- 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
Nah, they weren't trying to shut down Obamacare, they aren't that dumb. It was a 24B publicity stunt for their supporters. You can't shutdown law upheld by the supreme court and voted for by popular election twice, simply by defaulting on government debt. Law of the land and budget are two entirely separate issues. There is no connection.
Obamacare is already paid for, it is part of the budget. Repealing it now, ignoring that this is impossible, would save 0 dollars.
Obamacare will save this country billions upon billions over the next decade. Privatized healthcare was 16% of our entire GDP. The regulations this act puts in place and the revenue it raises through more people paying into a more affordable and more efficient system will significantly reduce the percent of GDP we spend on healthcare while at the same time improving care.
We know this because all economic studies not put out by right wing groups show this to be the case again and again, and even in the short time some parts of it have been implemented, for the first time in the history of this country the overall cost of healthcare has been dropping. This has never happened, it's always gone up even immediately after the biggest recession since the Great Depression, healthcare monopolies and pharmaceuticals still continued to raise prices.
It's hard to argue that this is a coincidence.
But even if you want to ignore all non-partisan studies and the first actual decrease in healthcare costs in history,
Just look at the cost of healthcare for the U.S. compared to every country in the world, and then compare the level of care.
We have been paying almost double for the 24th ranked healthcare in the world for decades.
While countries with similar plans to Obamacare pay a fraction of the cost and get better healthcare.
If you take my entire quote in context then you see that even for the sociopath it is still a negative thing, I see how you could make that mistake. Let me know if you need further explanation however and I'll explain it.
However I am a bit worried as to why you would bring up this subject if it were not to disprove absolutes.
My assumption was that truth is in the eye of the beholder was your argument against absolutes.
If that assumption is incorrect what precisely is your point within the context of the debate?
"I think therefore I am." -- This quote by Descartes is an absolute truth. But first your question is flawed.
The burden of proof for non-existence is on the one making this claim. For example borrowing from a common theological fallacy, "Oh yeah, prove god doesn't exist." The answer is no, you must prove he/she does exist, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Okay, that aside, the quote is not just a bumper sticker, it's an absolute truth with a long logical argument which shows it as one.
Put as simply as possible, that you are perceiving things around you, whether you are right or wrong about those things you perceive,
that you perceive proves to yourself that you exist. You cannot prove I exist and I cannot prove that you exist, but we each (presumably unless you are a robot) can prove to ourselves we exist.
Existence is an absolute truth therefore. Even if the whole universe around you is an illusion, even if that should be so, you know beyond any doubt there is some sort of existence.
Again, you're not getting the core concept. You're missing something. Think on it for a while instead of replying with the first cliche that pops in your head.
In lost wages, lost tax dollars, lost tourist dollars, and not yet counting any increases in interests rates due to any downgrade in our financial rating,
Shutting down the government has cost collectively about 24 Billion dollars. I just find it fascinating that this is cause for celebration for that 10% Tea Party, while those exact same people will cry bloody murder over 3 billion dollars in farming subsidies. Not that I think all farm subsidies are good, some are almost as dumb as oil subsidies, but it's just a mind-boggling stance to take.
Another comparison may be that Food Stamps in an entire year cost 80 Billion. That's 364 days. 14 days of government shutdown costs 24 Billion, but 24 Billion is great for that cause, feeding children who through no fault of their own were born into poverty for 364 days is bad though.
Only for a sociopath, and only for them if they get away with it, and only when viewed within the context of the act and not within the context of their brain condition.
There are very few actual sociopaths even among rapists, damaged people yes, but not true sociopaths as in that part of their brain does not work.
So no, even for the person committing the rape, even in that moment, it is not good for the one committing the rape.
But all of that is a singular example and even if your example could be proven true, it would not prove the overall ideal that absolutes do not exist.
Absolutes exist. Whether we have the tools to understand what those absolutes are is debatable, but their existence cannot be debated.
You're missing the point.
It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong about something which you think may or may not be an absolute, for there to be existence at all, somethings must be absolutes.
The only way for absolutes to not exist is if there is not existence.
There is existence so absolutes must exist.
To clarify I'm agreeing with you, but I have to do this:
I don't really think it contributes to violence.
So far so good.
It all depends on the game that you play and who the person is playing it.
So if it depends on factors, regardless of what those factors are, then you are contradicting your opening statement. Your opening statement would be. "Yes, for some people it does and these are the factors."
I know I have play violent video games but I am not a violent person.
And this would be a descent example (despite that singular experiences are generally not a great supporting argument for any type of broad point). If you were to continue with "But for some with violent tendencies violent video games may contribute to acting out on those impulses."
This actually would have been and excellently stated argument on <--------- That side.
Had that been the case I'd have argued that simply:
1. I don't believe that media is a trigger for violence, but that violent people will become violent eventually based on one thing or another. Violent Amish would become so without video games, they may then in retrospect (or those around them may in retrospect) come up with some reasoning behind it, but I believe it would not change the end result.
2. Should it be the case that violence in any media truly did contribute to increased violence (I completely accept that as a possibility and should proof be provided I'd be forced to change my stance there) I still do not feel that a character flaw in some is reason enough to deprive a vast majority in this case.
"nothing is absolute"
Is an absolute.
Absolutes not existing is self-contradictory. Self-contradictory things cannot exist (even with a time machine).
This is one of the few examples of an argument which can be proven beyond any doubt to be incorrect. It is hard to come up with an argument like that, so congrats on that.
No, two is not a concept created by man, it is a descriptive term to define a thing which exists. The number 2 exists, we name it 2, we did not create 2. If the universe were void of any type of intelligent life at all 2 would still exist.
Your argument is that you can call numbers different things, which is fine. There is no reason we could not call "2" "hippopotamus"
Okay Johnny, show us how you count to 5
1, hippopotamus, 3, 4, 5
Yay, you did it! claps all around
but it still represents a real thing that exists.
Now, could humans be wrong about things like 2?
Sure. As long as some thing is not self-defined and does not create any self-contradictions, there is a chance.
But to what extent we allow those things to cloud debate matters.
If you are arguing something as basic as whether or not 2 exists (not you personally I understand you are just making a point), there really is not reason to debate anything at all. All things are dependent on point of view and therefore nothing ever anywhere can ever be defined no matter the argument.
It's an interesting brain exercise to consider concepts like this,
A bit useless in debate though,
And when applied to social interactions, public policies, humans in general, it's a recipe for disaster.
I'm a Progressive Liberal for the most part so it's pretty clear to me that 24>3. But maybe some Conservative Tea Party type can explain how in fact no 3>24.
(er, sorry... > means greater than. < means less than. They teach you that in one of those liberal schools what with the book lernin's and calclaters)
The expectations is of increased employment via bureaucracy and steady inflation. Historically that has never actually happened (Bubble after bubble.)
It has nothing to do with increased employment at all. It is about better care for a better price, which would decrease inflation not increase it. I'm not sure what you are comparing the ACA to, but if you are comparing it to similar social programs across the globe, or social programs in the U.S. currently, none have ever caused a single bubble of any sort ever. You are confusing a generalized (and quite faulty I'd argue) theory that ALL and ANY government automatically no matter what is more expensive and less efficient than private services doing the exact same thing. That's not true at all anyway, but even if that is your assumption here, it is not a fair comparison because private insurance is still available. If you have private insurance the ONLY difference is that your premiums will go down because more people will be paying in and fewer people will be showing up to the emergency room with no insurance whatsoever.
Obamacare isn't a new water-heater that has been verified by reputable consumer advocates. It is not voluntary (referencing towards your mortgage idea, which comes with a non-coerced contract and agreed upon ramifications. If the contract gives full rights of the water-heater to the bank that owns the house, the owner is liable if they give up mortgage payments for that reason. paying for Obamacare is not the same thing in anyway possible. you basically made a terrible analogy...)
Obamacare has been verified by reputable consumers in Massachusetts and in every other first world country on the globe. All similar programs have provided better care for less money, every single one. There has never in the history of the world been any instance of a privatized system being less expensive or offering better care.
Again, you are operating under the wrong assumption that all government programs are less efficient than any private program. It's a theory, and one which has been shown to be untrue time and time again. You treat it like proven fact, but it is simply incorrect. The underlying very core of this entire view of public vs private is fundamentally flawed. Your theory is wrong when put into practice in the real world.
That said the water heater analogy is perfect. Congress based on something already bought, paid for, voted for twice, and upheld in the Supreme Court, decided they wanted to shutdown the entire government.
fighting back against government takeover.
Not a government takeover. There has been and will be no government takeover.
The shutdown is bullshit because it will eventually end and not that much money will have been saved.
It is bullshit, but 0 money is saved. I'm not sure where you heard any money would be saved. It cost 24 Billion. Shutting down the government, refusing a range of services, putting people out of work cost more money than had they kept all of that stuff open and all of those people employed.
It cost 24 Billion dollars and 300,000 to 800,000 thousand people weren't able to work for 2 weeks, which is a big deal for like 95% of families. Our credit rating was hurt despite just barely enough republicans not committing suicide at the last second, and that may well still have lingering affects on borrowing rates for new businesses, buying a home, etc.
Unless you are squatting on a piece of property out in the woods with no schools, roads, or commerce of any type within a hundred miles of you, it was something of a deal. If you actually cared about deficit and were not just a far right misguided mouthpiece, this would have been a huge deal.
By leaders, let's be clear, the tea party.
Basically they said "Since you bought this new more efficient water heater that is going to save us thousands over the lifetime of this home, but it cost 20% more than the junk water heater we have now that is leaking money worse than it's leaking water... WE'RE NOT PAYING OUR MORTGAGE ANYMORE!"
That's what happened.
Our debt is less than our GDP. Of all of the civilized countries on earth, as a percent the U.S. has among the lowest debts. Bad credit is more harmful both long term and short term. It's just a big scary number some politicians use to push through stupid cuts and stir fear among their followers.
If a specific church doesn't meet the standard of a charitable non-profit yes, so I imagine yes, the vast majority of religions should be paying taxes. They for the most part are not harmless organization there for the well-being of humanity, most are into the business of manipulating people to stir up emotion to make money.
You are seriously saying that 9/11 is Bush's fault? Wow, I was under the impression that it was Osama's fault. But hey he's not a republican so lets not blame him. Every time people like you say things like that Osama wins.
I know, reading comprehension is bitch. Ignoring the memo that said Osama was determined to attack was Bush's fault.
"We could very well have Universal Healthcare by now."
And that would be a good thing? No.
I'm not sure how entrenched in right wing media you are, but if you pull your head out of that smelly ass for a moment you can look at every country with similar systems to the one adopted, and every country without. Those with a for-profit health system pay more for worse care. Those with a form of Universal Healthcare pay less money for better care. Those are just the facts. It works better.
"The entire world would not think we're a bunch of arrogant assholes."
False, I hate when people say that. It is so untrue. And I'm not talking about the world wide Obama mania, That is love for him not America. Which I find very strange. Maybe it's because he's not white.
Iraq was an arrogant asshole move. We had inspectors from around the world telling us there were no WMDs but we ignored it because they aren't american. The war wasn't even 1/3 of the way over and Bush flew onto a battleship in a fucking halloween costume talking about victory. There was no exit plan, there was no strategy for helping the country after we ripped it apart, we went in there, took a shit, and didn't clean it up... and there was not even a reason to be there to start with.
But that's only part of it. The other part is the flag waving, freedom fries, all of that bullshit from people on the right almost entirely who equate patriotism with hatred for stuff not like them. All muslims are terrorists--well so what 1/3 of the earth's population is a terrorist? If you don't call it Christmas you hate america. WTF does christmas have to do with any free country on earth? If you think science is a good idea your the stupid one. If you think a cleaner more pleasant environment would be a good thing you're a pussy. If you think gay people should have the exact same constitutional rights as everyone else you must be a fag sinner god-hater and of course being a fag sinner means you are unamerican.
So yeah, Bush and the right wing did, have in the past even before then, and the tiny tea party faction is doing so again, leading america down paths which appear to all sane outsiders as arrogant assholes, and usually stupid arrogant assholes.
There are about 10^24 stars in the Universe.... or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars
(By comparison there are only 10^23 grains of sand on planet earth).
Even if the chances of all of the conditions to support life being present is like a one in a million trillion,
that would mean billions upon billions of extraterrestrials are out there.
I'll bet the chances are a whole lot better that a planet can support some kind of life, just seems logical. It's not that hard to support life, life's resilient.
Has one of them found this drop of water in the ocean?
No, probably not. Might never. Which is why we should quit fucking around, invest in some Star Trek shit, and find them.
If still in high school, two year difference. Once graduated from high school, only others who have graduated from high school.
I have spoken. So it shall be.
Really, it's hard to draw a hard line because situations vary so much and mindset at that age can range from damn-near-adult to quite childish.
What I do know is a high school kid being labeled, for life, a sexual predator because he/she had consensual sex with a Junior they took to prom is utterly bogus, but at the same time, a Senior having sex with a Freshman say, may indicate predatory behavior.
So a line should be drawn somewhere, and judges should use some critical thinking in sentencing. I think my suggestion is a good start.
These goods and services are not created, they are simply transferred to from private funds to so called public funds. This is what taxation is, the expropriation of property to the state.
That is not true at all. A road, a school, a military are all real things. Your theory demands that you pretend these real things are fake. Which is one of the many basic and huge problems with this theory.
How does one earn it if it was never their money to begin with? It is not their money because how they obtained it was through violence and coercion rather than voluntary exchange.
I've not been held up by a postal worker or anyone paving a road, or by a teacher. This is just demonization of a group of people providing a service.
No money is "their" money until it is earned, but upon being earned it is then their money. You can argue that fact until you are blue in the face, but you will not win that argument.
In reality, government simply has NO FUNDS without private businesses, WHO PRODUCE goods and services without expropriation and voluntary exchange. Private business is the reason for the increase in the standard of living, not government. Government only decreases the standard of living.
And private business cannot prosper without a government to allow them to. It is a symbiotic relationship in between the two.
Wow, you are the dumbest MOFO on this site.
At this point its pretty evident I'm one of the smartest. And extremely evident that you are one of the least equipped to have any sort of debate outside of your very narrow and incorrect Libertarian economic theories. I will admit you have the weird and horribly flawed extreme Libertarian economic talking points memorized well, but really, you are horrible whenever you need to go outside of that narrow area.
So are we done? Because I have a lot of mama jokes too.
Suggesting McDonald's or Google build roads. Seriously, not sure if you know this, but PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES ALREADY BUILD ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES, it is merely funded by government.
You were the one suggesting they build roads. I suggest government should continue to, well to fund the building of roads by private companies as you point out (thought that went without saying, but okay).
The improvement would be competition in the financial and engineering of roads using their own funds. This would be investment because competing companies would striving for the best road surface and traffic. Government is not investment, it is spending.
Great, they should compete for who can build the best, safest, most efficient roads. Who's going to pay them though?
I am sure that the Romans said the same exact thing with regards to their military. Central planners always make claims that are unprovable especially when there is no tangible way to measure. This great central planning can start by counting the bodies of unconstitutional wars and drone strikes.
Meh, I see nothing inherently less constitutional about drone strikes than say, sending in a bunch of marines on foot. Same results, except maybe less dead marines. Whether the attack is constitutional you may have a point, but that's something which has been going on for decades now (wars without declaration of war, etc, though I think we did declare war in this case, but not in Pakistan if that is the point, but against Al-Quada... you see how it can get fuzzy).
Broad assertions of constitutionality aside, and vague innuendos about Romans aside, what point precisely are you trying to make? I mean, pretty speech but what's your point? Like do you feel the Romans didn't really have the best plumbing around for the time, that that centrally planned marvel was a lie? Be precise.
What? Are you serious? Health care costs are not going down since parts of the plan have been implemented. Costs
The Blaze is a joke. Like all of your sources.
Here are the real numbers. Actual numbers. http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/29/news/
The problem with claiming that 100 free market health care system is horrible at providing healthcare and cost way more is an false assertion because the system has never been free market, it is been intervened by the government since day ONE.
The only government intervention in healthcare has been failed attempts at breaking up monopolies in the industry and trying to get drug companies to stop selling drugs that kill as many people as they help. Government has done very little in the way of overseeing the health industry, and that has been part of the problem. The fact is, the fact now you can look it up, the more free market the healthcare system, the more it costs and the less effective it is, the closer it is to a single-payer government run system, the less it costs and the more effective it is.
That's just a fact. You can make all of the excuses for why that is, but that's the fact.
Well yeah, it's not a "ra-ra" for Christians, its a manipulation of Christians, which is what I'm pointing out.
He gives no directions there as to how a Christian should or should not act, nothing at all pertaining to any differences there may or may not be between being "religious" vs. "Christ-like" as you put it, just a perpetuation of current beliefs and a reminder that if they do not continue to believe hell or whatever awaits.
If you were "christ-like" or "zen" or something I suppose you might interpret that passage as meaning that Christians should quit caring what non-christians believe because, really in the end how you act is more important. But that would be ignoring contradictions in the passage itself and would be quite a stretch. Plus it would not be Christianity, so had it ever said that it would have been changed upon translation.
but I'd rather talk about the bullshit remark really, because that's by far the most important part, and what follows in your reply.
Do you deny that if a hell and a heaven existed, and that if there were an all powerful being, that should that all powerful being judge us mere pathetic mortals based on whether we believe this or that story which we have no proof of, over say, how you treat your neighbor, that it would not be bullshit?
What if you had a co-worker who was lazy, stole from the company, didn't flush the toilet after use, and treated other customers and co-workers like crap. And you have been working for the company for as decade, perfect attendance, never late, almost always give 100%, nice to everyone, and are frankly better at the job. But it's time for a promotion and the lazy, rude, mean bastard gets promoted and the boss says it's because he believes in Big Foot and you don't and the boss happens to be one of those Big Foot enthusiasts?
That is the exact god described by Christians.
You'd not worship that boss. You'd say "this is bullshit."
The assumption here is one of the various Judeo-Christian religions is magically somehow correct right?
Which means there would be a vengeful god who judges based on belief instead of action and who allows all sorts of evils to befall innocent small mortals of all sorts.
In which case I'd not want to be close to this god.
Naturally depending on the severity of not being in heaven, it may be difficult to withstand the evil tortures this tyrant god has devised,
but if within reason, I'd choose not to go.