- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Strong Argument Content
-
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@MayCaesar
I think that these issues are a logical conclusion to their fundamental values. Both parties are fundamentally collectivist, and now they are starting to show their true colors. Ayn Rand warned that it would come to this: it is impossible to base one's political platform on collectivistic values and not have it eventually get out of control.
That all may very well be true to some extent. But I might interpret them in a slightly different way. For instance the 'true colors' you bring up are not representative of the collective but rather of individuals who use the party of their choice because it aligned closer to their more extreme views. We live in an imperfect world so there are not going to be any perfect solutions for self governing as a society and culture. We must have a collective perspective when it comes to dealing with issues of crime and justice, because of our imperfection as a species we need mutual policing. We must collectively come to some agreements on how we as a society and as individuals can act towards one another and remain a civilized people. Sure the checks and balances get distorted at times but it's worth the effort to reign them in if and when possible. Furthermore both parties have room for individual rights and needs in their own ways on their perspective platforms. The problem is we can't make it a constitutional issue in every case. We just seem to be at a point in time where we're lacking the knowledge and wisdom of true leadership.
The world needs a new political movement, one that promotes individual fulfillment and happiness, rather than the old "All for One, and One for All" adage. The old ones are unlikely to be reformed given how much historical, economical and political baggage they have. It is strange that we are expecting General Artificial Intelligence soon, yet are clinging to the same forms of political organization as 2,500 years ago.
I wouldn't be so quick to discard our political system even when you consider the political baggage. I look at it much the same way as the acquiescence of knowledge over time. Eventually no matter how absurd new information appears when first discovered, as it's tried and tested that once absurd notion becomes fact and accepted, even common knowledge. Or it's tossed as the garbage it was but over all, generally speaking building on knowledge only happens if we do not give up on what we know and start all over again. In a similar way, over the centuries we've made progress in reforming governments in more humane and altruistic directions. Some forms have been tossed, others have been refined and built upon. I do not think the U.S. and some other governments around the world need a political complete restructuring. What is needed most in my opinion is an injection of leadership qualities. Perhaps we as a people can start electing not simply according to party affiliation; but for the people who make sound arguments and proposals and who are not defensive in the face of criticism but those who learn from it? Without that I don't see much good in starting all over.
-
Gay at birth?
Joeseph brought up the 90% of people are heterosexual. I did not say that it was untrue, my focus was on if people could change their sexual orientation, and again the literature says it can. Do you have evidence that it can not change? if so what is it? If people can change their sexual orientation then how do they do this without making any choices?
Nowhere in the literature does it say someone can change their orientation, and no amount of lying to yourself or others will change what the literature actually says. It says that changes in sexual orientation can be seen among some people via developmental stages. sexual fluidity (Something you constantly misinterpret) refers to variations within a person's experiences of attraction, not a wholesale change from one orientation to another. Completely different things! Sexual orientation, as also stated in the literature, has to do with physical attraction, which is a physical characteristic.
And so my point about being able to change our d!ck size still stands and is something you will need to accept to be logically consistent. You are literally saying that a person can consciously and willfully change a physical trait. It doesn't have to be our penis size; it could even be our height or any other physical trait that, according to you, we can change. If this all sounds absurd, it's because it is, but the absurdity is originally in your argument. To be logically consistent, you will need to accept this. Your argument will still be ludicrous, but at least you will be logically consistent with your idiocy.
just_sayin @just_sayin
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone. Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable
The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think? If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter.
-
Gay at birth?
Where do you think we disagree? Do you think sexual orientation is immutable? Do you think sexual orientation is biologically determinate?ZeusAres42 said:
-
Gay at birth?
Something very obvious that I would like to insert in this discussion is that the question of what causes homosexuality is separate from the question of whether it is changeable at will. Even if homosexuality was purely environmental (which it very well might be), it still would not imply that it can be changed intentionally. Human psychology has incredible memory, and 90-year old people are still chiefly run by their childhood traumas. Someone who had a very traumatic confrontation with their parent when they were 5, may still experience painful flashbacks every time they enter a confrontation at the age of 95. They were not born with these flashbacks, but they are so deeply ingrained in their psychology that they might as well be an inherent part of their brain.
Changing one's behavior is difficult enough. Changing one's preferences is downright impossible without very serious and long inner work. Take someone who hates the taste of carrots and try to get them to love it - most likely will not happen. And changing disliking one vegetable to liking it is a billion times easier than changing being sexually attracted to one gender to another.
Lastly, I invite anyone who seriously believes that homosexuality can be changed into heterosexuality at will - conduct the opposite experiment. Pick a month and, assuming you are heterosexual, live it as if you were homosexual. Go on dates with guys (involving making out), share bed with them, watch gay porn... Then let us know how it went. 
-
Are The Jews Worse Than The Muslims?
Hamas was a separate entity from the Palestinian Authority which sought to seize control once the PLO gained UN recognition as representative of the Palestinian people. Arafat was the leader of the PLO and Fatah. Eventually Hamas won a bloody conflict on the Gaza strip. In reality what's unfortunate is that Hamas chooses primitive and violent methods to move forward. They do not have to and there are certain segments of the population they're more willing to sacrifice than others, considering they actually represent two different peoples, not one...Barnardot said:@Factfinder ;Hamas's cause is for Hamas, not the people it uses as pawns.
You will find that Hamas is actually a political and community organization that supports and reaches out to the main stream population providing many forms of help. They do represent the people and it is unfortunate that in order to move a head they have to use primitive and violent methods. They are only terrorists by name and that being the label that some nations put on them.
Tensions between the PLO and Hamas came to a head in 2007, and an armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip left Hamas in control of the region. Abbas then dissolved the Hamas-led legislature and set up an emergency cabinet in its stead. The move effectively reestablished the PLO’s dominance in the West Bank, but its loss of the Gaza Strip was lasting.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestine-Liberation-Organization/Intifada-and-Oslo-peace-process
-
Are The Jews Worse Than The Muslims?
The Jews have come from the tragedy of the Holocaust, and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, With their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes many of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united, and who won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three 2000 year old Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
Having an incredibly enlightening conversation with ChatGPT regarding challenging and refining one's positions, I came across a very bizarre mental experiment that made me stumped. All attempts to make any progress in analyzing it felt like me only digging a deeper hole for myself.
Consider that Universe is fundamentally "unfair", that it somehow rewards holding false beliefs. For instance, let us say there are two forms of afterlife: Elysium (a place of eternal serenity and peace), and Abyss (a place of eternal pain and torment). Those who believe that 2+2=4 or are agnostic about it end up in Abyss, and those who believe that 2+2 equals to any other number end up in Elysium.
Consider further that some programmer hacked into the "matrix" and learned that, beyond a reasonable doubt, we live in such Universe.
Now, we all know that, beyond any doubt, 2+2=4. However, learning this would pose a dilemma for us. If we keep persisting in holding that 2+2=4, then our fate is infinitely horrible. In order to secure a better fate, we need to find a way to convince ourselves that 2+2=3 or something else. Giving the direness of the situation, we probably could come up with a strategy to reliably convince ourselves of that through intense self-brainwashing. However, it is reasonable to expect that such self-brainwashing would result in incredible degradation of our mental faculty, to the point where, perhaps, we no longer even understand what it means to believe something - making our newfound belief that 2+2=3 inconsequential. So, perhaps, this would not save us from the Abyss. And even if it did save us from the Abyss, it would make our lives a living hell, considering how full of lies they would be. We would likely have to lie to ourselves and each other about everything, in order to reconcile our other beliefs with 2+2=3. Lie itself would have to become the highest moral virtue in that world.
What can we say about this situation? What would be the moral thing to do, and does it even make sense to talk about "morality" in the Universe which seems to be fundamentally turned against us?
Certain schools of religion see holding faith despite any "reality checks" challenging it as the highest virtue. When the Universe does everything it can to tell you that there are no spirits protecting you from harm, you still are supposed to believe that there are, that they just have a higher plan for you - and if you manage to do that, you become a saint.
Many totalitarian systems also promote this type of thinking, which George Orwell aptly called "doublethink". In the Soviet Union frequently people who used to be highly praised for their scientific or cultural contributions overnight were changed into villains, and everyone was expected to pretend that they had always considered them to be villains, despite direct evidence of the contrary. People were expected to find a way to convince themselves that their memories are false, and they usually would find one.
This makes me wonder that, perhaps, this mental experiment is not that out there. We are frequently encouraged to make mental compromises in favor of certain benefits such as social acceptance. Perhaps, the Universe is already "unfair" in this respect? Or maybe we make it "unfair" by believing that it is "unfair" and acting accordingly? Much like people in totalitarian states who say, "If I speak up, no one else will, and I will simply end up in jail - so I will keep silent", keep the regime running, even if in reality everyone wants to speak up. Or in regular social situations people are afraid of being themselves and put on socially acceptable masks, while, perhaps, if a significant fraction of people stopped doing it, then everyone else would follow suit.
Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting topic to discuss. -
Is Criticizing Islam Islamophobic?
What MayCaeser seems to be alluding to, is the myth of the “moderate Muslim.”
I remember the world reacting in horror to the sentence of death imposed by a Nigerian court on Amina Lawal. If ever there was an opportunity for these mythical “moderate” Muslims to show where they stood on this barbarous aspect of Sharia Law, then that was it. One would have expected tens of millions of “moderate” Muslims to condemn the judgement as barbaric and cruel, and not worthy of Islam. What did we hear from these mythical “moderate” Muslims? A deafening silence.
Muslims believe in Sharia Law because it is written in the Koran, and they believe that the Koran is the literal word of God. That is why they will never criticise it. For anyone to even think that such people have any place in a modern society beggars belief. These people are a danger to you and they are a danger to me. Since when did “moderate” Muslims stop believing in Sharia Law? And in when did they start believing in the separation of Church and state? When did they stop believing that apostates should be murdered? If there are any "moderate Muslims" then they had better publicly renounce the concept of Jihad.
Islam is the most aggressive social force and ideology in the world today. Its adherents are a constant menace to our social structure and individual safety. The idea of the moderate Muslim is a canard, yet we hear this continually in the context of whatever latest outrage is perpetrated in Islam’s name. The history of Islamic terrorism shows that the perpetrators came from every sphere of life; some were doctors, teachers, engineers, many university educated and seemingly well adjusted people who had supposedly assimilated with the values of Western society. If even the 'best' and most educated of Islam can turn and commit atrocities, then how can you say there are any moderate Muslims? Is a moderate Muslim simply a Muslim who has not yet terrorised? Is it fair to brand every Muslim with the potential to be a terrorist? If not, why not? And how do you distinguish those who will from those who won't? It is an impossible task; and for what? What does Islam bring to the West? What does it contribute? The only argument I hear is that the West is a pluralistic society and that tolerating Islam is a part of that. But that argument doesn't answer the question, because that is describing an attribute of the West which Islam is usurping in its declared quest to get rid of that tolerance and replace it with sharia.
In fact there is nothing Islam contributes to Western society. It is a belligerent threat and it should be treated as such, and those who argue otherwise, like MayCaesar, should be condemned as the wooly headed ”useful fo-ols” that they are.
It's worth considering the question as to why the majority Islamic societies are so backward and oppressive, if the majority of Moslems are "moderate". On the subject of 'moderate' Muslims, you might be interested in this: in August 2007, the Turkish PM, Recept Erdogan, took umbrage at the term “moderate Muslim”, saying that such a description of Muslims is "very ugly"; and, "it is offensive and an insult to our religion". He finished by saying, "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's that." And he also stated that “assimilation” is "a crime against Turkishness."
-
How can we tell if news is true or fake?
@Blastcat ; If the news emanates from ABC; MSNBC; CNN; CBS; the Biden administration...there is a 99% chance the message is fake, skewed, a lie.
