Young people do not have good arguments.

>>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? http://www.youtube.com... 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