CreateDebate


Debate Info

38
25
True..., true Wait...., What? No!
Debate Score:63
Arguments:47
Total Votes:71
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True..., true (31)
 
 Wait...., What? No! (16)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40094) pic



Liberals should not get pissed if you sleep with their women

Liberals are into wealth redistribution.  They want to make sure that someone less fortunate gets a chance in life.

Well..., they should also be into P**** redistribution.  Just to make sure that someone less fortunate gets some.

The only problem is that liberal women aren't all that appealing.  I mean, hairy arm pits and legs, etc.

Disclaimer:  This debate is purely for entertainment purposes (albeit at the expense of liberals).  Any resemblance to actual liberals, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

True..., true

Side Score: 38
VS.

Wait...., What? No!

Side Score: 25
0 points

It makes sense. If we lived in a truly equal society, those who are unable to get laid should be able to get some from those more prone to it. you know... leveling the playing field.

Or... we could just accept that everyone has their flaws and must work past them without government interfering and making life shitty for everyone.

Side: True..., true
Mahollinder(898) Disputed
2 points

I'm going to downvote you and give you a reply.

you know... leveling the playing field.

That isn't leveling the playing field. That's just letting you fuck someone's wife/girlfriend.

Or... we could just accept that everyone has their flaws and must work past them without government interfering and making life shitty for everyone.

Or! Or... we can be a little more honest and recognize that there is a system in place, with historical roots and antagonistic forces, that does stifle some members' abilities to work beyond their problems and gives unfavorable and disproportionate advantage to others, and it snot necessarily based on merit or capacity.

And idealism doesn't trump reality. For example, America has one of the lowest social mobility indexes in the developed world. All of those quasi-socialist European countries, with their government involvement and socioeconomic regulatory mechanisms are performing better than America in nearly every quantitative and qualitative index. And, yes, I can support these assertions.

Side: Wait...., What? No!
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
2 points

there is a system in place, with historical roots and antagonistic forces, that does stifle some members' abilities to work beyond their problems and gives unfavorable and disproportionate advantage to others, and it snot necessarily based on merit or capacity.

Like the government. Only difference between government regulation and Capitalist failure is that government regulation is by force. Don't follow the rules, you go to jail or get fined. Seems way more unfair than just letting people try to solve their own damned problems.

and yes, if a guy can't get laid and you can, it would be leveling the playing field to give him a bit of the action that you are receiving. Watch Enemy at the Gates; the USSR could never truly make people equal.

Side: True..., true
1 point

Another down vote with no rebuttal. this is a joke debate... how sad.

liberals... can't understand their seriousfaggotry.

Side: True..., true
xander(438) Disputed
1 point

Allow me to rebut. I am a liberal lady, and my lady-parts aren't property- they're a part of my person, which isn't property either. Treating ladies like cargo isn't going to get anyone laid- not that YOU would know ANYTHING about not getting laid.

Side: Wait...., What? No!
-1 points

Liberals invented that free love crap back in the 60's. Another wacky liberal idea that never worked ;)

NOTE: disclaimer above still applies ;)

Side: True..., true
2 points

interestingly, despite the massive down voting on this side... we're still winning :)

Side: True..., true
6 points

Well I suppose even conservatives need to get laid sometime. Must be hard when 90% of conservative women are over 50 and look like they just crawled out of middle earth.

I mean, no wonder conservative guys are so angry and most of them are closet homosexuals.

Side: Wait...., What? No!

Are you kidding me? Didn't you know that Democrat is the party for ugly women (read liberal women)?

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Is_the_Democrat_party_the_party_for_ugly_women

and liberal guys are either openly gay or metro...., I mean...., how gay is that? ;)

Side: True..., true
zombee(1026) Disputed
1 point

What percent of Hollywood celebrities do you think would identify as liberal or Democratic? How many of them do you think would fall under the category of 'ugly'?

Side: Wait...., What? No!
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Conservative guys are afraid if they let gay people get married they'll magically turn gay themselves. How gay is that?

Side: Wait...., What? No!
xander(438) Disputed
1 point

Hey. Whoa. Resentment!

What's more, liberals are pretty much always (as a group) way younger than conservatives- which makes us way more attractive.

ALSO, what is this "their" women bullshit? "Oh, yeah, I took Jane-the-Sweater from Bob the other day. Man, he was pissed, but what a perfect fit!"

Ladies aren't a resource, and we can sleep with whomsoever we feel- whatever political party they are affiliated with.

Side: Wait...., What? No!
2 points

You might have a point if the top 1% controlled 40% of the pussy. :p

But they don't, women are distributed fairly evenly.

Money on the other hand...

Distribution of Wealth in America

Side: Wait...., What? No!

OK Jessald, I'm going to get serious for just a minute (so time me ;)

I think that this would make a good debate.

The statistic that 40% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the people can be a bit misleading.

It can be misleading because it leads some people to believe that redistributing that wealth will be a good thing. The problem is that everything has its good points and its bad points and things tend to come with unexpected side effects that aren't necessarily good.

For example, what if we were successful in redistributing the entire world's wealth evenly among everyone? Now I would wager that not everyone will spend that money wisely. But there's a problem with the word "wisely" because it means different things to different people. If you gamble it away, most people would say that wasn't wise. If you build a mansion in the middle of the Kalahari desert then a business man might say that is not wise investment (but if you're a bushman living in it..., you might like it). But if large corporations don't have the capital to invest, the standard of living would stagnate.

Imagine if we were all stuck in the 1970's indefinitely. Some might be able to endure the bell bottoms and the disco music, etc. but I would wager that most would rather be stuck in 2010 with their iPod and iPhone and text messaging service plan. But that's because we don't know what's in store for us in the future.

What I'm trying to say is that money should be concentrated where it does the most good and giving it away to people who would squander it is not wise.

OK, my minute is up ;)

Side: True..., true
2 points

I do think wealth should be concentrated. Sometimes it seems like you guys buy your own bullshit and forget that a large majority of Democrats are pro-capitalism. It's just that I don't think wealth should be concentrated to such a great degree.

The profit motive has been proven to be a good way to direct our resources toward productive uses. But don't forget that to concentrate wealth is to concentrate power. If you're the CEO of a massive company, you can create huge barriers to entry which can prevent other people from being able to compete with you fairly. You can manipulate the people and the government into giving you even more money and power. It is dangerous to allow anyone to accumulate this level of power.

Meanwhile you have the problem of poverty for other people. The flip side of 1% having 40% of the wealth is that the bottom 80% only get 10%. Why should we have so many people living lives of relative poverty, when we could take just a little from the richest? $1000 would mean a whole lot more to a really poor person than a really rich person. Even if this hurt the economy somewhat, it will create such a dramatic improvement in the overall welfare of the population that it would clearly be worth it.

So, no, I'm not calling for a communist utopia. And I favor incremental change over radical change. So if it were up to me, I would redistribute only a bit of the wealth and then wait a while and see what happens. If everything went ok, I would distribute a little bit more. I would keep doing so until I found a line where it seemed like the well-being of society as a whole was appropriately balanced against the need to incentivize people toward doing productive work. I think it's clear that we are far from that point.

Side: Wait...., What? No!
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

What I'm trying to say is that money should be concentrated where it does the most good and giving it away to people who would squander it is not wise

i like that statement. Is money currently concentrated where it does the most good though?

Side: Wait...., What? No!
xander(438) Disputed
1 point

Controlled? Pussy? I swear to god, all of the guys in this debate must be campaigning for the longest dry spell ever. Ladies distribute themselves where they damn well see fit. We aren't property or tradeable or exchangeable- this is like me demanding your testosterone, it's stupid.

Side: Wait...., What? No!
1 point

Haha, I'm just speaking in a language Joe will understand.

.............

Side: Wait...., What? No!