Remember me
▼ Content

Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?



Page 5 of 6<<<3456>
17-07-2019 02:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We have both already responded, so don't expect us to answer again in there either.


No you didn't, either of you.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
You had no answer at all to that question.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
In the time you just took to reply you could have quoted it.

I do not quote lengthy responses. Pay attention.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe it?

What do you claim is the temperature of Mercury and why do you believe it?


First of all what was your explanation?
Already given. Don't ask again.
tmiddles wrote:
I still don't see where there was one.
Go read our responses again.
tmiddles wrote:
New thread:
venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

You already noted this. Repetition.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm just asking a question. If you can, answer it.
Already did. Don't ask again.
tmiddles wrote:
I don't take my own scientific measurements

Science isn't measurements. Science is a set of falsifiable data. Measurements are a quantifiable observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

tmiddles wrote:
and I'm not a scientist.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
I'm just interested in this topic.



The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:13
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
Into the Night wrote:
Already did. Don't ask again.


It is abundantly clear you don't have an answer but I'll read one if you do.

No one here answered it.
17-07-2019 02:33
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already did. Don't ask again.


It is abundantly clear you don't have an answer but I'll read one if you do.

No one here answered it.



tmiddles, watch IRobot. ITN is the AI that movie is about. His logic is not fallible. He is right because that is what he believes. Therefore his logic can never be falsified.
17-07-2019 02:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already did. Don't ask again.


It is abundantly clear you don't have an answer but I'll read one if you do.

No one here answered it.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already did. Don't ask again.


It is abundantly clear you don't have an answer but I'll read one if you do.

No one here answered it.



tmiddles, watch IRobot. ITN is the AI that movie is about. His logic is not fallible. He is right because that is what he believes. Therefore his logic can never be falsified.


Buzzword fallacy. Logic is a closed functional system, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:43
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
Into the Night wrote:Logic is a closed functional system


Just tell us what your answer is.

UPDATE:
In the other thread
venus-is-hotter-than-mercury
(where it belongs) Into the Night finally answered that he doesn't believe Venus is hotter than Mercury.

See wasn't so hard. Two word answer.
Edited on 17-07-2019 03:30
17-07-2019 05:37
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Logic is a closed functional system


Just tell us what your answer is.

UPDATE:
In the other thread
venus-is-hotter-than-mercury
(where it belongs) Into the Night finally answered that he doesn't believe Venus is hotter than Mercury.

See wasn't so hard. Two word answer.



Some of what you bring up is pretty interesting. With Venus, it's gravity might be greater than 8.87 m/s. This kind of takes astrophysics into atmospheric chemistry and physics. Something would need to contain the atmosphere greater than what allows for our own atmosphere. That's if everything is relative.
When you consider it's velocity and that the solar wind is much stronger and CO2 being heavier, what's keeping it where it is?
Edited on 17-07-2019 05:48
17-08-2019 02:09
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
tmiddles,
As you said, there are those on this website who are wasting everybody's time but what can you do but ignore them? It would be easier to ignore them if they would ignore me.
I'd like to carry on some sensible conversations about climate change.
Another thing - why are they anti climate change. Do they have a financial motive.?
Edited on 17-08-2019 02:11
17-08-2019 02:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Logic is a closed functional system


Just tell us what your answer is.

UPDATE:
In the other thread
venus-is-hotter-than-mercury
(where it belongs) Into the Night finally answered that he doesn't believe Venus is hotter than Mercury.

See wasn't so hard. Two word answer.



Some of what you bring up is pretty interesting. With Venus, it's gravity might be greater than 8.87 m/s. This kind of takes astrophysics into atmospheric chemistry and physics. Something would need to contain the atmosphere greater than what allows for our own atmosphere. That's if everything is relative.
When you consider it's velocity and that the solar wind is much stronger and CO2 being heavier, what's keeping it where it is?

The Sun.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 02:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
tmiddles,
As you said, there are those on this website who are wasting everybody's time but what can you do but ignore them? It would be easier to ignore them if they would ignore me.
I'd like to carry on some sensible conversations about climate change.
Another thing - why are they anti climate change. Do they have a financial motive.?


Yes. I believe in capitalism as the only viable economic system, you see. I also have a political motive. I support the Constitution of the United States.

It's jerks like you that want to overthrow the Constitution and implement fascism (a form of socialism) by oligarchy.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 02:39
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
keepit wrote:
tmiddles,
As you said, there are those on this website who are wasting everybody's time but what can you do but ignore them? It would be easier to ignore them if they would ignore me.
I'd like to carry on some sensible conversations about climate change.
Another thing - why are they anti climate change. Do they have a financial motive.?


Actually my understanding of discussion on a board is evolving. I was actually wrong to accuse ITN and Ibdamann of being trolls and I've since apologized.

It can seem like someone is trolling you when they don't agree with you. Sometimes they are sure.

In fairness I should point out that I'm personally exactly where I started with the issue of "climate change". I think that the events described by it's proponents are technically possible and somewhat true but that the significance and the certainty are grossly misrepresented. I also know from my own searching that there is plenty of good work that can be done to clarify the issue for everyone.

At the very least a lot of people can sound a lot less stupid.

But I'm not a believer that it's a crisis at this point I have to say.

I think it's important to be honest about your initial biases with these things. MOST people end up exactly in the spot they first found so comfortable.
17-08-2019 02:40
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
ITN,
That is a typical post from you - you call me a jerk and say i want to overthrow the constitution.
What a crock.
17-08-2019 03:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
That is a typical post from you - you call me a jerk and say i want to overthrow the constitution.
What a crock.


You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?
1) Overthrow the Constitution and implement socialism.
2) Keep the Constitution and retain a capitalist system.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 03:27
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(973)
keepit wrote:
tmiddles,
As you said, there are those on this website who are wasting everybody's time but what can you do but ignore them? It would be easier to ignore them if they would ignore me.
I'd like to carry on some sensible conversations about climate change.
Another thing - why are they anti climate change. Do they have a financial motive.?


The financial motive, is that it's proposed that we all spend an incredibly large quantity of money, that we just don't have. It's not a small inconvenience either, it's likely to be as devastating, as the predicted 'climate changes', and deadly too. Whether or not we believe, none of us will be around, to see the results.

None of the predictions from 20-30 years ago, things we were assured already happening, ever materialized. Neither ice cap has completely melted, both still have about the same amount of ice. I'm not sure how they are measuring sea levels rising, but there is a lot of coastline around the world, and only a few places being used as examples. Few of the islands, look more like beach erosion, something that's been common here in Florida, for a long time. Most of the tourist beaches, were never natural beaches either, sand was always brought in.

The 'science' is a little sloppy, and plays fast and loose with the principals and methods, normally practiced. The sample sizes are small, extrapolated to planetary scale, yet the don't seem to increase the margin of error proportionally. Proxies and analogs are inherently error prone, yet they derive highly precise values. Nature, and the computer simulations haven't matched up too well, yet, to be at all convincing, there was ever a problem, certainly not on the predicted scale, to match the hype and urgency to spend such a large amount of cash, and transform the world.

I shouldn't need a degree in climatology, to clearly understand what I'm being sold, or see the 'signs'. A crisis, is something you can see, touch, observe in some way. We only have a computer simulation. I've worked with computers enough to know that when you feed it error prone data, the results are going to be full of the same errors. Computers only execute the instructions given, people give the instructions, another level of error.

Personally, I believe fighting the planet is futile, at best, just a waste of time and resources. We are more likely to cause greater damage, than to quickly fix any perceived problem. The population of the world has clearly increased. There was never any accurate method of counting, even the human population. We still don't have that capacity, but the species we can keep track of do seem to have growing populations, even those target as being nearly extinct by now, because of global warming (failed prediction). All these species need food, which we get from plants and trees. Naturally an increase of CO2 is vital, to provide that food. Reducing and removing CO2, as is the goal of climate change, is going to have a immediate effect on the world food production, something every living thing depends on.
17-08-2019 03:39
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
Harvey,
The river (ocean), she's a rising.
17-08-2019 03:40
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
Get real ITN.
17-08-2019 03:47
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The financial motive, is that it's proposed that we all spend an incredibly large quantity of money,


Power and emotional motive to. This applies to any "crisis".

