Rep/Dem Great Debate: Winter

[WISD0MTREE]

So you more or less want us out of the ME. Going by standard lib. beliefs, you want us to not drill oil in the US, so now where so we get oil? I hope that you DO realize that by drilling less oil, gas prices will rise. In Cali gas is already $4.50, so lets just expect a rise up... And what about our planes? Plane tickets will be huge. Our AF will need more spending, but you are most likely against that. So now we have a smaller AF. What about our tanks in the army? Cut spending or more spending. Or the new M1AElectric!!! That would work out perfectly! Along with the average liberal wanting gun bans, we might as well just disband our whole military and rely only on our nukes. That would put three countries that need nukes to defend ourselves (France and North Korea).

Along with the sudden drop of oil production, the O&G companies out in Houston will cut workers, including the honest poor that you try so hard to defend. How sad. That, along with wanting to open the border, will result in unemployment rising through the damn roof to the point where the Great Depression would be a walk in Central !@#$ing Park. Screw labor disputes, you will be WANTING a job. Oh, I forgot this gem. Raising minimum wage. Oops, let me fry that one. Along with all the liberal beliefs from above, that will encourage the existing factories to move to China, making unemployment so high.

What else am I missing? Oh, yeah. Half of the Democrats are Democrats just because of "Welfare Extensions' that are more or less bribes. Maybe that is why I hate liberals with a passion. Maybe you guys need to learn economics? Adding Obamacare (weather it is socialist or not) to that will make a ton of potential companies move away or switch to more part time jobs. Also, tax the rich? Watch them move to another country, making your welfare and whatnot run you into debt. There will be so much debt that our foreign affairs will be messed up and other countries might stop taking our currency. 

What about big governent? It will help, won't it? Well, right now it isn't, and probably won't if something bad happens. We have the illegal immigration problem and ISIS on the move. It doesn't matter what you think we should do when the guy who is supposed to represent us is at a fundraiser and playing golf in California. I like golf and charity, but he didn't even adress the issues when he was there.

Now, lets bring back the wonders of the gun control debate. Or you can look at our neighbor down south and the fencless areas of the border.
Banning assault rifles will do NOTHING without BOARDER PATROL!!! If I tried to smuggle 100 weapons in cargo ships, only 5 would get caught. If I tried running 66 across the boarder with Mexico, 1 would get caught.
Blaming guns for deaths would be blaming planes for 9/11, or blaming video games for blood clots. So, we need to enforce our laws (before this blew up and got a million executive orders) better.
Banning guns is an invitation to let the gov. oppress you because you have no way to fight back. That is why when kids fight, it is usually some kids against a nerd because they know the nerd won't fight back. This is why George Washington put that in the Constitution. Constitution outdated? So is the law preventing murder outdated, too? We even update the Constitution to make it still relevant. Saying we can't own a type of weapon would be like saying you can only practice a type of religion.
http://iget2work.com...ymentclock.html
One ban leads to another, so we would end up without pressure cookers, and less jobs.

Reaganomics more or less made a 25 year boom. It wasn't killed by the plan itself, it was killed by Freedie and Fannie. Now what is Obama doing? The opposite. What will happen? The opposite. Oh, no! I'm jumping to too many conclusions! No. If I push a box one way, it will go that way. If I push the box the opposite way, it will go the opposite way.

So, there is this law...

 

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

It seems like this is commonly mentioned nowadays. Is there a reason why me, being a straight white male, has to have a higher SAT score to get into a college? Now, what was that you were saying about equality?

The death penalty has been proven as a deterent. It would also save money IF nobody opposed it. So basically either we save one murderer's life or we kill one murderer and save potential lives and some tax dollars.
Relevant: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-next-time-someone-says-the-death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison-show-them-this-article
Scroll to recent research: http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-death-penalty-deters-crime-and-saves-lives

Alright, so since we live in such a great country, more people will want to come. Great! How about 100% open borders with no fence or anything? No shot. People will claim residence in another country and stay over here without paying taxes. More cartels moving in from Mexico will come over. And there will be more people, thus having a bigger unemployment problem.

Alright, so it seems that you are afraid of big corporations. You also support Obamacare, which hurts small business. What Republicans are afraid of is big government. "But too big to fail!" Yeah, nope. Mao in commie China anyone? North Korea? A government that can give you anything you want can take anything you want.

I would put something about wars here, but to be honest, we need both sides. We need to seem strong, but Republicans will make us warmongers and only Democrats will make us seem weak.

