The left is more racist than the right. Change my mind. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The left is more racist than the right. Change my mind.
in Politics

By YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 417 Pts
PlaffelvohfenAlofRIApplesauce



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • ApplesauceApplesauce 240 Pts
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    of course they are, they don't think blacks can get i.d.s, have internet access or know where the dmv is 
    piloteer
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • So are we just basing opinions on YouTube videos?

    Or do we have any actual statistical analysis to back up this assertion? 

    Even analysis of the behavior of elected officials would be more accurate and indicative of real life trends than those 2 videos.
    Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • Are we using a definition of racism that means "believes there is inferiority in a group of persons based on skin color, national origin and/or ethnicity" or some other definition of the word?
    Alternate definition:
    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

    If we're using one of the above definitions, then I would say that, historically speaking, the right wing has demonstrated in thought, words and actions, a considerably greater amount of racial prejudice against minorities.

    There is one very glaring outlier in the modern era, namely when Roosevelt rounded up tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans and imprisoned them during WW2. The decision to do this grave injustice was based more on emotional arguments than any evidence that Japanese Americans were plotting any attacks on the United States.

    The historical evidence paints a very compelling picture of political conservatives passing discriminatory laws and sanctioning racist actions against minorities. In fact, the very passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enough to cause a schism in the Democratic Party, and much of what used to be known as "The Solid South" (Southern "DIxiecrat" Democrats) switched in protest from the Dems to the Republicans in response to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", because Democrats in the North, East and West condemned their support for segregation and Jim Crow laws.



    AlofRIpiloteer
    "The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
    ---Leon Russell, "Magic Mirror"

  • edited May 24
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    of course they are, they don't think blacks can get i.d.s, have internet access or know where the dmv is 
    Of course we wouldn't want to pay any attention to the fact that there are 868 fewer places to vote as of 2016 because the conservative Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    "She waited in line for five hours, becoming the last voter in the state to cast a ballot at 12:12 am. “I’m here to exercise my right to vote,” she said shortly before midnight, explaining why she stayed in line. Others left without voting because they didn’t have four or five hours to spare.

    The lines were so long because Republican election officials in Phoenix’s Maricopa County, the largest in the state, reduced the number of polling places by 70 percent from 2012 to 2016, from 200 to just 60..."
    CYDdhartaAlofRIApplesauce
    "The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
    ---Leon Russell, "Magic Mirror"

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    The terms "left" and "right" are so wide and ambiguous that I cannot even begin to consider what groups of people you are referring to. I suspect that you are talking about Democrats vs Republicans. But even within these groups each there are millions of individuals with millions of points of view, so asking which side is more racist is like asking whether tea is tastier than coffee: with thousands kinds of teas and coffees, any answer to this question is going to be senseless.

    If you are talking about the general left and right political thought in the world, then neither is inherently racist. The left is about collectivism, while the right is about individualism, and neither of these in itself suggests that there is any qualitative difference between races.

    I suppose it is easier for the left political thought to manifest in racism, since collectivism considers large groups of people, as opposed to individuals, and a race describes one of the possible groups - this would explain why the most vicious racial discriminations in human history were done by totalitarian socialist governments. The right political thought, I suppose, also can arrive to racism due to its inherent self-focus and dismissal of the value of others, although it requires quite a bit of mental juggling to discriminate against certain races while not being against your own race as well on the grounds of self-centeredness.
    OppolzerPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • May, your characterization isn't accurate.  There are collectivist and individualist ideologies on the left and right: anarchism as an example of left wing extreme individualism and fascism an example of right wing extreme collectivism.  It should also be pointed out that the 2 regimes with the highest race related kill counts, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, were both "right wing" regimes, not totalitarian Socialists.  Revolutionary China and the USSR of course have their astronomical kill counts, but neither was predicated upon race.
    CYDdhartaCheckerbordStrangler
  • OppolzerOppolzer 145 Pts
    The right and the left both define racism differently. Therefore, it's evident that both sides would accuse the other side of it. To the left side, ignoring race altogether is a form of racism. To the right side, conveying race into every issue is a form of racism.

    It ultimately comes down to how you define racism. And as @MayCaesar said, racism is not inherently rightwing or leftwing. 

