-If that was the case then explain how more socialized countries in Europe actually have better living conditions as seen in life spans.
" Healthcare is not a basic right. Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness. "
- Ok, so you're once again implying you're an anarchist.
This logic can be applied to taxes as well, the same concept.
Taxes shouldn't exist since they violate others right to happiness as well since we're sacrificing their needs for the collective good.
". The nation has to be wealthy in the first place, which is what capitalism has historically done."
- America is wealthy, what's our excuse?
And again I personally am not in favor of a 100 % socialist market. More of a 70 - 30 split favoring socialism.
" This quite simply isn't the case. They are more capitalistic than us in some ways. Sweden has school vouchers and a privatized pension plan."
You found one country in Europe with a few capitalist policies as an excuse to argue that they are less socialist.
The majority of these countries have more regulations, socialized medicine, and socialized education.
" You are assuming that punishing entrepreneurs with huge taxes and stifling regulation won't cause jobs to get shipped to other countries"
- Considering countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and other more socialized countries still have very powerful economies, it's a false statement to make that jobs are being " shipped " to other countries.
This also is once again ignoring the fact that employers also benefit from higher taxes.
Do you not think employers benefit from a more educated, healthier, and safer population?
". I believe creating a good economic environment for businesses is what we need to do to help create jobs and therefore help the poor."
- This is a false utopia that would never exist.
Encouraging radical self-interest does exactly what it sounds like.
The industrial revolution is a prime example of your version of a utopia with limited regulations and taxes.
In case you don't recall in the industrial revolution there was horrible wealth inequality, short life spans, horrible working conditions, disgusting living conditions, and disease ran rampant.
Historically encouraging radical self-interest and capitalist ideals haven't helped the poor at all.
" Sure some rich people have a leg up, but hundreds of rich people lose their wealth and hundreds of poor people gain that wealth. It is not impossible to succeed if you're poor at birth."
- You're missing my point, my point isn't that it isn't IMPOSSIBLE.
It's the fact that certain people very obviously have starting advantages over other people which is why we have a progressive tax.
" Redistribution of wealth is bad. That doesn't make me an anarchist. I just want to limit redistribution of wealth when possible. In terms of military and schooling, it is necessary."
- So why is in terms of military and schooling necessary yet food, housing, and healthcare are different?
You are stating that the redistribution of wealth is " evil " which includes taxes. This does make you an anarchist.
" Perhaps not everyone wants to live off the government, but do you want to allow people to do That?"
- It's more important to see the majority of innocent people living in poverty who want to contribute than to see a selective few be parasites.
And again this doesn't ruin incentive since we would only provide the basis of services such as food, housing, education, and healthcare. Do you not think people want more good than just the basics? Many would work a job to attain more food for their family, better housing, and more goods IE T-shirts, TV's, Cars ETC.
". But people make worse decisions when there is less weight on those decisions "
- Ok, so how about we enact the purge.
This would encourage poor people to get ahead so that they can afford better security and protection.
How about we narrow streets, decrease living conditions, and decrease working conditions.
This would encourage poor people to get ahead.
You have to spend money to make money.
It would cost money to provide basic needs to people, but this argument is one-sided.
If I give a poor person sandwiches, now that they aren't starving to death now they can contribute and make more sandwiches.
If I provide someone with the healthcare they need, not only do they get to live and be healthy, but now they can be a functioning member of society.
" Nazis were socialists by the way..... "
- No, they weren't.
The Nazis literally believe in natural selection which completely contradicts the socialism ideology of altruism.
" What was the cold war? An attempt at world domination to spread communistic ideologies."
- The soviet union is an extreme example of communism and a pure misrepresentation.
If anything by capitalisms logic the soviet union was more capitalist and imperialistic.
The communist manifesto literally criticizes imperialization and radical self-interest similar to what the Soviet Union did.
" Also, charities such as churches are much better than the federal government because local charities have a much better idea of how to fix problems in their community and incentive to use money more effectively (they can't tax for more revenue). They won't throw money at the problem like the government likes to."
- Firstly again this is false since if charities were so effective at solving the issue world hunger wouldn't be as prominent as it is even in more advanced countries such as the US and some parts of Europe.
- Secondly, where is your proof that the government wastes money and is ineffective with said money?
In more heavily socialized countries in Europe with higher tax rates more nationalized sectors such as healthcare and education very obviously aren't just wasting money and are very effective, even more so than charities.
" You think that a slowed down economy won't cause more starvation?"
- This is assuming giving poor people better conditions would slow down the economy at all. I am still not convinced it would.
Do you not believe wealthy individuals benefit from a healthier and more educated population?
" If you would look into it, you would find that starvation is super rare in America. "
- Not exactly starvation in more wealthy 1st world countries but food insecure.
Statistically, a good portion of American families is food insecure which wouldn't be an issue if the government redistributed food from greedy corporations which would rather throw away food to save money than to give it away.
" Why should the majority be allowed to oppress the minority at Will?"
