CreateDebate


Debate Info

60
30
Worthy of emulation Worthy of condemnation
Debate Score:90
Arguments:69
Total Votes:107
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Worthy of emulation (34)
 
 Worthy of condemnation (25)

Debate Creator

HighFalutin(3192) pic



Class Warfare, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

I'll say it again: Class Warfare, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

The talking heads on the left are constantly demonizing successful people in an effort to stir up the resentment and envy of their minions, but what good is accomplished by hating successful and accomplished folks? Aren't successful people worthy of emulation, rather than condemnation? Perhaps class warfare assuages that natural tendency in some people (liberals) to hate those who have because they have not? I just don't think it's a philosophy that will serve them well in life.

So, which is it with you? Do you consider them worthy of emulation, or worthy of condemnation

Worthy of emulation

Side Score: 60
VS.

Worthy of condemnation

Side Score: 30

I would rather pattern my life after winners than losers. Sadly many on the left are hellbent on taking them down.

Side: Worthy of emulation
3 points

Once you attempt to artificially restrict the degree of success and/or individual earnings you are on the slippery slope to a communist ideology. In a free capitalist society, as in places of education, the top achievers will excel whilst the dummies lumber along the bottom and most others will be somewhere in between. It is best to let ''the cream rise'' and have the ''inbetweenies'' trying to emulate the achievements of the successful. Resentment and the era of political correctness is the reason for life's losers saying, what amounts to no more than;-, how dare you be so successful, you high achieving b'tard, what about us lazy dummies? A non academic can achieve massive success if he/she works hard enough, takes business risks and has business acumen. It's only the idle, non achieving dummies who cry cheat when they see they've been left behind. Making the strong weaker doesn't make the weak stronger.

Side: Worthy of emulation

That is spot on! Liberals know how to tap into that vein of resentment and exploit it to the max. Ole Bernie Sanders is blaming all those evil billionaires for the plight of the under achievers and his minion eat it up.

Side: Worthy of emulation
3 points

Firstly, who decides at what level wealth becomes excessive? People have different ideas as to what determines success. Academics can construct sentences using unnecessarily large words and have their heads bulging with knowledge. This undoubtedly is satisfying and can be regarded as a form of success and intellectual prosperity. Good on them. I have mixed sentiments about such types, a feeling of admiration for their good brains and desire for knowledge, but at the same time hold a certain contempt for their apparent pretentiousness. Those with an insatiable hunger for ever more wealth will spend their lives trying to be;- 'exceedingly richer than thou''. Wealth is relative and those who are well heeled always compare themselves with others who are wealthier. Drive a jaguar and you look at the guy in his Rolls Royce. Own a speed boat and you see the guy in the ocean going cabin cruiser. Just as the academic strives to gain more knowledge, so the billionaire aspires to become ever wealthier. While all this is going on the idler arises from his hammock around lunch time, checks the mail for his benefit's cheque, has a good scratch, decides that the world is ''ill divided'' and then, just before retiring for the rest of the day,screams that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and, calls for the redistribution of wealth. If all the dosh in the world was amassed in one place, ( figuratively speaking) and divided equally, soon afterwards most of the wealthy would be rolling in it again and the idlers would be bellowing on about the injustice of it all. Let everyone follow their heart's desire and try not to be judgmental.

Side: Worthy of emulation
2 points

The Left always talks a big game about the income disparity but when it comes to actually making it better, they refuse to do the things necessary to make it happen.

Remember when manufacturing was not taxed to death and those better paying jobs were here in America? Those on the Left refuse to cut coporte tax rates to entice those jobs back to ths country.

How many times has the Left raised taxes on the wealthy but kept the money to themseves. I never saw a large tax cut to the middle class from Democrats. There are always strings attached such as targeted tax cuts for certain people who do what we want them to do.

Class warfare is done purely to get the votes of low end voters and those closet Socialists on the Left.

Side: Worthy of emulation

I, too, have noticed how the left plays the class warfare card early and often just to rile up and foment resentment and envy- a staple of liberalism. It works beautifully, too. I'm surprised their minions haven't caught on.

Side: Worthy of emulation
AveSatanas(4425) Disputed
2 points

"Remember when manufacturing was not taxed to death and those better paying jobs were here in America? Those on the Left refuse to cut coporte tax rates to entice those jobs back to ths country"

ERRRRRT. Wrong. The right pushed for legislation that made it easier for corporations to send labour over seas where its cheaper to manufacture. The couldve put up barriers to this and kept work here dispite that but they chose not to. The TPP is championed by the right and would continue to make outsourcing easy and profitable.

Also under Bill Clinton's administration 22.5 million jobs were created (92% were private sector), the most of any presidency ever. soo....

"How many times has the Left raised taxes on the wealthy but kept the money to themseves."

What does that even mean "kept the money to themselves"? What the fuck does that even mean? You have evidence of democrats embezzling money? You gonna go to the authorities with that info or is it just more shit you pull out your ass?

"I never saw a large tax cut to the middle class from Democrats."

You dont have to cut taxes to fix the fucking problem. Again under clinton the real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999. Poverty also declined from around 15% to 11.5%. The middle class grew DESPITE not cutting taxes. But again thats the right wing mentality. One size fits all: Cut cut cut cut cut. Even when the tax rate isnt the problem.

"There are always strings attached such as targeted tax cuts for certain people who do what we want them to do."

Liiiike?

But that never happens when republicans are in office constantly cutting taxes for the richest corporations who just so happen to be their top donors. For instance in congress 2 congressman managed to rally against and shut down a bill that would expand the FDA to allow it to better manage the testing of dietary supplements that kill thousands of americans annually. Wierd how those two republican's top donors were all pharmaceutical industries and drug companies.

National Economic Council, June 26, 2000

Bureau of Labor Statistics

National Economic Council, June 2000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00004207

"Class warfare is done purely to get the votes of low end voters and those closet Socialists on the Left."

"The left helps the poor so the poor vote for them"

well no shit. Why would they vote for your stupid ass who wants to keep them poor by denying them any means of bettering their situation? If the left does it just to get their votes then they kinda deserve those votes.

Side: Worthy of condemnation
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
2 points

How many tmes must i hear the same ludicrous argument that Democrats know how to create a great economy because the one and only president who did (Bill Clinton).

But as ALWAYS you leave out the part where the GOP was in control of the Senate and the House and forced him to come to the middle and sign legislation sponsered by the GOP that helped our economy grow and balance our budget deficit. I will give Clinton credit for coming to the middle where today's extremist democrats refuse to compromise. It was also the computer boom spurring on the good economy.

If you listen to the news, most politicians(democrat & republican) agree that cutting the corporate tax will help bring jobs backto the US. It's common sense. We have the highest coporate tax rate in the world! Do your usual to deny it, you make yourself look the fool.

When I said they keep the money to themselves, I meant Big Government kept the money to dole out to their favorite voting blocks.

When I listen to ideologs like you spewing the same old tired rhetoric of how the GOP is the prty that help the rich, I laugh when I use my brin and look at seven yers of Liberal control where income disparity is the worst ever, with the highest welfare roles and poverty rates. Yeh, these Liberal democrats relly now how to fix our problems. NO THEY CREATE THE PROBLEMS as we have witnessed first hand.

Now go and play back how Bill Clinton resided over a good economy. Keep branwashing yourself.

Obamacare is the largest tax increase on the middle class in my lifetime and is a big part of the problem with our dead economy. We have had no inftion for seven years and should not need for our incomes to go up if it were not for the constant tax increases and fees from the Left to pander to their low income voting block.

The Left wants a sociaist society where work effort means nothing. They want to redistribute our money to their voting blocks, thereby creating a dependent electorate where hard work gets you nothing. Can you morons ever get it? IT DOES NOT WORK!

