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.
I find that what the right-wing lacks in empathy and humanity, the left-wing lacks in logic and coolheadedness.
Then why is science predominantly left wing and science denial and religion predominantly right wing? Everything you say proves that you are a very confused right winger who hates socialism and loves capitalism but calls himself a "progressive" just to be an annoying hipster.
Science in general is apolitical. Economics favors free markets.
science denial and religion predominantly right wing?
Denial of biology concerning sex and pregnancy is a left wing problem. Denial of epidemiology crosses the isle, but is mostly a left wing problem. Denial of climatology is something the left pretends the right does when the right disagrees about untenable public policy.
While the right is more traditionally religious, the left is not without its faith (see a mirror about faith in communism).
Science is, in fact, historically extremely political--a tradition that has carried through to the modern day. Current "science" has become an attempted "authority" to support & condone ideas typically held by people on the modern far left (also known as, "Social Justice Warriors").
See, science itself is apolitical, however practitioners are human, which have all sorts of biases, some of which are political.
Current "science" has become an attempted "authority" to support & condone ideas typically held by people on the modern far left (also known as, "Social Justice Warriors")
I see. Science is a conspiracy against the right wing. Gotcha.
Because when science proves your ideas wrong, it's always best to claim science has a political bias. Good one.
Look, im not trying to 'diss' on Science and Math--they are phenomenal. What I am stating is, they have very clear limitations built into their respective models, and people who practice these disciplines (formally or otherwise) really highlight that, as humans, in any area of life, naturally fall into a "bell-curve" with a super squared away great person on one end, an absolutely terrible person on the other end, and a bunch of people in the middle who just want their pay-check, and "go with the flow", no matter how high or low that wave is (which is largely dependent upon who the "alpha" in the group is, at anyone particular time).
The history (and current practice) of Science & Math helps highlight both human extreme ingenuity and mind-boggling stupidity--as is found essentially everywhere else, to varying degrees. Also, it is well worth keeping in mind, just like humans in other disciplines (from politicians, to law enforcement, to "whatever"), scientists & mathematicians can over-reach, get power-hungry, be deluded, fail to see their mistakes, get overly excited and band-wagon certain ideas, etc. etc. etc. That is, it is a very human enterprise.
I knew you understood it, I was more clarify generally (for Nom's sake, and third-party onlookers).
Also, yes, I am familiar with the grievance studies. Further, just growing up in the public school system and then College, in many ways, is a first-hand look at what the "grievance studies" was getting at--seeing what passes for "scholarship" & "intellectualism".
Thank you for clarify (sic) that you don't understand English, yet still feel qualified to write large quantities of nonsense in a condescending and arrogant tone. I really appreciate it.
Right. It corrects your correct sentences into incorrect sentences.
Listen to my words: you're a liar and an imbecile. Spellchecks look for incorrect words. Had you written "clarifying" then there would be no reason for a spellcheck to correct that word.
Your two greatest obstacles are the facts that people respond to invectives, and groups are not a single minded organism. Communism provides no incentives and requires populations of individuals to act as one. Since humans are individuals who respond to incentives, a dictatorship must first be established to socially mold and reform the population to act as one without regard for incentives. The notion that this would work relies on the idea that human nature is entirely a social product and is infinitely malleable, which is also incorrect.
Since human nature is not infinitely malleable, populations of individuals are not single minded, and humans respond to incentives, communism can never make it past the dictatorship of the proletariat. A dictatorship which is wielded by the centralized representative of the “collective” and used to force that for which there is no incentive.
The promises of communism have always been in opposition to the nature of reality. It’s bloody history illustrates these outcomes. Modern proponents have no excuse.
Are you retarded? A group incentive is no less viable than a personal incentive. You argument appears to be that communism doesn't provide any incentive because it doesn't nurture the personal greed of individuals, which obviously is completely false and stupid.
You act like incentives are the only problem with communism. The collective is composed of individuals. Groups can agree on narrow or singular goals but not many. Certainly not most, as would be required if economic planning were actually feasible (it’s not). Individuals require incentives that pertain to them in some way. Communism can’t provide it. Thus, individuals must be forced like slaves to do what’s good for the whole. Such has been the history of communism.
The Progressive movement is the Social Democrat movement.
If you were a social democrat you wouldn't hate socialism and Marxism, because social democrats are closer to socialists and marxists than they are to capitalism. Social democracy is about 75% left wing. But you side with fascism over communism and capitalism over socialism which makes you a right wing retard pretending to be a progressive. Does this compute?
I do not 'hate' them no. You do know that dem-soc is much further left economically than soc-dem yes? It's not the same. You are missing so many in-between ideologies and variations of an economics-only concept that you've turned into social-inclusive in its outlook.
I do not 'hate' them no. You do know that dem-soc is much further left economically than soc-dem yes? It's not the same. You are missing so many in-between ideologies and variations of an economics-only concept that you've turned into social-inclusive in its outlook.
Jesus fucking Christ dude, I don't need clarification on such basic concepts. You on the other hand seem to be having trouble comprehending my words. Communism/socialism is much closer to social democracy than fascism/capitalism is. Yet you side with fascism/capitalism over socialism/communism. I know there are many variations and it's not black and white but if you are a social democrat you are closer to being a communist then you are to being fascist, yet you sided with fascism over communism. You also should be more of a socialist then a capitalist, yet you defend capitalism and attack socialism. At best you're a centrist, at worst you are right wing and extremely confused.
I am indeed actually closer to being a communist than a fascist, you are not wrong. I also would rather go for Fascism than Communism because the extreme I'm closer to is even more barbaric and less functional than the one I'm further from. Things are not as simple as 'I'm closer to this so this extreme is better'.
I am indeed actually closer to being a communist than a fascist
This is blatantly false because you are a self professed advocate of oligarchy. The problem is that you literally demonstrably don't even know what communism is and you won't even listen if I take the time to explain it to you.
I also would rather go for Fascism than Communism because the extreme I'm closer to is even more barbaric and less functional than the one I'm further from.
If you are a social democrat, then fascism is the opposite of what you stand for and communism is not. The only way you could fail to understand something so simple is if you either aren't a social democrat in the first place or you don't know what communism even is. I suspect it's both. Do you even know the difference between orthodox Marxism and lenninist/stalinist etc.?
Oligarchy is what social democracy runs on so long as the leaders be benevolent to the populace. Term limits is a concept specific to more socially liberal people, really I'd rather the same people in office who know how to lead.
Fascism isn't the opposite of social democracy, the opposite of social democracy is in fact Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's and almost every iteration of South American Communism seen thus far.
How do all the nations workers actually decide what to do with means of production?
They gather information about what resources are available and what needs to be produced and then they have a meeting and form a consensus.
How do they collectively decide who specifically does what specifically?
People do stuff and if they want to do other stuff they do that stuff instead.
How exactly does the people determine what new means of production to create?
Based on necessity or desire.
If I build my own means of production, must I give it to the nations workers?
No, you can go live in some secluded place and not participate in civilization if you want. But no one in their right mind would do that when you can have whatever you want and all you have to do is share your resources and services with others.
Who do I give it to?
It depends what you do. Mostly you just make it available for anyone who needs it.
Your two greatest obstacles is the fact that people respond to invectives, and groups are not a single minded organism. Communism provides no incentives and requires populations of individuals to act as one. Since humans are individuals who respond to incentives, a dictatorship must first be established to socially mold and reform the population to act as one without regard for incentives. The notion that this would work relies on the idea that human nature is entirely a social product and is infinitely malleable, which is also incorrect.
Since human nature is not infinitely malleable, populations of individuals are not single minded, and humans respond to incentives, communism can never make it past the dictatorship of the proletariat. A dictatorship which is wielded by the centralized representative of the “collective” and used to force that for which there is no incentive.
The promises of communism have always been in opposition to the nature of reality. It’s bloody history illustrates these outcomes. Modern proponents have no excuse.
