Instigator / Pro
3
1417
rating
27
debates
18.52%
won
Topic

The U. S. Presidential elect is not a measure to determine my safety.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
0
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...

seldiora
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1415
rating
50
debates
26.0%
won
Description
~ 1,422 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

I'm hearing this talk about being safer in such and such's America. If this person becomes POTUS or that person becomes POTUS, you will feel safer or less safe.

Common sense dictates that this is irrelevant. Now the reasons to make such statements are what they are.

To say that this is any person's America like it's one of their possessions is off putting from the start. It shows the frame of mind.

Just like I hear people now , not regularly, talking be safe , be healthy due to this current state of a pandemic like there was nothing to be safe from before.

These are just examples from a frame of mind or minds that don't view things on a whole scale basis. We can unpack this as we progress on hopefully. I'm not looking for any circular so called talking points here.

So granted, you're political, would you argue that my safety is based on oval office administration?

Please comment or send a message for questions and clarity.

Round 1
Pro
The description will serve as the first round.
Con
I will attempt to use the Socrates method to negate the premise, "U. S. Presidential elect is not a measure to determine my safety."

The first problem is the statement, "Common sense dictates that this is irrelevant". In other words, whoever elected will not impact whether you feel safe or not. But obviously this is false. We all know dictators have dominated the past, and therefore the election is then significant; if we could not decide who to be voted, it would be either a chaotic anarchy, or a dictator would take power without our permission, causing massive stress and anxiety among the people, as they did not decide on this person taking power. Now consider, if an insane man took power as president, obviously, you would feel very unsafe. He tells America, "I will launch all the nukes. I will destroy the planet." Surely, now you see the important of electing someone who actually deserves it. 

Secondly, "To say that this is any person's America like it's one of their possessions is off putting from the start. It shows the frame of mind." This statement is a strawman. He assumes that being elected is like saying it is "his America" as in his ownership of the country. That doesn't make sense. When people say "Trump's America", the mean that he has the responsibility to protect it like his family. He has the need to value it as much as he values his personal life. That is why we call it someone's America, not to demonstrate ownership. 

"Just like I hear people now , not regularly, talking be safe , be healthy due to this current state of a pandemic like there was nothing to be safe from before." Could you clarify precisely, precisely what you mean by this? How is it comparable to the president election, exactly? I can kind of understand that different issues are brought to light regardless of who is elected, however, if the President is able to handle it very well, then you would be far less scared. Imagine instead of Trump's response, someone like FDR immediately implemented strong policies to help restrict spread of the virus, and solidly established a base for vaccine distribution. He would be praised and everyone would feel safe. Everyone did feel safe during the Great Depression due to FDR's incredible first 100 days. Clearly, it's a big measurement to determine your safety. 

Remember that contractism is a highly valued political position where people fear for their safety so they ask for people in power to give them protection. The people support the government and vice versa, that's how life works. Pro must negate the idea of a contract in order to win this debate.
Round 2
Pro
"In other words, whoever elected will not impact whether you feel safe or not. But obviously this is false. "

Let me try to help you get in touch with your common sense. Voting somebody into office won't change the way I feel about the unsafe neighborhood I live in. I don't all of sudden feel peace and ultra security.

"We all know dictators have dominated the past, and therefore the election is then significant; if we could not decide who to be voted, it would be either a chaotic anarchy, or a dictator would take power without our permission, causing massive stress and anxiety among the people, as they did not decide on this person taking power. Now consider, if an insane man took power as president, obviously, you would feel very unsafe. He tells America, "I will launch all the nukes. I will destroy the planet." Surely, now you see the important of electing someone who actually deserves it. "

The description has referred to what I hear so we're talking about current events. The current events are the present running candidates we have now. I was saying that no matter which of these candidates that get into office, it won't impact the safety belonging to MY unique circumstances. Why? The presidential elect , adminstration has nothing to do with it , has no contact with it all.


"Secondly, "To say that this is any person's America like it's one of their possessions is off putting from the start. It shows the frame of mind." This statement is a strawman. He assumes that being elected is like saying it is "his America" as in his ownership of the country. That doesn't make sense. When people say "Trump's America", the mean that he has the responsibility to protect it like his family. He has the need to value it as much as he values his personal life. That is why we call it someone's America, not to demonstrate ownership. "

The interpretation of the statement does not take away from topic statement. Just the same, no matter how it's read, you mentioned a duty to protect. Once again, it's your circumstances, your responsibility to protect your home. That's your possession. That's why this "safer in somebody's America" idea doesn't make sense.
No matter who's office, it does not interfere with my home being invaded into. So my individual duty trumps all else, no pun intended.

" "Just like I hear people now , not regularly, talking be safe , be healthy due to this current state of a pandemic like there was nothing to be safe from before." Could you clarify precisely, precisely what you mean by this? How is it comparable to the president election, exactly? "

Just an example of the poor frame of mind society is in. I'm not sure if you understand what looking at the whole picture is but you have to start viewing things in a non-limited point of view. My safety is not dictated clearly by an oval office when someone can come right down the road, rob me and take my life.
Likewise with any infection or outbreak, I'm not just looking at something like that to protect myself from. My view is expanded to all other perils and hazards that can take me out of here. But if you notice , you have to pay attention to people's change in attitude. Being more cautious now with the sanitary products and hygiene where common sense once again should of dictated a lot of these things as necessary practices to be done routinely.

This is what taking things for granted looks like. This is where the idea for that other debate topic came from.

Be sure to get clarity prior to accepting the debate, by the way.

"President is able to handle it very well, then you would be far less scared. Imagine instead of Trump's response, someone like FDR immediately implemented strong policies to help restrict spread of the virus, and solidly established a base for vaccine distribution. He would be praised and everyone would feel safe. Everyone did feel safe during the Great Depression due to FDR's incredible first 100 days. Clearly, it's a big measurement to determine your safety. "

I don't feel less scared as I can get sick and I know people close to me have gotten sick. So no point here except worrying about what's going on in your own backyard. I understand that folks feel better with having a leader because they're SCARED to be a leader unto themselves.

"Remember that contractism is a highly valued political position where people fear for their safety so they ask for people in power to give them protection. The people support the government and vice versa, that's how life works. Pro must negate the idea of a contract in order to win this debate."

This is an illusion. Why is there a police department with 911 operators that come to your aid in a time of protection? The answer is in the question.
The police have an impact on your exclusive circumstances at the moment you're in them, not the oval office.

You'll have to disprove this. You'll also have to prove otherwise, that at the very moment of an attack on the street, that it is not me that utilizes everything I know in defense to protect my welfare.

Remember the the grand scale of things. Safety is in place , not when laws are put in place because we still have crime. But it's in place or determined to be, once we come down to an each and every individual.

Con
pro gives empty and unreasonable claims that no matter what the president does to make him feel safe or unsafe, he will not feel impacted at all. This is ridiculous. Imagine if Biden's dementia and insanity was as bad as republicans really made it out to be. Are you really telling me if he declares he will begin world war 3, you will still feel as safe as you do right now? If he believes in those people who take the black lives matter movement too far, and completely defunds the police, leading to a ridiculous nation where crime is free to run rampant? Pro's statement is as bad as saying the US Congress doesn't matter and impeachment shouldn't even be a thing. Based on pro's thoughts, it wouldn't matter if Biden personally killed people as a mass murderer and caused severe chaos in the nation; he would personally still feel safe regardless of how extreme or how benign Biden is being. He is going down a ridiculous slippery slope and devaluing human security and safety as a fundamental. Regardless of who becomes president, it is assumed that they are of sound mind and will follow the US Constitutional rights of human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But if we allow any presidential candidate to be picked at random, it could be a severely big difference. Consider Andrew Yang's plan to give everyone monthly 1,000$. You would definitely be personally impacted by this and feel at least somewhat financially more stable. As such, it is definitive that president election is a decisive measure of how safe you are. Remember, it doesn't have to be physically safe either. Some people feel their jobs are being taken by immigrants outside the US. When Trump prevents these immigration quotas, do they not feel that their jobs is secure, and hence, they are safe? Now you can see, the president elect with different policies can effect how safe people actually feel.
Round 3
Pro
"pro gives empty and unreasonable claims that no matter what the president does to make him feel safe or unsafe, he will not feel impacted at all. "

My friend, you have to prove that a person makes me feel any kind of way, let alone the presidential administration.

"Are you really telling me if he declares he will begin world war 3, you will still feel as safe as you do right now?"

What does world war 3 supposed to mean to me? Is it a sequel to world war 2?
How do you know how safe I feel? Do you know where I live or what I go through?

This is my point.  STOP looking at ONE AREA which is the law. Don't continue to dismiss personal situations.

" If he believes in those people who take the black lives matter movement too far, and completely defunds the police, leading to a ridiculous nation where crime is free to run rampant? "

Something is incomplete with this segment. I don't get the point but appears naive.

Crime is rampant NOW and since you've mentioned "black lives matter", they're saying in a basic sense, crime is pretty rampant with so called police committing it by killing unarmed folks over and over again. That's PRETTY SAFE , ISN'T THAT SO?

Let me ask, do you believe that you're supposed to look after yourself?

"Pro's statement is as bad as saying the US Congress doesn't matter and impeachment shouldn't even be a thing. "

I call STRAWMAN. I never made any statement to indicate that the law, government , etc. is useless. Be very careful, don't move too fast reading things into the topic statement.

So you can understand, basically the topic gets down to the bottom line, that in terms of safety overall, it's up to the individual person.

Think, think, think, in a home invasion, an attack on the street, I'm my basis for defense. That is at least until I call in for reinforcement.

"Based on pro's thoughts, it wouldn't matter if Biden personally killed people as a mass murderer and caused severe chaos in the nation; he would personally still feel safe regardless of how extreme or how benign Biden is being."

Please PROVE THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

THE DESCRIPTION IS INDICATIVE OF CURRENT EVENTS.

I will advise you to discontinue adding these things in. In either case , you're still responsible for your own life. I got this idea you're a big proponent of welfare. The government just has to take care of you and everything.

"He is going down a ridiculous slippery slope and devaluing human security and safety as a fundamental. Regardless of who becomes president, it is assumed that they are of sound mind and will follow the US Constitutional rights of human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But if we allow any presidential candidate to be picked at random, it could be a severely big difference. "

This is just STRAWMAN out the backside. You're treating this as though I'm saying we ought to not have a system anymore. All I've said was vote who you will for whatever justification you see. But you and many others alike, drop this illusion that you can't defend yourself and that the oval office has to do it.

I don't know how long you've been on this planet but presidential term after presidential term, have you really been tricked into thinking your line of defense weakened or increased due to politics?

That sucks for you because mine didn't.

"Consider Andrew Yang's plan to give everyone monthly 1,000$. You would definitely be personally impacted by this and feel at least somewhat financially more stable."

What does this have to do with safety?

Keep your hands off the goalpost.

"As such, it is definitive that president election is a decisive measure of how safe you are. *

How ?

When I was able to keep a stray dog from attacking me, how am I not the measure of safety ultimately?

"Remember, it doesn't have to be physically safe either. Some people feel their jobs are being taken by immigrants outside the US. When Trump prevents these immigration quotas, do they not feel that their jobs is secure, and hence, they are safe? Now you can see, the president elect with different policies can effect how safe people actually feel."

You're going to have define what "safe" means when you use the term.

Is this point supposed to mean , unemployment is a very unsafe thing ?

I've been unemployed and felt safe as in secure financially. That's because I'M THE MEASURE for setting up a savings account. Not only that but making appropriate financial  and prudent, constructive choices

See again, I'm getting from you, a mentality that has to do with depending on the government.

For the record, there has not been one rebuttal to my points. That is due to them being irrefutable.

I've told you to stop looking in one place such as the law/government. You haven't expressed any views beyond what the law can do moving towards what you can do. As a person, it appears you've given up your individual mind capable of strategizing security and protection to a socialized mind.

Being a provider for yourself, you take accountability, you protect your best interest, you get insurance, you get a 401k, you're independent. All of these avenues are means to protect yourself.

You haven't disproven anything I pointed out. What I've pointed out are innate human entitlements. A right to defend oneself.

You've proven naivety on your part within your position.

Con
pro provides the case that he is the ultimate final line of defense, but a lot of times one person isn't enough to provide a change. He stresses that world war three would not affect him at all, despite the possibility of him being deployed to the front lines, if he is a male above 18. Even if he is not, if we lose WW3, opposing forces would likely occupy the US and the president election would lead to there being no president at all. Pro keeps on asserting that he thinks he is able to maintain a safe facade no matter what policies the president implements, but it was the president who implemented social security, banking security, so on and so forth. Imagine the president outlawed banks. There goes your investment. He takes 100% of you finance when you are trying to invest. There goes your money. And there goes your safety. The people only feel safe because the president gives them a choice and gives policies that are meant to help people. Pro does not think being financially stable is safe, because he already feels safe. But he doesn't think of the fact of the laws that allow him to feel this way. The president is able to implement huge laws, declare war, so on and so forth, all that greatly impact the people in the US. As a result, you inevitably, even if subconsciously, have already felt a bit more safe or bit less safe. Pro cannot know for sure if Trump will miraculously pull a FDR in the second term and revolutionize US to the point where everyone feels much safer, even pro, despite already feeling safe. Pro can't know for sure if Biden isn't as insane as I said and completely removes all law enforcement and turns the world into anarchy, or takes power as a dictator and puts pro into a concentration camp like Hitler did. True, the majority of the presidents are not this immoral, but a lot of presidents have undermined safety by taking away important services and ideas.
Round 4
Pro
"pro provides the case that he is the ultimate final line of defense, but a lot of times one person isn't enough to provide a change. "


Sure that's why I said  I have to take action until I can call in reinforcement. You're agreeing with me on this.

No I don't have the white house phone number .

"He stresses that world war three would not affect him at all, despite the possibility of him being deployed to the front lines, if he is a male above 18. "

I stress you to address me directly. I stress you to explain what world war 3 means to me and to prove your claim of me being drafted and or me choosing to join the armed forces.

Consider this, I'm in a war right now with the local neighborhood gang. In a war on drugs, harassment from so called law enforcement, etc. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DANGEROUS SITUATIONS PEOPLE ARE IN NOW.

YOUR HYPOTHETICALS DON'T HAVE ANY WEIGHT ON THAT.

"Even if he is not, if we lose WW3, opposing forces would likely occupy the US and the president election would lead to there being no president at all."

Please prove all of this. You're making claim after claim, just your opinion. You also have to prove my position has to do with anarchy or the withdrawal of a POTUS position.

"Pro keeps on asserting that he thinks he is able to maintain a safe facade no matter what policies the president implements, but it was the president who implemented social security, banking security, so on and so forth. Imagine the president outlawed banks. "

Please at some point attempt to refute my points.

Do I not have a duty to protect myself? Do you think you don't have a duty to protect yourself?

If you do not answer these questions with a yes or no , it's an indication of CONCEDING the topic statement.

I've addressed your points. You haven't addressed mine so far. It's pretty clear why. You're running your opinion into the ground.

"There goes your investment. He takes 100% of you finance when you are trying to invest. There goes your money. And there goes your safety. The people only feel safe because the president gives them a choice and gives policies that are meant to help people. Pro does not think being financially stable is safe, because he already feels safe. But he doesn't think of the fact of the laws that allow him to feel this way. "

The unproven claims continue. Once more, what does safety mean to you? What is your measure of it? What is it's essence? What does it all encompass? Without explaining all of this, you're just too vague. "The people only feel safe", meaning YOU FEEL SAFE. SAFE MEANING WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

Let me ask and I do expect no answer. You feel very safe having a lot of money in the bank, I'm sure. Somebody robs you, hacks your account, how safe were you? How safe do you feel now that this crime has happened to you?

Let me tell you I feel VERY SAFE with FINANCIAL SECURITY. I'M MORE SAFER THAN YOU. WHY??!! I UNDERSTAND, ACCEPT THAT I HAVE POWER TO PROTECT MY FUNDS AS WELL AS MYSELF.

WHERE THE HELL WAS THE OVAL OFFICE WHEN YOUR ACCOUNT GOT HACKED?

YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO GET THE PROPER INSURANCE AND SECURITY PROTECTION .

THIS CASE IS CLOSED, JUST CONCEDE ALREADY.

"The president is able to implement huge laws, declare war, so on and so forth, all that greatly impact the people in the US. As a result, you inevitably, even if subconsciously, have already felt a bit more safe or bit less safe."

Impacts what people? How were you impacted? Why don't you be specific and stop being so vague? Are you afraid it'll lead you to truth and snap you out of an illusion?

Is this point supposed to mean the oval office controls your life?
I'll ask again in regards to defending yourself. Who is the president of your household?

You're stopping at what the law can do and not looking at what you have to do AGAINST a threat of your home.

You continue to repeat the same points as mine have not been refuted.

"Pro cannot know for sure if Trump will miraculously pull a FDR in the second term and revolutionize US to the point where everyone feels much safer, even pro, despite already feeling safe. Pro can't know for sure if Biden isn't as insane as I said and completely removes all law enforcement and turns the world into anarchy, or takes power as a dictator and puts pro into a concentration camp like Hitler did."

This was pure hari-kiri, just directly crippling your own position. Your position is supposed to be about having a POTUS but these statements say otherwise like we can't trust anybody.

That's a complete 180 my friend. But this debate does prove the mentality of people just as those heard on the radio. That is, programmed to think of the government to be your surrogate parent or parent by proxy or something. The government will expect you to get a job. That's a good reason why there are labor laws. You definitely ought to have a job being a parent yourself unless you're looking for welfare.


"True, the majority of the presidents are not this immoral, but a lot of presidents have undermined safety by taking away important services and ideas."

So was your safety affected during previous presidential terms?

Fortunately mine was not.You can dismiss that, gaslight all you want.

So basically the struggle here with you is that  you can't look pass what the law can do. You're clearly on the side of it being your total, entire , ultimate measure for your safety and well being.

That's inaccurate in a situation where you're walking down the road and an out of control vehicle is headed for you. You have to do something to survive it no matter how many laws are in place.

I believe you know this is true but you deflect.

At the end of the day it comes down to your choices of just how things may turn out.

If it's not up to your ability , the next person's ability involved.

Con
Pro keeps asserting no matter how severe the hypothetical situation it will still not affect his safety. But was it not a president, George Washington who upheld the constitution and gave people their rights? It’s the presidents job to be a model for the country and implement laws, if pro does not think that even the constitution can impact his safety, then we might as well not have any president or laws at all. Our rights are crucial to be human. Pro did not negate this. Vote con.