#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.
|
Leftism is a form of mental retardation
Seattle's mayor is set to sign a new city budget cutting the police department's funding by 18%
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/25/us/seattle-police-budget-cut/index.html
Seattle sees 525 percent spike in crime
It is
Side Score: 45
|
 |
It is not
Side Score: 44
|
|
|
This view is the result of RW propaganda and a complete lack of understanding what the left advocates. The fact that RW policies over the last 50 years have created the dystopian society we are now living in should be enough to convince even the most conservative RW ideologes. When 3 people own more than half the population it's obvious something is amiss. Side: It is not
1
point
I couldn’t roll my eyes more... I read through a few of the arguments... I believe leftism understand humans behavior in society. We all know that a society where the differences between your neighbor and yourself are too big lead to violence and chaos. Why don’t we spare the death and tragedy and share a little? It isn’t about caring about others but protecting yourself and your family. The minimum would be education and health. That’s it. Side: It is not
1
point
1
point
I would argue that both sides, are Then you'd be guilty of a false equivalence because the left wing was invented to help everyday people and the right wing was invented to enslave them. The person who opened this "debate" is a literal Nazi whose only interest lies in persuading you to believe things which are not true. He has been permanently banned from the site on over a dozen occasions, but keeps changing his IP address and coming back to spread more lies and extreme far right political propaganda. If you had been diligent enough to check his links you would have noticed that his second link (the one about the 525 percent crime spike) is literally on the media's own fake news watchlist:- News Break QUESTIONABLE SOURCE Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Fake News Use of poor sources, and publishing satire as real news, which is actually fake news when not disclosed. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
Both the left and the right have negative issues Yes they do, but the only reason there is a left is because the ordinary people who were being oppressed by authoritarian, monarchist regimes sat down and thought critically about why their lives were shit. The left -- I mean the true left, rather than liberal capitalists -- believes the favouritism capitalism shows to the rich eventually leads to something called class, and that the lower class, which does all the hard work, is exploited by the higher class, which takes all the profit. The left also believes that the government is the great protector of this way of life, and despite the pack of lies people in your country get every day about the left, the left wants to get rid of the government. Conversely, the right is about tradition, order, authority, oppression of the working class and it depends upon the state to enforce its interests. The best proof of that is history. Your country is further to the right politically than any other in the developed world, and it has always had a strong central government to hold that system in place. Side: It is
1
point
It isn't an exaggeration when I say that the right wants to enslave you. It wants a society just like this one where everybody is forced to work. The only change in 300 years is that they have taken the chains off. You're still a slave. You have to work. You aren't give another choice except death, just like the old days. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
I agree with individual policies on both the right and the left, and think both have potentual. Yes dear. It's exactly the same with God and Satan. They both have flaws but they both also have good policies with a lot of potential. I'm really glad we had this conversation about how opposing things are always equivalent and equal to one another. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You are an atheist and a leftist, not a centrist Yes I am. You, don't have the right, to, tell me, what I can or can't believe. I am a centrist because I, believe, in certain things, from both, sides. centrism is a political ideology, not a religion No, being in the centre does not just apply to politics dear. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
Yes beimg a centrist is a political term only No dear, being a centrist means you are in the centre of whatever is being discussed. It means you hold moderate views. You don't have, the right, to dictate to me what I am allowed to believe. Religiocentrism and Ethnocentrism if you are a centrist I am Ronald McDonald You don't, have, the right, to dictate to me what I am allowed to believe, and, if you don't stop, harassing me, I will peaceably sue you, for damages. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
I have the right to say that centrism is a political veiw You don't, have, the right, to slander me, so knock, it off. I never said, that, centrism isn't a political view, so, that is, a, strawman fallacy. Religion is, part, of, politics, whether you like it, or not. Almost everything, on Earth, is part of politics. I'll give, you, an example: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and I don't care, what your propaganda, says, The US constitution is, not, propaganda, and if, you, don't stop with the lying slander, I will henceforth, contact, my attorney. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
If centrism is a religious term, show me the holy book, and house of worship, or shut the fuck, up. If you have an IQ above 70, show me the Dalai Lama or shut the fuck up. The centre of theism/atheism is not theism, so there will be neither a holy book nor a house of worship. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
If centrism can be used as a religious label, you need to prove it Think again. I don't have to prove that I can be in the centre of two opposing polar positions because that is self-evident. I claimed to be a religious centrist. YOU are the one who changed the word to "centrism" and YOU are the one who is insisting I can't be in the centre of religion. Yes, I can be in the centre of religion so go and pickle your own eyeballs dear. How about that? Side: It is
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Centrist is a term used by politicians, pundits, and political commentators. It is also a term used by academics discussing religion as I proved to you several days ago with the use of a pertinent example. I am fully aware that you believe debate is a matter of ignoring what the other person says, but since it isn't and since you do ignore everything everybody says there's not much point in you replying. Just shut your silly mouth and go have a cake instead. Side: It is
1
point
the left wing was invented to help everyday people and the right wing was invented to enslave them. You've got to be one of the simplest fucks I've encountered. Earlier you pretended that I blame poor people for their poverty. That's not it at all. It's simply that you believe that those who have are to blame for those who have not, and when I tell you you're wrong you assume I'm shifting blame to the have-nots. Someone should remind you that you have. Side: It is
1
point
You've got to be one of the simplest fucks I've encountered. Lol. Well, I certainly seem to be able to push your buttons whenever I feel like it. 😆 Earlier you pretended that I blame poor people for their poverty. I wasn't pretending. I meant it. Why would you think I was pretending? That's not it at all. That is absolutely it, otherwise you obviously wouldn't be so triggered about it, would you? I hit the nail on the head, and clearly you are not happy about it. It's simply that you believe Lol. Nothing I have done explains your sneering arrogance or your terrible attitude towards poor people. In fact, blaming me for your own attitude only further exposes you for the delusional sociopath you are. those who have are to blame for those who have not The very fact that there are have nots at all proves the system isn't working you hilariously stupid little crook. But you sit there lying about it purely to serve your own self-interests. That's the type of lamentable worm you are. Anytime anybody points out ways that the system isn't working you try to turn the facts upside down like you are doing right now by blaming me for your own bad attitude towards poor people. Side: It is
your terrible attitude towards poor people I don't have any kind of attitude towards poor people. Your attitude toward wealth, and your belief that I have it, gives you the false notion of an attitude towards poor people on my part. The very fact that there are have nots at all proves the system isn't working If the system was nothing more than you and I alone in an empty room, you would be a have-not. The existence of have-nots is unavailable. Side: It is
1
point
I don't have any kind of attitude towards poor people. Your absurd denials of the obvious are really of no interest to me mate. Your attitude Neither are your insidious efforts to reflect all criticism back to the accuser. What you are Amarel is a narcissist, and like most narcissists your ego has an inverse square relationship to your IQ. Side: It is not
1
point
If you managed to understand my point Amarel, I have been using this site for over six years and for all your sneering I have yet to see you make any point at all. You cannot seem to write a solitary sentence which is factually accurate. The sentence quoted above is a fine example, because you quite overtly are trying to create the false impression that the problem is with my "understanding", rather than your total inability/unwillingness to structure a point coherently. your avoidance of it is a little too obvious I avoid all gibberish. If you want me to refute something then go to the trouble of making it coherent. This bizarre delusion of yours where you write something which does not make any sense, just so you can blame me for not understanding it, only further supports the idea that you suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder. Side: It is not
1
point
As for my attitude towards "the poor" it's as varied as the number of individual poor people. I've been reading your posts for six years pal, so I can't seriously think you expect me to believe that's true. The only "individual" you give one fresh shit about is yourself. Believe it or not mate, you tend to leave a few clues about what you believe when you spend every day posting your opinions on the internet. Side: It is not
1
point
6 years is a long time. 6 years of my posts would give you plenty of examples of me presenting an attitude towards the poor such as you have claimed. Amarel, the only thing your posts ever give examples of is banal Cold War propaganda from the mid 1980s. It's all infantile shock porn about how Communism killed ten squillion people. It is offensive to my intelligence when you try to persuade people that capitalism is somehow a morally superior system, because at least 9 million people starve to death every single year in countries which identify as capitalist. America is the wealthiest country on planet Earth and yet there are 11 million children there who don't even have enough to eat. It gets boring reading your right wing anti-socialist propaganda bud, and it gets boring real quick. Rightwingers point out the horrors of Stalinism, yet forget the human misery their favoured economic model was built on Don’t get me wrong: regimes that took the name “communist” – from Stalin’s to Pol Pot’s – committed unspeakable, monstrous crimes. But for the right, a revival of interest in Marx’s pre-Stalinist vision of communism is the most striking and chilling example of its own collapsing ideological supremacy: “communism” is synonymous with tens of millions of deaths and nothing else. Capitalism, by contrast, is presented as a largely bloodless, blameless engine of human prosperity. The story of capitalism is more complicated than that. If you want to read effusive praise of capitalism, you’ll find it in Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto: the revolutionary dynamism of the capitalists, they wrote, had created “wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals”. But capitalism is an economic system drenched in the blood of countless millions. https://www.theguardian.com/ Side: It is not
1
point
10 squillion is probably a low estimate. It's retarded right wing bullshit which only stupid people believe. In your fairy tale universe, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unless those people happen to be Communists, and then Communism kills them. You have raging double standards and you are an idiot. Side: It is not
1
point
Communism doesn't kill people, Communists kill people. Oh, for God's sake grow up you infantile halfwit. It's a pity idiots like you don't have the intelligence to notice your own raging double standards. The list includes certain death tolls from the two World Wars, colonial wars, anticommunist campaigns and repressions, ethnic conflicts, and victims of famines or malnutrition; bringing the incomplete total to a 100 million deaths attributed to capitalism in the 20th century. Side: It is not
1
point
1
point
Sometimes I forget about your cognitive disability. I'll break it down Barney style for you. -A gun may be a person's tool of choice when the person kills someone. That is an example of the person killing a person and not an example of the tool of choice (a gun) killing the person. -Communism may be a person's ideological justification when the communist kills someone. That is an example of the communist killing the person and not an example of their ideological justification (communism) killing the person. Side: It is
1
point
Sometimes I forget about your cognitive disability. Sometimes I forget that every time you write something stupid you blame me for it. Oh no wait, I didn't forget that. 😆 Please Amarel, tell me more about how failing to read two paragraphs you didn't write gives me a cognitive disability. All you wrote was "Communists kill people" and that's it. You can't add two extra paragraphs, send them back in time, and then blame me for not reading your time-travelling paragraphs. Are you actually retarded, you thick fuck? Side: It is not
You fail to see the difference between communism killing someone and a communist killing someone. It's not even a subtle distinction. It requires lengthy explanations to explain even simple things to people with cognitive delays such as yourself. That's why there were two paragraphs for it. Side: It is
1
point
You fail to see the difference between communism killing someone and a communist killing someone. No Amarel, you fail to see the difference between keeping your mouth shut and having people think you a fool, and opening your mouth up to confirm it. I nailed it twenty minutes ago Amarel. You are mentally ill. There's no other reason why you'd pretend we weren't talking about your anti-Communist propaganda seconds before you made the claim that Communists kill people. Side: It is not
1
point
A gun may be a person's tool of choice when the person kills someone. That is an example of the person killing a person and not an example of the tool of choice (a gun) killing the person. So, just to clarify, when someone gets shot to death, that isn't "an example of a gun killing the person"? I just want to make sure there aren't any time-travelling paragraphs waiting to arrive this time before I start laughing at how completely devoid of intelligence and reason you are. If we take the gun away from that shooting is there still a dead person? Lol. Nevermind. Side: It is not
No clarification will ever be sufficient for a person who can't even comprehend self-defense. Even so, regardless of whether killer uses a gun, or a knife or a rope or a candlestick in the library, all cases are examples of a person killing a person. Regardless of whether the killer does it for love, hate, patriotism, or communism, all cases are examples of a person killing a person. Side: It is
1
point
No clarification will ever be sufficient for a person who can't even comprehend self-defense. 😆 Ahahahaha! Of course, because when you don't want to answer the simple question I asked for fear of confirming your own stupidity, then simply deflect to a random statement about self-defence, as if the only possible use for guns is self-defence. We'll just forget about all the times they've been used to rob, murder and maim. They aren't as important I guess. Side: It is not
Directly after the sentence you responded to I provided said clarification. It's literally in the post you are responding to here. "Even so, regardless of whether killer uses a gun, or a knife or a rope or a candlestick in the library, all cases are examples of a person killing a person. Regardless of whether the killer does it for love, hate, patriotism, or communism, all cases are examples of a person killing a person." Side: It is
If we take the gun away from that shooting is there still a dead person? Yes. There just isn't a shooting. That's because the killer is still there but without a gun. Since guns don't kill people, if you remove the killer from the shooting, then the gun remains but there is no longer a dead person, or a shooting. People kill people. Side: It is
1
point
Yes 😂😂😂 Oh, OK buddy. So the guy who got shot is still full of bullets, but there's no gun? Is this the plot to a science fiction film you are working on? Sounds epic. Lmao. There just isn't a shooting. Oh, OK. So you're telling me the 110 pound high schooler who killed that innocent man would have had that much success without the automatic weapon? 😆 Ahahahaha! Amarel, you are just batshit mad brother. I called it yesterday. Your ego and your IQ have an inverse square relationship with one another. Side: It is not
1
point
1
point
People kill people without guns all the time. No Amarel, in America they use guns 75 percent of the time. Guns are now responsible for 75% of killings in America America has the highest homicide rate in the developed world and the highest rate of violent death in the developed world. See:- https://www.amjmed.com/article/ One should not have to explain why it is a bad idea to give people who intend to harm others free access to the most effective means of achieving that end which handheld technology can provide, but of course when one speaks to literal fucking idiots like yourself, one generally always has to. Side: It is not
1
point
America also has the 3rd highest rate of death by stabbing in the entire world. No it doesn't you total unadulterated fucking idiot. Learn to read. You were looking at the population figures, not the "rate of death by stabbing" figures:- https://worldpopulationreview.com/ You are literally just so goddamned stupid. The link even says right at the top:- Knife violence is not as common in the United States and the Western Hemisphere as it is in Europe and other countries in Asia. You fucking retard. Shut your mouth and go back to school you pointless waste of effort. Side: It is not
1
point
America also has the 3rd highest rate of death by stabbing in the entire world. Not developed world, entire world. Yeah, that's right pal. Vanish for another three hours while you work out exactly how you are going to twist language around the fact that you can't even interpret a simple data table. You're a sneering idiot, absent the elementary intelligence necessary to distinguish population statistics from death by stabbing rates. Side: It is not
1
point
Anywho. Even with the third largest number of stabbing deaths in the world, I have never stabbed anyone. So I will keep my knife. You would be hard pressed to justify taking it from me when I have no record of misuse. And I'm not the least bit worried that my knife will stab me. Because knives don't stab people. Side: It is
1
point
Anywho. Even with the third largest number of stabbing deaths in the world, I have never stabbed anyone. Lol. You're literally too stupid to even know when to shut up, aren't you? 😆 You can't come back from reading a table on world population and thinking it is a table on rates of death by stabbing. There's no way back from something that stupid, and that would be true even if you weren't trying to change the subject from my own completely accurate statistics and even if you had been honest enough to link your own source instead of trying to hold it in reserve in case I accused you of lying. What you are Amarel is stupid. You don't realise it because you have NPD but you are an absolute goddamned thickie son. Side: It is not
The way you glom on to a mistake as simple as me accidentally saying rate instead of number is a little too telling at your excitement. Presumably over being able to say I'm wrong without having to pretend I'm a liar. And it's wrapped up in the bow of being a complete distraction from the topic you lost. Merry Christmas. You don't get this often. Side: It is
1
point
The way you glom on to a mistake as simple as Amarel, shut up pal. You're boring, stupid and intellectually dishonest. You refuse to stay on topic, you ooze right wing bias out of every pore and you aren't intelligent enough to interpret a simple data table correctly. You're an idiot pal, and like all idiots everywhere, you lack the critical thinking skills to know when you are making a situation worse for yourself. The population figures for each of the countries in that table are literally adjacent in the very next column. Did you think there had been 320 million knife murders in the United States this year you completely stupid, sneering little halfwit? 😆 Over a billion knife murders in China and India? 😆 You've got the brainpower of a bag of walnuts bud. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
Provide just one example of me blaming "poor people" for their poverty. Are you under the impression I am debating you about something I know already to be factually true? I've had literally dozens of arguments with you where you have pretended poor people are swamped with a litany of employment opportunities and that sheer laziness is responsible for their lack of wealth. I'm not even remotely interested in trawling through your ridiculous posts to find something you are going to distort or deny the moment I find it. Perhaps you haven't picked up from the way I automatically ban you from every debate I open that I am not interested in the slightest in your overt, laughably stupid extreme far right political propaganda. Side: It is not
It was obvious from the start that this was yet another hollow assertion like almost all of your positions. I just wanted to draw out the point so that you would demonstrate the ease with which you make such unfounded accusations without even the pretense of needing evidence. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
1
point
without even the pretense of needing evidence. I'm not canvassing for public opinion. I'm in a conversation with two people, both of whom know I am right. I have no responsibility to evidence anything at all to you, and least of all things which have come out of your own stupid mouth. Side: It is not
1
point
1
point
0
points
Both the left and the right are stupid. Actually most ideas are. people just defend there beliefs using probability such as: "Evolution can't be real because natural selection can not create a totally new species, it's not that powerful". there's no more evidence of this then there is of the opposing theory that it is possible the person arguing against evolution uses it as an argument though because it benefits there argument. people would rather defend there argument then look for the truth! Side: It is not
2
points
Both the left and the right are stupid. Your fallacy is: the false equivalence. Assuming that if one side is stupid, the other side must necessarily also be stupid. The fact of the matter is that it is people who are stupid, because they are living in a system which enslaves them with invisible chains. The left was invented by people who were intelligent enough to see the invisible chains, and because you are not that intelligent, you accuse the left of being stupid. And that, in large part, is why the world is so fucked. It lives in right wing societies and cultures which use and exploit people for their labour, but thanks to evolution a lot of smart people have seen through this for what it is. Not wanting to see the end of its rulership the right has spent the last century attacking the left and saturating culture with propaganda designed to convince you that capitalism is like socialism (i.e. fair, just, equal opportunity etc...) and socialism is like capitalism (hierarchical, oppressive, authoritarian etc...). Stupid is the default condition of people when it comes to politics. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
I'm as far left as it gets, I'm an anarchist! You just moments ago said the right and the left are both stupid, so I'm wondering why you would be describing your own most sacred political beliefs as stupid. We don't live in a world of black and white Please stop using straw man argumentation. We live in a world where some people are motivated by their own greed and lust for power, and others are motivated by humanitarianism, love and helping others. That's just reality. Side: It is
1
point
1: the right and the left are both stupid indeed, I like the idea of the left, but both sides have some flaws. 2:We all need to remain open minded to what the other side believes although I have to admit you do have a point on the basis of both ideas, but don't get dogmatic, al must be questioned. I thought you where centrist? Side: It is
1
point
the right and the left are both stupid indeed So, to clarify, you said the right and the left are both stupid. I argued false equivalence because the left is trying to undo the stupidity which has already been caused by the propaganda of right wing systems. You told me you are as far left as it is possible to be, then doubled down on the claim that you are stupid. Is that where we are at right now? My apologies, but you are writing so much gibberish that it's difficult to keep track. We all need to remain open minded to what the other side believes I asked you to please stop making these stupid straw man assertions where you pretend you are countering something which has in fact never been suggested by the person you are talking to. Open-mindedness is not the same thing as ignoring the reality that one side of the spectrum is out to help others, while the other side is in it 100 percent for themselves. That's called delusion. I thought you where centrist? No, I was just winding Dana up. I'm a socialist. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
I'm not speaking gibberish the left and the right DO both have flaws. I agreed with you about this point over a day ago. I have also asked you at least twice to stop using straw man argumentation. That both sides have flaws does not necessarily make them stupid or even comparable. Side: It is not
1
point
1
point
Maybe I misworded that, Liberals are stupid, conservatives are just fascist. I think in fairness the issue might just be that we have different political systems. Over here liberals are considered to be centre right rather than left, and -- as a general rule at least -- our Conservatives aren't quite as extreme. The furthest right I have seen over here is someone like Nigel Farage, and he is still very much considered a radical by most. That type of extreme far right ideology hasn't been normalised here like it has in the states. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Look, let's not digress here. I don't think politicians on either side of the spectrum are stupid. Quite the opposite in fact. But they are in general divided by character. As far as the voting public goes, then the people on the right are ignorant (rather than stupid) because they vote against their own best interests. That's just reality so there's no balancing it out with anything. That ignorance has been nurtured in them through a variety of means, but ultimately what I've discovered is that people who vote right are more frequently dominated by the emotional side of their brains. They like to feel good, eat good, live good etc... For them life is about their own feelings. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
1
point
Therefore, it is reasonable to test vaccines on animals as it doesn't show or imply a hierarchy of value upon humans and animals. I thought you prefer animals or would dislike the fact that animals are used for vaccinations, although vaccines do not exactly harm animals, they merely test the animals to see if it is effective. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
Vaccines don't directly harm the animals. If I had to guess, it'd be a smaller portion of the virus that would hurt the animal. Like said, animals and humans are equal. You and I know that. Plus, even if it was a hierarchy, who cares? I don't accept killing or abusing other living animals, but I accept the testing of vaccines on animals. One has benefits, one doesn't. Side: It is
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Technically, there is testing going on for a covid-19 animal vaccine. Testing on animals actually gives insight/benefit for both parties. Understandable, that's just how it is, fight to protect oneself. It doesn't matter if one side fights more or directly fight the other side, in this case, animals and humans. Side: It is
|
