Total posts: 332
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Why didn't anyone else think of that?
Probably because they're too busy depending on these minimum wage laws that try to artificially make them more valuable instead of finding a way to make their labor more valuable, or because they aren't saving their money right or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Mrs Trump is a freaking immigrant, send her back like you want done with all immigrants.
She is a legal immigrant.
We need to send back the illegal ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
the ability to raise a family to whichever standard the law holds families.
The ability to raise a family consisting of how many people? 1 kid? 3 kids? 8?
Also, how does the law determine what kind of "standard" it "holds families" to?
That's what I meant when I said you were too vague.
the main costs that families face are medical costs, housing, food, and clothing
The costs of all 4 of those things can vary, depending on many factors. How do you establish a "living wage" that is enough for a family of 1 child to afford these basic things, while not setting that wage too high to the point where businesses have to reduce hours or fire employees?
It is guided by advances in scientific knowledge, not demand for labor.
It can be sped up when there is a demand for labor.
This would hold water if wages had kept pace with productivity over the last century. They haven't
Then the worker whose wage isn't keeping up with costs should find a way to earn more money, like maybe get a career that pays more or something.
the surplus value of labor is kept by the employer, so the employer would still be profitable if they paid their employers more.
Not all employers "would still be profitable" if they were forced to pay employees more. When you raise the minimum wage, businesses that can't afford to pay more will have to fire workers, reduce hours, raise prices of goods/services to compensate, or simply close down. Then, future potential entrepreneurs would be deterred from opening up new businesses to create jobs because they would not be able to afford to pay a minimum wage that's too high for them.
Even if an employer would still be profitable if they paid more, that decision to pay more should still be theirs, not the government's.
If you raise all minimum wages, then that 'bottom' simply rises.
You know what else would rise?
Unemployment, because some employers would have to fire workers that they could no longer afford to keep paying.
Inflation, because some people would have to raise prices of their goods to compensate.
Think about it. You're being paid 2 dollars an hour, you work 5 hours a day, you make 10 dollars a day, but you have to spend 6 dollars on basic needs, leaving you with 4 daily dollars as profit. Then the minimum wage rises to 4 dollars, so you earn 20 dollars day, but then you have to pay like 15 or 16 dollars for those basic needs, still leaving you with a small amount of money.
Another example: You're being paid 1 dollar an hour, you work 2 hours day, leaving you with 2 dollars. If the minimum wage goes up to 2 dollars, I just reduce your hours to 1 hour, so you are still left with 2 dollars daily.
It's basic maths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@bsh1
@Barney
@Speedrace
@PressF4Respect
What is all this? What am I supposed to do here? Why are users naming each other?
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Did Billbatard just get banned for discussing gun violence?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
@bmdrocks21
I guess RationalMadman could join the moderator team, and maybe dustryder and OurBoatIsRight can join them too since they seem to be suitable for the task, but we can't "fire" anyone just yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
This is still too vague. When you say "to raise a large family," does that include having enough money to pay for those kids' private school and/or college, buy them fancy clothes, and take them out to Red Lobster and/or Disney Land every once in a while, or is it just simply having the bare minimum amount needed to ensure that they are living?A living wage is enough money to raise large family.
Literal slavery didn't stop the automation wave of the industrial revolution.
Even if this is the case, increasing the minimum wages also still contributes to automation, since you can no longer hire someone below the minimum wage, but you still need someone to do that low wage work, so you find a way to put a robot to do that work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
You can't promote "a living wage" because living wages vary from family to family. My living wage could be 10 dollars an hour and that could be all I need to get by, while a neighbor on the other hand may need more money since you might have to take care of kids or whatever.
What's consumer debt? Are you talking about student loan college debt?
What is a debt jubilee? Is that cancelling debt?
The reason automation is displacing so many jobs in the first place is because of minimum wage increases, forcing businesses to fire employee that they can no longer afford to keep paying, and then replace them with those robots.
Created:
-->
@billbatard
I'm busy at the moment. I can't do any new debates.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I just debated this person on this very topic and won. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1373/gun-control
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's the same logic as saying, "if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have dressed like that and gotten drunk".
No it's not because 1) rape is against the law, while having immigrants come to the border, request asylum, and go through the entire asylum process is not against the law, and 2) rape can happen to just about anyone, while detention only happens to those who come to the border.
Plus, many of these migrants were offered asylum in Mexico, but they turned it down. https://web.archive.org/web/20190501234316/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/migrant-caravan-members-reject-offer-stay-mexico-n925171
ARRIAGA, Mexico — Several thousand Central American migrants turned down a Mexican offer of benefits if they applied for refugee status and stayed in the country's two southernmost states, vowing to set out before dawn Saturday to continue their long trek toward the U.S. border.
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto announced what he called the "You are at home" plan, offering shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs to Central Americans in Chiapas and Oaxaca states if they applied, calling it a first step toward permanent refugee status. Authorities said more than 1,700 had already applied for refugee status.
