Why Debates are Awesome

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, we are tonight's entertainment!

Just kidding.

So much for entertainment (and the Joker).

But really, that's how it feels whenever I see a TV turned on. The anchors are always really happy, jolly, and they never go over about a minute. And because their coverage is so diverse, they give equal time to what Katy Perry did yesterday and the serial-killer/terrorist who has murdered thousands in a single week.

Really, this is statistical. The ratio of actual facts to commentary has gone substantially down, meaning that actual facts are covered less and less often, with ridiculous and unprovable assertions being the norm.

But that's the problem: it entertains, and that's what I'll cover in another blog post.

But for now, what do we do instead?

To put it simply, we debate.

It's that easy: you find a friend, agree to a resolution, prepare for as long as you feel necessary, and then jump right in. My brother and I do this, and it's super fun. You should try it. Seriously.

It makes you more knowledgeable to the everyday occurrences, and it makes you think.

Try it. Try it just once, and then try it again even if you don't like it. If you still don't like it, then find something you and your friend both care about (preferrably with different opinions) and have a formal debate.

If you can't think of any resolutions, here are some suggestions.

• National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press
• That federal election law should be significantly reformed in the United States
• The United States Armed Forces need substantial change
• The Education system of the US needs significant change
• Restriction of civil liberties for National Security is justified
• The United States needs to stop intervening in foreign wars

That should be enough to get you through.

Seriously, though. Try this. Try this with anyone. Do a formal debate, an informal debate, an argument, anything. Something that will make you think.

That's probably the biggest problem with the general population: they don't like to think. It's hard work. It's time for you (and everyone) to wreck that curve.

Thank you for your time.

Left and Right in the Political Spectrum

Left, Center, Right. What do those things have in common? Well, there are too many similarities, so I'll just tell you about them: they are all words in the title of a game. But you know what else?

It's also part of a political labeling system that everybody uses.

I'll go over it briefly. There's not much complicated about it. (Just kidding, it's one of the most nuanced parts of politics ever.)

Let's start with the left, or liberalism. According to the world's smallest political quiz, "Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded 'safety net' to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business."

For some odd reason, liberals tend to dislike civil liberties. I have no idea why. Either that or they keep mislabeling themselves.

Either way, liberals tend to dislike capitalism, or economic freedom, and prefer personal freedom. Not all liberals are like this, however. If you were to get into an argument with a liberal, ask him his position. It gets confusing.

And then there's the right. I'm skipping the center for now. But the right is conservative. And again, according to the world's smallest political quiz, "They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement."

Okay, I know there are some conservatives who don't fit into this category exactly, but this is pretty much true. Conservatives favor economic freedom, but not so much social freedom.

Let's take a quick review: liberals like personal freedom, and dislike economic freedom. Conservatives like economic freedom, but dislike personal freedom.

Again, not all liberals or conservatives fit into this mold, but that's the standard for each.

Now we take a look at the middle, the most interesting.

Let's start off with centrism. It's a simple concept; centrists are undecided. They like to be open minded, and like "practical" solutions to problems.

Now things get interesting, with the statist. Statists basically say "yes, you're both right" to liberals and conservatives. They like big government. They love it, they thrive on it, because they think it works. Here's what the world's smallest political quiz has to say about them (a lot):

Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.

That's what statists are. All civil liberties gone. Basically, they're fascist; the government must do what it deems necessary.

We get to libertarianism. They agree with statists, but to an extent. This doesn't make sense until we look at the similarities.

According to the world's smallest political quiz, "Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

That's it. How is that like a statist? It's the polar opposite, true. But look at it this way: statists believe that both liberals and conservatives are correct. Libertarians believe that both liberals and conservatives are correct. They just disagree on what's correct about each.

Now the last bit: a recap, and finally, what does each philosophy mean for you personally?

First, we have liberalism. Economic freedom, no. Personal freedom, yes.

Second, we have conservativism. Economic freedom, yes. Personal freedom, no.

Third, we have centrism. Economic and personal freedom, "open-minded."

Fourth, we have statism. Economic and personal freedom, absolutely not. Government should be huge.

Fifth, we have libertarianism. Economic and personal freedom, absolutely. Government should be small.

What does each one mean? Well, all except for centrism and libertarianism, they are all statist, really. They all think government should be in control over your life. They just disagree on the details.

