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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is Taxation good or bad in America?
Recently I watched a video called Murray Rothbard: Identity of the state. He said that our government basically uses taxation to "rob us at bayonet point and called it taxation". What do you think?
Ever hear of an insurance company? You know, that thing that you voluntarily pay for so that if you get hurt there is money available? Oh yeah, I forgot, you're a socialist so anything private is evil and greedy and government is a magical thing.
PS: At the end of the day, I still know how to run my life better than you do, so keep your nose out of it.
"I realize a lot of tax dollars are wasted"...do you realize that the U.S. tax payers have given israel 300 BILLION dollars a year in the past decade....money well spent? and let us never forget the missising 2.3 TRILLION dollars that pentagon so luckily covered up with 9-11. american tax payers are SUCKERS!
without taxes, you dont have society. you're like the germanic tribes, just wandering around, looting and pillaging and whoever is hurt dies, whoever want something gets it, there is no order.
You are wrong in stating that you can't have society without taxation. Such a society has been conceptualized (stateless society). It's too bad you think that in such a society citizens would be like the old Germanic tribes, or any tribes for that matter. It seems obvious that people would still want insurance against having their rights violated by other citizens and that would pave the way for private rights enforcement agencies, arbitrators, dispute resolution organizations, etc. I'm not saying I want privatized legal systems but to say that law can't exist without government is silly.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
How objectively has teachers union destroyed meaningful public education?
Isn't it far more likly that public education has systematically been weakened by proponents of completely privatized education? if we look at changes in funding, in changing in rules concerning what schools can do, and so on as well as how schools have been funded and the subjects they have been required to teach or not teach, it is pretty obvious that certain fractions of government have been rather systematic in weakening public education.
I think the teachers unions ruined schools because a teacher can just hand out a work sheet and sit on their desk, label it as "teaching" without any fear of getting fired. Meanwhile its ruining these children's education that their parents are being forced to pay for.
As for funding, there has been no decrease in funding at all source.
PS: I'm not one of those "all unions are evil" kind of guys.
your source doesn't seem to consider changing educational standards.
It is doubtful the PSAT of 1970 resembles the PSAT of 1990 very closely.
When my parents went to school, they were lucky to cover geometry. Now many students are starting duel credit courses where not only does the course count for high school credit, but for college as well, or are taking AP courses, or simply advance courses. In the last 30 years we have condensed more material into a smaller time frame, it now isn't uncommon for high school seniors to have done some type of pre-calculus if not calculus, or to be introduced to it in their advance science courses.
Your source also doesn't consider policies such as the best preforming schools getting more money, which starves the lower preforming schools. So well federal spending might of increased, it only increased for the higher performers.
As for teaching standards, its not often that teachers don't actually teach and if they fail to, often they suffer repercussions. There are exceptions for certain subjects, but those exceptions are due to low state standards. My government and economics teachers in highschool actually gave presentations, but it was an extended one, taking a class period for what could of been shorter. There simply wasn't enough material in the class, and adding more rather than emphasizing state standards is certain to be frowned upon if it dilutes the schools reputation. although there was alternatives at my school which were co-correcular such as the we the people class, which included debating competitions. The main reason we were able to have such classes is due to us being a suburb, with a decent amount of local businesses and warehouses and a good number of people actually coming in from the city to work here. Along with partnerships with universities and other institutions.
There were not very many expenses not meet at my school, and unlike many of the inner city schools which need better pre-school, kindergarten and elementary education and community programs we found our school system and community well organized and well funded, even through there have been concerns since the new high school was built, much of it is unnecessary for various reasons. Teachers often have to face a school corporation which would be happen to externalize the cost of education onto them, so that they have to buy the teaching supplies they need and so that the corporation can report back better stats to the town. Teachers unions are often ones which fight for the integrity of the school system, by fighting against such practices, fighting for better standards, and trying to do away with incentives which basically have them teaching according to "the test" or state standards.
Congratulations! You've won a free "work until you drop dead" life style. Sick? No problem!! Just empty your life savings!! Want to send you kids to school? Haha, what's school?? Haven't had a meal for days? Just starve to death!
How was WWII necessary to the survival of civilization?
I suppose you would like fascism then? Do you consider it a waste to wipe out those who exterminate the defenseless and plunder the lands of the peaceful?
