Some topics for debate:
1. God does not exist
2. Evolution is science
3. Atheists believe it rained on the rocks and the rocks came to life
4. Democracy favors liberalism
5. In America, only landowners should be allowed to vote.
6. It was better when women weren't allowed to vote.
7. God exists in time.
8. The moral argument:
1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist
2. OMV exist
3. Therefore God exists.
9. Racism does not exist
10. America shouldn't have jails.
11. Is the constitution a "living" document?
12. Nobody is entitled to a living wage.
13. The government should be able to tell you how to spend your money.
14. You can't be saved without being baptized.
15. Forced integration is immoral.
Rules of Engagement at the Free Speech Zone (Non PC). UPDATED for 2021
Elite Posters engage in top-level debates. Bottom feeders do not. In this forum, you are either an Elite Poster or a Bottom Feeder.
How To Be an Elite Poster
The Elite Posters will demonstrate by way of top-level debate exactly who they are. No need to name names. The Elite Posters recognize one another.
HOW TO LOSE A TOP-LEVEL DEBATE IN THE FREE SPEECH ZONE
If you fail to respond to a debate post at the top two levels of Grahams Hierarchy, then you forfeit the debate right there and then.
If any post during a debate fails to meet the top two levels of Graham's Hierarchy, then you forfeit the debate.
So if we include anything that is less than top level in our posts, it’s a loss.
TOP TWO LEVELS OF GRAHAM'S HIERARCHY
Q: The top three levels are good quality responses according to Graham's Hierarchy. Why do the Elite Posters have to post only in the top two levels?
A: The second level requires you to <identify the mistake> and respond to it. This forces us to constantly be engaged with the <central points> and it makes the arguments more clear, since the mistake is being identified in every post. Further, this will cut down on the number of posts, thus reducing the "noise".
From Graham's Website - The Top Two Levels
Level DH6 (Top Level)
<DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.>
From Paul Graham's website. Now the next acceptable level of response.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.>
ARE BOTTOM FEEDERS WELCOME IN THE FSZ?
Yes, you can debate at your level, of course, but you will get no respect.
WHAT EXACTLY IS A TROLL?
A troll is one who tries to derail a TOP-LEVEL debate by continuous interrupting.
A troll is someone who fails to respond to relevant question during a debate.
A troll is someone who posts but does not engage i.e. sh-t posting.
<Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement>
Here we will keep track of the debates won and lost, but only top-level debates. The name of the debate will be recorded, the start date and the result, plus the two participants.