I feel like getting into a good debate. Anybody game? My favorite topics are religion, politics and anything that's generally considered insulting or a social stereotype.

i.e. The Two God Theory, the Two Ferry instance from the Dark Knight, the Government Bailouts, a Cross Examination of Racial Stereotypes, the Usefulness of Owning a Mac, Anything Dealing with WWII, the word Ghetto, Gay Rights etc.

I don't care which side you choose, I'll pick the opposite. I just feel like playing the Devil's Advocate

What is your position on the word 'ghetto'?

What's yours? You start, I'll get back in a bit.

I don't live in it.

I find ghetto people to be a lot more laid back, and easier to talk too. That's just my 2 cents.

Alright, to me, the ghetto is an area of low income and poor education due not only to people in power ignoring them but also the people in the ghetto not having either the will or the way to change the environment in which they live.

here is a good debate
why are christians, scientists and generally humanity so eager to figure out how we all die

What with Christians mis-interpreting Revelations (c'mon guys its obviously written by a guy trying to keep the spirits of the anti-roman christian zealots alive, 666 = Nero)

Scientists and their doom theories
Occultists and the Mayan end of calender

its all bs.

what are your views.

this thread is going no where fast, if you wanna debate something pick a topic and hope people reply.
if this doesn't pick up in the next few days i may lock it or like split it up so yeah lol

Debating for the indecisive; sounds like fun.


Humanity’s obsession with it’s own mortality comes from the awareness that death is inevitable for each individual – and humans are able due to comparatively high levels of intelligence and social capabilities are able to articulate these fears in ways that other species are unable to. However, it difficult for one to place there own life in a broader context and outside one’s immediate life there is little experience to draw on – so gaps have been filled with all kinds of weird ideas. Thus people tend to be both fascinated and fearful about the prospects of their own deaths and draw upon what amounts to “coping myths” in order to assuage their fears – at least partially.

However of course many of these explanations have no evidence an amount to a classic case of an “appeal to consequences” – that is people are willing to embrace delusions out of wishful thinking as it is more comfortable than facing a brutal truth. I mean if you think about it, the very expression “life after death” is an oxymoron – if there was still some life afterwards it wouldn’t really be dying now would it?


Well on the word itself I don’t really care for it… I think it’s really poorly used and has entered the vernacular as more trite slang which kind of robs it of meaning. As for what it implies, the idea that certain areas (usually urban) are essentially partitioning off and generally ignored/marginalized as an area of poverty or typically some minority that has been squeezed out and looked down upon by the rest of society. Generally looked down upon by others as taboo places. Not sure that there's really much more to them than that.

I actually look forward to the end of the world. Even if we do bring it upon ourselves, which is probably what's going to end up happening. All I need is a rifle, ammo and a few cases of scotch. The nagging question that I think sticks in a lot of people's minds is the "What if they're right? What if demons do walk through the land and...." and so on. Really now, besides Mickey, who really wants to be raped by a demon?



Who want's to debate the following equation: forum power + abuse = penis envy

He's not abusing his power. Abusing his power would be outright locking the thread with no warning. Hell, he's even offering to split the thread to keep it on track so it can continue on. If you've got major issues with Mickey, take them offline. You all know each other in real life, there's absolutely no sense bringing this animosity into the forum.

Here's a question. Why is it you can't bust someone's balls on the forum without someone else getting upset?

Well frankly sir, there has been quite a bit of Micky busting, so it's natural some of us would come out and stand up for him a bit. Now if there is anyone else, I guess I'm just blind, and that I'm sorry for. Though I didn't come here to answer a rhetorical question, more to debate the other ones.

Now see me? I'd love for the end of the world to be nukes, hell even demons would amuse the hell out of me because that means my thoughts on the subject were half right. No, what would make me want to shoot my own brains out is the idea of zombies actually walking around. Can't stand the idea of them personally, shooting people you called loved ones (as few as some of us may have *coughMEcough*) is just sick to me. Don't even get me started on the 28 Days Later deal of Dr.Who promising women off like he has the right because he has a gun.

Now here is a real debating point, what makes a good end boss in a video game? A reason to kill them? The difficulty in killing them? Personally for me it's a bit of both, I have to have a damn good reason to put an evil SOB in the dirt. Fable 2? If he had been a bit harder to kill? I would have accepted it. See people like Zio from Phantasy Star 4. Hard guy if you're not 20+ in the levels, killed the hero's mentor, and was generally a real prick. Your rebuttal sirs/madams?

Good point on the end of the world. I basically can agree with that. Although I put this to you. Would you kill a love one if they were trying to kill you? Zombie or not zombie.

For me, I don't think a a boss needs a good back story or even much of a reason. It's the challenge of killing the boss that sets it off for me. Take a look at Bioshock. The back story was there as well as a full and well thought out character arc, but the boss was too easy and thus boring. Strafe, wait, shoot and repeat. A good boss will have several tactics with a non-patterned way of fighting. That's the kind of challenge I need. The rest of the game can have the story line and the character arcs, those are incredibly important to the game as a whole, but the final boss can be a mutated hamster for all I care as long as he/she puts up a good fight, even border lining impossible.

I have had to harm my loved ones physically before, not a pleasant experience that I don't want to repeat. So in all honesty? I would let them kill me, or I'd at least have to blow up in a huge thing of fire so we both go and can harm no one else.

Alright, so even near impossible? So it's the thrill of video games in general that keep you coming back sir? Personally my biggest drive in video games these days is the story, which is why 08 has been a bit of a disappointment for me. For instance, in Zoids Assault I was all for military strategy using those toy knock offs in terms of gameplay, but the story dragged it on and actually made the game more boring then it really needed to be. Though I am actually enjoying Last Remnant for all it's fault because it's a full story that I hope doesn't fall flat on it's face.

So yes, the long and short of it, is it challenge that brings you to the games? Or is it the story you hope to uncover?

Now don't get me wrong here, the story is an incredibly important part, however I can play a game with a shitty story if the gameplay is well done. I can't, however, play game with a great story and shitty game mechanics, unless the story is absolutely amazing. The real game killer for me though; the voice acting. I absolutely can not play a game if it has incredibly bad voice acting. Take Assassin's Creed for example. As far as I played, the gameplay seemed fucking great, a bit repetitive though; and the story was decent as far as I could tell, but the voice acting was so terrible that I couldn't play more than the first level. Challenge or not, story or not, I'd rather have scrolling text than bad voice acting.