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.
Are Republicans Terrorists?
The Republicans whole platform is based on fear. War on drugs. War on Christmas. Immigrants are taking over. Refugees will bomb us. Muslims are dangerous. At some point does fear mongering turn into terrorism. Is living in fear that Democrats will destroy everything a form of terrorism?
Yeah but that just means they employing terrorism within the literal definition. Unless one commits the acts of violence themselves, then they are not a terrorist within the commonly used version.
Republicans and democrats red and blue it's two wings on the same purple bird all striving to create a major world crisis to have all the struggling governments of the world unite into a one world government under ultimate European domination as the chief entity of this One world government. That is my take Thank you.
The recognition of the threat posed by the Muslim's 'Trojan Horse' strategy, ( as discovered in English schools and local councils) as well as the ease with which Muslim youths can be radicalized and trained like animals to become suicide bombers is not a political tactic to alarm people, but simply the ability to see and acknowledge the glaring facts. It is the duty of all politicians to place such information into the public domain so that the population at large can remain vigilant, as they are advised to be by all democratic political parties. If no threat exists then for what the hell are we supposed to be looking? We're all living in the age of the ruthless terrorist and the longer it takes people to recognize which group of religious psychopathic zealots it is that represents the greatest threat the longer we will all have to live in the shadow of the Islamic terrorist. Thank god there are those who do realize this ongoing and extremely serious threat and dedicate their lives to thwarting most of the Muslim terrorist's acts of violence and countering their subversive political agenda so that those who want to sit back and get a free ride can do so in relative safety.
Well Cartman, it's not a question of feeling safe, it's more to do with actually being safe. I sure don't have the solution to the Muslim problem in my back pocket but there are certain measures which would help to reduce the menace their existing presence poses and minimize the developing threat which is coming down the line like an express locomotive. Before a problem can be addressed never mind resolved the existence of the said problem must be firstly be accepted. The degree of threat to the tolerant democracies of the west is frightening. Firstly I would impose a complete ban of all Muslim migrants regardless of their circumstances, i.e., those with a family in their intended host country, asylum seekers and so forth. I believe in simplicity and simply put, no exceptions, no ifs, no buts and no ''whataboutery'' pleas. Secondly I would, as a matter of urgent priority and with ruthless efficiency deport all illegal Muslim immigrants. Concurrent with these measures I would commence a programme which would require all resident Muslims to register their address and employment details and to carry identity cards at all times. Any Muslim not in possession of proper official identity documentation would be arrested and held until their legality could be verified. If found with false or no documentation, then immediate internment followed closely by deportation. All borders, land, sea and air would be sealed tight as a drum. Then I would present legislation for resident Muslims based on the Saudi Arabian laws pertaining to immigrants, that is anyone they deem not to be Muslim or a Saudi Arabian by descent. If you think the implementation of these proposed security measures would be expensive they would pale into insignificance in comparison to the human and material cost of remaining in cloud cuckoo land and letting the Islamist's call the shots. Currently we are playing their game and we're always in a reactionary/catch up position. I.S, is gaining in capability and we are going to see many repeats of 9/11, 7/7 and the Paris 13/11. The entire free world, including Russia must go onto a full scale war footing if the filth are to be defeated and the slaughter of our citizens is to be ceased. If such measures were adopted, which they won't be anyway soon, or at least not until the filth carry out a chemical or biological attack ( which is just around the corner) on one or more of the ''tolerant'' western countries, then the Muslims will only have themselves to blame. They were made welcome and their special ethnic needs were facilitated and, like a snake in the grass they bit the extended hand of friendship.
But they ARE more likely to go after and KILL terrorists than the Lefties are.
This is why I believe it is essential that a Republican gets into the White House in 2016. What with the rise of ISIL and all. We have seen how the policy of appeasement has worked in the past with terrorism and foreign tyranny.
Have you heard the way people like FromWithin and outlaw talk about the refugees from Syria? It is all about making sure you are scared enough to agree with them. That's what terrorism is. It isn't assuming they are terrorists, it is discussing whether their form of fearmongering is similar.
This is a classic example of an anecdotal fallacy. You're taking a small example to explain the bigger picture. Being a republican doesn't inherently mean you are, or are like, a terrorist. There are some examples of republicans that do participate in fearmongering, and are probably the reason America fucks itself over whenever a terrorist attack happens. But that doesn't apply to the whole group.
I would agree that they are in the long run promoting terror. But I think that if we were to call political extremism terrorism that would make it too lenient a definition.
I think I've met a republican or 2 that aren't scarey .. lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum
Does reading Plato count ?? lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum
": the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal"
Merriam Webster.
"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. "
Dictionary.com
" The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Oxford Dictionary
And the FBI only defines one form of terrorism, domestic, as requiring the violation of laws.
So now that we have established that the most popular dictionary website and the two primary English language dictionaries disagree with you, where are you finding your definition?
Mostly acts done in sports, but also consensual fights. The main issue with his seemingly arbitrary definition is the "unofficial or unauthorized" aspect of it, which makes no sense, as both states (as in the "government" sense of the word) and non-state organizations authorize terrorism both officially and unofficially.
I'm not going to argue further with your 'popular source is right source' bullshit. Terrorism is always necessitated in that the means of intimidation were unauthorized and unofficial in nature. If you do not concede this basic point then a bully doing so to get more respect from their peers is a terrorists by your definition and frankly I don't want to waste my time debating with someone of such a low IQ level.
FYI my definition is from Google itself, which is more popular than any source of yours. Lmfao.
I'm not going to argue further with your 'popular source is right source' bullshit. Terrorism is always necessitated in that the means of intimidation were unauthorized and unofficial in nature.
Ah yes, because you say so. Interesting that dictionaries and the FBI disagree with you.
If you do not concede this basic point then a bully doing so to get more respect from their peers is a terrorists by your definition and frankly I don't want to waste my time debating with someone of such a low IQ level.
By the literal definition they are.
FYI my definition is from Google itself, which is more popular than any source of yours. Lmfao.
When you are responding to someone talking about how Americans colloquially use terrorism, and you call him an idiot for referencing both the Merriam Webster Dictionary as well as the American English version of the Oxford Dictionary, then you make it clear you are using insults as means of demonstrating your inability to substantiate your arguments.
Nobody has said anything about "criminals" other than you, so that's a circular argument. Many people accuse states of endorsing and employing terrorism, including the United States.
The difference is that a "terrorist organization" is an organization whose primary methods and purpose are terrorism. A terrorist organization is not simply any organization that uses terrorism.
Really for the life of me I do not understand why you decided to become so absurdly hostile and rude over such a pedantic argument.
Lmfao. Terrorists are criminals but you are too stupid to see that because you are a semantic-debater only.
Playing with words is a skill, sure, but actually using logic and appreciating common sense is a far more useful skill in life. So I bid you farewell. :)
Lmfao. Terrorists are criminals but you are too stupid to see that because you are a semantic-debater only.
With the way we use it, you are correct. I have never disagreed, and actually stated that in my very first post on this debate.
Playing with words is a skill, sure, but actually using logic and appreciating common sense is a far more useful skill in life. So I bid you farewell. :)
So is reading before you behave like an ass, but you seem to lack that one.
Since you care more about behaving like a child than making sure the things you are saying are factual, let me show you the very first comment on this debate, made by me: "Within the definitions used by most people, no.
It's the [different] between simply using fear for the purpose of coercion, and using violent acts to incite fear for the purpose of coercion."
So in the future, try to pay attention before you make such a fool of yourself, especially when you start a linguistic debate and then later complain that someone else is taking part in the very same linguistic debate you started.