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.
You might be a dumb ass
If you think capitalism rewards hard work, and then make excuses for the hereditary billionares who sit on their ass collecting cash from their numerous unearned assets, you might be a dumb ass.
If you talk about freedom and democracy, then promote a system where the masses work to make bankers and CEOs who have nothing tangible to contribute to society more wealthy, you might be a dumb ass.
If you want to "make America great again" without realizing that America was never great, you might be a dumb ass.
If you think life on earth must have been created, but that whatever created it requires no explanation you might be a dumb ass.
If you call me a science denier, then proceed to claim that your DNA practices a religion, you might be a dumb ass.
Heinz has declined to disclose her personal tax returns, citing family trusts and privacy. She is estimated to be worth between $750 million and $1.2 billion. According to her most recently released income tax of 2003, Kerry and Heinz paid an effective federal income tax rate of 12%.
If you think capitalism rewards hard work, and then make excuses for the hereditary billionares who sit on their ass collecting cash from their numerous unearned assets, you might be a dumb ass.
Capitalism can reward hard work and protect inheritance (i.e. luck); that isn't logically incoherent as a position. Now, if you instead argue that an extreme concentration of capital is problematic then you'd have a point (and one with which some capitalists would agree I think). Contrary to the popular narrative, it is consistent with and part of the capitalist tradition to support practices that ensure minimum opportunities for success (e.g. Freeman advocated a minimum income for this reason). Capitalism as a school is not completely unaware of the issues of extreme disparate capital distribution (though this doesn't necessarily mean it's the best approach).
If you talk about freedom and democracy, then promote a system where the masses work to make bankers and CEOs who have nothing tangible to contribute to society more wealthy, you might be a dumb ass.
The idea that extreme capital inequity is a threat to freedom and democracy is sound. The idea that bankers and CEOs contribute nothing is not. The question is whether their contributions are appropriately compensated relative to the value they produce, which is not the case in some parts of corporate America (i.e. I'd say that some bankers and CEOs at smaller companies may be compensated at their value, and in some cases even below it).
I will have a little more fun with a Stupid Socialist !!!!!!!!!!!!!
George Soros/Net worth
8.3 billion USD
2018
Michael Bloomberg/Net worth
47.8 billion USD
2018
Net Worth. Anderson Cooper has amassed a soaring wealth from CNN to become one of the richest media personalities in the world right now. The celebrated news anchor receives $11 million every year from CNN which has pushed his net worth to a whopping $ 100 million.
So the Socialist opposes the Leftist millionaires and billionaires ???????
If you resent or are envious of what others have, you might be a class warfare warrior dumb ass.
That's just a useless conservative pile of shit that you people dump out whenever someone points out that their are children living in abject poverty while others are born with silver spoons in their mouth and raised to be like Trump.
Nobody needs to take a vow of poverty while you continually monopolise resources which could keep 5000 people fed and clothed you toxic cunt. You give them poverty as a gift.
OK, lead the way, oh Altruistic one. Take a vow of poverty and give away all your worldly possessions.
This is another classic example of the fecal matter you cuntservatards like to excrete from your keyboards. You expect people to live like indian sadhus if they don't support capitalism because you can't fathom any other system working to supply people with material goods. You sir are utterly moronic.
Bronto, I have literally met goats with a higher intelligence quota than you. When you say, "correction", what you mean is that you intend to misrepresent what I have said.
If you refuse to get a job
Since jobs were not part of the discussion, I could equally apply the same false reasoning and say: "Correction. If you refuse to acquire a basic education..."
Your inability to stay on topic when you discuss matters is indicative of your low level of intelligence.
It takes little common sense to realize it takes money to eat.
If you think money is edible then you are even more stupid than I gave you credit for. What are you proposing humanity ate in the 95,000 years it existed before money was invented?
If you think money is edible then you are even more stupid than I gave you credit for. What are you proposing humanity ate in the 95,000 years it existed before money was invented?
So go plant a garden and stop bitching about those with something you don't need.
You are just a point blank retard.
Trashing your intellectual superior is your perogative.
You stupidly reverted to a time you didn't as though it's that way now. So now you're stuck with your stupid argument and can't bitch about money, seeing it's not needed for survival. Good job. Well done.