I generally like welfare in the sense of 2 months of unemployment and stuff like that, but 99 months is a little too much. If you can't find a job in 99 months, either you aren't trying, companies don't have any incentive to grow or you shouldn't be in the workforce. And really, if welfare is so much where some people are just using it, something NEEDS to change. If everyone is on welfare, the government will run out of money and all that good stuff.
Most Dems recently have been "extending" welfare. It is more or less buying votes.
Past 0:37 is relevant:

 

Merry beat the !@#$ out of Britain day!!! Still is here in Texas! 

Edited July 5, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Karl Marx]

You got me all excited... Anticipating your "Winter post"... For this?

 

+1 for supporting domestic drilling

+1 for attacking our welfare system

+1 for attacking Obamacare

+1 for supporting the 2nd Amendment

-1 for supporting Reaganomics

+1 for acknowledging the problem with this country's idea of "equality"

-1 for supporting the death penalty

+1 for not being party-loyal when it comes to war

 

4/10, at least it'll spawn a good debate arguement

 

Also, I gotta know... What does this have to do with winter?

[Brooklyn666]

This is the least coherent thing I've ever read in my entire life. I've heard more sense come out of the mouth of homeless junkies on the subway.

[WISD0MTREE]

You got me all excited... Anticipating your "Winter post"... For this?

 

Also, I gotta know... What does this have to do with winter?

I was expecting to write more but then my mom was in ICU in San Antonio. 

 

South Park reference (TV show)

 

EDIT: I tried to make them into paragraphs, but the formatting was messed up. 

Edited July 5, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Hereno]

Yeah man no offense intended but I'm not reading all of that. Brevity is a virtue.

[Cow]

This video just feels appropriate:

 

Edited July 5, 2014 by Cow

[Ayayay]

Man I love being a moderate.

 

Anyways, In response to your welfare thingy, here is a counter-argument

 

[WISD0MTREE]

Man I love being a moderate.

 

Anyways, In response to your welfare thingy, here is a counter-argument

 

-snip-

Yay, someone who isn't too lazy to actually read! 

 

Anyways, they shouldn't be spending on Coast Guard for a landlocked city, or on the mall. Even though that they are idiots, they do have a point (for other places). By what I heard that guy say, if the mall gets funded nothing, then they already cut about 3/4 of their spending. I don't think that they should keep funding that. Dang. I guess that we need to be more aware. Still, there is a lot of welfare. I never said that it should be the only thing we should cut, just that we should cut it. 

Edited July 6, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Ayayay]

Yay, someone who isn't too lazy to actually read! 

Wait, you think I actually read that wall of !@#$? No, no, no, I saw that just above the youtube video "welfare" was written and decided to post this. I'd never read something like that.

Edited July 6, 2014 by underlordgc

[Grillick]

Yay, someone who isn't too lazy to actually read!

I read your entire wall of text. It's just so incoherent and absurd, I don't even know where to begin responding to it. All I can say is "straw man fallacy," "parade of horribles fallacy," "slippery slope fallacy," and "consumer economy."

[WISD0MTREE]

fallacy

fallacy

fallacy

Prove it

Prove it

Prove it

[Grillick]

Prove it

Prove it

Prove it

I'm sorry, but that's not how debate works.

 

I have asserted that you employed the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy occurs when you are making an argument against a position that nobody has adopted. On its face from your passage, that appears to be true. The burden now shifts to you to identify a particular individual who has raised the point(s) against which you are arguing.

 

I have asserted that you employed the parade of horribles fallacy. The parade of horribles fallacy occurs when there is no evidence that the action described actually causes the "horribles," or when the "horribles" are used solely for their emotional impact, or when the "horribles" are not actually that bad. On its face from your passage, that appears to be true. The burden now shifts to you to provide at least some evidence that the consequences you describe are likely to result from the positions you oppose, or that the consequences are being used for logical, rather than emotional bases, or that the consequences are actually bad.

 

I have asserted that you employed the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when you are arguing (without logical support for the argument) that the same rationale that justifies one action would justify a further, less desirable action. On its face from your passage, that appears to be true. The burden now shifts to you to provide logical support for the argument that no further rationale is required to justify the consequences you propose beyond those required to justify the positions you oppose.

 

Maybe if you made even a passable attempt at presenting a logically-sound argument, I would have the burden to demonstrate where your logic is flawed, but you haven't even attempted to do so: the logical fallacies are rampant in your passage.

[Mr. Blonde]

Stay on topic. We're not debating how debate works here, but you can always create a new thread for that.

[Grillick]

I'd love to stay on topic. Can you please tell me what the topic is? Because I can't really tell from the OP.

[Karl Marx]

I'm sorry, but that's not how debate works.

 

I can basically say you're wrong and expect you to prove otherwise, even though I haven't specified which points of your argument are are wrong.

 

Why don't you tell him what about his argument is wrong and why, then? That way, he actually has a reason to form a counterargument. You can't just say "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" and expect him to come up with an intelligent response.

 

I'm sorry, but that's not how debate works.

 

Man I love being a moderate.

 

Anyways, In response to your welfare thingy, here is a counter-argument

 

snip

 

The video points out that the government spends a lot of money on things we do need (except for the Coast Guard thing). How does the fact that some spending is needed mean that Welfare spending is needed?

 

Wisd0m's stated problem with Welfare is that it is pretty much a bribe (I call it vote buying), which is pretty much true.

 

Welfare is designed to keep recipients alive. No more, no less. While it does provide them with the opportunity to find a job and become self sufficient, it does not require them to. The goal of Welfare is not to help people. Putting a person or family on Welfare is like taking someone to the hospital, putting them on life support, and waiting for them to get better without giving them any other treatment. Some people may benefit from it, but many don't.

 

The moderate left champions this failed system, makes themselves look like the true defenders of the poor, and secures the votes of the poor people they do not help for generations to come.

 

Edit: I only just saw the moderator's post about not debating debate.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Karl Marx

[Grillick]

Why don't you tell him what about his argument is wrong and why, then? That way, he actually has a reason to form a counterargument. You can't just say "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" and expect him to come up with an intelligent response.

 

I'm sorry, but that's not how debate works.

Forgive me if I don't feel compelled to provide a point-by-point analysis of a post that was clearly copy-and-pasted from numerous sources without any attempt and organization, clarity, or even proofreading.

[WISD0MTREE]

Forgive me if I don't feel compelled to provide a point-by-point analysis of a post that was clearly copy-and-pasted from numerous sources without any attempt and organization, clarity, or even proofreading.

I didn't copy and paste a single thing there except the gun control and the links. 

 

I have asserted that you employed the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy occurs when you are making an argument against a position that nobody has adopted. On its face from your passage, that appears to be true. The burden now shifts to you to identify a particular individual who has raised the point(s) against which you are arguing.

 

I have asserted that you employed the parade of horribles fallacy. The parade of horribles fallacy occurs when there is no evidence that the action described actually causes the "horribles," or when the "horribles" are used solely for their emotional impact, or when the "horribles" are not actually that bad. On its face from your passage, that appears to be true. The burden now shifts to you to provide at least some evidence that the consequences you describe are likely to result from the positions you oppose, or that the consequences are being used for logical, rather than emotional bases, or that the consequences are actually bad.

 

I have asserted that you employed the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when you are arguing (without logical support for the argument) that the same rationale that justifies one action would justify a further, less desirable action. On its face from your passage, that appears to be true. The burden now shifts to you to provide logical support for the argument that no further rationale is required to justify the consequences you propose beyond those required to justify the positions you oppose.

I started a Rep/Dem debate. Last I checked, Obama won, so there are Democrats. Is it bad somehow to just assume that someone out of the 500ish people on the forum is active and a Democrat? 

 

The whole first paragraphish body of text is about supply and demand. Do I need to link that? If so, would you like a link to a dictionary? The second is about Obamacare and "buying votes." If I offered someone $20 to like one of my posts, then they would probably like it. Do I need to explain that? Obamacare makes companies' employee costs higher by... The whole law. If you were to get $20 or $25 which would you pick? And on and on. Do I have to hire an English teacher for you? 

 

Where did I do that? 

 

EDIT: I just saw the mod. You guys should use a different color for your posts so this doesn't happen, since it did with Karl. Maybe red? Just a suggestion here. Mods do that in a lot of other games. 

Edited July 7, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Grillick]

If you can afford to hire an Engliah teacher, I strongly recommend you do so.

[Don Juan]

If you can afford to hire an Engliah teacher, I strongly recommend you do so.

Should I point out the irony of your typo?

 

That said, the OP is pretty rambling, I think it would be improved if the paragraphs were more distinguished and the small font type doesn't help its readability either.

 

Now, let's see if I can address some of those points you bring up, but since I'm not American, I may do so from a less American-centric POV.

 

Outsourcing happens even at the level American wages are now, because the minimum wage in other countries, with exchange rates, makes it easy to hire those in more impoverished & less developed countries. You may argue that raising the minimum wage would send jobs overseas, but I'd counter that it has already happened. There is also the other thing that American's have that is unique to them: presuming charity from others will help people rather than providing proper social security. It gives me a mix of "why would you do that?", "this is why we can't have nice things" and last but not least, "lolwut" meme emotions. You have a large swath (10%, IIRC) of your population below the poverty line, and you're trying to argue against minimum wage!? Check your privilege.

 

As for rich people tax evading, that'd happen no matter what the tax rate was; interestingly, ~1,000 or more rich people renounced their citizenship to avoid paying taxes. Surprise? Not really. And then there's always tax havens, such as Monaco etc.

 

And Reaganomics. D: You'd support the 1% with trickle-down economics, are you right in the head, son?

 

In a time of recession, the government should be spending more money, like on infrastructure, to take the place of private business spending that's currently not up to the task because of the "economic climate". Keynesian economics, in a nutshell, is what you need to take you back to prosperity.

 

As for oil reserves, those wells in America, which could easily sustain your country for quite some time at current usage, are "strategic reserves". In other words, your government is stockpiling oil, rather than letting it be drilled. My guess would be they're happy to prop up the Saudis & Kuwait and use their oil while keeping your own for an "emergency".

 

As for gun control, I'm going to use Australia as an example: After the Port Arthur Massacre in the late 90's, we straight out banned automatics. And now gun control is very strict and you have to get permits to use stuff like centrefire ammunition rather than rimfire (for hunting, you only need rimfire, as it's less powerful, IIRC). There's no school shootings on our news (except for American ones). And you very rarely have any sort of gun related violence. The main monopolisers of guns are the army and the police (so the state, which should have a monopoly on violence, IMO (under checks and balances, naturally)).

[Karl Marx]

You have a large swath (10%, IIRC) of your population below the poverty line, and you're trying to argue against minimum wage!?

 

As for gun control, I'm going to use Australia as an example: After the Port Arthur Massacre in the late 90's, we straight out banned automatics. And now gun control is very strict and you have to get permits to use stuff like centrefire ammunition rather than rimfire (for hunting, you only need rimfire, as it's less powerful, IIRC). There's no school shootings on our news (except for American ones). And you very rarely have any sort of gun related violence. The main monopolisers of guns are the army and the police (so the state, which should have a monopoly on violence, IMO (under checks and balances, naturally)).

 

Actually, as of 2012, it was over 16% for the general population and 20% for children. I highly doubt it has declined.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/15/census-u-s-poverty-rate-spikes-nearly-50-million-americans-affected/

 

 

Well, it didn't work for the United Kingdom. How do we know it'll work for us?

[Grillick]

I don't think guns should be banned, but I think gun owners should be held strictly liable for any damage/injuries caused by their guns, whether or not they are used by the owner and whether or not they are used in "self defense."

[WISD0MTREE]

Well, it didn't work for the United Kingdom. How do we know it'll work for us?

This. Plus we have a land border with Mexico. 

 

Should I point out the irony of your typo?

 

That said, the OP is pretty rambling, I think it would be improved if the paragraphs were more distinguished and the small font type doesn't help its readability either.

 

Now, let's see if I can address some of those points you bring up, but since I'm not American, I may do so from a less American-centric POV.

 

Outsourcing happens even at the level American wages are now, because the minimum wage in other countries, with exchange rates, makes it easy to hire those in more impoverished & less developed countries. You may argue that raising the minimum wage would send jobs overseas, but I'd counter that it has already happened. There is also the other thing that American's have that is unique to them: presuming charity from others will help people rather than providing proper social security. It gives me a mix of "why would you do that?", "this is why we can't have nice things" and last but not least, "lolwut" meme emotions. You have a large swath (10%, IIRC) of your population below the poverty line, and you're trying to argue against minimum wage!? Check your privilege.

 

As for rich people tax evading, that'd happen no matter what the tax rate was; interestingly, ~1,000 or more rich people renounced their citizenship to avoid paying taxes. Surprise? Not really. And then there's always tax havens, such as Monaco etc.

 

And Reaganomics. D: You'd support the 1% with trickle-down economics, are you right in the head, son?

