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.
What would be ideal for society?
Everyone has ideas about proper policies. Those policies typically have an ideal or a goal in mind. So what is the ideal societal situation as far as the left and the right are concerned?
I'm a lefty. But, I'm not empowered to speak for others..
I'm a staunch capitalist who believes in the safety net.. Ideally, that means people would take care of themselves, and those who can't aren't cast aside..
That's the nuts and bolts of it.. How deep do you want me to go? I COULD talk about the ACA v the AHCA if you want.
I'm a lefty. But, I'm not empowered to speak for others
I would like you to try. I want to know what the ideal would be for those college campus rioters. What do social justice warriors really want in the end?
I'm a staunch capitalist who believes in the safety net
I'm not sure a staunch capitalist can truly say they are a lefty. How do you feel about crippling regulations? What's your take on household and corporate taxes? Sanders says we should have free college. I don't think the Left really likes capitalism that much.
Look.. The Free Speech movement STARTED at Berkeley.. I dunno what happened to it..
I'm in business.. Regulations are a fact of life.. They don't cripple me, though.. In fact, I'm GLAD they protect the environment, and pave my streets. I don't mind paying for it.. Yes, there are onerous regulations and I don't mind if they repeal those.
Taxes don't cripple me either.. The published corporate rate is 39%.. But, that's BEFORE deductions and tax credits.. Plus, I have a very aggressive tax planner. My effective corporate tax rate is about 22%.
Look.. You don't think lefty's like capitalism, and I don't think righty's like freedom.. But, that's where we find ourselves, isn't it?
What year did that Free Speech Movement start in California ? Protecting your environment and paving your streets but it takes fossil fuels to pave your streets so how is that protecting your environment ? LMMFAO excon is the Poster Child of STUPID !
excon is so smart that his corporate tax rate is 22% but regulations protect the environment and pave his roads LMMFAO ! Can't protect the environment paving your roads with fossil fuels so how smart are you excon ?
You don't think lefty's like capitalism, and I don't think righty's like freedom
Typically, neither like freedom. Lefties don't like economic freedom, and Righties don't like social freedom. If you like social freedom AND economic freedom, you are a Libertarian. If you like social control AND economic control, you are an authoritarian (which can lean right or left).
What we have today is polarization between relatively authoritarian blocks on the right and on the left. That's why I wanted to know the goal from each perspective. Most people are not as one sided as the loudest of us on TV, but we can usually relate to our side and explain what their goals are, even if we aren't on board.
I know the free speech movement started at Berkeley. Now the speech suppression movement has started there. Both came from the Left. So what is their goal now?
There isn't a moderate column but since you conservatives declare me to be liberal anyway I'll comment over here...
All of life is a balance. All in or all out on most any topic usually does more harm than good. So with that said:
Domestically:
1) We need a balanced budget. And those few times in history we face extraordinary circumstances, like paying for a natural disaster clean up or paying for a war to protect ourselves, we should follow in the years later with the types of budget corrections to gradually pay those debts down and get back to balanced budget.
2) We need legislators who serve the voting public instead of the lobbying corporate interests. And when they don't work that way we need to vote them out.
3) We need respect for constitutionally protected civil rights, and for whatever the current final verdict from the Supreme Court is on a matter.
4) We need Presidents who stay within their Constitutionally provided powers and who don't essentially legislate by executive orders (and I'm not just talking Trump, I disagreed with Obama doing it too and I've said that on these debate websites)
5) We need social services within the balanced budget.
6) We need properly funded public education, and yes we do need to hold those schools and teachers accountable.
7) We need a basic humanitarian level of health care for all, but by that I mean first aid and assistance with basic normal life tasks, like child birth or broken limbs. There is no automatic right for major surgery or gender reassignment.
8) We need as much sustainable fair trade as we can get.
9) We need basic minimum protections in the workplace so the little guy doesn't get chewed up - meaning we need OSHA safety requirements, a minimum wage, fair opportunity, protection from harrassment and predation, etc. What those levels are is a fair debate to have, but to say throw them all out is lunacy.
And 10) We need free press and freedom of speech.
Foreign Policy:
1) We need to stand by our allies, be trustworthy to not give secrets away, and be consistent in what we say and do.
2) We need to stop giving millions and billions of dollars of aid all over the world while at the same time slashing at our own citizens and racking up unimaginable debt levels.
3) We need to stop having giant military bases in foreign countries for half centuries or longer.
4) We need to stop precision bombing from far away. If it matters enough militarily to go blow something up then go in with force and do it right. But if we're not ready to do that then you probably shouldn't be lobbing death from afar. And sooner or later our enemies are going to figure out how to do the same back to us and then you'll be looking at missiles somehow smashing into Macon GA.
5) We can do all of the above without being isolationist. Being isolationist and just saying out of everywhere and America first is just the lazy layman's way of saying they don't understand the complexities of the world so just screw everyone else. But it's not that simple. Isolation just leaves you isolated.
I'm sure I could think of more. But these are the principles by which I'd like to see things run around here.
Hey Moderate Oh Boy Barack never had a balanced budget ! Show me a Progressive in Congress that doesn't serve the lobbying corporate interest ! Moderate you want the SCOTUS writing the laws in this country ! Tell me Barack Obama knew anything about the Constitution ! Thought Barack was a Constitutional Scholar ?
I objected to Obama's budgets as well as the bailout packages. And Congress is rotten throughout and that's the fault of apathetic voters as well as the stupid bipolar extremist voters. And I don't want the Supreme Court writing laws, but likewise when they conclude something is or is not constitutional that indeed is their job.
All easy to answer outlaw. Because I don't have half my brain tied behind my back.
I'm not a leftist, but I see that this side has not received appropriate representation, which isn't a good thing. I still don't neccessarily support these reasons.
People should not feel alienated. Integrating into the society should be as simple and smooth as possible without any prejudices, and progress should be encouraged as an important goal.
People can be alienated only if they are directly harmful to society or its progress.
(As it stands, it's basically just a "fake it till you make it" attempt towards a utopia.)
1)No need for any more immigrants from cultures and regions hostile to our culture. Only immigrants from civilized cultures and areas that have proven they can coexist in our society.
2)Political correctness dies.
3)Chivalry becomes a societal norm again.
4)2 Genders become normal nationwide.
5)We put tariffs on any company that leaves the U.S. and then wants to sell back to us from overseas. Our country wins if they stay. It wins if they leave. But in reality, they'd never leave if the tariffs were fierce.
6)We begin teaching Biblical principles in school again. The moral decline of America could reverse back to something half way normal and sane again.
7)Burning the flag would get you tossed out of the country or thrown in prison for treason.
8)Monsanto would be tossed out of the country, and we would give students incentive to be farmers again.
9)We'd make a military that would be unstoppable and have a strong ability to stop foreign threats through intimidation and fear alone per technology, numbers of air personel, and military strength.
10)We'd insure that women never have to cover their heads with hijabs or wear burkas, that they never lose the right to vote, etc.
First, thank you for posting an honest response on the correct side. I will address each position in your numbered order.
1. I imagine this means cultures that are similar enough to ours that they can feasibly assimilate to ours if they choose to come here. If this is correct, you don’t need to respond.
2. I don’t think the idea will ever die, but relegating it to the realm of speeches by politicians would make any critique of their language much more reasonable and any critique of any private individual’s language no matter of concern.
3. What is Chivalry?
4. What happens to people who do not have normal gender situations?
5. Why do both the left and the right feel it is correct and proper to impose governmental will on peoples’ economic activities?
6. Would it be enough to expand private education; such that people can choose what religious and moral indoctrination their children receive? Or do you propose government mandated bibilical teachings to all the children whose parents are Atheists, Buddhists, Hindu, Muslim, Etc.?
7. That kind of expression of discontent with political circumstances is lacking in perspective, respect and class. But it should not be illegal. What was your branch?
8. I can’t understand why the Right should target a private organization such as Monsanto. What exactly is their crime?
9. A military that is this unstoppable would be one that the people this nation could not defend against. It is also one that all the wealth in the world cannot truly fund. Unstoppable? Sure. Undefeatable? No such thing.
10. While you’re at it, why not end world hunger and bring world peace?
Chivalry is when men quit rejecting biology and embrace their masculine programming to protect and honor their mate, rather than being brainwashed to be gender neutral and/or reject their own masculinity.
What happens to people who do not have normal gender situations?
It can all be worked out. I had this debate with LittleMisfit. If someone is truly that unique, they will choose the gender they most associate with, it will be put on their drivers license, and they will go to that particular bathroom. If they ever have a change, they will have that change put on their license and will then go to that particular bathroom. What they will not be doing is going to both bathrooms at the same time as if it is a bathroom game.
If they stay in the U.S., they won't have any government interference. If they choose to get rich here, then bail for cheaper labor, they'll pay the price for not being loyal to our people. It's their choice. We don't have to let them ship anything into our country. It's a privilege, not a right.
We don't teach the Bible. We teach its basic moral principles because that's the principles that created the nation in the first place. It's a privilege for them to come to a nation with a Christian culture. Notice that immigrants are not flocking to countries centralized around those other belief systems. They flock to Christianized cultured nations. It's our duty to give them such cultured areas to go to, otherwise they will have nowhere left to go.
That kind of expression of discontent with political circumstances is lacking in perspective, respect and class. But it should not be illegal.
Sure it should. You asked for MY ideal society, not yours, and seeing I am the dictator in this hypothetical situation, flag burning will be a punishable offense. It's treason against the United States of America. If you don't like America, we can and will show you the door. You are welcome to try your chances in Mexico, Pakistan, Iran, China, whatever you wish. There is no guarantee that they will accept you though, so good luck.
No I really didn't. I asked for what the Right would consider ideal. You seem too Left for this side of the post.
You want to shut down things that you find politically incorrect, such as flag burning. That's what the Left wants.
You want economic controls just like the Left.
You want to make supposed evil Corporations pay, just like the Left.
You want a strong centralized Federal Government with yourself as the benevolent dictator. Other than your choice of supreme leader, this is a Lefty position too.
Next time I want to hear from someone on the Right, I won't ask you. Though you may identify as a Right winger.
No I really didn't. I asked for what the Right would consider ideal. You seem too Left for this side of the post
Nothing I proposed was a liberal ideal. The left wants to shut down immigration from the Middle East? I must be living in a parralel reality...
Sorry, it's not the right burning the flag. That's the left. Burning a flag in public isn't free speech. It's inciting a riot and isn't a peaceful demonstration.
I actually listed the Lefty things you proposed. Listing the non-Lefty things you want doesn't mean those other issues become Right wing positions.
You want a strong central government with laws against what you consider politically incorrect. You want strong economic controls. You want to punish the "evil corporations". Whatever Right Wing ideas you have, these are not among them.
No I really didn't. I asked for what the Right would consider ideal
Sure you did. Not all people on the right think exactly the same. And if you already "know what the right thinks is ideal", then this debate was pointless.
It looks like you don't like 5,7 and 8. So from your perspective I gave a 70% "right wing" response, thus I gave.... a right wing response. Nevertheless...
5)I only want to punish companies that are here, want to become nasty little globalists, and then want to ship all of our jobs to Mexico or the like. This is actually what Trump has proposed, a 35% tariff.
7)I don't care what they do on their own property. Starting riots in public that involve burning the flag is an act and decleration of war. Opposition to the other party and the government by force, by breaking the law, and then starting fires in the streets, and openly declaring said violence as an act against the people and government that the flag represents is terrorism with provable intent.
8)Capitalism isn't designed to help Monsanto monopolize the industry, destroy all of its competitors, and create hybrid seeds that can't reproduce within said monopoly. That's a good way to make a crop go extinct and possibly us.
It looks like you don't like 5,7 and 8. So from your perspective I gave a 70% "right wing" response
Not all points can be weighted equally.
This is actually what Trump has proposed, a 35% tariff.
A tariff is simply a sales tax. It is more of a burden to American consumers.
Starting riots in public that involve burning the flag is an act and decleration of war.
Would your strong centralized government make it illegal to burn the flags of our allies as well?
Capitalism isn't designed to help Monsanto monopolize the industry
Capitalism is designed at all. It is simply economic freedom in action. Will you also destroy Pioneer, Monsanto's number 1 competitor?
Do you know what happens when you breed a crop plant with itself repeatedly for 7 generations? It gets huge. It becomes the giant ear of corn you are used to seeing on your plate. Do you know what happens when you take that giant imbred mutant and try to produce a new crop from it? You produce shriveled up little ears of corn that are worthless. This isn't a suicide gene, it's just what happans.
This is actually what Trump has proposed, a 35% tariff.
A tariff is simply a sales tax. It is more of a burden to American consumers.
Not really. Once the company sees the tariff, they don't leave. That's why Ford is still here and not in Mexico. If the company tried to foot the 35% tariff to the consumer, Americans wouldn't be able to afford it, and the company would lose the greatest consuming nation on Earth as a customer. The point? They don't leave in the first place. Companies go for the best possible financial scenario. Leaving would be the worst possible financial scenario.
And the potential savings of producing overseas are lost. If a company leaves, the cost of tariffs would be past on to the consumer, causing them to loose market share. If the company stays, they have to maintain higher prices, causing them not to gain market share. But they are about to have another way out. Auto manufacturers are not far from being able to replace all their American labor with the cheapest labor there is, automation. Then they will be able to deliver a less expensive product to the consumer without having to leave the borders at all. Of course they will be able to fire most of their labor force, and a tariff won't stop them.
Since the outcome will be the same (cheaper products and laid off laborers), will you be consistent in your targeting of economic freedom? Will you propose Luddite policies?
-----For farmers hoping for a healthy harvest, the best place to turn for help these days is the Monsanto Corp. One of the world's leading biotechnology companies--and lately a pioneer in genetically engineered seeds--Monsanto has been incorporating flashy traits like herbicide and pest resistance into everything from canola to corn. But such supercrops don't come cheap. Farmers pay a premium for Monsanto seeds, and to make sure they keep paying, the company requires them to sign an agreement promising not to plant seeds their crops produce. If farmers want the same bountiful harvest next year, they must return to the company for a new load of seeds.
While this arrangement makes sense for Monsanto, it works only if farmers honor it--something that's difficult to police in the U.S. and almost impossible in the developing world. Now, however, Monsanto hopes to enforce biologically what it can't enforce contractually. With the help of clever genes currently in development, future Monsanto crops may be designed with a new feature in mind: sterility. No sooner will the company's plants mature than the seeds they carry will lose the ability to reproduce.-----
Your incredibly biased source not only has outright lies, such as "GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds", but it fails to support your claim.
The article blames Monsanto for it's legal protections of it's intellectual property rights. The article presents a damning argument concerning lawsuits over cross-pollination, which would necessarily preclude the existence of a suicide gene.
Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was developed under a cooperative research and development agreement between the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s, but it is not yet commercially available.
Then what are you whining about Amarel? That I would prefer to not have our seeds patented and genetically altered to the point that they can't reproduce? How do you patent a seed or a plant? Well they are. Can I patent the letter "A"? How about the wind? Can I patent that if I alter it? The point? Why would leaning right make you think patenting seeds and plants is safe, normal, and not completely insane? My original point was that I would stop that from happening. Would you?
Because they aren't your seeds. What if I took some corn, spent a bunch of money on it, and found a way to make it drought resistant. I am the only one who has this drought resistant corn. Everyone still has all the other corn. I will sell you my personal drought resistant corn, but you gotta promise not to use it more than one season, otherwise I won't be able to continue making cool new stuff like this. Would that make me crazy or evil? No. Is it crazy to uphold intellectual property rights? No.