How was the Revolutionary War a waste?
You changed your tune pretty quickly. The Revolutionary War allowed America to break away from the British Empire. Perhaps we could have been one superpower and avoided the whole civil war thing.
I suppose you don't know much about history. Germany was a strong power, but not the only power. They wouldn't have conquered the entire world. Not to mention that the Russians and Chinese fought the Axis. I'm not sure if you know anything about history, but Stalin's and Zedong's reign was fascist communism.
I know the USSR and Commonwealth could have completely annihilated the Nazis. However, the Americans did help. It's the noble action of the one time America did stand up and fight for something worth fighting for.
Fascist communism is an oxymoron. Il Duce described fascism as 'corporatism' Stalin and Mao were anything but corporatism.
First of all, I'm pretty sure you are like most of the left-wing population and have no clue what Fascism means or where it came from. And no, I don't care if you went on wikipedia.
Fascism came from an Italian socialist, Benito Mussolini. He remained a member of the socialist part until he opposed their anti-war policy. So, Mussolini said he used the word fascis to describe what he wanted to do with Italy, make Italy a bundle of sticks that could have been broken originally. So, this no form of authoritarian socialism became known as fascism.
Stalin and Mao were authoritarian communists. Seeing as socialism and communism share a lot of common ground, this wasn't a very hard connection to make.
--------------------------------------
PS: America didn't do the right thing, if you want to talk about their stance in WWII you have to talk about their stance in WWI.... Which you talk nothing of.
First of all, I'm pretty sure you are like most of the left-wing population and have no clue what Fascism means or where it came from
Not completely false, but I know what it is. ;)
Fascism came from an Italian socialist, Benito Mussolini
Correction, former socialist.
So, this no form of authoritarian socialism became known as fascism.
Corporatism, racism and imperialism are not socialism, even if they came from a former socialist, whom may I add, discredited socialism numerous times.
Stalin and Mao were authoritarian communists. Seeing as socialism and communism share a lot of common ground
They are both totalitarian, not too much else.
PS: America didn't do the right thing, if you want to talk about their stance in WWII you have to talk about their stance in WWI.... Which you talk nothing of
Yes, America didn't hit the Normandy beaches until the Soviets threatened Berlin, but their contribution, especially in the Pacific helped the Allied cause. Remember the wunderwaffe threat.
Correction, was a member of the socialist part but was kicked out over their anti-war policy. He was still a socialist, however, you have to remember that this is politics, its hard to win when you praise your opposition.
Corporatism, racism and imperialism are not socialism, even if they came from a former socialist, whom may I add, discredited socialism numerous times.
I didn't say all socialism was racism and imperialistic, I said that fascism was AUTHORITARIAN socialism. In my eyes, there is not much difference between corporatism and socialism, I oppose both strongly.
They are both totalitarian, not too much else.
They were authoritarian, communist dictators.
Yes, America didn't hit the Normandy beaches until the Soviets threatened Berlin, but their contribution, especially in the Pacific helped the Allied cause. Remember the wunderwaffe threat.
Again, you ignore America's stance in WWI, which was basically responsible for WWII.
PS: We had been fighting a proxy war with Germany long before we hit the beaches of Normandy.
In addition to that, none of his policies were even close to Socialism.
I said that fascism was AUTHORITARIAN socialism
Even Stalin was not a corporatist or racist.
They were authoritarian, communist dictators.
Authoritarian, yes. Communist, no.
Again, you ignore America's stance in WWI, which was basically responsible for WWII
Of course I am! It is irrelevant! They should have done things differently in 1917, but they did not. WWII happened, at least they helped rid the world of the scourge of fascism.
PS: We had been fighting a proxy war with Germany long before we hit the beaches of Normandy.
Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail." -Il Duce
"He was still a socialist, however, you have to remember that this is politics, its hard to win when you praise your opposition."
Even Stalin was not a corporatist or racist.
When did I say fascism is not about being corporatist or racist, it is about -drum roll again- AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM.
Authoritarian, yes. Communist, no.
Bullshit. In Soviet Russia the government accounted for roughly 80% of the GDP, the other 20% was from an illegal black market.
Of course I am! It is irrelevant! They should have done things differently in 1917, but they did not. WWII happened, at least they helped rid the world of the scourge of fascism.
Well you shouldn't, it is not irrelevant! America's involvement in WWI was the main reason there was a second World War in the first place, Hitler would have likely never gotten into power if it wasn't for America intervening.
"He was still a socialist, however, you have to remember that this is politics, its hard to win when you praise your opposition."
All of his policies were not Socialist, and he denounced Socialism. My point is based on facts. Your point is based on a hunch.
When did I say fascism is not about being corporatist or racist, it is about -drum roll again- AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM.
Explain why Fascism and Socialism share so little? And no, don't say you consider them the same thing.
Bullshit. In Soviet Russia the government accounted for roughly 80% of the GDP, the other 20% was from an illegal black market.
1.) Calm Down 2.) What year are you talking about? 3.) I thought we were discussing fascist leaders?
America's involvement in WWI was the main reason there was a second World War in the first place, Hitler would have likely never gotten into power if it wasn't for America intervening
America's WWI role was why WWII happened, I agree. they should have stayed out of it. We Canadians were handling things nicely ;) But does this mean that their involvement in WWII was un-called for? No! They were helping us get rid of political bologna.
All of his policies were not Socialist, and he denounced Socialism. My point is based on facts. Your point is based on a hunch.
1. Mine is not based on a hunch, its based on fact. Now I know you're a socialist and (please don't take this as a personal insult, its not) but for a few seconds you need to abandon this whole "the state is great and politicians don't lie" way of thinking. Look at Mitt Romney for example: he drafted "Obama-care" and wanted to add on to it, however, Obama was a large supporter of "Obama-car" so what does Romney do? He criticizes Obama-care (even though he supports it) in hopes that the opposition will look bad and he can win. It is not uncommon for politics to denounce something and then turn around and do, war has rules, politics has none.
Seriously, this guy was the editor of La Lotta di Classe (a socialist newspaper) and praised Karl Marx.
2. Mussolini took control of all public works and corporations. That is rather socialist, and its hard to have corporatism when teh government owns all of the corporations.
Explain why Fascism and Socialism share so little? And no, don't say you consider them the same thing.
It appears I need to simplify it for you:
I never said ALL socialism was fascism. Please re-read this a few hundred times because you seem not to get it.
I said fascism was authoritarian socialism. Not all socialism is authoritarian.
1.) Calm Down 2.) What year are you talking about? 3.) I thought we were discussing fascist leaders?
We were, but then you said that Stalin and Mao were not communist.
Just because communism failed in Russia and China does not mean it was not communism.
merica's WWI role was why WWII happened, I agree. they should have stayed out of it. We Canadians were handling things nicely ;) But does this mean that their involvement in WWII was un-called for? No! They were helping us get rid of political bologna.
We shouldn't have been involved in either of these wars. There was no sense in sending young American men half way around the world to die in European wars the first time and there was no reason to do it a second time.
Maybe you haven't noticed yet, but I have a very non-interventionist foreign policy.
but for a few seconds you need to abandon this whole "the state is great and politicians don't lie" way of thinking.
I don't allow whool to be pulled over my eyes. I realize that an honest politician is like wooden steel. However, if a politician changes their ideology, it's not always a complete lie.
Seriously, this guy was the editor of La Lotta di Classe (a socialist newspaper) and praised Karl Marx.
Yes he DID. Past tense.
Mussolini took control of all public works and corporations. That is rather socialist
Socialism means that the means of production are in the control of th workers, not a cabal or corporations or a single man.
I said fascism was authoritarian socialism. Not all socialism is authoritarian.
Here is information on authoritarian socialism, I think you'll find it quite different that fascism.
We were, but then you said that Stalin and Mao were not communist.
Just because communism failed in Russia and China does not mean it was not communism.
The phrase, communist state is an oxymoron. In a communist state there is no government, just a workers utopia. The USSR and China were a bureaucratic mess. They were not communist.
On WWII, you are intitled to you opinion, but I am thankful for America's assistance.
Another point. This one is interesting. Say for instance Hitler was not a complete military fool, say he focuses all of Germany's resources on Great Britain until they are defeated. This could be possible. Then say he waits and waits, all the meanwhile developing nuclear technology and V2 rockets. When the time is right he co-ordinates with Japan against the USSR. A nuclear Germany would be a very dangerous foe Then perhaps America is all that is left standing. Would the tax dollars be a waste then? I'm not saying America was the tipping point in the Allies favor, I'm just saying the money as well spent.
Another point. This one is interesting. Say for instance Hitler was not a complete military fool
No, lets not say that. Hitler was a megalomaniac who was completely incompetent when it came to military planning.
Then say he waits and waits, all the meanwhile developing nuclear technology and V2 rockets. When the time is right he co-ordinates with Japan against the USSR.
The USSR and Germany would have gone to war no matter what. The USSR forced Romania to give up some of their land so that the Soviets would be able to cut off Germany's oil supply. Also, the USSR had a massive amount of troops stationed along the Nazi/Soviet border in occupied Poland. Seriously, the Red Army had already been redeployed and was switching over from defensive to offensive and were planning to invade in July 1941. Hitler saw the writing on the wall and wanted to have the first strike.
A nuclear Germany would be a very dangerous foe Then perhaps America is all that is left standing. Would the tax dollars be a waste then?
Well first off, lets just remember that there would have likely been no Nazi Germany in the first place if Woodrow Wilson didn't shred the Monroe Doctrine and have us jump into WWI, in which case we were the tipping point.
No, lets not say that. Hitler was a megalomaniac who was completely incompetent when it came to military planning
What if he was assassinated and someone who understood the arts of war took over??
The USSR forced Romania to give up some of their land so that the Soviets would be able to cut off Germany's oil supply.
Incorrect, Romania was a Nazi ally.
[the Soviets] were planning to invade in July 1941. Hitler saw the writing on the wall and wanted to have the first strike.
This is also incorrect. Part of the reason Stalin had Molotov sign the non-aggression pact was to avoid conflict with Germany, so the Red Army could rebuild from the purges of the 1930's.
Hitler saw the writing on the wall and wanted to have the first strike.
Also incorrect. It is outlined in Mien Kamph that Hitler wanted to invade the USSR or 'Libensgrund' or living space.
Well first off, lets just remember that there would have likely been no Nazi Germany in the first place if Woodrow Wilson didn't shred the Monroe Doctrine and have us jump into WWI, in which case we were the tipping point
Yes, you are correct with that one. At least the Americans contributed to cleaning up :)
What if he was assassinated and someone who understood the arts of war took over??
There were 30+ assassination attempts on him, they all failed.
Incorrect, Romania was a Nazi ally.
Part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Act said that some regions belonging to Romania would be have all Romania troops and government authority withdrawn from the areas and hand them over to the USSR.
This is also incorrect. Part of the reason Stalin had Molotov sign the non-aggression pact was to avoid conflict with Germany, so the Red Army could rebuild from the purges of the 1930's.
So they were redeploying and mobilizing their army along the German border, right? A treaty is a piece of paper, nothing more. Sometimes it is in a nations best interest to abide by the terms of that piece of paper, sometimes its not...
Also incorrect. It is outlined in Mien Kamph that Hitler wanted to invade the USSR or 'Libensgrund' or living space.
Hitler wanted more land for Germany, that's why he took Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands, France and half of Poland.
Part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Act said that some regions belonging to Romania would be have all Romania troops and government authority withdrawn from the areas and hand them over to the USSR.
Partly true, but greater Rumenia was still a Nazi ally.
Hitler wanted more land for Germany, that's why he took Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands, France and half of Poland.
Stalin wasn't too stupid. He knew the Red Army was not ready for the war. This is why he signed the pact. Also, in Mien Kamph, Hitler specifically mentions Eastern Europe and the USSR as the living space. Don't ask me why he thought this way, he was sick after all.
Partly true, but greater Rumenia was still a Nazi ally.
Its not "partly true" its a fact that the Molotov-Ribbentrop act made Romania give some of its regions to the USSR, regardless of if it was an ally of Nazi Germany.
Stalin wasn't too stupid. He knew the Red Army was not ready for the war. This is why he signed the pact.
Stalin was a very bright man, however, military wise, he was as incompetent as Hitler. The difference was that Hitler continued to reject all advice from his generals and mismanage the army, where as Stalin quickly learned that it was better to let his generals handle most of the fighting.
What part of "the USSR got Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and Hertza" is unclear to you? I never said Romania was not a Nazi ally, I said that the USSR wanted these regions so that the Reds would have a goo launching point into Romania, seeing as The Ploesti oil fields supplied most of Germany's oil.