But after one of the caravan's longest days of walking and hanging from passing trucks, the bulk of the migrants were boisterous Friday evening in their refusal to accept anything less than safe passage to the U.S. border.
"Thank you!" they yelled as they voted to reject the offer in a show of hands in the town of Arriaga. They then added: "No, we're heading north!"
Other people's actions don't give you permission to abuse them.
This is either true or false, depending on which "actions" we're talking about, and what you mean by "abuse".
Yes you can argue that a woman's actions of dressing attractively does not automatically give a criminal legal permission to rape and abuse them, but no you cannot argue with a border agent about whether or not your actions of coming to the border and trying to get into this country give them permission to do their job and detain you so you can go through the process.
He cozied up to Kim Jong Un (said they were in love). He cozied up to Rodrigo Duterte ,a man who says he'd be happy to to murder 3 million drug addicts. Trump considently praises him and the direction he's taking his country. There's also Xi from china, Erdogan from Turkey, Putin from russia etc.
I'm pretty sure he just doesn't want any conflicts with them, so it makes sense to try and make peace with others to avoid potential conflict, doesn't it?
He's seriously pissed off mexico. Called Canada a national security threat. He leaked classified info Israel gave the US without asking them.
How did he upset Mexico, and where did he call Canada a national security threat? In a tweet? In a youtube video?
What classified info did he leak?...... wait never mind. It's classified, so neither you nor I would actually know that, heh!
Also what "mountains of evidence" are there that there was Russian interference/collusion?
I'm also pretty sure his tax plans have helped us, not hurt us, even though the plans aren't perfect and may have flaws. http://archive.fo/VYrsA
I have never seen any evidence from her that she is particularly smart, has any morals or even that she isn't a criminal.
How does one provide "evidence" that they are "particularly smart"? Do you want her to show you her middle school, high school, and/or college test scores or something? Do you need her to take an IQ test and mail you the results?
If she was a criminal, don't you think she'd be put on trial for it, or be locked up for it by now? Do you want to put her through a background check or something to confirm that she isn't a criminal?
There are still unanswered questions about her involvement in potential crimes related to the inauguration committee.
Don't you think it's better to wait until somebody answers these "unanswered questions about her involvement in potential crimes" before jumping to the conclusion that she's a criminal?
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Donald Trump has no shortage of actions that Dems can use as rallying cries against his re-election.
Except you don't win an election simply by trying to use a man's actions as rallying cries against him. Hillary Clinton tried that in 2016 and she lost.
You win an election by convincing the audience that they should vote for you, that your policies will help them and this country, and that you are the best choice.
Democrats lose when they focus only on attacking people and waste time using someone's actions as rallying cries.
Locking kids in camps at the border
If they don't want to get locked up, don't come to the border in the first place. Simple as that.
Russian interference in elections
There's no evidence for this.
cozying up to dictators and alienating our allies
What dictator did he cozy up to? What ally did he alienate?
the Ukraine thing currently playing out
The situation for this is developing, so we need to wait a bit.
tax reform that screws over the middle class
How does Trump's tax reform screw over the middle class?
All of that are massive issues the Trump campaign has to overcome in order to get re-elected.
I love how you only talk about the "bad" things about Trump, while leaving out the good things he did, to make it seem as if he's only done bad things and never any good things.
Even Democrats I think would be willing to buy the idea that Ivanka would not have done even 7% of the stuff her father has done over time
What is "7% of the stuff" supposed to mean? Are you saying mathematically that, for every 100 things that Trump does, Ivanka would only do 7 of those things? Does this include the good things, bad things, or both?
it would essentially be giving the GOP a clean slate to work with in terms of campaigning for the White House in 2020.
What is "a clean slate" supposed to mean? When has that even mattered?
Should she win, her administration would almost certainly be smoother and more beneficial than Donald Trumps administration
Smoother? What is that supposed to mean? What do you mean by smoother?
More beneficial than Donald Trump's administration? Beneficial to who? Beneficial how? Is it simply because she is not as well known as Donald Trump or something?
simply due to the astounding rate of fucking up that her father carries out.
Hillary Clinton tried that, remember? She tried betting her 2016 presidential election victory on "the astounding rate" of F'ing up that Trump carried out, and she still lost. If she couldn't do it, even when she had the popular vote, what makes you think anyone else can?
By that logic, I myself could run for president and have a high chance of winning due to the astounding rate of F'ing up that the current president has done, whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or someone else who a bunch of people don't like.
I would rather have Donald Trump finish his full 8-year 2016-2024 term and then have Ivanka or Melania take over in 2024.
A lot of people, including myself, ultimately don't care what Donald Trump did before he became president. We care about what he will do as president, and what he promises us. He promised to cut down on illegal immigration, bring back jobs, and secure our borders, and he did just that.