That would be great and wonderful... if you weren't pushing towards a complete monopoly of the industry. That's why we have monopoly laws. Capitalism is great within wide boundaries. It's destructive with NO boundaries. Monsanto isn't some little to average sized farm out on the prairie. They are a global giant.
A favorite argument often made by your comrades. The problem with it is as I said earlier, no monopoly has every withstood market forces without the aid of government force. Capitalism isn't conducive to monopolies, that requires government intervention, which you are a fan of.
If you want to attack a big corporations government connection, I am all for it. But that is a different issue than what we have discussed. You would necessarily be advocating less government influence rather than more.
I want America to do well, have no sympathy for monopolies and government conspiracies, and couldn't care less if the Muslims kill each other in mass. It's their problem. If that's liberal, I'm living in the twilight zone.
Do you even read your own sources? If this is true we have just one more think to thank big Ag for. Lets see what your source says:
studies to date indicate that crops transformed with genes coding for Bt proteins will not harm bees
Pretty straight forward there.
greater weed control in herbicide resistant crops may be responsible for a lower bee abundance in these crops than non-transformed crops
Got it. So, less flowers in the corn field means bees are not in the cornfield seeking flowers.
Reduced pesticide use associated with insect resistant GM crops, and reduced tillage that is possible with herbicide tolerant crops, could be beneficial to bee populations compared to conventional agriculture
Just to reiterate, "could be beneficial to bee populations".
Well, I'm pretty sure that Monsanto didn't invent the seed. So how are they Monsanto's seeds? If I alter sunlight, am I now the owner of "new sunlight" and can I ethically now prevent you from getting said sunlight?
You can alter sunlight with different lenses and filters. If you created a new kind, for example polarized, then of course you should be able to patent it. There's still plenty of light and other kinds of lenses.
Monsanto doesn't alter all of the corn. They alter their own and then sell it. Good for them.
Nevertheless, you have dropped 9 out of my 10 points. Are you claiming my prognosis was "90% Conservative"? Looks like it. At worst, you are saying my prognosis is 70% Conservative. Either way, your claim that my proposition was liberal has failed. Anything else?
So, proposing that we not destroy our individual ability to have or get food is liberal... wow... I thought it was just common sense to not hand over food power to giant companies who can genetically manipulate seeds...
So don't hand it over. Who cares? Keep using whatever inferior seeds you were using before. Or buy them from Pioneer, or some other ag company. Or buy them from Monsanto on the condition of one time use. No one is forcing you to buy their stuff. They aren't manipulating your seeds, but their own. They have competitors.
Now if I tell you that I believe gay people should not be allowed to marry, and that we should have the government take care of all of our basic needs, would you say I am 50% conservative?
So... if 7 out of 10 of your propositions are fully Conservative, and 3 out of 10 are fully liberal (Your claim), then doesn't that simply make me a free thinker and not a politically brainwashed hack...
Capitalism is designed at all. It is simply economic freedom in action. Will you also destroy Pioneer, Monsanto's number 1 competitor?
I would take actions against a company or 2 companies completely monopolizing an industry to the point of creating seeds that cannot reproduce, yep. It's common sense. Resistance to monopolization is also the law. I want the law enforced rather than ignored per political kickbacks.
The work that goes into genetic research and development is expensive. Though you haven't presented evidence of a currently existing sterility gene, it would be similar to an enforced copyright.
Monopolies only persist over the long run with government help. All the government needs to do is let the market work. That used to be something the Right believed.
Anti-Trust regulations are an invention of Progressivism.
If you let Monsanto continue in this manner, you will have a monopoly on seeds. Then you will get Socialism by default. One entity with all of the food control. If that is "what the right supports", they and the left are headed towards the same goal, and are simply taking 2 different routes to get there.
No monopoly in history has ever withstood the market over the long run. Monopolies persist with government help, and fail without it. There is no reason to allow baseless fear mongering to further degrade economic freedom.
I can’t understand why the Right should target a private organization such as Monsanto. What exactly is their crime?
Monopoly over the industry, efforts to destroy private farms, and the creation of the suicide gene in seeds, which is morally outrageous and logically very unwise for us to allow.
A military that is this unstoppable would be one that the people this nation could not defend against. It is also one that all the wealth in the world cannot truly fund. Unstoppable? Sure. Undefeatable? No such thing.
It's an overzealous word. It was a synonym for a "powerful military". If it is not undefeatable, then our people need not worry. Plus I'm the dictator in this situation, and I will only use it for good... as far as you know.
While you’re at it, why not end world hunger and bring world peace?
Not my job. It's my job to protect the people in my own country. And I will not allow forcing women into degrading oppression that is beyond the pale. This is a "left vs right" debate. Most of the world doesn't have a "left vs right" mentality or system, so I am assuming you mean the United States.
Islam being poison doesn't mean other religions are poison. Not all religions are alike or even similar.
We aren't smarter than that. The more the West has pulled away from Biblical principles, the worse it has gotten, from morality to terrorism.
If Atheism was some magic cure, and religion was the "problem", then the greatest dictator mass murders wouldn't have been manifested by Atheists. Religion isn't the problem. Man is the problem.
Wow, you're blaming the west moving away from religion for terrorism? Where do you think the majority of radical religious terrorists come from...lol Cray.
We have gotten smarter than that, we have developed sciences and medicines independent from and despite the prejudices of different religions.
Just look at the catholic pope condemning contraception, look at the Jehova's condemning blood transfusions, islamic female genital mutilation etc. etc. etc!
As for your moral compass if you are look at any of the supposed 'holy books', you will find they are plagued with moral contradictions and straight up immoral directions.
Not to mention these books were written by the men at the time, they are mostly irrelevant and out dated and shouldn't be used for a guide in the 21st century.
Just look at the 10 commandments, have you read them?
Most of them are just ridiculous and don't make sense! Then do you really need to be told not to murder and steal? This is what our highly evolved brains are meant to be for!
Well i don't know how evolved yours is though.....
So you are openly admitting that Christianity is not the cause of suicide bombings, etc etc, and that Christianity formed the basic foundation of "Western morality" and that nations led by Atheists have had mass murders of their own people that is beyond the pale? I'll take it. Anything else?
Again, refer to the crusades and spanish inquistion etc. etc. All could have been avoided with out religion. Religious leaders committing mass murder dates way back before Mohammad and Jesus...
Uh huh. Seeing most everyone on planet Earth was religious long ago, we could simply say that it is human nature to commit evil acts. And seeing Atheists don't seem to be able to do any better, that just proves my point.
I never said I was an atheist, I never said I wasn't, for the 50th time now I have not told you my personal 'beliefs', yet you continue to assume I am an atheist, I don't even know why are going down this path unless you just want to go with more ad hominem attacks and arguments from authority...This is childish...
Uh huh. Seeing most everyone on planet Earth was religious long ago, we could simply say that it is human nature to commit evil acts. And seeing Atheists don't seem to be able to do any better, that just proves my point.
You:
Well then you're basically just conceding that religion is bullshit, but ok i'll take that :)
Again, refer to the crusades and spanish inquistion etc. etc. All could have been avoided with out religion.
This is the equivalent of saying, "the mass murders by Mao and Stalin would have been avoided if it wasn't for Atheism". Brilliant... simply brilliant...
I'm assuming that they do. Most Atheists vote Democrat, and it's the liberals that refuse to address female oppression by the Muslim world because Islamists are high on the totem pole of the oppression olympics that the left has manifested. And it's the "Christian right" that opposes Islam's philosophies politically. That's why they call us "Islamophobes". Anything else?
Well, you do a lot of it. Do you not like it when I do it? tsk tsk Jackson. Hypocrisy is not a virtue... Wait... or is it in Atheism? Please tell us about more about your religion that now has mega churches...
If you are not an atheist half of your arguments made no sense. If you are something else, my points still stand. Christianity is the majority in the West, and the west is democratic. Anything else?
What I 'believe in' is irrelevant, my debate points stand for themselves and you just keep avoiding them and resorting to trying to attack my belief structure, even though you have no clue what that is.
And in closing... you were destroyed in our debates, had no citations, no links, and didn't know what you were talking about most of the time. And? The LOL's make you look like a rookie child. Off ya go.
lol This looks familiar, another 'i beat you' speech, you sound like a kid that lost a running race, and you always know the kid that cries the hardest didn't actually win... :)
As for your moral compass if you are look at any of the supposed 'holy books', you will find they are plagued with moral contradictions and straight up immoral directions.
Fine. Show me the moral contradictions in the New Testament or in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I'll wait.
So you want to implement the teachings of jesus and the new testament in school classrooms, you can not see the blaring problem with this? Why not the teachings of mohammed? This is a joke lol
Why not the teachings of Muhammad? Because the teaching of Muhammad:
1)Didn't form our culture or its moral code. Christianity did.
2)Christians are the majority in the West, and it isn't close. Do you believe in Democracy or is it just a buzz word?
3)Muhammad's commands are not compatible with the laws, culture, and values of the West. Have you read the Quran?
4)Muslims aren't the majority or even close in the West. If they ever are, Atheists are in big trouble. You'd better root for Christianity because most people are looking for religion statistically.
We now live in a multicultural society, considering muslims make up a large number if not close to a majority of the population in some western areas, why wouldn't it be reasonable that they call for their spiritual leaders lessons be taught?
Same with Jewish people, or catholics, yet it's your specific 'god' that must be taught.
We now live in a multicultural society, considering muslims make up a large number if not close to a majority of the population in some western areas, why wouldn't it be reasonable that they call for their spiritual leaders lessons be taught?
Your argument is working against you here. The Conservatives have tried to prevent this migration. Liberals caused it and welcomed it. It's not our problem if Islam get a foothold that Atheists do not like. They caused it. We aren't giving up our influence because the left is insane. Not our problem. It's theirs.
Same with Jewish people, or catholics, yet it's your specific 'god' that must be taught.
Jews are a small minority. Catholics are Christians and they worship the same God as any other Christians. Are you claiming that Catholics do not believe in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ? I'd love to see you try to make that argument stick.
Well seeing as you are talking about specific biblical teachings of Jesus I believe they would...Even if they didn't, are you really saying because christian's are the majority it should be taught in schools? You are disillusioned and you should be careful playing like this it might be you some day in the minority about a subject....
Are you claiming Catholics are Christians or making another claim? If you say they are, your argument just died. If you say they are not, we need to see citations and arguments as to why not.