    In my opinion, as far as racism arranges with political identity, the Far Left or the Far Right are considerably more prone to be racist than those closer to the center of the political spectrum.
    PlaffelvohfenMayCaesarZombieguy1987Dylan
  • AlofRIAlofRI 247 Pts
    C'mon! Other races don't like racists! The "left" is made up of African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, Indians, Orientals.... people from "s***hole countries, if you will, PLUS a LOT of the "feminine race" (of different colors and s***hole countries ;-). The right is by FAR a majority white-male makeup with a few colored and female "pets" thrown in for looks. Texas and Florida were well taken care of after the hurricanes, but, the "other colored Americans" in Puerto Rico were forced to, largely, take care of themselves …. other than a few rolls of paper towels :-( !  You can't be serious!
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaApplesauceCheckerbordStrangler
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    @GenericName

    Like I said, these terms are wide and ambiguous and everyone defines them differently. I base my characterisation on the collectivism/individualism dichotomy, and all other characterisations I have seen were very inconsistent.

    Some define the left as advocating for demolition of hierarchy and equalisation of individuals' role in the society, with the right advocating for a traditional hierarchical societal organisation. But I find this separation misleading, as hierarchy and equality are not mutually exclusive; for example, a lot of groups of people try to achieve equality through introducing various regulations, that themselves reflect a certain hierarchy of needs of various individuals. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    @AlofRI

    First of all, Texas and Florida are American states, while Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory, so of course they were treated differently after the hurricane. Second, All American states are taken care of when something happens, not just the traditionally Republican ones. Lastly, Texas and Florida have some of the largest relative Latino populations in the US, and that apparently does not have any effect on how much they are helped. I do not see any racism in any of this as such.

    You are also wrong on many counts with regards to your other statements. For example, statistically married women prefer the Republican party, while single women prefer the Democratic party - refuting your statement on the "female pets". 

    And "other races don't like racists"? This is a very naive statement. Travel to any African, or Arabic, or developing Asian country. Racism there will make your skin crawl, especially since this time around it will be directed at you and not at other people whose interests you claim to represent.
    Nobody likes racists against their own race, but many people do not mind racists against other races. Some of the policies of what you call the American "left" led, for example, to Asians being strongly disadvantaged in many school admission processes, but nobody seems to worry about it, since, again, Asians do not represent a major fraction of the American left.

    As @Oppolzer@ noticed, on the left people see ignoring the plight of racial minorities as, in itself, racism - but it does not reflect the dictionary definition of the word. By that word, I would say that racism is just as prevalent among Democrats as it is among Republicans, although it may take slightly different forms. But, as the Asian admission scandal shows, Democrats are just as quick to dismiss the racial problems as Republicans are, whenever it is politically convenient.
    ApplesauceZombieguy1987CheckerbordStrangler
  • But may, your dichotomy requires one to actively ignore many ideologies.  The only sensible way of charting ideologies is on the double axis spectrum, which helps demonstrate how things like early right wing ideologies such as Classical British Conservatism were collectivist and statist, while early left wing ideologies were individualist and lassaiz faire.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1793 Pts
    @GenericName

    I have always disliked that double axis classification, because it assumes that the x-axis and the y-axis are independent. I would argue that it is impossible for the society to be individualist and, at the same time, feature strong governmental control over economy. How can individuality express itself when the government only leaves one set of rails for it to travel on?

    I think that economical and social restrictions both come from the same place - the desire for the collective to trump over the individual. That is why I see individualism vs collectivism as the core, the most fundamental distinction. Every observable social or economical effect can be shown as reflecting either individualist or collectivist thought, or sometimes a mix of both - but the opposite is not necessarily true.

    Now, I do not think necessarily that individualism is better than collectivism; I prefer individualism in general, but both can take ugly or beautiful forms. For example, Somalia is extremely individualistic, because everyone is on their own, and it is a terrible place to live in. On the other hand, Japan is very collectivistic, but I loved every single second there. North Korea is collectivistic, and I would not move there no matter what. The US is individualistic, and I love this country.

    However, it seems to me that collectivism offers a better platform for horrible ideologies. Horrible individualistic ideologies are not very sustainable, as they clash with the interests of all other individuals and cannot survive for long: if I decide that it is my right to eat anyone I want alive, then I will probably be stopped almost immediately. But if I decide that we should all group up, take the rakes and go after the riches of our king, then my proposal is probably going to gain a lot of traction, and the proposed act will be quite viable. Collectivist ideologies can recruit large groups of members and overtake the society, and then only grow in size due to the wide support they now have - while individualist ideologies can only survive if they are not at strong odds with many individual members of the society.
  • MayCaesar said:
     The left is about collectivism, while the right is about individualism, and neither of these in itself suggests that there is any qualitative difference between races. 
    In this day and age, the hardcore extremes dominate both sides, and both extremes are more about tribalism than anything else.
    Meanwhile, take a look at what's happening right under their noses...the independents are the largest voting block of them all.
    And that's because the moderates on both left and right are sick of the tribalism. To most of them, a little bit of mild collectivism and individualism would be refreshing right now.
    "The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
    ---Leon Russell, "Magic Mirror"

