Firstly, yes. If you extend the idea that love matters most out to social issues, it can easily become a non-economic thing too. The problem is that both Wings begin to defy their economic principle when they become socially like that, for the reasons I already stated in previous posts here as well as others you can imagine.
When you blackmail people to share, the ones blackmailing them can become tyrannical yes. That immediately means your society isn't truly Left-Wing. When you have the rich (who were cunning, smart, hard-working) lead, they favour their offspring and close buddies and soon the system is no longer based on the strong and smart preying on the weak and dumb respectively... It's just favouritism and Illuminati.
Far Left is everyone shares everything with everyone as much as possible.
Far Right is everyone fights with everyone, takes what they can and if possible scams people as much as they can if the people are stupid enough to fall for it, then they deserve to be ridden of that wealth.
The fundamental philosophy of the Left Wing is that nothing matters more than love. The fundamental philosophy of the Right Wing is that nothing matters more than greed.
Both are toxic in practise, the Left Wing is clearly more adorable in concept.
Saudi Arabia is not exactly Fascist but that's because it's not fully Sharia Law either, people don't realise this. Saudi is a corporate bordello that masquerades as Fascist (yes that's right, it pretends to be Fascist). Google it to understand.
I agree with you Conservatives that the left-wing are wrong to call Fascism 'far-right'. Fascism is not far-right because it defies right-wing concepts like allowing the oppressed to climb the ladder freely and such. I disagree with you that bigger government = left-wing. Bigger government = more beaureacratic, which actually has nothing to do with either Tyranny or Anarchy. Social Democracies are generally the biggest governments in the world and are left-leaning but overall Centrist.
Fascism is right-leaning centrist Tyranny. Communism that's been done (not as it was intended) is nothing at all in terms of wings. It literally is self-imploding and I'll explain why. It is wingless Tyranny that is not left-wing because it's run by elite against elitism (that makes no sense, I know).
Anarchism is impossible. You do not ever have anarchy, ever. I will prove this to you if you want.
Anyway I genuinely don't care, it's unrated and I love Canada more than I love Brazil personally. It's more in line with my social democrat politics of course.
Con even has an angle to take that will counter a lot of Pro's arguments:
That it isn't homosexuality that's evil, only acting on it that is.
This troll-angle is extremely powerful if Con does it correctly because it leaves voters who aren't dedicated to voting against Con, the ability to side with Con from two totally opposing angles on homosexuality as an act in and of itself.
What do you expect from such a far-right nation? Let me guess, Mharman will bring NK and call it Communist to then say the left wing is evil. Yeah, see, the thing is NK is not left-wing it is actually a centrist tinpot dictatorship tyranny.
Add the word 'conscious' before being. Living is a secondary necessity but is a flavour of the definition. Highly developed AI and ghosts would be people in my eyes but they're not alive.
A world where we fuck, love and have fun as much as possible while being responsible enough to stop overpopulation or undisciplined use of resources (including humans resources) is far more ideal than one where you marry, fuck after marriage solely for conception and feel like every single thing that makes you happy is a filthy sinful thing to fight.
The disabled can do things and bring joy to those around them.
The elderly eventually, especially if vegetative, reach a stage where they lose personhood yes. I support euthanasia and have personally seen the horror of a relative living through a euthanasia-worthy decline to the bitter end, it is disgusting to imagine experiencing shitting yourself not know what's going on and crying at times from sheer frustration and confusion. That is someone in hell, trapped in the role of being a 'person'.
A person, in my version of English and morality, is a being that is beneficial to the society as a whole. Whether it keeps the people around it happy despite being unemployed or is legally employed despite being a dickhead, I support all such beings as qualifying as persons.
All drains on society and obstacles to societal harmony and progress are beings that start to sacrifice personhood and this is why we are allowed to put some of them in prison. This also is why I support euthanasia and legal abortions up until the 2-term mark. If a foetus is past 5 months, it clearly is too far in to be considered a non-person, it already is developing a personality and the mother has clearly gone too far into the pregnancy to pretend it's a fuck-up on her part that she just wants to get rid of.
Instead of going there with your analogy, consider which of the two of us will maim a chimpanzee. Now stretch that to farm animal.
I see a person when I see a chimpanzee. I do not see a mouse or cat and want to treat it like a stuffed toy. That is a being with consciousness far kinder and better to spend time with than a lot of humans I know. I would much rather have it by my side and not be dead than those humans but I understand that when it comes down to it I am in a society that is human-supremacist and I must sacrifice my beliefs and joy for the sake of their ego and agenda.
The definition of person in the dictionary specifies they need to be human. This blackballs me into not pivoting the concept of an animal being more beneficial to society than a human to display the arbitrary nature of personhood and then to conclude that it should begin where we seem is most sane and convenient for society, which is 2/3 into a pregnancy.
I fear for my legal safety if I admit my true views on the laws that irrationally favour our species. I'd prefer no official debate on it, just read between the lines.
I will prove objectively that it is irrational to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human. This doesn't mean I disagree with outlawing murder, it means I know why murder is outlawed; for the convenience and safety of the society that outlaws it.
If a dog is more useful to us than a human, brings more joy to the people around it etc. What does the society benefit from saving the human? At present, it saves itself a riot from human-supremacists (which is most people).
sure thing ;) the main angle I already know Ramshutu is going to hammer home is that Transgender struggle is anti-family whereas Transethnic is family-made struggle. The way I am going to counter it is by analysing all other elements of them and how similar the struggle is, despite coming from near-opposite polarities of how one ends up there.
Similarly, Ramshutu will argue that one literally wants to change their gender, not just is a feminine man or masculine woman but I am going to try my best to prove that it is because society pressures them to pick a gender that they end up siding with the opposite one and identifying as that instead of a middleground.
You can mock me all you want, if you do/don't have autism you probably realise that one singular benefit of Autism is that it matters not in the slightest to us that others think we are stupid so long as they don't prevent us doing what we want to do.
in all seriousness while I like you less than I used to, you still would thwart bsh1 as head mod in all respects. You at least apologise at times like this and show appreciation to me even in the heat of me berating you on pm and in public.
You have every single element of being a worthy head mod but the only thing I dislike is the very fact that you willingly submit
to bsh1 for no reason at all and definitely no benefit to the website whatsoever.
You're completely wrong there and maybe you have autism that doesn't allow you to realise the abstract notion of website identification on a site like this but as I myself have autism, that would surprise me and mean you have a really strong strain.
A website doesn't owe a shred of respect to science, you just want it to.
Of course the moon is designed if you mean the round-earth model. That's because NASA & Co. Literally designed it when making their fairytale.
Guess what the sheep will say in return? "But what if it just was a new big severely improbable stupid accident and everything just went boom, bloom spin and zoom?"
100% indeed. The fact we only ever see one side of it ever and that the shadow is rarely ever logically shaped against the shape of the sun (the waning and waxing of the moon are far too fast to be linked to the Earth blocking the sun more and less in that period of time), it all implies that the moon is a hologram meant to signify some kind of thing about the sun and fate, as opposed to being some physical sphere.
The moon landing was faked whether or not the Earth is round. Even if space is real, the evidence both in the videos themselves and NASA stuff since then all make the Earth in the moon photos not match up to the modern NASA photos of Earth whatsoever, there's so much to that so if you think we landed on the moon but think the Earth is still round, you're at least a decently enough minded human being who can think for themselves in my eyes.
There have been 2 examples where eclipses occurred with the sun in the sky with the moon at the same time. These both have been explained away by NASA due to some utter nonsense logic.
The fact we only ever see one side of the moon and it looks like the eye of Horus from one angle which is also the symbol of Illuminati all lead one to wonder what kind of idiots would think it's a spinning ball that magically happens to spin around itself at the identical speed to which it rotates around the Earth, LOL!
I know you're not a flat-earther (yet) but this is extremely accurate and I hope you make a strong case. You'll likely lose due to abusive voters who are brainwashed by NASA and Roscosmos but hopefully I'll finally see a decent flat-earth-side win.
Probably not, I already know Ramshutu will vote for you no matter what as he will make your 'clarity' point hold more weight than all points I bring up as he is highly entertained by voting against me.
I also know barely anyone else will vote on the debate other than people who dislike me so... Yeah, I'm not into wasting effort on a debate where you're going to make it all about clarity of the male vs female and I'm going to make it all about necessity of the option-choice (gender vs sex) to the site economically and socially.
It's going to come down to 'does clarity or economic and social benefit matter more to you, personally' and the voters will freely vote against either of us. In fact, so very many debates come down to such nonsense which is in a way what makes them fair for both sides but then equally unfair all at once as it enables voters to pick and choose which side they want to vote against and can veil any corrupt agenda within their vote.
this is quite simply impractical for any business that is remotely large. In other words, the only businesses this will prove true for are the minority who make the least money overall in general and thus won't benefit US's economy overall as US is a nation whose economy is almost entirely driven by 'big business' these days.
I highly recommend asking the mods (Bsh1 and Virtuoso) and admin (DebateArt.Com is the site's admin) to help change your account's name ASAP.
You should not use your full real name and stuff on a site like this, your employer can and basically will read all your stuff here etc. from a simple Google search.
Wow I didn't concede or FF, trolls!!!!! LOL Unrated whatever
Firstly, yes. If you extend the idea that love matters most out to social issues, it can easily become a non-economic thing too. The problem is that both Wings begin to defy their economic principle when they become socially like that, for the reasons I already stated in previous posts here as well as others you can imagine.
When you blackmail people to share, the ones blackmailing them can become tyrannical yes. That immediately means your society isn't truly Left-Wing. When you have the rich (who were cunning, smart, hard-working) lead, they favour their offspring and close buddies and soon the system is no longer based on the strong and smart preying on the weak and dumb respectively... It's just favouritism and Illuminati.
Far Left is everyone shares everything with everyone as much as possible.
Far Right is everyone fights with everyone, takes what they can and if possible scams people as much as they can if the people are stupid enough to fall for it, then they deserve to be ridden of that wealth.
The fundamental philosophy of the Left Wing is that nothing matters more than love. The fundamental philosophy of the Right Wing is that nothing matters more than greed.
Both are toxic in practise, the Left Wing is clearly more adorable in concept.
Saudi Arabia is not exactly Fascist but that's because it's not fully Sharia Law either, people don't realise this. Saudi is a corporate bordello that masquerades as Fascist (yes that's right, it pretends to be Fascist). Google it to understand.
https://nationsofns.fandom.com/wiki/Corporate_Bordello
I agree with you Conservatives that the left-wing are wrong to call Fascism 'far-right'. Fascism is not far-right because it defies right-wing concepts like allowing the oppressed to climb the ladder freely and such. I disagree with you that bigger government = left-wing. Bigger government = more beaureacratic, which actually has nothing to do with either Tyranny or Anarchy. Social Democracies are generally the biggest governments in the world and are left-leaning but overall Centrist.
Fascism is right-leaning centrist Tyranny. Communism that's been done (not as it was intended) is nothing at all in terms of wings. It literally is self-imploding and I'll explain why. It is wingless Tyranny that is not left-wing because it's run by elite against elitism (that makes no sense, I know).
Anarchism is impossible. You do not ever have anarchy, ever. I will prove this to you if you want.
No, that's not how it works if you posted in a later Round. I wouldn't expect you to know that though, you're an amateur at what you do.
Anyway I genuinely don't care, it's unrated and I love Canada more than I love Brazil personally. It's more in line with my social democrat politics of course.
Where do I disrespect the other debater? LOL!
I never ever conceded in this debate.
I never conceded this debate.
I think this may be true but I'm going to quite literally play devil's advocate.
Con even has an angle to take that will counter a lot of Pro's arguments:
That it isn't homosexuality that's evil, only acting on it that is.
This troll-angle is extremely powerful if Con does it correctly because it leaves voters who aren't dedicated to voting against Con, the ability to side with Con from two totally opposing angles on homosexuality as an act in and of itself.
the source quoted is:
https://bdsmtest.org/info
I forgot to link it, I'll do that next Round.
Islam is far left???? HAHAHAHAHAH I CANNOT!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU MADE ME DO A DR. FRANKLIN ON YOU!
What do you expect from such a far-right nation? Let me guess, Mharman will bring NK and call it Communist to then say the left wing is evil. Yeah, see, the thing is NK is not left-wing it is actually a centrist tinpot dictatorship tyranny.
I am done with your sarcasm.
Add the word 'conscious' before being. Living is a secondary necessity but is a flavour of the definition. Highly developed AI and ghosts would be people in my eyes but they're not alive.
fundamentally, yes
A world where we fuck, love and have fun as much as possible while being responsible enough to stop overpopulation or undisciplined use of resources (including humans resources) is far more ideal than one where you marry, fuck after marriage solely for conception and feel like every single thing that makes you happy is a filthy sinful thing to fight.
How early born?
The disabled can do things and bring joy to those around them.
The elderly eventually, especially if vegetative, reach a stage where they lose personhood yes. I support euthanasia and have personally seen the horror of a relative living through a euthanasia-worthy decline to the bitter end, it is disgusting to imagine experiencing shitting yourself not know what's going on and crying at times from sheer frustration and confusion. That is someone in hell, trapped in the role of being a 'person'.
A person, in my version of English and morality, is a being that is beneficial to the society as a whole. Whether it keeps the people around it happy despite being unemployed or is legally employed despite being a dickhead, I support all such beings as qualifying as persons.
All drains on society and obstacles to societal harmony and progress are beings that start to sacrifice personhood and this is why we are allowed to put some of them in prison. This also is why I support euthanasia and legal abortions up until the 2-term mark. If a foetus is past 5 months, it clearly is too far in to be considered a non-person, it already is developing a personality and the mother has clearly gone too far into the pregnancy to pretend it's a fuck-up on her part that she just wants to get rid of.
Instead of going there with your analogy, consider which of the two of us will maim a chimpanzee. Now stretch that to farm animal.
I see a person when I see a chimpanzee. I do not see a mouse or cat and want to treat it like a stuffed toy. That is a being with consciousness far kinder and better to spend time with than a lot of humans I know. I would much rather have it by my side and not be dead than those humans but I understand that when it comes down to it I am in a society that is human-supremacist and I must sacrifice my beliefs and joy for the sake of their ego and agenda.
Yes
The definition of person in the dictionary specifies they need to be human. This blackballs me into not pivoting the concept of an animal being more beneficial to society than a human to display the arbitrary nature of personhood and then to conclude that it should begin where we seem is most sane and convenient for society, which is 2/3 into a pregnancy.
I fear for my legal safety if I admit my true views on the laws that irrationally favour our species. I'd prefer no official debate on it, just read between the lines.
I'm implying both that and also that a human can be a non-person. It's a social construct.
the definition of person includes 'human' currently. That's an issue for me so I won't engage in this debate.
5-6 months into pregnancy.
I will prove objectively that it is irrational to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human. This doesn't mean I disagree with outlawing murder, it means I know why murder is outlawed; for the convenience and safety of the society that outlaws it.
If a dog is more useful to us than a human, brings more joy to the people around it etc. What does the society benefit from saving the human? At present, it saves itself a riot from human-supremacists (which is most people).
I visit the site while doing other things.
I'll be responding
sure thing ;) the main angle I already know Ramshutu is going to hammer home is that Transgender struggle is anti-family whereas Transethnic is family-made struggle. The way I am going to counter it is by analysing all other elements of them and how similar the struggle is, despite coming from near-opposite polarities of how one ends up there.
Similarly, Ramshutu will argue that one literally wants to change their gender, not just is a feminine man or masculine woman but I am going to try my best to prove that it is because society pressures them to pick a gender that they end up siding with the opposite one and identifying as that instead of a middleground.
You can mock me all you want, if you do/don't have autism you probably realise that one singular benefit of Autism is that it matters not in the slightest to us that others think we are stupid so long as they don't prevent us doing what we want to do.
in all seriousness while I like you less than I used to, you still would thwart bsh1 as head mod in all respects. You at least apologise at times like this and show appreciation to me even in the heat of me berating you on pm and in public.
You have every single element of being a worthy head mod but the only thing I dislike is the very fact that you willingly submit
to bsh1 for no reason at all and definitely no benefit to the website whatsoever.
Oopsie, you slipped up.
So did the debates I had with Type1 alts.
Against a banned user. Delete the debate.
for most developed nations it's 16.
You're completely wrong there and maybe you have autism that doesn't allow you to realise the abstract notion of website identification on a site like this but as I myself have autism, that would surprise me and mean you have a really strong strain.
A website doesn't owe a shred of respect to science, you just want it to.
Of course the moon is designed if you mean the round-earth model. That's because NASA & Co. Literally designed it when making their fairytale.
Guess what the sheep will say in return? "But what if it just was a new big severely improbable stupid accident and everything just went boom, bloom spin and zoom?"
They win the debate, you win at life.
Online you can be many ages, hair colours etc. It's not absurd for a website.
don't thank him, he utterly mocked you and didn't give a single shred of respect to your case.
********* so if you think we NEVER landed on the moon but think the Earth is still round,
I MEANT TO TYPE NEVER
100% indeed. The fact we only ever see one side of it ever and that the shadow is rarely ever logically shaped against the shape of the sun (the waning and waxing of the moon are far too fast to be linked to the Earth blocking the sun more and less in that period of time), it all implies that the moon is a hologram meant to signify some kind of thing about the sun and fate, as opposed to being some physical sphere.
The moon landing was faked whether or not the Earth is round. Even if space is real, the evidence both in the videos themselves and NASA stuff since then all make the Earth in the moon photos not match up to the modern NASA photos of Earth whatsoever, there's so much to that so if you think we landed on the moon but think the Earth is still round, you're at least a decently enough minded human being who can think for themselves in my eyes.
There have been 2 examples where eclipses occurred with the sun in the sky with the moon at the same time. These both have been explained away by NASA due to some utter nonsense logic.
One examples was extremely recent.
http://worldreality.yolasite.com/selenelion--the-impossible-eclipse.php
The fact we only ever see one side of the moon and it looks like the eye of Horus from one angle which is also the symbol of Illuminati all lead one to wonder what kind of idiots would think it's a spinning ball that magically happens to spin around itself at the identical speed to which it rotates around the Earth, LOL!
I know you're not a flat-earther (yet) but this is extremely accurate and I hope you make a strong case. You'll likely lose due to abusive voters who are brainwashed by NASA and Roscosmos but hopefully I'll finally see a decent flat-earth-side win.
Probably not, I already know Ramshutu will vote for you no matter what as he will make your 'clarity' point hold more weight than all points I bring up as he is highly entertained by voting against me.
I also know barely anyone else will vote on the debate other than people who dislike me so... Yeah, I'm not into wasting effort on a debate where you're going to make it all about clarity of the male vs female and I'm going to make it all about necessity of the option-choice (gender vs sex) to the site economically and socially.
It's going to come down to 'does clarity or economic and social benefit matter more to you, personally' and the voters will freely vote against either of us. In fact, so very many debates come down to such nonsense which is in a way what makes them fair for both sides but then equally unfair all at once as it enables voters to pick and choose which side they want to vote against and can veil any corrupt agenda within their vote.
this is quite simply impractical for any business that is remotely large. In other words, the only businesses this will prove true for are the minority who make the least money overall in general and thus won't benefit US's economy overall as US is a nation whose economy is almost entirely driven by 'big business' these days.
the flaw isn't in the notion of caring for the poor, it's in ensuring it's the poor you're sending the money to.
UBI is utterly flawed at detecting wealth in possessions and estate.
I highly recommend asking the mods (Bsh1 and Virtuoso) and admin (DebateArt.Com is the site's admin) to help change your account's name ASAP.
You should not use your full real name and stuff on a site like this, your employer can and basically will read all your stuff here etc. from a simple Google search.