- 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
If one looks at the high-branded fashion magazines, the advertising brands use involved large full page imagery with a minimal amount of information and I believe this concept of mainly image based promotion can be applied to Social Media. I sincerely doubt that vast majority of people actually look into or research the brands they see people following, but instead glance over the few images provided and form an opinion based on those.
Thus I believe that attractive image content is enough for people for follow fashion brands in social media.
I would question whether many people follow fashion brands through social media at all, there has been a rise in evidence on how companies pay social media companies to promote their brand for them and that companies can additionally buy 'followers".
However, if somebody is seen to be following a brand through social media, and particularly a fashion brand, it's appearance on that the social media site will be of sole importance. The people who follow these brands not only want to show they like the brand but also appear to know a lot of fashion to the people who follow them, thus if the imagery of the brand is awful it not only makes the brand look bad but also the people who follow the brand.
(As a side note: I'm aware of the weakness in my argument, however I thought I'd try get this debate going, I can only commend the debate creator for the excellent introduction that they have provided.)
" Frankly, the IRA is a terrorist group right? To be eligible for being called "a terrorist group", I don't know what they've done but it's gotta be pretty fucking bad."
They blew up a hotel attempting to kill the Prime Minister (then Margaret Thatcher), they also killed MPs using bombs and made a lot of violent attacks on people.
Er... I had school?
Though on a serious note, I have been concentrating on my studies for a while, took a break from the internet as a whole, but to be honest I did look in on Createdebate now and then, I just never had the time to construct argument worth reading.
I often take these breaks from CD for a bit, this one was just longer than most, it all comes from me taking on too many debates at once, with arguments getting longer and longer with every dispute until I end up spending 3 hours writing in debates. However it is now the holidays over here in GB and I thought I'd spend some time catching up.
It was nice to see that I was missed :)
As a prime example on how additional political media benefits the democratic process, the BBC's Question Time features a panel of 5 guests which will often be from a range of political viewpoints of whom are encouraged to debate and discuss political issues on a weekly basis.
The debating style and manner often mirrors that of the House of Commons when Prime Ministers Questions are in session, with lots of shouts of raw opinion and partisan tribalism, however unlike the Parliamentary debates, guests on Question Time will often be forced to discuss issues that a member of the audiences raises through a question. This results in politicians commenting on issues at the same moment, providing the audiences and viewers with a clear comparison of how party opinions differ.
Ultimately, additional political media encourages viewers to think about political issues and provides them with deep analysis and differing viewpoints on those issues, thus encouraging them to get more involved in politics and aiding the democratic process.
And if you look at the past British colonies, the one's which we continued along our economic policy have become some of the most powerful countries in the world. The only exceptions are those countries in Africa which received dictators almost immediately after the British left, of whom then literally undid all the economic infrastructure that the British had spent so many decades cultivating.
"It should! If it doesn't then you're an idiot. Read your question, then read my answer. If you're still lost, then that's your problem... not mine."
Here's my response: "Fuck you sideways".
And before you complain that it doesn't make any sense here's my response after your next argument:
"It should! If it doesn't then you're an idiot. Read your question, then read my answer. If you're still lost, then that's your problem... not mine."
Now I've saved us both some time.
"And the World Wide Web would be useless without the internet. Did you skip over the part where I said that we rely on each other's inventions?"
Maybe you should address the whole argument before you start to reference the later parts of it.
"If you get all of your facts from Wikipedia, then you really are ignorant."
Well down my road there is a museum, in this museum is an exhibit specifically about John Logie Baird and the invention of the television. Now I've seen the exhibit and I know what it states to be true but copy and pasting a museum is pretty difficult and so I'll have to source from Wikipedia. Unless of course, you can find a more reliable source that covers nearly all knowledge.
"You do know how Wikipedia works, right?"
What? The concept that anyone can create a page, change or edit it? Could you please explain how that differs from the rest of the internet?
"Yes, his work was the first step... so he does deserve credit, but it isn't what you think. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/
As I said before, in the museum they have a model of his first project.
"That's Baird's TV. A few years later, Philo Farnsworth (American) improved it.
Which one looks more like the modern television?"
That's a stupid argument, shall we take pictures of a calculator 50 years ago and take a picture of one made by Casio 5 years ago? Which one looks more like the modern calculator? Best we better accredit the Japanese for yet another invention.
"I assume that those American shows that are remakes of British shows are aired in Britain too. If I go online and look at the Box Office Index for the UK, the top movies are all American. Our entertainment is one of our greatest exports and it's huge over there. Am I wrong?"
Yes, you're right the popular trash for the masses over here in the UK is primarily American. I cannot disagree.
"Sure, except the Web depends on the Internet in order to work, where as a car doesn't need a road."
The Car needs something solid beneath it to work, it cannot drive across water. Likewise the World Wide Web was merely a model that needed a worldwide network to function. The internet sufficed.
"I really shouldn't have to. It should have been obvious."
Only in your little world.
"You come off so naïve, that it's hard not to."
Well I'm the one sitting here trying to decipher whether you're being sarcastic or actually are genuinely stupid and it's starting to become very difficult.
"You're starting to sound desperate. I must be winning this debate."
You do love dodging questions even when you ask them yourself.
I suppose I'll answer it for you, Alexander Graham Bell moved to North America because his father was in Newfoundland and was dying, that's the sole reason he left Great Britain. Thus, you haven't successfully refuted my point that Alexander Graham Bell was a British inventor.
"To show the role that American products play in your everyday life."
What language is it you speak again?
"Oh, so it went from clay bowl to electric kettle? That was a major improvement then!"
Yes, I suppose it was.
I find it humorous that you source a British tragedy. Let me link you some other news stories.
You've had 20 alone within Obama's administration.
"What makes you think that I didn't look at the list?"
Maybe you did look at the list but the fact is that you avoided addressing it.
"Oh, come on! Are you a kid? You insult like one and comprehend information like one too. Go back and reread if you don't understand. This is another example of something that should be very obvious."
Oh dear, this is Nummi all over again. Someone you can't properly write arguments and refuses to explain the mess it is they call literacy.
"That's funny, I've been getting the same vibe from you (except with Britain, not America, of course). You seem to have your head so far up your ass, I'd be surprised if you've ever left your bedroom."
I have been to; France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland, China and Hong Kong.
I have indeed left my bedroom.
" I don't know if you noticed, but my user pic is of a Brit. "
My user picture is a penguin, am I an Antarctican? Am I suddenly aware of the plight of penguins?
"My favorite films, are British films. I would almost rather live in Europe, than the US..."
Sorry, next time I debate with someone I'll make sure I stalk them first. Just so I make sure not to make incorrect claims on their interests or hobbies.
"...but that's because I'm a history nut and you guys have a much more colorful history than us. "
I also like my fair share of history and I also watch a fair amount of American films. Which is why I get annoyed at films like "The Patriot" and "U-571" which actively distort history (at my country's expense) to fuel the fetish that is American nationalism.
"I have pride in my country though. It's where I grew up. It makes me sick to read the garbage coming from some of the British users, who act like they know how America really is. You don't live here, I do."
We're not the ones starting these debates. If I remember correctly this was just a nice debate about the Royal family and then you joined in.
"You say we're full of nationalist propaganda... and now I'm starting to think that British children are getting a faulty anti-American education."
If anything we get a pro-American education. The only thing that makes us Anti-american is when we see Americans saying 'Our country was fought against an empire or tyranny and created a nation of freedom, equality (etc).' a statement which itself is an insult to history. I get annoyed when everytime I see an American politician talking about how their nation apparently is the only one which stands for equality of opportunity or economic individualism, or when I find out that the USA is arrogant enough to spy on their neighbours, or when American companies who own businesses in my nation come to my government and say 'Sorry we're not paying any taxes here, but you see we only pay taxes to the US government'.
But then to top it off, we had the BP oil spill. An accident. Which resulted in huge Anti-British protests in the US where Americans set fire to the Union Jack. Or when our own Prime Minister, after meeting with President Obama, goes on television and states that 'Britain must admit that they were a junior partner in the Second World War'.
"It seems like the nationalism is much stronger in Britain, than in America."
And you base this of two guys on a website? Trust me, nationalism is next to non-existent in the UK, the stupid racist groups like the EDL and BNP ruined it for us.
"Yeah, our government consists of a bunch of assholes... but yours is just as corrupt. You're blind if you don't see that."
Our government isn't constantly in the pay of whichever company has enough money to do so. I look at my country and I look at yours. Mine has a decent minimum wage, law enforced working conditions, free healthcare (etc). You remember all that food you claim the US export to Britain? We only see a minority of your 'edible' products because the rest of it is deemed by my government to be "unfit for human consumption". We have a chain of supermarkets here called Asda, it's owned by Walmart, but can't be called Walmart because they are run in completely different ways, solely because we have health and safety laws protecting employees here in the UK.
So when I hear that the US still encourages its children to stand up and pledge allegiance to their 'great' country. Could you please explain what on Earth it is they're pledging allegiance to?
"Canada still swears allegiance to the Queen, if you haven't noticed."
Well, maybe I should have said Australia.
"Hmmm... so you have a history where you guys are the good guys and we have a history where we're the good guys... and that's surprising to you? Ever think that maybe it's your information that's fucked up?"
Well, you've yet to provide evidence for your claim that the U.S 'kicked our arses' and now you want me to provide evidence on my statement?
"Oh, so you must remember the Revolutionary War. Did you serve in it?"
Why would I have to had served in the Revolutionary War to read a history book?
"Maybe you're older than I thought... but the history that I and the rest of the World knows, is that you lost the Revolutionary War."
You lost Vietnam, the whole world knows you lost the Vietnam War. Would you agree that the Vietnamese kicked your arses?
"We were the Allied Forces. You should really start viewing us as one team during that period, because that's how it was."
I like how the allied forces were represented in the film "Saving Private Ryan". I counted a grand total of 0 non-American allied troops. It especially stung when you replaced all the British amphibious landing craft with American transport on the D-Day opening scene, but then again you wouldn't want to hurt that precious American nationalism.
"The United States was the largest supplier of material."
Congratulations on not fighting!
"In return, you guys helped train a lot of our troops. Your role was crucial to the victory of WW2, but we do deserve credit."
Not the amount you claim to.
"Some say, ours and Russia's roles in the War is what made us world superpowers."
Yours and Russia lack of role in the War is what made you world superpowers. You had plenty of time to build up your industry and economy while the largest Empire in the world was fighting one of the greatest wars known to man, alone.
What certainly made your nation a superpower is all that material 'supplied' us was actually a loan, my nation only finished paying it back a few years ago.
And then we get bombarded with "kicked your arses in the Revolutionary War" instead of 'thanks for helping us become a major world power'.
"Am I wrong? You're British, you tell me."
I already disputed it, I'm not going to claim that there a no American businesses here at all, but they certainly do not have the influence you claimed they did at the start.
And anyway, any American influence here is probably matched over there, but I'm sure you'll see in the list of countries I've visited the U.S wasn't one of them.
"Yeah... and that's one reason why I really like your country, so stop ruining it! lol"
Well, your country already does like to tarnish history with prime examples being the films I listed earlier.
"Okay, fair enough. What happened was I saw that you mentioned the English language again and remembered a point I wanted to make earlier. The comment itself, shouldn't have been confusing though."
Well I'll address your new point then, How can you claim that the English Language was not invented by the English?
"I think it had more to do with the amount of countries from across the globe, rather than the countries themselves."
Well in that case, it was already a World War before the US joined, we already had Canada making up for North America.
"Yeah, as Germany was conquering France. We were getting prepared."
But I thought you said that the World Wars were a European conflict and your nation did not want to get involved.
"Again, we didn't turn up late. We were attacked. We arrived to our war on time... not until we arrived in Europe, did we become the Allied Forces. We were supplying Britain with material before then."
Well the fact that your President hated our Empire and actively abused the situation in World War II to try to destroy it.
(Since you dislike my sourcing of Wikipedia, here are two other links, I believe they are American websites)
Allright, suppose I give up eating meat by my son who ran away from me is still eating meat. I start to go around fighting against the eating of meat. Decades later this still eats meat while the rest of the population have given it up.
Is it not immoral then?
We provided our British colonists with slaves who then revolted and turned themselves into their own nation (apparently with a new creed of equality) and it was the United States who then continued slavery long after many other countries abolished it.
Back to the analogy, the point you're arguing is like the future vegetarians calling us immoral because we gave our children meat to eat.
I suppose that teaches me to continue my "facts" beyond their truth. My statement was an assumption and an assumption I cannot prove. However I can come close:
The population of the British Empire in 1900 was 419,920,000, whereas the estimated world population was 1,700,000,000.
419,920,000/1,700,000,000=0.247... (Around 25% to 1dp)
I suppose we both fell short a bit this time around ;)