I'm not well read on Socialism, but I have done a bit of research online. I recommend the TIKhistory YouTube channel for WW2 European socialism. He has read it all and has many great book recommendations in his videos (He sites everything). His 4hr video "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" is very informative and helped inspire me to run these debates.
Ich lobe die Einleitung. Aber ich muss hinzufügen, dass nicht jede Selbstverteidigung gerechtfertigt ist. Nehmen Sie zum Beispiel, wenn Sie in böser Absicht gehandelt haben und diese Blase nicht auf diese Weise einschläfern mussten. Selbstverteidigung ist wichtig, aber Modifikation, obwohl schwer zu beweisen, kann dazu dienen, ihre Rechtfertigung umzukehren.
To put it simply, I was arguing that taking the means of production by government, Socialism, is a worse form of governance than leaving the means of production to the individual and Sir Lancelot was arguing the opposite. I had two lines of argumentation to this end (It harms the most important value of the Individual and, as a result, it has caused great evils that would not have been possible without its implementation).
The debate is quite lengthy, so it may take a good 30min to read, but we go over these points in detail.
The topic is Socialism, which, as I provided in the description, is the "Political and economic theory advocating state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange." Side Con (me) is against it and side Pro is for it. I also provided the weighing mechanism of Individual vs collective government to help judge each side.
I thought about limiting character size, but I would rather give each side as much room as possible to get their arguments through. Brevity is something I value, but I will let the other decide how he wishes to argue.
This to me is a very partisan issue. coal (<---lol, do I capitalize this?? A proper noun, but that IS his name...oh the things I go through) pointed out that methods such as gerrymandering are politics at play and the black vote happens to vote more democrat (What is it, like 80+ percent?). So I think it makes sense why Republicans would want these ID laws enforced and Democrats not, given these communities are generally more in poorer standing, have more criminal convictions, and, for immigrants, lack citizenship and or proper documents. Regardless of your stance on voter ID, this shows all the signs of standard political partisanship.
For Housing:
This is actually a great point! I need to see your case focus on the housing act of 1934 (less is always more). You did touch on loans, but these things could also be explained via other reasons such as higher criminality and bad credit...speaking of which, housing projects would have been an excellent example of government interfering in the African American community, explaining their current conundrum. It would be a great argument turn of coal's single motherhood example, using it instead as the impact to the housing and anti poverty legislation which continues to this day.
Let’s not let government live our lives and take our hard-earned labor. Instead we must stop preventing the poor from climbing their own ladder as we give them a helping hand with the extra time we have not paying self-serving bureaucrats. The trick played by the socialist is that socialism is justified because the individual is selfish. If this were true then government, composed by the smallest most power-hungry group of individuals, should be avoided at all cost. Government benefits are no different.
And so my friends, don’t let the name fool you. Government Benefits only benefit one thing: The government.
a. Collective First Mentality
It is crucial that remember the individual is the highest good that most be protected at the maximum. Rational Madman agrees here as well, but argues against the individual. This is done by assuming the individual must be harmed by taking from his own life, in order to benefit others. This, however, is a collective mentality first, which must violate the individual. The impact is that the very idea of government benefits immediately violates this most important value.
b. Government Benefits Violate Individuality
Government benefits do not benefit the one being violated nor the one who is thought to be helped. The person stolen from loses the choice of what to do with a large portion of his own labor. Opportunities are taken from him, his own path forward made that much harder. The same is for those who are supposed to benefit from this. How do we harm the poor the most? By paying them to stay poor. (This is all too well known by the war on poverty here in the US). It is equally bad to take and subsidize against pursuing opportunity. The individual made to bend to the wishes of government. The only individuals not tampered with are the tampers, those on the top making the very decisions individuals should be making for themselves. When you scroll through life, remember that you are your final leader and that anyone attempting to replace you and decide for you what you do with your own efforts, are evil. No matter what they say they will achieve, they must not seek to replace you in your life.
Note to all: I just missed the deadline. Please see my final argument here:
“Underlining most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself” -Milton Freedmen
I want to touch on a few thing from Rational Madman's last post and then recap the debate.
Rebuttable:
“This debate was about government benefits in all nations”
Even though I originally intended to debate restricted to the US, my arguments can be applied to any country because it considers a matter of general truth. The United States remains a crucial example and is best understood by us Americans and so most relevant.
“Pro is now fighting a different case, saying that government benefits don't work, rather than that they are immoral.”
You can have both. I think things that are immoral also end in bad results.
“there is strong correlation between having elements of socialized care for the poor, in a mixed economy (that is fundamentally capitalist but with socialist elements that stop the poor 'rotting away with no help or safety net') and being high in many categories of national success.”
The key phrase here is “fundamentally capitalist.” In order to attribute the success of the western world to socialist policies, you must ignore the very foundation of freedom from which it relies. It is really the prosperity from the free market that you are praising, not the socialist policies that feed on it. Without the free market, there is no prosperity. But can you say the same without socialism? This is because, of course, that taking is not giving. You do not help your neighbor by stealing from his neighbor. Government benefits are exactly that, taking from some Americans and giving to a select few. It seems that this basic idea has been missed by Rational Madman, but I hope to hear about it in his closing remarks. I want to take a look back to contention 2:
Ah, I see. Does consciousness decide person hood? Btw, how do you define "parasite." I think it is misapplied here given that parasites are not members of their own species, as a human is in early development. Additionally parasites rely on hosts for their entire existence, while humans rely on their mothers for only about nine months out of their life. Slavery seems a bit extreme also. I don't think think humans can force themselves onto their mother...I think we know how that happens.
Consciousness doesn't make much sense either given we are not fully conscious until our prefrontal cortex is fully developed well into adulthood (are we not fully human until that point?). You can also compare the consciousness of animals to see why it doesn't fit as the mark of person hood.
I think you are left with the bigger question: What exactly is happening in pregnancy?
If we are talking about the development of a member of the human species, then it makes sense that a person is involved. But if it is not a member of the human species, then it cannot be a person. That to me makes the most sense. What do you think?
I think major inconsistencies arise if you declare person hood to begin there. Can you explain why that point defines person hood and not conception? (which is the standard for the beginning of the human species in biology) I can understand searching for common ground, but hopefully we can find solid ground to share.
The pro-lifer asserts life starts at conception, while pro-choicer claims preconception.
Can agreement come from debate, when all we wish to do is negate?
Could we devise a plan for agreement, so that we might find out why the disagreement.
A point can only be made if true -the very wise words of a fool.
We must tread lightly on our ignorance, till at long last we find deliverance.
We are in in this together, separated by thousands of miles, and yet it is still as if we are not so far away. May we all have the strength to accept the truth when it comes. Love to all.
Sure the title is correct...there is nothing wrong with being a tad bit obsessed with skin melanin section of the biology textbook. At least they are not focused on the reproductive section...
If that were true, then perhaps people would stop using it. :D
I see your point though, as "if" is used sometimes to cover up reality when someone wants to ignore another's argument. Say a flat earther stating that "if" Nasa is covering the moon landings up in order to ignore photographs of earth. But I can say that "if" is important in thinking because it helps us to understand what we do not yet grasp. A scientist for example might use "ifs" in his hypothesis for gravity, not knowing what exactly gravity is, in order to help him study the origins and possibilities/applications of gravity.
So assuredly there is room on both sides to argue for if, but only if one side presents the superior case should the winner be declared. ;)
I agree, you make good points on how corona is worse. I too think it has a far worse potential based on its ability to spread and the number of people who have died already. But the main point when it comes to immigrants is whether this is a world-wide phenomenon or if it applies to southern immigrants specifically. Since even you have seen it spread to the New England area, I think it is safe to say the virus is already here and in addition it had not come from immigration from the southern border, but started and spread from China. This means stopping immigration does not logically follow unless we quarantine ourselves completely off from the rest of the world, as the whole world has the potential to spread the virus. I think because such an action goes too far at the moment, we should let the idea rest.
3000 deaths world wide (though mainly in China [2,912] where it originated from). Compare to Ebola which had 11,310 deaths.
I will end the conversation here as I fear it will take up too much of our time. It seems to me then that you do not value immigrants or, correct me if I have it wrong, people in general by intrinsic value but only by their practical use. If we cannot see the value in immigrants as people, we justify apathy to our own community here in the U.S. So then people become practical tools not for our good, but only for our convenience.
This reaches a dangerous precedent because people become expendable to our own preferences and to what we like. I do hope you do not mean you see no value in immigrants other then what the could be used for, else we must start talking also of our own worth. Worth such that an American is only worth in so as much as he is labeled an American.
Whatever it may be, I wish you well. Keep searching for truth, as it is the best thing we all can do.
"We already do lock down citizens who are suspected of carrying the corona virus into quarantine, or at least we try our best to."
Then we can have the same standard for immigrants, but that does not discount them from coming.
"Many of them may come from areas where they may not have proper immunizations and stuff from other common diseases."
True, I'm not sure how big of a problem this is, but assuming that it is significant I still cannot see how you discount them based on that. If some states in the U.S for example have much higher levels of diseases, we don't ban everyone from those states from moving around.
"How is anyone supposed to "be open to letting them work here to support their families" when there isn't enough affordable housing for their families, and not enough health care or other resources for said families?"
I will do you one more, that their situation is dire at best. Who needs healthcare when they are going to die in a week? And as far as living prices go here, I don't think they will have a problem paying with the wages that we have. We are only the richest and most productive society in the world.
"As for whether or not they are valuable, you have to take into account the law of diminishing returns."
Are they valuable or not? And by how much?
"Then there's also the fact that people who come in illegally through the southern border can smuggle drugs, guns, women, and children, without any of us knowing about it"
Yes and there could be a crime wave in your neighborhood. Since American Citizens have twice the crime rate, I think we will live.
"There's just too much risk"
I have to hold you to what I have found so far, that many of these points you give are exaggerated and so over inflate the risk. We do many risky things in life, but it is no way comparable to letting desperate people have the same opportunities as we do. Put on the immigrant's shoes (or lack there of) and you see a whole different story.
The corona virus idea is a non-sequitur (an argument that is not consistent or is a logical double standard). Mexico has only 5 active cases while the U.S has 73. Using this logic we should lock down U.S citizens into quarantine. Though you are right about the harms of the virus, it is simply overblown by the media, just as Ebola was.
But to be honest it seems like you are finding any reason to keep out refugees. Even this small minority of immigrants that come though the un-fenced regions, what do you have against them? Why can you not at least be open to letting them work here to support their families (keep in mind this means through legal means. If we make it legal to work here and thus keep track of immigrants coming here to work and return home, we can make the illegal problem dissipate)
Again I must press you with the question of value, why do you not want to answer it? Do you not think that immigrants are valuable? Please answer this.
I wonder why you focus on the small minority of illegal immigrants coming in through the border?
"since the Jews' country had their government which was the Nazi party that blamed Jews for the problems"
So are you blaming Jew's for the Nazi's and evil African leaders for the evil done by slave drivers? It is a well known fact that the Jews actually opposed Hitler, which is why (as many dictators tend to do) he killed them off. Also it makes no sense that slave owners have no stake in their own crimes (namely buying, beating, and killing African people as they were forcible enslaved on plantations).
Why are you trying to make this defense? I would agree though, as analogies permit, that these are different situations to immigration, but where both sides share the important similarity is at the moral ground. Both people are dehumanized (slaves and Jews killed and called animals and immigrants deemed illegal (as if a person by their nature could be illegal) and alien) Also both are treated inhumanly (Slaves and Jews in the most direct way and Immigrants by being turned down their only chance at life, outside of their perilous position in their degraded and often war torn and drug lord driven home country)
"Fixing those countries will ultimately address the root of the problem"
Agreed and this is not an either or situation. Until such situations alleviate, the refuges still need a home, a place away from the violence they are escaping from. Any sensible person sees this with the outbreak of a tornado or fire where we give refuges of these crises aid to help them now as they rebuild. When people require help it is our obligation fulfill their needs with what we can. (and I don't think that being the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world gives us an excuse, do you?)
"Changing the immigration quota alone while ignoring those bad countries is a band-aid solution."
I can make a similar claim: Declaring that whole countries need to get better while ignoring the thousands of helpless migrants is at best like a doctor instructing a smoker to stop smoking while he is dying from a stroke.
I think for the sake of simplicity I will end our conversation soon and I thank you for having it with me. It was a civilized and thoughtful one and I hope our generation can gain these useful skills and respect for each other as I think we have.
I do have one last question that encapsulates all the rest and the issue as a whole:
What, if any value, do you grant an immigrant?
You say that the difference is,
"legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not"
-While this is partially true, because, according to the center for migration studies, two thirds of illegal immigrants are actually visa overstays. So the problem on the whole is not that illegals are not checked, but that they are deemed "illegal."
"living in your country voluntarily not the same as leaving your home to voluntarily"
-That is the point of an analogy, the comparable part is what is voluntary or not. Both of these situations are comparable because they are both voluntary actions.
"We don't have enough food, water, housing, space, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, prisons, and equipment to care for all our people plus all these migrants."
-Why?
"the burden of proof is still on you to prove that these countries caused these slaves and jews to be killed and not the governments that allowed slavery and the holocaust."
-I totally agree here, this is why blaming Mexico for the immigrants is absurd. The immigrants had nothing to do with the evils in that country and so should not be lumped together with them.
"Going after our immigration quota ignores the main problem: that some of these migrants are having to voluntarily flee their terrible countries in the first place."
-Why is this the main problem? (I understand this is the reversal of my original statement, but you have not given a reason for it) The immigration quota makes it so that perfectly good and needy immigrants cannot come in. It has not been updated in 30 years to meet the current demand (this is why we have a backlog). Simply update the quota to meet the new demand and the problem ceases to exist.
What is the difference between illegal and legal immigration? I responded to this in the debate.
"Our lack of the necessary resources"
What lacking?
"No, the Jews and Africans did not voluntarily leave their homes"
Did they live there voluntarily?
"Instead of blaming our immigration quota and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" immigrants, blame the terrible countries that these immigrants come from"
I think I will bring back my analogy to respond here:
Scenario 1: Nazi Germany
"Instead of blaming Hitler and saying Nazi German law is being "used immorally to kill" Jews, blame the terrible country that these Jews live in" -Nazi Sympathizer
Scenario 2: Colonial America
"Instead of blaming our legalization of slavery and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" slaves, blame the terrible countries that these slaves come from" -Pot Plantation Owner
Hello Ragnar! Glad to see his majesty in my humble dwelling :p.
To be honest I do not care much for voting, but values really do matter in debate because they determine the mindset or overall goal of the debate. For example I could say that life is the most important value we could hold, but if I told you that justifies wrapping everyone in bubble wrap and locking us in cages to protect that life...well you might point out that life is not the only thing valuable needed to be considered. This is where other values come in. (such as liberty for this example) Sometimes our focus is in the wrong place and I think this is exactly the case with Government Benefits.
Also to further clarify the military and other subsidies (such as farm subsidies) are not listed for this debate in the description, so I guess I dodge that bullet XD.
"In need, in this case, means they are truly looking for a better life, and that they cannot get it anywhere else, and that they are not simply claiming they're looking for a better life just to be allowed in so they can cause trouble."
That's just the thing, the places they are escaping from (the trash pit that Mexico is now), the length that they go to get away (risking it all), it cries out desperation, does it not?
Also I agree we are not unlimited with our resources, but I also think you discount our resourcefulness and that of the immigrants as they actually help increase our prosperity. (see economic argument about increased jobs and job pay) Assuming that they cannot take care of themselves in the short term, why do you hold so strongly that we cannot care for these immigrants (what evidence shows we can't?)
"It makes little sense, if any, to allow migrants into this country who "come with nothing""
That's were I would redirect you to my earlier question: "what is "too much time, money, or resources" and are these things more valuable than human life? In other words, why do you think "us" matters so much and "they" matter less?"
"Your slavery and holocaust analogies don't work, since the slaves were kidnapped from their country and brought here to this country against their will, and the jews were rounded up and taken from their homes and put into those camps against their will, while illegal immigrants voluntarily leave their country and come here to this country against our will."
Using this line of thinking the Jews lived in Germany voluntarily and the slaves lived in Africa voluntarily and so their deaths were voluntary. The problem here is that you talk only of the actions of the refugees but not that of our immigration system. The analogy I made shows how law can be used immorally to kill. In the case of our immigration system, it is holding refugees against their will, who die as a result.
Now what does "in need" mean to you? Also what is "too much time, money, or resources" and are these things more valuable than human life? In other words, why do you think "us" matters so much and "they" matter less?
