I'd love to accept this debate, but I'm not comfortable with being in two debates at the same time. When I'm finished with the debate I'm in now, and you're still interested in having this discussion, I'll be more than happy to take on this topic.
It would most certainly not be wrong for you to argue that the figure is almost double what is in the resolution. That being said, you obviously stumbled onto a poorly worded resolution and obviously @drlebronski was hoping to argue that the holocaust was not overexaggerated like a denier would claim. So even though you would be correct if you argued for he higher number, I personally would not vote on this debate because the instigator obviously misspoke and the resolution was not their intended message. I personally think you should allow the instigator to abort this debate and repost a more properly worded debate.
I hope your opponent does not try to argue that the actual agreed upon number is closer to 12million, because that is the actual agreed upon number. Six million Jews were murdered, and close to another six million gentiles (non-Jews) were also murdered.
Believe me, it would be nothing short of criminal stupidity to allow me to practice psychiatry, so no, I'm not a psychologist. What I'm saying is brain function can be observed and understood by way of the scientific process, and therefore a science. Psychiatry is (mostly) derived from sociology which is the "study of social behavior", and is much less rooted in science. Psychology and sociology are two distinctly different subjects, and only one of them can be considered a pseudoscience, and it's not psychology.
I think you're confusing psychology with sociology. Psychology is the study of how the brain functions and is demonstrably scientifically accurate. Sociology is a pseudoscience that is really rooted in art, not science.
I find it disappointing that we cannot give out any points for style when we vote because I feel that it is an important aspect of the debate, and @Puachu does deserve a shout out for that.
I find it funny that misanthropic people never seem to consider themselves to be one of those kinds of people that need to be "winnowed out". For those kind of people, if all other distinguishing qualities fail, I get the feeling sandals with socks would suffice as a good reason for population control.
I would also appreciate if you were to cast a vote on the debate Puachu keeps pushing. If you have the time.
We still have several months before the voting is ended on our discussion, so we don't yet know for sure if all of the voters bought my arguments. I also can't say that I wouldn't use the same tactic of challenging my opponent to deny, or admit to something.
Anything that you said does not fall outside of my description of normal debate rhetoric, so nothing you said made me feel that you were being aggressive. I think what fauxlaw was referring to was the statement in the last sentence in your second round in which you said "I challenge Con to explicitly deny this." I can't think of exactly what it was that you were hoping I would explicitly deny, but I don't think I did anyway and just brushed it off as an emotional appeal and normal debate rhetoric. I think I remember you saying something else along those lines at another point, but it didn't make me bat an eye. I also don't think Fauxlaw thought about it that much either because they still split the vote for us on the civility point. I just think they were trying to tell us for future reference that potential voters could view that as taunting and possibly cost you the civility point in the future, but I myself would not be one of those voters that think so, and neither did Fauxlaw.
I appreciate that you took the time to read this discussion and vote on it, I just wanted to make sure you know that I would never ask anybody to have sympathy for nazi sympathizers.
Just so we're clear, I never asked anybody to have sympathy for nazi sympathizers, nor would I ever do such a thing even for the sake of being a devil's advocate. I was showing that the idea of nazi sympathizers simply being jobless outcasts with no sense of familial structure is a dangerous miscalculation. It is the very reason the nazis were able to eventually become the majority party in Germany because nobody believed a bunch of Ruben country misfits could ever become the majority party in Germany. The German people were complacent and bet against the stupid underdogs and didn't realize their mistake until hitler declared himself the undisputed leader of Germany and outlawed all other opposition parties. I fail to see how rejecting the same foresight the German people wish they hadn't would be beneficial to any of us now by just painting nazi sympathizers as jobless hicks who only live on the outer fringes of society. I asked that we extend some EMPATHY to them by realizing nazi sympathizers also have families and jobs and function as productive citizens also, and if we just assume they'll never be a viable political or social movement because they're just hicks, then we'll be making the same mistake the German people did. We must do the work of deconstructing their supposed political ideals ourselves and not just rely on a government mandate. If we just stand back and let the good people do the work of resisting nazism, then we take ourselves out of the running to be the good people doing that good work. What will happen if ALL the good people just stand by and wait for the good people they are expecting to come up out of nowhere and do all the resisting for us? I'm pretty sure the German people can tell you what will happen!!!!!
