#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.
|
Cultural Marxism guarantees races stay divided
Yes
Side Score: 43
|
Not
Side Score: 23
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
0
points
For God's sake shut up bronto, you fucking worthless piece of shit. Everything you say is the literal opposite of the truth. YOU are here race baiting every single say and it is the MARXISTS who embrace racial, sexual and religious diversity. You're a silly Jewish bigot, a liar and a fucking cunt. Side: Not
1
point
Oh Jesus you're so boring. So that’s a no then Nobody gives a fuck about your alternative reality you stupid ugly moron. Well no you’re the stupid one arguing for 4 days now over where North and South are , sorry to burst your bubble yet again but I’m every woman’s dream ...... Bet you’ve a face like a badgers ring piece What a truly pathetic cunt. So you still haven’t worked out the North / South thing got ya Even your own mother couldn't wait to die just so she could get away from you. Oh you big meany ...... Get back to me when you resolve your North / South “ dispute “ Side: Yes
1
point
So that’s a no then That's confirmation that you're a boring fucking retard who doesn't listen when he's told something repeatedly and shown evidence to corroborate it. You're a pathetic fucking clown with nothing intelligent to say on any topic. Literally all you do is use your own lies as a basis to attack people. You're a worthless fucking prick with no joy in his life. Well no you’re the stupid one No, you are definitely the stupid one. Trust me. arguing for 4 days now over where North and South are I have never argued where North and South are on this website, ever, and I don't know how many times you need to have this explained to you. Are you fucking autistic? Oh you big meany Truth isn't mean bro. It's just truth. Even your dead mother hated you, and I don't blame her. You are absolutely worthless and have no redeeming qualities as a human being. Your very existence is predicated on the need to cause pain in others. It's sad and I genuinely feel sorry for you because we both know you act the way you do because of the pain you feel inside that you are so talentless, ugly and stupid. Side: Not
That's confirmation that you're a boring fucking retard who doesn't listen when he's told something repeatedly and shown evidence to corroborate it. Shown evidence ? 😂😂😂 In all your time here you've never once backed any of your ranting up , you spent three days arguing over where North and South are and the veracity of my claim can be evidenced by anyone who cares to read You're a pathetic fucking clown with nothing intelligent to say on any topic. But you don't know North from South so I cannot accept your " opinion" on the matter Literally all you do is use your own lies as a basis to attack people. You're a worthless fucking prick with no joy in his life. There's that projection again Nom are you really that unhappy ? I have never argued where North and South are on this website, ever, and I don't know how many times you need to have this explained to you. Your denial is hilarious you're like a red faced petty thief caught in the act Are you fucking autistic? No , obviously you're the one with a range of serious medical and and mental issues Truth isn't mean bro. I know , so why not admit you don't know North from South ..,, bro ? It's just truth. an alien concept to you Even your dead mother hated you, and I don't blame her. You are absolutely worthless and have no redeeming qualities as a human being. I'm glad I kept you up all night thinking up a reply and that's it ? All because you don't know Morth from South .....,Just , Wow ! Your very existence is predicated on the need to cause pain in others. Says the guy who spends 24/7 attempting to do .,,just that It's sad and I genuinely feel sorry for you because we both know you act the way you do because of the pain you feel inside that you are so talentless, There's that projection again Nom ..... Real meaning = You work in a shit job where you get bossed and bullied all day , you're one of life's bitter losers who's failed at everything in life and undoubtably are most likely a pasty faced tubby with body odour problems , enjoy you shift at Burger King today , what time do you start at ? ugly and stupid. There's that projection yet again Nom , it's a given you're both ugly and stupid ..,.. So tell us have you worked out with your "buddy" North from South yet ? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I already explained to him six times. Eeeeh no , real meaning = you still don’t know and are arguing about where North and South are He's stupid and doesn't listen. Read above 😉 All he's interested in doing is attacking people Pot / Kettle ..... there’s that projection again Nom because he's a pathetic unloved cunt. Projection again Nom , hard shift at Burger King today ..... mate ? Side: Not
1
point
In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. For perspective on this incredible toll, note that all domestic and foreign wars during the 20th century killed around 35 million. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly then all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars. And what did Marxism, this greatest of human social experiments, achieve for its poor citizens, at this most bloody cost in lives? Nothing positive. It left in its wake an economic, environmental, social and cultural disaster. Tell me something good about Marxism ?????? Side: Yes
1
point
It left in its wake an economic, environmental, social and cultural disaster. No, it produced the most powerful economy and culture on Earth. The Cold War was what caused the disaster, clearly evidenced by the fact it happened 70 years later. Whoever you are quoting, it is typically false American revisionist bullshit. Side: Not
The Khmer Rouge – (Cambodian communists) who ruled Cambodia for four years – provide insight into why Marxists believed it necessary and moral to massacre so many of their fellow humans. Their Marxism was married to absolute power. They believed without a shred of doubt that they knew the truth, that they would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness, and that to realize this utopia, they had to mercilessly tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and Buddhist culture, and then totally rebuild a communist society. Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of this achievement. Government – the Communist Party – was above any law. All other institutions, religions, cultural norms, traditions and sentiments were expendable. Side: Yes
1
point
Do the recent events in Cambodia warrant a reconsideration of our opposition to the Vietnam War”? Consider the factual and moral premises that allow this question to be seriously raised. Let us assume the accuracy of the condemnation of the Khmer Rouge (noting, however, that the susceptibility of intellectuals to fabricated atrocity stories has been no less notorious since World War I than their apologetics for some favored state, and that skepticism is aroused in this case by the many documented falsehoods). On this assumption, should we reconsider opposition to the Vietnam War? One who raises this question must be assuming (1) that the U.S. war was intended to avert Khmer Rouge barbarity, or might have had this likely effect; and (2) that the U.S. has the right to exercise force and violence to avert potential crimes. Assumption (1) is ludicrous in the light of the factual record. Cambodia was an island of relative tranquility prior to the American invasion of 1970, though it had been repeatedly attacked by American and U.S.-backed forces from 1957 on. There was limited local insurgency, aroused by government repression, even by the 1960s. As Vietnamese were driven to a narrow border strip by the savage American military operations of early 1967, direct U.S. attacks on Cambodia escalated. By May 1967, the Pentagon was concerned that Cambodia was “becoming more and more important as a supply base — now of food and medicines, perhaps ammunition later,” an obvious consequence of U.S. operations in Vietnam and Laos. In March 1969. shortly after the “secret bombings” began, Sihanouk vainly called upon the Western press to publicize his government’s protest over the “criminal attacks” on Khmer peasants. The 1970 invasion helped organize the Khmer Rouge rebellion as thousands of peasants rallied to the resistance under the impact of the vicious bombing and ground attacks of the U.S. military and the Vietnamese forces it organized. Charles Meyer, who had long been close to ruling forces in Cambodia, warned then that “it is difficult to imagine the intensity of the hatred (of the peasants) for those who destroyed their villages and their possessions” (Derriere le sourir khmer). This was well before the murderous American bombings of the 1970s, which surely inflamed peasant hatred and desire for revenge. Those who failed to devote their energies to ending the American war in Indochina bear a double burden of guilt: for the atrocities committed under American initiative and for the legacy of starvation, disease, hatred, and revenge that was a direct and predicted consequence of the attack on rural Cambodia. Similar remarks apply in the case of Vietnam and Laos. Assumption (2) has not been defended explicitly. One can easily see why. If the U.S. is entitled to launch a major war to avert potential barbarism, then a fortiori it is entitled to invade countries where state violence currently proceeds; say, much of Latin America, which turned into a horror chamber in one of the recent successes of U.S. foreign policy. Surely, the absurdities of this position are obvious. Furthermore, one may ask why the U.S. should be uniquely privileged to serve as global judge and executioner. By virtue of its historic role in defense of freedom and human rights within its own sphere of influence, perhaps? Again, discussion is superfluous. One who advocates the resort to force must present an overwhelmingly powerful argument. There is ample reason to adopt as a guiding principle the restriction on use of force, now codified in law, to self-defense against armed attack. In fact, the official claim always was that the U.S. was defending South Vietnam from “aggression from the North.” Internal documents were more honest. Immediately after the Geneva accords of 1954, the U.S. undertook to help its clients “to defeat local Communist subversion or rebellion not constituting armed attack,” with potential “use of U.S. military forces either locally or against the external source of such subversion or rebellion” — all as determined unilaterally by the U.S. It was the secret plan that was pursued; the official defense is no less ludicrous than the assumption. The U.S. at once installed a client regime in South Vietnam that abrogated the terms of the Geneva settlement and initiated a program of repression and massacre. When resistance ensued, the U.S. turned to direct military action by 1962 and an outright invasion of South Vietnam in 1965. Government analysts never doubted that the South Vietnamese enemy was the only mass-based political force, while the regimes the U.S. imposed as a basis for its intervention had negligible support. The peace treaty signed but immediately undermined by the U.S. in January 1973 was virtually a paraphrase, in essentials, of the program of the South Vietnamese forces that the U.S. was dedicated to destroy. By the time the first North Vietnamese battalion was detected in the South — more than two months after the initiation of the systematic bombing of the North and the far more extensive bombing of the South — more than 150,000 South Vietnamese had been killed “under the crushing weight of American armor, napalm, jet bombers and, finally, vomiting gases.” This is the judgment of Bernard Fall, a committed hawk, who turned against the war because he feared that “Vietnam as a cultural and historic entity… is threatened with extinction” as “the countryside literally dies under the blows of the… (American)… military machine.” The U.S. won its filthy war in South Vietnam, decimating the local forces that resisted American violence and the peasant society in which they were rooted, thus guaranteeing North Vietnamese dominance of the wreckage and leaving ample opportunity for the hypocrites who now bewail the consequences of the American war that they supported. Now we are asked whether opposition to the U.S. attack on rural South Vietnam, later all Indochina, was legitimate, in the light of postwar suffering and atrocities that are in large measure a result of this aggression. With comparable logic, Germans might have asked whether opposition to Nazi aggression should be reconsidered after the massacre of tens of thousands in France under American civil-military rule. We are sometimes told that “the story is more complex.” That is true; the real world is more complex than our descriptions, a fact that may be exploited by the cynical or deluded. They can dismiss as a guide to attitude and action the salient features of this real but too complex world. Like most colonial wars, the U.S. war in Indochina was in part a civil conflict, though in scale and savagery the U.S. intervention has had few historical parallels. Such wars are generally brutal, and the domestic losers often suffer grievously. Those who devoted themselves to ending American aggression and who now work to reverse the inhuman policy of refusing reparations or even aid to its victims have a moral right to condemn repressive acts of the regimes that have arisen from the ruins. Comparably, anti-Nazi resisters had the moral right to condemn the atrocities committed after liberation. Others may well be accurate in their condemnation, but it reeks to high heaven. The American media have been deluged with denunciations of postwar Indochina, while more favorable accounts, however credible, receive little notice; and murderous repression within the American sphere — in Timor or Uruguay, for example — is consistently ignored. That should not surprise us. As had been predicted, a major effort is underway to reconstruct the interventionist ideology that eroded as popular opposition to the Vietnam war developed. History must be rewritten and principle revised to to conform to the needs of a power that will be called upon to lead the industrial capitalist world in the “North-South” conflict. We read that we must overcome our “Vietnam hang-up” and be willing to use force to defend our interests, often disguised in cynical humanitarian rhetoric. Or we are informed that revolutionary regimes are capable of great brutality, as has been obvious for centuries, and that “we” should rise to the defense of peoples, not states; reasonable enough (and no less familiar) if the term “we” refers to individuals, though it is easily transmuted to refer to state power in a new version of colonialist doctrine. One who protests barbarism or repression must consider the probable human consequences of his acts. That is why, for example, Amnesty International urges that one write politely to the most miserable tyrant. Unless the goal of protest is self-aggrandizement or service to one’s state, finite energies will be distributed in accordance with a likely impact. A Russian who condemns American behavior in Vietnam or Chile may speak the truth, but we do not admire his courage or moral integrity. Similar considerations apply here. The central responsibility for Americans is to try to modify policies that we can influence; primarily those of the American government and its client regimes, or elsewhere, when there is a likelihood that protest can contribute to the relief of human misery. Returning to the specific questions of this symposium: events in postwar Indochina amply reinforce the moral imperative of protest and resistance against the American war. Principled opponents of that war should now devote themselves with no less energy to attempting to heal its wounds and help its victims — those in exile, those who are oppressed, and those who are struggling to construct a viable society from the ruins left by American terror. If honest inquiry reveals terror and repression, protest is legitimate. One who undertakes it must ask how his acts may help those who suffer, bearing in mind also the domestic consequences and the fate of future victims of the interventionist ideologies now being reconstructed. One will of course win acclaim in the West by joining the chorus of protest focused on those who have escaped the Western orbit, but for ugly reasons. It is easy to avoid these considerations, but an honest person with true human concern will not lightly do so. Individuals may differ in their assessment of these complex issues, but they deserve more careful attention than they often receive. We cannot escape the world in which we live, inconvenient though that fact may be. Side: Not
5
points
The irony is that in practice, even after decades of total control, Marxism did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the world’s greatest famines have happened within the Soviet Union (about 5 million dead from 1921-23 and 7 million from 1932-3, including 2 million outside Ukraine) and communist China (about 30 million dead from 1959-61). Overall, in the last century almost 55 million people died in various Marxist famines and associated epidemics – a little over 10 million of them were intentionally starved to death, and the rest died as an unintended result of Marxist collectivization and agricultural policies. Tell me all about the nirvana of Marxism ! Side: Yes
Quoting Chomsky doesn't make you an intellectual you thick bastard , you're a long winded boring jackass who prints of a novel in response to simple questions No one read your horseshit .,, mate Maybe you should get back to " thrashing " out where North and South are with your buddy seeing as it's still " unresolved " for you .......mate Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
I didn't see any defense of Marxism here. That's because you have offered no valid criticism of Marxism. You have tried to turn reality upside down and now that I have pointed it out you are continuing to abuse language and/or reason. The solution to class slavery doesn't need to be "defended" to society's slave masters simply because you enjoy your unearned position of privilege. Side: Not
That's because you have offered no valid criticism of Marxism. Oh dry up you jack ass , you’ve never offered a defence of Marxism in all your time here as it’s yet another topic you know fuck all about , it’s not suprising you support the views of of the vile rapist , loafer and racist Marx Side: Yes
2
points
Oh dry up you jack ass Dermot, shut up. You're a pathetic loser who lacks the intelligence to construct a coherent argument about anything. You spend your entire life here attacking people and telling lies manufactured to try to disguise your own stupidity. I am not interested in anything you have to say and I guarantee you that nobody else is either. Please give that some thought the next time you feel tempted to douse us all in verbal diarrhoea. Side: Not
Dermot, shut up. Typical Stalinist retort You're a pathetic loser who lacks the intelligence to construct a coherent argument about anything. Real meaning = I’ve destroyed your previous defence of Marxism /Stalinism , your 9 / 11 bullshit and your objective reality nonsense and as usual you remained mute when thrashed , so no wonder you’re in a rage You spend your entire life here attacking people and telling lies manufactured to try to disguise your own stupidity. Projection again Nom , read your posts going back a month and lo and behold not one argument that’s not attacking others and blatant lying I am not interested in anything you have to say and I guarantee you that nobody else is either You are which is why you keep replying , most others on here are your alt accounts and they reply consistently, you need to work on your “ logic “ Nom ....mate . Please give that some thought the next time you feel tempted to douse us Abraham , blah ,blah ,blah More projection Nom ...... Have you figured out North from South yet ......mate ? Side: Yes
1
point
objective reality nonsense The absolute most stupid thing about you is that you deny the existence of an objective reality. What in the bloody boner cocks makes you think consciousness can materialize spontaneously in a vacuum and dream it's own reality? The very fact you are self aware (if you are indeed sentient to begin with, which is questionable) should tell you there is an objective reality because your ability to have a subjective experience and the very existence of your consciousness is not only objectively real but is contingent upon external causes and upon the systems through which consciousness operates. If you are indeed a sentient being you should understand that you are real, and if you have more intelligence than a bag of severed dicks you should understand that other things that are real are causing your consciousness to exist because consciousness doesn't just manifest in a vacuum spontaneously. Therefor your subjective perception is contingent upon an objective reality and you must admit I'm objectively correct or you're an idiot. Side: Not
The absolute most stupid thing about you is that you deny the existence of an objective reality. You cannot even debate without hurling insults , what’s wrong with you ? What in the bloody boner cocks makes you think consciousness can materialize spontaneously in a vacuum and dream it's own reality? Where did I say that exactly ? The very fact you are self aware (if you are indeed sentient to begin with, which is questionable) But you don’t know North from South ......mate should tell you there is an objective reality because your ability to have a subjective experience and the very existence of your consciousness is not only objectively real but is contingent upon external causes and upon the systems through which consciousness operates. If you are indeed a sentient being you should understand that you are real, and if you have more intelligence than a bag of severed dicks you should understand that other things that are real are causing your consciousness to exist because consciousness doesn't just manifest in a vacuum spontaneously. Therefor your subjective perception is contingent upon an objective reality and you must admit I'm objectively correct or you're an idiot. A long winded pile of typical nonsense which I dismiss with a wave of my hand ......... We all live in our own subjective realities. The human mind is not capable of being truly objective. Therefore, the entire idea of a single objective reality is purely speculative, an assumption that, while popular, is unnecessary You believe that the model proposed by scientific descriptions, is objective reality itself. No! Objective reality is the cause of the descriptions which can only be interpreted from a subjective point of view. Side: Yes
1
point
You cannot even debate without hurling insults , what’s wrong with you ? What's wrong with me is that I hate stupid people and 99% of people are stupid. Since I am smart and most people are stupid this also means that most people think I am the stupid one since I disagree with most people about most of their stupid opinions which pisses me off even more. Where did I say that exactly ? It's implied when you deny the existence of objective reality. If you think reality is subjective then you think the only thing that is real is consciousness spontaneously manifesting in a vacuum and dreaming it's own reality. But you don’t know North from South ......mate No, you don't. WHEN YOU LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAGNETIC POLES AND GEOGRAPHICAL POLES THEN YOUR WORDS MAY BE WORTH A WET SHIT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU ALL YOU ARE CAPABLE OF DOING IS GIBBERING ON LIKE A FECES CAKED FUDGE PACKING WANKER DOODLE. A long winded pile of typical nonsense which I dismiss with a wave of my hand In other words you can't comprehend a word I'm saying because you are not sentient and you're subhuman. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Your life has absolutely no value and I dismiss the notion that you deserve to live with a wave of my hand. Side: Not
What's wrong with me is that I hate stupid people and 99% of people are stupid. As I guessed you must really hate yourself so as they do not come any thicker than you buddy Since I am smart You’re obviously not and most people are stupid this also means that most people think I am the stupid one since I disagree with most people about most of their stupid opinions which pisses me off even more. But you don’t know North from South ..... still It's implied when you deny the existence of objective reality. If you think reality is subjective then you think the only thing that is real is consciousness spontaneously manifesting in a vacuum and dreaming it's own reality. Yawn , read my reply again you moron , you may learn something yet No, you don't. WHEN YOU LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAGNETIC POLES AND GEOGRAPHICAL POLES But everyone knows this except you as you spent 4 days contradicting yourself you prize dummy THEN YOUR WORDS MAY BE WORTH A WET SHIT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU ALL YOU ARE CAPABLE OF DOING IS GIBBERING ON LIKE A FECES CAKED FUDGE PACKING WANKER DOODLE. That makes not a bit of sense at all mate In other words you can't comprehend a word I'm saying You talk a load of nonsense you wrote a novel on objective reality which would embarrass a retard , I corrrected your stupidity in two sentences .... you’re welcome beacause you are not sentient and you're subhuman. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Yet you worship a cultist guess that gives you “ meaning” Your life has absolutely no value and I dismiss the notion that you deserve to live with a wave of my hand. 🤔 I want you too live so you may yet be able to tell North from South 🙀 🖕 Side: Yes
2
points
You talk a load of nonsense you wrote a novel on objective reality which would embarrass a retard , Your English would embarrass a retard. It's like you haven't ever heard of punctuation. I corrrected your stupidity in two sentences This defines irony. Dermot, shut up. You're an IDIOT. Side: Not
1
point
@Dermot you are kidding yourself if you thought I was going to read your mindless list of non-arguments and adhominems based in pure ignorance. You aren't a person, you are a mindless object that just spews whatever drivel you are programmed to spew. You do not question anything or apply any form of reason to come to your conclusions, you simply adopt whatever view is put into your head by society and mistake your failure to understand something beyond your programming template for evidence that it is "gibberish". Side: Not
I was kidding myself if I thought I was going to read and comprehend your brilliance , I’m mindless with a list of non-arguments and adhominems based on pure ignorance. I’m not a person, I am a mindless object that just spews whatever drivel I was programmed to spew. I do not question anything or apply any form of reason to come to my conclusions, I simply adopt whatever view is put into my head by society and mistake my failure to understand something beyond my programming template for evidence as all I have is "gibberish". BTW my opponent and I are still debating where North and South are Excellent I accept your explanation, I think I’ve finally penetrated the veil of your stupidity..... well done you 👏👏👏 Side: Yes
1
point
2
points
What happened is several dictators seized upon Marxism as a convenient platform from which they could establish and consolidate power. Oh good. Obviously the next ruler will and every one after will be pure and righteous....let's role the dice and cross our fingers like dumbasses and forget that capitalism gave us all flat screens and I phones and vehicles.... Oh damn look. We're eating our pets... Side: Yes
1
point
|