Total topics: 49
Once again, today we confront the depths of evil and moral depravity. A school shooter murdered six people in a school. More may succumb to their injuries, yet. It is too early to say at this time. The fatalities include three adults and three children. The school was a private Christian religious school. The shooter was a 28-year old former student of the same school.
The shooter will answer in hell for these transgressions. But that will not bring those kids or those teachers back. Too many similar instances haunt our collective memories.
There are some differences between this instance, and other prior instances. For example, this shooter was a transitioning "male" (born female, in some state of "transition" to being male). It is unclear whether that is relevant to the shooter's motive or intentions. It might be. It might not be. I don't have enough information to know at this time.
The shooter allegedly wrote a "manifesto," according to news reports. The alleged manifesto's contents are not described in the reporting. The contents of the manifesto may shed light on the shooter's motives.
Because facts are still developing, I can only offer my perspective on facts as they are known at this time (including, as described above).
However, this much is true and will remain true: Salvation is not had through policy.
Immediate, reflexive calls for gun control are unhelpful. As they always are. Demands for broad, sweeping policy reform in the face of a highly publicized crisis also do not add value. This person would have passed any pre-purchase background check without difficulty.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The capchas this site is now using are complete trash. On four occasions, it gave me non-solveable captchas which were incorrectly coded.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Fields of expertise and their institutions are self-reinforcing instrumentalities, through which power is exercised and the opportunity to do so is created by their production of knowledge. This, Foucault taught from the 1960s and beyond.
Psychiatry is one such field of expertise. The American Psychiatric Association is one such institution. Both produce certain "knowledge," including, as relevant here, the DSM-III. The practice of so-called "psychiatry" is one such means through which their power is exercised.
Foucault excoriated the so-called field of psychiatry for the extent of its pseudoscientific fraud in the DSM-II. The DSM-II identified "homosexuality" as an ostensibly "diagnosis." Then, the APA --- in its infinite wisdom --- concluded that homosexuality was a "disorder" with potentially pathological roots. The APA and its allegedly "expert" members had no shortage of theories as to why.
Then-existing empirically supported theories of normal variation (i.e., "born that way") were rejected in favor of normative pontification, according to stereotypes of "masculinity" and "femininity," among others. Actual scientific proof that homosexuality was not the result of individual pathology yielded to then-prevailing behavioral theories, including excessive mothering, hostile fathering or sexual abuse in childhood explained personality deficits based on those same stereotypes and lacking anything approximating empirical support.
And for all its moralizing, normative bullshit, the APA proposed no shortage "therapies" for the "deviance" of homosexuality as it was then conceptualized by the so-called field of psychology. They included electro convulsive "therapy," including by placing electrodes on the genitals of stereotypically "effeminate" young boys or stereotypically "masculine" young girls, and directing "corrective" shocks through their bodies at that location while exposing them to homosexual pornographic material. This torture was called "operant conditioning," a form of purportedly
behavioral therapy to "treat" this so-called "disorder." Of course, it failed without exception because the behavioral theories were devoid of anything even vaguely resembling evidentiary support. But the psychiatrists were undeterred.
Excessive and often physical punishment, exposure to heterosexual pornography, sexual abuse at the hand of a member of the opposite sex and finally pharmaceutical and surgical interventions followed. The pharmaceutical "treatments," at the time, included giving boys high-dose injections of medroxyprogesterone acetate. Or as you may know it, "Depo Provera."
Depo Provera was the drug that the British government forced on Alan Turing, to chemically castrate him for being gay, as was a routine practice among psychiatrists to "treat" all "homosexuals" at that time. It is the same drug that is routinely administered to sex offenders for chemical castration, now. It reduces sex drive in men and is used as a form of chemical castration to control inappropriate or unwanted sexual behavior in those with paraphilias (like when homosexuality was one of those, according to the so-called field of psychology) or hypersexuality, including in convicted sex offenders.
But Depo Provera is not the only drug used for chemical castration nor is its use, or that class of drugs' use limited to chemical castration. It is routinely prescribed by psychiatrists to treat the current disorder that's all the rage now . . . gender dysphoria. In fact, the same drug at the same dosages and on the same regimen could be prescribed to a prepubescent boy as a form of so-called "puberty blocker" and/or "feminizing hormone therapy" due to its progestogenic and functional antiandrogenic effects.
Nor was "chemical castration" the only "treatment" for "homosexuality," according to the APA and its DSM-II. Surgical castration was the more permanent solution, and tens of thousands of men, teenagers and boys were involuntarily surgically castrated based on nothing more than a psychiatrist's imperiousness based no nothing more than his own pseudoscientific delusion. If you were found to be "a homosexual" by such a fraud and refused your "treatment" you would be involuntarily committed by a court and forced to undergo the procedure anyway. This practice continued in the United States until well into the late 1980s, even AFTER THE DSM-II WAS REPLACED by the DSM-III. It took about a generation for practitioners to catch up.
However, the field of psychiatry was not done sexually mutilating children with chemicals and butchery under the snare and delusion of "therapy." Nothing has actually changed, in substance or practice. Only how the field of psychiatry tells the world at large to conceptualize what it is doing. So-called "trans" issues are now in vogue and allegedly "gender affirming care" has taken the place of both chemically and surgically mutilating children. But with new branding, new messaging and new politics.
Such. Great. Progress.
- Instead of "treating" the purported "deviancy" of homosexualuty (DSM-II), now the field of psychiatry "affirms" the purported "gender" of supposed "transexuals" (DSM-5).
- Instead of "chemically castrating" stereotypically effeminate, often prepubescent or barely pubescent boys with high dose regimens of Depo Provera (or other such drugs) because of their "homosexuality" (DSM-II); the field of psychiatry purports to "transition" or "block the puberty of" those exact same stereotypically effeminate, often prepubescent or barely pubescent boys, with those exact same high dose regimens of Depo Provera (or other such drugs) because of their "gender dysphoria" (DSM-5).
- Instead of surgically castrating them for homosexuality, psychiatrists surgically castrate them to begin their "gender reassignment."
How far we have come. This snare and delusion.
But the approach is far, far more evil now. Now, the societal conditions favor inducing children to opt-in to the "in group" that is "trans." Without any regard for the actual consequences at all. Then, at least you weren't incentivized to involuntarily place yourself onto the "transitioning gender conveyor belt" of chemical and surgical sexual mutilation. But now? You totally are. Especially if you were already involved in the psychiatric racket, for something else. Why else would such an alarmingly high amount of so-called "trans" people have so many extensive co-morbidities?
Gender affirming care is no such thing. It's the 2022 iteration of what Foucault excoriated the APA for, before the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM-II.
This malicious fraud must be identified for what it is, that all may recognize its inherent, egregious and well-masqueraded evil.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The data are in. Americans hate deranged jackass Joe Biden, more than they ever hated Trump.
A new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey found that 71 percent of Americans do not want that to seek reelection.
- The poll was conducted from June 28-29,
2022 among 1,308 participants.
- Results were weighted for age within gender, region,
race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income,
employment, education, political party, and political
ideology where necessary to align them with their actual
proportions in the population.
- Propensity score weighting
was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be
online.
The data are abysmal . . . for Biden and Democrats.
- Inflation and the economy are overwhelmingly the most important issues to voters.
- More than 70% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.
- More than 71% of Americans think the economy is on the wrong track.
- More than 72% of Americans think the economy is weak, and remains underwater, a trend that has worsened since May 2021.
- More than 64% of Americans think their personal financial situation is getting worse, a trend that has acutely worsened since May 2021.
- Almost half of Americans expect a recession next year and more than 40% are pessimistic about their lives, personally, during that time.
- More than 60% of Americans doubt Biden's mental fitness to serve and more than 64% think he is too old.
- More than 71% think Biden should not run for a second term, because (a) he's a bad president (45%), (b) he's too old (30%) and (c) it's time for a change (26%).
- Fewer think Trump should not run for president, only about 61%. January 6th played least prominently among their reasons why, outranked by concerns of his personality and divisiveness. Curiously, 55% of this lot at least somewhat closely followed the January 6th hearings.
- Less than 38% approve of Joe Biden, overall. An all-time low. Donald Trump's current approval rating is higher.
The Democrats' situation is even more perilous. Despite everything, Biden still is the overwhelmingly clear leader of the DNC taking almost double the support of Kamala Harris, his next runner up, in a primary. Donald Trump beats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris by clear margins.
Astonishing failure!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision yesterday, Supreme Court has struck down the State of New York's "may issue" firearm license regime.
- The State of New York required a showing of "special need for self-protection distinguishable from
that of the general community" (emphasis added), to keep and bear arms for general self defense.
- That requirement was unconstitutional for several reasons; chief among them, that no other constitutional right requires any such showing.
- There may circumstances in which the right to keep and bear arms may be subject to limited restraint. But historical practice contemporaneous with the Second Amendment's adoption does not comport.
- In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court further rejected the Circuit Courts of Appeals' two-step method of analysis for constitutionality, post-Heller and McDonald.
- The first step was acceptable, as it requires "establish[ing] that the
challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope
of the right as originally understood." This is consistent with both Heller and McDonald.
- The second step was not, as it required judges to consider "how close the
law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and
the severity of the law’s burden on that right." Any constitutional right subject to the whims of future judicial interpretation is no such thing. The Second Amendment clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. Where a state imposes a "may issue" licensure requirement to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms for general self defense purposes, it infringes upon Second Amendment rights.
Let freedom ring.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"I don't want to hear any more of these lies. We're changing people's lives!"
Yep, for the worst. The cunt.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There is nothing more important than limiting the power of the state.
This should be a reality.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Education
In the decade's most benevolent act of corporate charity, Elon Musk threw failed social media giant Twitter its last lifeline.
Musk's takeover, costing more than $40 billion USD, is the last hope for Twitter.
Yet, left-wing activists and hypocrites the world over, wretch at the prospect of "platforming" so-called "deplorables," including former president Donald Trump. They complain that the leadership changes will herald a new dawn of harassment, that is both psychologically and socially destructive. According to alleged "research," on Twitter in particular "we need some sort of online regulation of harassing speech."
One such hypocrite of the feckless and dishonest variety, Taylor Lorenz, reportedly indicated that if appropriate such regulations were in place, she would have avoided "severe PTSD" following criticism from Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald," in addition to "really bad" suicidal ideation.
Raving lunatic Robert Reich also cheered with glee when Twitter banned Trump, but now scoffs at the prospect of Twitter's loss of power to censor political views to which he objects.
Will Elon Musk take the now-slowly-dying Twitter private?
Will Elon Musk fire the current CEO and disband the Board?
We can only hope.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Politifact once again proves it is fake news. Last week, Biden shook hands with air. Astonishingly, the fraudulent "fact checker" that is Politifact alleged that Biden was "gesturing" towards the crowd.
The fraudulent "fact checker" even hired an "expert" in "research science" --- whatever that is --- to purportedly debunk the reality of what was recorded:
According to Politifact's scientific whore "research scientist" Mike Caulfield:
"When we look at something that seems like one of these human moments, we're like, ‘I don't need to know anything. I can see it right there.' It does breed, I think, a false sense of confidence in us."
I will just state the obvious. In case maybe you missed it.
Mike Caulfield is a charlatan and a fraud. He holds himself out as "a research scientist leading the UW Center for an Informed Public's rapid response efforts."
What is a "research scientist"? Apparently it is whatever this fraud says it is. He has neither the educational credentials nor the publication record to support any inference that hs is credible in any respect. What has he done with his life?
In 1997, he got an MA in English from Northern Illinois University. Their requirements are little more than showing up, periodically.
In 1993, he got a BA in English from the purported "Keene State College." Or so he says.
He is less credible than Alex Jones, a bar so low it doesn't even present a tripping hazard.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Taylor Lorenz engaged in the exact same tactics with respect to Libs of Tik Tok that she "sobbed" about on MSNBC. According to crybully whore Taylor Lorenz, she experienced:
"severe PTSD" following criticism from Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald. [She claims to have] "had to remove every single social tie. I have severe PTSD . . . contemplated suicide and got really bad."She explains that "[[y]ou feel like any little piece of information that gets out on you will be used by the worst people on the Internet to destroy your life and it’s so isolating."
What Lorenz fails to acknowledge is that she is a serial harasser, who wished death on Glenn Greenwald in the context of a homophobic tirade, doxxed him and tried to use her position/access on social media to cause him actual harm to him.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Critical race theory is not a threat to the United States. But it is a threat to the wellbeing, both social and psychological, of all infected by it. Belief in this new species of quasi-religious delusion places the follower into a schizophrenia of being.
At once, they are both oppressed and oppressor according to their imagined level of privilege/victimhood. At once, they are simultaneously the social judge of themselves, a member of the jury deciding the fate of the accused and the accused themselves, according to their degree of privilege/oppression as imagined by themselves and other believers.
The human psyche cannot contend with that level of dissonance while remaining intact. This, presumably, is why proponents of critical race theory manifest something like a hive mind at the collective level; and something approximating one or more clinically significant personality disorders as individuals.
The two are interrelated: the individual absolves himself or herself of their individual guilt by performance of works, something like "hail marys" to wokeness, by signaling their virtue, often by the only means at their disposal --- on social media. In having performed their "holy sacrament" of shaming all perceived "oppressors," they absolve their "original sin" of having been born with the mark of the beast, their "identity." All of it takes the form of something like an exorcism ending with burning someone at the stake. Or, in a more modern (and equally religious sense), a "struggle session" in the at the behest of Mao's so called "cultural revolution." Or de-Kulakization in the Soviet Union.
This phenomenon, to me, is unsurprising. It echoes the absurdities of identity-based political movements in the 20th Century --- all of which have come about in man's effort to replace the values human civilization developed organically (and which are reflected, generally, in the Abrahamic religion) with something secular. The communists tried communism. The fascists tried fascism. The Americans now try critical race theory.
In so many ways, "critical race theory" is nothing more than the fulfillment of Nietzsche's prediction in the Genealogy of Morals (and, to a lesser degree, Thus Spake Zarathustra). At the point in time Nietzsche wrote, man's capacity for reason had developed to the degree that he could both recognize his normative value frameworks as such and self-consciously criticize them. Largely, this developed as the result of the Catholic church's failures throughout Germany and the world to maintain its cultural legitimacy (a trend that continues to this day, albeit in different form). So, the need for an alternative arose.
But the basis of a normative value framework, critical race theory is not. It is the bastard-child offshoot of a praxis between the so called "Frankfurt School" and Marxists. It is a self-defeating cult of despair that extends precisely into the realm of psychosis.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Ian Curtis was a singer, song-writer and musician. He was the lead-singer and frontman for the post-punk band, Joy Division.
Curtis committed suicide on May 18, 1980. He suffered from epilepsy and depression. Curtis's short time in music changed its course forever.
Ian was survived by his family, his music and the legacy he left behind. Lyrics to the songs he wrote have inspired generations. His lyrics had a depth and resonance few appreciated at the time. Some thought he was joking. He was serious.
- The best song he wrote, in my opinion, was Ceremony. Few recordings survive, and he never settled on the final lyrics. This version was recorded at Birmingham University, and remastered in 2007.
- My other favorite song was Shadowplay, with Ian on lead vocals. The Birmingham University version is excellent, although the 2007 remastered Unknown Pleasures (album) version is of considerably higher quality.
Rest in peace, Ian.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Artistic expressions
Ask away. I was inspired by thett3 primarily. But he's a much more interesting person than I am. After all, reliable sources confirm he is in fact a pirate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
I should be able to go through and find a list of my votes cast, just like with my debates. Why can't I do this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I am old enough to remember when the so called "war on terror" was front and center of American foreign policy, to the exclusion of nearly all else. Then, the focus was to dismantle terrorist networks, disrupt their operation and destroy their ability to execute future attacks.
Now, it seems the focus has changed. Formerly, we were interested in Al Qaeda and ISIS. Currently, the Biden administration seems preoccupied with "right wing" groups.
Several developments inform my consideration, as well.
1. Christopher Wray's statements on "domestic terrorism" both before and after the events of January 6, 2021.
2. The media's characterization of the events that took place on January 6, 2021 as an "insurrection" and those who participated in any way in the events of January 6, 2021 as "terrorists."
3. The strange obsession media seem to have with "mass shootings," where a "mass shooting" is defined as the public discharge of a firearm anywhere in the United States where at least two people are injured (see CNN's chart on the same, from a few weeks ago).
4. The strange obsession media seem to have with so called "white supremacy" and other delusions of racial persecution.
I really, really do not like being in the position of defending right wing nut jobs. But as much as I loathe that exercise, my contempt for government branding political dissent as "terrorism" exceeds my contempt for defending right wing nutjobs. Nut job or not, they have as much right to freedom of thought and the first amendment as anyone else.
And this sets a dangerous precedent, which is even more horrifying. Today, it's lone wolves and right wing nutjobs. Tomorrow? Who will it be, then? Right now the democrats are in power, but they won't be forever. If that precedent is set during the Biden administration, how might a Josh Hawley administration follow in kind?
This is an issue people need to think about. If the government is big enough to come after right wing nut jobs, they're big enough to come after leftist dissidents as well. And while the lettered agencies of the Federal Government's law enforcement apparatus seem to have lost interest in such groups as Antifa or others, since the outcome of the election in 2020 --- who is to say things won't change, again?
I would like to hope that, collectively, we all take a deep breath and pull back from the brink. Maybe see our way through to pulling back from the brink.
But things are looking mighty rough. Not obvious to me there even is a light at the end of this tunnel. And from where I'm sitting, this is going to end in the country's law enforcement turning against whatever group happens to be the party out of power. That is a road that leads directly to hell and the destruction of our democracy in any recognizable form.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Raoul Peck is a Haitian filmmaker. In many ways, he is to Haiti what Adam Curtis is to the UK.
For those of you who know how fond of Adam Curtis's documentaries I am, you will know this is a compliment. Their approach is similar, in many ways, to placing historical events in context.
Reviews:
From Variety:
The project is described as an exploration of the exploitative and genocidal aspects of European colonialism. It will feature documentary footage and archival material as well as original animation and interpretive scripted scenes. Josh Hartnett will play the lead role in the scripted portions.“This project has been my biggest challenge so far,” Peck said. “It forced me to question not only our common knowledge but also my own experience as a filmmaker. I’m excited that HBO is supporting that vision.”The series is based on three works by authors and scholars: Sven Lindqvist’s “Exterminate All the Brutes,” Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s “An Indigenous People’s History of the United States,” and Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s “Silencing the Past.”
I've watched several of the episodes that ran on HBO today. They were very compelling.
The overarching message is that the history of European conquest was, in practice, a barbaric exercise of inhuman violence. And there's compelling evidence he's not wrong in this respect, whether in reference to the first European appearance in the New World, to France's endeavor to retake Haiti after the Haitian revolution (an event he correctly regards as the birth of the abolitionist movement) to the events giving rise to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness.
It's a visceral documentary. It's one thing to read of past barbarism in A People's History of the United States. Yet, it is another thing entirely to see it portrayed in high definition.
He didn't change my mind about European imperialism, or any other political issue. But the documentary was well put together. Done in such a way as to allow people to reach their own conclusions, while reframing the historical narrative from focusing on the myths America's forefathers told themselves to the costs in blood and suffering those efforts entailed.
If you're interested in history, this is worth watching.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
By now many of us have opinions on the the Derek Chauvin trial, which is understandable.
Much media attention has been devoted to its coverage. It's probably the biggest trial since at least George Zimmerman. Probably since OJ Simpson, given the changing political climate in the United States.
Will you accept the jury's verdict?
Why or why not?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
What do you all think about vaccine passports?
The need for vaccination passports for future international travel will soon become an inescapable reality. If Canadians wish to remain internationally mobile, we must proactively seek a solution that integrates international standards and ensures the privacy of Canadian data.
Vaccination certification is the next challenge on the road to global pandemic recovery. The Trudeau government must ensure Canadians are prepared for that eventuality. Prime Minister Trudeau’s concern about the “fairness” of vaccine passports, in that they could create classes of citizens with different freedoms, is understandable. His government will need to weigh the advice of health experts against the broader economic needs and those of Canadian in general.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
What kind of pizza do you like?
What kind of toppings do you like on it?
For me, I like thin crust, Sicilian/Detroit/Grandma styles and Chicago tavern style (thin crispy crust baked in a pan).
NY style is ok, but I feel like most places don't know how to get the crust crispy enough so that when you fold it, the slice doesn't flop.
For toppings, I like marinara sauce, fresh or roasted garlic, pepperoni, oregano, mushrooms, sliced roma tomatoes and pineapple.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
I'm thinking about a series of debates on controversial topics.
I'd like to avoid topics that are too complicated for most people to understand, like lockdowns.
But topics that are pretty simple should be fine.
I think the topic is biased heavily in favor of CON given most American sensibilities, but this may be the inaugural "controversial" debate of this series:
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
List below:
1. 90s kids TV shows
2. Harry Potter Characters
3. The Swamp (i.e., American politicians of current and recent office)
4. Netflix Criminal TV shows
5. Clothing Brand Stereotypes
6. James Bond Movies
7. Action/Thriller Novels
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
You on this website
Spend time on frivolity
achieving nothing.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Effective immediately, YYW will no longer be a moderator on the website known as Debate Dot Org. That is all.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I can no longer call myself a liberal. I haven't been a liberal for some time now. The older I get, the further to the left I become.
I am a socialist.
I first learned of socialism when I read The Road to Wigan Pier, after reading Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. At the time, I understood socialism to be something that was intrinsically and inherently bad. Capitalism, as such, was the only real alternative. Capitalism wasn't something I understood on ideological or practical levels, because living in the United States it was ubiquitous to me -- much in the same way that a fish can't tell you what the hell water is because it is ubiquitous; such that the fish knows nothing but water, and cannot distinguish it from anything else.
A series of changes occurred in my life. Some of which I typed out and deleted because they are too personal. Some of which I will share with you: I realized through my own experience what health care is like in America for those without insurance. I realized what tuition costs do to families, even well-to-do families. I spent time in Europe and experienced European health care. I made and kept European friends, whose health care systems are superior to American health care systems and cheaper both in terms of point-of-service costs to consumers and per capita costs overall. More people receive better health care for less than half of what is spent on the same in the United States.
In this way, I came to distinguish capitalism from what it is not and having seen the success of other models; so too came to question the basic presuppositions on which the American health care system was conditioned. That opened the door to questioning other things, particularly with regard to the long-since-disproven witchcraft of neoliberal economic anything. It is not only that the neoliberals' way of doing things led to where we are now, but that there was no destination other than where we find ourselves now -- this, the consequence of years of "tax cuts" argued to "stimulate economic growth".
Children and useful idiots for and of the neoliberal elite (both Republican and Democrat, mind you) defend the economic preconditions that underlie the American capitalist system on the grounds that they too might one day realize the American dream, if they have not realized some fragmented approximation of it in the form of a three bedroom two and a half bath house in some bleak, dismal subdivision nestled among others like it (or worse, McMansions) within a suburb that itself mirrors purgatory.
And yet, to what end do we perpetuate this artifice of self actualization?
Reading Dostoevsky made me skeptical of the neoliberals but it was Tolstoy that pushed me as far as I have come (among others, like Chomsky and other left leaning influences).
To what end do we destroy ourselves in service of a system that creates roads and apparatuses of technology that pollute the earth, and deprive us of our health, wellbeing, and time? God is the source of your ultimate authority. Whether you think you're religious or not, you worship. Whether you worship money or the creator, you kneel before an alter whose existence you may not even recognize as such. If the end is for you to amass the greatest amount of wealth, to indulge in the greatest indulgences affordable by you in the capitalist system, or any other such nonsense; what if there was another way?
Inequality from an economic perspective is not what I am attacking, because inequality to the degree it serves to benefit the disenfranchised (and it often does by creating systemic incentives for innovation) can and has proven to be socially useful. Similarly, property rights to the degree necessary are not to be disturbed.
But, something's gotta give.
A cancer diagnosis is a sentence of bankruptcy. Student loan debt cripples the economy, the perils of which we will not fully realize until the next ten years or so when the full gravity of a generation of millenials fail to purchase homes because of the same. A child's sickness is a family's economic catastrophe. A minimum wage worker's child will be unable to afford reduced-rate lunches in public school cafeterias.