But again I specified by stating as much as reasonably possible.
There is no good and logical reason for the Nazis to do what they did.
Even if there was, we can't ignore the billions/common good that'd suffer.
If anything like I previously mentioned this would prove your point incorrect.
" Three brothers, all grow up in the same town and go to the same school. "
Inaccurate scenario, the reality is we all grow up in different areas, households, and economic opportunities.
Let me ask you, who is more likely to succeed and have more advantages?
Donald Trumps Son or the average person/I'm assuming to be you then again I do not know your economic situation.
" Why under any valid system should we take money from people who work themselves to death to gain their wealth and give it to people who throw out any chance he gets?"
- People don't start off in the same circumstances, those that did " earn " their wealth started from FAR different positions than anyone else.
This is also assuming rich people throw away their money, many rich people don't donate to charity and besides, it's more important everyone has their basic needs than for a rich person to buy a new car.
" Redistribution of wealth sets a bad mindset. "
- Are you an anarchist? Because by this logic you must be against taxes which is a form of redistribution.
" Most people who are rich aren't born into wealth. People move around income brackets all the time"
- False the majority of people born wealthy will stay wealthy when they get older.
- not to mention the unnecessary amount of deaths we'd avoid.
". If they think their policies are the best, what should stop them from genocide?"
- Their policies weren't for the greater good and this actually disproves your point.
From a 100 % individualistic standpoint, the Nazis were in the right in their attempts at world conquest
They had a very strong country ( for the most part ) capable of taking over the world, who cares about the other countries in Europe, Americas, Asia, or Africa.
By a capitalist standpoint, it would be a moral virtue for them to take over the world as it's in their self-interest to do so which is the idea of capitalism.
" Ok, but in your example, you forget a vital element: charity. Often times, a church or non-profit would send in food to starving people out of their own volition. You don't need to steal from anyone."
- Considering that millions are still starving every day, including those in our own country, it's correct to assume charity isn't effective. I don't see it as stealing especially for a great cause. We already redistribute wealth from everyone towards a collective good IE Military, schools, infrastructure ETC.
" The thing is, it might be good in the short term to redistribute the food. But, if by doing so you undermine our system of private property, you're going to end up with a worse economy and less motivated workers."
- This would slow down the economy, however, what is more important.
The economy slowing down, or millions dying and starving to death.
Workers will still work normally, just in the hands of the government and not greedy corporations.
I fail to see how this would motivate fewer workers when we'd still have plenty of food left over, I could imagine workers will still be fighting for better food and more food. This system would just guarantee everyone has basic needs.
Do you not think you're the first person to make this argument?
Philosophers in the 18th century used the incentivization argument to decrease living conditions and excuses to cause food shortages.
Obviously the more empathic in the past two centuries hasn't disincentivized workers.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live off of the government for free, everyone has hopes or aspirations.
" Smart workers helps everyone, but I don't know if thousands of dollars for one person's surgery is always worth it."
- Do you not believe that more healthy workers would fuel the economy? Less sick days and more productive and happy workers who have to worry less about sickness or high medical costs always boosts productivity.
" I don't quite know about the healthcare example, but education is something that promotes social good."
- Do you not believe society would benefit if everyone had the healthcare they needed?
Happiness would increase, worker productivity would increase, and fewer people would die or be sick.
" What about Nazi Germany? If the majority is Nazis, should their interests surpass those of their victims? If you base decisions off of personal liberties, that can never happen"
- The goal is to please the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
Killing an entire population for a goal ( which isn't enough correct ) isn't reasonable.
Let's state that in an alternate scenario the ENTIRE as in 100 percent of the Jewish population were murderers, rapists, and thieves, and society would be better without them than I believe they should be put in prison and receive the mental health they need. Not executed as I don't believe in the death penalty.
Obviously, this isn't the case and to that, I'd say,
" It is super easy to justify anything with these wacky hypothetical that would never happen like the world needing a sacrifice not to end."
" . It is super easy to justify socialism with these wacky hypothetical that would never happen like the world needing a sacrifice not to end."
- Fair enough, if you want a more realistic example, how about this.
You have 10 people.
1 of which comes from immense wealth and because of this they have more opportunities and are better raised, because of this they stay rich.
4 come from some wealth and are raised decently and turn out decently.
The other 5 come from poverty and as a result, turn out to be mostly poor with one making decent money.
A snowstorm hits leaving the town in a food shortage.
As a result, the bottom 4 are starving to death.
However, if we redistribute the top person's food and some of the middle 5's food, the 4 won't starve. However, it will require a sacrifice for the greater good.
Taking a 100 % individualistic lens will state that the 4 people starve.
Taking a more collective approach will state that everyone has enough food to survive.
This is a more realistic scenario which happens daily,
As of right now, we have enough food to feed around 10 billion people yet we only need to feed 7.7 billion.
Even so, many go hungry any night and many starve due to the capitalistic system which would rather see people starve to death than to see companies lose money.
In a mixed market economy with a higher emphasis on socialization, the food would be redistributed and we'd have more than enough to feed everyone.
