Total posts: 755
-->
@Vader
For the record, that's not my actual response to your point. But if you are going to be so ethically inconsistent that I can apply your own logic to your own argument then I literally cannot argue with you.
Created:
-->
@Vader
You don't have a point. A billionaire who has worked his entire life to amount a fortune should just throw away his money because he is rich. That's called oppression
Life is unfair
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because Reperations would cost tax dollars which white people would have to pay for. Increased taxes are a punishment.
A punishment implies an offense. Do you think increasing taxes for anything where every taxpayer does not get their money back in some form is wrong?
Breaking someone's shins is illegal. Slavery was legal when it happened, so you can't punish someone for something that they did when it was legal.
The purpose is not to punish - the purpose is to rectify an injustice. A punishment inherently involves retribution, and retribution requires intent to harm.
States, as bodies that are not unified actors, have different kinds of obligations than the average person, and they are obligations that transcend whoever is in them at a given time. If this were not the case, states would be absolved of the obligation to fix anything they've broken if all the people who were in the government to break the thing are now dead.
Created:
-->
@Vader
You can not compare corporations to governments. A government can oppress you legally if they wanted to. A corporation can not oppress you in any way
Corporations can absolutely oppress you. Do not confuse the ability to oppress with the ability to use force.
A corporation can
- have higher ups that treat you horribly
- underpay you and let you starve to death
- discharge you from your job
- pollute local areas and ecosystems
We see all of these things happen in the Global South as we speak. This is not theoretical oppression; it is a reality.
Created:
-->
@Vader
No. People who make their money by working hard on their brand are not entitled to share that wealth democratically
If I establish a monarchy all by myself are those who are born under it "not entitled" to share the power democratically?
Created:
Where businesses are required* to be democratically owned
Created:
-->
@Vader
I don't get what you are trying to say
Economies where businesses are democratically owned are a type of socialist economy.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They don't. Slavery was legal when it happened, and you can't punish people for something that happened when it was legal.
Why do you think I'm punishing people?
It's ethically obvious. If I break your shins do I have moral obligations towards you if you are still affected by your shins being broken?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Yes
So why not have it in the economy?
Created:
-->
@Vader
I see nothing wrong with capitalism at it's purest form. The problem comes with human instinct to do evil, which ultimately, is where I believe basic regulation help.I see it as this way, give a human either a big corporation (Amazon, Microsoft) to run or an entire government. What causes more risk to the general population
Are you pro-democracy?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Capitalism itself is the only truly success economic system in America. While Europe has socialist policies, they have smaller populations. America has the 3rd largest population.
Population is not analogous with success. In fact, our massive populations are a big harm right now.
In a moral and democratic sense, capitalism is a failure.
I'm not a communist.
Created:
-->
@Vader
If you read the post, I am not a extremist, I have moderate beliefs. I still think regulation is needed, but basic regulations
The problem is that the libertarian position is in staunch support of capitalism. At least that's the way I lean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why? You would be losing SO MUCH value to this world.
Who cares? People's lives have value regardless of what they've contributed to the world. To deny that is to deny the value of life.
Created:
Nations have obligations to those they've discriminated against in the past. Whether that goes to reparations is up for debate, but it's consistent with any theory of justice out there.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Freedom in the purest form is an end in and of itself
Don't be a libertarian, then. Horrible wages and poverty are antithetical to liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
Economic libertartianism isn't good, but not for the reasons you listed.
Created:
Posted in:
Trolley runs over the scientist. Hope no one disagrees with that
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Read through your 6 key points, particularly the 1st [and note that while capitalism has endured in America for 400 years = before America was America], socilaism has neve succeed beyond 70 years. And the 6th, regarding revolution, and the4n read the definition of revolution under key terms, and then tell me why an economic system that begins with revolution [and recall I just said capitalism has thrived in America for 400 years, while our revolution was 156 years following the first settlements, and still thrives] and socialism always has begun and ends by revolution. Oops. Yes, I know what I'm talking about.
What does this have to do with hive-mind collectivism?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Marxists define capital as “a social, economic relation” between people (rather than between people and things). In this sense they seek to abolish capital.
16.1C: The Marxist Critique of Capitalism - Social Sci LibreTexts. Even if you're right, common ownership of capital during some sort of transitionary stage isn't hive-mind collectivism.
they just use other peoples' money.
The statement here is reliant on the assumption that Marxists believe that capitalism is a legitimate transfer of wealth and property insofar as money that people legally own actually fairly belongs to them. This assumption is false.
No, because hive-mind is soc/com. Look, when you convince society that they should all earn the same, work the same, think the same. and act the same, you have created a hive-mind with no individual earning, working. thinking, acting at all. Soc/com's greatest enemy is the individual who earns/works/thinks/acts by his own wits, his own experience, his own self-generated ambition and accomplishment.
[citation needed]
No, and I will not describe it again. If yu don't get by now, it's never going to hit you over the head.
I'd actually prefer that you don't describe it again because it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
So communism is just capitalism with the collective action of all members of society setting capital in motion? lol
And Marxists didn't believe in setting capital "in motion." they believed in abolishing it.
Seems like you're more interested in arguing against socialism than establishing it as a system that advocates for hive-mind collectivism.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
one of the supporting ideas of the GND is an item called "participatory budgeting," by which the government would establish a commission in oversight of private industry to "assist" private industry in organizing their annual budgets. Government participation in private industry budgeting? Really???? What do you think that leads to? It is o longer private industry.
I don't know? I'm not familiar with the practice of private industry budgeting. Definitely not totalitarianism lmao
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Artists, intellectuals, under socialism are strangled, unless they express the party line. Russia once had a brilliant cultural, artistic stamp of the society of Europe until Lenin and Stalin screwed it all with their "revolution" that crumbled within 70 years. Their artists, writers, intellectuals were tortured unless they played along. It will happen hear if the likes of Bernie, AOC and the Squid get their way. No, soc/com does NOT support individual freedom. That is, to soc/coms, a big joke.
Feudal Russia was a hellhole where 90% of the non-elite population was treated as subhuman and Jews were regularly attacked. If you think that a large-scale revolution that comes out of a country like that is going to respect human rights, I don't know what to tell you.
And no, the Russian Empire didn't respect culture and art. Look what happened to Dostoyevsky.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Haven't I said that enough?
You haven't made your point. I keep asking you how Marxism is collectivist, and you keep talking about Marx's critiques of a system he opposes.
But socialism does not care about individual success.
Not a good way to put it. The Marxist view is that the "individual success" existing under capitalism necessarily exploits and alienates its workers. You can dispute the truth of that if you want, but it's not like Marxists just have some collectivist hatred for people being themselves.
Obama, a socialist,
Ah yes, I remember when Obama democratized the workplace and abolished traditional private business
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Socialism would never, ever do that. They want to keep people thinking the same. A hive mentality.
Do artists, intellectuals, personal freedoms, etc. cease to exist under socialism?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The bit about ALL members of society... collectively.
Right, referring to capitalism.
Why shouldn't people just be taught to know their own worth and negotiate themselves? Socialism does not even allow such an individual act.
I'm a bit confused. Which part of socialism prevents negotiating for higher wages?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I didn't ask you "does socialism work?". I asked you "how does socialism result in hive-mind collectivism".
Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're not answering my question. Open to either.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion."
In this quote, is Marx not referring to capitalism... a system he opposes?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Not sure you're answering my question. Claiming that capital is a "social power" isn't a statement of anti-individualism or hive-mind collectivism. Marx, to my knowledge, didn't oppose individuals having their own identities or personal goals. He did advocate for a relatively collectivist society, but from an economic standpoint everything left of ancapistan is, to a degree, in opposition to the total power of the individual or group of individuals. After all, we pay taxes.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
In the Communist Manifesto. Marx did not use the term "hive-mind collectivism," [that is Intel's moniker] but that is what he and Engels describe in that document. It is decidedly anti-individualism.
In what way?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Where did Marx say that hive mind collectivism is the result of Marxism?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
A middle ground between capitalism and socialism of some sort is the status quo right now in most first-world countries, and self-proclaimed capitalists and socialists both don't like it.
I think the flaw here is that a lot of capitalist/socialist philosophy is based on procedure, not outcome. Capitalism/socialism is a procedural violation of X. So any degree of it is never acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Then clearly, your opponents were doing it wrong.But seriously, that’s disquieting. Makes it sound as though LD is going down a dark path. Used to be so focused on good speaking style, too.
I mean, it depends. But yeah - the highest level LD at this point (like the TOC) is always going to be spreading. https://youtu.be/RP_81CItgcE check this out.
I feel like it's inevitable for this kind of sport, though. Why go slow and read 1 off when you can spread and read like 6 off + more cards while your opponent and judge can just follow you on a speech doc?
It kind of sucks, but it definitely builds time management and organization skills.
I would say both extremes are bad, to be honest. Sometimes people try to tailor LD to the public and it just becomes performance art. The other extreme is just being a rap god and doing literally anything possible to win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm worried about the current advancement of tech.
ok
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe you are an AI bot.If you are an AI bot, please deny you are an AI bot.
What?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm worried about the future advancement of tech. It doesn't seem like it plans on stopping its development any time soon... That's probably bad
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Been there. First open tournament I ever did, we ran into one of the top rated teams in the country in the second round. It was a topic I knew extremely well, probably better than they did, but they cleaned our clocks.
Yeah, it's a mess. Ended up doing ok but God hearing someone say "4 off then case" for the roadmap and then start spreading a shell makes me wanna die
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think I'll participate. I'm doing terribly in an exhausting tournament lol
Varsity debaters are something else
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
- Resolved: The United States should replace means-tested welfare programs with a universal basic income.
This one seems cool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
For me, blocks are pre-prepared responses to various arguments. They're good because without them you'll have to do all rebuttals to cases by thinking on your feet or cross-applying your own questionably relevant evidence, and so debaters will always be at a disadvantage on defense because offense will usually be the side with cards
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Personally prefer changing up the topic between rounds and having short prep periods, but I'd consider doing a single topic.
I guess that could work but if you only have a bit of prep time you can't have any blocks and stock cases will probably be the only viable options. In addition I feel like a unified topic allows for a variety of perspectives on each and ability to prep for various opponents based on the cases that they're running
Created:
Crystallization + everything else the same.
If you're losing handily on a contention by contention basis then the final round can be a good way to right the ship. One way to do this is to drop arguments that don't serve you/are unimportant and emphasize arguments that are crucial for your victory (i.e. arguments with big impacts that you can win). This way you can still have routes to the ballot. Obviously it depends on your judge, though, but I'm always voting for the debater who narrowly proved that policy X has a good chance of ending the world against the debater who clearly proved that policy X improves the economy, policy X ends poverty, and policy X creates international diplomacy or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Don't listen to any of these people. Economic debates are good, but they become incredibly boring when you just argue statistics and basic utilitarian harms or benefits all day long.
Good economic arguments are based on moral and theoretical concepts. Think Nozick, Rawls, Marx, Kropotkin, . These arguments are founded on notions of what is just and how our ethical principles should guide economic structures.
Created: