.

"there is a difference between a "Rationalist" and a "member of a Rationalist Group". They are not those who go around the television, internet and print media boasting and bragging like you do that they are rationalists."
- Yes, yes they do. You just haven't seen them. Are you confused about what "group" means?
If they do, then give me proof and links. Honorable Judges, you can see that my opponent just makes claims and does not give any proof with links and sites. This proves that he or she does not know how to debate and I hope you note this down too as a point for penalization.

"it seems ofcourse that you do not belong to an English speaking country .... because you erroneously stated "then he start ignoring them". I could not understand the above paragraph that what relevance it has to the debate."
- Then (next) he (you) start (begin) ignoring (not listening to) them (the rationalists). "No, I'm not, YOU ARE!" is just weak. Do you really want to start counting our grammar mistakes? What relevance? You don't understand one clause, so you dismiss the whole paragraph? By the way, native English speaker, ESL teacher for 10 years. BOOM! Summary: ignore speech you don't like.
It should be, “Then he starts/started ignoring them’. You do not know perhaps but in this site for debate spelling and grammar mistakes are also counted for penalization, so this is the relevance.
What do you want me to do if I do not dismiss it? That I should misunderstand your paragraph and answer it differently? It would be quite useless.

"Do you mean to say that those "Rationalist Group" members do not have time? Do you realize that we have to make out time, there is never time for anything. Do you give this excuse while giving your high school exams that I can focus on only one subject so only one subject be taught to me?"
- Of course not. Everyone has a job or duty, like studying. But even when you're studying you still listen to music or watch a movie. You have a passion. You have hobbies. Most "solo" rationalists promote a cause in their spare time. It's their passion, their hobby, their interest. If they become an expert in what they are talking about, they might even appear on TV.
The one I gave example of i.e. Sanal is acting like a hardcore rationalist and he even quit his job to devote maximum time, but still focuses on just religion, so how could this be his hobby if he even left his job?

"Again, there is a difference between a "Rationalist" and a "member of a Rationalist Group". "
- I can concede that there are many "rationalists" who like what they have heard and consider themselves rationalists without truly understanding the scientific method. But those aren't the ones you see debating on TV.
Those rationalists are not member of any rationalist group too. Also, perhaps they never got a chance to come on TV.

"You mean to say that you do not know how to protest against the court judgments which should be based on reasoning and debating (despite the fact that you call yourself a rationalist) but you know how to protest against religion?"
- I am not here protesting religion, or the justice system. I am here debating YOU.
However, the topic of the debate is this only, that why does a member of any Rationalist group protest only against religion and you spoke as if you are also a member of a rationalist group. Anyways, if you are not, then this statement though had, ‘you’ in it, was not meant for you but for those who are member of a rationalist group.
I am not saying that religion is wrong. I am saying YOU ARE WRONG. I'll tell you what. The next time someone gets wrongfully convicted in my community and there is a public outcry and strong evidence, I'll go protest. I'll go chain myself to the court house doors. But, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." - Ancient Vulcan proverb. Your "rationalists" believe religion to be the cause of war, racism, discrimination, the caste system, false hope, false promises, inequality, and thousands of years of injustices. What is all that against the life of one man?
A true rationalist would first think of himself or herself rather than the world for which he or she is doing social service. In our country, there is a system in exam that photocopies of the answer scripts will not be given back if you suspect that your marks are below the reasonable expectation and you are expected to score very high marks.
If he was a true rationalist, then he would have protested against this unfair system as it concerns him first.
There are more serious issues which cause more harm than religion and that is population explosion, and not controlling it by coercive means is also irrational.
If they are concentrating just one issue just because of its sensitivity and the amount of loss it causes, then when you go to the police station, do they say that we will just register cases for fraud of more than one million rupees/dollars only and not one thousand rupees or dollars? They may give a little time than the amount conned which is lower than the amount which is higher but atleast they register it. It is because if they ignore the smaller cause then that may give rise to a bigger cause and the person who conned one thousand dollars may next time con you with one million dollars as he gets a boost that the case was not even registered.
In the same way, wrongful convictions cannot be dealt in isolation as this gives boost to the people and encourages them to be more irrational and believe superstitious beliefs also next time if you allow them to practice accepting convictions without sufficient evidence, and this in return boosts religion and causes not just one thousand years of injustice but one million years of injustice.
If you think that instead of studying in kindergarten, I should straight away start with high school as that is more sensitive and may cause more loss if I do not clear them, then how can you write a paragraph in high school when you have not even learnt the alphabets? Therefore, issues and causes are related with each other and cannot be dealt in isolation by completely ignoring the other.
Also, atleast one blog or one article should have been made by members of a rationalist group if this was a smaller issue of wrongful conviction than religion, as in police station they atleast do register and do some investigation even if at small level than for bigger cases, but members of rationalist groups did not even do that.