We need to stop looking at problems with a 100 % individualist lens and instead consider the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
For example, if the world was going to end unless we sacrificed one person and that one person refused, would you really let the world end just because one person was selfish?
Same with this, socialized healthcare and education would be beneficial to the collective good of society but would also hurt a small portion of the population.
The goal is to please the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
2. Society is the majority of the population and this would be confined mostly to America.
It's actually kinda funny, I was going to give you another chance and not block you.
However, considering you just ignored me debunking your vote argument, I'm done with you.
You have dodged my argument not once, not twice, but three times.
Dodged several key points on this debate
And dodged several counter-arguments against your absurd claims.
Why should I continually debunk your points when you continue to go around in circles and espouse the same arguments again?
You are blocked and banned from participating in any of my debates for this reason.
Now I will debunk a claim Tiwaz made in the comments, consider this response a gift.
" also never claimed his vote was removed for that reason, it was removed specifically due to him not surveying the arguments sufficiently"
You failed to explain how him not making a clear vote makes him " bias ".
I mean I will admit he didn't make a great vote the first time around, but again how does this equate to him being " bias"
Anyways I hope one day when you get older, you look back on this entire debate and think about how immature and of a poor debater you were back than and how much you changed.
Because really, you have potential.
I've seen you in several debates and while I do sometimes disagree with your positions, you do sometimes actually make pretty solid arguments.
My advice to you would be to actually respond to your opponent's arguments in the future and actually answer them.
I would like for the mods to please read me debunking Tiwaz's absurd accusations in my previous comment.
To summarize,
Tiwaz's " evidence " is nothing more than circumstantial evidence that really doesn't prove much aside from me PMing people asking for them to vote on debates which to my knowledge isn't against the rules.
It's not like I asked Omar to specifically vote for me, I asked him to vote on a debate of mine.
“ On his debate.org profile he has voted for you at least 10 times - and against you only once, where you directly conceded. When you combine this with the fact you just openly admitted to contacting him through private messaging prior to this vote, it becomes very evident that option 1 or 2 is incredibly more likely than option 3.”
This is a very heavy accusation which doesn’t make sense once you begin to think about it and here’s why…
Correlation doesn’t equal causation, just because he votes for me alot doesn’t mean he is bias.
Did you ever think I may just be a good debater?
I have a near perfect record on debate.org with only one lost debate with OTHER people voting on them as well.
I am having trouble how this equates to “ vote rigging “.
I am not trying to flaunt my ratio around, however facts are facts it’s more likely my arguments were better then my opponents on the debates he voted on.
2. You once again have dodged the question again, you STILL haven’t explained how contacting people to vote on debates is “ vote rigging “.
“ . If you concede, he bases his vote exclusively on your concession, and not the opponent's argument.”
Plenty of people vote purely on concessions and don’t actually look at the opponent’s argument much.
I used to do that plenty on other debates on this site before it became a rule.
I don’t see how that equates to him “ vote rigging “ or being “ bias “.
To conclude, Tiwaz has repeatedly dodged questions and made baseless accusations which make zero sense.
" In his reasoning, linked in his vote he states: "Clearly true by looking at the contenders Round 1 arguments." and goes on to justify giving you a conduct point on a similar basis"
- Straw manning his entire position on almost all levels. You made a claim of sex being harmful in round 1, then completely ignored the benefits of sex I made in R1 being centered around Sex being beneficial to one's psychological and medical health.
“ I didn't even write that as a refutation of his vote, I only put it there to show admitted vote rigging on another site. I think I have built a substantial case for this accusation by now.”
Once again Tiwaz has COMPLETELY ignored my question.
How is me ASKING people for votes “ vote rigging “?
Doing that is NOT against the rules, plenty of people make comments tagging a bunch of people asking for votes.
You once again completely dodged my question, because of this I will be blocking Tiwaz shortly after I finish responding to his absurd accusations.
This has happened numerous times throughout the debate, in the comments, and in another debate. I am not going to continue responding to Tiwaz when he won’t answer simple questions and instead will dodge and ignore them. Sorry not going to tolerate it.
“ I think you should inspect Omar's prior vote (and my objections to it) which was removed by moderators before we ask how I'm justifying bias.”
Note, Omar’s vote WASN’T removed for being “ bias “ at all.
The only reason it was removed was because he didn’t explain clearly enough.
Very obvious misrepresentation of the Mod’s decision.
" Moreover, I did not need to address your rebuttals in the first round - they were aimed at a position I do not hold. This, coupled with the fact you stated BoP was on me not you, implying I had to prove something not disprove something."
- Obvious strawman, I understand you not rebutting the claims in the first round. I am talking about my rebuttals to the arguments I made in the second round.
" Tell me where I accused you in my previous comment."
My bad I meant Omar
" I accused him of biased voting because that much at least was apparent."
Please elaborate, you called him bias earlier but still haven't explained why.
