Debates // Current

Master Debaters: Pot vs Meth

In this installment of the hot-button debate show "Master Debaters," Marijuana and... more

Super_Josh
added this
4 days ago
|
15 comments

A 'Collision' Of Beliefs: Atheist Vs. Theologian

Last fall, journalist, literary critic and proud atheist Christopher Hitchens went on... more

atomiclegion
added this
29 days ago
|
1 comment

JCS 2012 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

POLITICAL SEASON HEATS UP with 1st Debates held for 2012 Elections. Exclusive coverage... more

julianscomedystop
added this
6 months ago
|
44 comments

This is My Plan to Save the Environment

I help fight to save the world because I am a unity supporter and support... more

USWGO
added this
7 months ago
|
0 comments

Debate: Creationism 'should be taught in science lessons'

As part of counter-strike to an article posted on Current, I have decided to fend for myself and share my side of the debate as to whether or not Creationism should be taught side-by-side with Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution. What I present is not a statement of "Creationism should be the only thing taught", but, rather, there should be an equilibrium between Creationism and Evolution. To start off, the one kind of evolution I believe in is called "micro-evolution" and is, in fact, the only observable form of evolution.

Several years ago the Wichita Eagle-Beacon carried a story which reported the Flat Earth Society to be alive and well in modern America. This select group of traditionalists have held tenaciously to the archaic notion that the earth is flat, not spherical. Such a society reminds one of the self-proclaimed scientist who said, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!”

In the most recent court battle concerning this issue, U.S. District Judge William Overton struck down Arkansas’ “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act” by rejecting two state arguments that are crucial elements in this debate: 1) that evolution is as religious as creationism, and 2) that public schools should teach what the public wants. In striking down the Arkansas law requiring schools to give a balanced presentation of both evolution and creationism Judge Overton stated, “No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of movement, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others.”

What about the question, “Is evolution just as religious as creationism?” My answer is, “yes,” because the system of evolution is, in its definition, a belief system. Sir Julian Huxley, one of today’s most respected evolutionists has defined evolution as

a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation (What Is Science? p. 272).

I refer to such a definition because there is not a shred of scientific evidence to scientifically demonstrate Huxley’s statement. The definition of science shows that something is scientific only if it can be observed {25} and verified. All must admit that it is impossible to prove scientifically any particular concept of origins, creationism or evolution. No human being was there in the beginning to observe and verify how matter and life came into existence.

For nearly one hundred years evolution-as-a-dogma has been accepted and perpetuated in America’s public educational institutions, and the proof of such a statement is seen in the almost universal acceptance of three sub-beliefs: 1) faith in spontaneous generation of life substance, 2) faith in transitional forms between different kinds of organisms, (unverifiable on the basis of anatomy, embryology, blood and protein analyses, fossils, or genetics) and 3) faith in mutations as a source of raw materials by which supposed evolutionary changes in organisms might have come about in the past. Each of these three sub-beliefs is dependent upon the other, as well as the very definition of evolution as given by Huxley. And each of these statements is made without experimentally verifiable or observable scientific evidence.

The point is that both evolution and creationism are belief systems. Both are embraced through “believing what is unobservable” rather than on the basis of what is scientifically provable. I disagree with Judge Overton in striking down the Arkansas law on this basis. He has closed his mind to the true definitions of science and religion. Science deals with observable data. Religion deals with belief and faith in the unobservable.As part of counter-strike to an article posted on Current, I have decided to fend for... more

TheEmpireGuy
added this
8 months ago
|
51 comments

Debate: Is it wrong for Chrisians or Christ-Followers to judge others?

I have had my share of encounters with Christians or Christ-Followers who are very judgmental of others; especially atheists, agnostics, LGBT's and still many more. I have had even more encounters with atheists or agnostics or others who have a deep resentment for Christians because of bad encounters with them, but even they begin to judge all Christians as the same and condemning them for "ignorance" or some other kind of ridicule. The question here is should any Christian or Christ-Follower be judging anyone and should any non-Christians be judging them back?