That's the problem with liberals. It's not that they're stupid or anything. It's that they focus on things that ultimately don't matter in the long run.
It would be better if they disliked Trump because they didn't agree with his policies or his goal of building a border wall or something, but no, they dislike Donald Trump because of some random locker-room talk nonsense that happened over a decade ago. Instead of disliking Donald Trump because of his plans of changing this country, they dislike him over random tweets that nobody will care about in a year or two. Instead of disliking Donald Trump for maybe not doing a good enough job at improving this country or something, they dislike Donald Trump because.... oh I don't know.... the way he walks, the way he talks, the way he speaks, the way he dresses, his orange hair, or some other trivial thing, instead of focusing on the policies and actions that will drastically change this country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
what they spend their money on shouldnt even matter as this is not important as its their money and discretionary spending isnt part of the equation.
I don't have a problem with people wasting their money on whatever useless thing they want. I have a problem with people receiving benefits that are paid for through our tax dollars while they waste money instead of saving that money to try and get themselves out of poverty, so they just keep on endlessly leeching off of us and abusing things that we pay for through taxes. http://archive.fo/3O8Vx
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Nemiroff
I agree with everything you just presented.I was simply taking issue with the notion that pure economics is somehow more important than social justice.
Oh, my bad. I was assuming that, since Athias agreed with me on economics and minimum wages, and you were disagreeing with him, then that must mean you are in favor of increasing the minimum wage like Nemiroff is, which is what I was against.
high cost areas absolutely need a boost
The reason costs are getting so high in the first place is precisely because of minimum wage increases because when you increase the minimum wage, businesses often have to raise prices of their goods to compensate for it. There is also the fact that the demand for housing is going up, while the supply seems to remain stagnant. That will also result in prices going up.
Instead of trying to boost the economy by just raising the minimum wage, we should instead boost the economy by not only focusing on building more housing, but lowering the minimum wage. Mathematically speaking, if raising the minimum wage results in people losing jobs, less businesses being created, people having hours reduced, prices going up, and more robots taking the jobs, then reducing the minimum wage should result in more people being able to get jobs, more businesses being created, prices going down to attract more customers, and less robots taking those jobs.
I agree that the areas could use a boost, but there are ways to give it that boost other than raising the minimum wage.
I do want there to be a federal minimum set via algorithm weighing relative costsWith those definitions I would be willing to argue Pro on either:a) Minimum wage must keep up with costs, or the economy will suffer/collapse.
There is no way to realistically establish "a federal minimum set via algorithm weighing relative costs" because "costs" vary from family to family, and calculating the costs for every single family is tedious.
Let's say you and I live in the exact same neighborhood. I live alone, with no kids or anything, but you on the other hand have like 2 or 3 kids to take care of. I can get by under my current minimum wage, but you're obviously going to need a much higher "minimum wage" than me, since you have kids to feed, while I don't need that high of a minimum wage.
If the state raises the minimum wage to be enough for you to get by, multiple things can go wrong.
I risk losing my job or having my hours reduced if my employer cannot afford to pay me the new minimum wage that I didn't ask for, and so do you.
The costs that you try to "keep up with" are just going to get raised, making your wage increase pointless.
Let's say that the government makes it so that the minimum wage for each person is based on how much it costs them to pay for what they need. That too would create a problem where employers would only hire those who don't need a high wage to get by, instead of the poor people that probably do need more money, so a minimum wage algorithm would never work there.
orb) Minimum wage is beneficial to the poor.
You don't magically become more valuable just because someone passes a minimum wage law or raises the minimum wage.
The minimum wage laws, whether they are on a federal level or state level, try to artificially make people more valuable, but if you want to be more valuable, you try doing something more valuable than sitting around at McDonalds handling a cash register for 8 hours every day, like maybe engineering.
This comic strip perfectly illustrates what people think a minimum wage increase does versus what it often actually does. https://archive.fo/9cbss/4c53c822e89a51f69fd59a7636e30c120ef68ee3.jpg https://archive.fo/9cbss/ http://archive.fo/vjvl5
Minimum wages do more harm than good. They barely benefit the poor, and they're a bad way to "keep up with costs". You can raise it to 100 dollars an hour, and it still wouldn't successfully get the poor out of poverty. Poor people have to focus on the life choices made that got them into poverty in the first place, not expect a wage increase to be the silver bullet to getting out of poverty.
Since a poor person's work is already worth very little, raising the minimum wage just makes it so that those poor people can no longer work until or unless the value of their work somehow goes up to match the minimum wage, so it doesn't actually benefit those very poor people that it's apparently supposed to benefit.
This youtube video talks about some of the things that rich do that the poor don't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swjSycfB4Gw
This one talks about some things that the poor do that the rich don't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nllZrOoxpzc
This one talks about some bad mindsets that poor people tend to have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6A9_X8q98o
This video talks about some various habits that some poor people also seem to have, that keep them poor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb3pDrf80E0
We need to focus more on what people are doing with their lives, what they choose to do with their money, how wisely they spend it, whether or not they delay themselves gratification to get out of poverty, what life choices they make, what kinds of habits they might be having that keeps them so poor, and what they believe in that might be hindering them from getting out of poverty, not just keep raising the minimum wage more and more to put people at risk of losing their jobs or having their hours reduced. Too often, when I see youtube videos about poor Americans, and also hear stories about these poor people who work a minimum wage job, the first thing I look at is not what their minimum wage is, but the choices they've made that either could have gotten them into this mess that they're in, or is hindering them from getting out of poverty.
For example, this video is about people who are in poverty and depend on welfare, but still waste money on lottery tickets, upsetting a taxpayer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra27cMF3JVo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There's only so much we can do for those living paycheck to paycheck. We use our tax dollars to pay for food stamps and whatnot for these people, but at the end of the day, they will still be poor due to the poor choices that they make/made in their lives.
This video from CNN talks about this single mother who earns the minimum wage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCB1t28nDU
Notice the sad piano music that plays in the background of that video while she complains about how poor she is. They have her speak in a sad monotone and put that sad music in there on purpose to appeal to your emotions and make you feel bad for this woman, and it works on so many people, since you can find people in the comments section of that video, glorifying her. https://i.imgur.com/ke7aesj.png
That's how they convince people that we should raise the minimum wage, by using appeals to emotion, instead of using math and logic. http://archive.fo/93x85
There is also a rumor that she received at least 10,000 dollars through a GoFundMe page. http://archive.fo/Ruy2E
Looking back at the youtube video, I can tell why she is so poor in the first place, and it's not because of her so-called low wage like the mainstream media claims.
Firstly, she made the poor decision to have a child at such a young age. She said she is 22 years old, and her son is 1 year old, meaning that she had the baby at around 21 years old. Think about that for a moment. Instead of making sure she was stable, instead of making sure she had a decent job that paid more than the minimum wage, instead of making sure that she could properly care for herself first, she made the poor decision that so many people make, which is to have a child, at that early of an age, so this is going to cost her even more money, make her more dependent on the government to bail her out of her mess, and make it even harder for her to get herself out of poverty, as children generally cost a lot of money to raise. http://archive.fo/J6E4X
Secondly, she purposefully buys a lot of sodas and other junk foods. It's fine to have sodas and junk food once in a while, but you also need to eat healthy foods too. Both she and her child are going to be at risk of growing up fat, unhealthy, or with other problems later on, since it looks like those junk foods are what she eats for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Eating healthy has also been proven to help people perform better in things like sports, so maybe if she ate better, she could physically perform better at her job and at home. http://archive.fo/Cf5g8
Third, her husband, the child's father, is in prison, so it's not like she can rely on him for support. She is on her own. This is actually a trend that's been going on, with more and more kids growing up without their fathers. http://archive.fo/Ggt3b
Fourth, when she realized what a horrible mistake she made to have that child which is costing her more and more money and making it harder for her to take care of herself, she starts borrowing money to pay for things. So now, not only must she struggle to pay to take care of herself and her child, but she must also pay back loans plus interest. http://archive.fo/Ggt3b
The fifth, final, and also probably the biggest problem with this woman that I see, is that, towards the end of the youtube video, both she and CNN blame McDonalds for making at least 4 billion dollars a year instead of owning up to her mistakes of having a child that neither she nor the imprisoned husband were fully prepared to deal with, and you can find several people across various websites and forums across the internet talking about this.
I've talked about the problems with raising the minimum wage on this other thread if you want more detail. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1272/post_links/108585
The main thing I talked about was how "it takes MORE than just a wage/income increase to get out of poverty, which is another thing that poor people, as well as 15-dollar-minimum-wage advocates like Bernie Sanders, don't seem to understand."
But no, you (zedvictor4, not Athias) and Nemiroff want to blame the "low wages" instead of looking at the the other factors, and looking at the life choices that these people made that got them into this mess in the first place!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The minimum wage creates unemployment by pricing out low-skilled labor. That is, for example, a person whose marginal productivity is $14.99 and below, would be priced out of the labor market because of a $15 minimum. It's not that the person loses his job; he can't get one (legally.)
There's also the fact that when you need low-skilled labor whose marginal productivity is 14.99 and below, but can't hire someone to work for 14.99 or less because of the minimum wages, you then start making robots that can do that low-skilled labor.
For example, if I am the employer and I hire you to work for me and do work that is worth 14 dollars an hour, both you and I benefit from this, because I get low-skilled labor that I can pay 14 dollars an hour for, and you benefit because you have a job, you are earning easy money doing easy labor, and can afford to pay for things. When the minimum wage goes up to 15 dollars an hour, and then I suddenly can't afford to pay you, I simply fire you and replace you with a robot to do that easy labor that you were originally doing. The minimum wage has now hurt you more than it helped you there, because you now have no job, and cannot make money to pay for what you need, and now I have a robot working your job for free, instead of you working that job and making the money you need. This is what's actually happening nowadays; jobs are being lost to robots as the years go by because of minimum wages, and any business that cannot, for whatever reason, use a robot to replace the worker, will lose profits, and/or go out of business.
Minimum wages do more harm than good because they make it impossible for people whose work isn't worth that minimum wage to get employed. Minimum wages should be whatever the employer(s) and employee(s) agree to, and if neither side can agree on what the minimum wage for them should be, only then should the government intervene and set a minimum wage like 15 dollars. If I agree with my employer to work for 1 dollar an hour, then yes, I am working for a very small amount of money and probably won't be able to afford things, but that is still my choice and the employer's choice. If I agree with my employer to work for free just for the sake of gaining work experience, then that's my choice.
You cannot artificially force an employer to pay someone a minimum wage if they don't want to, and if you try to implement a law requiring that you be paid more than you're worth, you either get fired and replaced with a robot, you get your work hours reduced to compensate for the minimum wage, or the employer goes out of business.
minimum wage hikes have not shown any losses of jobs besides one industry, the restaurant industry.
When you artificially increase minimum wages, 1 of 4 things will happen.
1) Workers get replaced by robots https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/evidence-minimum-wage-hikes-result-in-workers-being-replaced-by-robots.html
2) Employers raise prices of things to compensate for the wage increase https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/14/news-just-in-higher-minimum-wage-leads-to-price-rises-and-job-losses/#70d6a8361fac
3) Employers reduce work hours to compensate for the increase
4) Employers go out of business
If you want more money, you work harder, you be more productive, you be more smart with your money, you make smarter life choices, you find a job that naturally pays more, you find a way to make your work more valuable, and/or you incentivize people to pay you more, not try to force them to pay you more with arbitrary laws that do more harm than good.
Created:
-->
@billbatard
One of the reasons their education system is so great is because they don't focus so much on standardized tests like we do, and we are forced to focus on standardized tests because of George Bush and Barack Obama's policies, No Child Left Behind and Every Student Succeeds act, respectively.
Barack Obama also made our education system worse by making it harder for schools to punish bad kids, thus making schools more dangerous overall. https://nypost.com/2017/12/23/obamas-lax-discipline-policies-made-schools-dangerous/amp/
Barack Obama also assisted Nikolas Cruz in his shooting on Marjory Stoneman Douglass with this policy since it made it harder for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate further into Nikolas Cruz and potentially stop him from shooting that school up. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/nikolas-cruz-avoided-police-scrutiny-help-obama-po/
I also don't see how we're "clogging" anything. For this tournament the competitors have to come up with topics that would be interested, so technically it makes sense to discuss things like education since that would be a decent topic for this tournament.
Created:
-->
@NotClub
Argh. I'll have to say no then. I've got work/studying to do, and I'm already exhausting myself both physically and mentally by debating and voting in debates.
Created:
-->
@NotClub
Who is doing the debating? Are the people who come up with topics doing the debating, or are the people choosing the topics (that the original 8 come up with) doing the debating?
Created:
-->
@NotClub
Wait what exactly are we doing again?
8 people are signing up to give a debate topic
another set of 8 people are choosing
then each of the original set of 8 people each debate 1 of the set of the other 8 people
and we keep debating over and over until there has been like 4 or 5 debates for someone?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@David
@dustryder
@billbatard
@NotClub
I was going to have a debate with Virtuoso about Donald Trump, so if I take part in this, then I'm spreading myself too thin...
One topic that I had in mind was about our United States education system, how bad/broken it was, and how it can be fixed. That would be a great topic.
Let's see if Dustryder, RationalMadman, and Billbatard would also be interested in this.
Created:
Posted in:
I stopped using brave browser because of how buggy it turned out to be.
Created:
Posted in:
Minimum wages usually don't help the poorest people that they're supposed to help and this youtube video explains it in more detail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How is bsh1 wrong?
How is bsh1 "being two-faced and wrong"?
What makes bsh1 "both to different users at different times"?
Created:
Posted in:
I found this person's instagram while surfing the web and she turned me on with her selfie https://www.instagram.com/demirosemawby/?hl=en
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe someone should go on debate org and post an address or something just to see if any moderators are still active on that site. If they are, they will delete the personal information. If it stays up, then they are inactive.
Created:
Posted in:
And what if webarchive malfunctions or something at any point?
The only way I could see web archive malfunctioning is if either the owner of the site forgets to pay the necessary bills to keep the site running, or if some super-intelligent determined hacker brute forces their way into their heavily-secured servers... both of which are unlikely.
Web archive "has an annual budget of $10 million," has it's base setup "in the Presidio of San Francisco, a former U.S. military base" according to this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive
So it has plenty of money to keep the site running, and is in a military base to be safe from intruders looking to break in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@RationalMadman
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
This is to become the official thread for all 'extras' in debates.
This is actually not necessary. The main reason some people use Google Docs or Pastebin to begin with, is if their voting reasons exceed the character limit, and they cannot normally post their reasons in the default voting form. In fact, a better alternative would be to simply extend the character limit to like 20,000 characters or something, or just remove it outright so this problem doesn't exist anymore.
this is to stop a need for one to dox themselves via Google Docs
Nobody's doxxing "themselves via Google Docs". They're just posting their voting reasons there, when they can't do it normally due to the character limit. If any actual personal information such as phone number or address is found within the Google Docs, then it should be reported and/or deleted. Either way, no one is dumb enough to put their personal info in a Google Doc for others to see anyways. Even if someone did do that for some reason, like post their address, most people aren't going to care where they live or where to find them, since the address could, after all, be fake, and it's too dumb and tedious to go looking for random people in real life when you could be doing different things with your life.
as well as avoiding the security risk of a random person getting access to editing the pastebin
The way pastebin works is that you can choose to either post something using an account, or post it anonymously. If you choose to post it using an account, then it can be accessed and edited later by you. If you post it anonymously without an account, then nobody can come back an edit it later, not even you. They can download a copy of your pastebin for themselves, in the form of a notepad text document, and edit that, but the original one is still up on pastebin. I purposefully posted my voting reasons to that pastebin anonymously, without an account, so that no one, not even I, can edit it later.
or even the original person editing the Doc later for the Sources list, debate and/or vote.
- If you want to post a debate after it's due and justify it inside a debate, you should post it here when/if you've posted it to the Docs so as to establish that you haven't further edited it since.
To get around this, you can, after publishing your Google Doc, save it to https://web.archive.org/save so that it preserves it. That way, even if the original one does get edited or deleted later, you still have the original non-edited copy on the web archive, since web archive'd versions cannot be edited.
This thread is to be used for source lists only in debates where it is agreed by both debaters that Character Count shouldn't restrict it.
I appreciate your concern, but it's still far easier to just either upload it to Google Docs and then save it to web archive so you can link to that archived version without worrying about someone editing it, or put it to pastebin under an anonymous account so no one, not even you, can edit it.
Since this forum in particular limits you to 5000 characters per post, that means that it's still gonna be too tedious to take, for instance, a 15000-character voting reason, split it into 3 parts (15000 / 3 = 5000) and then copy and paste them into 3 separate comments on a thread, since you can just copy and paste the entire 15000-character voting reason to Google Docs (with web archive) or Pastebin (with no account) and have everything visible at once. It's easier, and requires less time and effort.
In most of my own debates, I usually try to back up my sources, as well as any Google Doc that I link to, to web archive, so that nobody needs to worry about anybody complaining that it was edited or whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think we're getting another 9/11. We have so much security measures in place. We have drastically improved our infrastructures and whatnot. We have installed new medal detectors and other stuff.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Imabench
@n8nrgmi
@Dr.Franklin
I started a debate on this very topic if any of you are interesting in seeing my opinion on guns. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1373/gun-control
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
This article explains how having standardized tests can be a good thing, but harmful when there is just so much of it. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/17/11/when-testing-takes-over
I like the part where it says "Used sensibly, they can provide valuable information to help improve instruction. However, treating them as the main goal of education and exerting too much pressure to raise scores as an end in itself will backfire, undermining instruction and giving us misleading information about students’ performance."
Unlike the United States, Canada doesn't have a No Child Left Behind Act or an Every Student Succeeds Act that punishes schools for not showing high test scores. That's one way Canada's schools are better, since teachers can focus more on other things rather than simply teaching to a test.
Here's an article giving a basic explanation of our school system before and after No Child Left Behind. It's not perfect, but it's at least better than an anecdote. https://www.educationnext.org/school-accountability-before-during-and-after-nclb/
This other article also gives a basic overview of how the No Child Left Behind changed schools. https://www.redorbit.com/news/education/470190/before_nclb_the_history_of_esea/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Tests do exist in Finland, but they don't put so much unnecessary emphasis on tests, and only teach to the test, the way the United States does.
Other countries like Canada actually seem to have it much better than the United States in terms of education.
You asked about what school was like a long time ago and I showed how, so it's not meaningless.
My "position" is that our education system was made worse due to these corrupting policies put forth by these politicians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
His approval ratings in close to every potential swing state has dropped
I'm starting to think approval ratings don't matter or mean anything, especially since he won the 2016 election, despite losing the popular vote.
The literally non-stop line of self inflicted controversies by Trump and his administration is leading to fatigue among his supporters from trying to defend his actions.
At this point, all of the hatred towards Trump is getting old. I keep hearing the same old "trump is racist" stuff being spewed out and tossed around so much that it gets boring, so at this point, there's no way a bunch of random "controversies" are going to keep him from winning the 2020 election.
The top performing Dem candidates regularly beat Trump in head to head nation-wide matchups
Hillary Clinton was also widely favored more than Trump was, yet she still lost to him in the end, so a bunch of random candidates beating Trump in some random thing isn't going to hold Trump back.
If Hillary Clinton couldn't beat Trump despite getting the popular vote, and despite the majority of places like California and New York disliking Donald Trump, then what makes you think anyone else can beat Trump?
Like the NUMBER ONE RULE OF PRESIDENTS WHO WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED is dont cause people to have to pay more in taxes if there isnt some sort of crisis or war going on to justify it
Most of the Democratic candidates also have crazy plans that will cause people to have to pay more in taxes, so this isn't exclusive to Donald Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA3b-omI5mE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
They deceived us by making us think these policies would help us when instead they hurt us. They corrupted our school system by forcing them to focus only on teaching to the test. Look at other countries like Finland who do not focus on teaching to the test, and their education system is better as a result.
This is a basic summary of what schools were like before I was born. https://www.quora.com/What-was-high-school-like-30-years-ago
It talks about how "30 years ago, you actually had teachers that taught classes and kids understood what was going on. The teachers took their time to make sure kids knew the material which is different from today’s high school. Students didn’t have smart phones 30 years ago people wasn’t on their phone while the teacher was instructing the lesson."
It also talks about how "Food wasn’t processed like it is now you actually had cafeteria lady’s who cooked from scratch, but now it’s just straight up food you have to reheat and then serve it. Graduation rates was higher 30 years ago now it’s lower because you have more people getting pregnant and people joining gangs."
I wasn't trying to say that learning how to do basic calculations was bad. I guess I should have phrased my words differently so it wouldn't sound like I was saying that. I was just saying that schools teach us too many things that we would not really remember in like a year or two and also puts too much emphasis on standardized test. Like how can a test be like 50 to 80 percent of your grade?! That is just insane! It should be divided more evenly, so 25% of this counts to tests, and 25% counts for that, and the other 25% counts for this, and so on.
When you put so much focus on tests, it incorrectly teaches people that tests are all that matter in life, when that isn't the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Definition of corrupt: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/corrupt
guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked:a corrupt judge.debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil:a corrupt society.
It applies here because Barack Obama was being dishonest towards Americans by ruining the American education system. His policy, in a way, was a "bribery" towards schools that showed high test scores and also a punishment towards schools that did not show high test scores. This forces just about every public school to focus on teaching to the test instead of teaching more useful stuff, resulting in a worse society since you now have students who know how to calculate (-B+-(((4/AC)/(2A))^(1/2))) but don't know how to do other more important things, and we have schools with bad kids who don't get punished because of Obama's policies, and we tend to forget a lot of what we learned in school, all because of Barack Obama and George Bush's policies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Barack Obama also put forth a "Discipline Policy" which hurt the education system, since they now could no longer punish bad students consistently. https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/13/5-ways-obamas-discipline-policy-made-schools-less-effective-safe/
This article talks about it in more detail. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/obama-school-discipline-danger
Donald Trump had to undo Barack Obama's mess and revoke the policy. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-12-21/trump-officials-cancel-obama-era-policy-on-school-discipline
This article shows that Donald Trump did the right thing by revoking that corrupting policy. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-report-proves-trump-was-right-to-rescind-obama-era-school-discipline-policies
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You're back! What happened? Why'd you get banned?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
They were corrupting by forcing schools to teach to the test. The policies basically punished schools severely that didn't show high test scores and also made it so that all schools have to adopt a standardized test and teach to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@dustryder
Right but I'm still missing the corruption component
If they weren't so corrupt they would not have put forth these corrupting policies.
How do you feel about teachers setting public education policy instead of the general population?
Define "general population". Is it the government? The people? The schools? The students? The parents? Or any combination of these?
Created:
Posted in:
I suppose your right. It was just a random thought that popped up in my head, that we could invade them under their storm.
Created:
Posted in:
We could seize the opportunity to invade them and free all of Kim Jong Un's people from that dictator. After all, they can't fight a storm and an army at the same time, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
It was a policy that utterly messed up our education system, forcing schools to teach to the test.
Created:
Posted in:
Obama is corrupt. He and Bush wrecked our school system with their No Child Left Behind and Every Student Succeeds policies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Alec
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Athias
One can instruct one's child and leave said child the right impression. And no amount of money can purchase that. There can be functional poor families and dysfunctional wealthy families; and I've been a witness to both.
Okay, fair enough. If you do choose to have a child while poor, the least you can do is try to teach that child to be a great person so thay they don't continue the cycle of poverty in future generations. After all, parents should strive to get their kids to be better than the previous generation, regardless if they are poor or not.
Children generally don't make intelligent, well informed, long-term decisions.
