Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5272

left wing is better than right wing

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the contender.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1516
rating
9
debates
83.33%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Pro
#1
Forfeited
Con
#2
I have been experimenting with creating a type of online mind on Obsidian and this is my first experiment using Obsidian as a type of brain to write this argument. This is just a test and I do not have enough notes to make this good yet or at least as good as it could be, so wish me luck.

Leftism is the morality of the weak

Leftism is essentially an ideology of weakness. It's collectivist in nature. These people inherently realize their inferiority and seek to collectivize against the strong. This is essentially what Nietzsche refers to as slave mentality.

The leftist sees himself, and perhaps subconsciously as an ugly monster as weak as bad in some way. They have low self esteem. This is why they prefer a group identity. The group identity allows them to feel strong.

They are guided by this ugliness though, so like Ayn rand said,it is not their goal to become strong in an individual sense, however they see strong. It is their goal to make the strong weak.

It's why when they talk about taxing billionaires, there is more energy behind it than when they say "let's help the poor." .

This weakness can be seen in the numerous studies showing that right wingers are more likely to go to the gym[2], be small business owners [3], be happier[1], be more good looking. [4] All things society recognizes as traits to aspire to have.

sources


Leftism is pro Women's Suffrage which has been terrible for influencing public policy

feminism pushed by leftists have done irreparable harm to American society.

Women got the right to vote in America on August 18, 1920. [1] That same year alcohol became illegal, giving rise to organized crime. [2] This was just the beginning of the damage caused to society by allowing women to vote. They just aren’t suited to make policy decisions generally speaking. 

 

WOMEN ARE LIBERAL

 

It’s no mystery that women are more likely than men to lean left on policy issues.[3] I don’t think my opponent will contest this. It’s not only backed up by every study available on demographics of the voting public, but it’s plainly obvious.

 

 They don’t just vote for more liberal candidates but politicians on both sides of the aisle have to pander to the interests of women. This means that normally conservative candidates will have to be account for the female vote by adopting more liberal policies.  I am of course speaking specifically of the pro liberal policies that are seemingly pro women and not all liberal policies. 

 

We’ll get to why this is bad in a moment. We’ll continue talking about a few seemingly unrelated things and then connect them all as we go along. 

 

Risk Compensation

 

Selectinternational.com describes risk compensation this way: “The theory of risk compensation ­suggests people adjust their behavior according to perceived risk. Where people perceive greater risk they act more cautiously. When they feel more protected they act less careful.”[4]

 

This effect has been observed in a variety of ways and is a natural human phenomenon. The effect is especially strong when your perceived level of protection does not apply to other people who your actions could harm.

 

A recent study shows that the perceived safety of SUV causes drivers to become more reckless unnecessarily putting their life as well as the lives of others on the road in more danger. The abstract for this study says: “In this research a model developed by Levitt and Poter (2001) for drinking drivers is applied to assessing the Peltzman Effect of SUVs and Passenger Cars with a set of data characteristics to control for preexisting risk taking behavior. It was found that indeed SUVs pose an externality hazard on passenger cars and that SUV drivers are 2.7 times more likely to cause a fatal crash compared to passenger cars.”[5]

 

Before anti-lock brakes came standard on every car, making braking easier there was a study conducted on taxi drivers. Over a 36 month period of time there was observed a slight increase in accidents on the taxis with ABS systems. Among the civilian cars observed the rate of accidents for cars with ABS and without remained the same, also suggesting a compensatory effect.[6]

 

A study in England showed that motorists would be more cautious passing unhelmeted motorcycles slower and at a further distance than helmeted bikers. [7]

 

You can take on an experiment right now. Go ahead and increase your risk of walking across your house with your eyes closed, and then do it with your eyes open. Were you more cautious when the level of danger increased? Did you walk slower? Shuffle your feet to avoid tripping? 

 

FAMILY MATTERS

 

It’s better for children when families stay together. The median income for single parent homes is $35,000 a year compared to $85,000 for married couples. [8] 

 

The poverty rate for single mother families is 36% which is 5 times higher than for married families. Almosts 32% of single mother homes were food insecure. Meaning they were struggling to even eat or feed their children. 

 

63% of youth suicides are from children in fatherless homes.

 

90% of homeless children are from single parent homes.

 

71% of high school dropouts are from single parent homes.

 

85% of youth in prison come from single mothers.

 

Living in a single parent home doubles the likelihood a child will be abused.

 

71% of teen pregnancies come from fatherless homes. [9]

 

I think we can see from this that keeping families together is good for children which means it is good for society and judging by the poverty rate of broken homes, better for the mothers as well.

 

HYPERGAMY

 

Hypergamy is a theory of mate selection used by adult human females. It refers to the desire of women to mate with men of a higher social status as opposed to the mating strategy of men which prefer women who show signs of fertility.[10]

 

Studies have shown that women who move up in social status report their pool of acceptable partners shrinks, while men report the opposite phenomenon: “As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners decreases". In contrast, 90 percent of men felt that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners increases”[11].

 

Gilles Saint-Paul has argued that female hypergamy happens because of the lost mating opportunity In monogamous relationships due to the smaller windows of fertility. Marriage reduces the likelihood that a woman will become pregnant by the highest status make possible. [12]

 

This is where the redpill philosophy of “alpha fucks Beta Bucks” comes in. Women will seek high quality sperm whether they’re married or not, but want a long term partner to ensure that she and the child is taken care of. If the Beta bucks partner is fooled into thinking the child is his, This works best.

 

There is a simple supply and demand principle at play here that explains why women would marry a lower quality male than they can have sex with. It is because a man can impregnate many women but a woman can only get pregnant by one man at a time.

 

GIRL POWER

 

These things aren’t necessarily occurring at a conscious level. Just like risk compensation doesn’t happen at a conscious level, but science tells us, this stuff is happening with that in mind we can also expect women to pursue politics in a way that molds the sexual market place in their favor.

 

The one thing that in the surface seems better than Beta Bucks Alpha Fvcks would be if you could just screw whoever you wanted without having to deal with the Beta for his money. This is how our current system came into play. 

 

After women gained political power they pushed for laws that allowed alimony to be awarded in no fault divorces. They could now get a cut of their husbands income merely because they got “bored” with the marriage. 

 

A decade after getting the vote, women pushed for laws that would ensure men paid massive amounts of child support so women could go off and apply their hypergamous sexual strategy.[13]

 

It wasn’t long before food stamps were a huge thing and public housing assistance. As we discussed in risk compensation when we give people huge safety nets, it encourages reckless behavior. Women have themselves a bunch of safety nets, ensuring that their hypergamy would not be reigned in by the institution of marriage. A very important institution for the reasons stated earlier. 

 

In 1920 just as women were about to take the reigns of political power, the marriage rate was 12 per every 10,000. Divorce rates were .9 per 10,000.

 

Today marriage rates are 6.8 and divorce rates are at 3.4. The safety nets have certainly caused some risk compensation and subsidized the risky hypergamous behavior of women. This is a detriment to society for previously mentioned reasons. 

 
 

Sources

   
   
   
   
   
7. Walker, Ian (2007). "Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 39 (2): 417–25.
   
   
   
   
11. Townsend, J. M. (1987). "Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of increasing socioeconomic status". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 16 (5): 425–444. doi:10.1007/BF01541424. PMID 3689109.
   
   



Round 2
Pro
#3
Forfeited
Con
#4
I would like to debate this so forgive my opponents forfeit if they decide to return
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet