You can spend your pitiful existence focusing on whatever you want and you may even be voted the winner of this little farce but at the end of the day I am a border-line genius and your existence is inconsequential.
You are really having issues here. Writing a law about something doesn't make the morality behind it objective, it means that a social construct was created to prevent people from doing something. Different nations have different laws that are created to fit the morality of their respective cultures, so if two systems of law oppose each other are they both objective at the same time? If the law says the King is allowed to rape your wife is it objectively right? If you want to say that it's just my opinion that rape is harmful, how about I cut your fingers and toes off and feed them to you? If you tell me it hurts, well that's just your opinion I guess.
But in reality something can objectively create a subjective feeling in someone. If I physically harm you then you objectively are feeling the subjective feeling of pain. It really isn't rocket science my dear boy. The law objectively exists as a social construct the validity of which is subjective and things can objectively trigger subjective feelings in people.
Yes, rape being wrong is a matter of perception and opinion. But there are still logical reasons not to rape or to allow rape. rape is psychologically and physically harmful and can result in unwanted pregnancies, therefor it is against basic human empathy, against the law, and against the good of society to allow people to rape.
I am the one who constantly defends unpopular positions at the expense of debate wins, yet I am pandering just because I am pointing out that you are a stupid, lazy cunt?
The law is not objective except in the sense that humans objectively make up laws and there are objectively consequences for breaking them. If Bill wants to kill me then I will kill him instead and molest his wife and his grandmother.
Yes, east asians and Jews have the highest IQ on average. Much of it is cultural/environmental though and I am a lot less "nature over nurture" than a true "race realist".
Jacque Fresco was in fact more "important" than Sun Tzu. He created the Resource Based Economy system which is the most advanced socio-economic system that has yet been conceived.
Yes well this is exactly how it works on this site, when it's left up to idiots like her and the other idiots on this site the winner will be the incorrect one every time. I may as well just fucking lie constantly and only come up with debates for the purpose of getting votes rather than arguing for what I actually think is true.
I have literally never lost to you in reality. I am correct every time and superior to you in general, if you want I can show you what I can do if I use your bullshit tactics to deceive the voters.
You are literally lying all throughout this debate, I am simply making outrageous and obviously false claims to surpass the absurdity of your own lies. Because this wasn't a debate, you turned it into a "come up with the most outrageous and negative way to portray the opponent's person" contest.
You have reduced this debate to nothing but who can come up with the most outrageous lies. If you think this is a brilliant strategy then you can eat a fucking cock. If you do "win" this debate then all I can say is I am probably the only person here who has any brains.
Okay so I take it you're a Soc-Dem which is better than a neo-liberal. If so then "Progressivism" is more fitting for your profile because to real leftists liberal just implies a slightly more left wing capitalist. Now you say "if people were reasonable and actually made decisions based on rationale then this wouldn't be a problem." but if people are not reasonable there will always be shitty ideas. The answer is to make people reasonable not to bring in the thought police, otherwise humanity will be just as stupid and will rely on authority to tell them what is true. When people rely on authority to tell them what is true then authority can tell them things that are not true and they will believe it, thus the ones in charge of censoring will be the ones who need to be censored. You can run your stupid mouth and say I am not reasonable but you are the one who thinks spoon feeding the public information that is accepted by the establishment is a better alternative to promoting reason. You say I should help them understand but as I already explained when I try to do that I get the same reaction as if I were to tell people Tupac is alive and hiding in antarctica with the wyte walkers. This is not a victim card, it is a lifetime of experience dealing with idiots.
We already have a system that assumes people are naturally unreasonable and they have to be programmed rather than taught critical thinking. This is the real problem, and the root cause of idiotic and harmful ideas in the first place.
Listen up you fucking barrel of monkey cunts. I have been telling plenty of truth in my time on the internet, more than enough to make up for the odd bit of trolling I do. When I tell the truth I am usually met with ridicule, censorship and stupidity and it amounts to the same results I would get if I were to tell people the moon is made of onion bagels. I can't help that the vast majority of people are retarded ass wipes and if some schizophrenic nut case takes this seriously and is influenced by what I say the crazy mother fucker would have been set off eventually anyway. The fact that everyone is a fucking idiot other than me should not be grounds for me to be censored.
You are an ignorant neo-liberal cock holster that thinks being a leftist is about feelings and virtue signaling meanwhile you support the same capitalist establishment that is gang raping the earth and the human race. You know what you are? You're just a fucking conservative with a testosterone deficiency.
"Can't make a good argument yip yip yip" you sound like a talking chihuahua. Here's an argument for you, the way to eliminate shitty ideas is not to censor everything you don't like but to expose people to the truth and raise kids to have critical thinking skills.
There is nothing fine about treating Marxism like an insignificant historical footnote which is easy to debunk. I can already tell she has no understanding of Marxism or even capitalism for that matter, she is going to spew a bunch of crap that you'd expect to hear on PragerU most likely.
If I can't even present her with a brief synopsis of why capitalism sucks without her complaining about deviating from the debate title I can tell this is going to be a shit fest.
Disagreeing with Marx is one thing, but anyone who thinks they can "destroy" Marxism is an idiot. Only a brainwashed moron with a completely warped view of Marxism takes it so lightly. Marx's analysis of capitalism is extensive, far too extensive to entirely cover in this debate, and if you had one tenth the intelligence that it takes to attempt to "destroy" something that is in large part objectively correct then you would understand why participating in this debate requires you to at least understand what capitalism is. This first round was an IQ test and you've failed it. I expect you to regurgitate a bunch of fallacies and propaganda you absorbed from mainstream media now so get on with it.
"make General statements that only marginally related to the resolution"
This in itself is a general statement that only marginally relates to reality.
"repeatedly ignore the resolution to focus on unrelated points"
No, what happens is I create debates and the resolution clearly implied by the debate title is ignored by intellectually dishonest cunts who seize upon every opportunity to try and change the resolution by playing with words and semantics.
"Degenerate the debate into insults and name calling"
When I call someone an intellectually dishonest cunt, it is not an adhominem but an observation which calls into question the validity of their arguments and debate tactics.
I apologize for missing this round but your argument required no rebuttal anyway. You should attempt to clarify what about collective ownership of the means of production necessarily leads to government control in this round.
Piscia fuori pezzo di merda di rinoceronte
You can spend your pitiful existence focusing on whatever you want and you may even be voted the winner of this little farce but at the end of the day I am a border-line genius and your existence is inconsequential.
Trust me, I can think of far more inflammatory insults. Keep up the good work and you may get to read them.
RM does not believe in free will.
Everyone should already know I am this site's rap expert. Everyone should also already know that you are the second-best rap expert here.
You are really having issues here. Writing a law about something doesn't make the morality behind it objective, it means that a social construct was created to prevent people from doing something. Different nations have different laws that are created to fit the morality of their respective cultures, so if two systems of law oppose each other are they both objective at the same time? If the law says the King is allowed to rape your wife is it objectively right? If you want to say that it's just my opinion that rape is harmful, how about I cut your fingers and toes off and feed them to you? If you tell me it hurts, well that's just your opinion I guess.
But in reality something can objectively create a subjective feeling in someone. If I physically harm you then you objectively are feeling the subjective feeling of pain. It really isn't rocket science my dear boy. The law objectively exists as a social construct the validity of which is subjective and things can objectively trigger subjective feelings in people.
What the fuck is goin on with the votes in this debate? It looks like a mod changed the votes to give an unfair win to con.
Yes, rape being wrong is a matter of perception and opinion. But there are still logical reasons not to rape or to allow rape. rape is psychologically and physically harmful and can result in unwanted pregnancies, therefor it is against basic human empathy, against the law, and against the good of society to allow people to rape.
too late, I went full psychopath on this one lol.
I am the one who constantly defends unpopular positions at the expense of debate wins, yet I am pandering just because I am pointing out that you are a stupid, lazy cunt?
Objective means that something is a fact. Subjective means it depends on perception rather than reality itself.
The law is not objective except in the sense that humans objectively make up laws and there are objectively consequences for breaking them. If Bill wants to kill me then I will kill him instead and molest his wife and his grandmother.
Yep CD=create debate. RM used to be called Prodigee on CD and he was the supreme troll of the site until I came along.
Are you from CD?
My cousin died from diabetes you piece of shit.
lol JK it's fine.
You are in fact the first. This is the only site where I go by Type1 and no one has used that joke yet.
You cannot be correct if you don't even know what you're talking about.
Yes because everyone knows conspiracies don't exist, and no secret society ever used a pyramid/eye symbol before.
Konan is not very fitting for you, try cone-head instead.
Yes, east asians and Jews have the highest IQ on average. Much of it is cultural/environmental though and I am a lot less "nature over nurture" than a true "race realist".
To be honest I don't care, it's the intention behind it, not the word itself that matters.
Intelegently isn't even a word therefor pro automatically loses.
But capitalism is the cause of cancer. Because of people like him cancer exists.
Well that's just lovely. I hope he gets cancer lol.
Jacque Fresco was in fact more "important" than Sun Tzu. He created the Resource Based Economy system which is the most advanced socio-economic system that has yet been conceived.
She probably doesn't think at all.
Yes well this is exactly how it works on this site, when it's left up to idiots like her and the other idiots on this site the winner will be the incorrect one every time. I may as well just fucking lie constantly and only come up with debates for the purpose of getting votes rather than arguing for what I actually think is true.
Still don't know exactly what she's implying but it's either that I am abusive or that she is stupid enough to think I got beaten in this debate.
Jesus fucking ass titties, you guys and your theories.
What are you talking about?
I have literally never lost to you in reality. I am correct every time and superior to you in general, if you want I can show you what I can do if I use your bullshit tactics to deceive the voters.
You are literally lying all throughout this debate, I am simply making outrageous and obviously false claims to surpass the absurdity of your own lies. Because this wasn't a debate, you turned it into a "come up with the most outrageous and negative way to portray the opponent's person" contest.
You have reduced this debate to nothing but who can come up with the most outrageous lies. If you think this is a brilliant strategy then you can eat a fucking cock. If you do "win" this debate then all I can say is I am probably the only person here who has any brains.
So pissed off at your dishonesty and stupidity right now.
Jesus Christ your mentality is sickening. Just post a fucking argument so I can tear you a new brain hole.
The average capitalist woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxVwcYKNMu0
Is your name Titanium because that is the material that was used to construct your immensely thick skull?
Okay so you're just as retarded as I feared, let's get this over with then.
Okay so I take it you're a Soc-Dem which is better than a neo-liberal. If so then "Progressivism" is more fitting for your profile because to real leftists liberal just implies a slightly more left wing capitalist. Now you say "if people were reasonable and actually made decisions based on rationale then this wouldn't be a problem." but if people are not reasonable there will always be shitty ideas. The answer is to make people reasonable not to bring in the thought police, otherwise humanity will be just as stupid and will rely on authority to tell them what is true. When people rely on authority to tell them what is true then authority can tell them things that are not true and they will believe it, thus the ones in charge of censoring will be the ones who need to be censored. You can run your stupid mouth and say I am not reasonable but you are the one who thinks spoon feeding the public information that is accepted by the establishment is a better alternative to promoting reason. You say I should help them understand but as I already explained when I try to do that I get the same reaction as if I were to tell people Tupac is alive and hiding in antarctica with the wyte walkers. This is not a victim card, it is a lifetime of experience dealing with idiots.
We already have a system that assumes people are naturally unreasonable and they have to be programmed rather than taught critical thinking. This is the real problem, and the root cause of idiotic and harmful ideas in the first place.
Listen up you fucking barrel of monkey cunts. I have been telling plenty of truth in my time on the internet, more than enough to make up for the odd bit of trolling I do. When I tell the truth I am usually met with ridicule, censorship and stupidity and it amounts to the same results I would get if I were to tell people the moon is made of onion bagels. I can't help that the vast majority of people are retarded ass wipes and if some schizophrenic nut case takes this seriously and is influenced by what I say the crazy mother fucker would have been set off eventually anyway. The fact that everyone is a fucking idiot other than me should not be grounds for me to be censored.
You are an ignorant neo-liberal cock holster that thinks being a leftist is about feelings and virtue signaling meanwhile you support the same capitalist establishment that is gang raping the earth and the human race. You know what you are? You're just a fucking conservative with a testosterone deficiency.
"Can't make a good argument yip yip yip" you sound like a talking chihuahua. Here's an argument for you, the way to eliminate shitty ideas is not to censor everything you don't like but to expose people to the truth and raise kids to have critical thinking skills.
Anyone who takes this seriously is a retard who should be in psychiatric ward to begin with.
No, people should not be obligated to "remove ideas they don't agree with" you stupid Orwellian wank biscuit.
Now go bother someone who gives a rats ass about your whiny, annoying finger wagging BS.
You have no sense of humor and condone censorship I see. Jolly good for you old bean, now bugger off.
There is nothing fine about treating Marxism like an insignificant historical footnote which is easy to debunk. I can already tell she has no understanding of Marxism or even capitalism for that matter, she is going to spew a bunch of crap that you'd expect to hear on PragerU most likely.
If I can't even present her with a brief synopsis of why capitalism sucks without her complaining about deviating from the debate title I can tell this is going to be a shit fest.
Disagreeing with Marx is one thing, but anyone who thinks they can "destroy" Marxism is an idiot. Only a brainwashed moron with a completely warped view of Marxism takes it so lightly. Marx's analysis of capitalism is extensive, far too extensive to entirely cover in this debate, and if you had one tenth the intelligence that it takes to attempt to "destroy" something that is in large part objectively correct then you would understand why participating in this debate requires you to at least understand what capitalism is. This first round was an IQ test and you've failed it. I expect you to regurgitate a bunch of fallacies and propaganda you absorbed from mainstream media now so get on with it.
How am I not sticking to my debate title? I am explaining why capitalism is crap and showing you how Marxists see capitalism.
It's not an opinion, I know him well as far as the internet goes and I can see that you are not as intelligent.
The funny thing is even though the earth is probably round RM is way smarter than you.
"make General statements that only marginally related to the resolution"
This in itself is a general statement that only marginally relates to reality.
"repeatedly ignore the resolution to focus on unrelated points"
No, what happens is I create debates and the resolution clearly implied by the debate title is ignored by intellectually dishonest cunts who seize upon every opportunity to try and change the resolution by playing with words and semantics.
"Degenerate the debate into insults and name calling"
When I call someone an intellectually dishonest cunt, it is not an adhominem but an observation which calls into question the validity of their arguments and debate tactics.
I apologize for missing this round but your argument required no rebuttal anyway. You should attempt to clarify what about collective ownership of the means of production necessarily leads to government control in this round.
Well it appears you are capable of voting fairly after all, you had me worried for a moment.