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 446 Pts
    I think the right is racist of the left and the left is racist of the right.  :D :trollface: :smirk:

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • MayCaesar said:
    @GenericName

    However, it seems to me that collectivism offers a better platform for horrible ideologies. Horrible individualistic ideologies are not very sustainable, as they clash with the interests of all other individuals and cannot survive for long: if I decide that it is my right to eat anyone I want alive, then I will probably be stopped almost immediately. But if I decide that we should all group up, take the rakes and go after the riches of our king, then my proposal is probably going to gain a lot of traction, and the proposed act will be quite viable. Collectivist ideologies can recruit large groups of members and overtake the society, and then only grow in size due to the wide support they now have - while individualist ideologies can only survive if they are not at strong odds with many individual members of the society.
    And how about collectivism that masquerades as individualism via the secret sauce of populism? See? The left does not have the market cornered on collectivism at all, really.

    By the way, that is also why some of the most right wing totalitarian dictatorships in history adopted tags like "socialist". They knew that putting on that label would attract large crowds of low information worker bee types who could be easily manipulated with emotional appeals to populism and scapegoating, and controlled through fear.

    CYDdharta
    "The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
    ---Leon Russell, "Magic Mirror"

  • MayCaesar said:
    @AlofRI

    First of all, Texas and Florida are American states, while Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory, so of course they were treated differently after the hurricane. Second, All American states are taken care of when something happens, not just the traditionally Republican ones.
    Sorry but the facts on the ground don't add up to your assertion in the least.
    First, Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States
    Second, Puerto Ricans have been citizens of the United States since 1917, and enjoy freedom of movement between the island and the mainland, and despite not having a vote in the United States Congress, which governs the territory with full jurisdiction under the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950, Puerto Ricans are still given the right to vote for the Presidency as well as their non-voting Congressional representative, and the right to vote in their own local elections.

    But as full citizens of the United States, they are AMERICANS, as American as you and I are and therefore should never be treated differently with respect to natural disasters. Sorry but any argument to the contrary is invalid and inadmissible.

    Next, let's take a look at how California is being treated with respect to the recent rash of wildfires.
    President Donald Trump is currently withholding federal disaster funds from California. His claim is that California’s “gross mismanagement of the forests” was the cause of 2018’s deadly wildfire season  and therefore he feels justified in withholding the money however around 60 percent of forested land in California is owned by the federal government.
    Wildfires don’t stop at jurisdictional boundaries, so a unified federal-state approach is the only way to properly protect lives and property. 

    In January 2017, he issued Executive Order 13768 which attempted to ensure that they are “are not eligible to receive Federal grants.” The order was deemed to be an illegal overreach in a 2 to 1 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

    Trump’s 2017 tax bill reduced taxes for himself, other very wealthy people, and corporations, but included provisions that favored Trump states over Clinton states. By greatly reducing state and local tax deductions, the bill actually increased the tax burden for many in states like Illinois (where Clinton beat Trump 55% to 38%), California (where Clinton won 61% to 31%), New Jersey (where Clinton won 55% to 41%) and New York (where Clinton won 59% to 37%).

    And when asked what a possible second term for Trump might look like, Steve Bannon said:
    “You’re going to get pure Trump off the chain. Four years of Donald Trump in payback mode.”

    Payback mode? I'd love to know what to call what we've been seeing up till now.
    To many, it sounds like Trump is punishing both Puerto Rico AND California, and practically ALL "blue states" because he sees them as "disloyal" states.





    CYDdharta
    "The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
    ---Leon Russell, "Magic Mirror"

  • AlofRIAlofRI 247 Pts
    @CheckerbordStrangler: I agree with much of what you said, however that doesn't excuse the ridiculous response to Puerto Rico by Trump. When Hawaii (before it became a state), and the Philippines and Guam had disasters WE helped them more than we helped PR.

    And Trumps "forest mismanagement", where they should have "raked their leaves" is probably the stupidest statement ever made by a POTUS! 

    I guess Maine is constantly engaging in "mismanagement" then. Maine is about the size of the rest of New England put together. If EVERY person in New England was put to work raking leaves there, they wouldn't get HALF the state done before the leaves fell again! Mismanagement?