" He gave all the points to you without thoroughly analyzing any of the arguments, or presenting a proper case for awarding a single point - despite awarding all 7. "
- Firstly you actually dodged my question which I predicted, you didn't explain how he was only voting for me other than a summoned PM.
Or explained how this is even bad in the first place.
- Secondly, Debaticus didn't award me the conduct point, even if he did he gave good enough reasons why. I don't see what the problem is.
You still actually haven't properly debunked his points on his debate.
" If nothing else, I thank you for admitting to PMing Omar, and thus making his reason for a biased conclusion and analysis apparent."
- Please explain how asking someone to look at a debate makes their vote automatically bias?
Are you calling pretty much everyone on this site bias because pretty much everyone tags other people in the comments asking for votes?
To conclude, you have gone on to ONCE AGAIN dodge questions and instead made nothing but baseless accusations.
The next time you do this, you'll be blocked so I'll give you one last chance.
ANSWER my questions and stop dodging. I won't let you do it anymore, just stop dodging and answer the questions.
Very obviously you have taken the entire situation out of context and have gone on to make baseless accusations against me and debaticus.
" It was on me to prove that homosexuality is harmful, not to disprove arguments he made that bore no relevance to my argument."
- I made rebuttals which you did not counter, that were the arguments you ignored.
If you didn't falsify my rebuttals, then my debunking of your points still stand.
" m also curious as to why you awarded 1 point to me for sources then gave con the source point."
- Pretty sure this was a typo.
" I may also note that I was not suspicious of foul play before, but upon viewing https://www.debate.org/debates/Have-the-conservatives-in-America-lost-the-battle-with-the-leftists/1/ I have a strong suspicion."
- Can you actually logically answer this question, how did I engage in " foul " play in this debate?
Don't dodge this question either like you always do, actually, answer and back up your poor hypothesis.
" In this debate, you voted for Freud/Squeakly under no basis other than "summoned from a PM." "
- False I haven't even talked to debaticus for quite some time, and I certainly didn't pm him to vote.
The only person I PMed was Omar but that was only because the debate wasn't getting any votes.
Is there something wrong with PMing people to request for votes? Lots of people on the website do so. and plus it's not against the rules.
Now if I was PMing Omar and asking " Hey please vote for me on this debate," then we can talk about this being poor conduct. But that's not the case, actually, prove to me that PMing asking for votes is a bad thing? Don't dodge this question either.
I couldn't care less about the win to loss ratio, my problem is that if Our_Boat_is_Right is going to insult Omar, then he better not be hypocritical when he arguably has a worse ratio then he does.
Also technically I'm actually not supposed to be asking that. Virtuoso messaged me and politely told me it's against the rules so from now on I won't be stating that.
I asked for you to CONSIDER the idea's illustrated in the vote. Perhaps you could use some of the quotes but provide more which I didn't reference. All you did was pretty much just copy and paste my quotes which is plagiarism.
I don't care if you credited me, plagiarism is still against the rules even if I was ok with it. ( and I'm not by the way )
Just because undeveloped fetus's don't have moral consideration doesn't mean they should be used as USD due to practical reasons.
For example, rocks aren't sentient so a rock doesn't deserve moral consideration. However, rocks would be very heavy and inconvenient to lug around especially compared to paper bills.
Another example would be a house. A house isn't sentient so a house doesn't deserve moral consideration. However, if you destroy someone's house then their well being is affected.
-If that was the case then explain how more socialized countries in Europe actually have better living conditions as seen in life spans.
" Healthcare is not a basic right. Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness. "
- Ok, so you're once again implying you're an anarchist.
This logic can be applied to taxes as well, the same concept.
Taxes shouldn't exist since they violate others right to happiness as well since we're sacrificing their needs for the collective good.
". The nation has to be wealthy in the first place, which is what capitalism has historically done."
- America is wealthy, what's our excuse?
And again I personally am not in favor of a 100 % socialist market. More of a 70 - 30 split favoring socialism.
" This quite simply isn't the case. They are more capitalistic than us in some ways. Sweden has school vouchers and a privatized pension plan."
You found one country in Europe with a few capitalist policies as an excuse to argue that they are less socialist.
The majority of these countries have more regulations, socialized medicine, and socialized education.
" You are assuming that punishing entrepreneurs with huge taxes and stifling regulation won't cause jobs to get shipped to other countries"
- Considering countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and other more socialized countries still have very powerful economies, it's a false statement to make that jobs are being " shipped " to other countries.
This also is once again ignoring the fact that employers also benefit from higher taxes.
Do you not think employers benefit from a more educated, healthier, and safer population?
". I believe creating a good economic environment for businesses is what we need to do to help create jobs and therefore help the poor."
- This is a false utopia that would never exist.
Encouraging radical self-interest does exactly what it sounds like.
The industrial revolution is a prime example of your version of a utopia with limited regulations and taxes.
In case you don't recall in the industrial revolution there was horrible wealth inequality, short life spans, horrible working conditions, disgusting living conditions, and disease ran rampant.
