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.
We can surly agree that natural selection is the mechanism that results in a species evolving toward characteristics which increase survivability. Further we can most likely agrees that these characteristics include physical strength and endurance as well as intelligence and cunning in the hunt for food. The weak and dull witted are then least well adapted to survive. If Liberals are prone to cater to the weak, it logically follows that they work against natural selection. Sooooo there ya go.
Again, children are manifestly weaker than adults but our continued survival as a species absolutely requires that we support and protect them.
If Conservatives believe that supporting the weak is anti-survival and children are weak; then conservatives must believe that supporting children is anti-survival.
And that my friend, is once, twice... eight times an oxymoron.
You lost me when you said, "then conservatives must believe that supporting children is anti-survival." I mean, I was like, "Yeah! Right on! Exactly! Wait..., what???" It is the liberals who are for abortion. They are the ones that want to take out the children.
Conservatives want to take out the failed experiments.
You start out young. Clean slate. Innocent. No strikes against you. Then you are nurtured into adulthood. The experiment is, will he make it as a viable adult? Then as an adult if you become a violent offender, a murderer, just a real life asshole or if you never quite learned how to take care of yourself and never became a productive member of society and instead became a drain on society, then you are a failed experiment and a retro active abortion is required.
With liberals, it's the exact opposite. Let's do the abortion now. If they manage to not get aborted and they become a violent offender, a murderer, just a real life asshole or if they never quite learned how to take care of themselves and never become a productive member of society and instead become a drain on society, then let's keep them alive and take care of them because it's not their fault they weren't aborted.
I was responding to the idea that weak means being unable to care for yourself. Children are obviously unable to care for themselves. Thus must be weak. The thesis of this debate tries to claim that it is wrong to protect the weak.
Which of course means that under those terms we shouldn't protect children.
BTW a fetus is not a child, and further not all Liberals support abortion.
Finally pro-life Christians have been known to murder effective members of society, simply because they legally provide abortions.
That is they kill strong members of society to save tissue that isn't even yet a child.
This behavior quite obviously works against the strong survive, unless you are saying that murder of adults is pro survival.
MY definition of the word WEAK (JUST for the purpose of THIS debate) is any ADULT who can be reasonable expected to be able to take care of himself but doesn't.
And how do you define "gender", "race", "religion, "sexual orientation", "person", "lives", "able", "work", and "a", all only for the purposes of this debate, of course.
It never ceases to amaze me. I've been doing this for what? 6 years? You figure they would have learned by now. But those that do leave and then we get fresh meat ;)
Well..., I am sure you have heard of the gay gene. Well, there's a liberal gene too. We haven't found it yet but, like the Higgs Boson, we will. And when we do, we can begin work to actively to neutralize it.
Well, the global warming hiatus is over. Global warming is picking up where it left off 14 years ago. There may be something to what you say, but... me... a liberal?
Protecting the weak does not deny evolutionary selection within social animals.
For example, older people have more experience but are in general weaker physically than adults in their prime. However, the wisdom that can come with age is a widely acknowledged benefit that comes from feeding and protecting elder members.
Also child are much weaker than adults. What evolutionary benefit arises from failing to protect children?
Well you obviously did not know the meaning behind my statement. You're first mistake was you false presumption that I mean 'weak' as in 'someone who cannot take care of themselves'- which you clarified with your false analogy that included an evolutionary necessity and predisposition (taking care of a child).
But to clarify I meant 'weak' as in unable to take care of themselves (e.g. a disabled person). This excludes children as the care for a child is necessary for evolutionary progress.
There is a reason people get to point where they cannot reproduce and they get old and die. And people try there hardest to prevent that by giving the best care to these individuals (and its not for you illusory meaning 'wisdom'. You know, as well as I, that most people care for elders for the simple reason of emotional attachment. Essentially the fallacy your expressing is wishful thinking.
Maybe in the case of Einstein one will try there best to keep him alive so he could illuminate more physical laws, but this is obviously a rare case.
Well, you are simply redefining the terms of the argument. Narrowing them down to fit your thesis. You've now defined weak as disabled, or unable to bear children, or being unable to care for yourself.
You have whimsically removed children from the weak category. Children obviously cannot care for themselves and cannot procreate, so by your definition they belong in the category of the weak.
Concerning your statement that old people can not reproduce...
This is actually empirically wrong. Men can reproduce until until they die of old age. So it sounds like you are advocating abandoning women to die once they are past the age of menopause.
You discard emotional attachments as unimportant, but loyalty is obviously a positive survival attribute. Such loyalty can inspire other members of the group to great effort. Imagine a military unit that simply killed any member with a flesh wound. Such behavior would damage morale and discard members who simply needed time to recover. And yet wounded they are weak.
You are also apparently assuming that all of this happens in the state of nature, instead of in the society we currently live in.
We've had disabled people compete in the regular Olympics in spite of being without legs. Technology allows paraplegics to live by themselves and perform all the functions necessary to care for themselves including work, procreation, and with a weapon self and community defense.
In short your definition of weak as disabled or incapable of procreation is counter intuitive and flies in the face of actual facts.
If you're liberal you're an arrogant species,who is certainly not the fittest to survive;liberals are weak who're slow on the uptake and so stick to their own perspective.
You can only flout nature's law of natural selection for a limited time and then the results of this artificially created unnatural state will come back and bite a large chunk out of your bum, where the Liberals keep their brains.
The problem with your argument, besides the fact that it's biased and unsupported is that humanity has been preserving the weak since the beginning of recorded history.
Human society is not Darwinian, those who think it is simply do not understand natural selection or the advantages of society.
This confusions is not terribly surprising because of the greed based culture we have is supported by technology and not interaction between individuals.
Formation of societies was Darwinian (groups are better at some tasks than individuals), it's just that actions which natural selection favors for individuals (greed, shunning the weak, etc.) might be counter-balanced with activities that preserve the group (cooperation, protecting the weak, etc.) for social species.
They are physically unable to work, like a severe back injury. I had a ruptured disk in my back and I was unable to work or walk normally for two years. I could not even stand up straight due to sciatica. I am able to and willing to work now but for two years, I had back pain. Another example is a pregnant woman who has been ordered to bed rest and is unable to work. Yet another example is a person that is dying od cancer. Can you understand where I am going with this? I know a man that is unable to work due to lupus and back problems. I agree that people should work, but not everyone can.
Who or what decides what activity constitutes work?
If you happened to be stuck on a deserted island with Einstein, and all he wanted to do was sit around in the rain and think and eat coconuts would you have any justification for killing him because he didn't want to help you build a hut?
What about if what Einstein was thinking about was a way to use the available resource to get you off safely off the island?
Or what if Einstein given time to ponder could figure out how to actually build stuff that could catch those tasty looking seagulls...
:)
Maybe the lazy bum is a musician. All he does is sit around playing music and singing. Should you off him because he won't help you plant a field?
If I'm in a survival situation with Einstein or a musician, and they want to eat the food I planted or sleep in the hut I built, then they are demanding the product of my labor while offering nothing of value to me. This would be slavery. I don't have to off Einstein, I can just tell him to plant his own crops.
I never said that Einstein was going to take your stuff.
But let me ask you this if Einstein figured out a way off the Island and decided that you didn't get to go because you didn't do any of the work to figure out the solution and you didn't share your food with him while he figure it out, you be okay with that right?
It wouldn't matter if I was ok with it or not. He built it, it's his. Now how is a musician going to offer me anything of value if I don't like his music?
Why does he have to offer you anything of value at all? Why do you even think he cares about you, or what you think of his music.
Let's say he's a rapper with a great big ass drum that you can hear from anywhere on the island... And he raps through this conch shell that along with all the tidal caves does a terrific job of amplifying his voice.
:D
Cool so Einstein leaves you behind but would have taken you along back to civilization if you would have just shared a bit of your coconut cream pie...
I'd say you came up short in that deal.
If you'd have decided to cooperate you'd be taking a nice warm bath rather than living through another fifty years of sand in your shorts wondering how that guy with the weird hairdo managed to make a outboard engine out of coconut shells and lizard intestines.
That is a horrible thing to say. People do not choose to be disabled. I am disabled and I did NOT choose it. If I could change my disability, I would, but I cannot.
How very fascist of you. You are the typical conservative refusing to help the poor. You are disgusting to say that. Helping the poor is an important issue. You put the con in conservative.
I was not expecting this to get away from a metaphor, sorry it will continue. I am not denying help above. I am not proposing the current system. The current system gives you a picture of a fishing pole, then shows a picture of a guy with a bunch of fish and a net, yes a net, and then tells you to go get your pole and start catching fish. We don't teach fishing right now, so I am already advocating help. If you can't catch fish a program to give you fish is ok.
Absolutely, taking away people's hard earned cash and giving it to fat, lazy bastards who can't even be bothered to get up and go to work in the morning is stupid.
What argument are you making here? Seems that your comment adds nothing to the argument other than an unsupported commercial for you side of the issue.
Don't you ever get bored of this mindset of yours?
I just don't see the appeal in spending your life consistently demonizing, belittling, and mischaracterizing just about everyone around you that has a differing ideology.
You can contend that, but you'd need to actually produce some evidence that liberals are incapable of logic before saying the Liberal and logic comprise two halves of an oxymoron.
where arguments, that are for or against, the flawed debate, do not address the issue and you don't have to provide evidence for your statements (especially if the statement disparages liberals).
I was making a joke about the show "Whose Line Is It Anyway".
For here: If you collect enough you end up on the leaderboard, but the number of points you have here is meaningless. You lose one for every downvote, but other than that you can't use them.
Supporting Evidence:
Whose Line
(en.wikipedia.org)
Oh. I though you were saying that this isn't really a debate site. That there is really no respect for evidence or the rules of of argument. That would have been a bit disappointing.
Sounds like there is stuff going on under the surface...
Oh well, par for the political course.
What I'm looking for is a place where, every once and while, issues get politely discussed according to rational principles. I don't expect it all the time, just often enough to prevent massive frustration.
The voting thing is a nice idea but in my years of online discussions I've never seen a decent implementation for doing so.
Should be possible, but you'd have to allow for alliances and friend/enemy voting. Maybe keep track of how each individual votes and then use that data to identify when that person makes a vote against their normal patterns.
Oh, come on... really? Points? If the points mattered why am I wasting them on this account? It's not like I can add them together. If points mattered is would be to my advantage to stick to one account.
Strong is used in the title of the debate, not fit. Fitness has nothing to do with this debate. Weak is also used in the title of this debate...Where is fitness in the title?
The only place where fit works in this debate is, you're not fit to debate.
Survival of Fittest is one factor in evolution consistent with conservatism, but Mutual Aid is also a factor in evolution that is consistent with liberalism.
As a matter of fact,YES! Children ARE born conservative. Try to take a 2 year old's toy and giving it to some other 2 year old. The first 2 year old will start screaming, "Mine, mine, mine..." and then they glare at you like, "You freaking liberal bastard! Taking my shit away and giving it to someone else. THIS IS NOT A TOY-REDISTRIBUTION ZONE!!!!"
If only the strong survive by means of evolution.....Why are elephants afraid of mice? Why are elephants (GOP) afraid of donkeys (liberals)? It appears that elephants are just plain chicken.
Evolution deals with individual survival in the terms given by this debate. To wit: The strong[should be fittest] individuals in a species will survive.
We are social animals that survive by cooperation. Social structures do not arise from genetics but political action. Liberalism is a political philosophy and is not open to genetic selection. In other words, people often reproduce without first checking each others political philosophy.
Therefore the basis for this debate is flawed and does not address an issue within the sphere of evolution.
Why does not natural imply that it has a negative affect? I don't follow that step in your logic. Just because something is not natural it should not be allowed to reproduce/continue? If so, your problem is not specific to liberals.