CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
5
That’s me Lawnmans view
Debate Score:16
Arguments:8
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 That’s me (5)
 
 Lawnmans view (3)

Debate Creator

lawnman(1106) pic



My government has not and will not conspire against me.

And I will oppose any argument or evidence that suggests my government has conspired against me with any and all arguments and evidence the government provides.

Lawnman's view: all men protect their interests. 

And because of such I'll disbelieve both the conspiracy theorists and the conspiracy deniers!

That’s me

Side Score: 11
VS.

Lawnmans view

Side Score: 5
3 points

Lawman, let me see if I understand your argument correctly:

all men protect their interests, therefore I disbelieve both the conspiracy theorists and the conspiracy deniers because each is protecting their interests; therefore neither can be trusted to be true.

If this is correct how does it avoid being a genetic fallacy? Because it would seem to me that you are judging the truthfulness of the claim ( the conspiracy) based on the motives of the person making it and not on the merits of the conspiracy theory itself.

Side: That’s me
1 point

Genetic fallacy? Paradoxically No!

While it would be fair to assert that my argument is genetically flawed; after further explanation and consideration it is not flawed as it seems to appear.

It is fair to assert that both parties are serving their interests by arguing ad hominem in lieu of ad rem about a question of conspiracy.

Both terms, ‘conspiracy theorist’ and ‘conspiracy denier’, are merely ad hominem attacks directed at the opposition. Every man who attempts to persuade me that he is correct because his opponent is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ will never cause me to believe him as a validation of the absence of a conspiracy. And likewise, I will disbelieve the man who argues ad hominem ‘conspiracy denier’ to validate his argument of a conspiracy.

Now, concerning my viewpoint, I do not label individuals as conspiracy theorists or deniers. And any debate that involves labeling individuals as justification to believe or not believe is simply untenable.

Consider my argument to be a tenable response to the untenable position of most people about conspiracies.

Side: Lawnmans view
2 points

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no single entity known as "the government." Our government is a collection of individuals who have entered into politics for various reasons. I believe the most common of those reasons is a desire to change the world for the better.

"All men protect their interests"? This is only looking at one half of human nature. People can be selfish, but they can also forgo their own interests for the greater good. It happens when we give to charity. It happened when Bernanke went into academics and public service (working for the Federal Reserve) rather than following the money to a big company. It happened when Obama decided to become a community organizer and then President.

Government is a way for people to cooperate to enact positive change. It is fundamentally a good thing. It has its problems, and we should work to fix them, but the answer is not less government, the answer is better government.

Side: That’s me
2 points

Well you have to be willing to question the government no matter what.

It's one thing to say "has not", but "will not"? Who's to say?

That aside, let's take a look;

We have moved so far away from what the founders started it's kind of scary.

When we first started our government was all about staying out of the way. Now we're almost to the opposite. Politicians have been targeting the private sector for years now.

Now you have to define "against me". I think that our Government is all about being compassion and giving and helping these days. So at fist glance that's good, right? Wrong.

Yes the Government should work in our best interest but people are forgetting that it's not the Governments job to take care of us, it's OUR job to take care of us.

When they have people thinking that they "wont have to worry about putting gas in the car" etc. That's hurting us. When we have people thinking that the rich are to blame, that's hurting us. When we have people telling us how much profit we can make, that's hurting us!

It is a conspiracy and has been a conspiracy for a long time now, and it needs to stop.

Side: That’s me
Constant(28) Disputed
1 point

As someone who knows at least a small amount of American history I can safely say that I am extremely grateful that we are far away from what the founders of this country intended.

The government did not "stay out of the way" in general during any point in the history of this country. The Federal government's role in individual state's affairs (and the affairs of citizens within states) has continuously expanded since our nation's founding.

For one, it is hard to argue that the founders didn't intend for the role of the Federal government to expand. It expanded from the beginning. The last founding father died in the 1800's, (The last founder to die, Madison, died in 1836).

Secondly, even if the Federal Government's role was minimal, state governments had a huge amount of control over people's lives. State governments are still, you know, governments.

You have to remember that many millions of African Americans were under total control by their slave-owners, which were supported by the laws and armed forces under the control of local, state, and Federal Governments.

Additionally, moral codes, religious doctrines, and sanctions against entire groups of people (genders, ethnicities, and sexualities) were rigidly enforced. Also, besides African Americans, women did not have the full, universal vote in all states until 1920 (two years after the Soviet Union granted Universal Suffrage).

That's not even counting the Federal and State government's role in wiping out/driving out millions of Native Americans and appropriating their lands for white settlers.

Economic practices were regulated less in the 1800's than in the 1900's, but there wasn't a whole lot to regulate back then. Most economic activities were pretty rudimentary and most people worked for themselves. There is no point to labor laws when most people are working for themselves or their families.

To put it bluntly, you are extremely lucky to have been born in the United States in 2009 instead of 1779 (incidentally, you wouldn't have been allowed to vote either. Non-property owners couldn't vote until the 1800's). You are freer now than any American in previous generations. You have a better lifestyle, more opportunities, and much more freedoms than even the wealthiest Americans from the Founding Father era.

Side: That’s me
2 points

Well, who's "your government"?

Individuals consipire. The government, as a whole, does not have the ability to conspire.

I believe that individuals within the government have, are and will continue to conspire for their own benefit or gain, financial or otherwise.

Side: Lawnmans view
paradox(208) Disputed
1 point

swearing on you, lawman or someone who created this debate, i cannot understand it! If you can explain then i might , i mean, my arguments might prove worthy!

Side: That’s me
2 points

Well, I agree that everyone protects their own interests.

I don't believe that the tag of one as a theorist or a denier preceded by the word conspiracy though in any way affects the actual argument.

One can be a round earth theorist, and another a round earth denier, and one or the other is certainly correct, though they may well be in their insistence looking out for some self-interest.

That said, if there had ever been a successful conspiracy in the history of the world, we would have never heard of it. If we heard of it, it did by the nature of the word, fail.

So unless one is the propagator of said conspiracy, they are by the nature of the beast, actively denying it... or it's a myth.

Side: Lawnmans view