Total posts: 9,115
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I don't even understand cheating. It seams like it would ruin the fun, and I would vote out red for being a commie
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Not to mention not all sexual partners have opposable thumbs so it's actually discriminatory to require consent forms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
After seeing what happened to Vince McMahon and only his side of texts being leaked. I wouldn't even risk any sort of BDSM relationship and end up seeing myself in his position. If they need a safeword your reputation is already at risk and you should immediately return to vanilla sex unless you want to be a sub.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Ai can usually be detected though there are a lot of false positives. I suggest using it to help you improve your work instead of replace it. I will often ask it to attack what I am writing and then give me suggestions to improve the writing.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
you didn't mention logical contradiction in that specific post, also cogent arguments are logical and can be opposite arguments so you are still wrong.
Created:
best korea- "two things in contradiction cannot exist"
me- *literally contradicts him*
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont need to provide rebuttal to something irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.We were discussing contradiction, where you provided examples of things which can both exist, hence not in contradiction.Things in contradiction cannot both exist, otherwise it wouldnt be a contradiction.
Already explained to you the difference between sound arguments and cogent ones. I will repost so you don't have to scroll up
There are 2 types of arguments though. You have cogent vs sound arguments. When 2 sides are arguing for policy positions than they will likely be making cogent sounding arguments not sound arguments and both sides are usually concerned about different things, so they may both in fact be correct. So a contradiction doesn't imply one side is correct and one incorrect only that they have different ideals about how things should be.
Just to check for understanding respond with one cogent argument and one sound argument and tell me which is which and why in your own words
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Synthesis means to kind of marry 2 things togetherNo, thats a common misunderstanding of dialectical argument.
here i a quote from study.com on dialectics
The simplest explanation of Hegel's dialectics is this: a thesis (an argument) is proposed, generating a counterargument, the antithesis. Much like in the scientific method, philosophers will need to take the merits of both the thesis and antithesis into account, creating a new thesis called the synthesis. The synthesis, as the new thesis, may generate a new counterargument/antithesis and so on
Two contradictive things, by definition, cannot both exist.
covered in my last post with zero rebuttals to my reasoning method.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
o an increase of capitalist's wealth includes decrease of worker's wealth, excludes increase of worker's wealth, when the amount of wealth is limited.And since amount of wealth is limited, the growth of antithesis means decrease of thesis.Every increase in antithesis negates same amount of thesis, and complete realization of antithesis negates thesis completely.Therefore, increase of capitalist's wealth negates increase in worker's wealth, due to them being mutually exclusive.Thats the best I can explain it.Now, I hope you read the complete text so you get the full picture
off topic
Antithesis is contradiction to thesis.
Correct.
There are 2 types of arguments though. You have cogent vs sound arguments. When 2 sides are arguing for policy positions than they will likely be making cogent sounding arguments not sound arguments and both sides are usually concerned about different things, so they may both in fact be correct. So a contradiction doesn't imply one side is correct and one incorrect only that they have different ideals about how things should be.
I think you are confusing cogent with sound. You can't have 2 opposite sound arguments. One has to be true and one false. Either the animal is a dog or not a dog, it can't be both. So contradiction would not make a side wrong.
They by definition cannot both exist because existence of one excludes another.
see above. I suggest if you want to bring up a dialectical argument that you should understand it better first. I still use communist arguments to support libertarian positions in debates so I understand them very well and it would behoove you to fully understand what I am saying and really think about it before responding.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
wrote this because I soon plan to have a debate of Capitalism vs Communism.
good ideal
One must prepare well, given that Communism is not exactly an existing system where capitalism is to some degree.
No true Scotsmen fallacy that can be made by people who are fans of Austrian Economics by pointing out Laissez Faire capitalism has never been tried.
Both people would be incorrect as these things have been tried on small scales multiple times. The Laissez Faire examples were successful and the criticism are usually that it wouldn't scale well beyond small tribes. The true communism when tried has been done a few times post war with disastrous results. These societies also were small in scale but the power vacuum left by "true communism" meant the system did not last long.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There was some poor grammar in the sentence I highlighted but I am limiting this discussion to the specific sentence I quoted which is this;
Then a synthesis happens, where either antithesis is negated either thesis is negated.
If I am understanding this correctly you are stating that synthesis is where antithesis or thesis is negated, which wouldn't be true. If I am misunderstanding the sentence than feel free to clarify.
Synthesis means to kind of marry 2 things together.
This was already covered in possible synthesis outcomes.
You are pointing to an example I used to highlight a premise I made, we aren't discussing whether the example is true or not. So maybe the response is off topic. I would reread everything I wrote. When I read the writing of others, often times I will get out a pen and a paper and write out precisely what a person's argument is. In this case I am only concerning myself with a statement you made and not the over arching argument.
Created:
**Freedom Fighter**
Hitler wasn't just some boring conservative politician who only cared about the economic success of his country. He also was deeply concerned about freedom, but even if he wasn't than expansionist Lebensraum policies, were still good at obtaining those freedoms. It's a well known fact that can be observed in any country and in any period of history. people that live in the country care more about autonomy than those in urban areas whose neighbors actions can be more easily felt on a day by day basis. By expanding the living space of the German people so they weren't crowded in big cities, Hitler could also, whether deliberatively or not expand freedom in Germany.
**Doing What's Right**
My opponent will not be be able to deny the truth of Malthusianism. It is obviously true that the Earths resources are limited. It is obviously true that any poor mother with 8 children, knows it will be less of a struggle to feed all of her kids if she had 3 less of them. We all know that the Malthusian trap has already significantly contributed to global warming, covid 19, and famines.
Germany wasn't the only nation to realize this. Western nations know that in order to maintain a wealthy nation, they have to take the resources from poor countries and reallocate them to their own wealthy countries. IMF loans are used to get a strangle hold of nations to force policies that increase exports, effectively stealing the resources of people who can barely feed themselves. In the book titled "Stories of an Economic Hitman", the writer who worked to steal resources from small nations explained how the CIA would work covertly to overthrow governments so the United States could put a person in charge who would work to export resources. The west may no longer have slavery, but we export labor to countries where we can exploit the poor and the resources of poor nations for a paycheck of $2 a week.
Hitler realized that the Malthusian trap was a real thing, so he had to either start slaughtering his own people, exploit the poor from other countries or create more living space for Germans to be able to live with plenty of resources. It takes at minimum 2 acres of land per person to feed them {6]. The higher your population the more land you need, especially when you consider other resources like breathable air, lumber, copper and oil.
As you already know from history, Hitler decided to create some Lebensraum for his people, which he had an obligation to do. Remember as per the definition provided for this debate, we are debating whether the action taken or no action is preferable. The impending Malthusian trap was all the reason Germany needed to begin it's expansionism. Other countries were aware of this Malthusian trap and it is why at the time, Great Britain had colonized so many nations they effectively ruled over 30% of the globe. [7]
The cold hard truth is that Western nations have a choice between exploiting developing nations, so they starve or sacrificing our quality of living. Your shoes would be expensive without Nike exploiting children for pennies a day, You wouldn't be able to give your wife a diamond ring without the suffering and exploitation of miners and their homelands in Africa. Hell we would be spending half of our paycheck on gas, if not for the fact that our governments from time to time take over and exploit oil producing countries like Iraq.
It isn't pretty, but the alternative is we all live in squalor and suffering numerous Malthusian traps. Well, the other options include things like fighting for women's rights in the middle east because an educated working female population reproduces less or having sex-ed programs that encourage abstinence but also teach kids how to use protection, giving people access to abortions and promoting homosexuality through Budlight's marketing team etc... .
**The black death**
Population reduction and expansion basically achieve the same thing. more available living space per person. The west or "Global North" as referred to by dirty commies, have answered the Malthusian trap by exploiting the land and resources of poor people in third world countries. Germany chose another method, a similar method to what America chose when they employed the philosophy of "Manifest Destiny". Germany wanted to answer the Malthusian dilemma by expanding into the lesser used portions of Western Europe. It's not Hitler's fault that colonial countries like France and England wanted to have a monopoly on the ability to prevent a Malthusian trap and actively worked to destroy Germany, even after Germany begged for peace just prior to and after the expansion into the portion Poland, where a lot of their own people resided. [8]
The reason I bring up population reduction when talking about the expansionist policy of Germany, is because we have a real life example of the success having more land to exploit (as opposed to people) has created for a nation, particularly the lower classes of a nation. The working man, basically. The black plague shows what can happen when a society suddenly escapes the Malthusian trap and gets more Lebensraum.
The black plague killed an estimated 50% of people.[9] Here is a bit of what one publication says about the prosperity of people following the black death ;[10]
"the rural worker indeed demanded and received higher payments in cash (nominal wages) in the plague’s aftermath. Wages in England rose from twelve to twenty—eight percent from the 1340s to the 1350s and twenty to forty percent from the 1340s to the 1360s. Immediate hikes were sometimes more drastic. During the plague year (1348—49) at Fornham All Saints (Suffolk), the lord paid the pre—plague rate of 3d. per acre for more half of the hired reaping but the rest cost 5d., an increase of 67 percent. The reaper, moreover, enjoyed more and larger tips in cash and perquisites in kind to supplement the wage. At Cuxham (Oxfordshire), a plowman making 2s. weekly before the plague demanded 3s. in 1349 and 10s. in 1350"
**Conclusion**
I appreciate the judges reading this far. I have argued that nations should be primarily interested in the self preservation of their own people and not in a way that trades prosperity for a few more years of life, but one that primarily concerns itself with the quality of the lives of it's own citizens. I have shown that with Germany's increasing population, lebensraum was needed for the success of the German people and as we can see from the initial stages of Hitler's rise to power, the nation was an economic powerhouse. So the plan worked and historical examples such as the black plague's economic effects, means that there was good reason to believe that the lebensraum plan would work. The alternative of doing something, was doing nothing and allowing the great powers to continue exploiting Germany through the unfair Versailles treaty, while the German people suffered having to burn their massively inflated money to keep warm., and to quite literally starve. Hurt people, hurt people.
sources
1. Chat GPT
2. Mein Kampf (Adolph Hitler) ch. 4
8. Random post I remember reading on stormfront about Hitler requesting peace in several letters
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I am just going to repost what I posted in a debate about Hitler's motivations.
The Earth has a finite amount of resources. There is only so much oil, food, trees and many more valuable things to go around. A man named Thomas Malthus in the late 18th century observed that the human population could increase and an exponential rate (ex. 2,4,8,16,32) while food production increases at a more linear rate (ex. 1,2,3,4,5). [1]
What happens when population exceeds our abilities to create enough resources are what Malthus refers to as positive checks. These checks include (war over resources, famine, or disease due to things like more condensed and close together population (ie. Covid19). The other option Malthus brought up was preventative checks such as encouraging later marriages, making abortions easy to access and promoting and encouraging homosexuality.
Hitler seemed to be applying Malthusianism to his policies for Germany. in Mein Kompf Hitler states;
"The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000
souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens must
grow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unless
ways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery and
hunger." [2]
As you can see, Hitler was very concerned about the Malthusian dilemma. according to an article by Bryan Caplan writing for [econlib.org](http://econlib.org) [3] Hitler went on to weigh all of the options Malthus presents and then states;
"Of course people will not voluntarily make that accommodation. At this
point the right of self-preservation comes into effect. And when
attempts to settle the difficulty in an amicable way are rejected the
clenched hand must take by force that which was refused to the open hand
of friendship. If in the past our ancestors had based their political
decisions on similar pacifist nonsense as our present generation does,
we should not possess more than one-third of the national territory that
we possess to-day and probably there would be no German nation to worry
about its future in Europe." [2]
I assume that con will of course agree with Hitler about the right to self preservation, so I won't digress into that. As we can see from Malthus and Hitler, Germany was headed for disaster and their right to a good life would soon be taken from them, if Hitler was not going to be proactive.
**Lebensraum**
Hitler had a plan to deal with this Malthusian disaster, swiftly heading towards Germany. An overall plan to preserve his German people that involved taking preventative measures as Malthus had suggested. Hitler would go on to reduce the world population by 60 million people and push back a global Malthusian disaster. [4] A population that could easily double every 25 years. That would be 3 doublings by now and an additional 180 million current people. Despite how much Hitler helped the globe, his main mission was to do right by the German people he led. Seriously about 800 million people are currently starving to death. If not for Hitler it would most likely be 1 billion people. [5]
Lebensraum (meaning living space) was an answer to the Malthusian problem of population growth exceeding resource growth. It was a philosophy of conquering other parts of Europe so that way Germans could live more spread out with more resources to sustain their population. There is something else to consider about Lebensraum before we move forward, but first a better definition of lebensraum from chat GPT that is lightly edited by me to remove it's anti Nazi bias.
"The Nazi philosophy of Lebensraum, which means "living space" in German, was a belief held by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party that emphasized the expansion of German territory by acquiring more land in Eastern Europe. The Nazis believed that the Germanic people, needed more living space to grow and flourish, and that acquiring land in Eastern Europe was necessary for their expansionist goals." [1]
continued...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Then a synthesis happens, where either antithesis is negated either thesis is negated.
You are misunderstanding dialectical materialism here. Synthesis would be say you have 2 ideal competing. One dominant ideal is Absolute capitalism, and the second Ideal is complete central control over the economy.
One side wouldn't be negated, there would be a type of synthesis of ideals where you would have a free market, but it would be regulated to constrain the excesses of capitalism.
You could also have say a child who wants a chocolate ice-cream and a vanilla ice-cream and those competing ideals could fight until you had a vanilla, chocolate swirl ice-cream.
This is a philosophical concept. You wouldn't see ideals like creationism vs evolution and come to a synthesis, but more of something on two powerful groups competing on how to properly run a country. I will give you a few examples. A while back the right saw comic-books as porn and very degenerate corrupting the minds of youth. The comic book companies also held a lot of power and didn't want to be shut down or regulated, so the synthesis of free speech and banning of comic books was the invention of the comic codes authority which is a type of self censorship by the industry.
Now days most people approve of Gay marriage, but back when Bill Clinton was in office you had fundamentalists who opposed Gay marriage and wielded a lot of power. They wanted to see the institution of marriage remain sacred. You also had Gay rights groups who had couples where partners struggled to make end of life decisions for each other or be on each others insurance and wanted equal marriage rights. The synthesis of Gay marriage and anti gay marriage was known as "Civil unions" which was the exact same thing as marriage but with a different word being used.
so synthesis is not about one side winning, it is just what can be predicted when two powerful forces are fighting over 2 opposite ideals. Marx used this as a tool to make predictions about the future for his readers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I used to play it before it went free on Epic, at which point it got flooded with neo-nazis.
My 8 year old plays it and although we keep the volume down I have yet to hear anybody yell white power or anything. He was playing it for like 3 months before I realized it was a variation of mafia though.
Created: