CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
AlofRI is an idiot and Nom is being fake when he talks kindly of him
Nom seems to think AlofRI is a pretty swell guy, but how fast would that change if I brought up all the things that Al is clueless about which would irritate Nom just as much as it irritates me?
Al, if you would answer these questions it would help you out believe it or not. Because you could get some clarification on things you're ignorant of and also you will potentially see Nom changing his tone and realize that he's a dick provided he doesn't simply ignore your answers.
1) What is your general view of Marxism?
2) What does "Democratic Socialism" mean?
3) What role should the state play in society?
4) When was America at it's best and why?
5) Is capitalism necessary for civilization to function?
Yes, capitalism IS necessary, but, like your mother likely taught you, to much of a good thing is NOT GOOD! We have, at the moment, an overindulgence in capitalism. Capitalism is not what this country was founded on, it was democracy! Russia is a capitalistic country that is controlled by its capitalists, not the people! I don't want THAT kind of controlling capitalism, it MUST have regulations that protect the people, the environment, human rights, civil rights …. NOT JUST CAPITALISTIC RIGHTS!
If you think that makes me an idiot, I'm proud to be one! ;-)
AlofRI is an idiot and Nom is being fake when he talks kindly of him
Hello J:
SOME of us STAND behind every word we say.
And, some of us change our names daily. I can only conclude it's because they're ASHAMED, they're LYING, or they're saying something pretty fucking stupid..
Socialism is a theory, just like democracy. Many people take a theory and look at it different ways. To say I look at it like you do is an understatement, and there are MANY who don't look at it, or expect FROM it, what you do. I don't want it as our political "system" but, every political system has its good points, we just have to take the parts that preserve what the founders wanted …. "Government of, by and FOR the PEOPLE!" (Not what we have now, govt. of, by and for the few! :-)
Many people take a theory and look at it different ways.
That doesn't mean there isn't a wrong way to look at it. There is a difference between having a different point of view on a theory and misinterpreting what the theory even is.
we just have to take the parts that preserve what the founders wanted …. "Government of, by and FOR the PEOPLE!"
Nom hates the founding fathers. That "of, by and FOR the PEOPLE!" shit is nothing but words. What they wanted was a government, of, by, and for the wealthy (aka capitalism).
Nom and I don't always agree. We're not like you and the lock-step conservatives of today. You are welcome, and have a right to your opinion …. as I do.
The second I disagreed with him about one thing he literally started calling me names like a 4 year old and decided I was everything bad that ever existed.
I see. That may explain the correlation with them being wrong about you and FM being the same person, while I was spot on for most of the time, even holding it more likely that you are Brontoraptor than you were FM.
In the end, I have been proven correct and am happy for that. This happens a lot to me in life; being proven correct on something everyone said I was insane to think. At times, I am also wrong, but those times are rare and more often than not are when I went with the majority on the matter that I had doubts on.
YOUR definition of democratic socialism doesn't resemble mine.
My definition is objectively correct. A democratic SOCIALIST is a socialist, what you are is a social democrat.
I'm NOT FOR your kind!
You're not a democratic socialist is what you are saying. Nom is a democratic socialist (the real definition of it) so you are saying you don't like Nom's preferred system. I am not exactly a "democratic socialist" (I would call it technocratic anarcho-socialist or something) so when you say "my kind" you mean "my definition" which I derive from history and from the dictionary, not from one American politician who happened to call their self a socialist despite being in favor of a market economy.
No, you still don't get it. There are no opinions when you're dealing with the Fact Machine, only Facts.
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy." -wikipedia
"Democratic socialism is a term used to refer to the socialist political philosophy which advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy, with an emphasis on workers' self-management" -wikipedia
One of them is clearly capitalism with socialist elements, and the other is clearly full socialism.
Socialism isn't objective so you can't have an objectively correct definition of it. In short, most of the stuff you write is designed to make you feel intellectually superior to other people. You are not intellectually superior to other people. You are just simply a narcissist with profound emotional/behavioural problems.
Socialism isn't objective so you can't have an objectively correct definition of it.
Socialism is objectively defined as a certain thing, are you telling me you wouldn't have a problem if I started calling socialism capitalism and capitalism socialism? The second it is convenient for you, you will forget you said this and go back to berating some capitalist for misrepresenting what socialism is.
Socialism is objectively defined as a certain thing
You laughably stupid moron. Socialists frequently disagree with other socialists about socialism. The university press is stuffed to the brim full of arguments and counter-arguments about why socialism is this, or why it is that. Nothing which was invented in the mind of a human is objective because humans themselves are not objective. You're a stupid, annoying little child. Shut up.
Socialists frequently disagree with other socialists about socialism.
That's mostly because there are different types of socialism. If one particular type says they are the only true socialists they are objectively wrong. What we call "socialism" is an economic system that objectively has to take on certain attributes to be defined as socialism. Otherwise you might as well call fascism mormonism and social democracy the big bang theory.
Nothing which was invented in the mind of a human is objective
True, but the thing we call "socialism" still has specific attributes that make it what it is. Sure, you could CALL it something different, or use it's name to refer to something else, but that would be stupid. When I say "socialism" I am talking about the actual thing which it is defined as, which objectively has the attributes which it has and not those of something different.
That's mostly because there are different types of socialism.
Lol. You are so funny. So, to clarify, you claim to possess an objective definition of socialism, while at the same time arguing that there are different types of socialism?
you claim to possess an objective definition of socialism, while at the same time arguing that there are different types of socialism?
That's not contradictory in any way. What you are saying is no different from saying it's contradictory to say that blue is a specific color but there are different shades of it.
You're an idiot, mate.
The level of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty you've been displaying lately is equivalent to that of Bronto.
States have a large roll in democracy. They have to put the peoples tax money where it is most needed IN THAT STATE. In capitalism, it would be management of a department or branch of a company. The branch has different needs than other branches, so it has to be managed differently, but, still under the main company's policies. The Federal Government. THAT is what the founders (IMO), wanted …. as it has been since!
Do you think states are necessary for democracy to exist? Have you considered the concept of work-place democracy?
In capitalism, it would be management of a department or branch of a company. The branch has different needs than other branches, so it has to be managed differently, but, still under the main company's policies.
Sure, that is well enough. But that is in capitalism specifically, and you just so happen to LIKE capitalism for some odd reason. Socialists tend to dislike both capitalism AND the state.
THAT is what the founders (IMO), wanted
They wanted what they saw as the closest realistic thing to a "free market".
In this conservative run America, black is white, white is black (at least when we are not talking about skin color, yep, there's that card again, but, I have a right to that opinion also). I've had my say, I'm not here to argue with a dining room table.
Idiot (if that's the way you want it ;-), signing off.
America has NEVER BEEN at its best, but, it HAS been FAR BETTER than it is under Trump! The search for a "More Perfect Union" should go on and NEVER STOP!
America was respected, trusted, compassionate, working for peace, working for civil and human rights, made its mistakes, but, not intentionally! Today, it makes them intentionally, is not trusted, not compassionate, not working for peace, not The United States of America! Definitely NOT its best!
So you don't think there was a time when it happened to be at it's best relative to other points in it's history ? Does that mean it was always the same? That can't be, because you literally just said it has been better than it is now.
He didn't say relative to other parts of history. He said America has never been at its best. Stop putting words into other people's mouths they didn't say you stupid troll.