The United States approaches Dickens' level poverty. This began with Republican destruction of LBJ's Great Society, largely under Reagan. Nixon left much of it in-tact, even expanding some areas of it. It gained momentum with Clinton-era deregulation of labor markets, NAFTA and other catastrophically bad agreements struck by globalists to with the aim of "improving economic efficiency" -- i.e., waging economic warfare on the American working and middle classes. This paralleled skyrocketing tuition costs to the degree that any prospect of the American dream's realization translates into such a future worker's status as little more than an indentured servant -- structurally and functionally indistinguishable from a serf in Tsarist Russia.
The time will come that a new deal will be struck. It may not happen tomorrow. It may not happen in 2020 with Bernie Sanders, but it will happen. The American people will not tolerate being forced to live as peasants; nor should they. Nor, for that matter, should the landed elites who benefit from their labor want them to be, as the predictable political consequences could be avoided with reasonable reforms, increased taxation on the rich and corporations, and appropriate redistribution so as to prevent a person's "starting economic position" from forecasting their destiny. Nothing like this has happened.
What has happened instead is that economically and politically illiterate boomers and Gen-X types have been raised on a diet of neoliberal capitalist bullshit deluding them into thinking that whenever the government gives handouts to corporations it is 'creating jobs' but whenever that same money is spent on their or their children's health care it is 'evil socialism'. The time is nearing when those who labor under that delusion will no longer be in power -- as millenials will become the predominant voting bloc.
Continuing the delusion, boomers and Gen X assumed that Millenials would become conservative as they got older. Not so. They are not married because they cannot afford it. They have deferred having kids and buying houses for the same reason. They do not buy cars or take on mortgages. They are blamed for destroying everything yet the constraints on their choices are the result of policies and decisions of the same boomers and Gen X fools who so accuse them.
I can no longer call myself a liberal, because to do so would be to buy into this artifice of bullshit. Behind the veil lies a snare and a delusion. There is no American dream. Boomers killed it, Gen X scavenged the corpse, and Millenials have nothing left to buy into the system as it were. Is it any wonder they support Sanders? Is it any wonder they will not vote for Biden or any other Clintonite democrat who acquiesced to status quo's being structured as it is now?
Hardly. Sanders was right. Change will come to America. The kind of change where a 5% tax on capital assets is the opening bid.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
“Methink’st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.”
All’s Well That Ends Well (Act 2, Scene 3)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Remember, I have an AMA.
Ask me stuff there.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
First and primary reason: Low Quality.
Most debates are poorly done, involve low effort, and look boring. I think most of you just don't understand how to substantively engage in fact/reason based discourse. There are presumably many reasons for this, tangential to the observation I make here, but reading bad writing is to me like listening to music out of tune. I'm just not interested in it.
I think as well most of you just aren't very good writers. Obviously maybe you could improve a bit here if you wrote a bit more, but it is really hard for me to be invested enough in any of you to be willing to spend the time to teach you how to do something. Even if I did, I think there's an alarmingly high number of you who would resent my pointing out your lack of excellence.
Too many of you have the idea that judges should just praise debaters for their effort, which I think is stupid. Many of you struggle to form coherent sentences. Your writing is bad. Your arguments are contradictory. You do not know how to use evidence to support arguments. You do not know how to structure arguments in support of conclusions. You do not know how to even engage in thesis-driven writing.
I blame your lack of education. Teaching people to write clearly and effectively takes time and skill, which I am confident nearly all of your school teachers lack. I think in twelve years of public education, I had not more than three teachers who could write coherently themselves, and one who knew how to teach others to do it.
Despite this, if I pointed this out to you, would you not resent me for it? Do you not already resent me now for pointing out this fact? Of course you do, because when you hear criticism you don't take it as "this person cared enough to tell me how not to continue to be stupid." You interpret it as a personal attack, which you respond to inappropriately. So, why should I bother?
Second Reason: RFDs take too much time
I used to write long RFDs, and I had lots of reasons for that. I wrote the gold standard for what counts for a sufficient RFD, back on DDO. Some of you may still have that thread. Now, my time costs money, and the rare chance I have to do something leisurely I'm going to do something I enjoy. I do not enjoy writing RFDs for low quality debates.
If I could just give a three sentence RFD evaluating the major points and weighting them, I'd vote more. Surely most people couldn't and shouldn't do that, but that's all I have time to do. However, there are likely so called voting mods (lol) who would think that wasn't enough, and I'm not going to deal with that bullshit.
Third Reason: Debate topics are uninteresting
Most of you chose stupid topics for debates. Either you're biting off more than you can chew, the resolution is vague or unclear, or you've done some other weird shit that fucks it up for everyone -- debaters and judges alike. This is uninteresting to involve myself in. If you want my attention, pick a topic that's interesting.
Here are some interesting topics:
Alan Moore at DC was better than Marvel anything.
The United States should make substantial efforts to curb China's expansion in Africa.
China's ascendence places the United States at a geopolitical disadvantage.
Vladimir Putin has been bad for Russia.
Tarkovsky was a better film director than Kubrick.
Dostoevsky was a better author than Dickens.
Canada should substantially increase military expansion in the arctic.
More than anyone else, American media are to blame for Hillary Clinton's loss in 2016.
The United States should pull out of Syria.
Bashir Al Assad should remain in power in Syria.
Bibi Netanyahu's indictment is justified.
The United States has a moral obligation to support pro-democracy efforts in Hong Kong.
The list goes on...
I can think of dozens, but you get the point. Topics that have been beaten to death, where the political fault lines are so firmly cemented that no one is going to move on them, are not interesting. Figure out what you think, and then be gracious enough not to inflict it on the rest of us.
Fourth Reason: Nothing in it for me
This is the one you all should be focusing on. What does it benefit me to judge what you write? Am I more likely to be subject to your emotional reactions, or am I more likely to be thanked? Even if thanked, why should I bother? Really, sell me on it. Maybe there's something I'm missing here beyond the so called reward of simply "giving back" or whatever other bullshit you can come up with. If so, tell me why I'm wrong. But from where I'm standing, voting is electing to draw the short end of the stick while knowing that's what you're doing. No thank you.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
The single biggest problem with communicating on a text-based forum site such as this, is the fact that the extent of what medium is available for that purpose is the written word.
This means that obvious satire isn't interpreted as obvious satire, but instead taken literally. Perhaps there's some latent or overt autism involved in the general failure to appreciate that level of nuance -- and doubtlessly there is, given the nature of this website -- but the written word is doubly predisposed towards this species of misinterpretation because of the absence of vocal inflection and subjective ambiguity inherent in the meaning of word choice.
But what is vocal inflection? Here's a sentence to help you think about the issue:
"I didn't say he kicked his dog."
Try reading that sentence placing emphasis on each single word, and consider how the meaning changes.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--But someone else might have said that.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--Def. no dog kicking.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--But I might have implied it... and perhaps I was. (I was.)
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--But his girlfriend totally did.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--Not kicking, but def. other animal abuse.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--Not his dog, but maybe the girlfriend's dog.
I didn't say he kicked his dog.
--He kicked the cat across the room like an errant soccer ball, however.
See the point?
The other problem is word choice.
We all react to words in different ways. Some people are easily offended by some words, others less so; and we all have subjectively varying connotations to words, especially when used in some form of sequence. A very direct sentence may be meant to read for clarity, but at least some easily excitable readers may interpret it as aggressive. An indirect or circuitous sentence may be meant to soften the impact of an otherwise harsh blow, but it comes across as prevaricating and disingenuous rather than as kind as possible. This happens because of the baggage we bring to interpreting the meaning of the written word, sand that baggage is why people argue about what words mean for a living.
I don't have a clear solution; other than to set forth things that should NOT be done, in any circumstance.
The first thing to avoid is reading the worst, or most uncharitable meaning into something for any purpose. Maybe someone posted an ironic thread which may have literally involved some name calling, but the thread itself was beyond obviously satire. You'd have to be autistic to interpret that as bullying or harassment, and if you are autistic, then you probably need to spend some time considering how literal interpretations of things and your propensity to do that may well make you not suited for interpreting the meaning of obviously satirical posts.
The second thing to do is to avoid reading meaning into something that isn't there. Just because someone's tone seems to you to be "angry" or whatever, doesn't mean that it is. People are usually pretty direct in terms of how they express anger in online written text. They CAPITALIZE ALL LETTERS, or IMPOSE OVERLY EXCESSIVE EMPHASIS. These things are dead give-aways, sometimes. Other times not. But a subtle jab isn't an indication of anger, so don't react as such... just makes you look excitable and emotionally illiterate.
The third thing to avoid is overly-rigid, literal interpretations of what is said. The "burn down your house with lemons" meme from DDO comes to mind. Obviously everyone here knows that's a meme, because it's physically impossible to burn down someone's house with lemons. But if someone threatened to burn down someone else's house in a mafia game? Is that a "threat" in violation of the so called Code of Conduct. Under an autistically literal interpretation, yes. But to anyone not plagued by one or more cognitive deficits, absolutely not. There is room for ostentation, obnoxiousness, and the like; within the rules of any reasonably written code of conduct, because these things are human nature.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
DART awards, the hall of fame, all of it is too stuffy ...
Come with me, and you'll see a world of dark imagination.
Nominate people for DARK Dart awards here.
Site Least Valuable Member
Coal
Member of Infamy
Worst, Shittiest, Most dumbfucked Forum Post
Most Awful Mafia Game
Most Cursed Member
Poster With Worst Topics
Least Funny Members
Dumbass Of The Year
Worst Forum Poster
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
DART awards, the hall of fame, all of it is too stuffy ...
Come with me, and you'll see a world of dark imagination.
Nominate people for DARK Dart awards here.
Site Least Valuable Member
Coal
Member of Infamy
Worst, Shittiest, Most dumbfucked Forum Post
Most Awful Mafia Game
Most Cursed Member
Poster With Worst Topics
Least Funny Members
Dumbass Of The Year
Worst Forum Poster
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I usually go for trees. I like trees, but I could go for something else.
Submit proposals for my new profile pic here.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
In re the Matter of Moderation Impeachment )
on DebateArt.com )
ORDER
WHEREFORE, Wylted having completed and published the official Wylted Report, linked elsewhere, and
WHEREFORE, the Wylted Report having conclusively proven the absence of collusion and obstruction in relation to the recent DebateArt.Com (DART) Hall of Fame (HOF) elections, and
WHEREFORE, TheHammer having been exonerated, in whole, of any collusion, and, likewise, of any obstruction, and
WHEREFORE, the moderation decision to ban TheHammer has proven to be, itself, an act of obstruction into the Wylted Investigation of the moderation decision to ban TheHammer, for reasons unspecified, and
WHEREFORE, that decision having the material effect of, among other effects, obstructing the Wylted Investigation into the moderation decision to ban TheHammer, and,
WHEREFORE, the people of the site of DART find it necessary to conduct a public inquiry into these matters specified herein, and others related thereto;
THEREFORE, by the power of the High Commissioner of the DDO Elite, a moderation impeachment inquiry shall be formed, and commence from the time of this order's filing; and of said omission, Wylted shall be appointed Chair of the Moderation Impeachment, his powers being limited only by the Covenants of the DDO Elite, as have been appropriately recorded, at an appropriate location, and published to appropriate individuals.
SO ORDERED.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Wylted, in his capacity as High Inquisitor, shall have the power to, among other powers, interrogate any and all persons who Wylted, in his sole discretion, deems may have information with respect to the ongoing investigations, for which he has been appointed special counsel; and any other matter, as shall arise in the course of those investigations.
Wylted, in his capacity as High Inquisitor, shall have the power to, among other powers, declare facts to be true as a result of any investigative efforts, at his sole discretion, for the purpose of preparing a report, into the nature and extent of, among other matters, the potential interference by certain moderators, into the Wylted investigation of certain moderators' banning or involvement in the banning of, among others, TheHammer.
And and all questions, as to the scope, nature, or extent, of Wylted's powers stated herein or elsewhere, shall be resolved in favor of an extended grant of power to Wylted, and against those who would challenge it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
In re the matter of DDO Election )
Interference. )
ORDER
The extent of campaign influence lead by, among others, the DDO Elite, has required the appointment of a Special Counsel.
Wylted is hereby appointed for this purpose.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
The real truth is that we all tried to figure out who the moderators' pics for the HOF. None of us actually cares who got in or not, but we profiled people based on their psychological characteristics. Then, we sorted them into groups of people who could be influenced and who couldn't. Then, we deployed operatives to get our preferred candidates in.
I think every member who has a facebook account was contacted off site in one or more ways. We also accomplished our objective.
Wylted will lead DART Brexit next.
lol
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Over the course of the past week or so, a group chat of old DDO users has been created on Facebook dot com. Through this group chat, I launched a campaign to get RM into the hall of fame. We got the ball rolling very early, pushing most of his early nomination votes. As things progressed we eased off and let the momentum we caused inspire other users to vote him of their own accord. I will say that he got enough nomination and final votes from non-malicious users to justify his placement in the HOF, but I cannot say what effect our early trolling had on giving him the momentum necessary. I apologize to bsh, RM, Mike, Supa, and all others impacted by our interference. I truly am sorry I was not able to let an election go by without meddling.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
As some of you may know, Saudi Arabia once again has reaffirmed why it is a terrorist state whose government's members should be lined up and shot, Romanov style.
They beheaded a 16 year old boy for sending WhatsApp messages about protesting governmental abuses.
Each of the so called "terrorism" suspects were tortured; their confessions came from duress, and the mass execution is reminiscent of Soviet "great purges".
And yet, the Trump administration sells weapons to them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I am not complaining here or even suggesting that any vote I have cast which was removed was wrongly removed. I'm just stating something that might not have been considered.
I read whiteflame's debate with the new guy, whatever his name is, and while Whiteflame won and the other guy lost, there were numerous aspects of the debate that I simply don't have time to write out a comprehensive RFD for.
In the past I know I have argued for sufficient RFD's and for tougher voting standards and so I know how hypocritical it is for me to be saying this now, but this is the reality: an RFD which imposes upon me 30 plus minutes of typing (which is probably what it would have taken for an RFD that passes the new voting policies given what that debate was) is prohibitive for me to vote on it. It wouldn't have been when I was in graduate school or even law school, but now that I have a job and my whole day gets eaten up with work stuff... and given that I am exhausted by the time I get home, I'm too tired to do anything.
So I won't probably be casting many more votes on more complex debates. That would mean that someone like me, whose job it is to make decisions on the basis of the strength or weakness of arguments (and who charges hundreds of dollars per hour do do that, which clients pay) will not be voting when I otherwise might.
Should the policy be changed to accommodate me? Without discussing the individual merits of whether I think the voting policies are good or not -- which I make no comment on either way -- policies generally should not be modified to fit one person; because they are set for what is best for the site, generally, not particular users. However, we run into the same problem: I'm not voting because I don't have the time to type out an RFD when I have the energy, or the energy, when I have the time.
Is this best for the site? Idk probably overall because most of the people who are going to be voting have more time than they know what to do with, and that is exactly the kind of person whose votes should be evaluated with particular scrutiny. I wonder if Whiteflame's debate will be voted on, nevertheless. Will the RFD that isn't deleted get the right result for the right reasons?
Maybe. Maybe not. But what incentive does that provide for debaters?
I suppose if they're debating for the mere satisfaction of debating, they're already well and good. But that's not how I roll. When I debate, I play for keeps... always. Maybe others aren't as competitive. Who knows.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Every Shakespearean play has and follows a five-act structure. The first act is the exposition, in which the characters and their circumstances are laid to bear. The second act introduces the play's rising action, in which the conflicts between the characters begin to unfold across the plot's narrative structure. The third act is the climax, where at some point the conflicts laid to bear come to a head, the crisis unfolds, the great battle is fought, or the lead character makes a decision that will forever bear on his fate. The fourth act is the penultimate falling action, where the third act's events' effects take form and visit themselves upon the protagonist. The fifth act is the resolution, in which all that was or will be is seen before the audience's eyes and the protagonist is laid to rest in the bed of his making, or sails to victory.
To conceptualize political discourse in our time as drama is fitting. But, unlike a Twelfth Night, Julius Caesar, Othello, Hamlet, or Macbeth, the drama before us is not singular -- even if loosely linear. If the "drama" in general were to be plotted, it might look like overlapping connected lines on a scatter plot; with figures from one story line appearing in the next, and the next, and the next. The tale would still be filled with sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing; though it would lack the cogency and beauty that may have been had on the stage. Even still, in some form, the plot structure remains.
Here, I am referring to the plot structure of "woke" politics -- a sphere of political discourse which is most appropriately analogized to drama since, after all, most of it is fictional, all of it is narrative based, none of it is particularly referential to the facts of any individual case with fidelity, and it is unambiguously archetypal in nature. At the risk of proceeding without adequate foundation for any one of those claims, let's move right to the point: woke politics is more drama than it is truth, and like drama, it is bound to a structure, and the structure to which it is bound entered its third act with Jusse Sommelett.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
These aren't my top movies, but it's a list of good ones I've seen lately:
Sicario
Body of Lies
In Burges
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
What TV shows do you watch? Why do you watch them?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
It is incredible that no one has posted about this yet.
Today, Roger Stone was arrested for obstructing investigations into his and others' efforts to collude with agents of the Russian government. He has been charged with, among other crimes, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
The indictment makes clear that Muller knows about the efforts to channel document dumps hacked by Russians through Wikileaks to the public for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 Presidential Election; and to cause harm to Hillary Clinton in the same.
The indictment implies heavily that further indictments are forthcoming.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Before Trump fired Comey, the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation against Trump. Comey likely knew this was coming, which is why he was unwilling to tell Congress that the president was not a target of any investigation, but merely a subject. It turns out that Trump became a target even before Comey was fired.
Muller has Trump's iCloud data, and likely every email and text sent by anyone in the White House. If it turns out that Trump knew about this before he fired Comey, he will be indicted for obstruction of justice and almost certainly convicted on that charge alone.
More ominously, if it turns out that Trump was in fact doing the Russian government's bidding (as seems increasingly more likely given his actions from the 2016 Republican convention to present, to the point that it is a near certainty among those who have been paying attention and who do not view the world through the blinders of "loyalty" to Trump), he will be indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of treason.
