Total posts: 2,472
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
But do you think there is a potential for there to be?
Technically, there is a potential for everything. However, if the UN says okay to this and we invade, China and Russia would be hypocritical for nuking us for invading since they invaded too (China invaded Tibet, Russia invaded Crimea).
Which is sorta what is happening in the middle east.
I don't think the US invaded the middle east. Otherwise, Iraq would be part of the USA. The US invaded Puerto Rico. The US invaded Hawaii. We did not invade Iraq.
they will be enemy troops and we will have to kill them. From your last posts, i've realized you are okay with some loss of life in order to obtain a better future.
I believe something similar to this. If 1 million African soldiers have to die to save 2 million people per year from various diseases, infant mortality, tribal wars, killing people for being gay etc. I'm fine with that.
Bc i feel the implications of taking over a country and their states is very dangerous.
Russia did it to Crimea. I don't support it since it's Russia that did it. A little of national bias there. But I could cede Crimea to Russia in exchange for invading Africa. I would also be willing to have the US pay Ukraine adequately for the lost territory to repair relationships with Ukraine. Most Crimeans are fine with it after all.
You don't know who you are pissing off
I would piss of the leaders but I hope most of the public is okay with it. If they aren't, they would be once the US fixes Africa up with territory subsidies(TS). They would probably think that independence means an end to the TS so once conquered, they would want to be in the US.
you don't know what effect it will have on our soldiers mental health that they had to kill children
How would it be any different then killing an adult enemy?
we will have to have a long war and a long time our troops staying back to rebuild the country
I don't think the war would be that long and rebuilding the country in a first world fashion would be much quicker then if Africa was on their own to fix their own problems.
I just see too many detriments in starting this war for the "hope" (bc it ain't guaranteed) that we will fix their culture... which is another important point, we are switching culture.
Under American rule, the Africans ideally would be entirely assimilated into American and western culture to help prevent separatist movements and to promote long term peace. I don't mean to like have poor conduct here, but what is the value of keeping a culture? Culture divides people among cultural lines. If the world had one united culture, humanity would be more united. If they lose their culture, what would the ramifications of that be?
That is how a less technologically advanced country fights. They fight dirty, and it doesn't matter how much technology you have when you miss a bomb that takes out your whole crew.
If they fight dirty, and the UN approves of the invasion, the UN probably would give the US permission to fight dirty too. I would want to do minimal damage to make the continent American.
Get volunteer doctors, get volunteer educators, crap, get a campain going that we will give all the people being abused and iPhone or Android with full access to the internet.
That's been going for a while and it isin't effective because most people aren't interested in helping out Africa.
We need to teach them, we need to wake them up... then trust me, they'll fight back themselves.
I don't think many Americans are okay with teaching them stuff because getting to Africa is hard and the pay would probably be very small.
The way you change a culture is by empowering and enlightening its people from the ground up.
Or they just accuse us of being too "western" and ignore anything we say to them. Africa right now hates the west because the west treated the locals badly. If America treats the locals well, they won't want to break away. France colonized French Guiana, treats the locals well now, and now the locals are generally fine with being part of France.
especially through violence since that can only lead to more violence.
In the short term yes. However, I think long term. Violence and TS would make the region less likely to break away.
Created:
-->
@Uther-Penguin
The GOP mascot could be a bald eagle. It represents freedom. I don't know about the left.
Created:
Posted in:
Hello fellow Debaters,
Life got in the way. I have so much to do and I thought this site was a profound distraction. Because of this, I'm leaving the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Since it's impossible to learn two languages.
Unless your born in a bilingual household, it is almost impossible to learn a second language. I hope we have culture unification in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
If Brexit happens, yes.
If the UK has this alternative, Brexit probably will happen.
Aussie and NZ absolutely should have such an arrangement between one another.
They do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That was a long time ago. No Brit alive today was part of the Battle of Hastings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
But when considering the united states as a whole and it's federal laws, the US is general far more conservative.
When factoring in Republicans, this is true. What is more liberal, Europe, or liberal America? I think it's about the same.
For example, from what I understand, typically conservative us states are continuing to attempt to place laws that limit availability and the criteria for abortion.
Both the left and the right want to reduce abortions, and this will reduce abortion clinics. The right ultimately wants to ban abortion or to allow it in rare situations. They also want to overturn Roe V Wade to return the abortion decision back to the states. The left wants abortion legal until 20 weeks unrestricted nationwide. Europe wants to reduce them too, but they have it legal until 12 weeks at the median.
Why anglophone versus countries with extremely high english literacy rates? There's little meaningful difference right?
I'm fine with Norway joining Canzuk. The question is, are Noreigeins okay with it? Since they speak Noreigean as well as English, they might not be willing to join Canzuk on that basis of that culture difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
There are some areas where liberal America is more right wing then the rest of the world like with healthcare. However, in many liberal states, AK 47 and similar guns are banned, many liberals want to place restrictions on free speech, although I don't think any western country has had censoring laws.
There are some areas where the west is more right wing then the American liberals. On abortion for example, America to the best of my knowledge is the only western country to legalize it up until 20 weeks. Most other western countries, it is legal, but only to about 12 weeks and there are restrictions for it (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/in-liberal-europe-abortion-laws-come-with-their-own-restrictions/278350/). I also don't think they would approve of AOC's Green New deal, which provides unemployment benefits to those unwilling to work. This is basically UBI, which only a few countries to my knowledge have tried, and these countries have gone back on it.
For example, is language capability and country richness a criteria? Then why not include the scandinavian countries and germany?
I think it is for Anglophone nations only, and you can't be in the EU to qualify. The only country that might join from the group is Norway. I hope they join, but this would require enough support among Noreigeins. I imagine that this can be obtained.
I think at least the concept of Canzuk should exist partly because most people of all 4 current countries agree to it. The US can join in once it is established. We get tax less trade and open borders with culturally similar countries. For example, we're more culturally similar to Canada then we are to Puerto Rico(PR), and we have open borders with PR.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
What if there was a leaderboard for number of debate comments?
Created:
Posted in:
When there is a mass shooting liberals tend to want more gun restrictions, even though most gun owners won't commit mass shootings.
When there is a terrorist attack, conservatives tend to want more Muslim restrictions, even though most Muslims won't commit mass terrorist attacks.
Lets judge people individually instead of their groups, whether that group is gun owners or Muslims. Like if you agree and applicable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't think we have to be. Canada isn't the monarchy's property. Australia isn't property of the monarchy. Not even the U.K. is property of the monarchy. The monarchy has little to no real political power. All it does is it promises free trade and open borders within all involved countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The criteria could just be you need English as the predominant language of your country and you have to have a GDP per capita above $35,000 per person on average. The countries of Canzuk are liberal, and there are many left leaning Americans. There are also many conservative Canzuk members so we're not super different from Canzuk. The US just has some differences. The Queen is just a figurehead, she doesn't have much power. They therefore should be able to overlook whether or not you recognize the Queen as your head of state. The main comment on that site stated 2 things wrong with the US joining. They were:
-America is more right wing: About half of this country is left wing.
- America will dominate Canzuk. Assuming there was proportional representation, apart from the fact that the UK would dominate the current Canzuk since it's population is higher then all the other countries put together, I found a way for the US to get more representation without dominating Canzuk. The representation is in the following link:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
And do you think the rest of the world would be okay with that? Or, maybe would that cause a world war?
There won't be a nuclear war over Africa since Africa doesn't have nukes. If the UN gets on my(and thett3's) side for this(which I think is actually achievable) then I don't think there will be WWIII.
They sound like scary people huh?
If they are willing to use violence to get in the way of the invasion, then they should get treated like enemy troops and killed.
do we kill the child warriors?
Just like any other enemy solider. I want to kill the enemy warlords because it would be necessary to bring peace to Africa. If the soldiers fight out of fear, then they won't have a reason to fight anymore. If they fight out of loyalty, then killing them will be necessary. More lives get saved in the long term under US rule, and I think you dropped this point, so it would be a net positive for the continent on the basis of life.
What effect will that have on Americans fighting this war?
Since our military technology is superior to the Africans, I think almost no Americans wills suffer death or injury.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Just to be clear, are we talking about realistic scenarios or fantastic ones?
I think the trade would be both realistic and fantastic.
We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.- By invading them instead & killing millions in the process...
We saved way more South Koreans and Japanese from our presence then the alternative of us not being there because communism would have taken over these areas militarily, and China would have caused millions to die.
You mainly suggest an alternative to invasion: investment. The thing is though is that investment is not popular for americans to carry out. If the government encourages others to invest in Africa, only a few people would engage in it.
it's paramount for China to take stronghold there before anyone else.
The US should get there first.
The number one catalyst of authoritarian regimes in the world is the US itself.
The #1 liberator of regimes in the world is the US. We liberated South Korea and Japan from communism. The people there wanted capitalism. China tried to prevent this.
Sand is mostly used for construction.
Maybe where you live (I don't know where you live) but if the sand gets turned into glass, it can be used to make bigger, more valuable buildings in Africa, which would help out the locals.
technology >>> mineral resources.
I don't know if Africa has enough minerals to pay off the $800 billion worth they would have to pay to the US in exchange for $500 billion annually. If they don't, then they can exploit other resources. Africa has a lot of them and this would benefit the USA. Investment won't be popular enough to increase the economy by that much.
who would wanna be a colony
If the locals are getting paid $500 per person on average in the form of jobs and they aren't getting oppressed, why wouldn't they want to be a colony?
I want to have the African areas start out as colonies. As they become more western in good areas, they move up the chain to territory status. If you live in a territory, you have US citizenship. In order to become a US state, you have to meet some economic requirements. The goal is to get the African colonies to become states when they meet some requirements.- This is so impossible on so many levels.
What makes it impossible? Areas have became states before. Most states in the US were all or part of a territory before becoming states.
Once these countries prosper, they can easily take over the US
They won't take over the US if the US already overtook them.
The US is never going to war with China, that's unattainable. Which is exactly why it can not invade allies of China either.
We would win in a war with China over Africa. Nukes won't be used due to Mutually assured destruction. Our military spending is multitudes that of China and Africa put together. China can barely keep North Korea communist, and that's a country bordering China.
Interesting how you dropped my point on human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I think the British Commonwealth should not be a requirement for Canzuk membership.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They are culturally similar Nations that we are dealing with. If Mexico joins, it can cause a separatist movement on the basis of culture. Puerto Rico is culturally different from America and many there want to form their own country. This is without the locals being oppressed.
Created:
Posted in:
Canzuk is free trade and open borders between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Should it exist? If so, should the US and Ireland join it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I mean, crap... we should liberate the whole world.
I don't think the US has the ability to do that and to keep the areas ... yet. I would rather take Africa, liberate, assimilate, and fiscally develop Africa with territory subsidies in exchange for more valuable natural resources, then once that is done, I would want to move on to other areas of the world to annex.
that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will die.
Around 3 Million African and American soldiers would die (as a guess, it might be more, might be less). Once the invasion is complete:
-Millions of homosexuals that would have gotten killed for being gay would have their lives spared because an American ruled Africa would be nicer to homosexuals then some african countries.
-Infant mortality rate plummets, saving an estimated 1.1 million children annually.
-Life expectancy is expected to increase by about 10-15 years, saving about 1 million lives annually.
In other words, the number of lives saved would make up the number killed in less then 2 years.
Are you okay with having Americans be full time police to make sure they don't go back to eating hearts?
I think Africa needs militarized police until the African territories have enough human rights to become territories. Until then, they should be colonies. The only reason why some Africans are cannibals is because they often don't have other options for food. If these Africans are given jobs in sectors such as extracting Africa's natural resources, and if they get paid $15 an hour or so, depending on their job, then these Africans won't have to resort to cannibalism for food. Some sample jobs that they could have are:
-A miner in the southern portion of the continent. This gives the US minerals.
-A lumberjack in the Congo area. This gives the US wood that can be used to enhance American cities. It also makes way for farmland, so less Africans are starving and so food is more common.
-A sand miner in the Sahara. These people mine sand to be turned into glass that helps modernize Africa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Finally, someone who agrees with me on this issue. I thought it was my idea. Turns out I was wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Who likes to be tied up and turned into a slave?
There would be no legal slavery in an American owned Africa.
Africa is pretty messed up from all that cannibalism, that's why they need the US to liberate the oppressed Africans that are oppressed by other Africans. The US benefits economically.
They also have a lot of AIDS. This can be fixed with extremely rigid sex rules and by prohibiting anyone with AIDS/HIV from engaging in sex. If even some people obey the law, the spread of AIDS would be lower then if no one obeyed this due to the law not existing.
Some kid said that they had no help. Under American rule, this would change as they would get territory subsidies in exchange for natural resources that would benefit the US.
bc what you'll see is it's the older guys that have matured that aren't eating each other anymore. But that same guy preaching in the end of the video use to eat people's hearts.
If they continue to murder and eat each other under US rule, they would be severely punished, either with the DP or life in prison with daily torture.
Good luck taking power from a lion when it looks at you as the deer.
The US is not the deer and Africa does not see the US as the deer. We're the tank. Africa is the deer by comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I think we should make all drugs legal and regulated.
I agree as of right now, with a tax to bring in revenue for the federal government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
The people who kill dozens of people, like the Christchurch shooter can get tortured 3x a day or so for the rest of their lives with some method, but what if you only murder 1 person by a gunshot? If you murder 1 person from a gunshot, is waterboarding too torturous? Or would death by firing squad be a sufficient punishment for the crime?
Created:
Posted in:
I auto did my tournament on various factors. I'm 2nd in my group of 11 so I think it's working.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I think it's because the media hates Christianity and loves Islam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I had Gonzaga winning the whole tournament. Who did you have winning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Insults aside, do you own sources of alternative energy? If not, your advocating for fixing something that not even yourself fixes. This is hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Hey man, watch some documentaries on Africa.
Can you provide some links?
Africa spends $50 billion on it's collective military, the US spends close to $700 billion. We can beat them. I imagine some innocents and soldiers would die but the amount of lives that get saved by American influence would surpass the number of lives lost due to the initial invasion. Here are a few ways lives would be saved:
1: The infant mortality rate would plummet.
2: AIDS influence gets reduced.
3: Gays who would have gotten killed would be saved. There are around 100 million LGBT there, whether in the closet or out. Those that come out get killed and painfully.
They love it.
I am pretty sure they don't live living off of $2 a day for their lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
It is not alarmist if it is truth.
AL Gore said we have only 10 years left to live in 2006. 13 years later, AOC said that we have 12 years left in 2019. The left is crying wolf.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It's illegal to kill for a religion in the west.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I did CTRL+R and it didn't work. I don't know what assets cache means. Does it mean to refresh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
you'd have a select few who actively try to get their 15 minutes of fame by killing someone in order to fight a lion on national TV.
I doubt many people, even by these small rare standards would be willing to die by getting eaten by a lion just to be famous for 5 minutes. Their name doesn't have to be mentioned, but merely his crimes. The crowd would be cheering for the lion and it would be bad for the prisoner. The prisoner would be very scared. If preferred, it doesn't have to be broadcasted.
Exactly. Where is the appeal in knowing that if you murder someone, you'll be stuck in a prison cell actively getting tortured and having your life prolonged in order to continue a painful existence
I mean to the typical person, they wouldn't be interested in watching some murderer in prison because it's boring. If there was a channel dedicated to murderers in prison, I doubt it would be popular for people to watch. This means that deterrence would be minimal. As harsh as life imprisonment is, they get used to it and they adjust to life there, so they aren't really suffering a lot for their life, they are just being tortured slightly until they adjust. Plus, doing that to prisoners, even murderers will inevitably get called "inhumane" by liberals and murderers from this might get treated comparably to other prisoners as a result. There are already people who want solitary confinement abolished for all crimes. Executing them one way or another, if done multiple days after the court case, would give the prisoners time to fear for their lives.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Good roast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I noticed that there is a bug on the debate section of this website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I noticed that one of my comments doesn't go in in a forum. I think this is a bug in the site's programming. I think my problem is similar to RM's problem with the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
Why are you scared of simply ceasing to exist?
Because life is extremely valuable. Almost no one wants to die. It is why murder is among the worst single crimes you can commit. Taking it should have a very strict punishment.
Unless you believe in an afterlife that may be characterized by people spending an eternity in hell for simply not believing in the right God(s), there's nothing to be scared of other than the fact that death can come at any moment and cut your life short.
I personally believe in an after life and I hate God because he burns most people in hell. This is a tangent though.
IMO that should be reserved for non-violent offenses, etc.
What is IMO?
The ideal sentence for someone convicted of murder, if your aim is to put them through a painful ordeal and to dissuade others from murdering, is to simply torture them for life, broadcast it if you wish, as opposed to a public flogging or whatever that leaves them dead in a short period of time.
If not broadcasted, no one sees the solitary confinement, so deterrence is not maximized. If broadcasted, there are 2 objections I see to this:
1: Who is willing to see some murderer in prision? It's just not entertaining for the average person to watch. Watching them get painfully executed, or eaten by a lion or something will deter many more people from committing murder and would help pay for the execution via ticket sales.
2: Any cameras in the cell ruins the whole point of solitary confinement which is to be as isolated as possible. Once the murderer discovers the cameras, he would be happy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
So the question remains, if a muslim is walking down the street and I walk past him and I say to him "Go back to your own country you terrorist", how does this help in anyway?
If someone calls a Muslim a terrorist, the Muslim could demand proof. If their religion is cited as evidence for terrorism, the muslim could accuse the perpretrator of moving the goalposts since most muslims don't commit terrorism. From there, they could have a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace. Then both parties learn something. So free speech is helpful, even when applied to the KKK because it allows both parties to learn about the other. Both people get more informed as a result of free exchange of ideas.
I mean.. free speech and harassment aren't mutually exclusive. And once you admit that it is harassment then it's just a matter of determining of whether that harassment is appropriate.
What is the difference between free speech and harassment in a political context?
And while you may not like it, the majority does rule.
If whatever the majority says is what the laws should be, then http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ states that most Americans support hate speech legalization. So this means that the KKK are allowed to hate on the blacks, that Westboro is allowed to hate on the LGBT community and so on. They should be allowed to do this. This is America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
“Is it purchasing land or invading territories that you seek? These are two very different approaches.”
“The US has shown very little non-oppression tendencies so far”
We prevent the oppression of 180 million East Asians(South Korea and Japan) by preventing these areas from being communist by other invaders.
“The only realistically possible way this could happen is if these countries carry out referendums subsequent to which the supermajority must approve of the US sovereignty over their territories through negotiated settlements”
If the US promises to help the region and to make it 1st world from a fiscal perspective and has a legit plan to achieve this, then they probably will sign on. If they don’t(low chance), they’ll get invaded and helped out anyway. I don’t see the Africans rejecting US citizenship (under some situations).
“Why not just invest that $500B into all sorts of infrastructure & trade & industries to modernize the continent to gain a market worth much more than $800B”
That is the basic plan. The US would invest $500 billion into the continent. They just want something in return for this. China is offering low interest loans and is basically giving money away with nothing in return. They only invested $60 billion in the continent. Under my plan, the US would invest more in jobs such as cutting down trees in the center of the country to make room for farmland. If you live up north, their money may go towards installing solar panels to give the Africans cheap to free electricity. If they live down South, a combination of alternative energy and minerals could be where the investment goes.
“But as you said, invasion is the only thing the US is good at.”
When have I said that? The US is good at protecting certain regions from authoritarian regimes.
“Case in point, you are American, your first solution was to invade... The truth is, the US (or Europe) do not want a strong Africa (or China or anybody), never have.”
If Africa was part of the US, the US would want Africa to be strong.
“If that wasn't the case, the US can easily invest into the infrastructure of Africa & reap the benefits for decades to come.”
The US doesn’t invest in Africa because Africa is not part of the US. I mean there are food drives, but those barely help. A $500 billion annual investment in exchange for more natural resources would benefit both parties.
“Of course it is, two thirds of US FDI stock (foreign direct investment) to Africa is in mining”:
“India was a colony, the Indians were never part of the kingdom.”
Most of Africa would start out as colonies. Exceptions would be countries that provide enough rights to their locals. The requirements for this are unknown, but places like South Africa would be territories instead of colonies, which give them more rights within congress such as more representation and better trade deals.
“So, you want to invade African countries to make them into colonies but not American citizens?”
I want to have the African areas start out as colonies. As they become more western in good areas, they move up the chain to territory status. If you live in a territory, you have US citizenship. In order to become a US state, you have to meet some economic requirements. The goal is to get the African colonies to become states when they meet some requirements.
“It is very obvious that if the US tries to invade an African country, the latter would take recourse with China to push out the US.”
I think the US would win against Africa even with China allying Africa. China can barely win in the Korean peninsula, let alone a different part of the world.
“instead they get excess currency in aid, which as you said is no help”
Under the current status quo, the foreign aid barely helps because there is not a lot of foreign aid going there. However, with $500 billion a year, this would help the continent develop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
Couldn't you view life in prison as worse than being executed for murder?
I'm pretty sure that living anyhow is better then not living at all.
One could view it as putting a demonstrably dangerous person out of their misery as they have no chance of redemption, they are too far gone and there is no chance of them being reintegrated and rehabilitated into society.
I think most murderers don't regret their decision to murder. I know most mass shooters kill themselves but out of the murderers, I don't think most kill themselves.
Plus, many people kill themselves to escape justice or the feeling of guilt after committing crimes like murder, so idk if them dying really is worse than life in prison.
I'm very scared of death, so I personally would rather have an air conditioned cell and 3 meals a day then to get executed if I were a murderer. If dying were not as harsh as life imprisonment, then a majority of murderers would commit suicide. Yet most don't.
A lifetime in solitary confinement would be stronger than simply removing someone from existence.
I don't think the typical murderer knows just how painful it is, so it's not much of a deterrent. If executions are public and broadcasted, and the murderers die a painful death, and it's told that they were a murderer, then it would deter murder by a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
if justice is more important than revenge then we can dismiss an eye for an eye as irrelevant as that is simply retribution not reasoned justice
An eye for an eye is a form of justice. There are alternative forms, such as what anti-death penalty advocates want (generally life imprisonment for murder and in some countries, murderers aren't even in jail for the rest of their lives), but to the best of my knowledge, tDP is the superior form of justice because it can be cheaper if done in a profitable way and it saves more innocent life according to some research that I did.
Which of these two aspects of your argument would you like to examine next?
Out of my 2 arguments that it is cheaper under some situations and it saves lives, you can analyze either one.
Created: