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.
Liberals should not get pissed if you sleep with their women
Liberals are into wealth redistribution. They want to make sure that someone less fortunate gets a chance in life.
Well..., they should also be into P**** redistribution. Just to make sure that someone less fortunate gets some.
The only problem is that liberal women aren't all that appealing. I mean, hairy arm pits and legs, etc.
Disclaimer: This debate is purely for entertainment purposes (albeit at the expense of liberals). Any resemblance to actual liberals, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
It makes sense. If we lived in a truly equal society, those who are unable to get laid should be able to get some from those more prone to it. you know... leveling the playing field.
Or... we could just accept that everyone has their flaws and must work past them without government interfering and making life shitty for everyone.
That isn't leveling the playing field. That's just letting you fuck someone's wife/girlfriend.
Or... we could just accept that everyone has their flaws and must work past them without government interfering and making life shitty for everyone.
Or! Or... we can be a little more honest and recognize that there is a system in place, with historical roots and antagonistic forces, that does stifle some members' abilities to work beyond their problems and gives unfavorable and disproportionate advantage to others, and it snot necessarily based on merit or capacity.
And idealism doesn't trump reality. For example, America has one of the lowest social mobility indexes in the developed world. All of those quasi-socialist European countries, with their government involvement and socioeconomic regulatory mechanisms are performing better than America in nearly every quantitative and qualitative index. And, yes, I can support these assertions.
there is a system in place, with historical roots and antagonistic forces, that does stifle some members' abilities to work beyond their problems and gives unfavorable and disproportionate advantage to others, and it snot necessarily based on merit or capacity.
Like the government. Only difference between government regulation and Capitalist failure is that government regulation is by force. Don't follow the rules, you go to jail or get fined. Seems way more unfair than just letting people try to solve their own damned problems.
and yes, if a guy can't get laid and you can, it would be leveling the playing field to give him a bit of the action that you are receiving. Watch Enemy at the Gates; the USSR could never truly make people equal.
Not inherently. And this is precisely evidenced by the fact that in many countries around the world, the government has played an inestimable role in increasing social mobility, overall happiness, standards of living, academic advancement and scientific literacy, among other indexes of modern nations.
Only difference between government regulation and Capitalist failure is that government regulation is by force.
All systems use force.
Seems way more unfair than just letting people try to solve their own damned problems.
Most people do this anyway.
and yes, if a guy can't get laid and you can, it would be leveling the playing field to give him a bit of the action that you are receiving.
I find it interesting that it's conservatives who invariably look at their fellow human beings as chattel. Women aren't property. But this is nothing more than a poorly constructed false analogy.
2. Government regulation uses force. Capitalist freedom does not. you are able to choose for yourself under capitalist freedom. If you mean basic government functions, that's under both socialism and capitalism, but socialism adds a shit load more force.
3. Possibly, but government regulation still wounds one in order to help another.
4. Well, I'm not a Conservative so I guess this didn't apply to me, thus meaning that it was irrelevant to what I was saying.
America is also lagging behind in terms of its human development index. There is also negligible difference between the American standard of living and high-income quasi-socialist (according to American standards) countries like Denmark (which should be an example to all other countries on the planet).
Not speculative
Education
American students compare poorly to their developed counterparts. It's not all speculation.
Government regulation uses force.
All systems use force, or there would be no way to maintain the system. The fundamental distinction is whether the force is passive/tacit, or overt.
Capitalist freedom does not. You are able to choose for yourself under capitalist freedom.
You can choose to do anything under any system of discipline. Only the consequences differ. In school, you can choose to not study or even attend. But there will be consequences. A government can create laws, but you or anyone else is free to break those laws. But there will be consequences. You can freely choose to not participate in a Capitalist system, but there will be consequences. Consequence is force. The threat of starving for the rest of your life or not being able to participate in the sociopolitical process is force.
If you mean basic government functions, that's under both socialism and capitalism, but socialism adds a shit load more force.
Socialism doesn't add anything, as we can see by countries like Denmark, Holland, Germany, France. These people aren't magically more unfree or under the durress of government involvement than Americans because they have higher levels of public institutions and involvement. That is absurd. Again, reality is trumping you.
Well, I'm not a Conservative so I guess this didn't apply to me, thus meaning that it was irrelevant to what I was saying.
Based on the history of your debates on this website, you are most definitely Conservative. And you're not moderate. Your statements are a matter of public record here.
1. Once again, all speculative. People debate on whether 300 million people can truly benefit from a much more powerful government or not. To me, 300 million people is too much to keep in control and fully happy no matter what we do. But no matter what, bigger government is an attack on freedom. We can also look to Ireland. They're a small country, but they're very much for the free market, and they do quite well for themselves. I think the correlation you're looking for is countries with less than 300 million people (350 now, not including illegal aliens).
2. We're more stupid? or less focused. We are a very materialistic country, no doubt. We focus a lot on TV, movies, video games and fictional literature. We probably know a shit load more about pop culture than any other country. Yes, you may find that bad, but I see that as Commercialism at its best. We're laid back and all about the new thing. That's how we progress so much and consume a shit load. Consumerism, materialism, commercialism; to me, those are all good things. They may effect our education more (hell, I smoke weed and partake in those things all the time... although, I naturally like to learn shit that interests me), but they also effect our ability to progress our material world. Maybe... the Buddhist lifestyle isn't for everyone.
3. And socialism does add more force. The government forcing people to do shit, like give up property or pay for things that they don't wish to pay for. I understand that our "needs are also a system of force" but that is either under Capitalism or Socialism. Capitalism, itself, doesn't force anyone to do anything. It gives you a choice, and you can switch as much as you want. you can sit on your ass and write novels, and maybe one will finally get published and you'll become rich, or maybe you'll become homeless and die on the streets. or, the government can force you to get a job and you can never have time for that novel, or never get the incentive.
a. Socialism - Pay the government or pay the consequences.
b. Capitalism - Do what you like; i don't care.
yes, capitalism is more free. you're not free of your own needs, but your free of government regulation. but what you MUST understand is that your needs are under both systems, while government regulation is ONLY under Socialism (or at least, more of it).
4. Explain to me how I'm a Conservative? I don't call myself Moderate because many of my views are quite extreme, but explain how I'm actually Conservative?
You can repeat this until your fingers rot and fall off. Academic performance is quantitative. Social mobility is quantitative. The human development index is quantitative. It's not speculation.
To me, 300 million people is too much to keep in control and fully happy no matter what we do.
To you. So you're speculating. But that's shifting the goal post and obfuscating the issue. I have never once proposed that anyone can or should be "fully happy".
But no matter what, bigger government is an attack on freedom.
An unsubstantiated position. But name something that people can do in America and not in Amsterdam, or France, or Great Britain, or Iceland or Denmark.
I'm not going to address #2 because I really think it's one of the most stupid arguments I've encountered on the internet.
The government forcing people to do shit, like give up property or pay for things that they don't wish to pay for.
All governments do this. There will always be a time in any government where it will be spending money on something someone somewhere does not want to pay for. Almost all governments can cite eminent domain, stripping property from anyone--that isn't unique to socialism or communism or fascism. The State and Federal government does it often in America.
Capitalism, itself, doesn't force anyone to do anything.
Capitalism is an economic model and set of economic principles. That's it. Stop personifying and socializing it. In a free market system, the market is unregulated. That has no impact on whether the government regulates you as a person. The free-state of the market in a country has no necessary consequence to the free-state of the people.
Socialism - Pay the government or pay the consequences.
What government doesn't demand this?
Capitalism - Do what you like; i don't care.
No: private ownership of the means of production, whose labor and capital is traded on a market, and profit is shared throughout owners and investors. It ain't got nothing to do with you doing what you like and no one caring.
yes, capitalism is more free.
For companies, not for the individual.
but your free of government regulation.
You're not free of government regulation. It's a "free market" and not a "free people" system.
OK, as an outsider I can see a disconnect. it seems like Capitalism is being confused as a form of government, which it isn't. So I guess I have to side with Mahollinder on that point.
But ThePyg does make some good points.
ThePyg: "The government forcing people to do shit, like give up property or pay for things that they don't wish to pay for."
Mahollinder: "All governments do this...."
joecavalry: "If all governments force people to give up property (eminent domain) or pay for things they don't wish to pay for (like abortion for the poor), then government is an attack on our freedom."
ThePyg: "capitalism is more free."
Mahollinder: "For companies, not for the individual. "
joecavalry: "This is a tough one because capitalism doesn't pick a side. It gives both sides the freedom to do whatever. But it does tend to favor a larger company over an individual. However, this tends to diminish as the company reaches economies of scale. When this happens, giant corporations turn to the government to regulate the industry in order to reduce new competition. In other words, government regulation of an industry makes it very expensive for new comers, thus discouraging new competition."
I would like to say that the real problem is that government is involved in business and that it should focus on stuff like protecting our borders. But the truth of the matter is that even if government did not meddle in the affairs of business, people would still find something to bitch about because it opens up the door for other countries to outproduce us (reduce our profit margins). Imagine what would have happened if the government did NOT try to help the auto industry when cars coming from Japan were perceived as better cars. Loosing an important industry like car production, is a big deal. So there are no easy answers.
Allow me to rebut. I am a liberal lady, and my lady-parts aren't property- they're a part of my person, which isn't property either. Treating ladies like cargo isn't going to get anyone laid- not that YOU would know ANYTHING about not getting laid.
Well I suppose even conservatives need to get laid sometime. Must be hard when 90% of conservative women are over 50 and look like they just crawled out of middle earth.
I mean, no wonder conservative guys are so angry and most of them are closet homosexuals.
What percent of Hollywood celebrities do you think would identify as liberal or Democratic? How many of them do you think would fall under the category of 'ugly'?
I manage to pay very little attention to what they talk about so I can't really comment, but I think they truly believe themselves and would fall on the liberal end of the spectrum if you asked them to vote on key issues.
Implants and plastic surgery are hideous when they are done wrong. The best implant jobs are indistinguishable from the real thing if you're just looking.
For some reason I am not very surprised that there is hostility in this thread.
As for whether Democrats or Republicans are more attractive, I have here linked some evidence that will suggest that democrats are the hotter party. It is a deviation from what I normally cite, but I think in this case it is highly effective proof.
a word of caution: the images are... suggestive... to put it nicely.
OK Jessald, I'm going to get serious for just a minute (so time me ;)
I think that this would make a good debate.
The statistic that 40% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the people can be a bit misleading.
It can be misleading because it leads some people to believe that redistributing that wealth will be a good thing. The problem is that everything has its good points and its bad points and things tend to come with unexpected side effects that aren't necessarily good.
For example, what if we were successful in redistributing the entire world's wealth evenly among everyone? Now I would wager that not everyone will spend that money wisely. But there's a problem with the word "wisely" because it means different things to different people. If you gamble it away, most people would say that wasn't wise. If you build a mansion in the middle of the Kalahari desert then a business man might say that is not wise investment (but if you're a bushman living in it..., you might like it). But if large corporations don't have the capital to invest, the standard of living would stagnate.
Imagine if we were all stuck in the 1970's indefinitely. Some might be able to endure the bell bottoms and the disco music, etc. but I would wager that most would rather be stuck in 2010 with their iPod and iPhone and text messaging service plan. But that's because we don't know what's in store for us in the future.
What I'm trying to say is that money should be concentrated where it does the most good and giving it away to people who would squander it is not wise.
I do think wealth should be concentrated. Sometimes it seems like you guys buy your own bullshit and forget that a large majority of Democrats are pro-capitalism. It's just that I don't think wealth should be concentrated to such a great degree.
The profit motive has been proven to be a good way to direct our resources toward productive uses. But don't forget that to concentrate wealth is to concentrate power. If you're the CEO of a massive company, you can create huge barriers to entry which can prevent other people from being able to compete with you fairly. You can manipulate the people and the government into giving you even more money and power. It is dangerous to allow anyone to accumulate this level of power.
Meanwhile you have the problem of poverty for other people. The flip side of 1% having 40% of the wealth is that the bottom 80% only get 10%. Why should we have so many people living lives of relative poverty, when we could take just a little from the richest? $1000 would mean a whole lot more to a really poor person than a really rich person. Even if this hurt the economy somewhat, it will create such a dramatic improvement in the overall welfare of the population that it would clearly be worth it.
So, no, I'm not calling for a communist utopia. And I favor incremental change over radical change. So if it were up to me, I would redistribute only a bit of the wealth and then wait a while and see what happens. If everything went ok, I would distribute a little bit more. I would keep doing so until I found a line where it seemed like the well-being of society as a whole was appropriately balanced against the need to incentivize people toward doing productive work. I think it's clear that we are far from that point.
This argument is far more eloquent than your previous one. I like this one! Then again, you might be one of the one percent that may or may not control forty percent of my pussy- wait, no, I control the entirety of my lady-parts.
OK, but look...., think of a buffalo herd...., as the predators pick off the weakest, the sick and the slowest, the herd, as a whole, gets stronger, healthier, and faster. So too with rich and poor people. As more and more poor people die off, the richer society gets as a whole. So instead of taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, we should just let the poor die off by denying them health insurance ;)
Except we're not buffalo. Humans have moved beyond natural selection. We can easily afford to carry a few stragglers.
Also, the richest are not necessarily the strongest. They're just the most ruthless. A society of cooperators would be stronger overall than a society of backstabbers.
Why is it that ALL rich people are RUTHLESS BACKSTABBERS and not PHILANTHROPIST? Are you predisposed to hate/envy rich people so much that you can't see the forest because of the trees? ;)
OK, the other 99% is about carrying a few stragglers..... except that it isn't a few (unless you mean a few million) and we can't carry them and their freaking carbon footprint all at the same time. ;)
Controlled? Pussy? I swear to god, all of the guys in this debate must be campaigning for the longest dry spell ever. Ladies distribute themselves where they damn well see fit. We aren't property or tradeable or exchangeable- this is like me demanding your testosterone, it's stupid.
You who are commenting that Conservative women are more attractive than liberal women, are you kidding me? No, the 1960's did not start liberal thinking. The 60's were an excuse for some bums to take drugs and dodge the draft. The only women that I know of that have hairy armpits are European Women. I am a liberal and all that means is that I care about the Education system, health-care system and Jobs for the unemployment. I am sick of the Republicans Taxing the HELL out of the Meddle class working person.