Historically encouraging radical self-interest and capitalist ideals haven't helped the poor at all.
" Sure some rich people have a leg up, but hundreds of rich people lose their wealth and hundreds of poor people gain that wealth. It is not impossible to succeed if you're poor at birth."
- You're missing my point, my point isn't that it isn't IMPOSSIBLE.
It's the fact that certain people very obviously have starting advantages over other people which is why we have a progressive tax.
" Redistribution of wealth is bad. That doesn't make me an anarchist. I just want to limit redistribution of wealth when possible. In terms of military and schooling, it is necessary."
- So why is in terms of military and schooling necessary yet food, housing, and healthcare are different?
You are stating that the redistribution of wealth is " evil " which includes taxes. This does make you an anarchist.
" Perhaps not everyone wants to live off the government, but do you want to allow people to do That?"
- It's more important to see the majority of innocent people living in poverty who want to contribute than to see a selective few be parasites.
And again this doesn't ruin incentive since we would only provide the basis of services such as food, housing, education, and healthcare. Do you not think people want more good than just the basics? Many would work a job to attain more food for their family, better housing, and more goods IE T-shirts, TV's, Cars ETC.
". But people make worse decisions when there is less weight on those decisions "
- Ok, so how about we enact the purge.
This would encourage poor people to get ahead so that they can afford better security and protection.
How about we narrow streets, decrease living conditions, and decrease working conditions.
This would encourage poor people to get ahead.
You have to spend money to make money.
It would cost money to provide basic needs to people, but this argument is one-sided.
If I give a poor person sandwiches, now that they aren't starving to death now they can contribute and make more sandwiches.
If I provide someone with the healthcare they need, not only do they get to live and be healthy, but now they can be a functioning member of society.
" Nazis were socialists by the way..... "
- No, they weren't.
The Nazis literally believe in natural selection which completely contradicts the socialism ideology of altruism.
" What was the cold war? An attempt at world domination to spread communistic ideologies."
- The soviet union is an extreme example of communism and a pure misrepresentation.
If anything by capitalisms logic the soviet union was more capitalist and imperialistic.
The communist manifesto literally criticizes imperialization and radical self-interest similar to what the Soviet Union did.
" Also, charities such as churches are much better than the federal government because local charities have a much better idea of how to fix problems in their community and incentive to use money more effectively (they can't tax for more revenue). They won't throw money at the problem like the government likes to."
- Firstly again this is false since if charities were so effective at solving the issue world hunger wouldn't be as prominent as it is even in more advanced countries such as the US and some parts of Europe.
- Secondly, where is your proof that the government wastes money and is ineffective with said money?
In more heavily socialized countries in Europe with higher tax rates more nationalized sectors such as healthcare and education very obviously aren't just wasting money and are very effective, even more so than charities.
" You think that a slowed down economy won't cause more starvation?"
- This is assuming giving poor people better conditions would slow down the economy at all. I am still not convinced it would.
Do you not believe wealthy individuals benefit from a healthier and more educated population?
" If you would look into it, you would find that starvation is super rare in America. "
- Not exactly starvation in more wealthy 1st world countries but food insecure.
Statistically, a good portion of American families is food insecure which wouldn't be an issue if the government redistributed food from greedy corporations which would rather throw away food to save money than to give it away.
1. Great glad you agree and I'm not the only one who thinks this.
2. Oh shit I just copied and pasted this from DDO my bad I'll change this.
3. I use the word completely since whenever I do debates regarding socialism and I point out that mixed market economies do well they're always like,
" RAH YOU DIDN'T SPECIFY THEY'RE MIXED MARKETS REE!!!"
" Why should the majority be allowed to oppress the minority at Will?"
But again I specified by stating as much as reasonably possible.
There is no good and logical reason for the Nazis to do what they did.
Even if there was, we can't ignore the billions/common good that'd suffer.
If anything like I previously mentioned this would prove your point incorrect.
" Three brothers, all grow up in the same town and go to the same school. "
Inaccurate scenario, the reality is we all grow up in different areas, households, and economic opportunities.
Let me ask you, who is more likely to succeed and have more advantages?
Donald Trumps Son or the average person/I'm assuming to be you then again I do not know your economic situation.
" Why under any valid system should we take money from people who work themselves to death to gain their wealth and give it to people who throw out any chance he gets?"
- People don't start off in the same circumstances, those that did " earn " their wealth started from FAR different positions than anyone else.
This is also assuming rich people throw away their money, many rich people don't donate to charity and besides, it's more important everyone has their basic needs than for a rich person to buy a new car.
" Redistribution of wealth sets a bad mindset. "
- Are you an anarchist? Because by this logic you must be against taxes which is a form of redistribution.
" Most people who are rich aren't born into wealth. People move around income brackets all the time"
- False the majority of people born wealthy will stay wealthy when they get older.
- not to mention the unnecessary amount of deaths we'd avoid.
". If they think their policies are the best, what should stop them from genocide?"
- Their policies weren't for the greater good and this actually disproves your point.
From a 100 % individualistic standpoint, the Nazis were in the right in their attempts at world conquest
They had a very strong country ( for the most part ) capable of taking over the world, who cares about the other countries in Europe, Americas, Asia, or Africa.
By a capitalist standpoint, it would be a moral virtue for them to take over the world as it's in their self-interest to do so which is the idea of capitalism.
" Ok, but in your example, you forget a vital element: charity. Often times, a church or non-profit would send in food to starving people out of their own volition. You don't need to steal from anyone."
- Considering that millions are still starving every day, including those in our own country, it's correct to assume charity isn't effective. I don't see it as stealing especially for a great cause. We already redistribute wealth from everyone towards a collective good IE Military, schools, infrastructure ETC.
" The thing is, it might be good in the short term to redistribute the food. But, if by doing so you undermine our system of private property, you're going to end up with a worse economy and less motivated workers."
- This would slow down the economy, however, what is more important.
The economy slowing down, or millions dying and starving to death.
Workers will still work normally, just in the hands of the government and not greedy corporations.
I fail to see how this would motivate fewer workers when we'd still have plenty of food left over, I could imagine workers will still be fighting for better food and more food. This system would just guarantee everyone has basic needs.
Do you not think you're the first person to make this argument?
Philosophers in the 18th century used the incentivization argument to decrease living conditions and excuses to cause food shortages.
Obviously the more empathic in the past two centuries hasn't disincentivized workers.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live off of the government for free, everyone has hopes or aspirations.
" Smart workers helps everyone, but I don't know if thousands of dollars for one person's surgery is always worth it."
- Do you not believe that more healthy workers would fuel the economy? Less sick days and more productive and happy workers who have to worry less about sickness or high medical costs always boosts productivity.
" I don't quite know about the healthcare example, but education is something that promotes social good."
- Do you not believe society would benefit if everyone had the healthcare they needed?
Happiness would increase, worker productivity would increase, and fewer people would die or be sick.
" What about Nazi Germany? If the majority is Nazis, should their interests surpass those of their victims? If you base decisions off of personal liberties, that can never happen"
- The goal is to please the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
Killing an entire population for a goal ( which isn't enough correct ) isn't reasonable.
Let's state that in an alternate scenario the ENTIRE as in 100 percent of the Jewish population were murderers, rapists, and thieves, and society would be better without them than I believe they should be put in prison and receive the mental health they need. Not executed as I don't believe in the death penalty.
Obviously, this isn't the case and to that, I'd say,
" It is super easy to justify anything with these wacky hypothetical that would never happen like the world needing a sacrifice not to end."
" . It is super easy to justify socialism with these wacky hypothetical that would never happen like the world needing a sacrifice not to end."
- Fair enough, if you want a more realistic example, how about this.
You have 10 people.
1 of which comes from immense wealth and because of this they have more opportunities and are better raised, because of this they stay rich.
4 come from some wealth and are raised decently and turn out decently.
The other 5 come from poverty and as a result, turn out to be mostly poor with one making decent money.
A snowstorm hits leaving the town in a food shortage.
As a result, the bottom 4 are starving to death.
However, if we redistribute the top person's food and some of the middle 5's food, the 4 won't starve. However, it will require a sacrifice for the greater good.
Taking a 100 % individualistic lens will state that the 4 people starve.
Taking a more collective approach will state that everyone has enough food to survive.
This is a more realistic scenario which happens daily,
As of right now, we have enough food to feed around 10 billion people yet we only need to feed 7.7 billion.
Even so, many go hungry any night and many starve due to the capitalistic system which would rather see people starve to death than to see companies lose money.
In a mixed market economy with a higher emphasis on socialization, the food would be redistributed and we'd have more than enough to feed everyone.
1. Harmful to society is a good measure.
We need to stop looking at problems with a 100 % individualist lens and instead consider the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
For example, if the world was going to end unless we sacrificed one person and that one person refused, would you really let the world end just because one person was selfish?
Same with this, socialized healthcare and education would be beneficial to the collective good of society but would also hurt a small portion of the population.
The goal is to please the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
2. Society is the majority of the population and this would be confined mostly to America.
Seeing a smart religious person debate a smart atheist sounds like a lot of fun.
It's rare to find a religious specimen that isn't brainwashed. Cough Cough dsjpk5.
Virtuoso vs. Omar on religion sounds very interesting.
IRL stuff.
This'll be interesting...
Why shouldn't they be able to control healthcare?
Just capitalism? No socialization at all?
Honestly, I probably won't, I'm pretty busy irl so I'll be very inactive during summer it looks like.
And to be frank, I don't like abortion debates.
They're oversaturated and both sides use the same boring arguments.
Never mind, I thought it'd be funny if you were going on the same camping trip as I was.
Nice Rebuttal, wish I could have accepted in time but you'll probably be better in this debate anyways as evidenced by your R1 rebuttal.
Since you're making an accusation against her, the BOP is mostly on you if that's okay.
Also dang that is a coincidence, you don't happen to live in northern California do you?
Anyone who accepts this debate as con obviously has no knowledge of history and is most likely racist.
In other words, this will be an easy win.
Also what is your definition of a " nut job " and incompetent?
I'd like to agree upon definitions before we start.
Just so you are aware, I'll be gone camping this weekend so we may have to extend a round.
I hope we can get this debate done in the span of a week in a half as by then I'll be camping for a week straight.
This is a pretty racist debate
The " take away valuable trait so I can kill you" argument is very weak and has a very simple way to get around it.
Non-Sentient beings are essentially property.
This is why houses since they aren't sentient, don't have moral consideration.
However, if you destroy someone's house than their well being is affected.
Applied to this scenario, if the person was in a coma then it is the decision of their family members or spouse to decide their fate.
Another example would be the intelligence trait.
Mentally deficient people aren't intelligent, therefore they don't have moral consideration.
However, if you kill a child who is mentally deficient the parents well being is affected.
Pretty sure it'd be a tie
Wow type1 actually made a pretty decent argument.
Never thought I'd see the day...
Alright yeah sorry I was typing and posted this right as you said that. My bad.
It's actually kinda funny, I was going to give you another chance and not block you.
However, considering you just ignored me debunking your vote argument, I'm done with you.
You have dodged my argument not once, not twice, but three times.
Dodged several key points on this debate
And dodged several counter-arguments against your absurd claims.
Why should I continually debunk your points when you continue to go around in circles and espouse the same arguments again?
You are blocked and banned from participating in any of my debates for this reason.
Now I will debunk a claim Tiwaz made in the comments, consider this response a gift.
" also never claimed his vote was removed for that reason, it was removed specifically due to him not surveying the arguments sufficiently"
You failed to explain how him not making a clear vote makes him " bias ".
I mean I will admit he didn't make a great vote the first time around, but again how does this equate to him being " bias"
Anyways I hope one day when you get older, you look back on this entire debate and think about how immature and of a poor debater you were back than and how much you changed.
Because really, you have potential.
I've seen you in several debates and while I do sometimes disagree with your positions, you do sometimes actually make pretty solid arguments.
My advice to you would be to actually respond to your opponent's arguments in the future and actually answer them.
Good day.
I would like for the mods to please read me debunking Tiwaz's absurd accusations in my previous comment.
To summarize,
Tiwaz's " evidence " is nothing more than circumstantial evidence that really doesn't prove much aside from me PMing people asking for them to vote on debates which to my knowledge isn't against the rules.
It's not like I asked Omar to specifically vote for me, I asked him to vote on a debate of mine.
“ On his debate.org profile he has voted for you at least 10 times - and against you only once, where you directly conceded. When you combine this with the fact you just openly admitted to contacting him through private messaging prior to this vote, it becomes very evident that option 1 or 2 is incredibly more likely than option 3.”
This is a very heavy accusation which doesn’t make sense once you begin to think about it and here’s why…
Correlation doesn’t equal causation, just because he votes for me alot doesn’t mean he is bias.
Did you ever think I may just be a good debater?
I have a near perfect record on debate.org with only one lost debate with OTHER people voting on them as well.
I am having trouble how this equates to “ vote rigging “.
I am not trying to flaunt my ratio around, however facts are facts it’s more likely my arguments were better then my opponents on the debates he voted on.
2. You once again have dodged the question again, you STILL haven’t explained how contacting people to vote on debates is “ vote rigging “.
“ . If you concede, he bases his vote exclusively on your concession, and not the opponent's argument.”
Plenty of people vote purely on concessions and don’t actually look at the opponent’s argument much.
I used to do that plenty on other debates on this site before it became a rule.
I don’t see how that equates to him “ vote rigging “ or being “ bias “.
To conclude, Tiwaz has repeatedly dodged questions and made baseless accusations which make zero sense.
" In his reasoning, linked in his vote he states: "Clearly true by looking at the contenders Round 1 arguments." and goes on to justify giving you a conduct point on a similar basis"
- Straw manning his entire position on almost all levels. You made a claim of sex being harmful in round 1, then completely ignored the benefits of sex I made in R1 being centered around Sex being beneficial to one's psychological and medical health.
“ I didn't even write that as a refutation of his vote, I only put it there to show admitted vote rigging on another site. I think I have built a substantial case for this accusation by now.”
Once again Tiwaz has COMPLETELY ignored my question.
How is me ASKING people for votes “ vote rigging “?
Doing that is NOT against the rules, plenty of people make comments tagging a bunch of people asking for votes.
You once again completely dodged my question, because of this I will be blocking Tiwaz shortly after I finish responding to his absurd accusations.
This has happened numerous times throughout the debate, in the comments, and in another debate. I am not going to continue responding to Tiwaz when he won’t answer simple questions and instead will dodge and ignore them. Sorry not going to tolerate it.
“ I think you should inspect Omar's prior vote (and my objections to it) which was removed by moderators before we ask how I'm justifying bias.”
