- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).|
Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
"You didn't have to. By bringing up the US's moral quality when it isn't at issue"
You're the one implicitly disputing the notion of moral relativism by separating groups into the "just" and the "unjust." In doing so you implicitly brought up the US's moral quality, as well as that of Iran, and by extension all other nations.
""the just" can refer to those in pursuit of justice; this isn't some "cast the first stone" business"
You seem to have a very clear understanding of exactly what constitutes the "pursuit of justice", therefore you must have a very clear notion of constitutes "justice", I would be very grateful if you'd supply me with your definition of justice.
"you're derailing the discussion."
No I'm not, I'm broadening the discussion to highlight its inadequacy.
"So a Psychopath"
Please provide me with the reasoning and evidence upon which you based your labeling him a 'psychopath'.
" does not respects Human rights "
Although I tend to agree with this view I doubt you or I have enough of an understanding of the new Egyptian constitution to make such an assertion.
" but ignores opinions of other countries"
And which ones would those be?
"is somehow better that dictator forced by other countries to respect human rights ?"
Again, based on my knowledge of Hosni Mubarak term in office I am not aware he was in any way forced to respect human rights, quite the opposite in fact, the US used Egypt as an extra judicial dungeon within they could do all sorts of unspeakable things (that have never been publicized) to (in many cases) innocent Muslims. He also systematically repressed his own populations legitimate interests and desires.
He was largely in the pocket of the US, and this is no accident, historically Egypt was always the greatest power in the middle east, the US and Israel have long known that to neutralize Egypt would effectively neutralize any serious threat from the Arab world.
Given the fact that he won't be subservient to foreign interests, I would actually call that progress.
"Western society has gotten progressively more accepting of vulgarity ever since a mob of post-modernists decided we were too "repressed." We'll embrace anything if we're told it'll help us shed our Jude-Christian heritage."
Every age beleives the one that came before was backward and repressed, there are historical analogues dating all the way back to when history started to be recorded. All of those who uttered: "ours is the golden age" down through the centuries, have been proven wrong, and I know even those who think we (as a species) are constantly improving will be proven wrong. It isn't about progress, it's about change.
The America of God, country, family and warm apple pie cooling on moms window sill is gone, and it ain;t coming back any time soon. But then again neither is slavery, or overt racial and sexual discrimination.
"American culture has entered its rebellious adolescence."
If you say so.
"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."
The US already has a plutocratic two party dictatorship, democracy isn't meant to mean voting for the lesser of two evils every four years. I was hoping Romney would get into power for the simple reason that the actions his presidency would have produced would've been a little bit more extreme, and thus a little more likely to further foment violent revolution in the semi-police state known as the US.
Partisan! Don't you mean center right corporate scumbag ?
"And, looking it back over, I really ought to applaud you on your quality debate skills, man. I was in over my head. I'll bet the subject was irrelevant; you could have put your skills to use tearing down any opinion of mine if I did in fact piss you off with my tone. Really. There were a lot of times there you had me not even knowing what I was trying to say. "
I do deeply respect and admire your magnanimity, and I am sorry I was such an ass.
" I'm looking forward to debating you on another issue, another day."
I look forward to it, although I have very little time for this site these days.
"but I would rather have someone irately make a violent statement at me like "Go hang/fuck/kill yourself"
I didn't violently ask him anything I calm suggested the world would be better off if he wasn't in it, well, maybe it was violent.
"han have someone make attacks on my character or intelligence."
I never overtly attacked your character or your intelligence, you simply decided to interpret my abuse that way.
"I suppose so. I did have an opinion you didn't agree with."
You had far more than that my friend, you started the debate with an air of superiority, you were clearly very sure of your position, probably like anyone else who listens to Condell, the guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about, he seems reasonable, rational, intelligent, and articulate, his intellectual dishonesty is extremely hard to spot.
"But I digress; the reason I abandoned the debate is what I said it is above, and what I said to you in a message when i stopped replying to the debate. Basically: I can't continue to debate with someone who debates like you do and still keep my cool"
The reality is the debate cooled down significantly after a few posts, it became much more cordial, but if I remember correctly, once you sensed my guard was down tried to capitalise on it as a desperate attempt to restore some semblance of parity, and I responded again with a torrent of what you might deemed "heavy handedness", once you realised there was nothing in the debate for you to won, you stopped replying, and the resocrd proves it.
"My position regarding Pat Condell (which was the original point of the debate) has, if anything, strengthened since we last talked."
Even though his views on the Palestinians and Islam in general are abominable.
"I still don't see the baseless ("just watch his videos" and "just look into his eyes" were your main arguments for why Condell is racist) accusations you made as being remotely true. "
So you do beleive the Palestinians are simply mooching beggars who get far too much attention in the media, and its all simply an Arab scam to rob the Jews of their homeland despite international law?
"And when I look back at it, it seems like you're the one who gets condescending while I'm still being reasonable. Perspective is a funny thing. "
I'm well aware I was being a condescending ass, I knew that from the get go, but frankly you dragged up a debate that was months old, and I really didn't want to respond (just like this one), but I find it hard to walk away form any potential challenge, and I so used condescension as a means of lessening the amount of work I had to put into my posts.
"Perspective is a funny thing"
Some would say the only real truth is perspectival truth, although we might all be entitled to our own opinions (i.e. prejudices and flaws), we are not all entitled to our own facts.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!