- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Successful people are not, by virtue of their success, oppressors.
I just explained to you that there is a difference between being "successful" and being in a higher class. Class is a fucking social construct which inherently implies that there are lesser individuals and privileged individuals. You are a fucking asinine sack of shit who deserves to get an anthrax infection.
You are earnestly trying to convince me in non-aggressive, non-insulting terms. When you really believe what you’re saying, you simply call your opponent stupid and ignore their rebuttals.
I am not actually rude and aggressive by default, it's just that you're extremely dumb and it gets on my nerves.
That was a good transcript from whatever medium you copied it.
I am flattered that my on-the-fly half assed speed typing is good enough to be mistaken for a "good transcript" that you assume I must have copied.
Predictably though, and in keeping with all such publications which are critical of the status quo it does not set out in detail a feasible alternative to the existing private, free market economy.
Would you like to extensively and openly discuss my feasible alternative, or are you looking for more of a thesis?
I created this debate to illustrate that individuals oppress, not classes.
Class is the socially constructed conditioning of having a society with oppressed people and oppressors. If that was not the case, then rich people would not be a class, they would just be successful people. Instead there are people who are born into wealth, because it is a class and not a personal achievement. The only way to get into the upper class if you are not born into it is to be really evil, really gay, really lucky, or be one of the lucky few who are actually rewarded for doing good things by a system designed to reward mass appeal and/or privilege above all else.
Vegetarian is a class of people, for example.
If you want to call that a class then whatever but it's not the kind we are talking about here. You created this debate with the specific intention of blaming oppressed people for their own oppression and claiming that it just can't possibly be due to an upper class oppressing them because that just doesn't happen for some reason. The reason isn't really important, just please believe me so I can keep being a fascist.
Economic classes often form, in part, around competence and ability
Great, so Justin Bieber, Kim Kardashian and the Queen of England are all just better than you. It isn't due to inheritance or arbitrary stupidity, it's because those people are more competent than all of us right?
blah blah blah blah
Okay, I get it. The very fact that people do things proves that free will exists in your idiotic worldview, because if free will didn't exist you wouldn't be able to hold people accountable according to your subjective morality. I also understand that you are completely uninterested in scientific proofs and only want to use words to make yourself SOUND reasonable to idiots who don't know any better. It's also very clear that anyone who grows tired of beating a dead horse when you insist free will exists "because choices" is an intellectual coward. Oh yeah, and I am of course avoiding addressing your arguments because they're totally not baseless non-arguments and rhetorical appeals to "personal accountability" and whatnot.
The "bad attitude" is your un-American bigotry.
lol fuck America. You have a bad attitude (and a total lack of understanding) about communism because of American propaganda.
I also have a right to MY opinion and I don't give a rat's ass if it's "TECHNICALLY CORRECT".
This is a major problem with how you think. REALITY doesn't give a rats ass about ANYONE'S opinion. I am concerned with reality, opinions are meaningless to me.
I was looking through old debates and OMG you are so stupid Amarel. I saw this debate and I had to say it. The very existence of class is oppression you dipshit, if there weren't oppressors and oppressed there wouldn't be class to begin with. You are literally so stupid like omfg. People in the lower class are pretty much oppressed by the powerful class by definition, that's literally what class is.
In your debate against me you spelled behavior like a European. Oops.
Yeah I like to use UK spelling but I don't always do it. If I was trying to hide something why would I openly do it? If I am Nom I am obviously capable of faking it consistently so what would be the point of me not doing so? The truth is you are retarded, you just typed an entire wall of text containing no proof of free will then accused me of ignoring the proof you provided and now you are over-analysing how I spell words like a deranged internet stalker.
You make some good points, albeit with a bad attitude. So, what would you suggest?
A bad attitude is what you call recognizing the problems inherent in a system?
What I suggest is scientific socialism.
You seem to be saying, as I do, that, if capitalism is not somewhat controlled, we , the rest of us, may as well resign ourselves to slavery??
"Controlled" is not good enough, it needs to be phased out, but social democracy is better than plain capitalism for sure.
Putin's oligarchs, and, if Trump wins the next election … HIS oligarchs …. worry me much more than Jewish capitalists!
You called Trump a commie, which is insane. Putin is not a commie, he is a kleptocrat, russia hasn't been communist for years, and Trump being a commie is literally just the most ridiculous thing a person could say.
I see, so Einstein wasn't good at music therefor his political opinions are invalid. That's brilliant Excon, really. In my personal fact-based thinking process, I think anything Einstein says is automatically more valid than the musings of a talentless know-nothing such as yourself.
Proponents of the free will position mean that a person with free will makes choices.
So if a person doesn't decide what those choices are they still have free will? Your position is that people doing stuff means free will exists? That's stupid, if people have free will it means they actually control what they do which is impossible because of the mechanistic nature of human existence.
It is the case that people cannot act independent of causation. But then, even if they could, you would not have a person expressing what anyone might consider free will as their actions would be truly and completely random.
Yes and this is exactly what I am referring to in the debate description when I talk about you trying to bypass my arguments rather than create your own. This doesn't in any way provide evidence for free will, it is just a deflection of determinism.
From the free will opponents perspective, free will should never have become a topic of conversation since it does not and cannot exist in any given circumstance, with or without causation. It is a non-subject.
How then did free will become a subject?
How did purple dragons that poop cotton candy become a subject?
Proponents of the free will perspective recognize that people are agents that make independent choices. Independent here does not mean in a vacuum or unconstrained. It means that the agent itself is that which makes the choice. How one chooses is determined by the kind of person they are and the outside circumstances they are in. But they still engage in the act of choosing. And it is still the agent engaging in the act. That is free will from the proponents perspective, and that very clearly exists.
What clearly exists is "will" not FREE will. No one makes independent choices because the human brain is a mechanism and it's behaviour is determined by biology and environmental sensory input. To deny free will is to accept humans for what they are, a part of a physical and mechanistic world. To believe in free will is to believe that humans have some magical property which allows them to make "independent choices" when they are just part of a series of causal dominoes falling according to the laws of nature.
Opponents then argue that the agent was the kind of person who chooses to change what kind of person they are, which is a quality that is fundamental to the agent and thus could not be chosen. While that is true, it does not negate the fact that the agent is making choices, so it does not disprove the proponents perspective.
So humans don't have free will but they have will so they have free will, got it. This is absolutely bizarrely stupid. You are literally accepting everything I said but still clinging to the notion of free will out of pure desperation. You are literally arguing that the mere act of doing something proves you have free will, regardless of whether you actually CHOOSE your choices. If you make a "choice" but you don't choose what choices you make then "choice" is just a primitive, retarded type zero word.
Indeed such constraints are necessary to the free will proponent who will argue for responsibility of an agent for their actions. Without the fundamental constraint of character, we would not be able to judge by their actions what kind of person an agent is.
This is why I can't help but think of you as a lower being, it feels like I am talking to some type of primitive monkey rather than a member of my own species. Now you are making the non-argument that we NEED free will so that we can blame people for shit. If we don't have free will, then our socially constructed legal system and moral values wouldn't work LOL. You are such a laughably stupid, superstitious creature.
But since an agent makes choices based on the kind of person they are in context of their circumstances , we can categorize people by character trait tendency (honest, violent, manipulative, etc).
No, people do not need free will in order to have personality traits XD
Indeed the person who cannot name their causes is less of a free will agent than the person who can name all of them.
Proponents of free will assume every action is a choice, and thus they ignore the causes behind behaviour. In reality there are measures that can be taken to prevent the conditions which lead to destructive behaviour but in a free will predicated society you simply expect people to go along with social constructs and punish them for their "choices" when they steal your shit due to living a life of poverty. You have done nothing to PROVE free will, all you have done is play word games to try and get around the facts of causality and determinism. This is because your belief in free will is not rational or empirical, it is an excuse for the social constructs you prefer to reason to be valid. You need free will to exist otherwise your notions of how society should work would be arbitrary and stupid, which they are.
Bernie Sanders is not a proper socialist (maybe he is at heart, but his platform is not). What he is technically classified as is a social democrat, which is a half-assed socialist who would allow capitalism to still exist in a more regulated and redistributive form.