You said later that we should be able to verify genuine asylum seekers, while it does seem to me at first like a fair question, I realize we don't ask this question to anyone else in immediate need, this is a guilty until proven innocent mentality. This means that immigrants escaping death can be denied life simply for not having the right government document or for none at all as many come with nothing.
Why do you think that immigrants risking their lives to come here, don't want to come here? I explained why they have to come illegally earlier with the immigration quota problem (they simply aren't allowed in legally). Further, when your life depends on escaping death through illegal means (as in slavery times for a slave or for a jew in Hitler's execution camps), would you think that to be wrong?
Louis Brandeis puts this beautifully, "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable" -Louis Brandeis
I think our current border practice is deeply flawed, and a simple change in admitting immigrants can fix this whole mess, but we need to understand that law is not morality, it can and does change, and should be reviewed for flaws.
Once again thanks for taking the time to debate me Christen. I wish this type of conversation could be more regular among Americans (that would solve a ton!).
I'm wondering about your characterization of me using appeal to emotion in the final round. I wasn't able to respond, but I would like to clarify what you meant. Do you think that we do not have an obligation to help those in need? Also do you not think, given the evidence of economic ruin and gang violence, that these immigrants are fleeing oppression?
I was very careful to show the context for why immigrants are desperate enough to make the journey here, so I hope you can explain why we should not be concerned.
Minimum wage is by definition a restriction on the liberty of employee and employer alike, because it only limits the opportunities that can be made available.
As proven earlier illegal immigrants have have the crime rate of U.S citizens.
As proven earlier illegal immigrants have "half" the crime rate of U.S citizens.
I will let you go then. Though as far as flaws I have yet to see what you dislike, other then it shows a serious issue we are ignoring.
Have a good week!
I answered your question, but in the form of a question because that is the only way I think we can see eye to eye. If you do not like the scenario, then please explain why (though in detail, why not analogous?).
"there is no right to control the body of another" -Agreed, which is why I think it makes sense that humans cannot kill each other regardless of where they are located or their state of helplessness (such as the bodily dependence of a new born to its mother). What do you think?
Though I have to say these types of arguments seem to backtrack away from the argument at hand: Is it human or not? That to me seems to be the real question.
I want to thank you here Christen for the debate and also for the wait. In addition If my opening seems poorly explained it is because I could only fit the necessary information in, such as evidence and sources and points of argumentation. I will build and explain them after hearing your opening.
If you want the answer to your question you need to answer the questions I posed and in the situation, otherwise you have ended the conversation (I can't help you after that). There is nothing anyone can do in fact, unless you yourself wish to keep up the conversation. (remember a conversation is a 2-way event, meaning that not only do I have to answer your questions, but you must answer mine as well)
No worries about the tagging, I will probably mess up at some point too XD,
Let's start by analyzing a scenario, tell me what you think:
*Over some lush and untamed jungle, far from the civilized world* Not knowing how you got there, you find yourself in the cargo section of an old stuffy jet plane. Climbing out of the hold, you discover three well armed men. You cautiously make your way toward them, having no other choice but to submit to their mercy, but then, upon learning of your presence, the gunmen decide you are not worth having around and they toss you out of their plane...dead.
In this example, did the owners of the plane have a right to kill you because you were in their property and requiring them to assist you to safety?
The problem with the argument you present is that you ignore the baby's perspective entirely. If that indeed is a human, it has the same rights as any other human. In other words, would you say that a mother should not have to care for a born baby, as it too requires the mother to stay alive? The unborn baby is simply that, but even more helpless.
Thanks for the question, hope to hear from you soon,
Yes, but the problem here is that by saying not having a past means you have no value, you assume that the past is the determining factor of value. This means that more past means more value and less past means less value (with 'no past' being the bottom and most extreme). This is why in the slavery example slaves were seen as less valuable, because they did not have the experience of the European colonists or in other words did not have the past of the colonists.
I noticed at the end of your last post you said, "They have contributed to the human race by being a human." This here is a separate issue, because now you assert the the unborn are not human. *What reasons do you have to think they are not human and how do they not apply to a born person as well?* (The issue we were discussing is whether or not your past gives you value, not what makes you human) However, I think that is the most important question when it comes to abortion, because being human assumes certain dignities such as the right to life, if the unborn aren't human then you would be right, but if they are then we would be justifying killing humans based on their age or past if you prefer. *see question above*
Of course! Glad to see your interest in the topic. May you follow the Truth where it leads.
To Truth!
-logicae
I'm not well read on Socialism, but I have done a bit of research online. I recommend the TIKhistory YouTube channel for WW2 European socialism. He has read it all and has many great book recommendations in his videos (He sites everything). His 4hr video "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" is very informative and helped inspire me to run these debates.
Channel's socialist playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksAqr4lLA_Y&list=PLNSNgGzaledgxP4QadjKhk4bI6x2PbScO
To Truth!
-logicae
Ich lobe die Einleitung. Aber ich muss hinzufügen, dass nicht jede Selbstverteidigung gerechtfertigt ist. Nehmen Sie zum Beispiel, wenn Sie in böser Absicht gehandelt haben und diese Blase nicht auf diese Weise einschläfern mussten. Selbstverteidigung ist wichtig, aber Modifikation, obwohl schwer zu beweisen, kann dazu dienen, ihre Rechtfertigung umzukehren.
Zur Wahrheit!
-logicae
Great, I'll have the first round out in an hour or so with a few changes.
Have a Merry Christmas!
To Truth!
-logicae
Hello old friend :)
To Truth!
-logicae
Both
To Truth!
-logicae
Thanks Athias!
Merry Christmas,
To Truth!
-logicae
Hey Rational Madman,
To put it simply, I was arguing that taking the means of production by government, Socialism, is a worse form of governance than leaving the means of production to the individual and Sir Lancelot was arguing the opposite. I had two lines of argumentation to this end (It harms the most important value of the Individual and, as a result, it has caused great evils that would not have been possible without its implementation).
The debate is quite lengthy, so it may take a good 30min to read, but we go over these points in detail.
To Truth!
-logicae
Thank you very much for your great first speech!
To Truth!
-logicae
Hello RationalMadman,
The topic is Socialism, which, as I provided in the description, is the "Political and economic theory advocating state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange." Side Con (me) is against it and side Pro is for it. I also provided the weighing mechanism of Individual vs collective government to help judge each side.
I thought about limiting character size, but I would rather give each side as much room as possible to get their arguments through. Brevity is something I value, but I will let the other decide how he wishes to argue.
To Truth!
-logicae
Well done with the debate rules! A very formal and truth focused setup.
To Truth!
Logicae
I accept.
May we find truth together!
To Truth!
-logicae
XD I knew something was up. Good luck.
To Truth!
-logicae
Why such a long list of exceptions?
Sure,
For voter ID:
This to me is a very partisan issue. coal (<---lol, do I capitalize this?? A proper noun, but that IS his name...oh the things I go through) pointed out that methods such as gerrymandering are politics at play and the black vote happens to vote more democrat (What is it, like 80+ percent?). So I think it makes sense why Republicans would want these ID laws enforced and Democrats not, given these communities are generally more in poorer standing, have more criminal convictions, and, for immigrants, lack citizenship and or proper documents. Regardless of your stance on voter ID, this shows all the signs of standard political partisanship.
For Housing:
This is actually a great point! I need to see your case focus on the housing act of 1934 (less is always more). You did touch on loans, but these things could also be explained via other reasons such as higher criminality and bad credit...speaking of which, housing projects would have been an excellent example of government interfering in the African American community, explaining their current conundrum. It would be a great argument turn of coal's single motherhood example, using it instead as the impact to the housing and anti poverty legislation which continues to this day.
To Truth!
-logicae
Let’s not let government live our lives and take our hard-earned labor. Instead we must stop preventing the poor from climbing their own ladder as we give them a helping hand with the extra time we have not paying self-serving bureaucrats. The trick played by the socialist is that socialism is justified because the individual is selfish. If this were true then government, composed by the smallest most power-hungry group of individuals, should be avoided at all cost. Government benefits are no different.
And so my friends, don’t let the name fool you. Government Benefits only benefit one thing: The government.
To Truth!
-logicae
Voting Issue: The Individual
a. Collective First Mentality
It is crucial that remember the individual is the highest good that most be protected at the maximum. Rational Madman agrees here as well, but argues against the individual. This is done by assuming the individual must be harmed by taking from his own life, in order to benefit others. This, however, is a collective mentality first, which must violate the individual. The impact is that the very idea of government benefits immediately violates this most important value.
b. Government Benefits Violate Individuality
Government benefits do not benefit the one being violated nor the one who is thought to be helped. The person stolen from loses the choice of what to do with a large portion of his own labor. Opportunities are taken from him, his own path forward made that much harder. The same is for those who are supposed to benefit from this. How do we harm the poor the most? By paying them to stay poor. (This is all too well known by the war on poverty here in the US). It is equally bad to take and subsidize against pursuing opportunity. The individual made to bend to the wishes of government. The only individuals not tampered with are the tampers, those on the top making the very decisions individuals should be making for themselves. When you scroll through life, remember that you are your final leader and that anyone attempting to replace you and decide for you what you do with your own efforts, are evil. No matter what they say they will achieve, they must not seek to replace you in your life.
Note to all: I just missed the deadline. Please see my final argument here:
“Underlining most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself” -Milton Freedmen
I want to touch on a few thing from Rational Madman's last post and then recap the debate.
Rebuttable:
“This debate was about government benefits in all nations”
Even though I originally intended to debate restricted to the US, my arguments can be applied to any country because it considers a matter of general truth. The United States remains a crucial example and is best understood by us Americans and so most relevant.
“Pro is now fighting a different case, saying that government benefits don't work, rather than that they are immoral.”
You can have both. I think things that are immoral also end in bad results.
“there is strong correlation between having elements of socialized care for the poor, in a mixed economy (that is fundamentally capitalist but with socialist elements that stop the poor 'rotting away with no help or safety net') and being high in many categories of national success.”
The key phrase here is “fundamentally capitalist.” In order to attribute the success of the western world to socialist policies, you must ignore the very foundation of freedom from which it relies. It is really the prosperity from the free market that you are praising, not the socialist policies that feed on it. Without the free market, there is no prosperity. But can you say the same without socialism? This is because, of course, that taking is not giving. You do not help your neighbor by stealing from his neighbor. Government benefits are exactly that, taking from some Americans and giving to a select few. It seems that this basic idea has been missed by Rational Madman, but I hope to hear about it in his closing remarks. I want to take a look back to contention 2:
Ah, I see. Does consciousness decide person hood? Btw, how do you define "parasite." I think it is misapplied here given that parasites are not members of their own species, as a human is in early development. Additionally parasites rely on hosts for their entire existence, while humans rely on their mothers for only about nine months out of their life. Slavery seems a bit extreme also. I don't think think humans can force themselves onto their mother...I think we know how that happens.
Consciousness doesn't make much sense either given we are not fully conscious until our prefrontal cortex is fully developed well into adulthood (are we not fully human until that point?). You can also compare the consciousness of animals to see why it doesn't fit as the mark of person hood.
I think you are left with the bigger question: What exactly is happening in pregnancy?
If we are talking about the development of a member of the human species, then it makes sense that a person is involved. But if it is not a member of the human species, then it cannot be a person. That to me makes the most sense. What do you think?
To Truth!
-logicae
I think major inconsistencies arise if you declare person hood to begin there. Can you explain why that point defines person hood and not conception? (which is the standard for the beginning of the human species in biology) I can understand searching for common ground, but hopefully we can find solid ground to share.
To Truth!
-logicae
The pro-lifer asserts life starts at conception, while pro-choicer claims preconception.
Can agreement come from debate, when all we wish to do is negate?
Could we devise a plan for agreement, so that we might find out why the disagreement.
A point can only be made if true -the very wise words of a fool.
We must tread lightly on our ignorance, till at long last we find deliverance.
We are in in this together, separated by thousands of miles, and yet it is still as if we are not so far away. May we all have the strength to accept the truth when it comes. Love to all.
To Truth!
-logicae
Why not? :)
Hello RationalMadman! How are you these days?
It is U.S XD, I guess I assumed that one. Also you can defend, and attack, as general or specific as you wish. The floor is yours.
To Truth!
-logicae
Sure the title is correct...there is nothing wrong with being a tad bit obsessed with skin melanin section of the biology textbook. At least they are not focused on the reproductive section...
To Truth!
-logicae
If that were true, then perhaps people would stop using it. :D
I see your point though, as "if" is used sometimes to cover up reality when someone wants to ignore another's argument. Say a flat earther stating that "if" Nasa is covering the moon landings up in order to ignore photographs of earth. But I can say that "if" is important in thinking because it helps us to understand what we do not yet grasp. A scientist for example might use "ifs" in his hypothesis for gravity, not knowing what exactly gravity is, in order to help him study the origins and possibilities/applications of gravity.
So assuredly there is room on both sides to argue for if, but only if one side presents the superior case should the winner be declared. ;)
To Truth!
-logicae
I agree, you make good points on how corona is worse. I too think it has a far worse potential based on its ability to spread and the number of people who have died already. But the main point when it comes to immigrants is whether this is a world-wide phenomenon or if it applies to southern immigrants specifically. Since even you have seen it spread to the New England area, I think it is safe to say the virus is already here and in addition it had not come from immigration from the southern border, but started and spread from China. This means stopping immigration does not logically follow unless we quarantine ourselves completely off from the rest of the world, as the whole world has the potential to spread the virus. I think because such an action goes too far at the moment, we should let the idea rest.
To Truth!
-logicae
3000 deaths world wide (though mainly in China [2,912] where it originated from). Compare to Ebola which had 11,310 deaths.
I will end the conversation here as I fear it will take up too much of our time. It seems to me then that you do not value immigrants or, correct me if I have it wrong, people in general by intrinsic value but only by their practical use. If we cannot see the value in immigrants as people, we justify apathy to our own community here in the U.S. So then people become practical tools not for our good, but only for our convenience.
This reaches a dangerous precedent because people become expendable to our own preferences and to what we like. I do hope you do not mean you see no value in immigrants other then what the could be used for, else we must start talking also of our own worth. Worth such that an American is only worth in so as much as he is labeled an American.
Whatever it may be, I wish you well. Keep searching for truth, as it is the best thing we all can do.
To Truth!
-logicae
"We already do lock down citizens who are suspected of carrying the corona virus into quarantine, or at least we try our best to."
Then we can have the same standard for immigrants, but that does not discount them from coming.
"Many of them may come from areas where they may not have proper immunizations and stuff from other common diseases."
True, I'm not sure how big of a problem this is, but assuming that it is significant I still cannot see how you discount them based on that. If some states in the U.S for example have much higher levels of diseases, we don't ban everyone from those states from moving around.
"How is anyone supposed to "be open to letting them work here to support their families" when there isn't enough affordable housing for their families, and not enough health care or other resources for said families?"
I will do you one more, that their situation is dire at best. Who needs healthcare when they are going to die in a week? And as far as living prices go here, I don't think they will have a problem paying with the wages that we have. We are only the richest and most productive society in the world.
"As for whether or not they are valuable, you have to take into account the law of diminishing returns."
Are they valuable or not? And by how much?
"Then there's also the fact that people who come in illegally through the southern border can smuggle drugs, guns, women, and children, without any of us knowing about it"
Yes and there could be a crime wave in your neighborhood. Since American Citizens have twice the crime rate, I think we will live.
"There's just too much risk"
I have to hold you to what I have found so far, that many of these points you give are exaggerated and so over inflate the risk. We do many risky things in life, but it is no way comparable to letting desperate people have the same opportunities as we do. Put on the immigrant's shoes (or lack there of) and you see a whole different story.
To Truth!
-logicae
Here is my source for the corona cases count: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Good Night,
To Truth!
-logicae
The corona virus idea is a non-sequitur (an argument that is not consistent or is a logical double standard). Mexico has only 5 active cases while the U.S has 73. Using this logic we should lock down U.S citizens into quarantine. Though you are right about the harms of the virus, it is simply overblown by the media, just as Ebola was.
But to be honest it seems like you are finding any reason to keep out refugees. Even this small minority of immigrants that come though the un-fenced regions, what do you have against them? Why can you not at least be open to letting them work here to support their families (keep in mind this means through legal means. If we make it legal to work here and thus keep track of immigrants coming here to work and return home, we can make the illegal problem dissipate)
Again I must press you with the question of value, why do you not want to answer it? Do you not think that immigrants are valuable? Please answer this.
To Truth!
-logicae
I wonder why you focus on the small minority of illegal immigrants coming in through the border?
"since the Jews' country had their government which was the Nazi party that blamed Jews for the problems"
So are you blaming Jew's for the Nazi's and evil African leaders for the evil done by slave drivers? It is a well known fact that the Jews actually opposed Hitler, which is why (as many dictators tend to do) he killed them off. Also it makes no sense that slave owners have no stake in their own crimes (namely buying, beating, and killing African people as they were forcible enslaved on plantations).
Why are you trying to make this defense? I would agree though, as analogies permit, that these are different situations to immigration, but where both sides share the important similarity is at the moral ground. Both people are dehumanized (slaves and Jews killed and called animals and immigrants deemed illegal (as if a person by their nature could be illegal) and alien) Also both are treated inhumanly (Slaves and Jews in the most direct way and Immigrants by being turned down their only chance at life, outside of their perilous position in their degraded and often war torn and drug lord driven home country)
"Fixing those countries will ultimately address the root of the problem"
Agreed and this is not an either or situation. Until such situations alleviate, the refuges still need a home, a place away from the violence they are escaping from. Any sensible person sees this with the outbreak of a tornado or fire where we give refuges of these crises aid to help them now as they rebuild. When people require help it is our obligation fulfill their needs with what we can. (and I don't think that being the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world gives us an excuse, do you?)
"Changing the immigration quota alone while ignoring those bad countries is a band-aid solution."
I can make a similar claim: Declaring that whole countries need to get better while ignoring the thousands of helpless migrants is at best like a doctor instructing a smoker to stop smoking while he is dying from a stroke.
I think for the sake of simplicity I will end our conversation soon and I thank you for having it with me. It was a civilized and thoughtful one and I hope our generation can gain these useful skills and respect for each other as I think we have.
I do have one last question that encapsulates all the rest and the issue as a whole:
What, if any value, do you grant an immigrant?
To Truth! -logicae
I had to take a break, I apologize.
You say that the difference is,
"legal immigrants were examined and confirmed to be safe to allow into the country, while illegal immigrants were not"
-While this is partially true, because, according to the center for migration studies, two thirds of illegal immigrants are actually visa overstays. So the problem on the whole is not that illegals are not checked, but that they are deemed "illegal."
Link- https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-reverse-migration-022620/?gclid=CjwKCAiA7t3yBRADEiwA4GFlI0qS32T2TElkZYZZUvDK-PyRlkZKxZcJtUSkdNk-5F_5RVAgD8ZaUhoCtswQAvD_BwE
"living in your country voluntarily not the same as leaving your home to voluntarily"
-That is the point of an analogy, the comparable part is what is voluntary or not. Both of these situations are comparable because they are both voluntary actions.
"We don't have enough food, water, housing, space, doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, prisons, and equipment to care for all our people plus all these migrants."
-Why?
"the burden of proof is still on you to prove that these countries caused these slaves and jews to be killed and not the governments that allowed slavery and the holocaust."
-I totally agree here, this is why blaming Mexico for the immigrants is absurd. The immigrants had nothing to do with the evils in that country and so should not be lumped together with them.
"Going after our immigration quota ignores the main problem: that some of these migrants are having to voluntarily flee their terrible countries in the first place."
-Why is this the main problem? (I understand this is the reversal of my original statement, but you have not given a reason for it) The immigration quota makes it so that perfectly good and needy immigrants cannot come in. It has not been updated in 30 years to meet the current demand (this is why we have a backlog). Simply update the quota to meet the new demand and the problem ceases to exist.
To Truth!
-logicae
What is the difference between illegal and legal immigration? I responded to this in the debate.
"Our lack of the necessary resources"
What lacking?
"No, the Jews and Africans did not voluntarily leave their homes"
Did they live there voluntarily?
"Instead of blaming our immigration quota and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" immigrants, blame the terrible countries that these immigrants come from"
I think I will bring back my analogy to respond here:
Scenario 1: Nazi Germany
"Instead of blaming Hitler and saying Nazi German law is being "used immorally to kill" Jews, blame the terrible country that these Jews live in" -Nazi Sympathizer
Scenario 2: Colonial America
"Instead of blaming our legalization of slavery and saying it's being "used immorally to kill" slaves, blame the terrible countries that these slaves come from" -Pot Plantation Owner
Hello Ragnar! Glad to see his majesty in my humble dwelling :p.
To be honest I do not care much for voting, but values really do matter in debate because they determine the mindset or overall goal of the debate. For example I could say that life is the most important value we could hold, but if I told you that justifies wrapping everyone in bubble wrap and locking us in cages to protect that life...well you might point out that life is not the only thing valuable needed to be considered. This is where other values come in. (such as liberty for this example) Sometimes our focus is in the wrong place and I think this is exactly the case with Government Benefits.
Also to further clarify the military and other subsidies (such as farm subsidies) are not listed for this debate in the description, so I guess I dodge that bullet XD.
To Truth!
-logicae
"In need, in this case, means they are truly looking for a better life, and that they cannot get it anywhere else, and that they are not simply claiming they're looking for a better life just to be allowed in so they can cause trouble."
That's just the thing, the places they are escaping from (the trash pit that Mexico is now), the length that they go to get away (risking it all), it cries out desperation, does it not?
Also I agree we are not unlimited with our resources, but I also think you discount our resourcefulness and that of the immigrants as they actually help increase our prosperity. (see economic argument about increased jobs and job pay) Assuming that they cannot take care of themselves in the short term, why do you hold so strongly that we cannot care for these immigrants (what evidence shows we can't?)
"It makes little sense, if any, to allow migrants into this country who "come with nothing""
That's were I would redirect you to my earlier question: "what is "too much time, money, or resources" and are these things more valuable than human life? In other words, why do you think "us" matters so much and "they" matter less?"
"Your slavery and holocaust analogies don't work, since the slaves were kidnapped from their country and brought here to this country against their will, and the jews were rounded up and taken from their homes and put into those camps against their will, while illegal immigrants voluntarily leave their country and come here to this country against our will."
Using this line of thinking the Jews lived in Germany voluntarily and the slaves lived in Africa voluntarily and so their deaths were voluntary. The problem here is that you talk only of the actions of the refugees but not that of our immigration system. The analogy I made shows how law can be used immorally to kill. In the case of our immigration system, it is holding refugees against their will, who die as a result.
To Truth!
-logicae
Thanks for your answer,
Now what does "in need" mean to you? Also what is "too much time, money, or resources" and are these things more valuable than human life? In other words, why do you think "us" matters so much and "they" matter less?
You said later that we should be able to verify genuine asylum seekers, while it does seem to me at first like a fair question, I realize we don't ask this question to anyone else in immediate need, this is a guilty until proven innocent mentality. This means that immigrants escaping death can be denied life simply for not having the right government document or for none at all as many come with nothing.
Why do you think that immigrants risking their lives to come here, don't want to come here? I explained why they have to come illegally earlier with the immigration quota problem (they simply aren't allowed in legally). Further, when your life depends on escaping death through illegal means (as in slavery times for a slave or for a jew in Hitler's execution camps), would you think that to be wrong?
Louis Brandeis puts this beautifully, "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable" -Louis Brandeis
I think our current border practice is deeply flawed, and a simple change in admitting immigrants can fix this whole mess, but we need to understand that law is not morality, it can and does change, and should be reviewed for flaws.
To Truth!
-logicae
Once again thanks for taking the time to debate me Christen. I wish this type of conversation could be more regular among Americans (that would solve a ton!).
I'm wondering about your characterization of me using appeal to emotion in the final round. I wasn't able to respond, but I would like to clarify what you meant. Do you think that we do not have an obligation to help those in need? Also do you not think, given the evidence of economic ruin and gang violence, that these immigrants are fleeing oppression?
I was very careful to show the context for why immigrants are desperate enough to make the journey here, so I hope you can explain why we should not be concerned.
Thanks!
To Truth!
-logicae
Agreed Christen,
Minimum wage is by definition a restriction on the liberty of employee and employer alike, because it only limits the opportunities that can be made available.
To Truth!
-logicae
Spelling mistake, please ignore:
As proven earlier illegal immigrants have have the crime rate of U.S citizens.
As proven earlier illegal immigrants have "half" the crime rate of U.S citizens.
I will let you go then. Though as far as flaws I have yet to see what you dislike, other then it shows a serious issue we are ignoring.
Have a good week!
To Truth!
-logicae
I answered your question, but in the form of a question because that is the only way I think we can see eye to eye. If you do not like the scenario, then please explain why (though in detail, why not analogous?).
"there is no right to control the body of another" -Agreed, which is why I think it makes sense that humans cannot kill each other regardless of where they are located or their state of helplessness (such as the bodily dependence of a new born to its mother). What do you think?
Though I have to say these types of arguments seem to backtrack away from the argument at hand: Is it human or not? That to me seems to be the real question.
To Truth!
-logicae
I want to thank you here Christen for the debate and also for the wait. In addition If my opening seems poorly explained it is because I could only fit the necessary information in, such as evidence and sources and points of argumentation. I will build and explain them after hearing your opening.
If you want the answer to your question you need to answer the questions I posed and in the situation, otherwise you have ended the conversation (I can't help you after that). There is nothing anyone can do in fact, unless you yourself wish to keep up the conversation. (remember a conversation is a 2-way event, meaning that not only do I have to answer your questions, but you must answer mine as well)
No worries about the tagging, I will probably mess up at some point too XD,
To Truth!
-logicae
This is an important question,
Let's start by analyzing a scenario, tell me what you think:
*Over some lush and untamed jungle, far from the civilized world* Not knowing how you got there, you find yourself in the cargo section of an old stuffy jet plane. Climbing out of the hold, you discover three well armed men. You cautiously make your way toward them, having no other choice but to submit to their mercy, but then, upon learning of your presence, the gunmen decide you are not worth having around and they toss you out of their plane...dead.
In this example, did the owners of the plane have a right to kill you because you were in their property and requiring them to assist you to safety?
The problem with the argument you present is that you ignore the baby's perspective entirely. If that indeed is a human, it has the same rights as any other human. In other words, would you say that a mother should not have to care for a born baby, as it too requires the mother to stay alive? The unborn baby is simply that, but even more helpless.
Thanks for the question, hope to hear from you soon,
To Truth!
-logicae
Yes, but the problem here is that by saying not having a past means you have no value, you assume that the past is the determining factor of value. This means that more past means more value and less past means less value (with 'no past' being the bottom and most extreme). This is why in the slavery example slaves were seen as less valuable, because they did not have the experience of the European colonists or in other words did not have the past of the colonists.
I noticed at the end of your last post you said, "They have contributed to the human race by being a human." This here is a separate issue, because now you assert the the unborn are not human. *What reasons do you have to think they are not human and how do they not apply to a born person as well?* (The issue we were discussing is whether or not your past gives you value, not what makes you human) However, I think that is the most important question when it comes to abortion, because being human assumes certain dignities such as the right to life, if the unborn aren't human then you would be right, but if they are then we would be justifying killing humans based on their age or past if you prefer. *see question above*
To Truth!
-logicae
Bring it on! ;)
To Truth!
-logicae
Roger that.
To Truth!
-logicae
I see your interest in the topic. Would you like to accept? I only ask you make sure to have your arguments and evidence ready.
To Truth!
-logicae
Done. Crazy how quick the wall has become a fad. Is there anyone still out there that still thinks it is a good idea?
To Truth!
-logicae