We all have made decisions in our lives that were not intelligent or well-informed. It just depends on whether or not people learn from the mistakes they make so that they don't repeat them, and, if they happen to have kids, teach those kids about the mistakes they made so that those kids learn not to repeat their parents' mistakes.
Statistically speaking, you're fighting an uphill battle for at least two generations.
Right, so we need to do what we can to make sure we don't have future generations that are also forced to endure the same uphill battle that we did, and try to make each generation better and stronger than the last.
You don't seem to understand why people have children. Testosterone is a fertility hormone. Male testosterone levels spike between ages 16 and 25.
The rich make their money on the backs of the poor. Without poor people, there would be no rich people.
These are just bad excuses for having kids when you are so poor that you can barely take care of yourself first.
If you've ever been on an airplane, you'll notice how they always remind you to be sure to put your mask on before helping others. In other words, you need to make sure you're taking good care of yourself before you can take good care of others.
That's the problem with poor dysfunctional people. They are trying to bring a child into this world and take care of them when they can barely afford to take care of themselves and pay their own bills. That results in the cycle continuing. To end it, you should make sure you aren't in such poverty and that you can take care of yourself before having a child, or just don't have one that you can't afford, and, like Athias said, you can have poor but functional families and rich but dysfunctional families. The most appropriate families to have kids are the financially stable and functional people.
I'm not sure what specific course of action you're recommending
I'm recommending that people make better life choices and/or encourage their future generations to do the same. Having kids can backfire and lead to the cycle repeating itself if you don't know what you're doing. Just like how you put your mask on before helping others, you put yourself in a financially stable and functional position before dealing with a child.
Lots of people like Christen and Alec talk as if they took a decent-quality personal finance class but mistook it for an economics class.
These aren't even arguments. Their insults, and you could end up hurting my feelings or Alec's feelings by saying this. What did Alec even say that made you conclude this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Discipulus_Didicit
I get it. You can't control what kind of family you're born into.
You can however, control what decisions you make after you're born into that family. If you can slowly work your way out of poverty, you can then end your cycle of generations of poor children. Alternatively, If poor people who were born into poor families and could not work their ways out of poverty, the simplest thing to do would be to not have kids yourself, which would also break that cycle.
If you are unhapoy that you were born into a poor family, why put another newborn child through that same situation?
If only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken, and if the poor people stopped continuing to have kids, the cycle wouldn't continue, and you wouldn't keep having more and more kids born into the same kind of poor family that you were born into.
Part of the issue is that newborns grow up to repeat the same mistakes their parents made, which is having kids themselves while in such poverty. The least a person born into a poor family can do is stop the cycle by stop having kids to continue the cycle in the first place.
Since there are some things you cannot control, it just makes sense to instead focus on what you can control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If someone begins their live as a poor person, they should learn to make better life choices so that they can escape poverty as soon as possible. Otherwise it will just create this endless cycle of "poor parent > poor child > poor child grows up into poor parent > another poor child born > that poor child grows up to become poor > becomes the parent of another poor child" and so on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@dustryder
There are strategies that you can use to compensate for their variability.
What kinds of strategies?
Individual consumers can do almost nothing to "stop" pollution.
Maybe not, but we can plant trees, clean up trash, clean up litter, throw out garbage, avoid hoarding useless items for years, try to live a minimalist lifestyle, and keep our homes as clean as we reasonably can. That doesn't necessarily "stop" pollution, but it does drastically reduce it.
(3) Plain paper, aluminum and glass can replace plastic in 90+% of consumer packaging. But this is NOT the consumer's responsibility.
I'm against banning plastic because plastic is easy, cheap, and versatile. It can be used to make a variety of different products and is easily disposable. When my family goes grocery shopping, they can put groceries in plastic bags to carry them home, and then store the plastic bags away somewhere else to be used as little garbage bags and used for various purposes, but now, people on the left are looking to ban plastic things.
Here is an article explaining why plastic bags should not be banned nor "replaced". https://cei.org/content/counterpoint-plastic-bans-wont-solve-ocean-plastic-problem?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7YqthfO55AIVkJ6fCh3ZaACjEAAYAiAAEgLykvD_BwE
Here is a video by The Daily Wire also explaining why plastic is useful and should not be banned. https://youtu.be/AtF0PqfJ0c0
Furthermore, how does plastic cause climate change? Plastic isn't a fossil fuel.
Should everyone stop going to church because that doesn't stop murderers from slaughtering innocents?
Yes, everyone should stop going to church not only because it doesn't stop murderers but also because it's a waste of time and money and they could be doing much better things with their lives as opposed to worshipping their "god" for the sake of going to this magical fantasy land called "heaven".
Have you ever heard of the "free-rider problem"?
Who are the ones free-riding here? It can't be the producers because they have to put in work to produce things using energy. It can't be the consumers either because they usually have to pay for things, not free-ride.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin I think you meant to say "@Greyparrot" not "@Greenroad19"
Created: