"Didn't the Nazis start off as a "small group of people"?"
The Nazis were relatively small, but they didn't come to conduct the Holocaust because they were allowed to convince others, at least not just that by its self. They came into power because the Treaty of Versailles crippled the German economy and the Germans were willing to vote for anyone promising to bring drastic change to Germany to restore the German economy. The Germans needed a scapegoat (they actually had many scapegoats). If the treaty of Versailles wasn't so cruel to Germany, then there would be no Holocaust because the German economy wouldn't have been so wrecked that they wouldn't scapegoat their problems on the Jews. The Nazis would have been this very small German party that virtually no one outside of Germany would know and they wouldn't get to power to conduct the Holocaust had there been no treaty of Versailles that was super harsh to Germany. Given that the world has gotten significantly more peaceful over the last few years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#:~:text=Wars%20%281%2C000%E2%80%939%2C999%20combat-related%20deaths%20in%20current%20or%20past,%20%2025%2C000%2B%20%209%20more%20rows%20), I think war may be in our past and peace may be what the world is looking to to help save lives and to boost the economy.
"Right. Prisons shouldn't be outlawed just because inevitably, an innocent person will be jailed. But 6 million? At what point do you put your foot down and admit reality has proven the need of an exception to an idealistic policy?"
Well, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples, it states, "Similar to the European Colonization of The Americas, the death toll under the British Empire is estimated to be as high as 150 million.[200][201]". This means that internationally, a typical person was 25x as likely to die from the British Empire(and all the concentration camps that resulted from that) as they were to die as someone who is both a Jewish person and a victim of Hitler's single concentration camp. Yet virtually everyone believes in the right to support colonialism, and not only that, 43% of the British population supports not just the right to support colonialism, but they support colonialism its self (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2016/jan/20/empire-state-of-mind-why-do-so-many-people-think-colonialism-was-a-good-thing). Are we going to outlaw the opinions of 43% of the population? That sounds like something a Nazi would do.
"Would you be okay being in the victims' position, and become a martyr for "freedom of speech" at the hands of neo-Nazis?"
I don't have to be. I do not support the ideology of Nazism. However, your profile says you are a communist, so you don't support the idea of low taxes. However, you still probably support the right of someone to believe in low taxes, even if you disagree with this idea. Similarly, although I don't support Nazism, I support the right to be a Nazi.
"By the way, your vote would be appreciated on this debate."
I read both of your arguments. I feel like my vote is going to be biased, so I'd rather not vote.
If Bigfoot exists to this day and is alive, he would have bred with other female bigfoots and produced a bunch of little bigfoot babies. These bigfoot babies would grow old, breed with more bigfoots and produce more bigfoot babies. This process repeats until there are a huge number of bigfoots and everyone knows they exist, either from seeing a bigfoot in person or from looking at an image of one.
Colonizing space and building huge cities on Mars to me sounds more ridiculous than doing that on Antarctica. At least Antarctica has oxygen and is close to the rest of the world; all foreign space bodies other than Earth are very far away.
Denying the Halocaust by a very small group of people won’t lead to a new Halocaust. Moreover, even if it did, just because a policy saves lives doesn’t mean it should be enacted. Forcing western taxpayers to pay $6 trillion a year to pay for food in 3rd world countries would prevent 30 million deaths every decade(Basically preventing a Holocaust every decade). However, this policy would be tyrannical, it would be an infringement of our freedoms and it should not be enacted even if it prevents a Halocaust every decade. Freedom is dangerous as hell but I love it.
If you want to ban denying the Halocaust, how would you punish it?
Sometimes I assume too much. It would have been weird if I asked you, "Do you think males and females are the same and think transwomen are women?" That's just cringy to say unironically.
I think every political leader should have term limits. We have too many career politicians. Politicians shouldn't get paid in anything except room, board, and other living expenses, and any revenue they generate from speeches gets paid to the state.
I don't think DART should care what age you are on DART to be here. I'd rather have a well behaved 12 year old than a 13 year old that acts like an asshole. I have a dream that people are judged not by the number of their age, but by the content of their character.
It would be ironic if someone forfeit this debate. If I had time, I’d take this debate. I think the person who forfeits first shouldn’t always lose. If a 5v5 basketball game occurs and one of the players from team A misses the game, it’s still possible for team A to win; it’s just harder.
Does the tribe's leader get counted in the tribe's people? A president is a citizen after all. I'd rather kill Joe Biden then 330 million Americans. I'm sure the tribe's leader has a 2nd in command that can fill the role.
I don't think your opponent insulted you during the debate. If you want to exchange insults on the forum, that's free speech, but a debate is not the place to insult your opponent.
I don't think America should nuke the Chinese in this instance, but how else will America get our revenge? We can't just let China get away with killing most Americans.
Most humans are selfish and there is nothing wrong with this. Otherwise, you would see everyone sponsoring as many children as they could. People care most about themselves, and I don't see anything wrong with this.
People who are born rich tend to have an advantage over people who are poor, but this has nothing to do with race. If poverty is to be reduced, single motherhood must end, and this is something that plaques the black and Hispanic community disproportionally. Some would say that black lives matter, but I think black fathers matter is a slogan that will help black people out more if single motherhood ends.
We should privatize the police. Get the government out of the policing industry and let private companies compete for business. They have incentive to improve their services that the government does not have.
Men live easier lives than women since they don't have periods ore pregnency. Yet it is what it is. This is "male privilige". This certainly doesn't justify giving women free money from the government for being women.
Whites may live easier lives than blacks because of their skin color, although this is nominal at most. This certainly doesn't justify giving blacks free money from the government for being black.
But BLM ranting about racism is like Fox News ranting about censorship. At least Fox News doesn't want Reperations for their claim that conservatives are being censored.
If the black community wants to improve their lives, the solution to this is to end the single motherhood in all communities, but especially in black and Hispanic communities(since single motherhood is more prevalent with these people). Black Fathers matter.
Children are malleable. If it's okay to put gay couples in Kids TV shows to get kids to be pro gay, it should also be allowed to do stories about abortions to kids to try and get them to be pro life. I think it's okay to show kids political content, but it should be allowed both ways.
I don't think I defended white supremacy. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a flat earther, so I wasn't using it as an insult. I just thought you were a flat earther. It's nothing to be ashamed of, even if people disagree.
Sorry, but I can't tell. With the internet, you can't tell if someone is joking. But America should go metric. It would save millions of dollars in the long term.
I think the government would pay the homeowners who have to move in the event of a meltdown, as that is precedent with Flint Michigan, so if they move, it's not a big deal. Such people are very rare given that not many people live close to a nuclear power plant. Granted, I'm not worried about power plants melting down again anytime soon. The most feasible alternative to nuclear is coal power, which isn't clean.
There is a lurking variable. The country that didn't use the metric system also had a very strong economy which allowed them to walk on the moon. If America was metric, we would have still landed on the moon. America should go metric. It's why the temperatures on my phone are all in Celsius.
You can choose whether or not you are powered with nuclear. If you don't like nuclear energy, don't buy energy from nuclear power plants. Half of my state is nuclear powered. If there is a meltdown (which almost never occur), I won't have to move. Some people living really close to the plant would have to move, but most people who rely on the plant for power won't have to move. A nuclear power plant powers more than just a small town. 2 plants power a small state, and 4 power plants can power an entire average sized state. Meltdowns are almost non existent, so I wouldn't worry about them.
I think people should decide for themselves what energy source to get. If you like solar, buy from solar producers or make your own. If you like fossil fuels, buy from fossil fuel producers or make your own. If you like cheap energy, buy from cheap providers or make your own. Let people make their own decisions.
Blaming all white people for riots is like blaming all men for rapes the vast majority of them aren’t associated with in any way (except for having the same gender as a rapist).
The homeless, the animals, and the kids from Africa aren’t my problem. I shouldn’t be forced to do anything about helping them, even if it means life or death to these parties.
Similarly, someone who is pregnant shouldn’t be forced to help their fetus, even if it means life or death to the fetus.
Want to DM me the joke?
I disagree with Puachu, but he has the right to his opinion.
"Didn't the Nazis start off as a "small group of people"?"
The Nazis were relatively small, but they didn't come to conduct the Holocaust because they were allowed to convince others, at least not just that by its self. They came into power because the Treaty of Versailles crippled the German economy and the Germans were willing to vote for anyone promising to bring drastic change to Germany to restore the German economy. The Germans needed a scapegoat (they actually had many scapegoats). If the treaty of Versailles wasn't so cruel to Germany, then there would be no Holocaust because the German economy wouldn't have been so wrecked that they wouldn't scapegoat their problems on the Jews. The Nazis would have been this very small German party that virtually no one outside of Germany would know and they wouldn't get to power to conduct the Holocaust had there been no treaty of Versailles that was super harsh to Germany. Given that the world has gotten significantly more peaceful over the last few years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#:~:text=Wars%20%281%2C000%E2%80%939%2C999%20combat-related%20deaths%20in%20current%20or%20past,%20%2025%2C000%2B%20%209%20more%20rows%20), I think war may be in our past and peace may be what the world is looking to to help save lives and to boost the economy.
"Right. Prisons shouldn't be outlawed just because inevitably, an innocent person will be jailed. But 6 million? At what point do you put your foot down and admit reality has proven the need of an exception to an idealistic policy?"
Well, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples, it states, "Similar to the European Colonization of The Americas, the death toll under the British Empire is estimated to be as high as 150 million.[200][201]". This means that internationally, a typical person was 25x as likely to die from the British Empire(and all the concentration camps that resulted from that) as they were to die as someone who is both a Jewish person and a victim of Hitler's single concentration camp. Yet virtually everyone believes in the right to support colonialism, and not only that, 43% of the British population supports not just the right to support colonialism, but they support colonialism its self (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2016/jan/20/empire-state-of-mind-why-do-so-many-people-think-colonialism-was-a-good-thing). Are we going to outlaw the opinions of 43% of the population? That sounds like something a Nazi would do.
"Would you be okay being in the victims' position, and become a martyr for "freedom of speech" at the hands of neo-Nazis?"
I don't have to be. I do not support the ideology of Nazism. However, your profile says you are a communist, so you don't support the idea of low taxes. However, you still probably support the right of someone to believe in low taxes, even if you disagree with this idea. Similarly, although I don't support Nazism, I support the right to be a Nazi.
"By the way, your vote would be appreciated on this debate."
I read both of your arguments. I feel like my vote is going to be biased, so I'd rather not vote.
Then his genes would have died out since he never reproduced.
See below.
If Bigfoot exists to this day and is alive, he would have bred with other female bigfoots and produced a bunch of little bigfoot babies. These bigfoot babies would grow old, breed with more bigfoots and produce more bigfoot babies. This process repeats until there are a huge number of bigfoots and everyone knows they exist, either from seeing a bigfoot in person or from looking at an image of one.
Sorry, I never won any spelling bees and my computer didn't spell check it for me.
Colonizing space and building huge cities on Mars to me sounds more ridiculous than doing that on Antarctica. At least Antarctica has oxygen and is close to the rest of the world; all foreign space bodies other than Earth are very far away.
Denying the Halocaust by a very small group of people won’t lead to a new Halocaust. Moreover, even if it did, just because a policy saves lives doesn’t mean it should be enacted. Forcing western taxpayers to pay $6 trillion a year to pay for food in 3rd world countries would prevent 30 million deaths every decade(Basically preventing a Holocaust every decade). However, this policy would be tyrannical, it would be an infringement of our freedoms and it should not be enacted even if it prevents a Halocaust every decade. Freedom is dangerous as hell but I love it.
If you want to ban denying the Halocaust, how would you punish it?
I wonder who will win.
Anytime Trump has a lollipop, he sucks.
I agree. Good luck finding anyone that disagrees.
Sometimes I assume too much. It would have been weird if I asked you, "Do you think males and females are the same and think transwomen are women?" That's just cringy to say unironically.
I don't deliberately strawman.
Liberals:
Men and Women are basically the same in every way.
Also liberals:
Trans women are women and calling a trans women a women is very different from calling them a man because men and women are different.
Me: You contradicted yourself.
I think every political leader should have term limits. We have too many career politicians. Politicians shouldn't get paid in anything except room, board, and other living expenses, and any revenue they generate from speeches gets paid to the state.
I don't think DART should care what age you are on DART to be here. I'd rather have a well behaved 12 year old than a 13 year old that acts like an asshole. I have a dream that people are judged not by the number of their age, but by the content of their character.
It would be ironic if someone forfeit this debate. If I had time, I’d take this debate. I think the person who forfeits first shouldn’t always lose. If a 5v5 basketball game occurs and one of the players from team A misses the game, it’s still possible for team A to win; it’s just harder.
Does the tribe's leader get counted in the tribe's people? A president is a citizen after all. I'd rather kill Joe Biden then 330 million Americans. I'm sure the tribe's leader has a 2nd in command that can fill the role.
I don't think your opponent insulted you during the debate. If you want to exchange insults on the forum, that's free speech, but a debate is not the place to insult your opponent.
Oh. I don't think people should make fun of others for believing in conspiracy theories, but it's your right, I guess.
Sounds like your making fun of RM. Try not to do that.
I don't think America should nuke the Chinese in this instance, but how else will America get our revenge? We can't just let China get away with killing most Americans.
Most humans are selfish and there is nothing wrong with this. Otherwise, you would see everyone sponsoring as many children as they could. People care most about themselves, and I don't see anything wrong with this.
People who are born rich tend to have an advantage over people who are poor, but this has nothing to do with race. If poverty is to be reduced, single motherhood must end, and this is something that plaques the black and Hispanic community disproportionally. Some would say that black lives matter, but I think black fathers matter is a slogan that will help black people out more if single motherhood ends.
We should privatize the police. Get the government out of the policing industry and let private companies compete for business. They have incentive to improve their services that the government does not have.
Men live easier lives than women since they don't have periods ore pregnency. Yet it is what it is. This is "male privilige". This certainly doesn't justify giving women free money from the government for being women.
Whites may live easier lives than blacks because of their skin color, although this is nominal at most. This certainly doesn't justify giving blacks free money from the government for being black.
But BLM ranting about racism is like Fox News ranting about censorship. At least Fox News doesn't want Reperations for their claim that conservatives are being censored.
If the black community wants to improve their lives, the solution to this is to end the single motherhood in all communities, but especially in black and Hispanic communities(since single motherhood is more prevalent with these people). Black Fathers matter.
BLM: Black people are oppressed.
Fox News: Conservatives are being opressed.
Me: Just relax, both of you.
Children are malleable. If it's okay to put gay couples in Kids TV shows to get kids to be pro gay, it should also be allowed to do stories about abortions to kids to try and get them to be pro life. I think it's okay to show kids political content, but it should be allowed both ways.
I don't think I defended white supremacy. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a flat earther, so I wasn't using it as an insult. I just thought you were a flat earther. It's nothing to be ashamed of, even if people disagree.
I think RM is a flat earther.
You looking for an easy win?
Why is this debate called a micro debate? Seems pretty huge to me.
Rap battles should be YouTube videos so we can feel the rhythm instead of having to guess for ourselves.
Sorry, but I can't tell. With the internet, you can't tell if someone is joking. But America should go metric. It would save millions of dollars in the long term.
I think the government would pay the homeowners who have to move in the event of a meltdown, as that is precedent with Flint Michigan, so if they move, it's not a big deal. Such people are very rare given that not many people live close to a nuclear power plant. Granted, I'm not worried about power plants melting down again anytime soon. The most feasible alternative to nuclear is coal power, which isn't clean.
"I mean, which country walked on the moon?"
There is a lurking variable. The country that didn't use the metric system also had a very strong economy which allowed them to walk on the moon. If America was metric, we would have still landed on the moon. America should go metric. It's why the temperatures on my phone are all in Celsius.
You can choose whether or not you are powered with nuclear. If you don't like nuclear energy, don't buy energy from nuclear power plants. Half of my state is nuclear powered. If there is a meltdown (which almost never occur), I won't have to move. Some people living really close to the plant would have to move, but most people who rely on the plant for power won't have to move. A nuclear power plant powers more than just a small town. 2 plants power a small state, and 4 power plants can power an entire average sized state. Meltdowns are almost non existent, so I wouldn't worry about them.
I think people should decide for themselves what energy source to get. If you like solar, buy from solar producers or make your own. If you like fossil fuels, buy from fossil fuel producers or make your own. If you like cheap energy, buy from cheap providers or make your own. Let people make their own decisions.
I don't think there should be an age restriction as to who can join DART. If your smart and 12, I'd rather have you on here than a 13 year old troll.
What if this debate isn’t a joke, but real life?
Speaking in general terms is using group justice, instead of individual justice, which the west is founded on.
I have no problem with any consenting people having sex, provided all STIs get treated beforehand, and both control pills for both genders are used.
Blaming all white people for riots is like blaming all men for rapes the vast majority of them aren’t associated with in any way (except for having the same gender as a rapist).
If you ate meat 3 minutes ago, why are you advocating for veganism?
I’m an atheist and I’d also been Christian multiple times. It’s possible to change belief systems.
How are border restrictions a function of sovereignty? Nepal has open borders with India, yet Nepal is a distinct, sovereign country.
I think open borders will help the US pay off it’s debt because our tax revenue would quadruple. Easy immigration worked for the UAE.
Where in the constitution does it prohibit open borders?
The homeless, the animals, and the kids from Africa aren’t my problem. I shouldn’t be forced to do anything about helping them, even if it means life or death to these parties.
Similarly, someone who is pregnant shouldn’t be forced to help their fetus, even if it means life or death to the fetus.