Examples of treason:
1. Changing the US's foreign policy platform in relation to intervention in Ukraine in exchange for something of value from the Russian government.
2. Conspiring with agents of the foreign government, directly or indirectly, to change US policy related to intervention in Syria in exchange for something of value from the Russian government.
3. Relieving or promising to relieve, or refusing to enforce or implement, sanctions of any kind, including in particular, those against Oleg Deripaska and those generally targeted by the Magnitsky Act, in exchange for something of value from the Russian government.
4. Offering, or promising to offer, any particular US citizen, or former US Citizen, including Bill Browder, to the Russian Government, in exchange for anything of value from the Russian government.
5. Receiving, conspiring to receive, or knowingly directly or indirectly benefitting from election assistance of any kind from the Russian government or any agent of group of agents from the Russian government; in exchange for anything of value to or from the Russian government; either on an isolated basis, or on an ongoing basis.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
And this is common knowledge.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I think it's reasonably obvious now that philosophy is beyond the point of no return in its gradual progression into being an activist discipline, along the same lines as the rest of the humanities, the "studies" courses (gender studies, women's studies -- or worse, woymens studies, "African American Studies") (read: fake social sciences), as well as the near comprehensive sum of all the real social sciences.
To speak with your stereotypical philosophy undergraduate, you hear only of "debunking" things, and how "problematic" they are, for reasons that have to be "unpacked". Even the shit that isn't per se political or ideological, like philosophy of mind, is still laden with the Derrida-esque trash language of the intellectually inebriated.
Tell me my language is "problematic" or that an idea I have needs to be "debunked", or how you "debunked" the thoughts of someone else -- who was probably smarter than you, like Hegel -- and I already know you're a hack whose incapacity for original thought has predisposed you to the seeming psychological comfort from an ideologically driven understanding of the world.
It's all about power relations between classes of the oppressed and those who oppress, you say? The details be damned, and if you bother to point them out you're one of more of these "problematic" classes of person: racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, and the list goes on. Maybe you're even a xenophobe.
The irony of course is that this new call-out ethics functions exactly the same way Nietzsche criticized dogmatic assertions of Christian morality. As Foucault might say, the architecture of our systems of ostensible morality don't change... however variable the content may be in time or space. (That's the reason you can't put Foucault in the same basket of imbeciles as Derrida or the Frankfurt School, btw.) The irony of course is that this ship of fools (catch the Foucault reference? I know you didn't, because you never read Foucault, or if you did, you didn't understand it) will be the first to police language as if they were Chairman Mao's agents of the party's orthodoxy.
Whenever I hear any person even use those words in conversation, it's like... ok, great... I can automatically predict at the very least your entire -- and unidimensional -- worldview. How lovely. How convenient for me, because I already know that THIS is the beginning and end of what you're capable of doing is reproducing. Sadly, little more than an increasingly more hideous rhetorical replica of the postmodern garbage you were taught as if it were the veritably catechismal truth.
And to someone outside of that matrix, that illusion of nonsense, what the conversation sounds like is a symphony of wild cats hissing at one another and all who have the misfortune of encountering them. Indeed, there is more intellectual content to be had in a symphony of wild cats hissing at one another and all who have the misfortune to pass them by than there could ever be in the mind-numbing inanity that marks what passes for education these days.
(Anyone so educated should file a lawsuit against, if not burn down -- in metaphor -- the establishment which so indoctrinated them!)
Alas, this is the agony of conversations with philosophy students.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I'd like to see debates that are grounded in fact but which do not rely on sources.
Debates on what is morally right, ethically acceptable, or ought to be legally permitted or restricted -- read: normative debates -- are the ones I'd be most interested in having, as well. The one caveat: all facts must be asserted in good faith (meaning, you can't make stuff up, but honest mistakes aren't penalized), and no sources.
The problem I see with most debates now is over-reliance on block quotes. When a debater is relying on block quotes, they're usually an untalented debater and a poor communicator almost without exception. So, rather than getting to the point they instead want to piece together a franken-case of mismatched and likely internally inconsistent parts of previously dissected writings from who knows where.
Block quotes are like pull-ups, for the "debater" who never made it past the debate-equivilent of toilet training. You're clever enough that you're not wetting yourself every single time you step up to have a debate, but you're not able to go without making a mess every now and then of someone else's ideas. Then, once you go through a case of block quotes, the judge (who is often as scatter-brained and inept as the untalented debater who never made it past the communicative equivalent of toilet training) doesn't know how to weigh arguments because there weren't arguments made... just a bunch of sound and fury.
Rebutting block quotes also takes too much time and character space. For a modestly competent debater to have to parse through the conventional block-quoted franken-case is a waste of time and energy, because the best that the un-toilet trained debater is going to be able to do in the third or fourth round is claim that their opponent "dropped" any one of their internally inconsistent points. So, then having wet himself the unhousebroken debater goes on to win a debate, judged by a fool as inept as he, without even realizing that he's wet himself before he even stood up to speak.
That. Nonsense. Won't. Do.
So, no sources. No block quotes. Just simple language.... by which I mean... something approximating an actual debate, rather than the illusion of a debate pieced together by fools no brighter than dark ships passing in the night.
Here are some potential topics:
1. The president should have to publicly disclose all business interests and publish tax returns.
2. An estate tax on assets taxed in life is morally wrong.
3. Homosexuality is morally acceptable.
4. Spanking as a form of parentally imposed discipline is morally acceptable in at least some circumstances.
5. The state can have no more rights than those of the individual.
6. Individual autonomy should take priority to the collective good.
7. Rousseau's conception of human nature is misguided.
8. Rousseau was a horrible person.
9. The so called "patriarchy" is a delusion of the postmodern left.
10. Gendered pronouns do not discriminate.
11. The progressive left's emphasis on identity politics has resulted in a net detriment to liberalism.
12. The evangelical right's emphasis on identity politics has resulted in a net detriment to conservatism.
13. No just government can criminalize homosexuality, or speech of any kind with regard to homosexuality.
The list is obviously not exclusive, but those would be great topics.
PM me if you are interested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Ask me anything. No doxxing.
It's been a while since I've done one of these.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People