A little bit of that cordialness may, or may not be an attempt to swoon the voters into thinking I'm an approachable and sweet person. But yes, it was an enjoyable discussion.
I'm not saying either one of you have better flow than the other, or your arguments either. They are both very entertaining reads. I'm just wondering how much consideration is put on style, and how much is put on the argument when it comes time to vote?
This is an interesting topic that I look forward to seeing. One would automatically assume it would be best for developing countries to make education mandatory, but that assumption ignores the fact that many, if not most developed countries didn't have compulsory education when they were developing. It was only compulsory after developing countries became fully developed.
The difference between the tribe and NWA is the former is a journalistic approach to the trials and tribulations, as well as the ideals of inner city gang culture, and they obviously showcased the decadence involved with much of those themes. The tribe were more abstract and could cover any topic with ease, but they rejected the decadence found in NWA stuff. The tribe were definitely more uplifting, but not in a cheesy manner that tries to sell black culture to white America by making them seem overtly squeaky clean (like Stevie Wonder, or Boys 2 Men).
I'd say, NWA was more influential for me because of the more diverse range of artists they sampled which introduced me to an alternative genre of music that I was raised on (I was pounded into the ground with led-zep and the eagles, and they tend to wear thin quickly). Because of NWA (and more so Cube), I have a profound love of Prince, Parliament Funkadelic, The Isley Brothers, and all of the great R&B and funk that goes along with those groups. I can't say the tribe had that same impact on me.
I would never argue that any hip hop production was better than anything that Ice Cube was involved in, especially since I am also an artist and he was one of my three favorite inspirations. But as far as the wu, their production was purposely made to counter the very airbrushed and smooth sound from the west coast at the time. They were instrumental in ushering in the Lo-Fi sound that dominates modern indie dance/rock/hip-hop. I agree that most of their rap was about how good they can rap, so their lyrics leave much to be desired, but the cult like mystique they garnered helps replace much of what is lost from their lack luster lyrics. They also had some pretty great flow ta boot.
I tried a more emotionally driven approach this time. I hope you'll keep in mind that it is chock full of emotionally driven rhetoric, but none of it is personal. I also keep having to trim the fat out of my arguments to meet the character limit.
I took no offense from your argument, and I understood your message was not about me. In fact, I commend you for trying to use more riskay and emotionally charged argumentation. Good luck.
The first sentence of my last paragraph should say "Even when we consider the margin of error in this study, it's difficult to claim that antisemitism ISN'T (not "is") a present and influential factor in German society just as it is in the US". I understand if any voters take this error into consideration.
If there are any mods on here who could help me, or anybody who knows any mods who could help me with my problem of publishing my argument. The button seems to not work.
I do not plan to make any arguments that try to validate holocaust denial in any manner. I vehemently reject the notion that twelve million people didn't die as a result of nazi concentration camps, and I believe that the nazis were the most evil political movement to have ever existed. There will be no tabooness from my side. Well..............at least not regarding the holocaust.
I may be interested in this. I will attempt to demonstrate how banning holocaust denial would not be beneficial. The 1st amendment of the constitution would be a moot rebuttal against my argument because of how it will be framed.
Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. Solipsism doesn't necessarily deny that other minds exist, it just means that outside the scope of your senses, nothing can be known. From a solipsistic point of view, any evidence that could potentially disprove the existence of others is unreliable, just as any evidence that proves the existence of others is unreliable.
Thank you for your vote.
Sure thing cunt. Go fuck a goat, thanx
I didn't have the time to finish my argument, but thank you for the interesting topic. I learned a lot about cat behavior and autism.
I'd love to accept this debate, but I'm not comfortable with being in two debates at the same time. When I'm finished with the debate I'm in now, and you're still interested in having this discussion, I'll be more than happy to take on this topic.
Thank you for pointing that out. Not only could that have messed me up, it would have offended Figaro, my cat.
Thanx.
Would you be willing to give me a week for my arguments?
Would you be willing drop the "portray/display" criteria in your proposal?
Interesting concept.
It would most certainly not be wrong for you to argue that the figure is almost double what is in the resolution. That being said, you obviously stumbled onto a poorly worded resolution and obviously @drlebronski was hoping to argue that the holocaust was not overexaggerated like a denier would claim. So even though you would be correct if you argued for he higher number, I personally would not vote on this debate because the instigator obviously misspoke and the resolution was not their intended message. I personally think you should allow the instigator to abort this debate and repost a more properly worded debate.
I hope your opponent does not try to argue that the actual agreed upon number is closer to 12million, because that is the actual agreed upon number. Six million Jews were murdered, and close to another six million gentiles (non-Jews) were also murdered.
Believe me, it would be nothing short of criminal stupidity to allow me to practice psychiatry, so no, I'm not a psychologist. What I'm saying is brain function can be observed and understood by way of the scientific process, and therefore a science. Psychiatry is (mostly) derived from sociology which is the "study of social behavior", and is much less rooted in science. Psychology and sociology are two distinctly different subjects, and only one of them can be considered a pseudoscience, and it's not psychology.
I think you're confusing psychology with sociology. Psychology is the study of how the brain functions and is demonstrably scientifically accurate. Sociology is a pseudoscience that is really rooted in art, not science.
Thank you.
Thank you for the vote.
Thank you for allowing me to participate in this. I look forward to an interesting discussion.
Interesting. This looks entertaining.
No problem.
I find it disappointing that we cannot give out any points for style when we vote because I feel that it is an important aspect of the debate, and @Puachu does deserve a shout out for that.
Thank you for the uncomfortably detailed analysis of your vote.
Good luck on this debate. I wish I could resurrect hitler, so I could brutally (slowly if possible), and systematically murd€r him.
I find it funny that misanthropic people never seem to consider themselves to be one of those kinds of people that need to be "winnowed out". For those kind of people, if all other distinguishing qualities fail, I get the feeling sandals with socks would suffice as a good reason for population control.
I would also appreciate if you were to cast a vote on the debate Puachu keeps pushing. If you have the time.
We still have several months before the voting is ended on our discussion, so we don't yet know for sure if all of the voters bought my arguments. I also can't say that I wouldn't use the same tactic of challenging my opponent to deny, or admit to something.
Anything that you said does not fall outside of my description of normal debate rhetoric, so nothing you said made me feel that you were being aggressive. I think what fauxlaw was referring to was the statement in the last sentence in your second round in which you said "I challenge Con to explicitly deny this." I can't think of exactly what it was that you were hoping I would explicitly deny, but I don't think I did anyway and just brushed it off as an emotional appeal and normal debate rhetoric. I think I remember you saying something else along those lines at another point, but it didn't make me bat an eye. I also don't think Fauxlaw thought about it that much either because they still split the vote for us on the civility point. I just think they were trying to tell us for future reference that potential voters could view that as taunting and possibly cost you the civility point in the future, but I myself would not be one of those voters that think so, and neither did Fauxlaw.
Thank you for taking interest in this discussion, and for the vote.
I appreciate that you took the time to read this discussion and vote on it, I just wanted to make sure you know that I would never ask anybody to have sympathy for nazi sympathizers.
Just so we're clear, I never asked anybody to have sympathy for nazi sympathizers, nor would I ever do such a thing even for the sake of being a devil's advocate. I was showing that the idea of nazi sympathizers simply being jobless outcasts with no sense of familial structure is a dangerous miscalculation. It is the very reason the nazis were able to eventually become the majority party in Germany because nobody believed a bunch of Ruben country misfits could ever become the majority party in Germany. The German people were complacent and bet against the stupid underdogs and didn't realize their mistake until hitler declared himself the undisputed leader of Germany and outlawed all other opposition parties. I fail to see how rejecting the same foresight the German people wish they hadn't would be beneficial to any of us now by just painting nazi sympathizers as jobless hicks who only live on the outer fringes of society. I asked that we extend some EMPATHY to them by realizing nazi sympathizers also have families and jobs and function as productive citizens also, and if we just assume they'll never be a viable political or social movement because they're just hicks, then we'll be making the same mistake the German people did. We must do the work of deconstructing their supposed political ideals ourselves and not just rely on a government mandate. If we just stand back and let the good people do the work of resisting nazism, then we take ourselves out of the running to be the good people doing that good work. What will happen if ALL the good people just stand by and wait for the good people they are expecting to come up out of nowhere and do all the resisting for us? I'm pretty sure the German people can tell you what will happen!!!!!