I know there are MANY hypocrites that say they're Christians. I know there are MANY that say they're Christian, but then go around condemning anyone that isn't. I know there are many real WACKO'S out there that say God is glad our soldiers are dying (and that it's because of the gays in the U.S.). I know there are also MANY who go around condemning Christians for their beliefs.

I am sure they're not all like that! I have NEVER told anyone they were going to hell for their lifestyle.

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged."1 This command was given by Jesus Christ as He was preaching to the crowds on the Mount of Olives. This and similar verses are often cited as proof that Christians should not go around condemning others about their behavior. Is this what Jesus meant when He gave this command? Why does it seem that Christians are always judging others?

As human beings, we all make judgments all the live long day. Often in our everyday judgments, we judge unfairly. For instance if I get a bad meal at a restaurant my first time there, I am apt to say the place is no good and not go back. If not only the food was bad, but the service as well, I may just tell others not to go there. And my experience may have been a fluke; there may have been a problem going on that I was completely unaware of. Maybe the chef called in sick and his assistant was not as experienced or as talented, or perhaps one of the wait staff didn't show for work. However, based on my personal experience, I have judged the restaurant unfairly without ever realizing it. That is how we humans are, we make snap judgments and usually don't look back.

And yet still others like to say------"Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1) is often misunderstood. The verse continues, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged" (Matthew 7:2) It is a stiff warning about judging, but it is not an admonition not to judge.

Matthew 7:3-5 continues, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

So WHO is right and what is the answer to these questions?I have had my share of encounters with Christians or Christ-Followers who are very... more

TheEmpireGuy
added this
9 months ago
|
63 comments

Grafic:Final Pres Debate Veterans Face Separate Trial Dates

In a follow up to the arrest of the Iraq Vets protest at the final Presidential... more

GlobalPunditOrg
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Third party Vice-Presidential debate this Sunday!

Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party VP candidate, Matt Gonzalez, Independent Ralph... more

futuregen
added this
1 year ago
|
1 comment

Nader Makes 21 Speeches in 15 Hours, 'Massachusetts Marathon' Breaks Guinness Record

Ralph Nader made 21 speeches in 15 hours, travelled 365 miles through MA in what has... more

GlobalPunditOrg
added this
1 year ago
|
15 comments

The Best Debate By Far!

Excellent debate held last night in Washington, DC between Independent Presidential... more

futuregen
added this
1 year ago
|
5 comments

Top 8 at Eight 10/19

This weeks top 8 News Headlines and current events are presented in a random and... more

eightimprov
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

The Debates: What we Know Now

The third and final debate . . . and what we learned is that Acorn is destroying the... more

GRITtv
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Upon Escaping From The Crypt Igor

In spite of his numerous failed attempts to catch his prey, Igor insists on his... more

JuliusBC
added this
1 year ago
|
5 comments

Obama '08 Obama Takes McCain in 3!

Mohammed Ali is the ringside announcer for this match. Debates 1, 2 & 3 declared a... more

BluePride
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Prez Race Predictors Video- Obama mistaken for McCain??

Many people think that "other forces" are at work.........

starr111
added this
1 year ago
|
8 comments

Citizens Want Debate Moderators to Challenge Candidate Spin

NEW YORK -- John McCain's supporters seemed happy with the ground rules of the second presidential debate in Nashville. Barack Obama's supporters seemed happy with the results.

A large portion of the questions were his own. "Brokaw's balance of issues received high marks from partisans of both candidates," said Andrew Tyndall of the Tyndall Report, who designed the survey. "And their complaints about bias were in perfect balance, too."

The panel thought that Brokaw's decision not to fact-check the candidates or challenge their spin was a problem: 83% of Obama supporters and 75% of McCain supporters wanted to see more challenging follow-up questions from the moderator.

"Like other moderators before him, Brokaw allowed the senators to avoid answering questions and meander to their own comfort zones," said one volunteer rater.

Republican McCain has long insisted that he prefers the town hall format for political debates. And, according to the panel, his supporters share his preference. Almost half the McCain partisans (48% vs. 24% for Barack Obama supporters) judged the town hall format in Nashville to be superior to the moderated format 11 days ago in Oxford, Miss.

By contrast, almost twice as many Obama supporters in the panel preferred Jim Lehrer of PBS, the Mississippi moderator, over Brokaw (43% vs. 21%) in a head-to-head comparison. After the Mississippi debate, 42% of Obama supporters rated Lehrer's performance as "excellent"; after the Nashville town hall, Brokaw received a lower 28% "excellent" rating from Obama's fans.

Despite the format, Obama's supporters were more likely to say their candidate won in Nashville (92% vs. 76% in Mississippi), whereas McCain's supporters saw no improvement (84% said he won both). McCain's supporters distinguished between their candidate's performance in the foreign policy sequence of the town hall compared with economic and social policy: 92% said McCain won in foreign policy, only 80% and 70% in the latter issues.

Almost half the volunteers in the panel stated that it taught them nothing new (45% of Obama supporters, 55% of McCain's) about their opponent's views, a steep rise from the 29% and 37%, respectively, who said the debate in Mississippi was "not at all" helpful in learning the candidates' stances on the issues.

Brokaw received high praise for his choice of issues. More than half of each group of supporters (64% of Obama supporters, 50% of McCain's) found the questions "extremely" serious and relevant. Brokaw received a "just right" rating from more than half of the members of both groups for his focus on four economic issues -- housing, taxes, the financial crisis and federal spending (62%, 62%, 59% and 59%) -- as well as energy and health care (70% and 74%). He also drew praise as "just right" for his focus on war and peace, terrorism and human rights and genocide (66%, 70% and 65%).

Criticism of Brokaw mostly concerned what he omitted. A majority of both groups complained about Brokaw's lack of questioning on crime and abortion (71% and 70%). Almost all McCain supporters (92%) wanted questions on immigration; almost all Obama supporters (85%) wanted questions on poverty.

There were few complaints about Brokaw's bias toward one candidate or the other. Most of the members of each group of supporters found no favoritism (74% of Obama's, 70% of McCain's); a minority saw evidence of bias, almost always against their preferred candidate.

Although Free Press extended outreach to all parts of the political spectrum, Obama supporters considerably outnumbered McCain's in survey respondents, as they have in our two previous panels. To avoid drowning out the Republican perspective, Tyndall contrasted the ratings of the two groups rather than combining them. Consisting of volunteers rather than a random sample, these results cannot be projected to the population at large.
NEW YORK -- John McCain's supporters seemed happy with the ground rules of the second... more

torybart
added this
1 year ago
|
2 comments

McCain's Tiller Mistake - Right Wing Ideology At The Helm

According to this article, at Tuesday's debate, when McCain used the phrase: "I'll... more

Found_Avenue
added this
1 year ago
|
1 comment

McCain on the danger that climate change opposes

During the second round of the presidential debates, Senator John McCain uttered quite an interesting statement about climate change. Apparently McCain does not understand the difference between oppose and pose. If you read the transcript, it seems John McCain clearly aims to reform English grammar. Please note this this is not an anti-McCain comment, it's just a great quote from a great man. Here's part of the transcript:

MCCAIN: Well, thank you. Look, we are in tough economic times; we all know that. And let's keep -- never forget the struggle that Americans are in today.

But when we can -- when we have an issue that we may hand our children and our grandchildren a damaged planet, I have disagreed strongly with the Bush administration on this issue. I traveled all over the world looking at the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, Joe Lieberman and I.

And I introduced the first legislation, and we forced votes on it. That's the good news, my friends. The bad news is we lost. But we kept the debate going, and we kept this issue to -- to posing to Americans the danger that climate change opposes.

Now, how -- what's -- what's the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power. Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.

Look, I -- I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it's clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.

And -- and I know that we can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel. The Japanese, the British, the French do it. And we can do it, too. Sen. Obama has opposed that.

We can move forward, and clean up our climate, and develop green technologies, and alternate -- alternative energies for -- for hybrid, for hydrogen, for battery-powered cars, so that we can clean up our environment and at the same time get our economy going by creating millions of jobs.

We can do that, we as Americans, because we're the best innovators, we're the best producers, and 95 percent of the people who are our market live outside of the United States of America.

During the second round of the presidential debates, Senator John McCain uttered quite... more

quantisation
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

Poll: McCain's Challenge At Debate Tonight Is Formidable - Talking Points Memo

Here, courtesy of the new NBC/WSJ poll's internals, are some key numbers to chew over... more

khaosworks
added this
1 year ago
|
1 comment

McCain, Obama deal puts limits on "town hall" debate - Lynn Sweet

Barack Obama and John McCain meet for a second debate Tuesday night with a "town hall" format, but a deal made between the camps limits the interaction the candidates will have with the undecided voters in the pool of questioners.

Almost every important detail about the debates -- three presidential and one vice presidential -- is governed by a 31-page "memorandum of understanding." It was collegially negotiated between the Obama and McCain camps and covers everything from how the candidates are addressed to the permissible camera shots.

The campaign pact was worked out by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and attorney Robert Barnett, representing Obama, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Brett O'Donnell, a former debate coach at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, representing McCain.

Tuesday's match-up at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., will be moderated by NBC's Tom Brokaw, with the questions to be culled from a group of 100 to 150 uncommitted likely voters in the audience and another one-third to come via the Internet. The Gallup Organization -- as in past debates like this -- has the job of making sure the questioners reflect the demographic makeup of the nation.

Brokaw selects the questions to ask from written queries submitted prior to the debate, according to the "contract."

An audience member will not be allowed to switch questions. Under the deal, the moderator may not ask followups or make comments. The person who asks the question will not be allowed a follow-up either, and his or her microphone will be turned off after the question is read. A camera shot will only be shown of the person asking -- not reacting.

While there will be director's chairs (with backs and foot rests), McCain and Obama will be allowed to stand -- but they can't roam past their "designated area" to be marked on the stage. McCain and Obama are not supposed to ask each other direct questions.

As in all the debates, the contenders cannot bring in notes, though they can take them once at the lectern.

Sarah Palin seemed to be looking at notes several times during her debate with Joe Biden. Each candidate is allowed to "take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of blank paper that each prefers."

And I'll dub this the "Lazio" rule.

A reason Rep. Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.) lost his Senate bid against Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2000 was when he walked from his lectern to Clinton and demanded that she sign a pledge not to take soft money, he looked like a bully. Anyway, in 2008, the candidates are banned during the debates from moving to the other side -- and from wielding proposed pledges.
Barack Obama and John McCain meet for a second debate Tuesday night with a "town hall"... more

khaosworks
added this
1 year ago
|
0 comments

tagged w/ Debates

Master Debaters: Pot vs Meth

A 'Collision' Of Beliefs: Atheist Vs. Theologian

JCS 2012 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

This is My Plan to Save the Environment

Debate: Creationism 'should be taught in science lessons'

Debate: Is it wrong for Chrisians or Christ-Followers to judge others?

Grafic:Final Pres Debate Veterans Face Separate Trial Dates

Third party Vice-Presidential debate this Sunday!

Nader Makes 21 Speeches in 15 Hours, 'Massachusetts Marathon' Breaks Guinness Record

The Best Debate By Far!

Top 8 at Eight 10/19

The Debates: What we Know Now

Upon Escaping From The Crypt Igor

Obama '08 Obama Takes McCain in 3!

Prez Race Predictors Video- Obama mistaken for McCain??

Citizens Want Debate Moderators to Challenge Candidate Spin

McCain's Tiller Mistake - Right Wing Ideology At The Helm

McCain on the danger that climate change opposes

Poll: McCain's Challenge At Debate Tonight Is Formidable - Talking Points Memo

McCain, Obama deal puts limits on "town hall" debate - Lynn Sweet

current videos

Girlfriend Texts During Football

People Eating Weird Things

Vampires Can Suck It

Prison Contraband

The Stupid Virus

PSA: Stop Clam Jamming!

about current

watch current

the people are talking

the basics

take us with you

tools

stay in touch

© 2009 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved