Instigator / Pro
0
1498
rating
32
debates
67.19%
won
Topic
#5226
Leftists are Pussies
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Description
Debate Resolution: "Resolved, that Leftism embodies a form of slave morality when applied in the political realm."
Definitions:
Leftism: A political ideology that generally advocates for social equality, government intervention in the economy, and progressive social policies. It often includes a focus on addressing issues related to inequality, social justice, and environmental sustainability.
Slave Morality: A concept introduced by Friedrich Nietzsche, referring to a moral perspective that arises from a position of weakness or subjugation. It contrasts with "master morality," which is based on strength, power, and nobility.
Rules for the Debate:
Civil Discourse: Participants must engage in respectful and constructive dialogue, avoiding personal attacks or offensive language.
Relevance: Arguments should directly address the resolution and the concept of slave morality as applied to Leftism in the political context.
Evidence-based Arguments: Participants are encouraged to support their claims with relevant facts, data, or examples. Anecdotal evidence may be used but should be accompanied by a broader analysis.
Logical Consistency: Arguments should be logically sound, avoiding fallacious reasoning or unsupported assertions.
This revised set of rules maintains a focus on promoting a civil, relevant, evidence-based, and logically consistent debate. The removal of rules 4, 6, and 7 simplifies the structure while still emphasizing key principles for a thoughtful and fair discussion. If you have specific ideas on how to implement cross-examination in a text-based debate, you can certainly include guidelines for that aspect as well.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Slave morality as defined by Nietzsche is a morality of the weak. It’s snot a morality that is exclusive to or entirely of the left, just the majority of the left that you see today which is a small but growing segment of the Democratic party.
The left in prior generations may have been mostly socialists and communists, but today's left is primarily woke individuals. You know people like the fat acceptance community,the black lives matter community and what’s known as social justice warriors, you know the ones. The ones who are famous for showing up to rallies with an ANTIFA flag and attacking boomers with red hats on, or committing insurrection against the UNited States and declaring a part of Seattle their own country named CHAZ/.
Make no mistake, the modern left is the woke left and my burden is to prove the majority of leftists in this country have adopted slave morality.
This round I will answer 3 questions, What is slave morality? Why have the woke left adopted slave morality? and finally..How have they displayed slave morality.
SLAVE MORALITY
Slave morality is the morality of the weak. Slave morality looks to create a dichotomy of good and evil by classifying people in two distinct groups. The first group is oppressors and the second group is the oppressed. For fat activists the oppressors are fatphobic and out to get them by making them pay for 2 seats on an airplane or by clothing companies charging them more for shirts that are XXXL size. Any fat person who wants to lose weight is said to have internalized fatphobia.
For BLM protestors the oppressors are cops because the cops arrest black people at disproportionate numbers. If you point out that black people are probably disproportionately victims and propagators of crime due to being disproportionately impoverished, they will call you a racist, because it obfuscates who the oppressors are.
If you watched the terrorist attacks in Israel and saw the response to women and children being raped and tortured by Hamas, you will have seen the left mostly silent on the issue and when Israel targeted HAMAS for attacks and there were civilian casualties, the left came out in large numbers across many colleges in the United States and Europe. The reason for the outrage over people who were victims of collateral damage, (which is obviously necessary and going to happen when your opponent relies so heavily on guerilla warfare ) was so intense while the intentional targeting of civilians for much worse fates that included torture and prolonged rape and death is because Israel is successful and therefore according to leftists and oppressor, while Hamas resides in Paelstine and since Palestinians are poor and have hard lives that makes them the good guys and incapable of wrong doing.
2. Why the left adopts slave morality, they divide the world into good vs evil and oppressor and oppressed. The advantaged people are always the oppressor and the disadvantaged is always the oppressed. This is why we see the doublethink with ISrael and Hamas, where hamas targets civilians and gets a free pass for being the oppressed while Israel is admonished because some civilians die when hamas uses them as shields.
Now you may ask why the left adopts slave morality. The simple answer is they are weak and pathetic or see themselves that way. (obviously not all leftists but just on balance).
Women are seen as weak and men as strong, and as we have seen that means that Women should be turned into men instead of applying different standards to them and appreciating them for their unique strengths. Since men are seen as superior to women, the left will frown upon women who choose to stay at home or do the child rearing, they will put women in movies and make them act like men by physically fighting and easily defeating men 3 times their size or by acting like men in the bedroom by turning sex into a conquest.
This isn’t just speculation. The weakness of liberals is scientific fact. They really are pussies. A study that tested 171 men on strength and also asked them questions to see if they supported social hierarchy or were more egalitarian. The results are exactly what someone who has been paying attention to the hordes of fat blue haired women, effeminate men and obviously genetically inferior males, laying down in front of “stop oil” would expect. The stronger males were more likely to be right wing. (1)
How attractive a person is, is usually a result of seeing many things correlated with markers of good physical health. For example we prefefr a youthful facial appearance because it predicts reproductive health, current physical health can be detected through how well a person’s skin looks and many other factors that indicate attractiveness follow this same pattern. (2) Unsurprisingly a study that tested the physical attractiveness of politicians found that politicians on the right of the political spectrum are more beautiful. (3) This is unsurprising as the policies of the left are meant to not only lift those who are weaker, but to harm the physically superior. The harm will be discussed below, but know that it is no coincidence that instead of arguing that the government or government programs are underfunded, the left riles up supporters by saying they want to tax the wealthy. This is not usually attached to any reason other than to punish success and genetic fitness.
As Ayn Rand pointed out many years ago. The left would not raise up the poor or weak or marginalized to create equality but take down those who are better off. Unlike in a brave new world where everyone is made to be beautiful the left would start disfiguring faces to make everyone equally as ugly. Professor Edward Dutton refers to this as the spiteful mutant theory.
SPITEFUL MUTANT
In a society where things are brutal, you will have the unfit die in large numbers to avoid society being overrun by genetic freaks, either through bad practices in medicine inadvertently killing off the weak. Perhaps a genetically inferior male in the days of our ancestors would have no welfare, no ability to have roofing and food, this would limit their prospective partners and it would fortunately cause the loser to become a genetic dead end.
In mice studies done where an environment is created that lacks the pressures needed for
survival of the fittest to remain true then mice populations will become predominantly mutant. (4)
Why this happens in mice populations is because the genetically inferior rats start to encourage more things conducive to spreading their degeneracy and weakness to the population as a whole. We can better articulate this by looking at what occurs with these mutants in human populations. Let’s just say the reduction of infant mortality from 40% in the 1800s to the 1% it is today, has been a disaster to the human race, and that these mutants and that when our ancestors allowed normies to vote, they had no ideal what type of dystopia would occur with the reduction of evolutionary pressures.
The mutants are officially free riders to a system that greater people have built for them. They benefit from the hard work, ingenuity and good morals of the genetically superior and because they feel bad for being genetically inferior they become spiteful of society and those better than them. It is argued that these mutant single women for example will discourage fit women from reproducing. Perhaps the smarter mutants will make some sort of antinatalist argument, but the lower IQ mutants will attack healthier nuclear families by encouraging women to sleep around, to put the pursuit of money and a career over reproducing.
The mutant will often undermine things like religion, which is nothing more than an evolutionary mechanism that helps to create in group bias to better promote a groups well being and repel outside invaders. The mutants will attempt to create more genetic dead ends such as themselves by promoting homosexuality. (5) If this sounds familiar, it is because it is essentially the democratic party platform.
CONCLUSION
Here is our chance to revisit slave morality again and expand on it so you can see the full picture. Slave morality is an inversion of master morality which promotes morality based on strength, power and nobility. Slave morality focuses on humility, meekness, compassion and empathy, as having these as moral values helps them maintain a sense of morality over their “oppressors”, who aren’t powerless and meek like them. Slave morality focuses on intention behind actions instead of the results. Which is why they promote leftist dogma like open borders. It is intended to help those they see as oppressed and they could care less that the results of mass immigration are a displacement over other marginalized groups who would have a harder time finding gainful employment due to the loss of jobs mass migration causes to be open. Remember to the leftist mind which is the embodiment of slave morality, it is the intention of helping the oppressed that matters, not whether what you do actually helps or harms them. (6)
summary
- The leftists are weak and pathetic
- The weakness causes them to adopt slave morality.
- This slave morality is used in the political realm to create policies that reflect the “slave morality”
Sources
- https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Muscular-men-less-likely-to-support-social-and-economic-equality-study-suggests
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448827/
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272716302201
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1644264/
- https://vdare.com/articles/are-southpaws-really-sinister-increased-incidence-suggests-we-re-headed-for-mouse-utopia-collapse
- Slave morality is defined by a conversation I had with chat GPT. I am willing to share my prompts to verify if asked
Con
#2
Burden analysis
The BoP automatically falls upon PRO unless stated otherwise. So PRO has the burden to prove that the resolution is true, while CON merely has to take down PRO's arguments.
Debate Resolution: "Resolved, that Leftism embodies a form of slave morality when applied in the political realm."
The resolution doesn't limit itself to only some form of leftism. It clearly mentions Leftism with capital L, so he is commited to saying that ALL Leftist ideology is slave morality.
Left, in politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated with egalitarianism and popular or state control of major economic and political institutions.[britannica].
Egalitarianism: the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
Embody: be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, or feeling).
Make no mistake, the modern left is the woke left and my burden is to prove the majority of leftists in this country have adopted slave morality.
OBJECTION: PRO is trying to massively shift the goalpost in his favor before I even get started. Neither the debate title nor the resolution in the description supports this.
- Using the title of the debate: Leftists are pussies.
- Only valid interpretation: all leftists are cowards.
- Wrong and absurd
- Using the debate resolution from the description: that Leftism embodies a form of slave morality when applied in the political realm.
- Leftism is not the same as leftists. PRO has to demonstrate that all instances of Leftist ideology embodies "slave morality", not that "leftists" have adopted it.
- Nowhere in the descripition is leftism narrowed down to only concern Leftism that is modern and american.
- PRO claims that modern leftism IS the woke left. No evidence for that is provided.
CONCLUSION: It is both completely wrong and incredibly bad faith to assert that my burden is to prove the majority of leftists in this country have adopted slave morality.
Slave morality looks to create a dichotomy of good and evil by classifying people in two distinct groups.
ACCEPTED: CON accepts that slave morality is about a dichotomy of some people being inherently good and others inherently evil, based on their genetic traits.
CONTRADICTION IN TERMS: CON submits that egalitarianism is by definition mutually exclusive with slave morality.
- Slave morality looks to create a dichotomy of good and evil by classifying people in two distinct groups based on inherent qualities making them superior or inferior.
- Egalitarianism is the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
- If you are a leftist and believe that all people are EQUAL, then you cannot simultaniously believe that people can be classified as superior or inferior.
LACK OF EVIDENCE: PRO has not provided any evidence that Leftist ideology looks to create a dichotomy of good and evil based on inherent qualities.
The weakness of liberals is scientific fact. They really are pussies. The stronger males were more likely to be right wing.
OBJECTION RELEVANCE: PRO is trying to prove that leftists are pussies rather than the debate resolution.
- PRO has not demonstrated that leftists consider themselves inferior because of lack of muscle mass, nor that this is a feature of Leftism.
- The same applies to his claims regarding attractiveness.
Perhaps a genetically inferior male in the days of our ancestors would have no welfare, no ability to have roofing and food, this would limit their prospective partners.
OBJECTION: PRO is so wrong that the truth is the excact opposite of what he is saying.
- FACT: In prehistoric times, when life was the toughest it would ever be, societies were egalitarian.
- Early men and women were equal. "A study has shown that in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, men and women tend to have equal influence on where their group lives and who they live with. The findings challenge the idea that sexual equality is a recent invention"
- The most successfull tribes operated with lots of egalitarian policies.
- Sharing and Cooperation: For the majority of human history, people lived in egalitarian societies where sharing and cooperation were the norm. Hierarchy, inequality, and oppression were virtually unheard of.
- Optimal Power-Sharing Arrangement: Egalitarianism emerged as the optimal power-sharing arrangement in early human societies, driven by punishment for exhibiting alpha-like behavior and as a pre-condition for adaptation of tools as weapons
- CONCLUSION: PRO is completely wrong. A genetically inferior male in the days of our ancestors WOULD have gotten food, sexual partners and a role in decision making.
In a society where things are brutal, you will have the unfit die in large numbers to avoid society being overrun by genetic freaksLet’s just say the reduction of infant mortality from 40% in the 1800s to the 1% it is today, has been a disaster to the human race
OBJECTION: PRO has not defined what he means by "things are brutal" or who he defines as "unfit" or "genetic freak". Moreover, he has no source for this ridiculous claim.
The mutants are officially free riders to a system that greater people have built for them. They benefit from the hard work, ingenuity and good morals of the genetically superior and because they feel bad for being genetically inferior they become spiteful of society and those better than them.
OBJECTION: It is untrue that Leftism is held mostly by people who are genetically inferior.
- Those with higher education consistently have leftist viewpoints. Higher education means you perform high-skilled labour. Why would these people view themself as inferior?
- PRO is standing on the shoulders of giants just as everyone else. Does PRO feel bad because he is inferior to Newton? Or because he hasn't invented a cure for cancer?
- PRO has not defined what these "mutants" are or why they aren't usefull to society. Is he talking about the disabled?
- Conservatives, not leftists, deny women the right to abort children with genetic defects or disabilities.
- After they are born, people with genetif defencts or disabilities can still contribute to society.
- Has PRO never heard of the legend Stephen Hawking who revolutionized cosmology despite of his disability.
- Does PRO consider himself superior to Stephen Hawking only because he was a "mutant"?
PRO is making no sense when discussing these whacky pseudo-scientific theories. And he doesn't even prove that Leftists actually believe this, so he doesn't tie it into his argument.
The mutants will attempt to create more genetic dead ends such as themselves by promoting homosexuality.
OBJECTION INCONSISTENCY: If PRO views homosexuals as having genetic defects, then why should we tell them to marry the opposite sex and procreate?
The advantaged people are always the oppressor and the disadvantaged is always the oppressed.
OBJECTION MISINTERPRETATION: Being advantaged has different meanings from Leftism to slave morality
- In slave morality some people are thought to be born superior because of their traits such as strengt, power and nobility
- In leftist theory, all people are equal. But some people are advantaged not because of their genetic superiority but because of the privilege they were born with:
- Having rich parrents is the biggest indicator of future wealth, regardless of your genetic quality.
- If you get born into generational poverty, you cannot simply pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Generational poverty affects millions of families worldwide. It refers to when poverty has become a familial pattern for at least two generations, although it typically affects multiple generations.
- Rich genetically inferior babies are way more likely to succeed than poor genetically superior babies.
FACT: Because of structural inequalities, the outcomes that people get are NOT a reflection of their "real value". So the slave-morality view is incorrect, especially according to leftism.
Summary:
PRO does not have an adequate framework in place to prove that Leftism inherently embodies slave morality. What he does have is a rant about how "mutants" are destroying society in undefined ways, and how leftists apparently view themselves as inferior. He has 5 sources backing up random claims he makes that are barely tangentially related to the topic if we squint hard enough. He has no sources on what leftists actually believe or what the ideology is about. He does not even have a proper academic source for slave morality. He elects to ignore the actual resolution and limits his scope to only contemporary american leftism but he is still unable to actually analyse what they believe in. He says that "The leftists are weak and pathetic" which is a stereotype of blue haired women combined with a biased and subjective judgement from his side that being a women with blue hair is pathetic. Perhaps there are some similarities between leftism and Nietzches writings but PRO has shown himself completly unable to honestly interpret and compare these ideas.
Conclusion:
PRO has not even come close to fullfilling his BoP.
Resolution makes no sense:
PRO says that "The left in prior generations may have been mostly socialists and communists but today's left is primarily woke individuals" which is an implicit admission that he views socialists and communists as not being pussies, probably because they are assertive, aggressive and strong. I submit that badasses like Che Guevara are actual leftists. The people that PRO is complaining about are right-wing actually, they only appear as leftists to him because of the american overton window. They don't want true impactfull equality they just want healthcare and police that don't shoot people on the streets. When you consider the contradiction between egalitarianism and slave morality it seems evident that nobody can be a leftist if they hold to slave morality. If you actually believe that you are inferior and that people are oppressed because of their genetic inferiority, then it doesn't make sense to fight for equality based on the view that all people are equal.
So PRO's resolution makes no sense.
Round 2
Pro
#3
- Burden of proof is accepted but resolution would imply most leftists, only common sense should apply here. The English language does not work like con says it does.
- Con is stating what leftists think, and thinking is not really consistent between the conscious and unconscious levels.
Burden of Proof
I acknowledge that the burden of proof is on me in this debate. There is nothing to debate in that regard.
Interpretation of the Resolution
“he is commited to saying that ALL Leftist ideology is slave morality”
My opponent has interpreted the resolution to mean I have to prove the impossible, which is that I must prove all leftist ideology is the embodiment of slave morality. I will chalk up him misunderstanding the resolution to the fact that English is his second language given his Norwegian heritage.
I can’t possibly know every single form of leftism or be expected to know about every one of the million versions of leftist ideology that exists. It would be an unfair burden in the debate for me to prove that every incidence of leftism follows.
My intention is to debate the broad trends of leftism and analyze how contemporary leftist movements align with Nietzche’s slave morality. If judges want to punish me by interpreting the resolution to mean I have to prove every single type of leftism without exception is the embodiment of slave morality than I think they are making a mistake and rewarding the wrong type of behavior in debates.
Contradiction in Terms
Con asserts that there is a contradiction of term because leftists see themselves as egalitarians and slave morality implies that those holding slave morality consider people inferior and superior based on certain qualifications. He says that after all you can’t be an egalitarian and think of people as inferior and superior.
What con is referring to is how leftism sees itself. Leftists see themselves as egalitarians. Things are a bit more nuanced than that and there is a difference between how leftists see themselves and their philosophies and how those philosophies are put into practice and the hidden motivations behind that.
To get more clarification on slave morality we can look to the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy which states.
“Nietzsche describes slave morality as simply ‘the prudence [Klugheit] of the lowest order’ (GM I:13), and he observes that “everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is…called evil” (BGE 201), that “[m]oral judgments and condemnations constitute the favorite revenge of the spiritually limited against those less limited” (BGE 219), and he claims that the “chief means” by which the “weak and mediocre…weaken and pull down the stronger” is “the moral judgment” (1)
If we look at what I stated in round one about mutants you can see we have this covered;
“The mutant will often undermine things like religion, which is nothing more than an evolutionary mechanism that helps to create in group bias to better promote a groups well being and repel outside invaders. The mutants will attempt to create more genetic dead ends such as themselves by promoting homosexuality” (5 from R1)
I don’t think my opponent can contradict what we all know here, which is that lefties are generally anti religion and pro homosexuality. This goes against the theme of this section but now is a good a time as any to challenge con’s reference to that post;
“If PRO views homosexuals as having genetic defects, then why should we tell them to marry the opposite sex and procreate”
This statement misunderstands my argument. I never stated that homosexuals were mutants. However what you do have is a bunch of mutants promoting homosexuality which may contain mutants that are both heterosexual and homosexual and who subconsciously are doing so to remove superior DNA from the gene pool by blocking efforts to procreate by men who absent social pressures to become gay would in fact live a heterosexual lifestyle and spread their DNA.
So this comes to the next point which we briefly touched on earlier. Is the belief or should I say cope, that lefties think they are egalitarian actually true in practice or are they merely trying to undermine superior people on some unconscious level, and when I say superior I am referring obviously to those superior on individual levels not as a collective the way the left identifies itself. Wealthy people, fit people, healthy and good looking people.
If leftists see racial minorites as truly equal we can expect that their behaviors would match this belief but a study conducted by Yale University discovered that liberals will often talk down to African Americans in an effort to appear less competent. (2)
If leftists believe women are physically equal to men, than why do they insist on lowering physical standards so more women can become fire fighters? (3) or military? (4)
Standards are being lowered for positions like air traffic control, nursing and to enter academia so that way more minorities can participate in those areas of society. (5) If leftists really thought minorities were equal than they certainly have no reason to lower the bar and even risk our safety to allow for more diversity in desirable jobs and academia.
So in the mind of a leftist they are egalitarians, but in reality they insist on talking down to minorities and women and lowering standards to allow diverse peoples to replace those with high IQs, physical ability and competence in desirable jobs.
Miscellaneous Rebuttals
“Leftism is not the same as leftists. PRO has to demonstrate that all instances of Leftist ideology embodies "slave morality", not that "leftists" have adopted it.”
Ignoring the absurd standard con is trying to set for me. Leftism and left can be used interchangeably for the most part. The reason is that leftism is a movement of people on the left of the political spectrum. If I say a bunch of leftists want to have open borders, it’s literally no different than saying leftism is for open borders.
“PRO has not demonstrated that leftists consider themselves inferior because of lack of muscle mass, nor that this is a feature of Leftism. The same applies to his claims regarding attractiveness.”
It doesn’t matter what they believe on a conscious level. This does demonstrate inferiority and it is unlikely that the male feminist does not at some level see that he is unattractive and weak. There is a reason he adopted feminine thinking on gender equality as a means to get laid. It’s because he has to. Fortunately for society they usually fail at being too fruitful with this sexual market place strategy.
The reason for me showing statistical and scientific evidence of leftist inferiority, is merely to help the judges realize why leftists would adopt slave morality. I don’t have to prove this but it makes the argument more digestible to judges.
In R1 I made the following statement;
“Perhaps a genetically inferior male in the days of our ancestors would have no welfare, no ability to have roofing and food, this would limit their prospective partners.”
In response con provides one study to say men and women in relationships in 2 MODERN hunter gatherer tribes are egalitarian in the sense they have equal influence over major decisions, and then he provided a study that showed human tribes were more egalitarian than chimpanzee tribes.
Honestly so what. Neither study would suggest my argument that men get laid more easily if they are competent in ancient societies. The facts are on my side here. Numerous studies have also been done which prove that men have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. (6) This disparity exists because genetic freaks who could not get laid have always existed, they just exist in larger numbers today because of a reduction in infant mortality and having societies who give the mutants welfare to keep them feeding off the system like parasites. By the way, it is the self awareness of being parasitic as to what makes them spiteful mutants who push for societal pressures that harm the strong.
“PRO has not defined what these "mutants" are or why they aren't useful to society. Is he talking about the disabled?”
To answer this question. Not necessarily but to a large extent. If you watch the show my 500 pound life, you will see a bunch of genetic freaks who are a burden on the system and their loved ones, and these are generally leftists who would promote things like free healthcare because it takes resources from those more fit and redistributes them to dysgenic freeloaders. Therefore accomplishing both of their missions which is to harm fit people and to create and save more mutants. There are other types of genetic freaks. Blue haired lesbians for example, they know no man would choose to reproduce with them so they hope to deprive fit men of worthy women by promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle to them and railing against women who do not put career first.
CONCLUSION
If you combine what you have read from round one and two, you’ll gain a deeper understanding of both slave morality which happens at a subconscious level and how leftists apply this slave morality through their leftist policies. You’ll find that;
- Most genetic mutants are leftists though con also successfully pointed out the fact some conservatives are as well, for example the christians who oppose killing of dysgenic people in the womb.
- These genetic mutants make up the majority of the broad trends we see in leftist circles these days
- These mutants push for policies that harm the strong or help the weak at the expense of the strong
We can see the true intentions of the left by how they use a hypocritical approach when dealing with things such as the Israel Hamas situation (R1)
in R1, I explained how the left divided the world into oppressors and oppressed (slave morality), such as indicated by the observed behaviors of the fat acceptance community, BLM and antifa when creating their CHAZ city.
Con
#4
PRO implictly accepts my definitions since he did not contest them.
Left, in politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated with egalitarianism and popular or state control of major economic and political institutions.[britannica].
Egalitarianism: the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
Meta-analysis
I first and foremost extend that Leftism is not a uniquely modern american thing. Showing that only democrats have slave morality does not fullfill PROs BoP.
It would be an unfair burden in the debate for me to prove that every incidence of leftism follows.
It would be way more unfair as a general principle to allow the INSTIGATOR of a debate to change the rules of the debate and the scope of the resolution post-hoc. I also disagree that his burden, which he gave himself mind you, is necesarily unfair. If PRO can prove that slave morality is a necesary foundation for leftism then he has fullfilled his burden. So I don't think he has given himself an impossible burden that warrants him being allowed to change the debate to something I didn't sign up for.
Kritik extended:
PRO says that "The left in prior generations may have been mostly socialists and communists but today's left is primarily woke individuals" which is an implicit admission that he views socialists and communists as not being pussies, probably because they are assertive, aggressive and strong.
PRO does not refute this. So we can reasonably assume that he conceedes that socialists and communists are not pussies and those ideologies are not slave morality.
I submit that badasses like Che Guevara are actual leftists. The people that PRO is complaining about are right-wing actually, they only appear as leftists to him because of the american overton window. They don't want true impactfull equality they just want healthcare and police that don't shoot people on the streets.
I extend that Leftism is way more accurately reflected in people like Che Guevara and the enormous historical movements they were a part of than the modern democrats.
When you consider the contradiction between egalitarianism and slave morality it seems evident that nobody can be a leftist if they hold to slave morality. If you actually believe that you are inferior and that people are oppressed because of their genetic inferiority, then it doesn't make sense to fight for equality.
I extend this argument. If a person or ideology embodies slave morality then it contradicts egalitarianism which is what defines leftism to begin with.
Rebuttals:
What con is referring to is how leftism sees itself. Leftists see themselves as egalitarians.
CONCESSION: PRO concedes that leftists view themselves as egalitarians, which is the opposite of dividing people into good and evil based on perceived inferiority or superiority.
There is a difference between how leftists see themselves and their philosophies and how those philosophies are put into practice and the hidden motivations behind that.
OBJECTION: NO SOURCE. ALSO: IF SOMEONE'S MORALS WAS ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE OF EGALITARIANISM THEN THEY WOULD BY DEFINITION NOT BE A TRUE LEFTIST.
what you do have is a bunch of mutants promoting homosexuality which may contain mutants that are both heterosexual and homosexual and who subconsciously are doing so to remove superior DNA from the gene pool by blocking efforts to procreate by men who absent social pressures to become gay would in fact live a heterosexual lifestyle
OBJECTION: You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
- PRO says that leftists promote homosexuality in order to make heterosexuals gay and prevent the spread of their superior genes.
- Meaning that heterosexuals who get "pressured" into being gay on average have higher rates of superior DNA than the average population.
- Someone who is easily "pressured" into switching sexual orientation cannot be categorized as "strong" or "noble" under Nietzche's framework.
OBJECTION LYING: Fighting homophobia and promoting the rights of the LGBTQ community does not constitute "social pressure" to become homosexuals.
- MORE LIES: People who support the LGBTQ community, including 80% of Americans and 66% of Republicans, are not "a bunch of mutants".
- PRO is pulling shit from his ass.
OBJECTION NONSENSE: Assuming LGBTQ acceptance "pressures" people into becoming gay, that effect would not specifically target the "genetically superior".
So in the mind of a leftist they are egalitarians, but in reality they insist on talking down to minorities and women and lowering standards to allow diverse peoples to replace those with high IQs, physical ability and competence in desirable jobs.
OBJECTION MISINTERPRETATION: Egalitarianism does not mean that everyone has equal strenght and levels of education and ability to work any job.
- Egalitarianism is the idea that people should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. [Stanford]
- Slave morality asserts that people should NOT have the same fundamental worth or moral status. It asserts that the "superior" are "evil" and should have lower status.
LOGICAL TRUTH: You can be egalitarian AND believe that people have different physical and mental abilities, but that fundamental worth is not reliant on those qualities.
Leftism and left can be used interchangeably for the most part.
OBJECTION FALSE: PRO is trying to present the modern american left as thought they are representative of Leftist ideology in general.
- The overton window means that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support — they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. The american overton window has been pushed to the very right by the red scare and other factors.
It doesn’t matter what they believe on a conscious level....By the way, it is the self awareness of being parasitic as to what makes them spiteful mutants who push for societal pressures that harm the strong.
CONTRADICTION: PRO has contradicted himself.
- PRO says that being self-aware of supposed inferiority is what makes you spitefull and incentivices you to endorse slave morality.
- PRO also says that what they believe consciously (what they are aware of about themselves) doesn't matter, when it is literally the crux of his argument.
There is a reason he adopted feminine thinking on gender equality as a means to get laid.
The reason for me showing statistical and scientific evidence of leftist inferiority, is merely to help the judges realize why leftists would adopt slave morality.
Numerous studies have also been done which prove that men have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. (6) This disparity exists because genetic freaks who could not get laid have always existed
OBJECTION: PRO is LYING about the explanation of this statistic. He incorrectly asserts that "genetic freaks who could not get laid" are the cause of this disparity.
- His own source says that this disparity is caused by women having biological constraints on the number of children they can bear. A genetically superior female can not get thousands of children, because they cannot live 9000 months. Ghengis Khan can get thousands of children because he is a reasonably fertile MALE.
- PRO is unable or unwilling to be honest with intepreting his sources.
If you watch the show my 500 pound life, you will see a bunch of genetic freaks who are a burden on the system and their loved ones, and these are generally leftists
ACCEPTED: CON accepts that "mutants" refers to obese and unhealthy people for the purpose of this debate.
OBJECTION FALSE: Obese and unhealthy people are NOT generally leftists when talking about America according to the EVIDENCE presented below:
- Republicans/conservatives ate fewer servings and fewer varieties of fruit and vegetables; ate more high fat and processed foods; and engaged in less in-depth health information searches compared to Democrats/liberals. Also, conservatives had lower odds of exercise participation than liberals; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29940293/
- we found that higher county-level obesity prevalence rates were associated with higher levels of support for the 2012 Republican Party presidential candidate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692249/
- Collectively, these data exhibit a strong pattern: counties that voted Republican in the 2016 election had overall worse health outcomes than those that voted Democrat. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254001
- A recent study published by the BMJ — formerly the British Medical Journal — shows that mortality rates are higher among Republican counties than in Democratic counties. The study measured the mortality gap between the two parties through five presidential elections from 2001 to 2019 and showed that in the early 2000s, the risk of death between both groups was similar. However, even as the country’s overall mortality rate decreased in the years since, the improvement was twice as good for Democratic counties as for Republican counties. Some might assume the study’s findings should be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. After all, Republicans have been more than twice as likely to die of COVID-19 than Democrats due to lower vaccination rates and eschewing some public health measures. However, Republicans have fared worse in other health measurements and for much longer than the duration of the pandemic.
- Per the authors of the study, since 2001 Republican counties also experienced worse health outcomes in terms of suicide rates, firearm-related deaths, cancer mortality rates, deaths from heart disease, drug overdose deaths, infant mortality rates and the number of fatal auto accidents.
CONCLUSION: PRO is once again dead wrong, with the truth being the EXCACT OPPOSITE of what he is claiming. Unhealthy and obese people are generally REPUBLICAN.
[genetic mutants] exist in larger numbers today because of a reduction in infant mortality and having societies who give the mutants welfare to keep them feeding off the system like parasites.
OBJECTION WRONG: Declining infant mortality rates are NOT the cause of the prevalence of mutants.. That would be the overconsumption of food.
- TRUE LEFTISTS want this food to not be overconsumed by a few Americans, they want the food to be eaten by homeless children and starving people in the third world.
There are other types of genetic freaks. Blue haired lesbians for example, they know no man would choose to reproduce with them so they hope to deprive fit men of worthy women by promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle to them and railing against women who do not put career first.
OBJECTION NONSENSE: PRO is once again pulling nonsense out of his ass. He has no source for these claims and they don't even make sense.
I explained how the left divided the world into oppressors and oppressed
EXTEND: Leftism views oppression as a ARBITRARY SOCIAL STRUCTURE while slave morality views oppression as a NATURAL EFFECT of superior/inferior genetics.
The left would not raise up the poor or weak or marginalized to create equality but take down those who are better off.
(Citation needed)
In conclusion, PRO has not come close to fulfilling his BoP or even defining it fairly.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Definitions
Leftism is defined in the description. Con accepted the definition by accepting the debate. Any time I initiate a debate I am willing to negotiate terms in the comments section. Con could've sought clarification on the debate or negotiated a resolution or definitions but opted not to. He accepts the terms the moment he accepts the debate.
Definition from description
Leftism = A political ideology that generally advocates for social equality, government intervention in the economy, and progressive social policies. It often includes a focus on addressing issues related to inequality, social justice, and environmental sustainability.
It’s a descriptive definition not a prescriptive so I have not objected to con expanding the definition to include egalitarianism. However leftism is more nuanced and encompasses a lot more than any definition can account for. Providing the definition and allowing con to expand on it has been more than fair.
I have not objected to the way con has defined egalitarianism. However, there is a difference between creating egalitarian policies and creating policies that you think are egalitarian. I have accepted that leftism believes they are fighting for egalitarianism. This is due to ignorance of their internal drives.
Freud wasn’t talking about what happens on a conscious level but in the subconscious. Most people on a conscious level are disgusted by the thought of fucking their mother. What Freud describes is an internal hidden drive.
Leftist ideology is not slave morality. The ideology merely needs to be a tool for the embodiment of slave morality for me to win this debate. The internal hidden motives is what is being discussed here. If the behaviors of the left (In general) appear to be the embodiment of slave morality, I win. In previous rounds I have already given plenty of reasons why slave morality seems to be at play in leftism. Those reasons include the left’s indifferent reaction to intentional slaughter of women and children by Hamas compared with the outrage seen when Israelis cause collateral damage to civilians accidentally. I have given numerous examples of the left using an ideology that puts intention as more important than results and the effects of that, such as how they support open borders because they intend to help 3rd world people and how that harms the job prospects of minorities who are the first people replaced when cheaper labor becomes available. We have seen how taxing the rich is proposed not as a way to make the government more effective but as a way to punish.
I I have no doubt that leftists see themselves as egalitarian. However in practice they behave differently, and evidence of this such as the study of leftists talking down to minorities, or leftists lowering standards for jobs such as air traffic control, nursing, firefighting and military to allow more diverse people in at the expense of more competent people betrays the true intent of the left.
Meta Analysis
Anyone with a brain would interpret the resolution to mean most instances of leftism. I can’t possibly be expected to memorize the millions of philosophies that consider themselves leftist and apply any standard that every variation can meet. It is unfair to try and interpret the resolution in a way con knows is incorrect.
The voters should immediately drop con’s absurd interpretation of the resolution. I have already acknowledged that I cannot meet the burden he is trying to impose on me, so if he really thought that was the correct definition of the debate he would accept that as a forfeit. Instead he acknowledges my interpretation of the resolution is the correct one by engaging with me at all on the basis of my understanding of the resolution.
Commies
I can accept that Che Guevara is a leftist, however it would be odd for con to do so given Che’s racism and the insistence of con that leftism means people are egalitarian. I have no doubt that plenty of communists are bad asses. The debate is about the broad trends in leftism not whether some individuals are bad asses.
“I extend that Leftism is way more accurately reflected in people like Che Guevara and the enormous historical movements they were a part of than the modern democrats.”
Of course you would think leftism is more accurately reflected by people who died 50 years ago, because you want to get away the the no true scotsman. However this debate is about the broad current societal trends in leftism.
Gayness
“Someone who is easily "pressured" into switching sexual orientation cannot be categorized as "strong" or "noble" under Nietzche's framework”
Master morality defines morality through things like strength and nobility and to a large extent slave morality is the opposite of this. You can be strong and noble and yet be in a situation where society has conditioned you to be Gay. We also have the possibility that many of the people who become gaydon't fall into the false dichotomy of master/slave morality that con is attempting to impose.
Leftists talking
My opponent acknowledges my citation that leftists are more likely to talk down to African Americans and responds to it with the following;
“You can be egalitarian AND believe that people have different physical and mental abilities, but that fundamental worth is not reliant on those qualities”
It's disgusting for a leftist to downplay their competence because they believe African Americans have lower levels of mental abilities. However con admits here that the egalitarianism that leftists employ is not black in white and in fact there is nuance beyond his definition of egalitarianism.
If con is admitting different mental abilities than it destroys his arguments that egalitarianism and slave morality are mutually exclusive. If you can believe that African Americans have less mental ability than surely con could also acknowledge that people can be strong or noble at different levels, especially since nobility and strength are mostly manifestations of the mind.
awareness
“PRO says that being self-aware of supposed inferiority is what makes you spitefull and incentivices you to endorse slave morality.PRO also says that what they believe consciously (what they are aware of about themselves) doesn't matter
Self awareness doesn't always happen on a conscious level. In fact it usually doesn’t. You would have to be aware at some level of your own inferiority in order to adopt slave morality. You judge whether a person holds onto slave morality because conscious actions betray this subconscious state. (see Freud)
Women/Children
“disparity is caused by women having biological constraints on the number of children they can bear. A genetically superior female can not get thousands of children, because they cannot live 9000 months. Ghengis Khan can get thousands of children because he is a reasonably fertile MALE.”
Why are you trying to argue against something as obvious as the fact that socially awkward ,weak or broke guys will will struggle to get laid. Women have higher standards than males who will pretty much be okay with putting their dick in anything. There are more male virgins than female virgins. and sorry to break it to you, it’s because women have higher standards for fuck than men and is the reason why most polygamy is men sleeping with multiple women and depriving weak males of sexual options and not visa versa.
Unhealthy
"mutants" refers to obese and unhealthy people for the purpose of this debate.”
Incorrect, they can be inferior for a lot of reasons including but not solely inferior genetic makeup or being unhealthy. What con is doing is trying to remove all nuance from this debate in a series or strawman arguments, instead of engaging with what I am saying. His efforts are geared towards attempting an easy win as opposed to actually debating.“ the truth being the EXCACT OPPOSITE of what he is claiming. Unhealthy and obese people are generally REPUBLICAN.”
I never stated that a lot or even the majority of republicans aren’t the embodiment of slave morality. Quite the opposite to be honest. I would think the majority if not all of the religious right who make up the Republican party are also the embodiment of slave morality it just manifests differently among Republicans.
Other rebuttals
“PRO is once again pulling nonsense out of his ass. He has no source for these claims and they don't even make sense”
This was posted in response to me saying that homosexuality is accepted by the left. Try not to laugh
“Leftism views oppression as a ARBITRARY SOCIAL STRUCTURE while slave morality views oppression as a NATURAL EFFECT of superior/inferior genetics.”
It doesn’t matter what they see oppression as. It only matters that they see it. Nowhere in the definition of slave morality does the concept of genetic inferiority come up. The genetic inferiority was mentioned by me to explain why the left may feel or realize they are inferior. It’s an explanation as to why they would adopt slave morality it has nothing to do with the fact their policies are the embodiment of slave morality.
“The left would not raise up the poor or weak or marginalized to create equality but take down those who are better off.” “citation needed”
Given and ignored when I pointed out how tax policies are proposed by arguing not for the need for more government funding but as a way to harm the wealthy. This argument was dropped by con. I also showed the attempt to go after Israel for accidental civilian deaths as opposed to Hama for intentionally targeting civilians for murder, rape and torture. The hypocritical stance is what indicates this urge to attack the strong and defend the weak because in their mind weak= oppressed and strong = oppressor. I have given many premises for this belief all of which have been dropped by con.
Con
#6
Leftism is defined in the description. Con accepted the definition by accepting the debate.
No such stipulation was put forward in the debate rules. I have provided a far superior definition of leftism that comes straight from Encyclopedia Brittanica, and PRO has not defended his own. He says I merely expand on his one, but his one is flat out wrong. It calls leftism "A political ideology" which it clearly isn't, it is a broad category of political positions based upon egalitarianism and not a unified ideology. So his definition neither describes nor prescribes leftism correctly.
Freud theorized that most male children want to have sex with their mother and see their father as rival. Freud wasn’t talking about what happens on a conscious level but in the subconscious.
The oedipus complex is not supported by evidence. Neither is slave/master morality. When modern researchers look for evidence for his theories they find that FREUD WAS NOT RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING: "At the core of both these theories is the notion of repressed emotions. That very concept empowered Freud to dismiss his detractors. "He would always be totally convinced he knew what was wrong with his patients. When patients disagreed, he didn't entertain the notion that he could be mistaken. He invoked his favorite concepts, chiefly repression, and would say the patient's unconscious secretly harbored Freud's ideas but was too scared to confront them. That's the exact opposite of testing ideas.""
PRO is commiting the same fallacy. He is saying that he knows about the uncounscious of people who apperently don't even know it themselves. That is NOT fullfilling any BoP.
If the behaviors of the left (In general) appear to be the embodiment of slave morality, I win.
PRO has not proved anything about leftism in general. He has tried to prove something about a very specific instance of leftism in america, what he calls "woke". Also, appearance is not the same as truth. PRO has to PROVE that they actually embody slave morality, it's not enough that they appear a certain way to people like him with very specific biases.
Anyone with a brain would interpret the resolution to mean most instances of leftism.
CONCESSION: PRO conceedes that the scope of his BoP is NOT limited to only modern american leftism. He has to show how "most instances of leftism" embody slave morality.
I can’t possibly be expected to memorize the millions of philosophies that consider themselves leftist and apply any standard that every variation can meet.
PRO should have wrote a resolution that only concerns american leftism. I should not be punished for his failure to write a resolution he is capable of defending.
It is unfair to try and interpret the resolution in a way con knows is incorrect.
CONSESSION: PRO conceedes that NOT ALL instances of leftism embody slave morality. This is also a consession that leftism is not INHERENTLY an embodiment of slave morality.
Instead he acknowledges my interpretation of the resolution is the correct one by engaging with me at all on the basis of my understanding of the resolution.
PRO is lying. CON is DESTROYING PRO's case on 2 DIFFERENT LEVELS:
- CON submits that not all instances of leftism embodies slave morality
- CON submits an uncontested argument that most instances of leftism are VERY DIFFERENT from modern american leftism, and are not embodying slave morality.
- CON also argues that PRO has not proved that democrats embody slave morality, and that the majority of claims he makes about them are UNFOUNDED LIES.
If PRO can succesfully convince voters that the resolution should be interpreted as MOST LEFTISM and not ALL LEFTISM, that does NOT knock down point 2, because PRO has FAILED to even ARGUE that any instance of non-american leftism (the vast majority of leftism) is embodying slave morality. Even if voters buy the ridiculous claim that PRO should be allowed to narrow down his BoP post-hoc to only concern america, CON still contests that PRO has fullfilled even that BoP. CON is not conceeding anything by simply calling out PRO's blatant lies about democrats.
Leftist ideology is not slave morality.
CONCESSION NOTED.
- REMINDER: This is the Oxford Definition of Embody: to be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, or feeling).
- Voters will note that if leftist ideology IS NOT slave morality then it makes no sense for it to be an embodiment of that idea.
I have no doubt that plenty of communists are bad asses. The debate is about the broad trends in leftism not whether some individuals are bad asses.
CONSESSION NOTED. But also, it makes no sense to say that only individual communists are badass.
- Oxford definition of Badass: tough, uncompromising, or intimidating.
- CON submits that the socialist movement is overwhelmingly TOUGH, UNCOMPROMISING and INTIMIDATING towards the ruling class.
- CON therefore argues that generally speaking, the movements making up LEFTISM are badass, regardless of whether you agree with their ideas.
You can be strong and noble and yet be in a situation where society has conditioned you to be Gay.
OBJECTION NONSENSE:
- Someone who is not able or willing to express their TRUE sexual orientation is not STRONG or NOBLE.
We also have the possibility that many of the people who become gay don't fall into the false dichotomy of master/slave morality that con is attempting to impose.
MAJOR CONCESSION: PRO conceedes, unprompted, that master/slave morality is a FALSE DICHOTOMY. Thus UNDERMINING the very framework his resolution depends upon.
It's disgusting for a leftist to downplay their competence because they believe African Americans have lower levels of mental abilities.
The study never stated that democrats downplay their competence because of perceived "lower mental abilities". A more probable explanation is because they KNOW that African Americans have worse education outcomes because of structural racism and other factors related to being OPPRESSED continuously for centuries. They do not believe that African Americans have inherently worse mental abilities, consciously or unconsciously. This is once again an unfounded assumption that PRO is trying to slip in unnonitced.
If con is admitting different mental abilities than it destroys his arguments that egalitarianism and slave morality are mutually exclusive.
CON is not admiting different mental abilities between arbitrary classifications such as race. CON does agree that individuals can have different levels of strenght and other characteristics. CON extends that EGALITARIANS view everyone as EQUAL despite these differences, while SLAVE MORALITY wants to DIVIDE people up as GOOD or EVIL based on these differences.
You would have to be aware at some level of your own inferiority in order to adopt slave morality.
MAJOR CONCESSION: PRO conceedes that if you are NOT AWARE of your own inferity then you cannot adopt slave morality.
- Assuming voters believe PRO has proved democrats to be inferior, PRO has still not proved that they are aware of this.
- I extend that Leftism is based on EGALITARIANISM, that everyone has equal value and social worth.
- It is not a no true scotsman fallacy to say that NO TRUE SCOTSMAN IS WELSH, because those are mutually exclusive categories.
- Similarly, it is not a no true scotsman fallacy to say that NO TRUE EGALITARIAN divides people into GOOD and EVIL based on perceived genetic traits.
Self awareness doesn't always happen on a conscious level. In fact it usually doesn’t.
OBJECTION FALSE. The very defintion of SELF AWARENESS is conscious knowledge of one's own character and feelings.
You judge whether a person holds onto slave morality because conscious actions betray this subconscious state. (see Freud)
I repeat that none of Freuds theories have been proven. PRO cannot submit as evidence for Freud's unproven theory Freud's other unproven theory.
Why are you trying to argue against something as obvious as the fact that socially awkward ,weak or broke guys will will struggle to get laid.
PRO LIED about the cause of us having 2 female ancestors for every male ancestor, and misrepresented his own source in doing so. He said that this ratio is due to "genetic freaks" failing to getting laid, but the historical fact is that powerfull and beautifull females were limited in the number of children they could bear but powerfull and reasonably fertile males could theoretically father an unlimited number of children. CON never stated that getting laid is easy for the socially awkward.
Women have higher standards than males who will pretty much be okay with putting their dick in anything.
Obviously, since WOMEN historically had to BEAR CHILDREN after sex while males could ejaculate and evacuate. So they had to be more selective, while males best strategy is to spread their genes at every opportunity. This does not prove the blackpill idea of "genetic" causes for lack of pussy. Incel attitudes are what puts women off.
I never stated that a lot or even the majority of republicans aren’t the embodiment of slave morality.
PRO claimed that "genetic freaks (refering to obese and unhealthy people) are generally leftists" which is a LIE that I thouroughly debunked. Now he backtracks and says that democrats AND republicans embodies slave morality because they are all unhealthy. But the conservatives takes opposite position on the political issues he says proves their slave morality. They don't support Hamas or open borders. So they don't have the "appearance" of slave morality even when they have greater reason to adopt it.
“PRO is once again pulling nonsense out of his ass. He has no source for these claims and they don't even make sense”This was posted in response to me saying that homosexuality is accepted by the left. Try not to laugh
PRO is GISH GALLOPING with the weakest most pathetic points in the history of debates and when I call him out on his bullshit he responds by making a lame and immature joke.
The genetic inferiority was mentioned by me to explain why the left may feel or realize they are inferior.
PRO has not proven that democrats in general are "genetically inferior", and that is an absurd claim. Why would leftists view themself as inferior without any evidence?
tax policies are proposed by arguing not for the need for more government funding but as a way to harm the wealthy.
(Citation needed)
the attempt to go after Israel for accidental civilian deaths as opposed to Hamas
OBJECTION: Israel is illegaly occupying palestinian territories according to leftists. They attack Israel instead of Hamas because the thief has no right to defend themself against the owner of the house. PRO may not aggree with leftists on this, but it is pattently false to straw man the argument as "Israel bad because they stronk".
Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as good. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength, but by careful subversion.
Leftism does not gain power by "corrupting the strong" or by carefull subversion. Leftism gains power by collectively destroying the shackles of the oppressed through a show of strenght, even going so far as to literally fight and kill the oppressors. That is the epithome of "aiming to exert one's will by strenght". PRO has no rebuttal for this.
One third of what PRO says is true but not relevant. Another third is contradicted by the available evidence. The rest is nonsense Freud said that has never been proven.
Round 4
Pro
#7
In the final round we need to drill down what the voters have seen in this debate and how it should be interpreted. Con’s arguments contain a lot of red herrings, but beyond that he attempts to mandate absurd interpretations of the resolution. I never limited leftism to be exclusive to American leftism. We are merely discussing the board strokes of leftism. The insinuation that I need to specifically say that we are discussing leftism in the context to modern forms of leftism is also absurd. I also don’t need to specify that we are referring to leftism in this current dimension or universe. Judges are allowed to and should use common sense when interpreting the resolution.
Slave morality vs leftism
Con has mistakenly through this debate chosen to see slave morality as an ideology and compare it to the ideology of leftism or as he would say a collection of varied ideologies with broad similarities. It’s like calling fear an ideology or like calling evolution an ideology. Slave morality is a collective instinct and yes it manifests itself in the right as well. This has been explained thoroughly and it is con’s own fault he hasn’t taken the time to understand this.
Leftism sees itself as egalitarian. Cool story. This insinuation that people accurately perceive themselves throughout the debate is silly. This story of being egalitarians and leftists not seeing themselves as they are, which is a collective of the weak facing off against the strong who have more of an individualistic impulse is nothing more than a cope. We have all seen copes.It’s like the ugly guy who gets rejected by the girl and then thinks she is a lesbian.
Instinct vs Logic
People use logic to justify their instincts. We know this, Freud knew it. I know my opponent tried to disprove Freud last round, which was silly. I used him as an example of the fact we have subconscious impulses and con again misses the point by saying that Freud was wrong about the Oedipus complex. So it was entirely pointless for con to waste any characters last round trying to disprove Freud if he has no objections to my premise that the subconscious exists And is responsible for a lot of our behavior.
Slave morality as described earlier is the collectivization of the weak against the strong. The person who has slave morality will divide the world into oppressor and oppressed and feign moral superiority over the strong because it is the only type of superiority he can claim. It’s important to keep this in mind because ultimately when looking at a collection of behaviors by leftists we have to determine whether slave morality accounts for those behaviors better than any other sort of motivation. If my opponent’s explanations of those behaviors fits better than mine than he should win this debate. However he hasn’t explained those behaviors better, in fact he has pretty much ignored those behaviors and focused on mental copes in response to the numerous studies on the fact that rightwing is better looking. More likely to work out and have more money than the left wing.
Here is the behaviors I brought up consistent with slave morality below is where the left gives into this oppressor oppressed narrative.
- For BLM protestors the oppressors are cops because the cops arrest black people at disproportionate numbers
- if you watched the terrorist attacks in Israel and saw the response to women and children being raped and tortured by Hamas, you will have seen the left mostly silent on the issue and when Israel targeted HAMAS for attacks and there were civilian casualties, the left came out in large numbers across many colleges in the United States and Europe. The reason for the outrage over people who were victims of collateral damage, (which is obviously necessary and going to happen when your opponent relies so heavily on guerilla warfare ) was so intense while the intentional targeting of civilians for much worse fates that included torture and prolonged rape and death is because Israel is successful and therefore according to leftists and oppressor, while Hamas resides in Paelstine and since Palestinians are poor and have hard lives that makes them the good guys and incapable of wrong doing (con reaffirms the oppressed oppressor narrative in his last round without realizing it)
Below is the left using subversion like Nietzsche predicts with the adoption of slave morality.
- mutants will attack healthier nuclear families by encouraging women to sleep around, to put the pursuit of money and a career over reproducing.
- The mutant will often undermine things like religion, which is nothing more than an evolutionary mechanism that helps to create in group bias to better promote a groups well being and repel outside invaders
- The mutants will attempt to create more genetic dead ends such as themselves by promoting homosexuality
- If you watch the show my 500 pound life, you will see a bunch of genetic freaks who are a burden on the system and their loved ones, and these are generally leftists who would promote things like free healthcare because it takes resources from those more fit and redistributes them to dysgenic freeloaders
Before I continue onto more examples I want to point out that con attempts to call people who are conditioned to be homosexuals weak. He also adds in his final round the following quote “Someone who is not able or willing to express their TRUE sexual orientation is not STRONG or NOBLE.” This is dumb con. If somebody is conditioned to be homosexual than they are expressing their true sexual orientation by being homosexual.
Here is a list of leftist tendencies that reveal that the egalitarian message they present to themselves and others is a cope.
- If leftists see racial minorites as truly equal we can expect that their behaviors would match this belief but a study conducted by Yale University discovered that liberals will often talk down to African Americans in an effort to appear less competent
- Leftists believe women are physically equal to men, than why do they insist on lowering physical standards so more women can become fire fighters? (3) or military? (4
The judges should be exclusively focusing on whether con better explained these groups of behaviors consistent with slave morality better with some alternative theory than I have.
Spoiler alert, he hasn’t. Instead he wasted his rounds making rebuttals that are silly and not even central at disproving my argument. My argument being that slave morality is the best explanation for the above behaviors. Instead his arguments focused on disproving the oedipus complex or attempting to randomly disprove that better looking men have easier access to sex. In some cases con points out that many on the right embody slave morality as if the right embodying slave morality would disprove that the left does.
I ask that the judges not fall for con’s red herrings and for them to vote for me based on the fact that slave morality better explains the above behaviors than anything con has proposed, which is practically nothing.
Con
#8
CONSESSIONS PRO MADE:
It is unfair to try and interpret the resolution in a way con knows is incorrect.
PRO conceedes in R3 that we KNOW that not all instances of leftism embody slave morality. This is also a consession that leftism is not INHERENTLY an embodiment of slave morality.
Leftist ideology is not slave morality.
PRO conceedes in R3 that leftist ideology (meaning: leftism applied in the political realm), is NOT slave morality.
We also have the possibility that many of the people who become gay don't fall into the false dichotomy of master/slave morality
PRO conceedes that slave/master morality is a false dichotomy. So he is admiting that his resolution includes a logical fallacy.
You would have to be aware at some level of your own inferiority in order to adopt slave morality.
PRO conceedes that if you are not aware of your own inferiority, then you cannot adopt slave morality.
- That means he has to PROVE not only that leftists in general are inferior, but that they are aware of their own inferiority. This he has not done.
Other concessions:
PRO implicitly conceedes in R1 that socialism and communism do not embody slave morality. He conceedes in R2 that the head figures of these movements like Che Guevara are badasses. He drops my argument that socialism and communism are badass by definition because they are TOUGH, UNCOMPROMISING and INTIMIDATING. PRO also conceeded that leftism is egalitarian by definition. PRO conceedes that leftists view themself as egalitarian.
Rebuttals:
The insinuation that I need to specifically say that we are discussing leftism in the context of modern forms of leftism is also absurd.
Resolution: Resolved, that Leftism embodies a form of slave morality when applied in the political realm.
- PRO is claiming that when leftism is applied in the political real, it embodies slave morality.
- When as a conjunction: meaning ‘at the time that’.
- At the time that leftism is applied in the political realm is not specified by PRO, so it is presented as a general rule across time.
- PRO should have written "leftism embodies slave morality today", but he elected not to.
It is NOT absurd that the instigator of a debate has to properly specify the scope of the resolution BEFORE the debate starts.
I never limited leftism to be exclusive to American leftism. We are merely discussing the broad strokes of leftism.
OBJECTION FALSE:
- In R1 PRO wrote about "the majority of the left that you see today which is a small but growing segment of the Democratic party."
- So PRO DID try to move the goalpost by limiting "the broad strokes of leftism" to be exclusively about American Leftism.
BUT THEN PRO SAID IN R3 THAT: Anyone with a brain would interpret the resolution to mean most instances of leftism.
- PRO thus conceedes that the scope of his BoP is NOT limited to only modern american leftism. He has to show how MOST instances of leftism embody slave morality.
- PRO has not proved anything about leftism in general. He has tried to prove something about a very specific instance of leftism in america, what he calls "woke".
- Most instances of leftism fall OUTSIDE off America. America + Western Europe still doesn't contain 50% of leftism, just look at CHINA.
- PRO NEVER analysed any form of non-american leftism in his arguments. He NEVER refers to any political party except for the american ones.
- So PRO has not met the BoP that he himself conceeded that he had. Any further arguments against his case is OVERKILL!
I will continue to destroy his case not because it is necesary but because I don't think what he is saying makes sense even for democrats. Here goes more rebuttals:
he has no objections to my premise that the subconscious exists and is responsible for a lot of our behavior.
- PRO is making SPECIFIC claims about the unconscious of MILLIONS of people, and he has NO EVIDENCE that these people have slave morality in their unconscious.
I know my opponent tried to disprove Freud last round, which was silly.
OBJECTION LYING:
- I never tried to disprove Freud. All I did was point out that his theories have never been proven --- not even after decades of trying.
- NONE of Freud's theories are backed by actual evidence. PRO did not dispute this.
Slave morality as described earlier is the collectivization of the weak against the strong.
- PRO is once again LYING and CONTRADICTING himself:
- In R1 PROsaid that "Slave morality is the morality of the weak. Slave morality looks to create a dichotomy of good and evil by classifying people in two distinct groups."
- In R2 PRO said that "Master morality defines morality through things like strength and nobility and to a large extent slave morality is the opposite of this."
- So slave morality is the specific belief that STRENGHT and NOBILITY makes you evil, while HUMILITY and MEEKNESS makes you good.
- Egalitarianism is the specific belief that everyone is MORALLY AND SOCIALLY EQUAL despite having different traits like strenght vs empathy.
1. For BLM protestors the oppressors are cops because the cops arrest black people at disproportionate numbers
- Which is different from saying that cops are oppressors based solely on their "strenght, power and nobility" which is what slave-morality would say.
2. Israel is successful and therefore according to leftists an oppressor, and since Palestinians are poor and have hard lives that makes them good and incapable of evil.
OBJECTION FALSE:
- PRO has NO SOURCE supporting his assertion that leftists believe Hamas is only good and can do no wrong. That is a BIG FAT STRAW MAN.
- PRO ignores my argument in R3 that leftists believe that Israel is illegaly occupying palestinian territories. They don't view Israel as evil because they are "successfull", and they don't view palestinians as good just because they are weak. So slave morality is NOT the reason why leftists oppose Israel.
If somebody is conditioned to be homosexual than they are expressing their true sexual orientation by being homosexual.
- That makes no sense. TRUE sexual orientation is the one you would have abscent any conditioning. For example: animals are homosexual even without any conditioning.
I want to point out that con attempts to call people who are conditioned to be homosexuals weak.
OBJECTION LYING: CON rejects that people are "conditioned" to be homosexuals because PRO has NO EVIDENCE that this is the case.
- CON does argue that in PRO's fantasy land, those who are succeptible to this hypothetical conditioning would NOT be strong or noble "masters" under Nietzches framework.
Leftists believe women are physically equal to men
- Maybe STUPID leftists believe that.
- PRO has no evidence that MOST INSTANCES of leftism hold this view, or even that that MOST DEMOCRATS believe this.
then why do they insist on lowering physical standards
- Because they DON'T believe that women are identical to men. They believe that women have EQUAL WORTH, which is completely different.
If leftists see racial minorites as truly equal we can expect that their behaviors would match this
- Leftists see racial minorities as having TRULY EQUAL SOCIAL WORTH AND MORAL VALUE. That is why they push to stop discrimination, why they oppose police brutality targeted at minorities, why they want to end systemic racism and the cycle of poverty they are trapped in because they were LITERALLY SLAVES.
- Leftists can still think that african americans are less educated on average and use simpler language when talking to them.
you will see a bunch of genetic freaks who are a burden on the system and their loved ones, and these are generally leftists
- PRO copy pastes his LIE from R2, completely disregarding the FACT that these people are generally republicans, not leftist.
who would promote things like free healthcare because it takes resources from those more fit and redistributes them to dysgenic freeloaders
- PRO is asserting that leftists want universal health coverage, not because quality accessible health care is the foundation for individuals to lead productive and fullfilling lives and for countries to have strong economies, but because they just hate the "fit" and love "dysgenic freeloaders". Again he has no source and it doesn't make sense.
My argument being that slave morality is the best explanation for the above behaviors.
- The best explanation would still not automatically constitute the CORRECT explanation.
- PRO has NO EVIDENCE that his explanation is the BEST one OR the CORRECT one when it comes to understanding "woke democrats" and their views.
- In fact, his one relies on straw-manning leftist arguments, lying about democrats and fabricating nonsensical motivations while ignoring the obvious ones.
The judges should be exclusively focusing on whether con better explained these groups' behaviors
PRO is trying to ASSIGN NEW BOP to CON in the very last round, which is extremely bad faith. I don't have to explain all democrat behaviours, I just have to demonstrate how PRO's explanation doesn't make sense or how it lacks necesary evidence. BoP falls solely upon PRO unless specified otherwise in the description.
SUMMARY:
PRO has been on the backfoot this entire debate. He has not been able to refute any of my countless rebuttals, so he has elected to instead ignore them and call them silly. But my "silly rebuttals" are a damning critique of this argument. CON has shown the "facts" PRO tries to explain with slave morality are mostly irrelevant, lies or misrepresentations. For examples. Maybe one study found more rebublicans among a group of 200 bodybuilders. But democrats are more educated, less obese and more healthy on average -- which is the excact opposite of what PRO claimed. Another thing. PRO has no source for his ridiculous claim that "mutants" will attack healthier nuclear families by encouraging women to sleep around, or that they condition attractive people to become homosexual because they feel threatened by their "superior genes". He also says that the mutant will often undermine things like religion, but religion was the main embodiment and propagator of slave morality according to Nietzche. So it makes no sense to explain the left not liking religion because of slave morality. PRO also makes a lot of other errors like saying that alpha males were at an advantage in prehistoric times when the excact opposite is true. Furthermore he misrepresented his own source by saying that "genetic mutants" are the reason why we have twice as many female ancestors, which is not true according to the study he cited.
PRO conceeded a reasonable interpretation of the resolution which gives him a BoP he failed to fullfill. He only talked about woke democrats, which is not enough to prove that most instances of leftism embody slave morality. He drops my argument that communism and the vast majority of leftism has a strategy that relies on collective strenght and direct confrontation, which is different from how Nietzche described slave morality's "carefull subversion" and "corruption" of the superior masters. Furthermore he failed to sufficiently grasp the meaning of slave morality and egalitarianism, and how they are mutually exclusive since one views everyone as fundamentally equal and only divided by arbitrary classes, while the other views people as inherently superior or inferior based their personal traits.
CONCLUSION:
PRO failed to prove anything at all. Even if every false claim he makes was actually true it does not prove that MOST INSTANCES of leftism embody slave morality.
Leftists are not pussies. Leftism does not embody slave morality when applied to the political realm.
So the resolution fails. VOTE CON!
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
I think I am going to screen record my judging process. Some people I feel like are giving very good votes and yet using less effort than me. I usually take e hours to judge a debate.
I do one read through and then use 2 pieces of paper. One to track pros arguments. One to track cons arguments and then I track rebuttals and responses.
At the end I see what is standing and then do an impact analysis.
Then if I feel like the debate was close, I beat myself up for 3 days second guessing if any biases slipped into the vote that gave one side the edge.
Here is another thing that I noticed that is odd. My bias is harder to fight when a topic is above my head. I have clicked on debates and I was not understanding the jargon because it was 2 philosophy needs debating an obscure philosophy. Now I have to read their citations and look for outside sources for definitions to understand them and then after 10 hours of work I realize that despite it being a topic I have no opinion on; I still somehow have more bias than a topic I have a strong opinion on.
Things can also be engaging, but require real effort if judging them.
I will never bitch about lack of votes. People have real lives. If the shit isn't engaging enough to get votes than so be it.
I had meant to vote on this, and it looks like a run read; but too much going on right now.
Would Israel illegally occupying Palestine be an oppressive action, and would that make Palestinians oppressed?
"Slave morality looks to create a dichotomy of good and evil by classifying people in two distinct groups."
Yeah, the Communists and the non-Communists.
Anyone who is not one is the other.
No, we aren't cats.
this'll be something lol
"A political ideology that generally advocates for social equality."
The left is not consistent with this. Otherwise, they would want equality for the unborn and the unvaccinated.
The left is anti-unwanted pain.
I was a leftist when that movie came out so it was even more entertaining for me then, than it is now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32iCWzpDpKs