Note, Omar’s vote WASN’T removed for being “ bias “ at all.
The only reason it was removed was because he didn’t explain clearly enough.
Very obvious misrepresentation of the Mod’s decision.
" Moreover, I did not need to address your rebuttals in the first round - they were aimed at a position I do not hold. This, coupled with the fact you stated BoP was on me not you, implying I had to prove something not disprove something."
- Obvious strawman, I understand you not rebutting the claims in the first round. I am talking about my rebuttals to the arguments I made in the second round.
You actually do have to disprove my debunktions.
" Tell me where I accused you in my previous comment."
My bad I meant Omar
" I accused him of biased voting because that much at least was apparent."
Please elaborate, you called him bias earlier but still haven't explained why.
" He gave all the points to you without thoroughly analyzing any of the arguments, or presenting a proper case for awarding a single point - despite awarding all 7. "
- Firstly you actually dodged my question which I predicted, you didn't explain how he was only voting for me other than a summoned PM.
Or explained how this is even bad in the first place.
- Secondly, Debaticus didn't award me the conduct point, even if he did he gave good enough reasons why. I don't see what the problem is.
You still actually haven't properly debunked his points on his debate.
" If nothing else, I thank you for admitting to PMing Omar, and thus making his reason for a biased conclusion and analysis apparent."
- Please explain how asking someone to look at a debate makes their vote automatically bias?
Are you calling pretty much everyone on this site bias because pretty much everyone tags other people in the comments asking for votes?
To conclude, you have gone on to ONCE AGAIN dodge questions and instead made nothing but baseless accusations.
The next time you do this, you'll be blocked so I'll give you one last chance.
ANSWER my questions and stop dodging. I won't let you do it anymore, just stop dodging and answer the questions.
" Pro maintained a calm and logical demeanor."
lol
Report my vote and if it gets removed I'll do a revote.
Very obviously you have taken the entire situation out of context and have gone on to make baseless accusations against me and debaticus.
" It was on me to prove that homosexuality is harmful, not to disprove arguments he made that bore no relevance to my argument."
- I made rebuttals which you did not counter, that were the arguments you ignored.
If you didn't falsify my rebuttals, then my debunking of your points still stand.
" m also curious as to why you awarded 1 point to me for sources then gave con the source point."
- Pretty sure this was a typo.
" I may also note that I was not suspicious of foul play before, but upon viewing https://www.debate.org/debates/Have-the-conservatives-in-America-lost-the-battle-with-the-leftists/1/ I have a strong suspicion."
- Can you actually logically answer this question, how did I engage in " foul " play in this debate?
Don't dodge this question either like you always do, actually, answer and back up your poor hypothesis.
" In this debate, you voted for Freud/Squeakly under no basis other than "summoned from a PM." "
- False I haven't even talked to debaticus for quite some time, and I certainly didn't pm him to vote.
The only person I PMed was Omar but that was only because the debate wasn't getting any votes.
Is there something wrong with PMing people to request for votes? Lots of people on the website do so. and plus it's not against the rules.
Now if I was PMing Omar and asking " Hey please vote for me on this debate," then we can talk about this being poor conduct. But that's not the case, actually, prove to me that PMing asking for votes is a bad thing? Don't dodge this question either.
I couldn't care less about the win to loss ratio, my problem is that if Our_Boat_is_Right is going to insult Omar, then he better not be hypocritical when he arguably has a worse ratio then he does.
If you're going to insult me, then at least make the insult funny or creative.
Or hell at least spell con right lol
Besides Omar only accepted 3 Type1 debates, leaving 7 debates left.
Let's think about it this way,
Omar may accept a lot of troll debates or full forfeit debates, however, we can assume he won 2-3 real debates correct?
You've lost a lot of debates and have won only one actual debate.
Therefore Omar still has a better record than you.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
How is I wanting clarification " putting words in [your] mouth?"
Are you implying ramshutu is being " bias " and is purposely removing Dr. Franklins vote?
Also technically I'm actually not supposed to be asking that. Virtuoso messaged me and politely told me it's against the rules so from now on I won't be stating that.
I asked for you to CONSIDER the idea's illustrated in the vote. Perhaps you could use some of the quotes but provide more which I didn't reference. All you did was pretty much just copy and paste my quotes which is plagiarism.
I don't care if you credited me, plagiarism is still against the rules even if I was ok with it. ( and I'm not by the way )
Alright cool I was just making sure
yes, and it'd ultimately be up to the owner or parent of the fetus to decide.
This is why random people shouldn't be able to decide the fate of random undeveloped fetus's
Just because undeveloped fetus's don't have moral consideration doesn't mean they should be used as USD due to practical reasons.
For example, rocks aren't sentient so a rock doesn't deserve moral consideration. However, rocks would be very heavy and inconvenient to lug around especially compared to paper bills.
Another example would be a house. A house isn't sentient so a house doesn't deserve moral consideration. However, if you destroy someone's house then their well being is affected.