Since jobs were not part of the discussion, I could equally apply the same false reasoning and say: "Correction. If you refuse to acquire a basic education..."
1)Conservatives make more money than liberals. So your version of education looks like an indoctrinated dumbing down.
2)I have a college education. You live with your parents.
So do all those liberal professors and actors you love whining about like a little entitled baby.
So your version of education looks like an indoctrinated dumbing down
Only if someone is literally stupid enough to believe being intelligent is the same thing as making money.
Bronto, I fear that you might actually be THE most stupid person currently residing on the planet. How does your false equivalence explain the many genius IQs belonging to starving Africans?
Those dumb Africans, right? Can't make any money.
You are literally so stupid I want to punch you in your fat, idiotic mouth.
Conservatives make more money than liberals. So your version of education looks like an indoctrinated dumbing down.
Kim Kardashian makes more money than you therefor she is smarter than you.
I have a college education. You live with your parents.
Nom is a journalist, you need a PCA to wipe your ass for you because you got your legs blown off fighting for rich American bankers to make money by stealing from poor nations.
Kim Kardashian makes more money than you therefor she is smarter than you.
Kim Kardashian doesn't represent averages.
I have a college education. You live with your parents.
Nom is a journalist, you need a PCA to wipe your ass for you because you got your legs blown off fighting for rich American bankers to make money by stealing from poor nations
Which has nothing to do with education or intelligence. Journalism takes no skill or even an education. It also pays dick.
You didn't mention "averages". If you are wondering why FM has forced you to change your argument mid-debate it is because you're a complete fucking idiot.
Which has nothing to do with education or intelligence.
You just claimed making money is the same thing as intelligence. I make quite a bit of money from journalism you daft little twat.
Because we've had this exact debate about 10 times.
So you changed your own argument mid-debate 10 times instead of just once?
We have had this exact debate about zero times before and, even if we had, it still does not excuse changing your own argument mid-way through it, you redundantly stupid, perpetually dishonest little twat.
There is no FM.
FM was the person who wrote the reply you responded to (thus named because his initial account was called FactMachine).
It's impossible that 2 people are this stupid.
Correct. You are the stupid one, and there are two people trying to make you aware of it. You keep resisting by changing your argument every time it is disproved and throwing out bizarre right wing conspiracy theories.
He writes in American English you literal imbecile. I write in British English.
Your far right conspiracy theories are -- like everything else you ever write -- incredibly self-contradictory, false and stupid.
The fact of the matter is that what you argued was disproved by two different people, and instead of having the humility to accept defeat, you have decided to change the direction of an argument you have already lost. That demonstrates not only that you are stupid, but that you are too fucking stupid to even understand the concept of being wrong.
He writes in American English you literal imbecile. I write in British English.
And you are still the same person.
Your far right conspiracy theories are -- like everything else you ever write -- incredibly self-contradictory, false and stupid.
Kind of like "Nazis are everywhere".
The fact of the matter is that what you argued was disproved by two different people, and instead of having the humility to accept defeat, you have decided to change the direction of an argument you have already lost.
You have to make points to win a debate. You didn't know that?
That demonstrates not only that you are stupid, but that you are too fucking stupid to even understand the concept of being wrong.
Yes, yes. This coming from a person claiming to be a journalist, despite being on here 24 hours a day.
Ahahahaha! Show me your proof that FM the American and Nom the Brit are the same person, you ranting, deranged, tinfoil smoking fuckwit.
Kind of like "Nazis are everywhere"
You honestly need to get it through your incredibly stupid head that when someone points out you are a Nazi, they are only calling you a Nazi. They are not calling everybody a Nazi, nor claiming Nazis are everywhere. That's just something you made up on account of you being a Nazi.
You have to make points to win a debate.
Nope. I can win a debate just by disproving your constant stream of lies and half-truths. Didn't you know that?
It's a lot less work than making my own points because everything you say is simply so stupid and so easy to disprove.
You honestly need to get it through your incredibly stupid head that when someone points out you are a Nazi, they are only calling you a Nazi. They are not calling everybody a Nazi, nor claiming Nazis are everywhere. That's just something you made up on account of you being a Nazi.
Right. I share basically every position of Churchill, whom you praise for fighting off Nazis.
Let's not mention your blantant anti semitism. Shhh.....
Financially, Conservatives fare better than liberals or independents."
