BEN SHAPIRO IS A WHITE SOX FAN

I would have to establish a better understanding of a right - left paradigm.

Far left is communism.

Far right is facism.

By the statements made is Ben Shapiro a far right figure.

My understanding in the context I have, is that I am far right on a spectrum which differs from American norms.

I take that as a yes.

I don't know what distinction this is referring to.

You said:

You said precisely that the United States is made up of people.  I have not. 

Even though earlier you said this:

The nation is made up of people,

Generally Ben Shapiro is supportive of limited government.  Although I wish he would speak more on checks and balances,

I don't think its as pertinent in his perspective because he advocates a system with less liability to account for in the government.

I don't understand communism as a coherent philosophy, and I don't think of Ben Shapiro as bordering fascism.  

I don't consider myself sympathetic to fascism as a sustainable approach to government, so no.  

The comma means its an incomplete sentence

The nation is made up of people, but the United States could be said to be more of a shared idea between the people.

your evidence claimed that Ben Shapiro saying "rap is crap" is far right.GREAT SOURCE

I did give you a argument? Are you mentally impaired to take logic

your evidence claimed that Ben Shapiro saying "rap is crap" is far right.GREAT SOURCE

How is saying rap is crap bad or far-right?

This is mainly used to add more to why they dislike other races. Rap is crap is just a cherry on top of them hating black people. Attack their culture to make it sound reasonable. Rap is part of people's culture whoever listen to it. Just so happens that blacks digest raps more than whites.

http://www.survelum.com/survey-results/jeff-lafreniere-sur-99

This was not done per-capita since it was a survey but I think it would be true per capita blacks digest rap more than any other race.

Do you seriously think Ben Shapiro is alt-right. If you do I am happy to debate you on this topic

You do realize that Presidents as far back as Theodore Roosevelt openly endorsed nationalism, right?

Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

You do realize people back in the day allowed slavery? Is that a reason to carry on doing slavery? No so make a better argument. You can say slavery does not exist now but what if it did. Would you be for it? If you were against slavery you would say no so this argument applied in a different context means you are not logically consistent. That based on the argument itself not on the context.

This would of course mean a nationalist would be more of a protectionist than for free trade. No credible economist supports protectionism which can clearly be seen by them disliking Trump's tariffs. I think the reason economists are against protectionism, which would be what a nationalist a for if they remained consistent with what they believe, is due to if the US decides to close the global market. The market will forget about them. China will become an even bigger empire and other countries will profit whereas US decided to leave their trade deals. This would mean countries outside the US will be better off while the US will lose out on market which leads to a worse economy thus not being a leader in the global economy because they wouldn't be in it if we take what Trump wants to its logical conclusion.

You will carry on making shite arguments and if I am there you best believe I will keep rebutting even though it might not get through to your thick skull just how bad your ideas are.

You are beyond hope not because you are a republican because you are a Christian. I saw your comments about pride month and realized just how far gone you are when you un-apologetically said what you said.

Here is what you said: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1887?page=2&post_number=27

Your non-apology if it was actually an apology. If it wasn't even an apology then I am not surprised: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1894?page=1&post_number=13

This argument could basically be made about anything, though I guess so could whatever I said preceding this.

My point was, nationalism is far from a recent, alien development in the American civic tradition. It's been here about as long as anything else. Certainly it predates modern notions of internationalism.

It should be noted also that as far as US Presidents go, Theodore Roosevelt is usually ranked pretty high up there. And, in fact, he was quite liberal for his day.

Nationalism is a very broad concept. It includes right-wing nationalism AND left-wing nationalism. Colonial independence movements were nationalist in character, by definition. It can include aggressive imperialism and isolationism, and pretty much anything in between.

I have a question for you: imagine if a country's leadership, instead of simply acting in accordance with how their constituents voted, decided to, say, spend large sums of money on foreign aid (from the public coffer) and send tens of thousands of that country's young men to go fight and die in some foreign war which did not concern that country's national security. Imagine if they did this simply because they wanted to be buddies with other heads of state and the UN, or because, say, they wanted to win a Nobel Peace Prize or whatever crap.

Perhaps it benefits other countries that such a thing should happen. But the people of that country didn't have a say in it. It was patently anti-democratic. If a populist (nationalist) leader came along and said "Screw what my predecessors did I'm going to put our interests first by no longer doing these things", would that really be so terrible, according to you?

This relates to what we were talking about in the other thread. What I said was that Trump was trying to get China to open up its own markets (that is, to stop doing protectionist stuff of its own), and you asked me what would happen if Trump failed in this effort. My answer would be that at some point, if nothing was happening, we'd have to get somebody else in power to negotiate with China to restore the status quo ante bellum (metaphorically speaking).

But we don't know what the outcome of Trump's policies will be.

He could legitimately succeed, by doing enough damage to the Chinese economy that the communist regime has to cut a deal to stave off collapse (China operates per the Mandate of Heaven model, in which the Chinese people are only willing to tolerate totalitarian rule so long as the economy's still growing strong). We're taking a chance, but former Presidents were content to allow an uneven trade situation to continue. They weren't willing to try to solve the problem. Trump is at least trying, for which one must give him some credit.  

Trump is a businessman who's had fairly extensive dealings with foreign companies and countries. He understands that tariffs and trade barriers are bad for business overall, which is why I highly doubt that his long-term goal is permanent protectionism.

There are billions of people in this world who believe in the Bible and the Quran, both of which regard homosexuality as a sin against God. The modern LGBT movement will not change what these two books say. It will not make people stop believing in what these books say. They're not going to remove a snippet from the book.

And, quite frankly, they not only have as much right to believe what they do as gay people have the right have sex with each other, but in fact their right is greater. 

Freedom of conscience is THE most important human right in the world. There is no absolute right to have sex with whoever you want; the fact that rape is illegal (or at least in theory) everywhere proves this is not the case, as does the fact that you're not allowed to have sex with a minor even if they consent.

In the modern world we've decided that same-sex relationships between consenting adults are harmless (in theory, at least) and that it would cause more suffering than good to deny them the right to engage in such. Okay.

LGBT and Christianity are able to coexist in the United States. It requires showing regard for the rights of both, but to some degree at least both the Left and the Right have regarded it as a zero-sum game.

The Left swings too far in favor of LGBT rights at the expense of that of Christians, whereas the Right would swing opposite if they were not too timid (with the exception of them opposing legislation that would prevent hiring discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgender people, etc).

Since you considered what I said in that prior thread to be unreasonable, then I'm sure you'll think the same about what I've written above. Tell me specifically why I'm wrong. Here's your chance to make your opinion heard.

Your argument pretty much here states that nationalism ought to be valued because Roosevelt was a nationalist and was quite liberal back in the day. These things don't link. Being liberal does not mean nationalism should ought to be valued and you have yet to say that. This is basically saying you say what is and not saying what ought to be.

Nothing of valued stated here. Did not rebut anything I said nor did it attempt for me to understand what he is trying to say. You basically said nationalism is brought and there is right wing and left wing nationalism.

Democratic countries spread more of the blame which is why it is better. If Trump was in charge more can go wrong quicker. Due to the democratic process the left can stop awful ideas like what Trump has with the border wall. If it was an authoritarian state Trump would have already built a border wall. Spent a lot money of without any pay-off. I wouldn't be shocked if Trump didn't allow official documents out about the effectiveness of the border wall due to how awful it would be given by what it is proposed. I am for less war profiteers in office so no I would be against war but not against constituents voting. People elect members to state to represent them when the people carry on with their lives. This is not a problem because if the people put the right constituents in charge they wouldn't be annoyed by their decision while also having more time to carry on with their lives.

Problem here is that your wishful thinking with Trump will result in worse consumer prices as in the people of the US will have to pay more for their goods. Credible economists on my side support what I am saying whereas you have Trump and other anti-intellectuals.

Tariffs are tariffs. It is either Trump is taxing goods or they are not. 

you have already conceded the long-term

The United States is a liberal country which have allowed gay marriage in a Christian majority country yet you think you have an argument here.

You can believe all you want about homosexuality being a sin but did that stop gay marriage from being a thing. A celebartion of homosexuality with what you consider a sin? No so this argument doesn't actually hold anything.

Rights are given or protected by the state.

Gay marriage is a right for homosexual couples to commit upon. You have yet to define what you mean by right or how they actually have more rights.

A bait and switch. You have removed the discussion away from homosexuality and went into pedophilia. You have made a reasonable position as in gay marriage (a celebration of homosexuality) my actual position to a ludicrous position that this somehow gives way to pedophilia not my actual position. So basically you are not arguing against pride month more so using cheap tactics to make your position sound more reasonable than it is. I saw onto it and would like you to actually provide an argument against what I am for. If it wasn't clear pride month is not about pedophilia and I don't support pedophilia.

Your a typical Christian indoctrinated into the wrong thinking. I feel sorry you but that doesn't change who you are or what harm you can bring across. While believe in immaterial things which have yet to be proven you have used that as a basis to dislike homosexuals. This can be seen with you clearly stating that homosexuality is a sin. Since you dislike sin you dislike homosexuals. If that is too much of a difficult concept to wrap your head around you shouldn't be having this conversation and come back to me when you understand how to make a good argument. You have yet to provide a good argument.

I didn't mean that to be a winning argument. It was more of a "gotcha" thing

You denied the claim that "Nationalism is healthy, within reason", suggesting instead that it has always been a bad thing in whatever form it manifested itself, though obviously some very good things have come about as a result of nationalism in some form (e.g. independence struggles).

You seem to have a very narrow view of what nationalism is. You think Hitler and Mussolini, though more often than not that isn't the form nationalism takes. Love of country is good in itself, and it does not preclude doing things to improve one's country. The Left nowadays wants to improve this "society" (or, at least, pass measures that they see as improvements), but they do not love the country itself. They separate the two things in their minds, and regard any such love of country as a bad thing. I can think of no explanation for this save that they want the consolidation of the entire world under one global government (ruled by themselves, of course), and that they see nation states as an obstacle to this.

Nationalism means rejection of this vision of one global government, a rejection that I see as good and proper because loyalty to one's country should come before loyalty to foreign peoples. The only explanation for your behavior here is that you reject loyalty to country altogether. I probably cannot convince you that you're wrong, so we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

And you accuse me of dodging questions...

I'll ask you again. If a leader is doing things that benefit the rest of the world but are not in the best interests constituents of that country, is it wrong for said constituents to reject that leader come next election season in favor of somebody who'll do the opposite?

Nope. What economists agree upon is that in general tariffs are bad. They do not agree that "making things worse in the short term to advance mutually beneficial free trade in the long term is bad". You're just pulling that out of thin are.

I will admit that at this time I cannot prove that Trump will succeed. He has already seen some success in regards to Canada, Mexico, and Japan, but China might prove to be a whole different animal.

It's a gamble. It carries risks but also possible rewards. That's what's happening now.

And I've already explained why this is a fallaciously simplistic way of looking at it.

Wrong, I have conceded no such thing. Try again.

Based off a straw-man. With what you quoted I did not say anything of the sort I simply laid out how awful your arguments were. Now I can add straw-manning with trolling to the list of why you are bad at making arguments.

This is a hypothetical that is not the way reality works. Free trade has helped the US more so than Protectionism in the present. Come back to me with a question worth asking instead of saying what if something good was bad and something bad was good? Would you be for what is now good? That is what your question is. You change what things are to get your point and I doubt you even realize it.

"Liberal" is a term that has had varying meanings across time. It could mean Classical Liberal (a vision the Left rejects, based on its visceral hatred for private enterprise and right-wing free speech) or, in the modern context, Progressive.

This country was founded as a classical liberal state, but even the Founders' vision for America was a lot less libertine. I heard once that homosexual intercourse was a capital crime in George Washington's army, for example.

My point is, you can't simply say "The United States is a liberal country" as though anything outside of that vision is an aberration. Different people are going to have different visions of what liberalism is, for one, and your particular vision of such did not come about until modern times. You think the ways our society have changed are a major improvement? Alright. You're perfectly free to think that. But the idea that you're somehow entitled to have your way in this country is absurd.

This is not an argument. As you yourself have repeatedly said, just because something is right doesn't mean it'll prevail as an institution or government policy, and just because something is very wrong doesn't mean it won't become entrenched as such.

The second and third sentences in this were incoherent so I'm just to ignore it and move on.

Nope. Rights exist independent of the state. The state's job is to uphold and acknowledge these. But if we were to go by your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as an immoral government policy, no?

That opens up a whole other can of worms about positive and negative rights. I'd prefer not to go into that. It is far from decided a question as to what degree positive rights even exist. Virtually everyone can all agree, however, that we have negative rights.

So isn't it more fitting, then, to say that gays have a right not to be subject to state interference as they enter into marital/sexual unions with one another?

It would have to have been established, however, that anyone has a right to behave sexually or romantically with other people as they please without interference, an assumption not yet shown to be true.

All men, regardless of sexual orientation, have the equal freedom to pursue relationships with women, and vise-versa. What, then, do you mean by equality?

That is to say, the right to have sex is nowhere near as fundamental as the right to freedom of conscience.