Young people do not have good arguments.

Solarman, you've made repeated arguments that youths are inherently unable to make good arguments and that more-over they do not have enough life experience to competently defend a position.

1) Regardless your age, you are unable to make a cogent argument on any subject.
2) Young people quite often have cogent arguments.
3) Attacking people on the grounds of their youth is simply an ad hominem attack.

For example, you are apparently born in 1969 making you nearly 40. You've had a number of debates on this site and outside of one where your opponent stopped replying, you've lost every single one via incoherent rants about Muslims, the ACLU, communists, or some nonsense or other.

I contend that as Instigator, this debate should be decided not on merit but rather on the grounds that Solarman1969 presented *some* cogent argument in favor of the premise.

I am going to center my argument in this case on two points, where young people are clueless , and still they are making cogent arguments

the fact that I have lost all debates here is actually a dage of honor, becuase the voters here are typically kids who are not voting on logic , but simply emotion

The level of attack that I have received is really quite funny to me, and yet it is I wh ohave been reported and order of magnitude higher than anyone else, because only liberals can be offended- conservatives, who are typically older and wiser, have much tougher skins

Here are my two points

(1) Science and Engineering

(2) Politics and History

In both of these areas, it is clear that the younger crowd (especially not yet out of high school and in college) are absolutely clueless, or maybe a bit knowlegeable but essetially ignorant, but willing to spout nonsense and try and sound smart

I know what it is like being young- you think you know everything

But let me tell you , you are a TOTALLY different human being after you have gone through your 20s and enter your 30s

OK

(1) Science

I have started at least three or four debates about energy policy, hydrogen, collidal silver and other topics

I attempted to start a debate with dreaming bearcat, who had repsonded nonsense about nuclear energy, arguing with an 18 year old who didnt have the facts , and she chickened out.

In each case, I was trying to debate with kids who have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

One supposed engineer (self proclaimed_) started trying to talk about fuel cells and the carnot efficiency, and when I quizzed him on both - he had no idea what they were.

One other 22 year old tried to tell me that philosphy was actaully superior to real science and engineering- with a bunch of bloviating nonsense that I simply call mental masutrbation

What this says to me is what I already know, kids these days, and espeically on this site, have not or are not willing to study hard subjects like Chemistry, Physics, and engineering, and become fodder for fools like Al Gore , who come along and tell them the sky is falling.

(2) Politics and History

I have started and have been in many debates on the role of religion, on the threat of Islam, on Bush Derangement syndrome, the war and many other subjects

Typically young folks are fed a bunch of anti-conservative propaganda and buy it hook line and sinker

There is no logic in liberalism- it is all feelings

And futhermore there is a unwillingness on the part of young people to try and learn on any subject- they refuse to read the links I send along, dont send any in return, or in the case of one rude young person- send along pornographic references, and think that is funny

I can go on and on, but I will be wasting my breath since most young people already know it all and are not willing to learn.

(especially liberals)

Happy New Year

a mature debater

I did ask for cogent arguments, and thus far you are disappointing. Although, I'll to the effort to point out your mistakes there in.

I contend that, as a 1996 study found, the ability to understand and perceive incompetence are exactly the skills lacking in the incompetent. I thusly gauge that your ability to declare people clueless may be impaired if you are yourself clueless. To accuse people, myself included, of voting against you on the grounds that they are kids not voting on logic is not a cogent argument. I submit that your arguments typically descend into rants about Muslims, the ACLU, Liberals and Communists. I contend that the voters, whoever they may be, do not view these as cogent arguments on topics ranging from hydrogen economies to the importance of the Bible. I contend that you have been shooting yourself in the foot rather than suffering from a grand conspiracy of teenagers out to get you.

You argue that conservatives have tougher skins due to being older and wiser. I submit that many old conservatives go into hissy fits when told "happy holidays". I contend that this is not thick skin but rather the product of living in a culture where offensive material to older, white, Christian, conservatives has been largely removed from the public square.

You stake your claim on two points, which quite honestly are four points: Science, engineering, history, and politics. I contend that youth in these topics is generally an advantage. For example, studies have found that that the peak years for discovery are between 18-25, after which most people become less productive. For example, Albert Einstein published three papers, proving atomism, laying the groundwork for quantum mechanics, and general relativity all in his early twenties. As he aged he never managed any breakthroughs of equal note.

