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 socialists/fascists/the left afraid of OPEN debate?
I've just joined recently and I've already been banned from a debate for apparently no reason. No rude words, offensive language or disrespect. It seems to be the common practice all over society where the left is constantly banning, preventing, closing down and physically attacking people who want to participate in open dialogue.
Why is the left so afraid of honest and open debate? Is it because they're afraid they'll be exposed? Or are they insecure in their own beliefs so would prefer to stick their heads in the sand? Or is it purely because they're fundamentally authoritarian that disagreement itself is a crime?
In all walks of life, the media, celebrity culture, schools, universities, online forums, twitter, the people who are willing to have open debate and discourse, especially conservatives, liberals and libertarians are being prevented or chastised for doing so. There's NO DOUBT.
In all walks of life, the media, celebrity culture, schools, universities, online forums, twitter, the people who are willing to have open debate and discourse, especially conservatives, liberals and libertarians are being prevented or chastised for doing so. There's NO DOUBT.
Not only is there some doubt, but what you claim is contrary to fundamental common sense. The political positions you describe (i.e. Conservative, Liberal and Libertarian) constitute the basis of political normality. They are the mainstream views. What possible benefit is there in censoring those views which support the existence of the status quo when the very same organisations you describe only exist because of that status quo? They are entirely dependent on people thinking within certain parameters, and that is why fringe contributors (i.e. those on the far left or far right) are almost always the ones who are censored by these platforms.
I agree that the system we currently have is based on those principles. But its those principles themselves which are being attacked and eroded. And for questioning the destruction of the principles of our society, we are called out as racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot and that we are being violent, which justifies any attack on us, physically or not.
You banned me from your 'debate' for what reason? Was there any justification to it? Did you at any point show any reason to be banned? NO. Simply disagreeing with you is enough to be banned at out in the wider society the same thing is happening
Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
If he had simply said “political extremes”, would you accuse him of conflating the left and the right?
If socialist shut down debate, fascists shut down debate, and the leftnin general shuts down debate, then asking the question regarding all of them makes perfect sense.
