LOL you're delusional!!
-
+ New Debate
- Debate Clubs
- Debate News
- About
- Support Us More
frame
Best Disagree Content
-
Should Youtube silence the right?
@MayCaesar
I agree with you accept for the social ramifications. Google has no legal responsibility to be an open forum, and it has even less of a social responsibility to be that. I one hundred percent disagree with your argument that Google or anybody has a social responsibility at all. There is no objective social morality, therefore the law serves that purpose in place of any objective morality. The law is the only responsibility anybody in the US has to follow. Social "responsibilities" are a subjective tool for the privileged to keep their socioeconomic status. Those who abide, are no less a slave. The law is our objective morality!!!!!
-
Should Youtube silence the right?
@Plaffelvohfen
Actually, the argument about social attitudes is also demonstrated by the actions of stormfront. Stormfront is a splinter site from an earlier site. The early version was shut down by the people who ran it (Don Black, and David Duke) After the earlier site was tied to a racially motivated shooting, David Duke said something to the effect of, "this site is full of wackos", then it was quickly shut down. Because the new forum on stormfront discourages racial slurs and outright bans posts that encourage violence or any illegal activity, its popularity has grown exponentially. The new form mostly has to do with David Dukes ideas of how to legitimize white pride, which he felt was to be dedicated to civil obedience, and dissuade violence, and (unfortunately)he was totally correct.
Although it's hard to believe, the truth is most people in this country and around the world do not like violent rhetoric. It's exactly that type of rhetoric that youtube is now targeting and banning. The truth is, stormfront did it long before YouTube did. I absolutely believe that youtube understands how many users it will lose because of its new policies (not many). I also absolutely believe YouTube realizes that they would have lost even more users if they didn't give in to pressure from its users to ban hate speech, conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, and the like. If they felt they would have lost more users than they kept, they would not have enacted those new policies. They did it for popularity, just like stormfront did. -
The Difference Between Science and Religion
I would like to add something: Even if a scientist is not sure about a theory or a hypothesis but thinks there is a good chance that it might be true, they still do not say they "believe" in that idea. "Belief" means that you are sure of something. This is also a very fundamental distinction between science and religion. Science admits that there are things unknown to us while religion fills that gap with random information. This is the reason religion attracts a lot of people. The majority can't be content with not knowing so they rather accept false information.
-
Should Youtube silence the right?
The rights that youtube has to remove videos it deems destructive, outweigh any supposed rights of freedom of expression on that site. There is no law that ensures freedom of expression on a privately owned website. There is and should not be a law that limits YouTube's power to decide what content is acceptable, even if it is biased against the alt-right, conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and fake medical information promoters.
-
floody day
the flood in where noah and his family were saved; the story in the bible was borrowed from an earlier story of the sumerians ; which is not to say that the flood did not happen, except that it was a borrowed story and was not world wide, but a local event.
-
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
@George_Horse
You say .......They're killing white farmers over there. No thanks. America is 100x better.
My reply ......Yet it’s rated as low as the U S regards peaceful societies
-
How and why Germans bought Hitler's pitch, what can we learn?
One of the core ideas of communism is inter-nationalism, which is essentially nationalism in disguise. It suggests that all traditional national traits (except, of course, those that the communist personally approves of) are in the way of the glorious revolution and must be purged, violently if necessary.
Nationalism is an inherent part of socialist and communist ideologies. This is why, for example, Jews were extremely oppressed in Soviet Union, and Uygurs were and to this day are extremely oppressed in China. The only difference in this regard between Hitler and, say, Mao is how much importance nationalism had in their ideology: in Hitler's case it was used to justify expropriation of property and mass purges, while in Mao's case it was overshadowed by other violence-advocating considerations. Uygurs face much bigger issues than open nationalism in the Chinese society, while for Jews in Third Reich anti-semitism was pretty much at the core of all of their problems.
In Russia, interestingly, a lot of communists are also conventionally nationalistic. It is a strange mix of Russian supremacism and communist views - strange from the Western perspective, at least, as in Russia it is very common and does not surprise anyone. Take Sanders with his "redistribute everything", add Trump's positions on immigration and international trade and Bzezinski's hawkish foreign policy stances - and you will get what a lot of members of the Communist Party of Russian Federation stand for.
-
What do you think about Democrats?
I was raised a Democrat. Like a good little Democrat, I hated Republicans right up until I watched the Presidential debates of 1980. I was 21 and a college student majoring in International Relations at the time. The Iranians had been holding our hostages for over a year and were humiliating our country because of our feckless, laughably weak President. Reagan offered an alternative that proved irresistible and his Presidency bore out the efficacy of Republican policy positions. I have never looked back. The transition from Obama to Trump was like a deja vu of 1981-83, with the country and its economy turning around at breakneck speed and pride returning to the people who actually love the country.
Karl Marx defined socialism as a transitional form of government between capitalism and communism. I view all leftism as a large funnel where the rim around the top represents traditional liberalism like we used to know here in the US. The cone-shaped body of the funnel represents socialism, with the wide top being occupied by liberal social democracies like those of Western Europe. The narrow, smaller part of the cone would represent the more authoritarian and oppressive regimes like Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Nicaragua. Finally, the narrow neck of the funnel represents the true communist countries in world history like the USSR, Maoist China, Castro's Cuba and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Now, ask yourself, which direction are the old school liberals of the Democrat Party in the US currently headed? If you said, "Down the funnel", give yourself a point. And then ask yourself, once something heads down a funnel, where does it invariably end up going? If you said, "Into the neck", give yourself another point. Never underestimate the tenacity of communists or their determination to prevail in the ongoing fight for economic domination of the world.
Today's Democrats are attempting to take us down a very dangerous road. It is an indictment of our public education system- run almost exclusively by Democrats- that our children are not taught the history of communism in the 20th century. The relationship between socialism and the very communism that slaughtered 100,000,000 innocent people is thoroughly ignored. Finally, anyone who contends that today's American Democrats bear no resemblance to the people who introduced communism to Europe and Asia in the last century is either ignoring history or revising it to shore up Democrats' chances of electoral success.
-
Trump is better than Obama
-
Trump is better than Obama
@Sharky Obama didn't make that "flexible" remark to Putin. He said it to Medvedev when HE was "being more flexible" (i.e. more reasonable), when HE was President of Russia. Putin didn't like so he "de-elected" Medvedev and became UN-reasonable, so Obama became "less flexible". That's what ANY "American President" would do. Trump is not like ANY American President. NONE of them (including Obama), would "trust" Putin over our own patriotic security organizations. To do so is traitorous.
You, taking Obama's diplomacy as a negative, over Trumps obviously un-Presidential behavior, is answer enough for the rest of your thoughts on what constitutes "lies".