Checkmate.
Ahahaha! You really are deranged, aren't you?
Firstly, this is data specifically for the year 2012.
Secondly, your claim was not that Republicans earn more on average than Democrats. This is what you changed your claim to when you claim was proven to be false.
Thirdly:-
Also notable is the decline of Republicans among top earners.
There seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.
But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the richest families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.
But when we shift our focus to the 300 zip codes across America that rank as the highest 1.4 percent of socio-economic status, using the formula for SuperZips created by Charles Murray,3 the picture is different. Among all contributions, Republicans still had an advantage by $192 million to $175 million. But when we set aside self-funders’ million-dollar-plus contributions to their own campaigns (which by law are unlimited), the Democrats are ahead by $160 million to $129 million. In percentage terms, Democrats come out ahead in the SuperZip money race by 55 percent to 45 percent.
Democrats have an even greater advantage when one focuses on the contributions—again, aside from those of million-dollar-plus self-funders—made by the lucky persons who live in neighborhoods and towns that have long been notably elite. These are the 14 locales Charles Murray identified as famously elite since at least 1960, including Chicago’s North Shore, Boston’s Brookline, the Philadelphia Main Line, Manhattan’s Upper East Side, and the like.4 From these elegant precincts, Democrats raised twice as much money as Republicans—$82 million to $41 million.
The Democrats’ fundraising advantage in affluent communities is not uniform across the country. There are metropolitan areas—Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta, for example—where Republicans raise more than Democrats from the most affluent zip codes. In contrast, Democrats have an enormous advantage in what Charles Murray calls the Big Four metro areas—New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.
The Big Four contain almost one-sixth of the nation’s population and a larger proportion of its SuperZips, many clustered together, as Murray notes, so that residents can drive—or be driven—miles without leaving one. Murray observes that “it is difficult to hold a nationally influential job in politics, public policy, finance, business, academia, information technology, or the media and not live in the areas surrounding” those four metropolises.
You stated that Conservatives make more money than Liberals, you fucking infantile, brainless little liar. As soon as that claim was disproved you changed it.
Pointing out that libs hoard money. Cool. See my "intelligent capitalists doesn't mean socialists have any intelligence" point.
Google it, and come back with your findings.
That isn't how burden of proof works, you fucking retard. You made the claim so you are the one required to prove it is true.
I'm required to sit here and stare at you for being a fool.
Pointing to a liberal being rich from capitalism
Proves that Conservatives don't make more money than liberals. Bill Gates the liberal is the richest man in America.
1 rich lib. His liberalism sounds legit. Cool. Now refocus. You don't makes as much as the average conservative. You know? The guys with no teeth playing banjos? Hillbillies with lisps literally make more money than you. I would brag about that. Anything else?
I pointed out that Conservatives don't make more money than Bill Gates the liberal. Therefore your claim is demonstrably false.
See my "intelligent capitalists doesn't mean socialists have any intelligence"
Bill Gates is not a socialist. He's a liberal capitalist.
Seriously Bronto, HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?
Why do you even feel entitled to an opinion about anything when you are literally so stupid that you don't know the difference between socialism and capitalism?
Your problem being that Bill Gates' used his business partner's brains to make his money
That isn't any problem because your claim was that Conservatives makes more money than liberals. Deflecting to yet another false claim after your initial one was disproved is not a problem for me. It's a problem for you because everybody can publicly see how stupid and dishonest you are.
Your straw man argumentation is not cool. It is indicative of a deranged mind.
Marxists are the stupid liberals
I've just told you that socialists are not the same thing as capitalists. Do you need a diagram or a translation into Russian you pig-ignorant troglodyte?
This from the fascist idiot who changed his argument three times in the same debate, then posted a misleading line from a 2012 FAQ about national debt and ran away like a coward.
Pointing to a liberal being rich from capitalism as a trophy doesn't really help any argument for the intelligence of socialists.
I never claimed socialists are intelligent you deranged moron. For God's sake stop attacking straw man arguments. It's absolutely abhorrently retarded. You claimed Conservatives are more intelligent than liberals because they make more money. I proved that both of those claims are false. Conservatives neither make more money than liberals, nor are they more intelligent than liberals.
Try sticking with the same argument for longer than two sentences you egregiously dishonest twit.
Economic liberals’ beliefs are based on the idea that individuals should be free to engage in voluntary transactions with others and to enjoy the fruits of their own labour. The typical leftist socialist position is opposed to such a view.
You got that right? Do you understand what an economic liberal is?
In other words, intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal views.
Nice. The conservative syndrome articulated in your source applies to social bigots and those opposed to economic freedom. Tell us again about the Jews, bigot. Tell us again about the evils of economically liberal policies. And then try to tell us this article is about the other guys.
You got that right? Do you understand what an economic liberal is?
Do you understand that I was debunking Bronto's claim that Conservatives earn more money and are therefore more intelligent than liberals? It doesn't appear that you do understand, because you are quoting stuff about socialism.
Nice. The conservative syndrome articulated in your source
So the source claims liberals are smarter than Conservatives and you think this is because the source must be Conservative?
Wow.
Tell us again about the Jews, bigot
What the fuck do Jews have to do with anything? I didn't mention Jews you clueless fucking clown.
Learn how to follow a conversation you fucking idiot.
you think this is because the source must be Conservative?
You never have shown much aptitude for reading comprehension. I suppose that’s why you attribute to you opponents things they never even implied, and why you never seem to read your own sources.
You never have shown much aptitude for reading comprehension.
You said "conservative syndrome" you impossibly stupid neo-fascist imbecile. If you meant to accuse the source of liberal bias then you should have said, "anti-Conservative syndrome". The problem is not my reading comprehension. The problem is that you are a redundantly stupid twat who does not understand the meaning of words.
Not this time haha
So why are you obsessed with Jews? Is it because you are a pro-Israeli fascist who once argued the Israelis were morally in the right to purposefully bomb UN schools and hospitals?
dimwit
Oh the sheer irony of being called a dimwit by an idiot who attacked me without even bothering to read the prior conversation.
You said "conservative syndrome" you impossibly stupid neo-fascist imbecile. If you meant to accuse the source of liberal bias then you should have said, "anti-Conservative syndrome".
Haha wow. The article you sourced is literally about what they call “conservative syndrome”.
The problem is not my reading comprehension.
I suppose you’d have to read it before you fail to comprehend it.
So why are you obsessed with Jews?
Typically, you are depending on what kind of bigot you wish to be. Either Jews can’t be Jews, or non-Jews must be Jews because you hate the non-Jew in question. It’s your bigotry I was referring to, as it applies to your source. Your socialism applies because economic liberals tend to be more intelligent, according to your source.
Anyway, I can’t explain your own source to you all night. Get your helper to read it to you.
I sourced two articles, idiot. Two. Plural. The first article does not mention "Conservative syndrome", and you never bothered to tell us which one you were referring to.
is literally about what they call “conservative syndrome”.
It is not "literally about what they call Conservative syndrome". It is literally about smart people tending to be more liberal, as the title makes perfectly fucking clear. You furthermore invented your own definition of Conservative syndrome which is what confused me in the first place. You claimed verbatim:-
Nice. The conservative syndrome articulated in your source applies to social bigots and those opposed to economic freedom.
But the article says no such thing. In fact, the only thing in this quote that you DIDN'T make up yourself is the terminology of "Conservative syndrome". Everything else is your own invention. The actual article describes Conservative syndrome much differently:-
The term “conservative syndrome” was coined to describe a person who attaches particular importance to respect for tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation.
Such a person tends to hold conformist values like obedience, self-discipline and politeness, and emphasises the need for social order coupled with concerns for family and national security.
So you horrendously misrepresented the article's definition of Conservative syndrome either way.
I suppose you’d have to read it before you fail to comprehend it.
Correct. But you DID read it and you DID fail to comprehend it. Either that or you read it and decided to deliberately misrepresent its contents.
Typically, you are depending on what kind of bigot you wish to be.
This sentence does not make any grammatical sense. If you want me to "comprehend" the things you write then they must be both grammatically coherent and coherent with the content you are representing. When you read an article and then decide to invent your own version, as you have done with this one, it is not going to be surprising when people do not understand what the fuck you are talking about.
Either Jews can’t be Jews, or non-Jews must be Jews because you hate the non-Jew in question.
What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody has even mentioned Jews you mad bastard. Is this some kind of an exercise to see how many times you can fit the word Jew into a sentence? Five in a single sentence.
In fact, the only thing in this quote that you DIDN'T make up yourself is the terminology of "Conservative syndrome". Everything else is your own invention.
I already provided direct quotes from your source that support exactly what I have said about intelligence related to economic liberalism. The "bigot" description of the conservative is apparent in the article when it describes their "rather harsh views toward those outside their group". I know, it didn't precisely say what it means. That's hard for someone with low reading comprehension like yourself. The lesson is over.
The answer is Capitalist. An economic liberal is a Capitalist
The answer is that you did not read our conversation properly, otherwise you would have discovered that we were talking about capitalists in the first place. Nobody mentioned socialism except you. Nobody mentioned socialism and nobody mentioned Jews. These are simply things which you are obsessed with and cannot go more than ten minutes without mentioning.
Those who hurl insults and accusations of greed for others’s failure to share always have something to gain by others sharing. Funny that.
Those who support capitalism are either useless black holes of resources that are handed everything in life while producing nothing or they are just stupid slaves who can't see that they're being used by such people.
Other times, you claim that my success is not my own, that I ow my family, the working class, the government, or society, and that I am a greedy selfish capitalist pig for not recognizing this.
Other times, you claim that my success is not my own
Nice outrageous lie bro. Show me ever claiming that you are a success as a human being. I think we both know we are going to be waiting a long fucking time.
I do not equate lying with being a successful human being and I daresay the reason you do is because you are a complete fucking failure who lacks both the intelligence and the talent to acquire anything in life through honest means.
You would be the very first to cry out for help if you slipped on the tears of the homeless and fell down a ravine you pitifully remorseless, disgusting anti-human cockroach.
Go fuck yourself. That way you can tell yourself how great you are and have an audience which agrees.
Specific directed personal statements about people online whom you know nothing about are always necessarily ignorant and hollow, and in that way satisfying for the recipient your ire. At least in this case.
... cry out for help
If I need help, I certainly don't precede my request with insults and accusations against my proposed benefactor.
If you think capitalism rewards hard work, and then make excuses for the hereditary billionares who sit on their ass collecting cash from their numerous unearned assets, you might be a dumb ass.
I don't care what they have.
If you talk about freedom and democracy, then promote a system where the masses work to make bankers and CEOs who have nothing tangible to contribute to society more wealthy, you might be a dumb ass.
2 things are true at once. They got theirs. I got mine through hard work.
If you want to "make America great again" without realizing that America was never great, you might be a dumb ass.
You live in a country that was great, and is now nothing. Congrats.
If you think life on earth must have been created, but that whatever created it requires no explanation you might be a dumb ass.
Or you have the capacity to understand the infinite causality paradox.
If you call me a science denier, then proceed to claim that your DNA practices a religion, you might be a dumb ass.
Obviously this is false and self-contradictory. If you didn't care what they have you would not diligently be making excuses for a system in which what they have is the common incentive.
Bronto: "I don't care that my friend has a Ferrari. That's why I'm saving for a Ferrari. Because I don't care."
Obviously this is false and self-contradictory. If you didn't care what they have you would not diligently be making excuses for a system in which what they have is the common incentive.
Every person made their money a different way. You are welcome to name us a bunch of billionaires who started out as billionaires.
Bronto: "I don't care that my friend has a Ferrari. That's why I'm saving for a Ferrari. Because I don't care."
Bronto: I don't care that my friend has a Ferrari, don't want a Ferrari, and if I did, I'd work for it.
If that were true, the brilliant libs would have some.
Jesus Christ, WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID????
There seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.
But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the richest families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.
Liberals are, on average, wealthier than Republicans. Hence, you can go suck a cock.
You do.
You admitted having sex with children. I have already captured your IP address and sent it to the relevant authorities, so expect a knock on the door sometime soon.
No one believes you.
That is partially accurate. You don't believe me and you are a no-one. I don't take the opinion of self-confessed paedophiles seriously, but thanks anyway you kiddie-fiddling sicko.
I don't take tips from looney tunes.
Cool. I don't take tips from people who are detested by their own children.
You already admitted you lived with your parents.
The fact that you are lying about this when you actually DID confess to "liking a bit of underage pornography now and then" illustrates poignantly that you should never, under any circumstances, ever be taken seriously.