Another What!?! moment lmao...You're asking me to prove the differences, if there are, in the beliefs of Christians and Catholics relating to Jesus, as if this somehow will probe you're initial point? You've just gone cray bro
It was you that differentiated between Catholicism and Christianity, not me. So did you have a point, or are you dropping the concept from this debate completely? You, not me... you, said would I want Catholicism or Judaism taught in schools? And then I pointed out your fatal flaw. Catholics are Christians, so why would I care?
Well you seem to think you are a know it all, what if a catholic or fellow christian differs from your beliefs in jesus's teachings? Well then you're just a bunch of muppets arguing over fairy tales...Oh no, I can feel another religious war coming on lol!
Not to mention these books were written by the men at the time, they are mostly irrelevant and out dated and shouldn't be used for a guide in the 21st century.
Do not steal. Do not kill. Do not commit adultery. Do not covet your neighbor's goods. What are you even talking about?
That's not in the New Testament or in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Jewish Torah is meaningless to a Christian concerning rules, ethics or morality. So what moral code are Atheists bound to again? Oh yeah... none. Ask Mao.
Jesus didn't teach the 10 Commandments. That would be Moses... in the Jewish Torah...
So... you believe in regeneration by worms, in abiogenesis, and that something manifested from nothing... but what you cannot believe is that a programmer from beyond this matrix can cause water to be reprogrammed into wine? Hmmmm... your mind seems to be contradicting itself... Are you sure that debate is for you? I don't want to traumatize you into doubting your atheistic worldview if you are going to just go off and off yourself like many atheists do. Are you going to off yourself if I continue?
I haven't even told you what I believe, but I certainly don't believe the teachings of some archaic riddle book that science has proven to be factually incorrect again and again lmfao...
Such as?.... Making blind assertions is white noise. Which "scientific claim" do you want to debate from the Bible? It'd better be good Jackson. I've been doing this since the Internet was a "thing". What do you have?
lol Well to be honest most of it is bullshit I wouldn't know where to start, noah's arch, parting the red sea, the worlds 6k old is just to easy I can go on and on and on and on...
Noah's ark is an allegory for the end of the world and is referenced by Jesus as such, seas part all the time, but it doesn't matter because Christians aren't Jews, and nobody is claiming the world is 6,000 years old, nor does the Bible. You are welcome to cite where it says it, but it doesn't, and go ahead... go on and on. Guess what my talent is...
Then do you really need to be told not to murder and steal?
This is a semantical and abstract argument you are making. Nevertheless, I'm game. Did Mao and Stalin need to be told not to murder? Looks like it might have saved 60-100 million lives. If you could convey to an animal to not steal or kill, would that help? Perhaps. Maybe the cat wouldn't have eaten the parakeet. If you had no education and had been raised by wolves, would you even understand what "do not kill" and "do not steal" even means? Probably not. You'd simply think they were survival skills.
I'm sure they knew that murder was a fundamental flaw in a society considering they were world leaders, but they obviously justified their own actions in other way's, or maybe not, but who care's it's irrelevant anyway, they were both familiar with christianity and other religions but it did absolutely zero to sway their moral compass, so your argument is a pointless false equivalency...
Who says they knew the tenants of Christianity? I've seen you be ignorant on Christian doctrine and basic facts of Christianity here on this very site, and you have the internet. They did not.
This is what our highly evolved brains are meant to be for!
So, we are a product of evolution, just like all other biological agents (animals, bugs, etc) on Earth, but we do not need to be taught morality? If you'd been raised in Pakistan, you'd think the moral thing to do to an adulterer is stone them to death. So apparently the version of "morality" that you are talking about must be learned.
Yeah, and Mao and Stalin used Atheism to think that THEY were right. Then they murdered a population of peoples that is the equivalent of mass murdering everyone in California, Texas, New York, Ohio, and Florida combined.
The Crusades were a thousand years ago and in response to the Muslim conquests. It was also during a time when a monarch was king, and warriors survived per their allegiance to said king. Mao and Stalin lived within modern history. So did the other plethera of Atheist dictators that have oppressed their people. Would you like a link?
Aaah... you tossed me a slow ball. Nice. I'll take it.
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?[4]
I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n* with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.[5]
Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.[6]
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science... The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! ...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.![7]
Not actually. Hitler praised Islam and attacked Christianity. That was your point? Okay. I win then. You're stuck with Atheist mass murders, and I'm not. Apparently you didn't read his quotes that I provided or couldn't comprehend what he was saying. Anything else?
And besides, Barack Obama was raised in Indonesia and took Islamic Studies in school, according to his own book. Are you admitting or claiming that he is/was a Muslim?
So you can't provide yet another source or link, thus you have dropped another point. Evasiveness is just a sign of fear and weakness to me, and you are in retreat.
If you are not familiar with the large incarcerated population of people that consider themselves christian's, again, you just prove your own ignorance.
Well i don't know how evolved yours is though.....
Aaaah... an ad hominem attack to end your diatribe. Nice. You probably would be best served to not question the intelligence of someone dissecting and destroying your points.
I have gone through all your comments and countered each one, some were basically just gibberish lol I don't know why you couldn't keep it to a simple single comment like normal people do, maybe you were raging to hard...
Anyway please have a read, I think we will both agree the only one getting destroyed here is you :)
Anyway please have a read, I think we will both agree the only one getting destroyed here is you
Not really. You haven't even built a foundation for any strong point yet.
Christianity is the foundation of Western culture. It is not the problem. It was the solution. Islam isn't religion. It is Islam. You haven't countered this argument at all.
Atheist leaders have caused more death than all religions combined in the last 100 years. Atheism is not a solution. It is a problem. You haven't countered this argument at all.
You have lost this debate, unless you care to continue. Are you declaring defeat?
'Christianity is the foundation of Western culture. It is not the problem'
The Spanish inquisition, the crusades etc. etc. I would consider a problem at best...
Atheism and scientific research is what has built solutions to problems like medicines for getting sick, while you are sitting there praying to get better....
1) The fact the pope is condemning a scientifically proven method of contraception for one.
2) Neither do you, and here's a tip, science can prove neither does the bible.
3) You could consider the 'mentos in a coke' experiment scientific research, that doesn't necessarily make it credible or relevant.
4) If you're not praying then what are you doing? Nothing? Or taking the scientifically designed medicine.
5) Nah not at all, I just think for myself, use rational methodology to reach conclusions, it's actually easy and you skip right through all the bullshit, you should try it some time!
3) You could consider the 'mentos in a coke' experiment scientific research, that doesn't necessarily make it credible or relevant.
Couldn't care less. Many vaccinations, the atomic bomb, refrigeration, the air conditioner, the automobile, the airplane, etc were created when the nation was almost completely Christian, over 90%.
Then you have no point, and I win another debate. This is like taking candy from a baby. You might want to decide if you are atheist or not before you take on a debate as atheist/no atheist. It's gotten sad. you don't even know where you are at anymore.*
My argument is religion is not ideal for society, you then just assume I'm an atheist, what have I told you about assuming? How slow do I need to go for you?
Nope. You are yet to provide one single link, piece of evidence, or any single source even on request. You didn't only lose. You made a fool of yourself, and I was glad to give you the ass kicking that you deserved. And? You are welcome. Off ya go.
Unlike you I don't need to constantly google and learn what I am talking about, most of this is just common knowledge in the 21st century, It's just sad your still getting your info from some mythical book some guys wrote thousands of years ago....So logical!
4) If you're not praying then what are you doing? Nothing? Or taking the scientifically designed medicine.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. If I need medicine, I take it. If I need prayer, I pray. If I don't want a swift kick in the nuts, I reject Atheism as a personal belief that offers me nothing. See how that works?
If you want to deny yourself the knowledge of your own true existence, instead blindly believe one of the thousand religions, I couldn't care less lol your loss...
There are a thousand religions? Show me a list. I know of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, (all Abrahamic) Hinduism, and Buddhism (which is nontheistic). The rest have little to no following. So show us the 1,000 religions.
Go ahead. It's your claim. You do know how to copy and paste don't you? I'm not going to try and make your argument for you. Go ahead. Scurry off and get us the links to "thousands of religions", so that you don't look like a complete pod.
Aren't you able to source information yourself? It's very simple and you would have gotten the answer much quicker, if you were smart, then you would realise that by incorrectly attacking my character, just tell's us even more about your character...... :)
5) Nah not at all, I just think for myself, use rational methodology to reach conclusions, it's actually easy and you skip right through all the bullshit, you should try it some time!
Believing a magic nothing manifested reality from its magical nothingness isn't based on reason or logic. It also defies and skips over the infinite regress of causality and the fermi paradox.
Choosing no reward over reward is also intellectual suicide. I can have a swift kick in the nuts or a piece of pie. Choosing swift kick in the nuts is illogical and what you have done.
Try it? Already did. It will leave you stranded in your weakest moments and darkest hours. Get out before it's too late. Any questions?
Still ignoring the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see. So you've dropped that point in this debate.
Now define "7 days". I'm game. 7 days from Pluto or from Mercury or from the Andramada Galaxy, and then... why would it take a god any longer? The Sims was programmed in a short span of time. I'll wait.
The matrix was a comparison. If you can't keep up, that's your problem. Did you think this was a chatroom where you don't have to actually prove your positions? Maybe you should try Yahoo chat. That's more your speed.
It seems odd for an Atheist to bring up Pascal's Wager. Are you trying to prove that your position makes no sense logically? Good job on that... (rolls eyes and walks away)
So point out the logical fallacy of Pascal's wager. I'll do it for you being the veteran here. Other religions right? False. Only Jesus mentioned the hell that you know of.
The concept of 'hell' can be found across many religions with the same basic 'way's out of it'...Religious people love the idea of being punished the sadist freaks...
See this is the problem, i said the CONCEPT of hell, you can see it in the Jehovah Witness version of their Armageddon, it's a big joke it's hilarious...
Jw's came after Christ and believe in Jesus. It's where their belief stems from... Jesus also said false teachers were on the way. You do understand what deductive reasoning is, yes? Are you really this dim? Yahoo chat anyone?
It's meaningless to me. You'll have to provide links. Assume that I'm not going to just accept you as an authority on religion when you've botched Christianity already.
Links, sources, links, sources, citations, links, citations.... Gotta use them in a debate Jackson. No one is going to just take your word on things. Gotta have evidence. Sources are your friend. You either don't know how to use them, or don't understand the concept. Not my problem. You'll have to learn or get left in the dust again.
I'm not denying anything. If you don't know what it actually was, and you cannot find a source to show us, it's all jibber jabber. I can make all kinds of random claims. Gotta prove it. What you'll find debating me is I usually know your argument before you make it, and am ready with the answer, but I most certainly do not make people's arguments for them. If they can't back their claims, that's on them.
I will happily provide sources for anything you are ignorant of, I was simply claiming the existence of religion in Ancient Egypt, are you really that ignorant of this claim I need to provide a source?
You still haven't provided any example, any citation, nor any evidence. That's a retreat. You've dropped that point, and if this was a basketball game, you'd be down by 70 points in the 4th quarter. Looks like you're done. Adios
If this were a basketball game, then just like in your high school years you would be sitting on the side line scowling at the people like me that have got the brains and the ability lol
Not really. You're a horrible debater, that in 30 posts, never cited a source, even on request. You may be the worst I've ever seen actually. It's like watching a newborn try to walk. Cute and sad at the same time... Off ya go.
Your comments are riddled with factually incorrect references, ad hominem, logical fallacies and little to know actual debate points, you just keep professing the 'winner and loser' like a little child.
Anyone with half a brain that reads this will just laugh at you...
You're still yet to provide one single link even on request. That means you have no idea what you are even talking about, otherwise you'd happily post said links here, seeing it is a debate site. Off ya go.
You meaneded to puts a comma tween da word that and da word or cause someone needs to teach this kid basic reading stands alone as uh independent thought.
This side is right, the right is the side to be on, the other side is wrong...and I'm not talking about politics, I have little if any confidence in either political party to do what is right. What would be ideal for society would be Jesus Christ the KING of all kings ruling the world and all the corrupt governments of the world (which is every nation on the planet now) be abolished.
Ummmmmm..........do you think Santa is God, or is Santa something that you imagine which is not God and does not compare to God, and your brain fails to see the difference showing that your brain is not functioning normally?
Were you taught in school that the more you can act like a jack ass, the more intelligent you are?
My point, which obviously slipped right through your brain, was that wanting 'jesus to rule the world' sounds about as stupid as wanting the easter bunny to run for president...
Listen little jack ass, your point is nothing but evidence of your bitterness.......the bitterness inside you which has been nurtured in the brainwashing you happily submitted to and which bitterness is self-fueled when you talk to me i a way trying desperately to prove you are a such a jack ass that by being stubborn you can keep yourself out of the fire of Hell.
You know that christians are peasants and we have tricked you all into believing this shit because its easier to manage the heard....You are a good little sheep :)
I know you are tying to say something stupid to a person who is not interested. Why is it that only your first four words are enough to tell me that whatever you are saying is not worth my time to read?
I want you to do this for me....read what you wrote, and ask yourself this question: "Am I really so stupid to think that the person I talked stupid to will read what I said?".
You are a dead man (or woman, or child) walking, condemned. Sin is your master taking you to Hell, and death is your abode which will be unending in Hell's fire unlike how it is ending now outside of Hell by the mercy of God.
You won't be exonerated in death, you are condemned to die and you deserve it the same as everybody else. You can't be exonerated in death because death will not change you from being what you are, a sinner. You cannot justify your life, you cannot justify your existence outside of Hell. Your dying is justified as you deserve it, you cannot justify your time outside of Hell. Your unending time in Hell is justified if you will not admit that you are a sinner who deserves to burn in Hell and seek God's mercy which He provided for by dying for you, shedding His sinless blood to pay for your sin, and now in His resurrection offering forgiveness to cover the sins of all who believe on Him who died for their sins. Either you receive the One who is God who died for your sins as your Savior, or you pay for your sins as you are paying now, dying, and unable to exonerate yourself in the fire of Hell.
Jesus ruling the world is not about what I want, it is about what He wants...He wants what He intended creation to be from the beginning, and He will have it His way......and you will probably be one of those who are imprisoned in the fire of Hell forever and your assinine attitude and punky jack ass words won't be heard by the living as they will never make it out of the fire of Hell like the smoke of your torments rising will make it out.
All you have in your brain I guess is insults, and all you have in your time is dying. You're a fool.
Why are you so dirty? Do you think being foul is good? Do you love your perversions more than life...of course you do and you are proud of yourself....falling in your pride to Hell. I feel sorry for you.
There is no need for me to read anything to say for me to know that it's much too dirty and does not belong in my sight. You're a foul mouth pervert, I have no interest in anything you say.
Jesus is God and He will rule the world if I want Him to or not. The Easter Bunny is not God, it is a created thing which does not compare to the Creator of all things. If you can't see the difference between a Created thing and the Creator of all things, you have to be retarded or just plain willfully ignorant.
Anything you can imagine cannot be God because God is independent of your imagination. Anything you say is not God, but is a thing you imagine or a thing less than God of course is not God. You are arguing against your own consciously created straw man which is not God because there is no valid argument against God.
Tell me...why do atheists act so smug when they sound so stupid?
I think you ask stupid questions and make stupid comments and all you have is nonsense, dying, no good nothing to hope in......and I think you are a fool, and I think you prove it by your words and attitude.
You're going to go yourself and see if God has the right to leave you in the fire of Hell, aren't you, fool?
You are going......enjoy your trip, if you feel better by insulting Christians then by all means do that as long as you can until you are blue in the face.