    We have an idiot living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.! One who cares about NO ONE, but himself!
    CYDdharta
  • @AlofRI

    Sounds like you're under the impression that I was excusing his conduct re Puerto Rico.
    LOL, I thought I made it pretty clear that I wasn't.    :trollface:
    AlofRI
    "The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
    ---Leon Russell, "Magic Mirror"

  • AlofRIAlofRI 247 Pts
    @CheckerbordStrangler It was Trumps response that I was not excusing, not yours. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
    CheckerbordStrangler
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @GenericName

    Oooh nooo. You were doing so well too. Right up until you claimed nazi Germany was an extreme right-wing ideology. At best, that argument is such a generalization, it's only vaguely accurate. At worst, it's plain and simply wrong because the nazis were socialist, and their views of "genetic health" stem directly from progressive ideology. The only thing the nazis had in common with "right-wing ideology"(seems like an oxymoron, huh) is nationalism.
  • piloteer said:
    @GenericName

    Oooh nooo. You were doing so well too. Right up until you claimed nazi Germany was an extreme right-wing ideology. At best, that argument is such a generalization, it's only vaguely accurate. At worst, it's plain and simply wrong because the nazis were socialist, and their views of "genetic health" stem directly from progressive ideology. The only thing the nazis had in common with "right-wing ideology"(seems like an oxymoron, huh) is nationalism.

    The Nazis were originally called the German Workers Party, and the name change to incorporate the word "socialist" was partly designed to pull in working class voters by making the party seem more caring and respectable than it actually was, because "socialism" was a good word to many idealistic people in the 1930s on both sides of the Atlantic. 
    (In much of the world it still is, and they understand that Nazism was on the other side of the spectrum entirely). 
    But in any case, merely because a party calls itself by a name doesn't mean that this is what it stands for, and that is especially so given the low standards of honesty practiced by totalitarians. 

    Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Russian fascist group of the 1990s was ludicrously called the Liberal Democratic party although it was virulently anti-liberal and anti-democratic. 
    The junior party in Britain's current coalition government are also called Liberal Democrats - perhaps on Tea Party logic we should repudiate David Cameron for forming an alliance with Russian fascists? 
    And whilst we're on the topic, any political theorist can tell you that the current Republican Party is about as far away from having anything to do with classical republicanism as it's possible to get.

    Not only did Hitler detest socialism, liberalism and communism, but he was appeased in Europe partly because some of the European right saw him and Mussolini as valuable strong men against Stalin. This foolish admiration was a major factor in appeasement and extended almost to the eve of war.

    Here's George Orwell, reviewing an English translation of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in March 1940, as German bombs are falling on Britain:
    "It is a sign of the speed at which events are moving that Hurst and Blackett's unexpurgated edition of ‘Mein Kampf’, published only a year ago, is edited from a pro-Hitler angle. The obvious intention of the translator's preface and notes is to tone down the book’s ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible. For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism. Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all".
    ---George Orwell, Review of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, in “New English Weekly”, 21 March 1940.

    And next, here's the verdict of an eminent expert researcher and one of the greatest experts on the Nazi phenomenon, the historian Alan Bullock:
    "While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism".
    ---Alan Bullock, "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny", abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1971).

    Hitler’s values – radical inequality, the fostering of a tiny elite, belief in ancestral notions of nationhood and racial purity – were values of the far right, not the egalitarian values of socialism or liberalism. Before attaining dictatorial power he allied himself with political conservatives, he had a fan club of conservatives outside Germany, he was largely funded by union-hating big business that saw him as the man to smash the socialists, and he was appeased internationally in part because of misguided conservatives who thought him a worthwhile ally, though foolish left-wing pacifists were also part of the problem. It is simply absurd to place Hitler anywhere other than on the authoritarian far right of the political spectrum, just as on similar evidence it would be absurd to call Stalin a capitalist, for Stalin belongs on the authoritarian far left.

    Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.): "We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies." 

    Prescott Bush and many other rightists on the international stage admired Hitler precisely because they saw him as the man to smash socialism and the left. And that he most certainly did in Germany: his first action after the Enabling Act, giving dictatorial powers, was passed in 1933 was to ban trade unions. 

    Over the course of his regime, it's estimated that around 2 million socialists, trade unionists, communists and other left-wingers were murdered by Hitler's regime, most of them in the death camps. Many of the victims had warned of the evils of fascism and been ignored by appeasement in Europe and North America, with much of the appeasement orchestrated by the political right. 

    If the Nazis were socialist because they described themselves as such, then North Korea is a democratic republic.

    And by the way, it looks like these "very fine people" wound up at the wrong political rally, because it was the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA on August 12th, 2017.
    If they're about uniting the Right, then what are a bunch of socialists doing there in support?




    CYDdhartapiloteer
    "The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
    ---Leon Russell, "Magic Mirror"

  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    @CheckerbordStrangler

    I'm sorry, but the argument that "socialism was only part of the nazi party name, but they weren't actually socialists", is categorically false from top to bottom. The nazis were open and proud socialists, and they implemented socialist laws, and nothing about their program was meant to seem caring. Unlike what many in the West believe, the nazi party was not a reaction to communism, it was a reaction to capitalism. joseph goebbles was well read in Marx and Engels writings, and he agreed with them and he made absolutely no effort to hide that fact. He was known to quote them both, with the greatest of ease. He had a vehement hatred of capitalists, and he called them "the money pigs of capitalist democracy". The nazis hugest gripe with communism was that is wasn't communist enough. They thought communism was hopelessly hung up in matters of economics, while it totally ignored social matters. They (The nazis) felt that beyond economic collectivism, a strong centralized government was needed to implement a social collectivism, and that's where the communists fell short.

     More than half of the 25 point nazi party program called for socialistic economic laws to be implemented, and it calls for a strict rejection of capitalism. Point 13 of the Nazi party program called for the nationalization of all corporations. Point 14 called for profit sharing of large industrial enterprises. Point 15 demanded generous development of state-run old age insurance. Point 16 called for the immediate socialization of huge department stores. Perhaps the original name of the nazi party was the German workers party, but nothing in that name says it cannot, or was not a socialist party. In 1921, the nazi party entered into negotiations to merge with the German socialist party. The negotiations fell through, but an obvious commitment to socialism is apparent none the less. 
    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

    In a speech in 1927, hitler ranted,

    "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions".

    I'm sorry, but there exists no solid evidence that hitler "detested socialism", but there are mountains of evidence that says that he loved socialism. If socialism was a cute fury kitten, hitler would probably have cuddled it, and nursed it with his supple breasts.

    In the words of joseph goebbles, which could easily have come straight out of the communist manifesto.

    "Money has made slaves of us". "Money is the curse of mankind". 

    And another quote.

    "Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.

    The nazis did indeed nationalize all German corporations, and implemented profit sharing in all large industries. They made profits made from loans illegal. They set the prices of all goods sold, and they set the wages for all workers. None of this seems like anything but socialism. Yes, they may have let the owners and upper management of these companies keep their place in their respective company, and they were expected to run the day to day aspects of the business, but since the nazi government set the prices, and workers pay, they effectively set the profits for the businesses. 

    In light of the aggressive socialistic economic and social laws the nazis enacted, it can only be argued that regardless of what the personal feelings of socialism was with top nazi officials, the economic and social laws they implemented were unquestionably socialist. So even though you could not provide convincing evidence that hitler hated socialism, if I were give you the benefit of the doubt on that point, still every law, and every action the nazis had in place and implemented, they did so as a socialist country. John Lennon was a self proclaimed communist, but he was one of the wealthiest rock stars the world has ever known. Whatever his feelings were on capitalism, he was a capitalist in every way, shape, and form. The reverse is true for the nazis. Some may come from the mind frame that if it's not red square totalitarian communism, then it must be some form of capitalism. I assert that is profoundly false, and the truth is, if it's not New York city in the 18th century-win or die capitalism, then it must be some form of communism.  

    It's also no secret that the nazis view on genetic health was not original. The idea of genetic health was a gross misinterpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution, but the nazis embraced it 30 or 40 years after the progressives had come up with it. Germany was at the cutting edge of medical ingenuity, and all the best doctors world wide, couldn't have been considered the best, unless they had spent some time studying in Germany. Of course, the largest traffic between cross border doctor trips, was between Germany and the US. What the progressives had implemented in philosophical thought when it came to genetic health, the German medical community had implemented on the surgical table. 

    The only thing that can be associated with right-wing ideology, or republicanism, is the nazis embrace of nationalism, which truth be told, nationalism was not considered a conservative, or right-wing ideology, it was just a deep love of ones country, so much so, that they believed it should be less a country, and more an empire. The truth is plain for all to see, the nazis were insanely collectivist, they feverishly embraced progressive eugenics, and they were most certainly, vommit inducingly socialist. Without Question!!!!!!!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch