-->
@Umbrellacorp
Investing only in gold is not diverse
And I clearly said that I dont invest only in gold. Really, you gotta work on those reading skills.
The real reason I am unemployed (life is fair 😁)
Posts
Total:
96
-->
@LucyStarfire
Your welcome!
-->
@Umbrellacorp
You should probably work on educating yourself.
-->
@LucyStarfire
Says...the home-schooled? Or the AI-schooled?
Thanks for the advice freund!
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Well, since you dont know what inflation is, this was easy win for me. Didnt even need to use AI.
-->
@LucyStarfire
Exactely! I don't even know what inflation is.
Silly me to even engage in this conversation with such an intelligent person like yourself. Right?
Sorry freund!
Ur welcome for the lecture anyway!
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Lucy, AKA Best Korea, AKA someone else, but I forgot the name...I'm assuming is an American kid trolling around.
But we play along with their game.
He's Gooooooone!
-->
@FLRW
Until November.
What did they do that was worse than a saucy folk tale?
How long before they reinvent themself.
We should play guess the new name, and first to spot them.
-->
@zedvictor4
That's November 2052!
-->
@FLRW
See Allah.
-->
@zedvictor4
He got banned?
-->
@Umbrellacorp
What did he do?
You called Russia a "shithole", but I grew up there, moved to the US and am now living my dream life. If you do not like your current situation - do something about it; if you do not like your location - move. Sitting on your butt and complaining certainly is not going to get you far.
And do not call other people "retarded" when you are not doing any work and are living off their labor.
-->
@MayCaesar
if you do not like your location - move
Moving requires plenty of money, and its no guarantee of success. Otherwise, simply everyone from my country would move to developed country and live 20x better life, but its not that simple.
-->
@Allah
When I was moving to the US, I had a debit card with $500 on it and a small backpack with a laptop, clothes and documents. And there are people who move with nothing but clothes on their back. Naturally, it is not easy - few things that make life significantly better are - but it is infinitely easier than doing nothing and complaining.
-->
@MayCaesar
Its not a guarantee of success. Some people end up worse or same. And criminal record doesnt help. Also, developed countries dont accept everyone unless you want to be illegal immigrant.
-->
@Allah
There are few guarantees in life. One of them is that sitting on one's butt and complaining instead of taking action is guaranteed to not induce positive change.
-->
@MayCaesar
Change can be worse too.
-->
@Allah
If you think that trying to move somewhere else is likely to make your life worse, then you have no business complaining about your country.
-->
@MayCaesar
Not really, I can still complain.
-->
@Allah
That is all you seem to be able to do. Well, enjoy your unfulfilling life.
-->
@MayCaesar
Well, duh! Not everyone is lucky.
-->
@Allah
Indeed. I am not so lucky as to have the self-awareness of a wet rock, so I can sit on my butt and live off other people's hard work while calling them "retarded" - and think that the way I live my life is acceptable. Life is much harder when you take responsibility for your fate.
-->
@MayCaesar
Of course, I wasnt born in a decent country or decent family. Some people were. Thats called being unlucky.
-->
@MayCaesar
You called Russia a "shithole", but I grew up there
It is objectively shithole. Bad people make bad countries.
-->
@Allah
There are people who are born in slavery in North Korea, who leave and make a killing in life. A whiny coward who lives in comfortable enough conditions to have a stable Internet and be able to drink, eat and sleep without lifting a finger is just that - a whiny coward. Luck has nothing to do with it. Being a whiny coward is a choice.
Wherever you live now, you enjoy better living conditions than the richest kings did 200 years ago. So make something of it.
-->
@MayCaesar
I dont think you know what luck means. Being born in shithole country isnt a choice. So that is clearly unlucky.
-->
@MayCaesar
Wherever you live now, you enjoy better living conditions than the richest kings did 200 years ago
I dont think thats even close to truth, but then again, Russians were never good debaters, as that isnt even the topic. Here, I merely explained why I wont work for 400$, and anyone who agrees to that is the very reason wage is so low.
-->
@MayCaesar
Here, I had AI explain to you why your claim is stupid, your welcome:
To effectively defeat the claim that "poor people with food, house and internet access live better than richest kings 200 years ago," you can employ several debate tactics, primarily focusing on definitions, hidden assumptions, and comparative analysis of "living better".
Here are some strategies based on the provided sources:
- Challenge the Definition of "Live Better":
- Define "better": The core of this claim hinges on the subjective term "live better". You should immediately ask your opponent to define what "better" means in this context. Does it refer to:
- Comfort and luxury? Kings had custom-made clothing, lavish feasts, grand palaces, and countless servants. A poor person, even with a house and food, likely has basic comforts, not luxury and bespoke service.
- Health and longevity? While modern medicine is superior overall, a king 200 years ago had access to the best medical care available at the time, often with dedicated physicians, which would have been far more personalised and attentive than what a "poor person" today might receive.
- Power and influence? Kings held absolute political, economic, and social power over their subjects and vast territories. A "poor person" today has minimal individual power or influence.
- Freedom and autonomy? Kings had immense control over their own lives and decisions, limited only by their will or the threat of rebellion. A "poor person" is often subject to economic constraints, employment demands, and societal pressures.
- Security and stability? While kings faced threats like assassination, they lived in fortified palaces with private armies, a level of security far beyond that of a "poor person".
- Comfort and luxury? Kings had custom-made clothing, lavish feasts, grand palaces, and countless servants. A poor person, even with a house and food, likely has basic comforts, not luxury and bespoke service.
- Expose Incomplete Definitions: Argue that the opponent's definition of "better" is incomplete if it only focuses on technological access (internet) without considering power, luxury, personal service, or control over resources.
- Expose Hidden Assumptions and Premises:
- The claim relies on the hidden assumption that technological access (internet) inherently outweighs all other aspects of a king's life, such as their absolute power, immense wealth, personal luxury, and the constant service of others.
- You can argue that the claim assumes "poor people" implies only the stated benefits (food, house, internet) and disregards other potential difficulties they face, such as economic insecurity, lack of social mobility, or mental health challenges, which were not typically experienced by the "richest kings" of the past.
- Ask for proof for these underlying assumptions.
- The claim relies on the hidden assumption that technological access (internet) inherently outweighs all other aspects of a king's life, such as their absolute power, immense wealth, personal luxury, and the constant service of others.
- Use Comparative Weighing and Counter-Examples:
- Contrast Specific Aspects: Present specific counter-examples to show how the king's life was superior in many aspects, even if lacking modern technology. For instance, compare a king's private chef preparing elaborate meals with a "poor person's" basic food, or a king's vast estates and hunting grounds with a "poor person's" standard house.
- "More" or "Less" Arguments: Argue that while internet provides access to information and entertainment, the quality, scale, and exclusivity of a king's resources (e.g., live performances, personal libraries, tailored experiences) were incomparable.
- Least Extreme Opposite Position: Instead of outright denying the value of internet access, concede that it provides some benefits, but then argue that the overall quality of life, accounting for all factors, does not necessarily make a poor person's life "better" than a king's. You might say, "While internet access offers unprecedented access to information, it doesn't equate to the vast power, personal service, and material wealth enjoyed by the richest kings 200 years ago."
- Resource Allocation: Use the "resources better used elsewhere" argument to highlight how a king's resources were dedicated to their personal comfort and power, unlike the limited resources of a poor person.
- Contrast Specific Aspects: Present specific counter-examples to show how the king's life was superior in many aspects, even if lacking modern technology. For instance, compare a king's private chef preparing elaborate meals with a "poor person's" basic food, or a king's vast estates and hunting grounds with a "poor person's" standard house.
- Negate the Opponent's Premises and Logic:
- Identify Claims and Negate: Break down your opponent's argument (e.g., "Internet provides information, therefore life is better"). Then negate one or more claims within their argument. For example, "access to information via the internet does not automatically translate to a 'better' life if fundamental needs like security, power, and luxury are lacking."
- Contradiction: Look for contradictions in their claims. If they argue "better" means access to all knowledge, but then ignore the king's vast curated libraries and access to scholars, point out this inconsistency.
- "A doesn't negate B": Point out that the existence of food, house, and internet for a poor person today doesn't negate the superior luxury, power, and status held by a king 200 years ago.
- Identify Claims and Negate: Break down your opponent's argument (e.g., "Internet provides information, therefore life is better"). Then negate one or more claims within their argument. For example, "access to information via the internet does not automatically translate to a 'better' life if fundamental needs like security, power, and luxury are lacking."
By systematically challenging the opponent's definitions, exposing their assumptions, providing strong comparative counter-examples, and negating their underlying premises, you can effectively defeat this claim. Remember to save your best counter-arguments for the last round if debating.