You have had debate on science topics. I have read these debates and found them wanting. First off, hydrogen is not a very effective alternative fuel for gasoline, you lost the debate that it was... two somebody in his forties with bad arguments himself. You were crushed on the topic of collidal silver because it's unscientific hogwash. It will perhaps turn you blue but it has never been shown to cure anything. You were demolished by a 19 year old whose argument was not only correct by scientifically justified showing an understanding of not only viral anatomy and and the immune system but the working of the FDA when it comes to nonsense.

However, we should be very careful here and note that the very essence of the argument is that young people are inherently inferior. A few people who schooled you in a debate and you claim to have won and that they were idiots, does not count as evidence of this universal claim. Just as having a white cat would not justify my claim that all cats are white.

Al Gore does not say the sky is falling, he says that global warming is real and the science is very much on his side.

You have had a number of rants about Islam being a threat. This may be the case, however your case is poorly made on the subject. And you have thusly lost every issue. Nothing you have said here has any bearing on that.

Young people are not fed anti-conservative propaganda they usually make decisions for themselves and understanding the issues and the morality at play choose to go against the conservative propaganda which typically tends towards incoherent rants.

Liberalism is has a good amount of logic behind a good number of ideas. And though people have feelings towards their positions that is not to be confused with people basing their position on feelings. Further, I contend, a good deal of conservative policies are fueled by hate and fear; last I checked those were emotions.

You have made a number of points about your previous debates (typically incorrect points) and a number of points about liberalism. You have however made no argument as to how your pathetic performance in prior debates shows youths to be incompetent nor have you shown that the arguments for liberalism are incorrect or proved the impossibility that young people can be non-liberal. Which, if one is to argue that all liberals are wrong and all youths are liberals needs to be established.

First round: 0 cogent arguments. 1 offtopic rant.

Your arguments dont hold water

In terms of hard sciences and engineering, you cannot have an opinion without the knowledge

If you dont have a masters or PhD, then you cant argue facts about it

You say I lost the debates on hydrogen and Collidal silver and other science topics simply based on BS "votes" from novices with NO CLUE what they are talking about

I could ask you a number of questions, and you couldnt answer any of them, yet you still have the nerve to say "hydrogen is not a good fuel"

ie

what is a fuel cell?
what is the carnot efficiency?
how do you calculate combsution efficiency?
what is the total energy needed for the transportation sector?

In terms of collidal silver, you say "I was destroyed" by Bearcat

Nothing could be further from the truth

I produced PEER REVIEWED articles proving the effectiveness, and she produced nothingbut government propaganda about an irrelevant and nonexistent condition "argyria" which is total BS

Furthrmore, I saw her propagandizing against nuclear energy- with an 18 year old who coulndt effectively counter her- I challenged her to a debate on the FACTS AND TECNICAL ASPECTS- she chickened out and declined

Bottom line: people without science and engineering background are in NO WAY qualified to debate topics of science and engineering

By thinking you can andn that you are so smart, when you are NOT, YOU LOSE

YOU LOSE becuase you DONT LEARN-

for example, by not listening to me on CS, you will be dependent on expensive and less and less effective sulfa- and other drugs that are NOT as effective at maintaining your health.

and then you say nonsense like this

"Al Gore does not say the sky is falling, he says that global warming is real and the science is very much on his side."

WRONG. MOST SCIENTTISTS DISAGREE ACTUALLY, especially those not PAID to propoagnadize the latest scare - this is case in point

Here are some REAL SCIENTISTS http://www.friendsofscience.org...

next point

Young people are not fed anti-conservative propaganda

Oh please

Public schools are populated by liberals who constantly propagandize against conservatives and republicans

the marxists moved into the colleges years ago- read horowitz' book the 100 most dangerous professors - this is a simple fact

http://info.interactivist.net...)

next point

Liberalism is has a good amount of logic behind a good number of ideas.

name one good liberal idea-

see ya

>>If you dont have a masters or PhD, then you cant argue facts about it

Do you have a masters or PhD? Are you arguing the facts? Personally I think the amount of formal education under your belt is rather moot. I know some people without such degrees who are more than apt when it comes to a number of subjects, even youths.

>>You say I lost the debates on hydrogen and Collidal silver and other science topics simply based on BS "votes" from novices with NO CLUE what they are talking about

I say you lost the debate because you're wrong. Collidal silver doesn't heal anything and nobody has shown it has any benefits at all. The FDA does not allow advertising of the product because there are no scientific reasons to accept any of the claims made about it. Not only is it not a cure for everything under the sun, it's dangerous.

Hydrogen is a good fuel, just not for cars. 2008 should bring around plug in hybrids and from there it's a gradual transition to electric. Saving a few steps between making and burning hydrogen.

>>what is a fuel cell?

A fuel cell is basically an easy and highly efficient way of burning hydrogen but rather than fire it produces an electric current directly usually with a very small amount of heat.

>>what is the carnot efficiency?

Usually pretty high less than unity, it doesn't generally exist but the calculation is pretty useful for comparing the calculation of the efficiency of the idealized Carnot cycle to what your actual heat engine is producing. Somehow I have a striking suspicion you think there are Carnot engines all over the place like PMM floating in the ether of out there.

>>how do you calculate combsution efficiency?

Same way you calculate any efficiency. Work done / Energy used.

>>what is the total energy needed for the transportation sector?

With perfect efficiency very little. You should be able to be nudged and float where ever you intended to go. This damned atmosphere and friction filled ground makes that impossible though. So roughly zero. Everybody in the history of the world could have gotten exactly where they were going on the same gallon of gas. They would simply get there really slowly and were all completely hampered by friction.

>>In terms of collidal silver, you say "I was destroyed" by Bearcat

You were. He brought up several good points and you were completely wrong.

>>and she produced nothingbut government propaganda about an irrelevant and nonexistent condition "argyria" which is total BS

Really? It never exists?

Here's a video of somebody who took Collidal silver and turned blue.
BOOM! WHOOOP! BANG! KABOOM! -- You're owned.

>>WRONG. MOST SCIENTTISTS DISAGREE ACTUALLY, especially those not PAID to propoagnadize the latest scare - this is case in point

Hardly. Go ahead and read the IPCC report. The disagreeing scientists are generally a huge minority and all paid by the oil companies. Feel free to check the union of concerned scientists opinion of the topic of global warming. The core argument is sound. CO2 due to physics reasons traps heat. We are putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is getting hotter. All other potential reasons to explain the heat are woefully unable to do so. Our predictions about the climate change and the increased heating have thus far been woefully underestimates.

....

You really need to actually debate on the issue. Why don't young people have good arguments? What kind of arguments do they have? All young people?

I didn't ask for successful arguments, I asked for cogent arguments. So far outside of some nonsense anecdotal evidence of people who in fact whooped you in arguments you've provided no evidence that young people can't argue. Youth and education are fairly meaningless to the idea of how much you know. There is sometimes a correlation, but the general disregard for the opinions of youth when most of them seem to easily demonstrate superior understanding than you (on this site at least, not a broader claim (I would personally support the broader claim, though)). -- You have done nothing to address the topic.

Why should we disregard the arguments of younger individuals when they make good arguments against your position and you commit a genetic fallacy and say they should be disregarded because of their youth? - What basis do you have here. It's clearly an ad hom, but do you have any basis for a blanket disregard of people on account of age? More so if you consider that the 18-25 time range is the most productive. And if you note that you disregard these young people typically after they *JUST* launched a devastating argument against you is exceedingly telling.

Cogent arguments: 0, Off-topic rants: 3

you easily prove my case here

(1) Do you have a masters or PhD? Are you arguing the facts? Personally I think the amount of formal education under your belt is rather moot. I know some people without such degrees who are more than apt when it comes to a number of subjects, even youths.

So you insult me, although I have a BS from Berkeley in Chemical Engineering and a MS in Mechanical and Chemical Engineering from UH Manoa.

You are both ingorant and jealous, it sounds to me, and you will see how your ingorance is obvious when you try and answer even basic questions of science that I have asked you - VERY BASIC ONES

Ok I go on

>>You say I lost the debates on hydrogen and Collidal silver and other science topics simply based on BS "votes" from novices with NO CLUE what they are talking about

I say you lost the debate because you're wrong

Collidal silver doesn't heal anything and nobody has shown it has any benefits at all. The FDA does not allow advertising of the product because there are no scientific reasons to accept any of the claims made about it. Not only is it not a cure for everything under the sun, it's dangerous

WRONG WRONG WRONG

here are several references, but I dont think you can read, so you will continue to be a pawn of the guvmint.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Prior to 1938, colloidal silver was widely used by physicians as a mainstream antibiotic.[1] It was produced by pharmaceutical companies under various names, including Protargol.

Silver nitrate solutions were introduced by Credé in 1880 to protect newborn infants' eyes from infection.[2],

Concentrations of colloidal silver at 5 parts per million or higher have been found to kill numerous infectious bacteria.[6] Colloidal silver has been approved by the EPA as a disinfectant for hospitals and medical centers.[7]

Heres a technical paper that you arent intelligent enough to read, but maybe someone else will want to learn something

http://aem.asm.org...

Ok , NEXT

Hydrogen is a good fuel, just not for cars.

Ok Expert

Then Why are the germans (BMW) producing and leasing them ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Why is the world turing to hydrogen and the feds spending billions on it?

And aircraft ? no problem.

http://flug-revue.rotor.com...

Space Shuttle ? no problem - its the only fuel that can get us into space because of its high energy density ( 4 times that of JP-4)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And your solution ?

2008 should bring around plug in hybrids and from there it's a gradual transition to electric.

Sorry , but youre never going to see battery powered cars only. The range is too low and the charge times too long.

You need a fuel and a motor

EtOH is a unmitigated DISASTER

Biofuels are a curosity at best and inferior fuels, and problematic

there is NO OTHER ANSWER. WE ARE WASTING TIME DOING THE WRONG THINGS

Hopefully there will be less ignorant people than you who will get it.

-----------Now more of your brilliance-----------

A fuel cell is basically an easy and highly efficient way of burning hydrogen

WRONG. it doesnt burn anything.

here is a fuel cell primer

http://inventors.about.com...

Fuel cells are good for stationary power, bypassing the carnot efficiency

More of your brilliance

>>what is the carnot efficiency?

Usually pretty high less than unity, it doesn't generally exist but the calculation is pretty useful for comparing the calculation of the efficiency of the idealized Carnot cycle to what your actual heat engine is producing. Somehow I have a striking suspicion you think there are Carnot engines all over the place like PMM floating in the ether of out there.

DUH! you sooooooooooo prove exactly what Im talking about

Im not going to explain the Carnot efficiency- you are unable to understand

(it is Th-Tc/ Th )

NEXT FOOLISHNESS FROM YOU

>>how do you calculate combsution efficiency?

Same way you calculate any efficiency. Work done / Energy used.

fairly close, Ill give you a pass

>>what is the total energy needed for the transportation sector?

With perfect efficiency very little. You should be able to be nudged and float where ever you intended to go. This damned atmosphere and friction filled ground makes that impossible though. So roughly zero.

Glad YOURE not in charge of the energy sector

Now you try and go back to the CS argument

Here's a video of somebody who took Collidal silver and turned blue.
BOOM! WHOOOP! BANG! KABOOM! -- You're owned.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

prove any of this BS

show me PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES in SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS that give correlation between dose, PPM, duration, and degree of blemish.

YOU CANT , becuase YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT

Now you switch to the Global Warming BS and show your ingorance and bias

Hardly. Go ahead and read the IPCC report. The disagreeing scientists are generally a huge minority and all paid by the oil companies. Feel free to check the union of concerned scientists opinion of the topic of global warming. The core argument is sound.

BS

Here are the FACTS, and REAL SCIENTISTS FAR MORE QUALFIED that disagree

Dont let them get in the way of your ignorance and bias

http://en.wikipedia.org...

To say that CO2 at 350 ppm is affecting climate is idiotic, especially when water vapor is 10000 ppm, which these "scientists" IGNORE in their "science", which is a much more important regulator of global temperature, BUT NOT TAXABLE BY THE NINNIES WHO ARE TRYING TO REGULATE AND TAX US WITH THIS NONSENSE

here is the best case in point in all of history of ignorance of science among the general populus being expoited the democrats and socialists in order to control and tax us and regulate us into submission

you BREATHE OUT CO2

every green plant on the earth USES CO2 as food

every form of energy from fossil fuels makes CO2

fermentation makes CO2

this is a pollutant? NONSENSE

and furthermore, the proponents like AL Gore the FOOL not only lie through their teeth about facts and have to be publicly corrected

http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

and then hysterically claim there are 600 THINGS that will happen as the earth warms slowly

http://wolfpangloss.wordpress.com...

HEY GENIUS!

Whats more of a threat- COLD or WARM? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

dont you think maybe, just maybe that something might be BETTER is the earth gets warmer?

So (1) CO2 is NOT causing it, (2) it is very slow and (3) it probably is a good thing anyway , even though WE HAVE NO CONTROL over it

This is the preeminent example of how liberals are FOOLED by their demoncat masters- they are told "its for the environment" or "its for the children" etc and they will BUY ANYTHING THEY ARE TOLD

So you have MORE THAN PROVEN your ignorance, and your cockiness, despite your total ingorance, and thus have more than proven my point

Young people do not have the experience and education to be able to rationally argue complex topics (in general)

This is becuase of lack of education, cockiness and disregard for facts, and inability to see their own ignorance

Your silly argument that YOU have posted COGENT arguments is laughable

I laugh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

SOLARMAN