Who needs an argument?

I think testosterone is a poison, debilitating social subtlety and invoking violence. The questionable cognitive benefit in terms of mathematics and spatial reasoning is negligible compared to the social impact of violence and territoriality, especially in modern, monogamous society.

Therefore, being male is a form of retardation and the future will see genetically engineered, IVF, cybernetic lesbians replace humanity as we know it, and I for one welcome the change.

Also, according to the New Testament, it's quite clear that Jesus believed in reincarnation and was totally homosexual.

 

For one week of every month the whole world stops and sits around angry at each other.

 

True, I hadn't considered the threat of cybernetic PMS wars.

 

Nah, I'm not anti-pornography. I just have a soft spot for lesbians.

But I guess I am a radical anarchist feminist. At least I prefer women to men and I can't stand being bossed around.

Ultimately, though, I just like being controversial.

 

You have ten seconds to name a famous female scientist other than Marie Skłodowska-Curie.

 

Lise Meitner. Discovered nuclear fission, but was ignored by the nobel committee and the prize was given instead to her colleague. Unnilennium, also known as ekairidium, was renamed to Meitnerium in 1997 (almost 30 years after her death) in her honor.

 

*yawn* Reverse typical sexism. Not interesting enough.

Jackie Chan!

Wait.......dammit!

 

Okay, you're right, I abandon my position.

It was just the first untenable and absurd opinion I could think of after deciding to start a thread for the explicit purpose of bickering.

Honestly, I'd prefer to have four well-trained Islamic wives and a dozen strong sons to guard my camels.

 

Religion/culture might not be the best topic for an argument. ("Shut up! Yes it is!")

Possible arguments:
- Sony selected some horrible games as compensation for the downtime, and why don't they think of the innocent children who will get their hands on inFamous?

- Old people are a bane of society.

- Forcing monogamy is evil.

 

Those are excellent topics, but the problem may be that people around largely agree on them.

 

Well, energy supply usually provides a rather open field for debates.

-Nuclear power, good or bad?

-Exploration of rivers in search for environmentally friendly energy?

-Should the government force the society to change from fossil fuels to "green energy" or should we let capitalism work on its own?

 

Bad, it stole my lollipop when I was a baby.

That sounds like a dam good idea.

Which government?

Nuclear power might be good as it allows for very clean energy in large amounts (if you use breeder plants, which I believe are forbidden in the USA, so the EU might also be dickish about it, "monkey see monkey do" and all that.)

 

I'm suspicious of green energy. If I believe anything, I believe that there is not such thing as a free anything, least of all free energy. I like the idea of using clean energy sources, but for any gain there has to be an associated cost. For example, hydro-electricity is renewable, but it requires changes to the geography, which impacts natural flora and fauna. Wind energy is an attractive option, but I am paranoid of the undesirable effects that it may have on global weather patterns. To me, geothermal energy seems like the safest option, but again I am paranoid of the unknown costs of that source as well.

 

No-one ever considers the option of quitting electricity and reducing the population by 95% but this seems like the only alternative to extinction.

Ah well, it's better to burn out than to fade away and at least we can rape the whole biosphere to death as we go.

IMO the real pressing question of modern civilisation is what kind of obituary we'll leave for alien archeologists.

E.g., "Here lies humanity. Sorry about the mess."

 

How would one go about reducing the population? Genetically engineered foods that are guaranteed to cause allergic reactions? Super viruses? Whatever it is, it's going to cause another genetic bottleneck from which we have to spring back from. Adapt or die! That is the way of evolution. Whatever happens, there's going to be a race of super-humans to replace us. The Ubermenschen.

 

Ah, yes, the old "Kill everybody" solution to the world's problems.

You know if we kill all the elephants, they won't be endangered any more?

 

Right now, despite our staggering 6.5 billion people, we are endangered. There's not enough water for us. We're running out of land to grow food. We're killing everything around us. We will die alone if something isn't done. On a charred husk of a planet.

 

The theory of evolution also suggests an hypothetical uberbeasty, the Darwinian Demon, ie, a creature with an exponential population growth as well as being an unrivalled predator/consumer.

Such a theoretical beasty is agreed to be unsustainable and will always collapse the food web which supports it. Therefore it is always selected against in nature.

Humanity fits the model perfectly. We are doomed to extinction, or at least some catastrophic bottleneck. But it will be the natural law of cause and effect which does it, not me.