Does rationality only belong to the anti-religious? You seem to think so, and you are WRONG. Again, many scientists, historians and "GASP" even rationalists are religious. They just know how to separate FAITH from EVIDENCE. You don't. And no, I'm not going to provide you links. Go spend 5 seconds on Google.
I do not need to Google because your entire statement is wrong. Those scientists are mainly not part of any rationalist group either.

"If your supervisor rings you to tell you to drive a car to receive a client from the airport so that when he comes to the office your real responsibility of discussing the plan and meeting goes ahead, you say that it is not your job of picking him up from the airport, this would also take away from your real responsibility of holding a meeting with the client."
- I mop the floors at the nuclear power plant. My boss asks me to shut down the reactor. I don't know how. We all die. I have failed from my real responsibility of cleaning the nuclear power plant.....
Commenting on a court case or its judgment on a conviction is something that you do not know? That means that you do not have common sense as members of the jury are from the common public. This is a very baseless excuse that you have given that you do not know and if you really do not know, then you do not know anything which even a simple guy with common sense would know.
Your supervisor told you to just pull down the handle of the nuclear power plant which will shut it down  and you say that I do not know how to do that and if that will kill all of you then it is as good as saying that switching off the computer will also kill me, as if there is some ghost which gets activated by switching it off.

"That site did not open in my system.""
- Google "Stephen" "Hawking" "atheist." If you do not know about him then you should know about him and surf the net because you claim that he never blabs about religion. Wait this sounds familiar.....
Stephen hawking may have made claims of him being an atheist, but again, did he claim or is he part of any rationalist group? Most scientists are atheists, as science has always battled with religion due to its theories and evidences clashing with religion.
Honorable Judges, this is the third time my opponent has made an error in his or her English as a grammatical mistake has been made by my opponent by saying, “Wait this sounds familiar” without a comma after “Wait”. This proves that his or her English is totally garbled.

"If you do not know about him then you should know about him and surf the net because you claim that those who are members of Rationalist Group focus on everything other than just religion."
- I have never said that "Rationalist Group focus on everything other than just religion." You say that is ALL they do. I say that is NOT ALL that they do. See the difference? I concede that there are SOME rationalist groups whose main focus is religion."But you said that ALL rationalists ONLY protest religion. I've proven you wrong IF YOU CHECK OUT THOSE GROUPS and you understand that LOCH NESS MONSTER IS NOT RELIGION.
I already gave you evidences above that it is connected to religion when it was first claimed to be discovered in the 7th century AD.

"In the previous rounds, you stated that it is a geologist only that can answer a question related to Lemuria located under an Indian ocean, or a Exodus happened would attract a archeologist. Now, in CONTRADICTION of your earlier statement, you are claiming that you do not need to be a scientist to have an opinion of science. Strange.""
- It's strange how you twist meanings and what I said. What was clear was that I myself would listen to and respect more a geologist's response about the existence of Lemuria, because he has used evidence and peer review.

What was originally claimed by you was that by giving an example of geology, only a geologist can claim and comment on the existence of Lemuria when I criticized that why members of rationalist groups do not comment on wrongful convictions. That was the original topic. So, how can you claim now that people who do not have a degree in science can also comment on science when you first stated that only a geologist can comment on existence of Lemuria? is this not a contradiction of your own two statements?