Your opinion on Debra AI of this website? - 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!

Your opinion on Debra AI of this website?
in Technology

It seems to me, it gets a lot of the likely political affiliation of specific comments right, as well as grammar and spelling, but I can't help but laugh that on my page it's putting me as "Likely Republican". Officially, I'm an independent voter, and I almost never vote Republican, and given the choices of democrats and republicans, I'm more likey to vote for a democrat. It's not so much that I agree with their views, more that I'm simply anti-establishment, which I don't see much of that from the GOP anymore since Ron Paul(Rand Paul is very different from his father, in a bad way). The democrats, on the otherhand, have a lot of anti-establishment candidates(Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang AOC, all the justice democrats and self-identified democratic socialists), so right now, they're my more logical choice since my absolute most important issue is how anti-establishment the person is. So, it seems Debra may not predict someone's over all political affiliation well. What do you think? Has debra predicted your over all political affiliation correctly?
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Ah, now it says my likely political affiliation is libertarian lol. Maybe it changes it up often. I guess I should have screencapped it at the time it said republican. This one is more accurate.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    edited August 11
    @GeoLibCogScientist Just wondering, but since you mentioned liking some progressives, I'm curious as to what you think of their "social justice" ideology? To me it comes across as incredibly authoritarian and collectivist.

    I think the AI just started working this past week, it used to categorize me as independent but now it's saying libertarian for me too.
  • WinstonC said:
     Just wondering, but since you mentioned liking some progressives, I'm curious as to what you think of their "social justice" ideology? To me it comes across as incredibly authoritarian and collectivist.

    I think the AI just started working this past week, it used to categorize me as independent but now it's saying libertarian for me too.
    Yes... I do not like their solutions to the problems. They do seem to want to have more government control. To some degree, I remain a little bit pragmatic in that I accept that it's only ever going to be democrats or republicans winning unless America changes a lot. So, it pretty much is a matter of the lesser of two evils. The Republicans seem to not really have solutions to issues that impact a lot of people, including myself. In particular, Health care is a very important issue to me. While I don't find the progressive solution ideal, at least it's a solution. I have no idea what the republicans are doing, but they've not suggested any alternative to the status quo health care system, or really any policies that would fix our over-priced system. I hate the idea of the government taking over the health insurance industry, but that solution is better than no solution, which the republicans suggest the latter for some odd reason.

    Additionally, I'm quite anti-American imperialism, and that ideology is more likely to be found in the democratic party than the Republicans as well. The GOP is far too war-hawkish for my liking. Democrats, on the other hand, have more candidates that have been anti-war, voted against the Iraq war, etc. Of course, there was Ron Paul who was outspoken against those wars too, but his political career is over and I'm not aware of anyone who is quite like him in the Republican Party. So, yeah, that pretty much leaves me with, sadly, having to support democrats. My preferred candidate among them, due to that he does have a few libertarian stances, is Andrew Yang. I, of course, do support the concept of a UBI replacing the welfare systems as I've talked about elsewhere. While he's not suggesting replacing it, at least he says it's opt-in and people would have to give up their current benefits for the Freedom Dividend, or they could stick to the current benefits. Maybe he has a plan to phase out the other welfare systems. I don't know, but I do know if he stated that, he would probably have no shot whatsoever, so he may be choosing to stay silent on the idea of completely phasing out other welfare systems. Then a libertarian stance he has is he's opposed to increasing minimum wage, one of the few democrats running who is. He also doesn't want to make education outright free, and instead believes the state being involved the way it is now is a huge issue contributing to it being expensive. He also has a plan to require universities to start diverting their funds to second campuses of that university. Another huge contributor to expensive college is the fact supply of those colleges does not meet demand. So yeah, he generally has quite a few views I agree with. So he's my current preferred candidate, and I'll have to hold my nose for other candidates like Bernie Sanders, or whoever it is that gets the Dem nomination, as long as it's not an establishment figure like Joe Biden or Kamala Harris(definitely will not vote for them). If it comes down to one of them versus Trump, I'll likely just vote third party and try to get them to that important 5% of the vote requiremnt. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • But yeah, given my life-saving health care is greater than my entire yearly income, this is a major issue to me. Republicans aren't suggesting anything to fix this fact. The democrats, they are, and yeah, the solution sucks, but at least it will make it that it's no longer more than 100% of my and many other Americans' yearly income :P I'll gladly have 5% of my income stolen if it means I no longer have to go into debt for my life-saving health care. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @GeoLibCogScientist I loved Ron Paul too, I'd like to see what things are like in the alternative universe where he got elected. I'm on the other side, I'd rather stomach Trump than the increasingly radical democrats. The focus on collectivist identity politics seriously worries me.
  • @WinstonC

    That difference between us could simply be explained by perhaps you're libertarian-right? I consider myself libertarian-left. As in I would want less government generally, but I also recognize there are lots of issues in the status quo economic systems and want to progress to a new one more fair to everyone, though with minimal government involvement(the only aspects I'd want it involved in are literally a Citizen's Dividend or a UBI funded by a land value tax, and probably military but contracted out to non-state owned defense companies, though they would need to be created first  lol since the US military currently has a monopoly on defense of the nation). Other than that, I would consider the ideal not to have state-owned health insurance, or state-owned anything else really, and just a UBI that is large enough for people to buy those necessities. It simplifies things while also giving people more freedom to spend their tax dollars how they want. The major issue with Medicare-for-all and free education is it doesn't give the individual the freedom to spend those tax dollars how they wish. A UBI would allow them to spend it how they want to. 

    But yeah, I think that would explain our preference differences. The republicans don't want to change the status quo, while the Democrats do, albeit in a manner I prefer would not happen(government involvement). Usually, I'd say that's the difference between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. We consider changing the status quo economic system a more important issue. I'd propose doing this on individual levels nonetheless, and I'd personally try to raise awareness that things like worker co-ops would improve the lives of people. I'd make that as one of my personal life goals, and I'd certainly prefer the state didn't force it. Though, I suppose I wouldn't have an issue with the state itself raising awareness over the issue. That's fine for me. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts
    edited August 12
    It's completely worthless.  As far as likely political affiliation, it appears to be listing everyone as libertarian.
  • @CYDdharta

    In the case of me and WinstonC above, we both identify as a type of libertarian, so I don't see how that is inaccurate. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • I think we need a robot to judge our debating skills because humans will put some bias to see who wins or rate someone with debating skills.
    GeoLibCogScientistpiloteerZombieguy1987
  • @RS_master

    I agree. An AI is far less likely to have human biases, particularly if it's a self-learning AI that doesn't have humans programming into it what is considered a good argument. I'm not sure what type of machine learning AI uses, but what I said is somewhat possible for it to do, particularly through Generative Adversarial Networks. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    In the case of me and WinstonC above, we both identify as a type of libertarian, so I don't see how that is inaccurate. 

    I don't, and I'm sure the boards social justice warriors don't either.
  • @CYDdharta

    You don't identify as a type of libertarian? That surprises me, given your profile picture and arguments I've seen from you. What are you then?
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    You don't identify as a type of libertarian? That surprises me, given your profile picture and arguments I've seen from you. What are you then?
    I'm more conservative than anything else.
  • edited August 12
    @CYDdharta

    Ah, well libertarian views seem to overlap with some conservative views as well as liberal views. What non-libertarian views do you have then that would be better classified as conservative? The only things I can think of that would be conservative and not libertarian would be beliefs that the government should be involved more in social issues(i.e banning gay marriage) and then increased military spending, and what-not. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Ah, well libertarian views seem to overlap with some conservative views as well as liberal views. What non-libertarian views do you have then that would be better classified as conservative? The only things I can think of that would be conservative and not libertarian would be beliefs that the government should be involved more in social issues(i.e banning gay marriage) and then increased military spending, and what-not. 

    Primarily national defense, death penalty, and open borders.  Open borders are the kicker.
  • The AI technology on this site may not be perfect, but eventually this technology will govern our everyday lives. We will eventually be perfect!!!!
  • @WinstonC

     I understand you may identify as a libertarian, but leave us not fool ourselves into thinking conservatives aren't "social justice warriors" of their own. "@GeoLibCogScientist (seriously should rethink that name) pointed out conservatives views on gay marriage, or gay rights altogether. They have social views on this issue which they consider to be a correct manner of social thought. That's social justice!!!! They also are adamant about nationalism. They are just shy of arguing that nationalism (national, ethnic, or racial pride) should be institutionalized. Those are also social views. That's social justice as well, and those views categorize us just as efficiently as any progressive social justice views do. Only (true) libertarians are devoid of views on social justice. As far as I'm concerned, we have no need to try and create some sort of objective moral or ethical or social code because morality is inherently subjective, and we already have an objective system in place for that purpose. The law!! Social views are a needless endeavour. They're just people's opinions.
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    edited August 14
    Wow! I awaken this morning to find my remarks regarding Debra and the posting has been removed also  , @CYDdharta make a suggestion regarding Debra which has also being removed ......apparently only positive opinions are allowed regarding Debra 

    I have now effectively left the site over its censorship of opinions different to the owners and it’s denial of freedom of speech 

    Post Argument not found.

    The comment you were looking for could not be found.



    So much for that throwaway piece of nonsense as in ......”I respect your right to freedom of speech even if I don’t agree with what you say “ 

    This is truly a cowardly way out of actually defending a position , I thought this site encouraged honestly held opinions 
  • @piloteer "pointed out conservatives views on gay marriage, or gay rights altogether."

    The only people pushing for gay rights to be revoked are on the very far right.

    "They have social views on this issue which they consider to be a correct manner of social thought. That's social justice!!!!"

    My view of social justice is applied intersectionality, the definition you appear to be using would apply to all politics.

    "They also are adamant about nationalism. They are just shy of arguing that nationalism (national, ethnic, or racial pride) should be institutionalized."

    Nationalism isn't related to ethnic or racial pride, in the context you are using it it's patriotism. I've never seen Republicans push for patriotism to be mandatory.

    "those views categorize us just as efficiently as any progressive social justice views do."

    Do you mean categorizing between citizen and non-citizen? You have to do that to have a country at all. If you mean categorizing by ethnicity and race it's the left and far right that do this.

    "As far as I'm concerned, we have no need to try and create some sort of objective moral or ethical or social code because morality is inherently subjective"

    You should check out Sam Harris' Ted talk on morality, it explains well why morality isn't simply open to interpretation.
  • @GeoLibCogScientist I was considered left leaning until the recent hard-left turn on identity politics and socialism. I wouldn't classify myself as neatly libertarian, it's just that out of the four political dimensions I am most pronounced in my opposition to authoritarianism.

    I certainly want things to change, it's just that I'm very critical of the changes the left are currently advocating for. In my estimation, the powers that be prop up the right on issues that benefit them to remain the same and prop up the left on issues that benefit them to change.
    GeoLibCogScientist
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 14
    @Dee

    "I have now effectively left the site over its censorship of opinions different to the owners and it’s denial of freedom of speech."

    "I respect your right to freedom of speech even if I don’t agree with what you say “ 

    "This is truly a cowardly way out of actually defending a position, I thought this site encouraged honestly held opinions."



    @Dee

    Any individuals choices of words, apparently, have an effect on:

    "Debra AI"


    If an individuals words are negative, that is reflected.

    And if an individuals comment, is as original as can be, it will reflect that as well.

    I see it, as a fair and equal gauge when it comes to the debate conversations. 

    It shows the below, about an individuals, usages of their own words:

    (Considerate,  Substantial, and Spelling & Grammar.)










  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited August 14
    @WinstonC

    Nationalism is most certainly related to ethnic and racial pride. Many people have a strict view of who the nation should be made up of. They apply their racial and ethnic views to their views of nationalism. It has everything to do with racial and ethnic pride. I have seen Sam Harris on Ted Talk, and I was underwhelmed. If YOU have reason to believe that social views, and morality is objectively applied to all of us, feel free to demonstrate it. Could you somehow demonstrate how intersectionality is not social justice? As far as I see, so long as we live in accordance with the laws in the constitution, there's absolutely no need to adhere to, or care about social attitudes, or views on morality. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a believer in social justice, whether they are democrats or republicans. I do find it curious how you (and most conservatives) rant against progressives for their stringent views on social justice, while dually espousing your own social views and denying that it's social justice. Perhaps the reason you actually don't like progressive social justice, is because it's not your brand of social justice. We already have a system in place of objective morality, the law!
  • SESMeTSESMeT 22 Pts
    She sometimes gives me an error and blocks my posts for no reason. They don't go through for hours. And then suddenly several of my posts go through at once ... and it looks like I was spamming. When I was just trying and re-trying to get a post through.

    For this reason, no, I don't like her.
    GeoLibCogScientist
  • @SESMeT

    Yeah, I've had that issue a time or two, so I know what you mean.

    I agree right now that Debra is far from being perfect. The concept of it, though, seems worthy to pursue if they iron out issues with it.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    edited August 17
    @piloteer "Nationalism is most certainly related to ethnic and racial pride. Many people have a strict view of who the nation should be made up of. They apply their racial and ethnic views to their views of nationalism."

    Some people do, but they are not the majority, or even close to it. The definition of nationalism is related only to patriotism.

    "I have seen Sam Harris on Ted Talk, and I was underwhelmed."

    That's fair enough, but with a subjective moral lens you cannot condemn the actions of Nazis, for their actions are morally equal to yours.

    "Could you somehow demonstrate how intersectionality is not social justice?"

    I was saying that my concept of social justice is that it is applied intersectionality. In other words, when I referred to social justice, I was referring to putting the ideology of intersectionality into practice.

    "I do find it curious how you (and most conservatives) rant against progressives for their stringent views on social justice, while dually espousing your own social views and denying that it's social justice."

    As far as I am aware, "social justice" has a specific meaning, related to applying the ideology of intersectionality. If it allays confusion, we can substitute the term "social justice" for "applied intersectionality".

    "We already have a system in place of objective morality, the law!"

    Defining morality as the law means that under your definition the state will always be a moral actor. I think history serves as sufficient evidence that the state is not always morally good.
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited August 17
    @WinstonC

    Patriotism and nationalism are two different words, with two distict meanings.

    na·tion·al·ism
    /ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
    noun
                    IDENTIFICATION with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the                    EXCLUSION OR DETRIMENT OF THE INTERESTS OF OTHER NATIONS.

    Nationalism is left up to individual interpretations of who a nations population should be made up of, and who can actually be considered a true citizen. Race and heritage are most certainly factors when it comes to nationalism. Your claim that only a small fraction of people have their own idealist interpretation of nationalism that is broken down into groups (race/heritage/ethnicity/political identities) has yet to be backed up by any evidence. It's seems that you think patriotism and nationalism are interchangeable. They are not!!! If they are interchangeable, why are so many people within the republican party using the word nationalism instead of patriotism? The plain and simple answer is because they feel he need to (re)define who American society should be made up of. Nationalism is clearly stated to be synonymous with identity, whereas patriotism is not. Whether you have your own interpretations of what patriotism and nationalism mean is of no value to this discussion. The real proof is explicitly stated in the definitions of those words!!!!!!!!!!!

    pa·tri·ot·ism
    /ˈpātrēəˌtizəm/
    noun
                 the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.

    Your concept of "intersectionality" is clearly a textbook example of how social views and order should be applied beyond the rules and laws that govern us and are written in the constitution. You've done nothing at all to separate your social justice from the brand of social justice that is offered by progressives. All you've accomplished is to demonstrate that you yourself, along with most conservatives have their own idealist views of social justice, and that it is indeed social justice. Intersectionality is a concept that was created by the third wave woman's rights movement and it uses a graph to demonstrate the different types of injustice each group is likely to encounter in the US. So either your a supporter of third wave women's rights, or you're simply lying about knowing what you're talking about. You've also reinforced my claim that people who believe that there are social orders that should be applied within the laws of the constitution are believers of social justice, no matter what party they identity with.

    I never identified morality as the law, so your assertion that I'm arguing that the state will always be a moral actor is unfounded and totally false. I said that the law that is written in the constitution can be used IN PLACE OF (instead of) objective morality. That means that I recognize that the law doesn't necessarily need to cater to social views or moral views, and it can be identified as distinctly separate from social or moral standings. Because of the fact that we can use the constitution in place of any objective moral code, I certainly can "condemn the actions of the nazis" because the 25 point nazi party program that served as the philosophical foundation of the nazi party was purposefully created by the nazis to reverse all the ideals espoused in the American constitution. And beyond that, their murderous actions were a direct retort to the American constitutions ideal of murder being wrong. The reason the constitution stresses that murder is wrong is because allowing murder to happen can destroy the very fabric of a society. If we are allowed to kill each other, then we could potentially do so, and barely anybody would be left to make up any kind of a society. Their views on collectivism over individuality are an obvious retort to the American ideal of individuality. Their views on private property and private ownership are a reversal of the American ideal of private property rights. Their views on capitalism are opposite to the American ideal of private property rights, private ownership, and private business. Since the nazis were socialists and collectivists who strictly opposed anything that was capitalist in nature, it's easy to see that they were opposed to not only the politics of the American constitution, but the economic and social ideals of the American constitution as well. The nazis also had strict and stringent views on objective morality and social justice, so my argument is naturally opposed to any nazi ideals. 

    Feel free to try again if you'd like.

    CYDdharta
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    edited August 27
    @piloteer "Patriotism and nationalism are two different words, with two distict meanings... IDENTIFICATION with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the EXCLUSION OR DETRIMENT OF THE INTERESTS OF OTHER NATIONS."

    So then we can agree that it is not related to ethnic or racial pride?

    "Nationalism is left up to individual interpretations of who a nations population should be made up of, and who can actually be considered a true citizen."

    Actually, the government does this with immigration policy.

    "Your claim that only a small fraction of people have their own idealist interpretation of nationalism that is broken down into groups (race/heritage/ethnicity/political identities) has yet to be backed up by any evidence."

    As is your claim to the contrary. You made the claim first, so the burden of proof is on you, especially given that your own definition gives race and ethnicity no mention.

    "It's seems that you think patriotism and nationalism are interchangeable."

    I said "The definition of nationalism is related only to patriotism." I never claimed they were identical.

    "All you've accomplished is to demonstrate that you yourself, along with most conservatives have their own idealist views of social justice, and that it is indeed social justice."

    If "social justice" is anything the government does then the term is irrelevant.

    "Intersectionality is a concept that was created by the third wave woman's rights movement and it uses a graph to demonstrate the different types of injustice each group is likely to encounter in the US."

    It feels like you've just googled the term because you didn't know it before. Note also that I criticised "applied intersectionality".

    "So either your a supporter of third wave women's rights, or you're simply lying about knowing what you're talking about."

    Is there not any chance at all that I might know something you don't and that listening to me with a charitable ear might lead you to learn something new? You could always assume that I want to take away women's rights though (which I don't), which means you can dismiss my perspective without exploring it.

    "I never identified morality as the law, so your assertion that I'm arguing that the state will always be a moral actor is unfounded and totally false. I said that the law that is written in the constitution can be used IN PLACE OF (instead of) objective morality."

    Fair enough, but then that is irrelevant to whether morality is objective.

    "That means that I recognize that the law doesn't necessarily need to cater to social views or moral views, and it can be identified as distinctly separate from social or moral standings."

    The law should be informed by what is morally correct though, should it not?

    "I certainly can "condemn the actions of the nazis" because the 25 point nazi party program that served as the philosophical foundation of the nazi party was purposefully created by the nazis to reverse all the ideals espoused in the American constitution."

    If morality is relative then you cannot argue that the actions of the Nazi party were wrong, or that they shouldn't have done them. Morality is the realm of what we should and shouldn't do, after all.

    "The reason the constitution stresses that murder is wrong is because allowing murder to happen can destroy the very fabric of a society. If we are allowed to kill each other, then we could potentially do so, and barely anybody would be left to make up any kind of a society."

    You seem to be making the argument that, objectively speaking, governments shouldn't allow murder. In other words, you are stating an objective fact about what it is right and wrong for a government to do.

    "Feel free to try again if you'd like."

    Some friendly advice; it's a bad idea to act smug in debates because it makes it harder to change your opinions when necessary. People who aren't open to changing their opinions cannot intellectually progress.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    edited August 27
    @piloteer Just in case all that stuff about Nazis was directed at me because you believe I am somehow sympathetic to that ideology, I just want to let you know that I also hate collectivist racial identitarianism, authoritarianism and so on.
  • @WinstonC

    I know you don't have sympathy for the nazis. I wouldn't direct those sentiments at you, or allude to you being sympathetic to them. I may disagree with you, but I would stop FAR short of considering you anything that even resembles a nazi.    
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited August 27
    @WinstonC

    I guess we are not at all in agreement about nationalism. You've done nothing to challenge my assertion that nationalism is undeniably tied to identity, and who and who cannot be considered a true citizen. And your claim that it is the government who decides our national identity is superfluous. The government acts in accordance with social attitudes on immigration policy. I'm sure there are some people on here that think the government should decide who can and can't be a true citizen, and that would be nationalism on an institutionalized basis. The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that patriotism has nothing to do with the collective identity of a nation. Nationalism has everything to do with the collective identity of a nation. We are not in agreement. The definition of nationalism is not "only related to patriotism", it's related to our national identity.   

    I think there might have been a miscommunication on my part, or a misinterpretation on your part regarding social justice. Conservatives also have an agenda when it comes to social justice, they just don't call it that because they hate the term, but their agenda is still social justice. Anybody who thinks the constitution doesn't go far enough, or there are some rules that should be respected even though they aren't written in law, they believe in some form of social justice. I do believe it's impossible to totally ignore all social standards, but I also believe that as long as we abide by the constitution, social standards are meaningless, and there are no rules inside the bounds of the constitution that need to be respected. Any strengthening of social justice standards really only serves to weaken our liberties. I guess we're at square one with this part of the discussion because you've done absolutely nothing to show that you are devoid of any concept of social justice, but in turn you've demonstrated that you actually have a very stringent concept of social justice that goes hand and hand with the progressives interpretations of social justice. I'm confused as to where to go with this, because you've only proven my point on conservatives also being social justice warriors. 

    I wasn't trying to argue that morality can be used to condemn the nazis and their actions, but using the constitution in place of any moral codes, it can be shown that the nazis actions were objectively wrong. They were adamant about defying the laws of the constitution, and sought to institutionalize actions that would be criminal in the eyes of the constitution and the American people. 

    Being smug is a part of who I am. Just because I'm a tad self absorbed does not mean I think I'm in any way superior to anybody on this site, or anybody I know in the analogue world. It's only a part of my argumentative style. It adds a little personality to the words I'm writing. It gives it a certain penache. I hope you don't take it as me feeling superior to you or anybody on here, because I don't. Just in case you may have gotten the wrong idea about me, I don't consider you a nazi sympathizer, and I don't think I'm a better debater than anybody on this site, including you. I am open to different points of views, and I enjoy having thought provoking conversations with you. But I still may be a little smug from time to time.               


  • @piloteer "You've done nothing to challenge my assertion that nationalism is undeniably tied to identity, and who and who cannot be considered a true citizen."

    It's not part of the definition. I think you're thinking of "Ethno-nationalism", rather than plain nationalism. Genuinely, I've never heard someone say that a citizen is not a true citizen.

    "The government acts in accordance with social attitudes on immigration policy."

    They don't discriminate based on race or ethnicity though.

    "I'm sure there are some people on here that think the government should decide who can and can't be a true citizen, and that would be nationalism on an institutionalized basis."

    Surely that would be anyone who doesn't want open borders?

    "Nationalism has everything to do with the collective identity of a nation."

    I don't believe your definition demonstrates this. You defined nationalism as "IDENTIFICATION with one's own nation and support for its interests". I don't know what you mean by "the collective identity of a nation", do you mean the state of being a citizen? The nation's culture?

    "Conservatives also have an agenda when it comes to social justice, they just don't call it that because they hate the term, but their agenda is still social justice..."

    To be clear, the Wikipedia definition of social justice is what I'm using here. It states:
                           "Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity, and social privileges."
                                                    In other words, when women are not paid the same on average as men then social justice advocates see this as unfair, despite the fact that men work on average longer hours, take better paying degrees, work in better paid fields, etc.

    "Any strengthening of social justice standards really only serves to weaken our liberties."

    I largely agree with this point, though I'd like to know what your definition of social justice is.

    "I guess we're at square one with this part of the discussion because you've done absolutely nothing to show that you are devoid of any concept of social justice,"

    I don't think we should be measuring equality via equality of outcome, which is what the social justice advocates do. Perhaps I fit into your definition but I don't fit into Wikipedia's definition.

    "in turn you've demonstrated that you actually have a very stringent concept of social justice that goes hand and hand with the progressives interpretations of social justice."

    By all means demonstrate how.

    "using the constitution in place of any moral codes, it can be shown that the nazis actions were objectively wrong."

    Would this mean that the constitution is an objectively correct moral code?

    "...I enjoy having thought provoking conversations with you..."

    Thanks, me too.
  • @WinstonC

    You are free to make assertions about anything you'd like, but it doesn't make it correct. Identity is most certainly in the definition of nationalism, and basing your argument on whether you've never heard someone say that a citizen is not a true citizen is meaningless, because you are not the precedent of what nationalists believe. The US government has based their immigration policies on race and ethnicity in the past, why wouldn't they do it again, and why wouldn't they do it if many people in our society feel they should discriminate? I agree that people who don't want open borders can have ideas of who is and isn't a true citizen, but that viewpoint may also be a misconception of increased crime rates associated with immigrants, but yes, border wall people are usually national identity proponents. What I mean by a collective identity has to do with a "national consciousness", and those who don't adhere to that consciousness can be considered a traitor. Patriotism does mean being devoted to your nation, but nationalism has more to it than just patriotism, that's why it's being embraced by many people now. 

    So ya, I read through the Wikipedia definition of social justice, and it has no mention of being solely tied to progressivism. Other definitions point out that individuality gives way to the struggle of social justice. Anyone who believes that we must all have the same, or similar  ethical codes are social justice warriors. I feel that those among us who do not follow the laws of the constitution are not capable of living within our society, but they don't have to have the same ethical values as everybody else, or even any ethical code whatsoever. There is no law in the constitution that says we must have objective ethical codes. In fact, no such laws could be enforced anyhow, so what's the point of such ideas anyway? My definition of social justice is a belief that social ethics must be enforced. I believe that social ethics are an illusion, and the only true ethics are individual ethics. The only reason social ethics seem to be valid is because the vast majority of society believe they're real, but as the old saying goes, just because everybody is wrong, it doesn't make it right.             


        
  • @piloteer "You are free to make assertions about anything you'd like, but it doesn't make it correct. Identity is most certainly in the definition of nationalism, and basing your argument on whether you've never heard someone say that a citizen is not a true citizen is meaningless, because you are not the precedent of what nationalists believe."

    I'd consider myself a nationalist, and I swim in nationalist circles, so if it were a common idea then I would imagine that I would have heard about it. National identity is decided by citizenship, not race or ethnicity. Note that the opposite to nationalism is globalism, which the left used to vehemently oppose until recent years. I'm amazed that the idea that one should put the interests of their own country before the interests of other countries could be considered controversial. Indeed, this is what every country has done for the entirety of history. It's like how one should look after oneself before helping others.

    "The US government has based their immigration policies on race and ethnicity in the past, why wouldn't they do it again, and why wouldn't they do it if many people in our society feel they should discriminate?"

    There could at some point be such a government, sure. Given how rare ethno-nationalists seem, however, it appears unlikely at this point. Is there any data on the prevalence of ethno-nationalism in the U.S.?

    "I agree that people who don't want open borders can have ideas of who is and isn't a true citizen, but that viewpoint may also be a misconception of increased crime rates associated with immigrants, but yes, border wall people are usually national identity proponents."

    There is also the fact that billions of people want to move to the U.S. because they live in third world countries where every day is a struggle to survive. If these billions of people came to the U.S. the country would collapse under the strain placed on the infrastructure, social programs, housing etc. This is not to mention the issues of overcrowding and pollution. Therefore, for the U.S. to exist, immigration must be controlled.

    "What I mean by a collective identity has to do with a "national consciousness", and those who don't adhere to that consciousness can be considered a traitor."

    See though, I don't see any of that in your definition of nationalism. You seem to be talking about radical collectivism.

    "Patriotism does mean being devoted to your nation, but nationalism has more to it than just patriotism, that's why it's being embraced by many people now."

    If you identify as a citizen of a nation state, believe that the nation state should exist and that it should support it's interests before that of other countries then you technically are a nationalist.

    "So ya, I read through the Wikipedia definition of social justice, and it has no mention of being solely tied to progressivism."

    I didn't say it was, I said that it measured equality via equality of outcome, which means sacrificing equality of opportunity and fairness. In the U.K., for example, the previous conservative government took measures to try to achieve equality of outcome between the sexes at the expense of fairness and equality of opportunity.

    "There is no law in the constitution that says we must have objective ethical codes. In fact, no such laws could be enforced anyhow, so what's the point of such ideas anyway?"

    I'm saying that if there isn't an objective right and wrong then one cannot say that the government should do X or Y, because that is simply a subjective opinion. In other words, the claim that the government should not slaughter it's citizens is a claim that it is objectively morally wrong for a government to slaughter it's citizens.

    "My definition of social justice is a belief that social ethics must be enforced. I believe that social ethics are an illusion, and the only true ethics are individual ethics."

    I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying, in the same vein of Ayn Rand, that the government's only legitimate purpose should be to protect people's rights?

    "just because everybody is wrong, it doesn't make it right."

    100% agreed.
  • I have been using this site for not very long but already I am finding Debra AI to be a very useful tool in the development of my debating skills. The Entity Sentiment Detection feature is often bang on, I'm proud to say that my average Spelling and Grammar score is 95% and the Considerate feature is very helpful also.
    On the Political Analysis, I think it's pointless and inaccurate. It might be useful to have it in the Politics community, but elsewhere, I don't see the point. It is not necessary to know the prediction of an AI, which is wrong most of the time, of your political affiliation. My profile page says that the likely supported candidate is President Donald Trump. I don't want to have an argument with another user, but I don't live in the United States. And even if I did, I probably wouldn't support President Donald Trump. 
    In conclusion, I think that Debra AI is very useful, except for the Political Analysis, which I think is pointless.
    RS_master
  • @WinstonC

    Since when did arguing that because you're a nationalist, it makes it true that national identity isn't inherently tied to the actual definition of nationalism? People who consider themselves nationalists are not the end all, be all, to what the term nationalism means. Either you and the circle you swim in don't understand what nationalism is, or you and the other swimmers are not openly espousing that inherent aspect of nationalism, but it is there. Just saying that the identity part of nationalism simply means whoever is a legal citizen of a country, just means it's patriotism, but it's obviously not, because the two words have two separate definitions. The identity factor of nationalism plain and simply refers to who should be considered true citizens of a nation, and those factors can be based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and political affiliation. It doesn't matter what the people in your inner circle think it means.    


    From the year 1790, up until 1965, the United States had immigration policies in place that restricted immigration based on ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, mental health factors, and disability. That would mean that the majority of the time the US has existed, immigration policies were based on ethnic exclusion. Immigrants do not actually cause any kind of burden on the American economy, it's been demonstrated many times that immigrants are beneficial to the American economy, even illegal immigrants. They do pay taxes whenever they buy anything. They are the demographic that is least likely to not only be denied government assistance, but even try to receive any for themselves. Illegal immigrants can work under the table, so the farming industry relies heavily on them because regular citizens ask for to much money, and are unwilling to do the work that is required for farming. The hotel industry also relies on illegal immigrants because of the low cost of labor, and unwillingness of Americans to do the work. It seems pretty apparent that the US has had immigration policies that exclude people based on their ethnicity for the vast majority of its existence, so I fail to see how or why it won't happen again in the near future.            

    https://immigration.laws.com/national-origins-act

    https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/naturalization-acts-of-1790-and-1795/

    http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1875_page_law.html

    https://www.livescience.com/57756-1917-immigration-act-100th-anniversary.html

    https://study.com/academy/lesson/immigration-quota-system-of-1921-definition-overview.html

    https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

    https://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/439114563/americas-forgotten-history-of-mexican-american-repatriation

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-flash-deportation-migrant-mexican-0305-20170303-story.html

    You have made it clear and simple that you don't like progressive social views, not because it's  authoritative collectivism, but it's not your brand of authoritative collectivism. Our national interests are not supposed to be interpreted and applied by one political groups agendas, or somebody who doesn't understand why we have individual interests that don't fall in line with their personal feelings of what our national interests should be. Economic freedoms are clearly written in our constitution as a national interest, but yet you somehow think that goes against our national interests. How can I get on with my pursuit of happiness if my economic freedom has been trampled on by economic policies that limit the rights of America consumers? If another country can make the products cheaper, then those who demand to much for their work were supposed to lose business, and we were supposed to let them go bankrupt, even if they are American. That's how capitalism (economic freedom) works. Making the cost of living go up for everybody so we no longer are able to climb the economic ladder is called an economic caste system. That's how socialism works. Putting the interests of others at the same level of our own individual interests is not only disingenuous, it's UNAmerican, and it does go against our national interests as far as the constitution explains it. The reason the constitution puts our self interests above any collective interests is because the people who wrote it had an understanding that it's not realistic to expect people to put the interests of everybody else on the same level of their own families. They also understood that any policies that encourage collective ideals could only be applied forcefully because people will naturally put their own interests above collective interests.           

    As far as my understanding of what social justice is, I think it was clear and concise, and I mentioned nothing about what the governments only purpose is, or its role in social matters, because social justice is only a social phenomena. I do love Ayn Rands philosophy, but I don't think hers was an individualized interpretation of the constitution because the constitution clearly says that our governments only true purpose is to ensure our rights. There is nothing in the constitution that says social ethics are objective and they must be enforced. The only law that might be considered a social ethic is the one that outlaws murder, and it's really just there so we aren't allowed to kill each other and destroy our society. All the other laws were made so we can have individual ethics. 
  • Debra AI has a lot of unnecessary problems with it, and overall it's just a pointless feature that should be removed. Just simply that.
  • I check debra AI analytics mainly to check if there is any grammatical mistake in my statements. I think that Debra sucks at identifying people's political affiliations.
  • Debra, do you remember me? Tell me my political affiliation right now, bot!
  • @someone234 You were correct. I identify as a Libertarian who happens to be left-leaning. Impressive.
  • And then you were wrong! LOL!
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited September 24
    @someone234

    Haven't you heard? EVERYBODY here is a libertarian who supports trump.  Except whiteflame. 
  • @piloteer

    "Since when did arguing that because you're a nationalist, it makes it true that national identity isn't inherently tied to the actual definition of nationalism?"


    National identity is tied to nationalism, but in terms of citizenship, not in terms of race or ethnicity.

    "Just saying that the identity part of nationalism simply means whoever is a legal citizen of a country, just means it's patriotism, but it's obviously not, because the two words have two separate definitions."

    Originally I thought you were criticising the definition of nationalism as hyper-patriotism; that's why I said it's just patriotism.

    "The identity factor of nationalism plain and simply refers to who should be considered true citizens of a nation, and those factors can be based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and political affiliation."

    That's ethnonationalism or religious nationalism, which are separate phenomena. Nationalism itself is simply identifying with one's own nation rather than the world as a whole. Perhaps a good example would be that one could be a feminist or an trans-exclusionary radical feminist. What you're essentially doing is saying that nationalism is inherently ethnonationalism, so would you also say that feminism is inherently trans-exclusionary radical feminism?

    "From the year 1790, up until 1965, the United States had immigration policies in place that restricted immigration based on ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, mental health factors, and disability."

    Well thankfully they don't anymore.

    "That would mean that the majority of the time the US has existed, immigration policies were based on ethnic exclusion."

    The majority of time that democracy existed, voting policies were based on ethnic and sexual exclusion.

    "Immigrants do not actually cause any kind of burden on the American economy, it's been demonstrated many times that immigrants are beneficial to the American economy, even illegal immigrants."

    Do you think that the U.S. can open it's borders and allow the billions of people in third world countries in? Or would that put too much strain on social services and infrastructure?

    "Illegal immigrants can work under the table, so the farming industry relies heavily on them because regular citizens ask for to much money, and are unwilling to do the work that is required for farming."

    Which by the laws of supply and demand means decreasing wages.

    "It seems pretty apparent that the US has had immigration policies that exclude people based on their ethnicity for the vast majority of its existence, so I fail to see how or why it won't happen again in the near future."

    Are you also similarly afraid that the vote will be revoked from minorities and women?

    "Economic freedoms are clearly written in our constitution as a national interest, but yet you somehow think that goes against our national interests. How can I get on with my pursuit of happiness if my economic freedom has been trampled on by economic policies that limit the rights of America consumers?"

    I don't understand, are you saying that limiting immigration at all is somehow against your freedom? If you allow unlimited immigration, there are billions of people living in abject poverty that will come to the U.S. This massive population increase will cause social services to collapse and the infrastructure and housing will be insufficient to provide for the massive numbers of people. This is not to mention the massive decrease in average wages that will follow.

    "If another country can make the products cheaper, then those who demand to much for their work were supposed to lose business, and we were supposed to let them go bankrupt, even if they are American."

    So are you completely against tariffs then? Having some degree of autarky is important, because if one is completely dependent on another, they will naturally be taken advantage of.

    "Making the cost of living go up for everybody so we no longer are able to climb the economic ladder is called an economic caste system."

    Exactly, so we shouldn't allow massive influxes of people that would astronomically increase the cost of housing.

    "The reason the constitution puts our self interests above any collective interests is because the people who wrote it had an understanding that it's not realistic to expect people to put the interests of everybody else on the same level of their own families."

    Exactly, so we have no moral obligation to take anyone into our country that we do not need.

    "I do love Ayn Rands philosophy, but I don't think hers was an individualized interpretation of the constitution because the constitution clearly says that our governments only true purpose is to ensure our rights."

    That's exactly what Rand said; governments only true purpose is to ensure our rights.

    "There is nothing in the constitution that says social ethics are objective and they must be enforced."

    There isn't, but the idea that government should not kill it's citizens is an objective moral claim.
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