 

In a time of recession, the government should be spending more money, like on infrastructure, to take the place of private business spending that's currently not up to the task because of the "economic climate". Keynesian economics, in a nutshell, is what you need to take you back to prosperity.

 

As for oil reserves, those wells in America, which could easily sustain your country for quite some time at current usage, are "strategic reserves". In other words, your government is stockpiling oil, rather than letting it be drilled. My guess would be they're happy to prop up the Saudis & Kuwait and use their oil while keeping your own for an "emergency".

 

As for gun control, I'm going to use Australia as an example: After the Port Arthur Massacre in the late 90's, we straight out banned automatics. And now gun control is very strict and you have to get permits to use stuff like centrefire ammunition rather than rimfire (for hunting, you only need rimfire, as it's less powerful, IIRC). There's no school shootings on our news (except for American ones). And you very rarely have any sort of gun related violence. The main monopolisers of guns are the army and the police (so the state, which should have a monopoly on violence, IMO (under checks and balances, naturally)).

Please do for the laughs we can have. 

 

As I said, moving from Word to here messed up the formatting. 

 

The reason most of them are below the PL (aside from living off of welfare) is because they can't find a job! The reason why companies are moving is because of our high minimum wage. Removing minimum wage creates a sense of employee competition. Lets say I don't have a job or any skills, but I want a job at McDonalds. And lets say that I want it really bad. I could say I want to get employed at $0.50 an hour less than someone else who already works there. If they are getting paid minimum wage, they can't do that because it is illegal, leaving me without a job. 

 

I never said rich people evading tax. Is implying everyone not good enough? And there isn't any proof that rich people evade tax more than anyone else. 

 

Please explain our random economic boom that just so happened right when Reagan started his policies. Hint: You can't except for Reagan. 

 

No, what you need is incentive for private business to grow in a recession. More government spending hasn't had too much of an effect on America in the past compared to Reaganomics. 

 

By not drilling here now, it is raising gas prices. I recently visited California where gas was $4.20 (USD)  a gallon. Now most of that is probably government taxes, since here in Texas it is around $3.50. 

 

Does Australia have a land border with Mexico? A country with tons of violence? And almost no border patrol? Nope. 

 

EDIT: Removed duplicated text.

Edited July 8, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Karl Marx]

I don't think guns should be banned, but I think gun owners should be held strictly liable for any damage/injuries caused by their guns, whether or not they are used by the owner and whether or not they are used in "self defense."

 

Whether or not they are used by the owner:

 

So if someone steals one of my guns and damages something or hurts/kills someone, I should be held responsible?

 

Whether or not they are used in self defense:

 

So if someone attempts to harm me and I defend myself with a firearm, how will I be held responsible? Pay their medical bills if they live? Pay for their funeral if they don't?

 

 

Holding someone responsible for negligent or malicious actions (their own actions, mind you) makes sense. But this? Really?

[WISD0MTREE]

I don't think guns should be banned, but I think gun owners should be held strictly liable for any damage/injuries caused by their guns, whether or not they are used by the owner and whether or not they are used in "self defense."

If my car gets stolen is it my fault that the thief went on a rampage? On one hand I kind of agree that the gun should be in a gun safe when not being used, but that is an extreme solution. 

[Grillick]

Whether or not they are used by the owner:

 

So if someone steals one of my guns and damages something or hurts/kills someone, I should be held responsible?

If you allow your weapon to fall into the hands of someone who injures someone else, you should be responsible for that. In a system like this, fun owners would probably have insurance to cover these costs. The victim could recover against the fun owner or the tortfeasor, at his or her choice. This is fair because you have chosen to own a dangerous weapon, and you have failed to keep it from injuring someone.

 

Whether or not they are used in self defense:

 

So if someone attempts to harm me and I defend myself with a firearm, how will I be held responsible? Pay their medical bills if they live? Pay for their funeral if they don't?

 

 

Holding someone responsible for negligent or malicious actions (their own actions, mind you) makes sense. But this? Really?

As I stated in the death penalty thread, I do not believe it is ever acceptable to take another individual's life. If you choose to use a device designed for that purpose to "defend" yourself from an attack, you should be responsible for the personal and social costs of that choice. Medical expenses for injuries caused; funeral expenses for deaths caused; compensation for loss of a breadwinner; all of these are appropriate remedies.

If my car gets stolen is it my fault that the thief went on a rampage? On one hand I kind of agree that the gun should be in a gun safe when not being used, but that is an extreme solution.

Actually, in most states you are responsible for that.