Just ask the question: Would the person pushing this idea be happy to find out they were wrong?

While many claim they'd be happy to find out global warming was a hoax I don't believe them. I think it would be a very bitter pill to swallow.


HarveyH55 wrote:
None of the predictions from 20-30 years ago,


This would make a good post. Cataloging some prediction to reality spreads going back. I wasn't aware of concrete predictions from 20 years ago.

HarveyH55 wrote:
A crisis, is something you can see, touch, observe in some way.


Yes but there are many examples where if you're feeling it you blew it. Hyperinflation for one.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There was never any accurate method of counting, even the human population.


They argument that we cannot be accurate and something is vague. Accurate for what? We can estimate the human population well enough for most purposes.
17-08-2019 03:52
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
The crisis that the UN is talking about is much understood. Many people think that in 12 years or less, severe consequences will ensue.
What the UN means however is that in 12 years or less no matter what we do, the consequences (of the more distant future) will be inevitable.
17-08-2019 09:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
The river (ocean), she's a rising.


How do you know? It's not possible to measure the global ocean level. You have no reference point.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 09:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
Get real ITN.


Buzzword fallacy. You don't even know what 'real' means.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 09:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The financial motive, is that it's proposed that we all spend an incredibly large quantity of money,


Power and emotional motive to. This applies to any "crisis".

Just ask the question: Would the person pushing this idea be happy to find out they were wrong?

While many claim they'd be happy to find out global warming was a hoax I don't believe them. I think it would be a very bitter pill to swallow.

Bingo. There are two penalties for leaving the Church of Global Warming:
1) Admitting you're wrong, and that everything you've been preaching up to that moment is wrong.
2) The utter contempt from other members of the Church of Global Warming will suddenly have for you.

Leaving a fundamentalist religion is never easy.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
None of the predictions from 20-30 years ago,


This would make a good post. Cataloging some prediction to reality spreads going back. I wasn't aware of concrete predictions from 20 years ago.

There have been predictions of total destruction of the Earth due to global warming for going on about 4 decades now.
Before that is was total destruction of the Earth due to global cooling.

It's the same bunch. I used to call them the Global_Ice_Age/Warming/Climate_Change/cooling/warming/Whatever_The_Hell_They_Call_It_Now
crowd.

Now I just call it the Church of Global Warming. It's the same bunch. They are using it to try to push their Marxist agenda forward. Both the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green are descended from the Church of Karl Marx.

tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
A crisis, is something you can see, touch, observe in some way.


Yes but there are many examples where if you're feeling it you blew it. Hyperinflation for one.

Have you ever experienced hyperinflation? It certainly hasn't happened to the dollar (yet).
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There was never any accurate method of counting, even the human population.


They argument that we cannot be accurate and something is vague. Accurate for what? We can estimate the human population well enough for most purposes.

Ah. This comes down to that margin error calculation again. That bit that must be included in any statistical summary.

It answers the question, "How well?".


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 09:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
keepit wrote:
The crisis that the UN is talking about is much understood. Many people think that in 12 years or less, severe consequences will ensue.
What the UN means however is that in 12 years or less no matter what we do, the consequences (of the more distant future) will be inevitable.


I don't give a damn about the UN. Any 'crisis' manufactured by them means nothing to me.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 11:23
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
keepit wrote:
What the UN means however is that in 12 years or less no matter what we do, the consequences (of the more distant future) will be inevitable.


I think it's fair put things in a bit of perspective that those same experts all believe in the Dinosaurs, that there was a mass extinctions and that crazy sh!t went down in Earths history. That seems to be missing from all of the forecasts of doom. We stand a much better chance than dinosaurs.

I think that IF we find there is an issue humans cause on a global scale, if we do actually make some significant change to the entire atmosphere, it's likely well within our ability to change it back.

As it stands the threat is just conjecture. We are not actually dealing with consequences at this time. All is well presently by any measure.
17-08-2019 18:21
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
tmiddles,
I don't think all is well and i don't think it is a good idea to risk the consequences of global warming.
JMHO
17-08-2019 18:31
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
tmiddles,
I don't think all is well and i don't think it is a good idea to risk the consequences of global warming.
JMHO


Then please, by all means show us something not well that is

A) due to increased carbon fuel useage
B ) not a manufactured crisis
C) happening on a global scale

Anything?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 17-08-2019 19:13
17-08-2019 18:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:I think that IF we find there is an issue humans cause on a global scale, if we do actually make some significant change to the entire atmosphere, it's likely well within our ability to change it back.

I'd like to take the opportunity to point out a bit of the Marxist fallacy that corrupts discussions and thought processes and is an obvious red flag indicating bogus conclusions.

Marxism involves a mindset that encourages the projection of one's desires/wishes onto others, legitimizes pretending to speak for countless, unnamed others and which in turn legitimizes in the minds of the affected the use of force to impose their will onto others.

This becomes evident when someone pretends to represent countless, unnamed others and makes third-person arguments in fully first-person pronouns, i.e. "we," "our," "us," etc..

The above claim could not be made by speaking for one's self:

tmiddles couldn't write:I think that IF I find there is an issue humans cause on a global scale, if I do actually make some significant change to the entire atmosphere, it's likely well within my ability to change it back.


Using the Marxist fallacy is all about giving one's self a sense of power and a feeling of inclusion in a greater community, as religions do.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-08-2019 18:39
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
The melting is not "well".
We're ruining our planet with pollutants and CO2.
The river (ocean), she's a rising.
The flooding will cause extreme hardship.
Edited on 17-08-2019 18:43
17-08-2019 19:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
keepit wrote:The melting is not "well".

What about the freezing? Doesn't that balance out the melting?

keepit wrote:We're ruining our planet with pollutants and CO2.

The "pollutants" part I'll buy. CO2 only serves to benefit plants. There isn't any down side to CO2.


keepit wrote:The river (ocean), she's a rising.

Only up until high tide, then she's a lowering.

keepit wrote:The flooding will cause extreme hardship.

Flooding has always caused hardship. Tell me something new.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-08-2019 19:12
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
keepit wrote:
We're ruining our planet with pollutants and CO2.


Takeit,
I have seen you post this exact sentence at least twice now. I would like to know, do you consider CO2 a pollutant?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
17-08-2019 19:42
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
I've heard the discussion about what to call CO2. That gets us into a semantics argument which isn't productive in this case.
You know what my point is - CO2 produces global warming and flooding is just a euphemism for rising sea level.
17-08-2019 21:14
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(973)
keepit wrote:
I've heard the discussion about what to call CO2. That gets us into a semantics argument which isn't productive in this case.
You know what my point is - CO2 produces global warming and flooding is just a euphemism for rising sea level.


CO2 doesn't warm anything, ultimately, it's the Sun. CO2, can only work it's small magic trick, based on how much sunlight makes it to the surface. There real isn't a very high concentration of CO2, to have the global effect it's being given.

The only flooding we see, is from storm activity. If the seas have been rising, from melting ice, we'd see coastal flooding, all around the world, every day at high tide. Considering the vast amount of coastline, and all the small islands, we aren't seeing a 'flood' of reports, on a global scale, of a problem with flooding, related to rising sea levels.

Severe weather, and flooding isn't something new, been going on most everywhere, as long as people settled to observe it. When building a new house, it's common practice to asses the flood risk, and usually haul in some dirt. But, there is also going to be some impact on the surrounding areas, since that storm water has to go some place, and a lot quicker than before. A lot of land is being developed, yet the storm water isn't address as seriously as it once was. The drain systems are able to handle the volume, and usually not as well maintained or upgraded as often as needed. It's barely handles normal weather activity, a little flooding here and there. But, when some of the larger storms, not that rare blow through, it's a damaging problem. Is it cheaper to keep repairing the damage, or spend a lot of tax dollars addressing the problem. Since there is flood insurance, mandatory in some areas, it doesn't cost tax money most of the time. Sometimes, there is disaster relief money though, which again, doesn't come out of the effected area's pocket. In reality, floods are good for the local economy, brings in a lot of money, and people spending it on goods and services, to repair and replace. Even less incentive to fix the actual problem, just throw a quick, cheap, band-aid on it.