If you have the time, it'd be nice if you could slap a vote on this mutha fucka.
A little bit of that cordialness may, or may not be an attempt to swoon the voters into thinking I'm an approachable and sweet person. But yes, it was an enjoyable discussion.
Thanks for the interesting discussion, and good luck to you.
I'm not saying either one of you have better flow than the other, or your arguments either. They are both very entertaining reads. I'm just wondering how much consideration is put on style, and how much is put on the argument when it comes time to vote?
What happens if you agree with someone's arguments, but you think the other one has better flow?
This is an interesting topic that I look forward to seeing. One would automatically assume it would be best for developing countries to make education mandatory, but that assumption ignores the fact that many, if not most developed countries didn't have compulsory education when they were developing. It was only compulsory after developing countries became fully developed.
The difference between the tribe and NWA is the former is a journalistic approach to the trials and tribulations, as well as the ideals of inner city gang culture, and they obviously showcased the decadence involved with much of those themes. The tribe were more abstract and could cover any topic with ease, but they rejected the decadence found in NWA stuff. The tribe were definitely more uplifting, but not in a cheesy manner that tries to sell black culture to white America by making them seem overtly squeaky clean (like Stevie Wonder, or Boys 2 Men).
I'd say, NWA was more influential for me because of the more diverse range of artists they sampled which introduced me to an alternative genre of music that I was raised on (I was pounded into the ground with led-zep and the eagles, and they tend to wear thin quickly). Because of NWA (and more so Cube), I have a profound love of Prince, Parliament Funkadelic, The Isley Brothers, and all of the great R&B and funk that goes along with those groups. I can't say the tribe had that same impact on me.
I would never argue that any hip hop production was better than anything that Ice Cube was involved in, especially since I am also an artist and he was one of my three favorite inspirations. But as far as the wu, their production was purposely made to counter the very airbrushed and smooth sound from the west coast at the time. They were instrumental in ushering in the Lo-Fi sound that dominates modern indie dance/rock/hip-hop. I agree that most of their rap was about how good they can rap, so their lyrics leave much to be desired, but the cult like mystique they garnered helps replace much of what is lost from their lack luster lyrics. They also had some pretty great flow ta boot.
Would have loved it if you were both arguing who the best member of the wu-tang clan was.
I tried a more emotionally driven approach this time. I hope you'll keep in mind that it is chock full of emotionally driven rhetoric, but none of it is personal. I also keep having to trim the fat out of my arguments to meet the character limit.
I took no offense from your argument, and I understood your message was not about me. In fact, I commend you for trying to use more riskay and emotionally charged argumentation. Good luck.
Thanks. Cheers.
The first sentence of my last paragraph should say "Even when we consider the margin of error in this study, it's difficult to claim that antisemitism ISN'T (not "is") a present and influential factor in German society just as it is in the US". I understand if any voters take this error into consideration.
If there are any mods on here who could help me, or anybody who knows any mods who could help me with my problem of publishing my argument. The button seems to not work.
I will honor your request to save any critiques until the second round.
I do not plan to make any arguments that try to validate holocaust denial in any manner. I vehemently reject the notion that twelve million people didn't die as a result of nazi concentration camps, and I believe that the nazis were the most evil political movement to have ever existed. There will be no tabooness from my side. Well..............at least not regarding the holocaust.
I look forward to an interesting discussion. Good luck!
I may be interested in this. I will attempt to demonstrate how banning holocaust denial would not be beneficial. The 1st amendment of the constitution would be a moot rebuttal against my argument because of how it will be framed.
That's a good cover of mad world, but I do prefer the original.
The proposal of this argument is clear and concise, it is YOUR choice, therefore, YOU should be the one coming up with the topic, not me!!!
I will be arguing that the debate topic should be your choice.
Can we argue on who should decide what the topic of this should be?
Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. Solipsism doesn't necessarily deny that other minds exist, it just means that outside the scope of your senses, nothing can be known. From a solipsistic point of view, any evidence that could potentially disprove the existence of others is unreliable, just as any evidence that proves the existence of others is unreliable.