Side: Worthy of emulation
Sitar(3682) Disputed
-1 points

At least liberals care. Conservatives don't. .

Side: Worthy of condemnation
2 points

The only thing liberals care about is your vote and free stuff. They could care less about you, no matter what they say.

Side: Worthy of emulation
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
2 points

I just explained how Liberals DO NOT CARE! They care about the low income vote. That's it!

Side: Worthy of emulation
Atrag(5550) Disputed
1 point

Yeah the downvoting proves my point. All you can do is make bigoted comments about conservatives.

Side: Worthy of emulation
1 point

Worthy of emulation, but also needing forcible moderation. As an egoist I respect the aptitudes of exceptional individuals but also prefer to live in a stable economy because it benefits me more, and excessive wealth disparity undermines the latter.

Side: Worthy of emulation
HighFalutin(3192) Clarified
2 points

How does "excessive" wealth undermine the any one? If not for them being wealthy it would have been you?

Side: Worthy of emulation
Jace(5050) Clarified
1 point

I never said excessive wealth undermines anyone. I said that an excessive wealth disparity undermines the stability of the economy, to the detriment of most people (myself included).

Side: Worthy of emulation
Jace(5050) Clarified
1 point

Additionally, there is nothing inherently successful about being wealthy. It depends entirely upon your metric: wealth, power, happiness, free time, etc.

Side: Worthy of emulation

I dont emulate those who exploit the labour of poor people across the globe and continue to suck dry the american people, tilting the economy ever farther in their favor. I dont emulate those who abuse the very system that allowed them to get rich and then stash their wealth over seas in tax havens to that they dont have to return anything back to said system and the less fortunate than they. I dont emulate those who funnel billions into our democracy, contorting it into twisted oligarchy whos efforts drift ever farther from the will of the american people.

This kind of behavior ought to be opposed. Theres nothing wrong with being rich, but the economy is for ALL people.

Side: Worthy of condemnation

The talking heads on the left are constantly demonizing successful people in an effort to stir up the resentment and envy of their minions.

And the talking heads on the right are constantly demonizing the poor in an effort to stir up the resentment of their "minions".

But, what good is accomplished by hating successful and accomplished folks?

What good is accomplished by hating poor, disadvantaged people?

Aren't successful people worthy of emulation, rather than condemnation?

Aren't the poor worthy of empathy, rather than condemnation?

Perhaps class warfare assuages that natural tendency in some people (liberals) to hate those who have because they have not?

Perhaps class warfare assuages that natural tendency in some people (Conservatives) to have a group they can look down upon?

I just don't think it's a philosophy that will serve them well in life.

I just don't think it's a philosophy that will serve them well in life.

So, which is it with you? Do you consider them worthy of emulation, or worthy of condemnation

Clearly both are worthy of condemnation, and clearly not everyone (from both sides) employs these types of tactics.

Seriously dude, enough of the partisan rhetoric. It serves no constructive purpose, at all.

Side: Worthy of condemnation
2 points

The copy and paste man strikes again. You did not answer the question; you only parroted what was written. When you are capable of original thought, please post it for all to see.

Side: Worthy of emulation
2 points

Ironically, I did answer the question: "Clearly both are worthy of condemnation, and clearly not everyone (from both sides) employs these types of tactics".

Not only did you miss the point, you also didn't bother to read the comment before posting.

Are you capable of a response that does not include either insults or generalizations?

Side: Worthy of condemnation
medicfrogs(30) Disputed
2 points

Quite to the contrary, partisan rhetoric maintains balance.

Healthy debates from opposing viewpoints should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Side: Worthy of emulation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Partisan rhetoric doesn't lead to healthy debates.

Side: Worthy of condemnation
GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Partisan rhetoric runs counter to health debates. Partisan rhetoric is simply spouting off talking points and platitudes, and said partisanship tends to preclude any meaningful understanding of opposing view points.

It is because I agree with you regarding the need for health debates that I bemoan partisan rhetoric so much.

Side: Worthy of emulation

I'll say it again: Class Warfare, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

Correct, that is what Socialism is for.

The talking heads on the left are constantly demonizing successful people in an effort to stir up the resentment and envy of their minions.

Oh wow, hypocriticalness right off the bat. The very fact you called us poor people "minions" (because I myself am quite poor) is demonizing the poor.

But, what good is accomplished by hating successful and accomplished folks?

What good comes from calling the poor minions? Or thinking we all live off of welfare and sit around and never work?

Aren't successful people worthy of emulation, rather than condemnation?

Aren't the poor, who cannot have a future if capitalism stays worthy of emulation?

Perhaps class warfare assuages that natural tendency in some people (liberals) to hate those who have because they have not? I just don't think it's a philosophy that will serve them well in life.

Perhaps the philosophy of the right is to that

1. All of the poor wants to live off of welfare

2. All of the poor can somehow magically make money appear

3. All of the poor are lazy and never work.

So, which is it with you? Do you consider them worthy of emulation, or worthy of condemnation*

Neither, each class should be equal in everything. Hell, there should never be class at all.

Side: Worthy of condemnation
medicfrogs(30) Clarified
2 points

You have taken the word "minions" and applied it in a context not originally intended by the author. The author's sentence clearly shows that he/she feels that the left is actually exploiting the poor as their "minions" for which they cater their agenda to retain votes.

How can the poor never have a future in capitalism? Capitalism is the very thing that actually makes wealthy people out of poor people. Socialism is what keeps everyone equally poor. The genesis of socialism, best described by conservative Ben Shapiro, is that it is actually selfish. The mentality of "I am breathing, therefore I deserve." He also points of that capitalism is inherently selfless, because it is the mentality of "if I don't provide something useful to society, I starve."

The right does not demonize the poor, but rather they demonize the very things that keep the poor...poor. The current system of welfare is a great example. It was meant to be a transitional source of sustenance, while one sought out other opportunities, but it has turned into a career.

Side: Worthy of emulation
2 points

The genesis of socialism, best described by conservative Ben Shapiro, is that it is actually selfish. The mentality of "I am breathing, therefore I deserve." He also points of that capitalism is inherently selfless, because it is the mentality of "if I don't provide something useful to society, I starve."

The problem that you and Ben Shapiro seem to have is that people who are working are still suffering. The capitalist mentality is "I am working, therefore I deserve" and that is failing. The actual capitalist mentality is "if I provided something useful to society I am entitled to more than just avoid starvation." It is not selfless. It is a system that depends on selfishness. Both systems require some kind of motivation. The capitalist motivation is that you should take everything you can get, and relies on the argument that Socialism will not be able to work because people won't have anything to work for.

Side: Worthy of condemnation
0 points

1. The left does not refer to the poor as minions. Just because the poor tends to vote for the left because they can give them a future does not mean that we are their "minions". Conservatives refer to the poor as the minions of the left.

2. Most poor people can never have a future is for the following reasons if capitalism stays.

~Without healthcare if they are injured, they are screwed.

Socialism: Healthcare to all (including the wealthy).

~They can scarcely go to college due to their lack of money.

Socialism: Free education to all (including the wealthy).

~If they are disabled, chances are they will have trouble finding a job.

Socialism: Disability and Unemployment tax.

Do you read your own posts?

Side: Worthy of emulation
1 point

Who said minion equates to poor? There are plenty of wealthy people who subscribe to liberalism and they are minions, too

The rest of your screed is non responsive to the post's questions.

PS - You don't think we should have class? Do you prefer uncouthness instead? Or perhaps you would rather do away with schools and universities?

Side: Worthy of emulation
TheCapConKid(293) Clarified
0 points

To call anyone a minion is rude. We might as well call you a minion of the right in that case.

I meat social class. We should all be equal and no one be considered above the other.

Side: Worthy of emulation