BEN SHAPIRO IS A WHITE SOX FAN

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 88
--> @omar2345
The nation is made up of people, but the United States could be said to be more of a shared idea between the people.
So basically many people want public healthcare because they like the idea but the Republican party don't want that to happen. 
Are there voices being heard and why isn't their public healthcare?
Since what is right doesn't come from governments constructed by men to serve their people, there may be issues utilizing your philosophy in general.
I am not going to allow you to shift the converddsation in a different direction. Remember when it was about Ben Shapiro being part of the alt-right then you decide to make it about yourself then you decide to change that conversation to about how nationalism or socialism are not on the left and right spectrum. You really do like changing the argument when you know you can't defend the previous ones. 



Surely you wanted to stay with what the forum post initially said but you replied to my statements.
Why is that if you wanted to talk about what the forum was about?
Without you I wouldn't have said more about the topic. 


If the conversation is going to continue shifting from nonsensical ideologies to theoretical reality, idolatry is going to prove detrimental
--> @Snoopy
If the conversation is going to continue shifting from nonsensical ideologies to reality, idolatry is going to prove detrimental
So you can't defend your burden on where this conversation went? Good to know.
Ben Shapiro represents ideas. Did I once mention him by his features or something? I strictly talked about his ideas and how much he is like an alt-right figure. 
--> @omar2345
I'm not defending anything that I know of, so my ability to do so is not ascertainable in the sense of my capacity
--> @Snoopy
So you say to me 
Read the OP
But you didn't even follow it either.

--> @omar2345
So you say to me 
Read the OP
But you didn't even follow it either.

I'm grasping but can't seem to get a grip on the point of this.  I got a kick out of it anyway, since that's basically my first post in this thread after reading the OP
--> @Snoopy
I'm grasping but can't seem to get a grip on the point of this.
Guess I consider this a failure by you. Can't defend Ben Shapiro, can't defend being a nationalist and can't defend whatever the last part of the conversation was about. 

--> @omar2345
Okay, I am sorry for the confusion.  I have just been talking really.  I think of forums as a place for a collection of thought, and that's my general mentality, that is contributing to the forum.  Its of no particular concern to me to be persuasive in this setting.  If you receive a reply in a forum it is probably an archival note, because I am interested in what you have to say for some reason, or because I allot limited time to entertain questions and general interest (something of that general nature).

--> @Snoopy
Okay, I am sorry for the confusion.
Didn't expect that. Sorry for what I did as well. So I would like you to answer questions before we leave this.
Does Shapiro hold views that mostly resembles the far-right which makes him a far right?
Do you understand if you support nationalism you are a part of the far right?
Do you understand people have ideas so basically making a distinction like what you did had no bearing in the conversation? 

--> @omar2345
Does Shapiro hold views that mostly resembles the far-right which makes him a far right?
I would have to establish a better understanding of a right - left paradigm.  I find Ben Shapiro doesn't cater my taste, though what I have watched from him did not seem to be extreme.  
Do you understand if you support nationalism you are a part of the far right?
My understanding in the context I have, is that I am far right on a spectrum of mysterious origin which differs from American norms.
Do you understand people have ideas so basically making a distinction like what you did had no bearing in the conversation? 
I don't know what distinction this is referring to.

--> @Snoopy
I would have to establish a better understanding of a right - left paradigm.
Far left is communism.
Far right is facism.
By the statements made is Ben Shapiro a far right figure.

My understanding in the context I have, is that I am far right on a spectrum which differs from American norms.
I take that as a yes.
I don't know what distinction this is referring to.
You said:
You said precisely that the United States is made up of people.  I have not. 
Even though earlier you said this:
The nation is made up of people,

--> @omar2345
I would have to establish a better understanding of a right - left paradigm.
Far left is communism.
Far right is facism.
By the statements made is Ben Shapiro a far right figure.
Generally Ben Shapiro is supportive of limited government.  Although I wish he would speak more on checks and balances, I don't think its as pertinent in his perspective because he advocates a system with less liability to account for in the government.  I don't understand communism as a coherent philosophy, and I don't think of Ben Shapiro as bordering fascism.  


My understanding in the context I have, is that I am far right on a spectrum which differs from American norms.
I take that as a yes.
I don't consider myself sympathetic to fascism as a sustainable approach to government, so no.  
I don't know what distinction this is referring to.
You said:
You said precisely that the United States is made up of people.  I have not. 
Even though earlier you said this:
The nation is made up of people,

The comma indicates that this is an incomplete sentence.  The full sentence is the best explanation currently available.
--> @Snoopy
Generally Ben Shapiro is supportive of limited government.  Although I wish he would speak more on checks and balances,
If you actually hear him speak he advocates for these positions but never says how he will do it or if he will go against the Republican party in order for his principle like many others conservatives talkers don't vote for someone who doesn't want limited government like Trump. Yes I do know Ben voted for Cruz but even he didn't even say how he will propose "limited government".
I don't think its as pertinent in his perspective because he advocates a system with less liability to account for in the government.
Yeah where he basically said people choose to be poor even though there is something called a poverty cycle.
I don't understand communism as a coherent philosophy, and I don't think of Ben Shapiro as bordering fascism.  
He supports an ethno-state called Israel.
I don't consider myself sympathetic to fascism as a sustainable approach to government, so no.  
You said you were a nationalist which means you agree with the far right.
The comma means its an incomplete sentence
The distinction you made:

The nation is made up of people, but the United States could be said to be more of a shared idea between the people.
Still did not say a nation was made up of people. 

59 days later
--> @omar2345
your evidence claimed that Ben Shapiro saying "rap is crap" is far right.GREAT SOURCE
--> @Dr.Franklin
your evidence claimed that Ben Shapiro saying "rap is crap" is far right.GREAT SOURCE
Anything else or do you have actual criticism against what I said?
It is difficult to argue against someone when they haven't even given an argument. 
--> @omar2345
I did give you a argument? Are you mentally impaired to take logic
--> @Dr.Franklin
I did give you a argument? Are you mentally impaired to take logic
You said this from this:
your evidence claimed that Ben Shapiro saying "rap is crap" is far right.GREAT SOURCE
Just to make sure you can comprehend this because you have trouble with laying out sentences correctly. Clearly seen with "I did give you a argument?" Which should be I did give you an argument. 

This was not an argument against mine. It was simply you stating what my source said. Nothing in here said it was wrong or a wrong metric to call Shapiro far right. "GREAT SOURCE" I think would be sarcasm so was I supposed to argue against your joke as your argument or do you realize you actually don't have an argument? I know you like being contentious (even though you don't even know what an argument is) because you have nothing better to do then going through my past topic posts to find something. Am I really on your mind that much you are willing to spend time to go through my past topic posts to simply engage with me? I would be flattered if you were actually decent to talk too but you are not and with you doubling down on a claim made about what I said instead of what I did wrong really goes to show how much you are out of your depth. I would advise help but doubt you would listen to a "libtard" because you know liberal bad and conservative good is your mantra and you can't go past party lines and realize when someone is right. 

If you brain didn't fully understand what I said. I will dumb down my problem with what you said. You simply stated what is but didn't say what was the problem. Saying what is is not a contention you simply I said this but didn't say what I did wrong. 

--> @omar2345
How is saying rap is crap bad or far-right?
--> @Dr.Franklin
How is saying rap is crap bad or far-right?
Already made a comment on this earlier:
This is mainly used to add more to why they dislike other races. Rap is crap is just a cherry on top of them hating black people. Attack their culture to make it sound reasonable. Rap is part of people's culture whoever listen to it. Just so happens that blacks digest raps more than whites.
This was not done per-capita since it was a survey but I think it would be true per capita blacks digest rap more than any other race.

--> @omar2345
Do you seriously think Ben Shapiro is alt-right. If you do I am happy to debate you on this topic
--> @Dr.Franklin
Do you seriously think Ben Shapiro is alt-right. If you do I am happy to debate you on this topic
Missed a question mark. 

I want you to be taking the Pro side of an argument while I am taking the Con side. I would also like you to start the debate. This would mean I wouldn't debate Ben Shapiro being alt-right because you are not starting the debate instead you are waiving a Round for me to make the claims or asking me to start.

Do you have another topic in mind? 

You can talk about CNN being Fake News. Black Lives Matter being bad or something else. 
--> @omar2345
I get out of school Friday I will start the debate.Three days for argument good?
--> @Dr.Franklin
What is it about? 
--> @omar2345
You do realize that Presidents as far back as Theodore Roosevelt openly endorsed nationalism, right?
--> @Swagnarok
You do realize that Presidents as far back as Theodore Roosevelt openly endorsed nationalism, right?
You do realize people back in the day allowed slavery? Is that a reason to carry on doing slavery? No so make a better argument. You can say slavery does not exist now but what if it did. Would you be for it? If you were against slavery you would say no so this argument applied in a different context means you are not logically consistent. That based on the argument itself not on the context.

Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.
This would of course mean a nationalist would be more of a protectionist than for free trade. No credible economist supports protectionism which can clearly be seen by them disliking Trump's tariffs. I think the reason economists are against protectionism, which would be what a nationalist a for if they remained consistent with what they believe, is due to if the US decides to close the global market. The market will forget about them. China will become an even bigger empire and other countries will profit whereas US decided to leave their trade deals. This would mean countries outside the US will be better off while the US will lose out on market which leads to a worse economy thus not being a leader in the global economy because they wouldn't be in it if we take what Trump wants to its logical conclusion.

I can't believe I typed this all up. It infuriates me that someone asks a question only to not actually want an answer that doesn't confirm their biases. I might not know that but judging with our recent interactions you have yet to give a sufficient rebuttal therefore you have either lack the courage to further defend your point or the courage to say I was right. This scenario will be no different. You will carry on making shite arguments and if I am there you best believe I will keep rebutting even though it might not get through to your thick skull just how bad your ideas are. You are beyond hope not because you are a republican because you are a Christian. I saw your comments about pride month and realized just how far gone you are when you un-apologetically said what you said.
Your non-apology if it was actually an apology. If it wasn't even an apology then I am not surprised: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1894?page=1&post_number=13
--> @omar2345
You do realize people back in the day allowed slavery? Is that a reason to carry on doing slavery? No so make a better argument. You can say slavery does not exist now but what if it did. Would you be for it? If you were against slavery you would say no so this argument applied in a different context means you are not logically consistent. That based on the argument itself not on the context.

This argument could basically be made about anything, though I guess so could whatever I said preceding this. My point was, nationalism is far from a recent, alien development in the American civic tradition. It's been here about as long as anything else. Certainly it predates modern notions of internationalism.
It should be noted also that as far as US Presidents go, Theodore Roosevelt is usually ranked pretty high up there. And, in fact, he was quite liberal for his day.

Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

Nationalism is a very broad concept. It includes right-wing nationalism AND left-wing nationalism. Colonial independence movements were nationalist in character, by definition. It can include aggressive imperialism and isolationism, and pretty much anything in between.

I have a question for you: imagine if a country's leadership, instead of simply acting in accordance with how their constituents voted, decided to, say, spend large sums of money on foreign aid (from the public coffer) and send tens of thousands of that country's young men to go fight and die in some foreign war which did not concern that country's national security. Imagine if they did this simply because they wanted to be buddies with other heads of state and the UN, or because, say, they wanted to win a Nobel Peace Prize or whatever crap.
Perhaps it benefits other countries that such a thing should happen. But the people of that country didn't have a say in it. It was patently anti-democratic. If a populist (nationalist) leader came along and said "Screw what my predecessors did I'm going to put our interests first by no longer doing these things", would that really be so terrible, according to you?

This would of course mean a nationalist would be more of a protectionist than for free trade. No credible economist supports protectionism which can clearly be seen by them disliking Trump's tariffs. I think the reason economists are against protectionism, which would be what a nationalist a for if they remained consistent with what they believe, is due to if the US decides to close the global market. The market will forget about them. China will become an even bigger empire and other countries will profit whereas US decided to leave their trade deals. This would mean countries outside the US will be better off while the US will lose out on market which leads to a worse economy thus not being a leader in the global economy because they wouldn't be in it if we take what Trump wants to its logical conclusion.

This relates to what we were talking about in the other thread. What I said was that Trump was trying to get China to open up its own markets (that is, to stop doing protectionist stuff of its own), and you asked me what would happen if Trump failed in this effort. My answer would be that at some point, if nothing was happening, we'd have to get somebody else in power to negotiate with China to restore the status quo ante bellum (metaphorically speaking).
But we don't know what the outcome of Trump's policies will be. He could legitimately succeed, by doing enough damage to the Chinese economy that the communist regime has to cut a deal to stave off collapse (China operates per the Mandate of Heaven model, in which the Chinese people are only willing to tolerate totalitarian rule so long as the economy's still growing strong). We're taking a chance, but former Presidents were content to allow an uneven trade situation to continue. They weren't willing to try to solve the problem. Trump is at least trying, for which one must give him some credit.

Trump is a businessman who's had fairly extensive dealings with foreign companies and countries. He understands that tariffs and trade barriers are bad for business overall, which is why I highly doubt that his long-term goal is permanent protectionism.

You will carry on making shite arguments and if I am there you best believe I will keep rebutting even though it might not get through to your thick skull just how bad your ideas are.
Good. I'll be looking forward to further discussion.