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.
Korea soon, Iran much later. North Korea has among the highest starvation rate of any other country. This isn't because the country is the poorest, it's because that psychopath Kim Jong Il starves his people intentionally for someone psychopathic reason.
The only difference between him and Hitler in essence is that Kim hasn't done as much as Hitler did... yet.
I really don't support war and death, but that man is evil. It's only a matter of time before he snaps and tries something as crazy as attempting to conquer all of Asia.
We WAITED before attacking Hitler. We waited until he had already killed innocent people and begun trying to conquer all of Europe. I believe in all honesty that invading North Korea and dethroning the Il Dynasty is for the greater good.
ONLY if it is not done recklessly and idiotically though! We lost too many men and killed too many innocent people when dethroning Saddam Hussein! We need to avoid that mistake again and do it right with North Korea.
He does a lot more then just that to his people, but I'm glad I could be informative. I believe in stopping suffering, and while war is a horrendously hypocritical stance on ending suffering, sometimes you have to fight against evil... like with WWII. People like to think that Hitler was the last of this ilk, of his mindset, that invading Iraq was a horrible mistake and nothing good came of it... but you know, we killed someone evil. Justice is what matters when suffering is rampant. I do not believe in sitting around doing nothing in the face of injustice. We like doing diplomatic things over violent things nowadays, but you can't reason with psychopaths... you can't reason with Hitler.
Violence begets violence.
But sometimes, justice is worth it.
Getting involved in WWII just because the Japanese attacked us was a mistake. We should have gotten involved in WWII because Hitler was killing millions of people! The same should be said in relation to North Korea. Should we sit on our asses until they make war with China or South Korea? Sure... but sit on our asses STILL until they attack US? NO.
From a strategic stand point, North Korea posses an enormous threat to the world. ( I will not comment on Iran because I have not made up my mind on it yet). Its leader is unpredictable, with no thought on what the consequences of up keeping the brutally deprived regime. His people starve and know of nothing beyond their country, and yet Il likes James Bond movies and exotic cars. This man must be removed from power at all costs, Korea is a very populous nation whose hunger will only get worse.
I think you'll find one of the greatest threats to world peace right now is Isreal, and the US action in pakistan, pakistan is at bioling piont, and the US unmaned drones that keep bombing them are providing fuel to a fire that is already bruing quite brightly, as for Isreal, they are unwilling to end the conflict legally based on the June 1967 borders, and the US backes them fully in their imperial conquest of palestian land, if they choose to attack Lebannon as they have done in the past, and it is my belif they will because they have been beaten twice by the Hezbullah, they could easily start WW3, Hezbullah are ready for any attack and will respond in kind unlike previous confrontations down thorugh the years where isreal would slaughter and destroy and get away with it, this time they will have to go much further as they are dealing with a very sophisticated, hardened and robust fighting force equipped with Iranian weapons, if hezbullah is being systematically destroyed Iran will come to their aid as they will know their heads are next on the chopping block, i dont need to explain how this could easily spiral out of control, i have no doubt Isreal would nuke Iran in such a conflict as it would be the only sure way to victory, at which piont the entire muslim world would be at war, that includes pakistan, then others would get suked into it, it isnt completely crazy to suggest it could lead to WW3, and given that Russia and China would probably team up against the US i think mutually assured destruction on all sides could follow. North Korea is not the threat you perceieve them to be, this does not reflect world public opinion, Iran is not a threat, they are the ones being threatened. I dont even know where to begin on this topic but i think ive written enough.
"I think you'll find one of the greatest threats to world peace right now is Isreal, and the US action in pakistan, pakistan is at bioling piont, and the US unmaned drones that keep bombing them are providing fuel to a fire that is already bruing quite brightly"
I agree.
"as for Isreal, they are unwilling to end the conflict legally based on the June 1967 borders, and the US backes them fully in their imperial conquest of palestian land, if they choose to attack Lebannon as they have done in the past, and it is my belif they will because they have been beaten twice by the Hezbullah, they could easily start WW3"
I agree.
" i dont need to explain how this could easily spiral out of control, i have no doubt Isreal would nuke Iran in such a conflict as it would be the only sure way to victory"
I agree.
"and given that Russia and China would probably team up against the US"
That I don't agree with, at least not yet.
"North Korea is not the threat you perceieve them to be, this does not reflect world public opinion"
I am anti North Korea more on the basis of the state of the people, i think they are too scared to actually confront us.
"Iran is not a threat, they are the ones being threatened"
I agree.
"I dont even know where to begin on this topic but i think ive written enough"
Unless you feel like me continual agreeing with you except on certain things yeah I think you have put more then enough lol.
Im abolsutely amazed that you agreed with almost everything i wrote, and you agreed with everything i am most certain of, sorry bout that, i suppose theres not much piont in continuing as were more or less in complete agreement.
Okay... Invasion? That word just creates something down the spine that causes one to overlook the reasons and commit the kind of things that have been committed in places of invasions. All that an invasion is doing is creating more death, terrorists, hatred and why... Is an Invasion the only Goddamn option?! Nobody even knows half the things that really go on there because of the corrupt media. We cannot support something so cruel with out knowing the obvious why? That is either hidden or manipulated!
I have to say i couldn't agree more, these occurences are so rarely questioned by the people, take Libya, that kind of snuck up out of nowhere, i mean one minute were watching civil unrest in the country the next minute the US, France and Britain are bombing the place, this kind of unhinged needs to be held accountable.
There are a lot of things people just tend to ignore. Information is biased when it reaches the masses. The other side of the story is almost always unknown. There is just too much misuse of power. And every other negative impact the World is facing is because of this.
I think we should let Iran be, but what about North Korea?What about the people who starve and swim in deprivation? Never mind the fact that never in history has there been such an insult to the Libertarian viewpoint
It is a insult to the libertarian viewpoint with North Korea's oppressive government, but it is also the libertarian viewpoint particularly in foreign affairs as isolationist.
What about the people in Bahrain being slaughtered, or Yemen, this isn't even being reported anymore but you can be sure it is ongoing, what about the people living under authoritarian rule in Saudia Arabia, what about the Palestian's lving in Gaza currently starving and being deprived of their basic human rights by an internationally recognised illegal blockade, i understand this opinion of yours but i cannot support an invasion, the US intervenes when it suits their strategic aims to do so, they don't care about about civilians, there is really very little evidence to suggest this, and a hell of alot of evidence to support it that im not even going to get into. I cannot and will not condone an invasion that is gauranteed to produce more carnage and destruction and harm than is already taking place.
Look at Iraq, the claim was that the invasion would help the Iraqi people, well, lets look at the facts have the Iraqi people been helped, their country and infrastructure was one of the most developed in the middle east prior to gulf 1, now the country lies in ruins, they have had to endure unending terror from both the US and Britain and Islamic extremists, the war has caused the deaths of 1.2 million Iraqis, think about htis number for a while, its easy to write this stuff and not really appreciate what it means, i see this all the fucking time on this site, their resources have been completey and totally explioted, so based on this, do you think the US should invade another country illegally? Even if said country is as bad as it is?
BTW if you doubt any of the info i have presented id be happy to provide you the sources
"What about the people in Bahrain being slaughtered, or Yemen, this isn't even being reported anymore but you can be sure it is ongoing,"
I am aware that trouble lies elsewhere, however the things that happen in North Korea send a different kind of chill down my spine.
" Saudia Arabia, what about the Palestian's lving in Gaza currently starving and being deprived of their basic human rights by an internationally recognised illegal blockade"
I am a Palestine sympathizer.
" i understand this opinion of yours but i cannot support an invasion, the US intervenes when it suits their strategic aims to do so, they don't care about about civilians"
That will happen no matter the country that invades, and I honestly don't care how the change would occur, invasion or not, as long as there are changes in North Korea.
" I cannot and will not condone an invasion that is gauranteed to produce more carnage and destruction and harm than is already taking place."
I may believe in isolation from foreign issue, but I do not believe in blatant slavery, which basically what the people of North Korea face.
"Look at Iraq, the claim was that the invasion would help the Iraqi people, "
Im not going to dispute that, because your right, however like I have said before, no matter which country helped, they would have taken advantage of the situation, that is almost unstoppable. That is why I usually believe in isolation or neutrality.
"do you think the US should invade another country illegally?"
In this case yes.You must understand that everything I believe in is taken and brutally fucked by the regime of North Korea. His people starve are know nothing of ANYTHING beyond their border. (I see you get angry at indoctrination of countries all the time, no other country does it more then North Korea.)
"BTW if you doubt any of the info i have presented id be happy to provide you the sources"
You always post links to support your argument and always have a strong argument,so I doubt anything you say is without evidence to it and that is admirable and I do see you point. However this is one of those VERY few things I let my conscience(however small) take over above my reason.
"I am aware that trouble lies elsewhere, however the things that happen in North Korea send a different kind of chill down my spine."
I can sympathise with this position, it is a truly authoritarian state
"That will happen no matter the country that invades, and I honestly don't care how the change would occur, invasion or not, as long as there are changes in North Korea."
its hard for me to beleive an invasion, escially a US invasion would result ina change for the better.
"no matter which country helped, they would have taken advantage of the situation,"
You see you have too mych trust in your government, what was done in Iraq was never meant to help anyone except the elites who manufatured the invasion, the intention all along was to take advantage of the place they blatantly lied to the american public in order to carry this out, and quite frankly i am surprised they were allowed to get away with it. it shows the power of propaganda coupled with hatred and fear.
"I see you get angry at indoctrination of countries all the time, no other country does it more then North Korea"
While this maybe true i cannot it doesnt allow me to condone an pre-emptive invasion of the country, you are right they have their population completely indoctrinated, it is a dangerous country but only to its own population, in my opinion (and i say this with a very heavy heart) they put the regime into power and they ultimately must be the ones that remove it from power.
"However this is one of those VERY few things I let my conscience(however small) take over above my reason."
As i said i completely understand, and sympathise but i simply cannot support it.
"its hard for me to beleive an invasion, escially a US invasion would result ina change for the better."
Any change would be great in my eyes, Invasion or otherwise.
"latantly lied to the american public in order to carry this out,"
I don't doubt that by any means, but that corruption is present in all powerful countries, not just the US.
"it is a dangerous country but only to its own population, in my opinion (and i say this with a very heavy heart) they put the regime into power and they ultimately must be the ones that remove it from power."
I don't believe they have the balls to declare war either, however the regime that is in place was not chosen by the people. They never signed a document that aid they would suffer and starve while their dictator enjoys James Bond movies and exotic cars and other luxuries the North Korean people would not be able to even dream of.
"Any change would be great in my eyes, Invasion or otherwise."
Even if it resulted in the death of a substantial portion of the populations (probably in the millions), the complete destruction of the country, and its infrastructure, and then its likely exploitation for material and strategic gain?
"I don't doubt that by any means, but that corruption is present in all powerful countries, not just the US"
While i admit this is true i does not exaplin the lack of accountability on the part of the american people, no offense but even corrupt countries in europe could not have done this and gotten away with it, Britain had thir tribunal for Blair and his cabinet (really just a show to appease those accusing him of war crimes and genocide but it has done little to quell the discontent) but even the admission of wrong doing was absent from american political discourse, this raises serious question's that are not even being asked let alone answered.
"I don't believe they have the balls to declare war either, however the regime that is in place was not chosen by the people"
Again i sympathise greatly with them, seriously i do but the forces that brought this regime into power must ultimately be the ones that remove it, at least i beleive that to be a better option than the one you are for.
"Even if it resulted in the death of a substantial portion of the populations (probably in the millions)"
Like I said, any type of change would be great as long as the regime is removed.
"and its infrastructure, and then its likely exploitation for material and strategic gain?"
The people are already being exploited, at least they have the chance of enjoying a standard of life greater then the one they have now.
"exaplin the lack of accountability on the part of the american people"
There is no accountability for the one making the rules in this equation as bad as that might be.
"no offense but even corrupt countries in europe could not have done this and gotten away with it,"
I disagree, they could have gotten away with anything the US has. The US has no more secrets the Europe does, think about it. The majority of top scientist that helped the US develop its weapons of mass destruction were from foreign European powers. Germany alone had the research for most of the modern worlds current arsenal. All those war secrets and operations are just the tip of the iceberg. Europe has always tried to use the same tactics as the US to ensure its power over weaker countries. Europe has grown into a large net of power that at the very least equals the power of the US and is just as blind in the acceptance of its societal traditions and authority. Europe is definitively not as aggressive as the US but just as corrupt.
" but even the admission of wrong doing was absent from american political discourse, this raises serious question's that are not even being asked let alone answered"
Not disputing that.
"at least i beleive that to be a better option than the one you are for."
Again I am for whatever option gets rid of the regime, if there is a better one then war then I am in full support.
The reason these countries dislike us in the first place is because we got involved when we shouldn't have. If we invade they will fight back and we don't need a war right now.
Well, let's clear a couple things up first... These countries don't hate us, their regimes do. And let's be clear that you are referring to North Korea, not South, which is one of America's greatest allies.
I don't think we should do anything to either country. We can't afford to police the world any more and we shouldn't have ever done that in the first place.
Now, if Iran attacks Israel, then it's on! And if North Korea attacks South Korea, then it's also on... and actually they have done that and the south has shown amazing constraint. But if the north gets even friskier and the south needs our help then we should step in.
I was talking about N. korea of course and I know that it's the regimes, not the actual countries. Countries can't hate the people and governments can.
Thats entirely correct, i dont hate americans despite what many on this site have labelled me, i just can't stand the regime, well thats a bit extreme, i think its more correct to say when all the positivs and negative of the american regime are examined its negatives greatly outweight its positives.
"We can't afford to police the world any more"
Im sorry to be the one to tell the hard truth but you are not world police you are world criminals and the facts that have been so skillfully concealed from you bear this hard truth out.
"I don't think we should do anything to either country."
I completely agree you have no moral or legal right, just like no other country has the right to attack you.
"Now, if Iran attacks Israel, then it's on"
Iran will not attack Isreal, Iran have not attacked another country in hundreds of years and there is no sign they have any intention to do so in the near future, your countries propaganda has taught you Iran are dangerous but have you ever done any serious independent investigation into them im telling you if you did you would begin to realise they are not the danger, Isreal is, Isreal was allowed to massacre 1400 people in Gaza after they broke the ceasefire (scrupulously observed by hamas i might add) by killing 6 Hamas officials, then they proceeded to commit grave human rights violations, they are fucking danger.
Let me ask you this, if Isreal invades Lebanon tommorrow with no grounds for the invasion other than to commit murder like in Gaza and soley to make the arabs afraid of them, do you think your country should help???? You know liek the disgustingly large militsry aid they sned them every year.
"And if North Korea attacks South Korea, then it's also on... and actually they have done that and the south has shown amazing constraint."
This is an unbeleivably innaccurate portrail of the tension between them and heres the proof, please read it if you consider yourself open minded:
Iran will not attack Isreal, Iran have not attacked another country in hundreds of years and there is no sign they have any intention to do so in the near future
So, that doesn't mean they won't and when their president runs around saying things like Israel should be wiped off the map, or the Holocaust never happened or there are no homosexuals in Iran.. one has to wonder just how stable that regime is... he didn't even win that last election and we all know it.
If Israel attacks Lebanon? No... they can handle themselves... I never said that the US should help Israel if they attack someone else but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
As for North and South Korea... get a grip Gary. The North Korean people are being starved to support their military and the South is free and has a huge economy.
"So, that doesn't mean they won't and when their president runs around saying things like Israel should be wiped off the map, or the Holocaust never happened or there are no homosexuals in Iran."
They are just the words of an extremist who doesn't hold real power in Iran, the Sha does.
"one has to wonder just how stable that regime is... he didn't even win that last election and we all know it."
Actually be western standards the election wasn't as fraudalant as you have been led to beleive.
"If Israel attacks Lebanon? No... they can handle themselves... I never said that the US should help Israel if they attack someone else but thanks for putting words in my mouth."
Im sorry if you thought i was putting words in your mouth i was merely asking you a question.
"s for North and South Korea... get a grip Gary. The North Korean people are being starved to support their military and the South is free and has a huge economy."
Im not disputing any of this i was talking about the recent tension and how it was misrepresented by western media in favour of the south, didn you eve look at the articles?
First of all... isn't it like 3 or 4 in the morning in Ireland... Are you just back from another bender at the local pub?
They are just the words of an extremist who doesn't hold real power in Iran, the Sha does.
Yeah... I know that Gary... But the religious leaders are the ones that put him in power and continue to support him.. and were they more than willing to support him and murder their own people when he lost the election the last time around... but apparently you don't have a problem with that.
Actually be western standards the election wasn't as fraudalant as you have been led to beleive.
BULLSHIT!
No Gary, I didn't look at the articles and I've told you before that I don't... Just tell me what you think.. I'm not watching random YouTube's or reading articles... the internet is a huge place with a million opinions... just give me yours!
I bet if I spent enough time I could find an article that explains why the Smurfs are to blame for all the violence in the world.
"First of all... isn't it like 3 or 4 in the morning in Ireland... Are you just back from another bender at the local pub?"
Its 3:55 i am absoltely smashed on wine, ive drank about 2 bottles, i have stomach bug, ive been fasting for the since 1:oopm and im releying on alcog=hol to get me o sleep
"Yeah... I know that Gary... But the religious leaders are the ones that put him in power and continue to support him.. and were they more than willing to support him and murder their own people when he lost the election the last time around... but apparently you don't have a problem with that."
no i do have a probelm with that, but i cannot say based on that alone that the election wwas fraudelent
"No Gary, I didn't look at the articles and I've told you before that I don't... Just tell me what you think.."
Ive told you, the tension betweeb North Korea and South Korea was highly biased in faovur of the south, i dont supprt Noth Keora i dont have any respect for theitr regime but i feel obliageted to piotn out bvais wheh i see it
"I'm not watching random YouTube's or reading articles... the internet is a huge place with a million opinions... just"
I thin you find RT are a hgihly respected news station much more so than any american mainstrem news outlet
"I bet if I spent enough time I could find an article that explains why the Smurfs are to blame for all the violence in the world."
Fair enough, if you can ill read and tellk yoyu what i think
"No Gary, I didn't look at the articles and I've told you before that I don't... Just tell me what you think.. I'm not watching random YouTube's or reading articles... the internet is a huge place with a million opinions... just give me yours!"
Opinions are formulated on the basis of credible evidence, if you hold an opinion that runs contrary to someone elses and they can prove it to be wrong based on incontrovertible evidence you are obligated to investigate for yourself if you consider yourself an open minded person, otherwise you are a a hypocrite, im not calling you a hypocrite, i dont even know if you consider yourself open minded but you should know that what im saying is correct.
The internet is one big giant fake. There is no credible evidence on it because you cannot give anyone any proof based on any article as long as it's on the internet. Everyone on the internet has potential to be faked.
What HellNo means, I think, is that he wants your opinion because supporting evidence over the internet is not supporting evidence in the first place. It's never 100% evident, because it's over the internet.
Because of this fact, you can't act like using the internet makes you more credible then anybody who doesn't, because it's the internet. That's probably why HellNo wants your opinion, not a bunch of fake internet evidence. Your opinion, to people like him and I, is more credible then fake internet evidence, since this entire site calls upon each other to trust one another on their word. If they sound convincing, you trust them to be convincing. If they don't sound convincing, you trust them to be full of shit! That's how this place is supposed to work. Evidence from the internet isn't as credible as the debaters and therefore shouldn't be involved.
I don't remember saying anything about the internet.
"What HellNo means, I think, is that he wants your opinion because supporting evidence over the internet is not supporting evidence in the first place."
Ive debated Hellno a lot in the past, he likes to pretend that he's a relatively objective guy who takes on board other peoples arguments but in reality he dismisses anything that doesn't fit into his own way of thinking, he is completely unwilling to put his view to the test, the response was merely meant to reflect that.
"Because of this fact, you can't act like using the internet makes you more credible then anybody who doesn't, because it's the internet. "
If you know how to obtain information from highly credible sources than i do beleive the internet makes me or anyone else more credible than somebody who cannot recognise what a credible source is, it depends on the info. and source.
"That's probably why HellNo wants your opinion, not a bunch of fake internet evidence"
I sent him a no. of Russia today articles that give the other side of the argument of about Noth and South Korea, he has a very one sided view on this because i beleive he has only obtained his info. one sided biased sources which have covered the story in a completely one sided way.
"Your opinion, to people like him and I, is more credible then fake internet evidence, since this entire site calls upon each other to trust one another on their word."
Did you even read our exchanges, i gave him my opinion, then he told me to get a grip, he refused to even contemplate the fact that his views on the North and South of Korea could be way off, i then provided him with the otehr side of th story, and he flatly refused to look at it i.e.
""And if North Korea attacks South Korea, then it's also on... and actually they have done that and the south has shown amazing constraint."
This is an unbeleivably innaccurate portrail of the tension between them and heres the proof, please read it if you consider yourself open minded:
" Evidence from the internet isn't as credible as the debaters and therefore shouldn't be involved."
One thing ive leanred from this site is that if you espouse views that don't comfortably fit in with others that have largely been shaped by the US media, which is among the most propagandised in the world, then you must provide some form of evidence or else your labelled a lunatic.
"Evidence from the internet isn't as credible as the debaters and therefore shouldn't be involved."
I don't remember saying anything about the internet.
(Ring ring) Yes? Hello? Oh, I'll tell him. (Gives you the telephone) Real life just called and told you to stop debating over the INTERNET.
I've debated Hellno a lot in the past, he likes to pretend that he's a relatively objective guy who takes on board other peoples arguments but in reality he dismisses anything that doesn't fit into his own way of thinking, he is completely unwilling to put his view to the test, the response was merely meant to reflect that.
That doesn't seem particularly evident to me. It seems more like he's insulted that you respect him so little that you'd give him a bunch of links to fake internet evidence instead of actually arguing a point of your own in stead of the links.
If you know how to obtain information from highly credible sources than I do believe the internet makes me or anyone else more credible than somebody who cannot recognize what a credible source is; it depends on the info. And source.
Well that's a silly thing to believe, since it's impossible for me to physically shake your hand, make eye contact with you, hear your own words, or hold your 'evidence' in my own hands!
Like I said, the internet is one big giant fake. Even if it's true, you cannot support internet evidence over the internet. You need some form of physicality to truly prove something to somebody. That's why it's insulting to give people links on websites like this: they trust you. You cannot give them any real proof. Period. It's the internet, and therefore it's impossible to give anybody true proof. So when it comes to places like this, people just prefer to keep things simple and trust each other!
Assuming links are more relevant then other people in an insult to that trust!
The info and source don't matter, because neither can be held in your hands.
I sent him a number of Russia today articles that give the other side of the argument of about North and South Korea; he has a very one sided view on this because I believe he has only obtained his info from one sided biased sources which have covered the story in a completely one sided way.
Do you see him giving links to where he got this assumed 'biased info'? No. He's giving a pre-developed opinion without any relative reference to anything specific he learned from any specific source, biased or not.
Because of this, he obviously values debating with you more then being right. If he valued the later more, he would have done what you did and flashed a bunch of links that show how little he values trusting you on your opinionated word as opposed to the rest of the fake, non-credible internet.
The problem is that you flashed him links instead of putting in place an opinion. Maybe your intentions aren't to insult, but I think it's apparent that (at the time) it was insulting.
Did you even read our exchanges?
I would have no business getting involved if I hadn't read all your exchanges! Who the hell do you think I am? Some scoundrel?
I gave him my opinion
No you didn't, you gave him links you dishonorable cad.
SURE, sure. You gave the opinion that he was utterly wrong and wouldn't be an open minded person if he didn't read your irrelevant links...
...
... I think he has every reason to tell you to get a grip, since you obviously don't care about honorable combat during a debate.
One thing I've learned from this site is that if you espouse views that don't comfortably fit in with others that have largely been shaped by the US media, which is among the most propagandized in the world, then you must provide some form of evidence or else your labeled a lunatic.
You cared more about being embarrassed then you did about honoring your opponent? Well, okay... that's a harsh way to put it. At least weren't attempting to look like an asshole. Good thing you pointed it out.
The problem is that, while you didn't want to look embarrassed, it would have helped your case more if you had explained your point instead of putting a long set of supposed 'evidence' in place of it.
The senior members of life and/or this website are more respectful then to label people lunatics for no reason. If you had a credible argument, then it would have been more credible then any links supporting the argument.
It depends on what you're debating.
No, it doesn't. Not even a little. It depends on WHERE you are debating, yes! But not what you are a debating about. If you're debating on the internet, the difference between one topic and another does determine whether or not I can hold your 'evidence' in my hands.
Since this is impossible due to us being on the internet, it's better you instead be more honorable and actually trust us as opposed to making yourself seem like an insulting twat. (Seem, not be. Don't loose your shit; read the sentences)
"It seems more like he's insulted that you respect him so little that you'd give him a bunch of links to fake internet evidence"
Fake internet evidence, if you consider articles from Russia Today fake internet evidence then you must also consider BBC, CNN, etc., etc. news coverage to be fake internet evidence.
"instead of actually arguing a point of your own in stead of the links"
I tried that, not just on this debate, ive tried it many times on others, his perspective is dervied from a very limited range of views, and he cannit seriously entertain someone who has views that don't somehow fit into that range.
"That's why it's insulting to give people links on websites like this: they trust you. You cannot give them any real proof. Period. It's the internet, and therefore it's impossible to give anybody true proof. "
I disagree, coverage from international news networks like RT, BBC, and Al Jazeera are trustworthy up to a piont, if they say 12 people were blown up today in afghanistan i beleive them, as if that didn't happen, they'd be found out, and thus lsoe credibility. That's why most serious people i have debated with on this site don't question the basic coverage of events, not that they're not filled with propaganda but there's a limit to how much the truth can be distorted before it simply becomes lies, and very few of these news networks deal in absolute lies (at least most of time) otherwise they wouldn't be taken seriously.
Hellno had a view on the North and South Korean tension that was laregly shaped by pro-western (particularly US) propaganda, i was merely trying to piont out the other side of the story, trying to explain to him that every coin has two sides, and that the events he was describing weren't as black and white as he had percieved them to be.
"Assuming links are more relevant then other people in an insult to that trust!"
The only way to differentiate speculation from a valid opinion based on facts is to provide some form of evidence, i can talk all day long about how i perceive the world but unless i can back it up with what are widely beleive to be the truth, then my opinion isn't very credible.
"The info and source don't matter, because neither can be held in your hands."
Please stop talking like this, i don't physically need to go to Iraq and see US soldiers there to know that the US invaded, just like i didn't need to go to ground zero after 9/11 to be sure that the whole thing wasn't a fabrication.
"Do you see him giving links to where he got this assumed 'biased info'? No"
No but id like him to, most people on this site do, its the only way to really win a debate on this site in my experience, very few people are willing to conceed anything if all you have are two opposing opinions, but facts change everything, thats why i use them, and thats why i think your argument is incorrect.
"Because of this, he obviously values debating with you more then being right."
I take your point.
"The problem is that you flashed him links instead of putting in place an opinion."
Again thats completely false, i gave him my opinion which he dismissed out of hand by saying; "get a grip"
"Maybe your intentions aren't to insult, but I think it's apparent that (at the time) it was insulting."
And you don't think telling a person to " get a grip" when they present something opposed to what you beleive is insulting?
"I would have no business getting involved if I hadn't read all your exchanges! Who the hell do you think I am? Some scoundrel?"
Well your interpretation of our correspondance isn't the same as mine.
"No you didn't, you gave him links you dishonorable cad."
You know i don't mind a person like yourself referring to me as a cad, i mean you don't know me, its really water off a ducks back as far as im concerned, and it only makes you look like the disrespectful debator that you are, but i do take offence to be called dishonorable, i have done nothing to warrant being called dishonourable here, i gave him my opinion and backed it up with evidence, he chose to completely dismiss my opinion, which i knew he would as he alsways does on anything thats remotely against what hes heard on CNN, thats why i provided the links with my opinion because i have debated Hellno many time and everytime he's simply refused to give my opinion any respect, he always dismisses it out of hand, if i thought i could provide it and be taken seriously i wouldn't bother with the links, you think i want to spend my time diggin up links to support my opinion?
These were Hellno and my own responses on the N/S Korea, followed by my interpretation of them:
ME:"This is an unbeleivably innaccurate portrail of the tension between them and heres the proof, please read it if you consider yourself open minded:"
-(admittedly i sound like a bit of an arrogant shit when i say"if you consider yourself open minded, but again i have been emboldened this way from my previous exchanges with Hellno)
Hellno:"As for North and South Korea... get a grip Gary"
Ridiculing my opinion as it differs greatly from his own, not taking anything i said seriously.
Hellno:"The North Korean people are being starved to support their military and the South is free and has a huge economy."
-(has nothing to do with the piont of contention but somehow he thinks is validates his opinoin.)
ME:"Im not disputing any of this i was talking about the recent tension and how it was misrepresented by western media in favour of the south, didn you eve look at the articles?"
-(i piont out the fact that his previous response has nothing to do with the N/S Korea tensions, and restate my opinion about how the facts were presented in a one sided fashion in the West, then i tell him to check my evidence as he clearly doesn't value my opinion)
Hellno:" BULLSHIT"
-(needs no explanation)
Hellno:"No Gary, I didn't look at the articles and I've told you before that I don't... Just tell me what you think.. I'm not watching random YouTube's or reading articles... the internet is a huge place with a million opinions... just give me yours!
I bet if I spent enough time I could find an article that explains why the Smurfs are to blame for all the violence in the world."*
-(Dismisses me evidence as valueless claiming you can find anything to prove anything on the internet, what astonishes me about this opinion is that if this is really how he percives things, how can he not apply the same standard to his own opinion's, and the evidence they are founded on?He simply thinks that everthing he beleives is the truth, and isn't uip for question, this isn't based soley on this exchange, this is one the mildest me and Hellno had)
"You gave the opinion that he was utterly wrong"
No gave the opinion that he had a one sided view, and he was completely unwilling to even entertain the idea. I don't actually think he was wrong, just for the record. I would have been quite willing to admit that North Korea were far from innocent in the events we were debating if my opinion was given the respect it deserved.
"I think he has every reason to tell you to get a grip"
I think i have every reason to tell you to get a grip.
"since you obviously don't care about honorable combat during a debate."
And hoe exactly do you come to that conclusion?
"You cared more about being embarrassed then you did about honoring your opponent?"
Please stop acting like these exchanges can be taken in islocation and used to characterise me as a debator, this debate was coming off the back of a long list of correspondance in which Hellno repeatedly called me a lunatic, set up debates desinged to rob me i my crediblilty, and never, and i repeat, never took a single opinion of mine seriously, the fact that your using this argument to label me only highlights your own ignorance.
"The problem is that, while you didn't want to look embarrassed, it would have helped your case more if you had explained your point instead of putting a long set of supposed 'evidence' in place of it. "
To be honest you're the first person on this site that has ever claimed that psoting evidence is a bad thing, i was repeatedly ridiculed for not providing evidence when i made claims that some people construed as being outlandish, but to be called up for having provided evidence (and credible evidence at that) is very surprising to me.
"But not what you are a debating about."
Im sorry it does, if your debating something based soely on opinion (i.e. is pesi better than coke) the result is entirely subjective, but when debating the interpretation of current events, objectively verifiably evidence is valuable to say that least.
"Since this is impossible due to us being on the internet, it's better you instead be more honorable and actually trust us as opposed to making yourself seem like an insulting twat."
Again your interpretation is different to mine, i also want to emphasise that me response to Hellno in this debate were shaped by my experience with him in other debates, this fact cannot be overlooked.
Fake internet evidence, if you consider articles from Russia Today fake internet evidence then you must also consider BBC, CNN, etc., etc. news coverage to be fake internet evidence.
You are correct sir! I do consider it all fake! Bravo~! You are a lot more intuitive then another person I commonly argue with.
I tried that, not just on this debate, I've tried it many times on others, his perspective is derived from a very limited range of views, and he cannot seriously entertain someone who has views that don't somehow fit into that range.
Everybody's perspective is derived from a very limited range of things. Such as your automatic view that the West is more propagandized then the East. Also such as your automatic view that the view of the West is always somehow more incorrect then the view of the East.
I disagree, coverage from international news networks like RT, BBC, and Al Jazeera are trustworthy up to a point, if they say 12 people were blown up today in Afghanistan i believe them, as if that didn't happen, they'd be found out, and thus lose credibility.
I am not disputing the credibility of the Internet in relation to the truth, I'm disputing the credibility of the internet in relation to other sources.
Anything can be faked on the internet. It is the playground of the people who know how to work it. Almost none of the laws that apply in the real world apply over the internet.
The mere qualities of today's internet make it less credible then even television! Everything can be faked on the internet because the internet is nearly lawless. Since everything can be faked on the internet, nothing you find on the internet will ever be as credible as something real.
... I was merely trying to point out the other side of the story, trying to explain to him that every coin has two sides, and that the events he was describing weren't as black and white as he had perceived them to be.
Then explain it to him the whole time without giving any links. The argument won't go south as long as you show some respect.
The only way to differentiate speculation from a valid opinion based on facts is to provide some form of evidence, I can talk all day long about how I perceive the world but unless I can back it up with what are widely believe to be the truth, then my opinion isn't very credible.
Except the internet is not evidence. Maybe you can pull out fake internet evidence with gullible people and not expect them to be insulted due to their tiny brains, but to people with experience on this website and/or with life in general, it's insulting to assume that the internet is more credible then what we know.
And we always assume the same and give exactly that much respect to our opponents.
I suspect that HellNo must generally dislike you because you flashed links in the past... which is a big no-no.
Please stop talking like this, i don't physically need to go to Iraq and see US soldiers there to know that the US invaded, just like i didn't need to go to ground zero after 9/11 to be sure that the whole thing wasn't a fabrication.
The 'held in hands' thing is a metaphor for the fact that the internet is nearly lawless and therefore almost everything on it can be faked.
Television, on the other hand, cannot be nearly as faked as the internet, considering television is the primary revenue for a few large corporations. Which is why, of course, you don't need to be in Iraq to know the U.S. is there also. But don't give me an internet article about it. Give me an opinion based on what you've seen on television at the very least.
No source, though, will replace any accounts of people who really are there fighting in these warring countries. No account of these people will replace a personal account you had with them.
Like I said, I'm merely comparing sources, and the internet is at the very bottom of the list on a scale of credibility.
No but I'd like him to, most people on this site do, its the only way to really win a debate on this site in my experience, very few people are willing to concede anything if all you have are two opposing opinions, but facts change everything, thats why i use them, and thats why i think your argument is incorrect.
Well then tell him that. I don't see most people on this site to that. It is not the only way to win a debate on this site, considering the internet is not credible. Facts DO change everything, but the internet is not credible enough to contain anything that can truly be a fact! And that's why I think your argument is incorrect.
Again thats completely false, i gave him my opinion which he dismissed out of hand by saying; "get a grip"
I'd go back and quote the comment, but it would be enough of a pain that I have decided I don't think I care enough.
Oh but look! You quoted it yourself. As you can see, he told you to get a grip after you posted the links, not after giving any sort of real opinion. How ironic.
Well your interpretation of our correspondence isn't the same as mine.
Obviously.
Admittedly I sound like a bit of an arrogant shit when i say "if you consider yourself open minded", but again i have been emboldened this way from my previous exchanges with Hellno
Which is why you can't exactly blame me for being insulted myself.
Ridiculing my opinion as it differs greatly from his own, not taking anything i said seriously.
You gave only links, no opinion. He has every reason to take links seriously, and I've explained why.
Dismisses my evidence as valueless claiming you can find anything to prove anything on the internet, what astonishes me about this opinion is that if this is really how he perceives things, how can he not apply the same standard to his own opinion's, and the evidence they are founded on? He simply thinks that everything he believes is the truth, and isn't up for question, this isn't based soley on this exchange, this is one the mildest me and Hellno had
I don't think that's it. Based on your quote, which is a serious deterrence to your stance, you, like I pointed out, were being a dishonorable cad. You gave no opinion. You just gave links, told him to read the links, thereby spitting on his value of your opinion.
I would have been quite willing to admit that North Korea were far from innocent in the events we were debating if my opinion was given the respect it deserved.
You gave no opinion to respect, you gave links. Why should he respect links? Why should he respect you if you think that it's acceptable to dishonor his trust in your opinion?
I think I have every reason to tell you to get a grip.
I got a grip a long time ago. Apparently you have not if you wish to ignore how insulting you've been to HellNo's honor.
And hoe exactly do you come to that conclusion?
Because you value being right more then you value the honor of the conflict. In your own quote, it's obvious you gave no opinion and only made reference to the links.
Why do you think HellNo wants your opinion and not links? Do you really think it's because he's some stereotypical douche? Of course not, it's because you dishonored his value of your opinion! If you think links are more credible then your own original thoughts, then that leads me to conclude you'd rather attempt giving fake evidence that points to you being right instead of trying to use your own opinion to draw the battle out and maybe be right in the end!
There is no dishonor is loosing! There is dishonor, though, in being so caught up in winning that you spit upon your opponents value of your own honor!
Please stop acting like these exchanges can be taken in isolation and used to characterize me as a debater, this debate was coming off the back of a long list of correspondence in which Hellno repeatedly called me a lunatic, set up debates designed to rob me i my credibility, and never, and i repeat, never took a single opinion of mine seriously, the fact that your using this argument to label me only highlights your own ignorance.
I apologize for seeming like I was taking to credit any other possible conflict you may have had with him. The problem is that I wasn't. I was only taking into account this specific debate. I'm labeling you based on your actions in this debate. Did I say otherwise? Not at all.
And for the record, if HellNo really is the bad guy, then you're supposed to show how much of a good guy you are by honoring him as you would anyone you randomly meet.
To be honest you're the first person on this site that has ever claimed that posting evidence is a bad thing
I'm not the first person on this website to believe that phony 'evidence' over the internet is a bad thing.
I was repeatedly ridiculed for not providing evidence when i made claims that some people construed as being outlandish, but to be called up for having provided evidence (and credible evidence at that) is very surprising to me
Then apparently you aren't wording anything you say the best you can. You should try then instead of acting like any evidence you get over the internet is credible, because it's not.
I'm sorry it does, if your debating something based Solly on opinion (i.e. is Pepsi better than coke) the result is entirely subjective, but when debating the interpretation of current events, objectively verifiably evidence is valuable to say that least.
I'm sorry but you're not listening to a word I'm saying. There is no 'objectively verifiable evidence' over the internet, unless the person who you are debating with has the ability to walk outside their house and test this evidence in real life... which the chances of being possible are slim.
Again your interpretation is different to mine, i also want to emphasize that me response to Hellno in this debate were shaped by my experience with him in other debates, this fact cannot be overlooked.
It can be overlooked if he's the bad guy because that would mean that you are supposed to be the better person! You can at least try, which you weren't according to your quote.
"You are correct sir! I do consider it all fake! Bravo~! You are a lot more intuitive then another person I commonly argue with."
So you don't trust what any of the national news networks say, my God, i thought i was a suspicious cynic.
"Everybody's perspective is derived from a very limited range of things. "
It depends on your definition of limited, i would consider my own to be derived from a wide range of things, please try to beleive this its not just my ego talking (at least i hope not).
"Such as your automatic view that the West is more propagandized then the East"
I never said, i never even insinuated it, you've just proving to me that your incapable of correctly interpreting my arguments, which is how this while argument got started.
"Also such as your automatic view that the view of the West is always somehow more incorrect then the view of the East."
Again i don't agree with this at all, i beleive in what is morally right, some people think means i always go for the underdog, but i only go for the underdog if i beleive him to have right on his side, i don't know how you would got the idea that i think the east is always somehow more correct than the west.
"Anything can be faked on the internet. "
International news networks can be tructed to provide evidence of events, you are not going to convince me otherwise, you'd have to convince the entire world of journalism first cause i think they'd disagree.
"It is the playground of the people who know how to work it. Almost none of the laws that apply in the real world apply over the internet. "
Im not disputing that but there are sources f trustworthy informationl, and i procided you with one, if i provided you with a peer reviewed scientific article from science direct, would that be fake evidence as well?
"Then explain it to him the whole time without giving any links. "
Why do you continually piont to the links as some cause for upset, this i cannot comprehend, even in the site description it talks about using pieces of evidence from the web to bolster your arguments, i think you need to take this up with the moderator.
"The argument won't go south as long as you show some respect.The argument won't go south as long as you show some respect."
I did show respect. I may have unintentionally come across a tad arrogant but i didn't disrespect him.
"Except the internet is not evidence. "
Im sorry but that just isn't true.
"Maybe you can pull out fake internet evidence with gullible people and not expect them to be insulted due to their tiny brains, "
Russia today is not fake internet evidence its a international news network run by responsible journalist, yes they have an agenda like all netyworks but that doesn't give you the right to lebl evry they produce fake internet evidence.
"it's insulting to assume that the internet is more credible then what we know."
What are you talking about, this is absolutely false, the internet has exposed more lies and corruption than anything else in history, can it be used for nefarious ends yes of course but take wikileaks as an example, is that fake internet evidence?
2I suspect that HellNo must generally dislike you because you flashed links in the past... which is a big no"
Actually that was one of the first times i ever presented him with links go check it out if you don't belevie me.
"Television, on the other hand, cannot be nearly as faked as the internet, "
Again i couldn't disagree more, tv is regulated by rapacious power, the internet is not.By this logic v in north korea and saudi arabia isn't as faked as the internet.
"But don't give me an internet article about it. Give me an opinion based on what you've seen on television at the very least. "
I think we just fundamentally disagree about how to obtain the truth.
"No source, though, will replace any accounts of people who really are there fighting in these warring countries."
So i provided yopu with an article of an interview with a war veteran from RT would that be fake interent evidence?
"Facts DO change everything, but the internet is not credible enough to contain anything that can truly be a fact! And that's why I think your argument is incorrect."
Again its all about the degree of accuracy of the information presented, i would have perfectly happy if he critiqued the evidenced and told me why he beleive it had shortcomings but you cannot simple call it fake.
"he told you to get a grip after you posted the links, not after giving any sort of real opinion. How ironic."
I told him my perspective i.e. the tension had been exaggerated in favour of South Korea, then i posted the links.
"which is a serious deterrence to your stance, you, like I pointed out, were being a dishonorable cad. "
Again how in the hell do you perceive me as being dishonourable, i did nothing wrong in this debate, i presented facts not lies, i didn't insult anyone, i really can't figure this dishonourable tag out at all, i suppose if you thinki presented lies far enough, but i didn't, do resaerch it, what i said is true, the west presented the tension as being one sided, the neglected to piont out how North Korea were provoked.
"ou just gave links, told him to read the links, thereby spitting on his value of your opinion."
I gave him my opinion, it was brief but i gave it, here it is: "This is an unbeleivably innaccurate portrail of the tension between them"
Thats an opinoin believe it ot not.
"Apparently you have not if you wish to ignore how insulting you've been to HellNo's hono"
I cannot comprehend how you reached this conclusion.
"Why do you think HellNo wants your opinion and not links? "
Do you have any idea how many times i gave him my opinion and it was dimissed out of hand completely.This is but one example of many.
"And for the record, if HellNo really is the bad guy, then you're supposed to show how much of a good guy you are by honoring him as you would anyone you randomly meet."
Again i don't see how im such a bad guy in all of this, if some one presented me with credible evidence that ran contrary to my opinion i would examine it and admit the flaws in my opinion as i have done many times in the past.
"'m not the first person on this website to believe that phony 'evidence' over the internet is a bad thing."
ya but your the first person to consider crebile evidence phony, thats what makes you stand out.
"There is no 'objectively verifiable evidence' over the internet, unless the person who you are debating with has the ability to walk outside their house and test this evidence in real life"
I understand what you are saying but people needed that level of verification in order to hold opinions in things i dare say nobody would hold opinions about anything.
"which the chances of being possible are slim."
Again i don't see how you can come to that conclusion.
"It can be overlooked if he's the bad guy because that would mean that you are supposed to be the better person!"
Thats easy to say when you haven't been continually ridiculed by another person but i will admit you are totally correct, i normally show restraint but i am human.
"ne has to wonder just how stable that regime is... he didn't even win that last election and we all know it."
Actually if you had done your research then you'd know that the suppposed election fraud in Iran has never been proven conclusively either way, but hey that didn't prevent you from saying as much, ive done a bit of research on that particular question and i can say there probably was fraud in that election but not nearly to the extent that the west was suggesting, they were trying to use the election fraud to destabilse the coutry cause the real danger with iran is the fact that they don't play by US rules, thus they set a bad example to other freedom aspiring nations, now i admit that the election result probabaly was tampered with but can the US really piont fingers given the scandal that went on between George W. Bush and Al Gore, most political commentators have said ahmadinejad probably won by a slim majority but subsequently infated the reulst to make it seem more comprehensive than it actually was, this isnt even as bad as what was done to Al Gore
"So, that doesn't mean they won't and when their president runs around saying things like Israel should be wiped off the map,"
He enver said this waht he said was the racist Isreali apartheid regime in Isreal should be wiped off the map and banished into the pages of history, the Us media then took this statement completely out of context and used as an effective propaganda tool, one that you have fallen for hook line and sinker(and so many others who beleive S government lies), seriously if you doubt me look it up, the only two Us senators that didn't subscribe to were Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich.