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.
Amarel, what on God's Earth do you suppose a random medical innovation index has to do with the question? If I ask you whether Hitler is bad are you going to link me to the physics breakthroughs made by Nazi rocket scientists?
The American attitude that you so eloquently articulated is part of the reason for our high levels of innovation.
Just wtf? Show me any evidence at all that there is a relationship between the general attitude of Americans and privately financed medical research which takes place in America, you completely delusional, retarded idiot. America is the world's wealthiest country. That's why it contributes to medical research. It has nothing to do with the general attitude of ordinary Americans.
Idk why you keep focusing on medical innovation. That's a different list where the UK isn't even in the top ten. Though Israel is (Just saying in case your feelings toward Hitler are as expected).
The Global Innovation Index put out by the World Intellectual Property Organization is broader than just medical innovation.
I don't even know what your link thinks it is measuring. Innovation is an abstract noun. It could mean any one of a hundred different things. But probably all of them have something to do with research, and research is not something carried out by the general American population. It's something specialists do and wealthy investors (such as the government) fund.
What my source is measuring is spelled out at the same site. They actually tell you what they mean and how they choose their metrics. You don't have to rely on what you think they probably mean and then compose an argument based on that probable meaning. You can read it right on their site.
Also, almost 20% of US patents are from small businesses.
The Global Innovation Index put out by the World Intellectual Property Organization is broader than just medical innovation.
Hope that clears it up for you.
You're such a fucking idiot, Amarel. No, that does not "clear up" why you posted a survey about "innovation" in response to a question about general American attitudes and are still pretending like there is any relationship between the two.
You know Amarel: you are just simply a retard. What possesses you to draw arbitrary conclusions which lack any supporting evidence (and frequently don't even make sense) and expect other people to simply accept them? I asked a question about general American attitudes and you posted a link telling me that America has a good track record with private medical research. It's so stupid and unrelated I don't even know how to respond to it. How about I just begin here?
On Tuesday, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released the results of a two-year study in which thousands of adults in 23 countries were tested for their skills in literacy, basic math and technology. The US fared badly in all three fields, ranking somewhere in the middle for literacy but way down at the bottom for technology and math.
There's not very much in my source about medical research. Even so, in this debate my conclusion was that you are correct about American attitudes. If that's a retarded conclusion then...
As an engineer in R&D, my life is hard work and passion but I that definitely isn’t the heart of any of my innovations.
Hard work isn’t for innovation. Hard work is for endurance. Hard work is for survival. Innovation is successfully implementing creative ideas. creativity is about solving some problem in a new way. Hard work, in the way described in the debate title, will not bring you to innovation.
So for me the innovative culture of the US does not stem from the hard work culture.
As an engineer in R&D, my life is hard work and passion but I that definitely isn’t the heart of any of my innovations.
I wish I'd done something like engineering, or physics. It's a pity that you have to put in a lot of boring hours of groundwork before you can get onto the really interesting stuff though. I'm the type of dude who tries to run before he can walk so I never had the patience for that. I enjoyed maths but physics lessons in school never really interested me.
Yes, I have to say that my first 2 years in school were intensive and boring groundwork... working as an engineer is way more fun than studying to be one.
Although I don’t think I would have minded just doing math for the rest of life... living in my own abstract and logical world...
I had a cushy little part time job working for American Express back in the day and one of my friends there was studying engineering. Just at degree level, but I remember he was swamped with work.
Hard work isn't described in the debate title. Work is only referred to as when something doesn't "work".
I don't believe anyone claimed that hard work is the heart of innovation. Rather, the title claims that when Americans get things wrong, they do the wrong thing even more. If that were a fair assessment of the general American attitude, we wouldn't value innovation, let alone be innovative.
The original argument to which I asked clarification is sarcasm ?
Innovation requires money.Money is what motivated people to be creative and to take risks. Money is needed to cover the expenses of prototypes and tests.
Innovation requires creativity as well. I would look at companies like Apple and Google and see the percentage of Americans they have. I don’t expect them to have that much. In technology innovation the US pay to import creative minds.
Where Americans are really freakin good though is with business. And business is a part of innovation. Because in a capitalist world, no innovation can go without business.
Anyway I am rambling. All of that to say, I wouldn’t go on to say that Americans are Innovative technology leaders because most of their engineers aren’t American. But they are Innovation leaders because of how good they are in business. It is not for nothing that people travel to the US from abroad just to get an MBA.
God I’m reading myself and realizing that maybe I am glass of wine too far. I like the subject, so if I need to clarify more just tell me. I will take the time to clarify.
But they are Innovation leaders because of how good they are in business.
That's exactly it. The entire American culture is rooted in salesmanship. And the problem with that unfortunately is that sales people are unequivocally full of shit. That's exactly why Americans have become so detached from reality. Whether it be a product or an idea, someone is always trying to persuade Americans to buy something, and as the years have passed advertisers have become significantly better at straddling the fine line between truth and fiction.
The only info I found on this was 15 years old. But I found that scientists and engineers are increasingly foreign born, though as of 2006 the fields.were still 3 to 1 native born.
As for sarcasm, yes. I do not agree with the debate OP.
Yeah... look at Apple. Most of the engineering is done abroad in Asia and Europe. I think Steve Job even said that the technology jobs aren’t ready to come back to the US. The US has the image of being behind all the technology but not really. Americans know how to make profits from good ideas. Ahhh that’s the game in this world. Money. Not the idea.
I mean we would expect from the most innovative country in the world to find a vaccine for covid. Right ?
But they didn’t. With all those Americans putting out patents every day, NO ONE decided to figure out ways to rapidly produce medical equipment OR find a vaccine. No. Americans come up with ideas like intelligent mirrors or magnetic liquid eyeliner so that you can easily stick your eyelashes.
Hard work is for endurance. Hard work is for survival.
It’s incredible that Americans take pride in the fact they are the most overworked nation in the world , I wonder on their death beds do Americans think “ I wished I had worked even longer hours”
You seriously need to work longer hours just to survive , wow!
They weren't related, or referred to the a particular person; I wasn't insulting you.
But anyway:
Wouldn't the main ideal of communism be the abolition of property? Granting its ownership to the people of a nation (and thereby to the nation, or more specifically to those that control its meaningful decisions, hence the consistent evolution to totalitarian communist states).
What you're describing is captured better by the term anarchy.
Continuing on your quote:
fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Who decides ones ability? Who decides ones needs? Who decides what ability is needed at a particular time? - How many houses? How many teachers? How many to train in the military? How many to grow food? And answers to this literally unlimited stream of questions change with every moment. The system described necessitates a centralised power to answer such questions - and even then its efficiency is relatively poor.
What makes capitalism work is price and profit. Price rations out the scarce resources and puts them to their generally most valuable use. Profit determines when activity should increase or decrease. This information and incentive is communicated to every single person such that they aggregate to choose the structure of the nation; an inherent democracy, people vote with their wallet (though admittedly some votes are worth more than others depending on your service). And the structure is run from the bottom up; product and service are largely determined by the consumer.
They weren't related, or referred to the a particular person; I wasn't insulting you.
I didn't say you had insulted me so I don't where that came from. I said that you don't understand what communism is. You in fact seem to think communism is the opposite of what it actually is, and I'm simply curious about why that might be.
Who decides ones ability?
Who decides one's ability under capitalism? I think you'll discover it is capitalists, so this appears to be the part where you attack communism for all the faults of capitalism.
Who decides ones ability? Who decides ones needs? Who decides what ability is needed at a particular time?
These are all objective questions with objective answers. Ability at any given task can be objectively measured. A person's needs can be objectively calculated (within a reasonable degree of accuracy). Which ability might be needed to fix a particular problem can be objectively ruled on (i.e. Do I need a plumber or a surgeon?).
These are not complicated or ambiguous questions. They are made such by capitalism. Under capitalism, the person with the most money decides all of these things out of subjective personal preference, and of course that is fucking stupid.
When you try to sum up, with one sentence, the general attitude of a country as large and diverse as the US, you can't possibly present an accurate summary. Furthermore, your summary was specifically negative, and implied that Americans generally do the wrong thing and repeat their error. This is the kind of attitude that, if it were generally true, could not produce a country that is consistently a top achiever in studies concerning innovation, whether it's defined narrowly in terms of patents produced or more broadly, covering a more general swath of the population, such as in the source I presented.
Innovation leader is just one way to look at American attitudes. We are also consistently the most generous people on Earth by a wide margin.
Work ethic is another way we could talk about American attitudes. While we pride ourselves on our world topping work ethic, our lazier European friends love to talk about how aweful that is for us. Simultaneously, they complain about how rich and decadent America is, as if input and output are unrelated. Amusingly, "lazy American" is the picture many try to paint of the country that works longer average hours than even Japan.
The US is consistently on the short list for most technologically advanced country min the world. The countries that top this list correlate to the countries at the top of the supposedly arbitrary innovation list. Top technological advancement, like innovation, is another example situation that Americans could not achieve if Noms ridiculous were anywhere close to fitting.
Now that I'm done with this response, will my bitches please search for the sources I used? Thank you.
When you try to sum up, with one sentence, the general attitude of a country as large and diverse as the US, you can't possibly present an accurate summary
What a complete crock of crap. Firstly, generalisations are not supposed to be accurate summaries. Second, the idea that Americans do not share common beliefs is retarded. For example, 89 percent of Americans believe in God or some form of higher power.
Furthermore, your summary was specifically negative
If the accuracy of my generalisation hurts your feelings then I'm afraid that isn't my problem.
This is the kind of attitude that, if it were generally true, could not produce a country that is consistently a top achiever in studies concerning innovation
Oh shut up you flagrantly delusional sophist. Stop distorting facts so they better fit in with your ridiculous version of reality. As I explained to you the first time you tried using this fallacy:-
A) Innovation is not an objective noun. It essentially means whatever the researcher wants it to mean.
B) Your claims about "innovation" have nothing to do with the general attitude of Americans and, as previously pointed out, Americans are statistically less intelligent than almost all of their counterparts in the developed world.
Following your attempts to regurgitate this big fat red herring about "innovation", which quite clearly is not a study about the millions of people who are starving in America or living in a ghetto, but rather of the privately financed research being conducted by specialist academics, I can also conclude:-
C) Two sentences after claiming we can't generalise Americans you directly imply that Americans are innovative. This of course follows the traditional pattern where you contradict all of your own arguments.
D) If, following your inevitable denials that implying Americans are innovative is a generalisation, we conclude instead that you are saying a specific demographic is innovative, then of course your reference therefore has zero relevance to a question about general American attitudes and is, as previously mentioned, a big fat red herring.
This of course follows the traditional pattern where you contradict all of your own arguments.
Got it in one the clown lists several points and contradicts them then asserts you’ve “conceded “ points .....he’s the only person I know who can hold two contradictory views and think he’s making a reasoned argument
It's good that you conceded the fact that your generalization of Americans is not at all an accurate summary.
As for starvation in the US, we are neck and neck with Belgium and quite a bit better off than France. Our poor who suffer hunger and food insecurity also happen to be disproportionately obese. This is why lying little leftists like you have changed the focus from malnutrition to hunger. Capitalism has been reducing starvation world wide for decades now. So you switch the goal post to hunger and talk about it in the same terms as starvation.
It's good that you conceded the fact that your generalization of Americans is not at all an accurate summary.
Conceded? 😆
Amarel, my generalisation is a generalisation. You are the only person who asserted it was ever intended to be an "accurate summary". This is how ridiculous conversations with you become Amarel. You rewrite other people's language and then accuse them of conceding when they point out that you are misrepresenting what they said.
As for starvation in the US, we are neck and neck with Belgium and quite a bit better off than France.
Oh no, Amarel. You lead the world in innovation, remember? You are also the richest economy in the world, with a substantially greater GDP than France and Belgium combined. So how come there are 50 million hungry people? The amount of hungry people in your country is five times greater than the entire population of Belgium so I find it both contemptible and pathetic that you would even mention Belgium.
You're very worried about fat people being hungry in the wealthiest nation, which is also among the fattest nations. That's nice of you but since we are also the most generous nation, we've got it covered.
Having food insecurity does not mean you are starving.
If your generalization is not an accurate summary, then it certainly isn't a fair assessment.
It is a perfectly fair assessment of the general attitude of Americans, just like it would be a perfectly fair assessment if I suggested that Americans generally believe in a higher power. A good example to support the point is guns. In 2019 there were 417 mass shootings in the United States, yet idiots like you (and the American right generally) genuinely seem to believe the solution to that problem isn't to take the gun away from the shooter, but rather to arm everybody else. It emphasises my point almost perfectly.
It's a generalization, an in accurate summary, and a fair assessment
Amarel, stop trying to twist language inside out to find a non-existent problem. You are a halfwit without any credible argument who is looking to find some kind of semantic weakness to exploit. A fair assessment of the general attitude of Americans would be the same thing as a fair generalisation. It would not be the same thing as an "accurate summary" unless one were to specify that the "accurate summary" is of the general attitude of Americans.
I hope that clears up any confusion you might be experiencing about the meaning of words.