Storm water is typically diverted into lakes, rivers, and streams, to eventually flow out to sea. This is in addition to the yearly run off of mountain snow melting, that usually feeds the rivers and streams. It's a long journey, lot of sand, silt, and other stuff carried down the way, with the water. Where the water calms, and no longer has the force to keep moving all that other stuff, it settles to the bottom, building up layers. Generally less resistance for water to go wider, than dig deeper.

People have known about flooding, and use to deal with it pretty well, but no longer wish to spend money on mitigating the effects. How do you figure to get many of these same people to open up the checkbooks, to pay for CO2 mitigation, which isn't doing anything, or likely to in our life time?
17-08-2019 21:38
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
This is a little vague but still understandable - would you rather work less and spend less or work more and spend more?
17-08-2019 22:08
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
There is the United Nations and there is Wikipedia.
And then an anonymous person on the internet, who won't explain their credentials, claims that neither the United Nations nor Wikipedia has any credibility.
Who do you choose to believe?
17-08-2019 22:43
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(973)
keepit wrote:
This is a little vague but still understandable - would you rather work less and spend less or work more and spend more?


Well, I've actually been working a lot less most of this year. The company I work for, opened a second warehouse in Florida, and we gave them a good chunk of or business, as did Alabama and Georgia. We should eventually get new business, to replace those loads, but no telling when. We service mostly convenience stores, there will probably always be a market, and it will continue to grow. The working less part is starting to get a little scary, with the less money to spend. I had a surgery almost a year ago, which took out a good portion of my savings. I haven't recovered enough to afford my insurance deductible, either health, or car. Use to have both covered, and a little extra.
It's getting close to time for my largest bills of the year, car insurance, and property tax. Both, combined would pretty much empty my account. Fortunately, property tax, I've got months, and can wait for my tax return, if needed, longer, if I gamed the system. Right now, I have little choice, in the spending less part. Mostly, I'm stuck paying bills, and trying to hold on to as much as possible. Thinks pop up, repairs, replacements, health issues, most of which costs money, not a whole lot of choice in spending less. Now, I'm nor enjoying having less to spend, lot of things I want to do, need to do, that have to wait, but should be put off indefinitely. Fortunately, I have enough toys to keep me occupied, until I do get some fun money.
17-08-2019 22:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
takeit wrote:
There is the United Nations and there is Wikipedia.

Both are worthless

takeit wrote:And then an anonymous person on the internet, who won't explain their credentials,

credentials are also worthless on a forum.

takeit wrote:claims that neither the United Nations nor Wikipedia has any credibility.

neither has credibility. They are both biased.

takeit wrote:Who do you choose to believe?

neither

Sorry for the brief answers...don't want to argue semantics.



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
17-08-2019 22:51
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
takeit wrote:
This is a little vague but still understandable - would you rather work less and spend less or work more and spend more?


You've missed 2 important questions that belong in the group...

a) would you rather work more and spend less?

b) would you rather work less and spend more. (I choose this one)


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 17-08-2019 22:52
17-08-2019 22:56
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
Gas -
I don't choose "B" or a "A'..
Of course i'm almost 80 and disabled so i don't really have a choice but i know i enjoy this situation more than i did working more and spending more.
Edited on 17-08-2019 22:58
17-08-2019 23:03
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
takeit wrote:
You know what my point is - CO2 produces global warming


I tossed out the Wiki explanation, so you'll have help me out and give me YOUR explanation in YOUR words...

CO2 doesn't warm my soda. How does it warm the earth?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
17-08-2019 23:08
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(305)
The sun warms the earth. The CO2 slows the release of thermal energy from the earth's surface. You can read about it in Wiki under global warming and stefan boltzman i think. You might have to peruse those subjects to get the idea.
Page 5 of 6<<<3456>





Join the debate Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How climate change is sinking an Indian island.317-03-2019 21:17
Stream of thought poem re: London snow storms/Garbage Island002-02-2019 13:41
COP21 - Political Fantasy Island206-12-2015 02:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact