The latter.
Don't mind this text; I simply need to fill the 50 character minimum.
To begin with, my previous post was on the "incorrect" side due to an apparent error in the post it rebutted (which was on the "Capitalism" side, despite "disputing" my original post, which was on the same side).
Further, in my opinion, the "points" system is entirely meaningless; the validity of the side of an issue has nothing to do with either its popularity or how many arguments are posted on its behalf.
If any country possesses nuclear weapons, which at least one always will, maintaining the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction becomes a necessity.
"Well, actually there is much much genocidal oligarchy it is just hidden from the public. "
How, exactly, does one go about hiding the discriminatory mass-murder of the political elite from over 300 million people?
"The 20 richest people in the America have as much wealth as the bottom 152 million people in America."
Your point? The total wealth of the populous is far from static, so it's not as if certain people possessing more resources means there're less for everyone else.
"Our form of capitalism has never worked for the poor and it's starting to fall apart for the middle class."
Define "poor". Last I checked, less than three percent of the population works at minimum wage (and if you're not working, you have no excuse for poverty; there are plenty of companies that hire unskilled, untrained labor [in fact, such a company, under said conditions, is how I recently acquired my first career]), and of that three percent, over three fifths of which are enrolled in school, and even ignoring them, only a quarter of the remaining, older minimum-wage workers fall below the poverty line. How, exactly, does the system "not work for the poor"? (statistics: http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/
"Capitalism is good in theory but that's not what we have today."
Agreed, though for clearly differing reasons. In my opinion, the government's far too involved in our economic system for it to function correctly. In other words, the problem, in my opinion, is our economy leans too far towards Communism to thrive.
"Today corporations can buy elections..."
Which is entirely illegal; responsibility for failure to enforce campaign and bribery legislation lies entirely on the government's shoulders.
"...and write legislation..."
Can you provide any example of this that doesn't fall under my above statement?
"...that's not capitalism, that's fascism."
Well, the definition of Fascism is actually quite convoluted, but sure, why not? The only purpose this statement has is to contradict your earlier statements; if we are indeed Fascist, it follows we're not Capitalist, and therefore your accusations against it are irrelevant.
"We used to have capitalism, in the 1940's the rich paid 91 % income taxes, today they're paying close to nothing or in some cases nothing, due to extensive loopholes that were sent in place by the lobbying super rich."
Which is, to reiterate, illegal. Further, a progressive tax system is inherently anti-Capitalist, as it punishes success and therefore deincentivizes it, and is therefore inherently contradictory to the system.
"The rich keep all of the money, pay none of the taxes.
The middle class keep none of the money, pay all of the taxes.
The poor are just there to scare the shit out of the middle class."
Other than the fact that the top ten percent of earners in the US account for more than half of all tax revenue, while the top one percent account for around a fifth? Meanwhile, the bottom fifty percent of earners account for three percent of all taxes. I have to reiterate: how, exactly, does the system fail? Where are the unwashed masses of starving children dying in droves in the streets beneath the gold-plated skyscrapers of the rich you appear to be alluding to?
To begin with, Capitalism is the only economic system of the two that hasn't ended in genocidal oligarchy, so I'd say that's a fair indicator of how this is going to work out.
Second, the human psyche is built around incentives; people, like all other life, are not arbitrary beings. When a person engages in an activity, they do so because they acquire something from it, be it financial stability (occupations), a sense of moral justification (compassion and charity activity), or, quite frequently, the body's own built-in hormonal incentive mechanisms.
It follows, then, that an economic system which inherently relies on incentives will be more effective than one that either discourages them or even disregards them completely. Capitalism, without government intervention, is built on the notion that opportunity creates productivity and all the benefits that follow (wealth, technological innovation, and education, to name a few), while Communism is based on the idea that the government understands more than the people in every meaningful context, and should therefore dictate the entirety of their economic lives. In short, this is a terrible idea: not only does the government have no reason whatsoever to please its citizens (especially since, historically, they've almost exclusively been enforced by strength of arms), but the populous has no incentive to produce or innovate. If the government only allows you so much wealth, regardless of your accomplishments or lack thereof, why bother trying? Fundamentally, Communism not only disregards human nature, but entirely relies on an overwhelmingly moral, selfless citizenry and government, and is therefore entirely unrealistic, existing accurately only in the minds of the hopelessly optimistic, whose disregard of both history and human nature can only be described as delusional.
I suppose that, given the inherent feeling of wrongness one develops when hearing or being subjected to wrongdoing (as opposed to indifference, which would indicate normalcy), it follows that the population is generally moral.
I'm personally indifferent towards the moral aspects of this issue (I couldn't care less what legal status two consenting adults wish to possess), therefore my argument is solely from a legal standpoint. In short, the Supreme Court, being an entity of the Judicial branch of government, possesses no Constitutional (and therefore legal) authority to create law, which lies exclusively in the grasp of the Legislative branch. Given this, their arbitration (as opposed to interpreting a law to such an effect, which falls within their jurisdiction) is illegal, and should therefore be abolished.
Men are inherently much greater risk-takers; while this does lead to higher conviction rates among them, it's also a crucial facet of the innovations we've made as a species. Sure men contribute disproportionately more to crime, but they also disproportionately drive science and technology as a whole, both of which are incomprehensibly crucial to society's function.
That argument assumes Medicaid to be crucial to the survival of a great many people. Here's a hint: it's far from it.
Is your post an acceptance of my offer, or are you confident enough in your knowledge to be unwilling to pursue the issue further?
"You are a piece of work.. You SAY my question is loaded.. You SAY it's irrational.. You SAY it's unfair.."
All of which are demonstrably accurate.
"Then you go ahead and answer by admitting that science IS indeed LEFT WING because it's taught in COLLEGE, and we ALL know how left wing college is.."
If you'd care to read my statement in its entirety, I blatantly reject your claim on a rational basis.
Since I'm apparently forced to repeat it, my argument follows as such: just because colleges hold a particular stance on a given issue does not mean that science itself belongs to that stance. My logical basis for this claim is taking your logic and substituting terms; in this case, the overwhelming fragility of the views of college students.
Yet another loaded question with no dichotomy (or any semblance of fairness, for that matter) presented in regards to the sides one can take.
That aside, let's begin:
Right off the bat, the assumption intrinsic to the question at hand (that "right wingers" believe science to belong to the political Left) has no basis whatsoever. No sources, hearsay examples, or even supporting text are provided by the OP. This assumption, therefore, is entirely baseless.
Further, I myself, being what the original poster would refer to as a "right winger", have never believed science to be the domain of the political Left. I would even go so far as to say that I know of no so-called "right-winger" who claims this. It follows, then, that not all "right-wingers" believe this to be the case, and thus the OP is fundamentally flawed.
This is entirely conjecture, but I'm guessing the basis behind this debate (irrational as it is) is the overwhelming tendency of academia to lean towards the political Left. Of course, if you're to make this correlation, you must also recognize that academia (specifically colleges and universities, where a good deal of the aforementioned science is facilitated) is the infamous home of so-called "snowflakes", usually adult students whose beliefs are so fragile as to require protection from other points of view, climaxing in the form of "safe spaces". Does this mean that scientists are all "snowflakes"? Of course not. The same applies to political stances; in other words, so what? Correlation is not equivalent to causation, much less the shared belief set of a political party.
"What a hair-splitting, question dodging, pedantic, smarmy little worm."
What a thoroughly unsubstantiated, pointlessly insulting phrase (it's not even a complete sentence).
"He asked you do you agree with the video."
Not once did they ask me that. The only statement they made that could possibly be construed as a legitimate question was "Why do right wingers get their news from YouTube?", which was not only obviously rhetorical (and therefore not a legitimate question), but a clear example of hasty generalization, which I explicitly pointed out, not to mention a loaded question.
"But you're either too thick or too slimy to read between the lines and answer directly."
Unlike yourself, who goes out of their way to baselessly attack others over nonexistent accusations? Clearly, the moral superiority here rests firmly on you.
So much for challenging my statements on a rational basis.
"Believe something different" than what, acquiring the entirety of one's knowledge of current events from YouTube, as you claim all "right wingers" do?
Why are you using a single, self-proclaimed "troll" as the basis for a hasty generalization including all "right wingers"?
Is that why Muslim-majority countries are barbaric patriarchies? Because they're "innocent, loving, caring people"?
"I never said the US was solely responsible. I said mostly. Not the same. I do know China is the leader."
And you see no issue with either of those statements? Okay, let's do a little math here. Let's say the US is responsible for 75% of CO2 emissions (keep in mind this is purely a thought exercise; I'm not actually claiming it to be this number); if China has a higher CO2 output, which it does, then it would be responsible for more than 75% of CO2... Oh, wait... That's over 150% in just those two countries alone. In case you're not aware, 150% is a statistical (and physical) impossibility; it just doesn't make sense.
"As for the rest of your arguments, I mean , I don't know how to respond because your reaction is the very reason I believe the world is better off without the US. What exactly are you disagreeing with ?"
None of your previous statements had anything to do with the world being better off without the US as a whole. As for exactly what statements of yours I disagree with, I'd have hoped my rebutting specific quotes was clear enough. Is there something I'm missing?
Having Asperger's, I'm personally aware of the (by no means universal) connection between the two. It's entirely possible that the stereotype of the socially inept genius originated from the disease.
"US is mostly responsible for most of climate damage"
Other than the fact that China produces almost twice as much CO2 as the US?
"But what is the point of fighting against something if the one of big leaders doesn't believe in it?"
Because, not only do the US's restrictions mandated by the Paris Accord achieve hardly anything (Trump said fulfilling the mandates would lower global temperatures by 2/10ths of a degree by 2100), but the same mandates allow other countries (primarily China, India, and Europe) to vastly expand their polluting industries. In other words, the Accord seeks little but to put the US at an economic disadvantage.
"I mean his administration won't even pay for his people's well being"
As the government is meant to do; healthcare is a good, not a right.
"I think water and air for us was bound to get worse the day Trump got elected. But maybe let's not bring the world down with us..."
Even if CO2 caused significant global warming (which, given the hundreds of other variables affecting the climate which are far more significant, is absurd), why would the US be solely responsible for their actions, while the rest of the world, despite the Accord allowing them to increase polluting industries, be innocent of any wrongdoing?
Assuming a non-zero chance of life spontaneously springing into existence (of which no evidence whatsoever exists), sure.
After having read your arguments, I'm compelled to ponder whether you're actually interested in a rational discussion. Ignoring my statement with vague assertions, then baselessly claiming God to be "imaginary"? Disputing my statements based on nothing but slight ambiguities? Much as I love debate, I'll pass on this one. There's no possible productive outcome to be had here.
"First and foremost, E=MC^2 states a relationship between matter and energy and does not state in any way that matter can neither be created nor destroy."
I was simply pointing out that, as shown by that equation, matter and energy are interchangeable in regards to the first law of Thermodynamics.
"Secondly, it is the first law of Thermodynamics that makes it all possible."
I explicitly stated as much.
"Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God."
God, by definition (specifically possessing the quality of "supernaturality", or non-physicality), is not bound by the laws of physics, including Thermodynamics.
"Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were."
Impossible. Due to the second law of Thermodynamics (if you're not familiar with its implications, just Google "heat death of the Universe"), the Universe cannot have simply always existed. Entropy can only ever increase (and does), and, as the Universe definitionally possesses a finite amount of energy (and thus capacity for entropy), therefore, after some finite period of time, the Universe will be saturated with entropy. As this has not yet occurred (life does indeed exist), it follows that the Universe has existed for a finite period of time.
"Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur."
The simple acids you're referring to may be (incomplete) components of organisms, but tossing a few planks into your backyard and building a shed are two entirely different things. In other words, life is inherently much more than the sum of its parts, therefore a simple mixture of its components (assuming you even have all of them; no experiment, even under ideal Darwinian conditions, has been able to produce all necessary amino acids to create life) is not equivalent to it.
"From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve."
To reiterate, there's no evidence that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely.
First and foremost, "natural" (or physical) processes are fundamentally incapable of creating the Universe. Why? Because natural processes follow the laws of physics (specifically the first law of Thermodynamics), which prohibit the creation or destruction of energy (and, as proven by Einstein's famous equation, "E = MC^2", matter), an inherent prerequisite to the Universe's creation.
As for Darwinian Evolution, I'm forced to disagree: not only is there no evidence to substantiate Abiogenesis (in fact, experiments attempting to credit it, such as the Miller experiment, failed to do so, thus having the opposite effect), but that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely has no basis whatsoever, in either observation or experimentation.
Or, if you actually take the quote at face value, the Founders simply didn't want the rights listed to be construed in a manner that limits the rights of a given group.
Why the Founders would consider healthcare as a God-given "right" is beyond me. Last I checked, the document they created was an attempt to set up things in such a way that those who had the will to succeed would, not taking from the successful to buy votes from those unwilling to work.