There is a difference between Alex Jones globalists, economic globalization and globalism. Alex Jones uses the term "globalist" as a way to sound fancy and reasonable when referring to Illuminati Satanists. If you think people are talking about a satanic conspiracy when those people you quoted say "globalization" then you are clearly a follower of infowars or some other right wing conspiracy cult. Do you want to know what the real conspiracy of globalization looks like? It looks like America bullying countries out of their resources and tricking you into thinking it's about spreading democracy.
No one is more obsessed with race than a leftist.
When was the last time you listened to an actual leftist that wasn't being taken out of context by some right wing blog or youtube channel?
How do you plan on getting reperations and making things "equal"? By treating people badly or well dependent on race.
I don't want reparations, I want to put you in a concentration camp and make you assemble dildos for the rest of your short, Zyklon-B infused existence.
On account of the fact that you would probably not do an ounce of research or take it seriously at all, I will not go out of my way to explain it to you. If you really want answers then think about it critically and without bias and watch the zeitgeist films and Jacque Fresco videos on youtube.
I obviously do not hate Jews, and the RBE is egalitarian, but Jews would not exist in the RBE because religion would not exist. The RBE is not a system that is meant for society as it is now, it is meant for a future where humans have advanced culturally and technologically. It requires a population which is educated enough to think critically enough to not be a superstitious retard in order to function.
You probably made that account to frame him for saying things he didn't say, either that or you are just taking what he said out of context because what that profile says is pretty much true. If he did say it, he is clearly not defending Hitler but simply pointing out that Jews also believe they are the master race and that the ten commandments were only meant to apply to Hebrews.
That was a damn good argument Nom. Did you wipe it from your fat ass?
Speaking of ass, that's exactly what you are being right now. In fact that is pretty much always what you're being, an ass. In America you call democrats "the left" but everywhere else in the world democrats are seen as centrists. This is because in Europe they actually use the real political spectrum for the most part but in America the spectrum has been reversed and narrowed down. For you a liberal is a socialist, a centrist is a leftist and it is the left that characterizes tyranny rather than the right, ask anyone from outside the US and you are likely to be told the same thing.
Paz is literally the single best if it comes to making rap seem like a natural born talent, as opposed to learned skill.
Well I don't know exactly what you mean here. In my experience no one starts out as a rap god and even the best need to develop their skills. Of course, some are born with or conditioned to have more talent than others.
He makes it so fucking natural to have absolutely liquid flow
The thing about Paz's flow is that it pretty much always connects with each line without any road bumps but is a very straight forward flow. I think Webby is an example of someone with a better flow, as he has the same ability to flow without interruption yet has a more intricate flow generally speaking. Metaphorically speaking, Paz's flow is a straight river and Webby's flow winds like the amazon while still remaining geometrically elegant, and Tech N9ne's flow is the next level of that and it wraps around in spiral patterns and intersects with itself while still flowing smoothly.
Oh and his actual clarity in delivery is unparalleled by any other than Minaj and Webby
Still can't believe you think Nicki Minaj is comparable with any of the top rappers. Yeah, she SOUNDS good but she is not a great rapper.
Lowkey and Vinnie thanks to me and my posts? ;)
In part yes but not entirely. When it comes to Lowkey it started with the last verse of the Mcdonald Trump song, before that I saw him as a conscious rapper who is not very lyrical but the rhyme scheme surprised me on that one. Then you posted one that was even better in that regard when you claimed I was Lowkey and that was when it hit me how good he was. As for Vinnie Paz you also helped convince me but it only fully dawned on me when I started listening to a bunch of his raps that I hadn't yet heard a couple days ago.
I can definitely agree more with this list than your old one. Especially as Eminem has evolved and reemerged in the game since you last made it, so his promotion is deserved.
Yeah, I always resonated with Canibus more but he has fallen off whereas Eminem has actually improved on a technical level even beyond what he himself considers his prime (mmlp). Ultimately Canibus has had points in his career where he shits on Eminem's average material but as I revisited it I found that Eminem at his best is better than Canibus at his best when it comes to the art of rapping itself (but not when it comes to the message/meaning). Also I have liked Lowkey for a while but I didn't realize how lyrical he can be until recently and same thing with Vinnie Paz.