The left is more dangerous to your wallet, because it advocates high taxes. The right is more dangerous to your privacy, because it advocates governments have to know personal matters if they want to enforce them.

The statist is more dangerous to everything. They are fascist, end of discussion. We can see how well that worked out in WWII.

Finally, we are left with the two most interesting, centrism and libertarianism.

Centrism is an odd category. It almost seems that centrists have no philosophy, nothing which they can base any opinions on. If it seems like it will work, they do it. Which is essentially the same thing as statism, only much, much more dangerous, because it's harder to recognize. And because it can justify any power it wants, it can slowly deteriorate into fascism or anything it wants. A bad choice of politics.

That was really long, but finally we get to libertarianism. What does it mean for you?

There are lots of sub-views, but everyone who is a libertarian agrees that we all need to distrust the government. As Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, government is, at its best form, a necessary evil. We have to give it as little power as possible, while still maintaining enough power so that it can do its job. The libertarian knows that there are laws higher than governments, or no political system has any right to say it is the correct system. The libertarian is the best friend of both your wallet and your civil liberties.

I'll let you decide which is the correct system.

Left, Center, Right.

How to Start a Conversation

Imagine this scenario: you are at a party, and you want to talk to someone. Anyone. But you have no idea how to start a conversation. What would you do?

Well, I just gave you a hint. You would give them a scenario.

What does that mean? Basically, you would walk up to someone, ask for their attention, and give them a hypothetical situation they might find themselves in. And then see what their answer is.

Now, it takes a little more than just that. You'll want to have it at least worked out before hand what the scenario will be. But it has worked for me, time and time again, without me even realizing it, until recently.

To make sure conversation really does ensue, you should have some hidden meaning behind it all. For example, I like to use this one.

Imagine you have a gem worth a billion dollars. You want to put it in a bank to keep it safe and to gain interest, so you look at your options. When you look up banks online, you find a high-profile bank, just waiting for you to click on the link. You do, and there is a virtual tour of a bank, to your surprise. You check it out.

On the outside of the bank, you see a sign that says "This is a no robbery zone. All violators will be prosecuted." Already a warning about robbery? Fantastic!

However, as the tour heads inside, you notice that there are no security cameras, and as you make your way to the vault, you find that there is no lock on the vault door, and each safety deposit box is labeled with what's inside. And there are no cameras in the vault, either.

Feeling sure the bank must have missed something, you read the "About This Bank" page. You learn that the bank only occasionally has security guards about once a year, and there really are no security cameras, and there is no lock on the vault door, no locks on the safety deposit boxes, and all the boxes are labeled with what's inside.

Oh, and by the way, this bank isn't insured, and if your gem was stolen, the bank would not pay you.

Would you put your gem in that bank?

It shouldn't take you any more than two seconds. No, of course not! You would look for other options.

Sadly, however, this is the exact state of our public school system. And what's worse is that human life is irreplaceable, unlike the billion dollar gem you had.

And that usually gets me into a conversation about gun control, even with the strictest introverts.

This strategy works. Find a topic you care about, and turn it into a hypothetical scenario. It's a lot of fun, and it's sure to either get you in a debate (be prepared) or a conversation. 

Or, if they really don't care about the world around them (who cares about being informed, anyways?), they will reject you. But I've never gotten that. I can tell when someone would never care. Just walk up to people who you think would care.

Try it. It works. It's fun. Did I mention it works?

Thank you for your time.

Books and Movies: The Difference, and How it Should Affect Your Writing

When you watch a movie, how often do you have discussions with your family about the overall message of the underlying worldviews presented? Often? Fantastic.

And how often do you deeply reflect on the morality presented in the main character's decisions that outlined how a non-christian can be so evil? Not so often? Hmmm, better work on that.

And how often do you have a fight with your brother about the antagonist's hair color? What? Never? Seriously? Wouldn't that be ridiculously hard to discover? Oh, right. Forgot.

Movies put everything in front of you on a screen so there can be no argument. Your mind knows exactly what the characters are supposed to look like. In a sense, like I said in my post about imagination, it "overwrites" your imagination. But with movies, you don't even have to use imagination. It's just there, without debate.

It's obvious what the difference is, but why should you care?

Because it should change the way you write your book. Or not, if you've already figured it out and write accordingly. But think about it this way: your book should have a lot of subtext. Meaning, you need to leave plenty to the imagination.

For example, I have a lot of characters in my book that I don't describe. I might eventually, but not in depth. Why? Because I don't need to. I'll put it in simple terms, and give an example: "he had blonde hair, that waved in the wind like so much wheat in a field on a windy, sunny day, and his blue eyes cut through the night with a radiance of dignity. His nose extended past the end of his face like a mountain, and his cheekbones were sharply contrasting upon the features that were visible in the shining moonlight."

Do I really need much more than just maybe a quick description of him? Like maybe this: "He was hoisted up to his feet and the Captain grabbed a fistful of his hair. 'Brown. Just like Tim.' One of the lads looked closer at him and noticed the scar running down his thin face." That is much better, because it leaves more to the imagination. But I could still potentially do better.

But you don't need some ridiculously poetic/serious description of every inch of his facial features. To the reader, it seems like you're just looking for filler. And here's the thing: if you describe their background and their personality, the reader will automatically assume a look to them.

People sometimes say "I don't judge a person at first glance." They're wrong. Everyone does, whether they like it or not. It's because what you look like is inexplicably tied to your personality. This is what separates the good actors from the great. The great actors know this. Sometimes unconsciously, but they know this. They know that a personality will always look a certain way, and behave a certain way. Good directors know this. The costumes and makeup the actors will wear will be linked to how they act, and what the character is like.

So when you write about how someone behaves, and what type of things they enjoy and think about, you've already given him a look.

For example, this right here would be a plenty fine description: "He was hearty and jolly, although sometimes mean-tempered. He had come from a poor family, but you would never guess from looking at him. Except that his natural face, the one that shone through on occasion and the one that was not quite so thin, had deep lines of sorrow written on it." That might be a little too poetic, but what kind of person do you envision? Do you really think that he needs more than that? Maybe hair color, hair style and MAYBE (I say this almost laughingly) eye color. Think about it this way.

What color are Iron Man's eyes? Loki's? The Hulk's? Sam Gamgee's?

If you know every single one of those, you are an exceptional "noticer." I can tell you how many of these people's eye colors I know: the same number as the amount of times I have walked up to someone and said "you know what, you look like the type of person I would punch in the face in the middle of a debate round." (That would be zero, just so we're on the same page here.)

Let's pick one. I pick Sam Gamgee. I hope you didn't remember his eye color. But how well do you have his image in your head? Pretty well, I imagine. And what color is his hair? Blonde, duh. Everyone knows that (if they've watched the movies). But that's not his defining aspect. If blonde hair is the only thing you remember him for, then you might as well have remembered Thor.

But what about his build? His body type? What he looks like below his head? How well do you think you could describe that part of his body? I'm not sure what your writing skills are like, but I can say that I can't really describe him very well. So I remember him from my memory and what his personality is. See that? His personality is important. Even more so for books.

To conclude, this doesn't just apply to characters; it applies to weapons, to gadgets, to buildings (unless a long description is absolutely necessary), and to pretty much any item. Leave things to the imagination. It will drastically increase the quality of your writing. I know, because I did it. I used to write horribly.

Use this to your advantage and slaughter the competition. Your characters can shine through, if only you don't care so much what they look like on the micro-scale.

Of course, some characters will need to be described physically. In fact, probably your main character does. And here's a little hint: some don't need to be described at all. They just need to appear, and you can cleverly work in bits and pieces of their personality and their physical appearance. That is, if you're good. And you probably are. I don't know many authors who couldn't do this.

Physical descriptions can add to the personality, and vice versa. Just don't spend too much time on the physical. Enough to identify, but not enough to picture as clearly as a person from a movie. Let their imagination do the work. That's one of the main benefits of books: they let you use your imagination! Don't deprive your reader of that joy. Think carefully about your character descriptions. If they're great, they will have the right amounts of both physical and personality descriptions. If they're not so great, they won't.

Make sure the character development focuses more on the personality. How you continue is equally important as how you start.

If you do your characters wrong, it could make your book just like too many other books: boring and unremarkable. You don't want that.

If you do your characters right, they will seem real. Your potential readers will love you for it.

Thank you for your time.

How to Live Your Life (but only sometimes...)

    Hello again. This post is about how to live your life. But only sometimes. As a matter of fact, only on Sunday. I'm not here to tell you that you can't eat nachos or go to sleep on piles of wool socks. But I am here to tell you that Sunday isn't a typical day, and that's where we'll start.

    Sunday was first originated on the seventh day of creation. God loved his work, and He wanted to sit back and enjoy it. He actually sanctified the seventh day, meaning that it was literally set apart. It isn't a normal day. After Christ's resurrection, the Sabbath changed from the last of the week to the first. So the importance hasn't changed, only the day. The day is still set apart by God for God.

    This means that everything we do on a Sunday should be in meditation on God. This doesn't mean that you can't have nachos because you can't focus on God, but it does mean that you can't do certain things. What things? It differs from person to person, but the principle remains the same: glorify God on Sunday. Period, end of discussion.

    Simply, if you can avoid things that will hinder your ability to meditate on God and praise Him, then don't do those things!

    Let me put it in different terms: when you can have "best," why settle for "okay?"

    I'll put it in a scenario, to make it easier for you to understand. Say you want to watch a movie. Not just any movie, but Ender's Game. And, as a little bonus to yourself, it isn't a sin to watch movie on Sunday, and you can even focus on God! (If only occasionally.)

    What's wrong with this picture? Most people would say "nothing." But they would be wrong. Think about what your motive would be when you watch any movie, on Sunday or not: "this will entertain me." The operative word there isn't entertain; it's me. And that's fine. Scripture never condemns entertaining yourself.

    But on Sunday, a day that God created solely to rest and to worship him, I want to watch a movie why? To entertain me. And focusing on God is an added bonus.

    This is the messed up view of Sunday. It is perfectly fine the rest of the week, but not for a day specifically set apart, as outlined in the Fourth Commandment. As David put it in Psalm 119:36, "incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!" Should we not strive to be like David, in his more godly moments? On Sunday, our focus needs to be like David's focus in this passage. Not on ourselves, but on God.

    A lot of activities are fine. And for some, there is no general rule. Others should just be dismissed out of hand. I'll leave it to you to decide what things go under which category. But keep this in mind.

    Take example of Eric Liddell: he loved running. He said many times that when he ran, he felt the glory of God. He went to the olympics he was so fast. But his race was scheduled for Sunday. He refused to run on Sunday, and actually switched places with another man just so that he wouldn't have to run on Sunday. He loved running, shouldn't he be allowed to do what he loves? No. 

    Adam loved working. But he didn't do it on Sunday, because it was a day of rest, a day entirely set aside for God's glory.

    This Sunday, maybe set aside some more time to meditate on God's word and reflect upon his glory. Cut back on the movies, read your Bible some more. But whatever you do, "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8).

    Thank you for your time.

Nye vs Ham: The Epic Debate of Our Time

    You've probably heard about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. They were debating the following resolution: Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

    There will probably be a lot of people who say that Mr Ham won, and a lot of people saying that Mr Nye won. But really, who did win? If you didn't watch it, I'll break it down for you.

    Mr Ham's first case showed us the difference between observational science and historical science, and that we all have the same facts but our interpretation of the facts was different. He continued to say that with Evolution, we can have no laws of logic, we can have no morality, and we can have no laws of physics. He then outlined the most basic problems with the evidence for Evolution, such as the problems with dating methods and the fact that no organism has ever become more complex. And finally, he said that Creationists can be scientists, thus already winning the debate. "Viable" literally means "capable of working successfully." Since he showed that yes, indeed, without Creationism we wouldn't have the MRI (at least not as early as we did) and showed that Creationism and science don't even come into conflict. Well, he won that one already.

    However, he and Mr Nye were debating on two different terms. Mr Nye basically said (to sum it up in a sentence) that if we have Creationists running around in science, we won't advance. Ham had already established (and this, by the way, was a dropped argument) that Creationists can be scientists, and therefore, his whole point about "we will be overtaken by Japan and China if we allow Creationism to run free" was invalid. And he literally replied "I don't know" to the questions "Where did the molecules for the big bang come from?" and "how did our consciousness evolve?" He basically said the same thing that Darwin did. "Well, we don't even know the most basic things about our own religion, but some day someone will find out!"

    I have a question for Mr Nye: what if they don't? What if no one ever finds any good evidence, like the missing link? There are so many basic, fundamental flaws with your religion that no amount of specifics can help.

    And this is why Mr Ham won. He had a groundwork. In fact, he even pointed out that the Evolutionary worldview can have no groundwork. And Mr Nye dropped this point. Completely. Didn't even acknowledge it.

    Is this the only reason? No. I'll put down the dropped arguments by both sides so you can see the ridiculousness:

    Arguments that Mr Nye won (because Mr Ham dropped them):

1. The layers in which we find fossils are even, and no animals are in a layer that they aren't supposed to, thus proving that they evolved
2. Kangaroos could not have traveled from Asia to Australia without any fossil records.
3. The skulls that are intermediate, indicating a missing link
4. Scientists predicted the background noise as a result of the big bang
5. Billions of stars are many light years away, proves old earth

    And the arguments that Mr Ham won:

1. No logic without God
2. There is a difference between historical and observational science
3. Evolution led to racism, but Creationism showed that we all had the same origins
4. No technology required Evolution to build
5. There can be no morality in the Evolutionary worldview
6. There are no examples of any organism gaining more information in its genetic code
7. Dating methods have problems, and even then, 90% of them contradict a billions of years theory
8. Bible is infallible (to which Mr Nye responded "so we're supposed to believe your interpretation of the Bible?" Yes, Mr Nye, you are. He is an expert, and even then, his interpretation of the Bible is not founded on nothing. There is overwhelming evidence in favor of the Bible)
9. No life has ever come from non-life
10. No organism has ever become more complex by itself

    Okay, reading those lists, who won? Oh, and let me refute each thing he said in order (what Mr Nye said; you can't refute any of the main points Mr Ham made):

1. Cambrian explosion.
2. AIG has an answer for that on their website. Floating log mats (alive, not dead)
3. The AIG website has a lot of articles about skulls. They explain them pretty well. Look 'em up.
4. Science predicted the background noise? And that did what do exactly? Make some thermonuclear awesome bomb? No. It just predicted that there would be a background noise. And even so, there's a problem with this "prediction," and it only created another problem for the Big Bang model.
5. AIG has an excellent video on this. Watch it, even if you are a young-earth Creationist.

    So, we can really see that what Mr Nye said has no ground. To the most basic questions, he had no idea, and Mr Ham had an answer. And Mr Ham was forced to debate like Mr Nye (specifics) instead of how Mr Ham prefers to debate (groundwork), and still successfully defended the resolution. And when Mr Nye went over to Mr Ham's way of debating, he completely lost. He was crushed, because you can't have any groundwork for Evolution. There is none.

    So, in reality, although Mr Nye did make some points that weren't addressed, the points that Mr Ham didn't address were much less significant than the points that Mr Nye didn't address. Because the points that Mr Nye made can be refuted. And sure, maybe I forgot some, but he put the nail in his coffin by saying that he wanted to be patriotic. Sorry, Mr Nye, but Mr Ham showed the importance of Creationism, and that it too can do great things, and that if we don't teach it in schools (although he only mentioned it once) then we will not be exercising the freedom of speech that is guaranteed to us as a result of the constitution (he didn't mention this last part, but it was implied). So, Mr Nye lost in all three areas: fundamentals, facts and the resolution (he came the closest on the facts, but even his facts were refuted).

    Thank you for your time.

About Me

    Hi. I've posted a bit recently, and I wanted to let you know about how I will be operating.

    I am one person. I only have my opinion, and the truth (the Bible). I like ranting. I am just like a bunch of other bloggers, except that I won't usually be posting about trivial things like "how to brush your hair properly" (although that is similar to my first post). I like impacting people, because I believe that if I impact even just one person per year in a good way, I am much more helpful to society than a person who impacts thousands in just a couple days, in a questionable way. I am a firm believer in the Butterfly Effect.

    I am a debater, so I can be (correction: am) long winded. I like it that way. It's easy to be long winded. But I also like to have something meaningful to say. So if I start off on the wrong foot, bear with me. My conclusion often does not match up completely with my introduction.

    But what about this blog itself? I won't give you any long history, but I decided that I wanted to post about things I care about. And I will do this about every Wednesday. I try hard.

    Occasionally, I will post more often, or less often. But bear with me, and check about every Wednesday. My goal is to eventually post twice a week. But I'm not there yet.

    That was the shortest blog post yet, so I need a random question. Here goes: do you believe in the Butterfly Effect? If so, has it changed you at all? If not, why not?

    Thank you for your time.