What is the biggest threat to the USA right now besides Covid? - 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!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate platform globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology.


DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

What is the biggest threat to the USA right now besides Covid?

Debate Information

I would have to say it is the increasing encroachment of our liberties by an increasingly large and inefficient government.
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Right now? Like right now, now?  The idea you may not see United States as unions made in legislation of law that can not only reach from state to state but from state to nation? (Opinion)
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1287 Pts   -  
    The radical right and left-wing anti-government groups that are trying to undermine democracy. The "enemy within". 

    The only reason I didn't mention the previous occupier of the White House is the number of legal organizations investigating him (and his). That should keep him somewhat constrained for a while. If he's allowed to travel freely to other countries he becomes the "enemy without". He knows too many security secrets.
    ZeusAres42Starlord616Plaffelvohfen




  • I was just thinking the same thing said in a much different way. The only time Executive officer Trump admitted to being a republican is when democrats were willing to lie on official documents presented as a recorded united state a man is President of United States without proof of ability. At least when I dictate a woman is Presadera I only presume she is a woman until her claim is made under oath she is in truth not a medical creation that looks like a woman.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    Christian Nationalism is the biggest threat to the US Constitution...
    ZeusAres42CYDdhartaAlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -   edited February 23
    Pessimism. It is so disheartening to see so many Americans just giving up on their dreams, saying, "The world is falling apart. Our country is going downhill. Life sucks. Everything is hopeless." While living in a country with the highest quality of life in the entirety of human history.

    What the hell, folks?! There are new amazing products and technologies released every year. There is a huge and interesting world to explore around you, including beyond this planet. Life is beyond amazing. We will soon have general artificial intelligence, most likely, a variety of cyberimplants, an electronic brain interface, etc. And this is the time you choose to point out an impending doom?

    Everyone is too hooked up on media, and media have a huge incentive to propagate negative stories, for various reasons. I always recommend "media detox" to everyone: try to spend a couple of months not consuming any media at all related to politics, economics, etc. Just have fun, pursue your hobbies, play games, read books, etc. Your life will never be the same after it.
    Debater123Starlord616
  • If? 
    If you think yourself my enemy it is because your actions have killed a woman I have come to know, or loved,
    If only honor thee held righteousness keeping vengeance from striking us down. If actions describe you as a woman this only affords you the grace of that honor. You shall be relieved in understanding the bullet I will relieve from my possession was to be mine, not yours. It is relinquishing to only your peers as it should be not only them that carry the weight that will come to bear.

    I'm going to be a poet when I learn English....
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    Starlord616
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Plaffelvohfen That doesn't follow since this country was founded by Christian Nationalists. I would also like to add that the atheist anti-nationalists are spearheading the abandonment of the constitution and its values.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
     this country was founded by Christian Nationalists

    Patently false...

    Debater123ZeusAres42CYDdhartaAlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    It's true, here's my reasoning:

    The founding fathers were Christians.
    And they were nationalistic/patriotic of their country.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    Combs have teeth
    Joe has teeth
    Joe is a comb...
    Debater123AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Plaffelvohfen
    A few Christian nationalists want to change the constitution...
    Therefore all of them are a threat to the constitution...
    Including the ones who made it...
    Plaffelvohfen




  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    I'd argue that by definition, Christian Nationalist want to change the Constitution, throw the original document away and rewrite another one...  

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/what-is-christian-nationalism.html
    https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/quick-to-listen/christian-nationalism-capitol-riots-trump-podcast.html

    Christian Nationalism is fundamentally anti-american...
    ZeusAres42Debater123CYDdhartaAlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "

  • I would have to say it is the increasing encroachment of our liberties by an increasingly large and inefficient government.

    Except at the moment, it is the US republicans I see making the most noise and interfering with how people go about their lives which kind of goes against what conservatism is about at the very core which is small government I.E with as minimum interference from government as possible in how people go about their lives. I am basing this mostly on the radical viewpoints I have witnessed on this forum among others such as intolerance and antipathy toward LGTB, woman's rights, race, and other political parties. 


    However, it wouldn't be fair not to mention the extreme minds of the left too that have a tendency to call all those on the right homophobic, racist, xenophobic, chauvinists, etc. I just happen to see more radicalism at the moment from the right.


    Both positions are a reflection of black and white thinking and a failure to realize that there is a huge political spectrum with billions of people around the globe sharing both liberal and conservative views. So perhaps the biggest threat could be political polarization. Understandably, overcoming these polarized mindsets is no easy task given that numerous people are strongly attached to their side and probably have been for a long time.




    PlaffelvohfenDebater123CYDdharta



  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Ah, I see where we differ here, this was the definition of Christian nationalism that you were going by:
    "Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a “Christian nation”—not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future. Scholars like Samuel Huntington have made a similar argument: that America is defined by its “Anglo-Protestant” past and that we will lose our identity and our freedom if we do not preserve our cultural inheritance." Credit to https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/what-is-christian-nationalism.html
    Although the differences seem to be more minimal than what you implied as a complete rework, they still believe in the first and second Amendments, they just want to combine the Church and the State.

    By the way, this was the definition for a 'Christian Nationalist' that I was going by:
    A nationalist who is christan.

    I still believe that Christan Nationalism seeks to change the constitution to the same extent as anti-nationalist atheists or less so than them.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 Here's the thing, most Republicans don't seek to legally restrict LGBTQ people, women, or people of different races, so therefore that doesn't mean they are encroaching on liberties.

    Whilst those on the left support the following:
    Hate speech laws.
    Gun Regulations/bans
    Increased Economic Regulation
    Increased Environmental Regulation
    And more...

    Those are just a few.
    ZeusAres42PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaAlofRI
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @Debater123

    Nationalism is patriotism turned toxic... Infuse religion into that and it's a mortal poison for any country...
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Unless the country is already theocratic!

    Nationalism is also patriotism, the two words are synonyms are they are almost exactly alike via definition.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotism Definition 1 for both.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    Debater123
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "

  • @ZeusAres42 Here's the thing, most Republicans don't seek to legally restrict LGBTQ people, women, or people of different races, so therefore that doesn't mean they are encroaching on liberties.

    Whilst those on the left support the following:
    Hate speech laws.
    Gun Regulations/bans
    Increased Economic Regulation
    Increased Environmental Regulation
    And more...

    Those are just a few.

    Have you noticed how I was able to provide a balanced and fair view of both parties where you on the other hand could only defend the right and saying nothing fair and balanced about the left? That's political polarization right there.

    Moreover:
    Here's the thing, most Republicans don't seek to legally restrict LGBTQ people, women, or people of different races, so therefore that doesn't mean they are encroaching on liberties.

    Ah, some of them just make all this noise for fun? It's not the goal of conservatism to legally restrict these things but there are still numerous self-proclaimed conservatives that are determined to demonstrate their antipathy toward these communities which of course is not conservatism; it is right-wing extremism, however; and I have been witnessing this a lot of late.

    Whilst those on the left support the following:
    Hate speech laws.
    Gun Regulations/bans
    Increased Economic Regulation
    Increased Environmental Regulation
    And more...

    1. Hate speech laws. - Generally agreed upon by both liberals and conservatives. It's the suppression of free speech that is a leftist goal and a valid criticism.
    2. Gun Regulations/bans - Gun Regulations generally agreed upon by both liberals and conservatives. Some countries do differ in their restriction, however. A lot of those on the left want blanket gun bans while a lot of those on right want no gun control at all.
    3. Increased Economic Regulation - Not entirely sure what is meant here. If economic growth is being referenced then that is something both parties want. If tax is meant by this then it is true that the left wants more tax than the right.
    4. Increased Environmental Regulation - Generally agreed upon by parties, in some countries more than others.

    In any case, these are things that are not warranted as being called the biggest threat to the US. I'm not even sure I would call polarization the biggest threat although it is a big issue at the moment in the US. Some people seem more attached to their political parties than they are to their spouses.



    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaDebater123



  • Starlord616Starlord616 330 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
     While living in a country with the highest quality of life in the entirety of human history.


    where did you find this information?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    1: I have yet to meet a republican that wants to legally restrict the rights of gays.

    2: 
    A. Suppression of hate speech is the suppression of free speech, and by the way, the right is completely against the suppression of 'hate speech'.
    B. I should've put more regulation in my statement, and the right doesn't support a total gun ban.
    C. Economic regulation is the restriction of freedom in a market(more rules).
    D. It isn't generally agreed on by both parties... look at the Trump presidency and then to the Biden/Obama one, I have all the evidence there.

    3: Polarization is the result of the conflict over our rights, one side wants to limit them, and the other wants to conserve them.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42




  • @ZeusAres42
    1: I have yet to meet a republican that wants to legally restrict the rights of gays.


    I am just going to repeat one of my previous responses here as this has already been addressed:

    "It's not the goal of conservatism to legally restrict these things but there are still numerous self-proclaimed conservatives that are determined to demonstrate their antipathy toward these communities which of course, is not conservatism; it is right-wing extremism, however; and I have been witnessing this a lot of late."

    There is nothing in that statement above that either says or implies that It is the goal of conservatives to restrict those things. Also, there are few people here on this forum among many others that call themselves republicans that would happily see those rights restricted.


    2: 
    A. Suppression of hate speech is the suppression of free speech, and by the way, the right is completely against the suppression of 'hate speech'.

    Hate speech is not free speech. I think your issue here is conflating liberty with license. Freedom of speech is liberty; not a license. It is true that the left, especially the far left would happily see all free speech suppressed. Liberals on the other hand while also left-wing are just for free speech as are conservatives.

    B. I should've put more regulation in my statement, and the right doesn't support a total gun ban.

    You are correct that the right doesn't support a total gun ban. But they also don't support an abandonment of gun regulation just like many liberals.


    C. Economic regulation is the restriction of freedom in a market(more rules).

    It is true that economic regulation is also a leftist goal. However, this sentence doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It's like you've just said that laws regarding the economy are designed to restrict freedom in a market.

    D. It isn't generally agreed on by both parties... look at the Trump presidency and then to the Biden/Obama one, I have all the evidence there.


    I am aware of the current environmental regulations of the US. That does not mean that most liberals and conservatives are not in agreement with it. Just look at the Paris Agreement; I have all the evidence there. That being said, environmental regulation is a left-wing goal that conservative parties in numerous countries later adopted.

    3: Polarization is the result of the conflict over our rights, one side wants to limit them, and the other wants to conserve them.
    What you have just said here is no different than saying "my political side wants to conserve our rights while the other political side wants to restrict them which ironically is political polarization in itself on your part. Political polarization is a reflection of black and white thinking: AKA Splitting which is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism. The individual tends to think in extremes.

    Btw, the above is in no way a personal attack on your being. :)


    Debater123



  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -   edited February 23
    @ZeusAres42
    1: Then I don't know why you would say that, since it doesn't tie back into your claim of republicans being more authoritarian than democrats. Republicans nowadays only really feel antipathy towards the LGBTQ+ community, and since that's not through the government, but through a societal measure, which isn't authoritarian.


    2:
    A. Hate speech is free speech, this is the wiki def of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech:

    "Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term freedom of expression is usually used synonymously but, in the legal sense, includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."

    I'd also like to add that hate speech is literally any speech that offends another person, and can therefore be any speech.

    B. It was implied that the left or a large part of it in America supports a gun ban... Furthermore, the right supports far less regulation than the Democrats, therefore making them less authoritarian.
    C. The sentence was a response to your confusion on what I meant by economic regulation.

    D. Again, Democrats support far more than Republicans on environmental regulation, I think you missed what I said, I am not suggesting republicans completely abandon regulation in this field, but simply support less regulation than the democrats


    3: I am not denying I am not subjected to the effect of the current polarization in the United States.

    I also noticed you said I committed a fallacy via reactions, which one was it?
  • piloteerpiloteer 1222 Pts   -  
    Are you really going to cite one of those quality of life "studies" as some kind of objective proof? First, we would ALL need to accept the terms of what "quality" actually is as an objective and static notion. I don't know you personally, but I'm willing to bet that my view of quality differs from yours. Next, we would have to accept that what constitutes quality is universally accepted globally. I've never been to Norway or New Zealand, but if those countries consider the quality of life to be a matter of "collective happiness", then it's nothing I'm interested in. I'd rather have more economic freedoms to allow me to pursue my own happiness rather than a collective economic system in order to achieve "collective happiness"(If there is such a thing). Since my individual happiness is infinitely more important to me than "collective happiness", then statistics on the economic well being of others who reside in my country do not concern me. It's an utterly moot statistic for me.

    The only statistic in those "studies" that would be accepted as important to the quality of life in other countries that I myself would accept (speaking on behalf of myself, not my country) is our environmental quality. ALL other statistics are a moot point with me. I live in a country that doesn't seek to stop people from getting access to quality healthcare, education, a living wage, and any other supposed rights that are not specifically spelled out in the constitution. And so long as our government doesn't stop people from obtaining those things is good enough for me.

    Asserting that because my government does not specifically seek to ensure quality healthcare, education, or a living wage for everybody because they should be considered to be packed in with all the other liberties espoused in the constitution, is an assertion that my individual happiness is of no value in the face of collective happiness. That would seriously hinder my pursuit of happiness because it represents an oppression of my economic liberty and my right to private property. Where's the quality in that? Quality is not a static objective notion that can be deciphered by a sociologists "study". That is especially demonstrated by the fact that sociology is not even a valid science like psychology or physics.         
    Debater123Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    I find it symptomatic that, instead of commenting on my overall message, people chose instead to pick on the subjective assessment of quality of life that was not the point at all. It shows just how deeply negative thinking has become imbedded in minds of people: they always find something to downgrade, something to say against an optimistic statement, regardless of the context.

    Life is awesome, folks! Grab it by the scalp and enjoy it! Do not be grumpy old Cicero saying, "Oh the times, oh the customs", with a frowned expression! A lot of amazing things are coming up, in addition to those that have already come about. :) It is time to celebrate!
    piloteer
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 1750 Pts   -   edited February 23


    I also noticed you said I committed a fallacy via reactions, which one was it?
    I am getting tired now as I didn't get much sleep last night. So I will get back to your previous points another time but your fallacies include the following:

    Those are just a few of the fallacies you made. If you think I am wrong and want to know if I have made any fallacies feel free to ask away here:







  • I see the lack of understanding of what is a United State has not changed much as the threat of the moment.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1222 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    I find it symptomatic that, instead of commenting on my overall message, people chose instead to pick on the subjective assessment of quality of life that was not the point at all. It shows just how deeply negative thinking has become imbedded in minds of people: they always find something to downgrade, something to say against an optimistic statement, regardless of the context.

    Life is awesome, folks! Grab it by the scalp and enjoy it! Do not be grumpy old Cicero saying, "Oh the times, oh the customs", with a frowned expression! A lot of amazing things are coming up, in addition to those that have already come about. :) It is time to celebrate!
    As I get older, it's becoming exceedingly difficult to grab me by my scalp because I'm rapidly balding. You'll be far better off by grabbing me by my belt though. You can grab me by the belt anytime big boi. ;)  
    MayCaesar
  • piloteer said:
    MayCaesar said:
    I find it symptomatic that, instead of commenting on my overall message, people chose instead to pick on the subjective assessment of quality of life that was not the point at all. It shows just how deeply negative thinking has become imbedded in minds of people: they always find something to downgrade, something to say against an optimistic statement, regardless of the context.

    Life is awesome, folks! Grab it by the scalp and enjoy it! Do not be grumpy old Cicero saying, "Oh the times, oh the customs", with a frowned expression! A lot of amazing things are coming up, in addition to those that have already come about. :) It is time to celebrate!
    As I get older, it's becoming exceedingly difficult to grab me by my scalp because I'm rapidly balding. You'll be far better off by grabbing me by my belt though. You can grab me by the belt anytime big boi. ;)  

    Yeah, you can even take his belt off and spank him with it. ;)
    MayCaesar



  • anarchist100anarchist100 332 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    Well this all depends on what you consider to be the USA.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 Why do you consider I made those fallacies?


    @anarchist100 What is going on with the Nation, politics, society, environment, technology, etc...




  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Objective proof? lol

    I said the data didn't support the claim, and that it was a myth... Do you have other studies?

    Regarding the obvious subjectivity of the subject and those studies... You realize that social research are not about individuals but groups, right? Whether you or I differ in opinion doesn't matter, there is no "proof" to be had, only data... The larger the data pool, the more accurate are the emerging patterns...  We're not talking about political surveys with 589 participants... Many studies have been ongoing for decades... The patterns are valid assessments of subjective group values... It's the basis of Marketing...  Markets are really just fields of subjective values... The Waltons, Bezos, Zucherberg, and every single big business out there all make very good use of such social studies... 
    ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "

  • 1: I have yet to meet a republican that wants to legally restrict the rights of gays.


    Strawman, selective attention.


    2: 
    A. Suppression of hate speech is the suppression of free speech, and by the way, the right is completely against the suppression of 'hate speech'.

    Equivocation/conflation


    C. Economic regulation is the restriction of freedom in a market(more rules).

    nonsensical, possibly a non-sequitur.


    D. It isn't generally agreed on by both parties... look at the Trump presidency and then to the Biden/Obama one, I have all the evidence there.

    Hasty Generalization/ Anecdotal


    3: Polarization is the result of the conflict over our rights, one side wants to limit them, and the other wants to conserve them.

    Factually incorrect as well Definist fallacy, and black and white thinking which is more of a cognitive bias than a fallacy.






    Debater123Plaffelvohfen



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    In marketing, such studies have objective purpose: to increase profits. A study that just provides a list of indexes that have no practical applications is useless there.

    These studies are similarly useless. Worlddata lists Australia above the US, yet in Australia everyone seems to be talking about how much better life in the US is, while in the US everyone seems to be talking about how much better life in Australia is. So what exactly does this index represent? It certainly is not something tangible.

    Something more tangible and objective, something like the average disposable income, is a better indicator (although not perfect by any measure). And OECD ranks the US as #1 here, with Australia being #6. You can compare the disposable income of different countries in a meaningful way. Comparing abstract index values comprised of 38 different metrics? That is a much more abstract analysis, with much less clear results.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Your entire original comment was a subjective assessment of the world you live in, just saying... 

    I do share your technological optimism though, Carpe Diem always!! Even in all its subjectivity... ;) 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Fair objection. I think that this is one of those cases where the statement should be taken in a proper context, but I concede the point. ;)
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -   edited February 24
    @ZeusAres42
    1: How was that a strawman? What did I take out of context? I also responded to your argument in the entirety or nearly so.

    2: What was evasive about my question, what parts did I avoid? You say I am conflating hate speech and free speech, yet they are the same, I cannot combine something which has already been combined.

    3: How was it nonsensical? I was responding to what you said, if what I said was nonsensical then what you said must be nonsensical as well.

    4: What anecdote did I give? I didn't base my claim on that, I was just using it as an example.

    5: What is factually incorrect, and I never defined anything, so I could not have committed a definite fallacy.

    I also would like you to respond to the rest of what you said, given you completely avoided the rest of my argument, claiming you were "tired" and "So I will get back to your previous points another time" yet you apparently found time to go after this point, rather than the rest of my argument, this is why I accuse you of doing a very obvious selective fallacy.

  • Chill your ego. I have removed the fallacy reaction from your last post just to show you some mercy. But by all means, call all of my posts fallacies if you wish. That's not to say I don't make any; I make a fair amount too. I am human after all. 
    Debater123



  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Those studies do have an objective purpose... To assess subjective group values, whatever they may be. 

    I understand you see the world through economical and transactional lenses, that you a priori reject most social notions, and that this view defines you in a lot of ways (and restricts you too I'd opine), I'd also argue you're part of a small minority... And it is still a subjective view, like everyone else's... 
    ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3702 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Well, not quite. I have nothing against describing general social trends. I just do not see these indexes as a proper way of doing so, because they do not have any real practical applications that would make them falsifiable or not falsifiable. It is different on the market: if your index or some other type of model is incorrect, then it will produce incorrect predictions, and your profits will objectively suffer.

    What would be a way to verify the "quality" of these indexes? The best anyone has ever come up with was to go to different countries and ask large numbers of people in each whether they are happy with their lives. But, considering how many factors other than the general quality of life come into equation in these responses, the index predictions are never verified. For one, for example, in North Korea absolutely everyone will tell you that they are happy and satisfied with their lives!
  • anarchist100anarchist100 332 Pts   -  
    @Debater123
    Interesting, so would a group opposing the government, or advocating revolt count as a threat to America?




  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 Depends on what context.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1222 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    MayCaesar said:
    I find it symptomatic that, instead of commenting on my overall message, people chose instead to pick on the subjective assessment of quality of life that was not the point at all. It shows just how deeply negative thinking has become imbedded in minds of people: they always find something to downgrade, something to say against an optimistic statement, regardless of the context.

    Life is awesome, folks! Grab it by the scalp and enjoy it! Do not be grumpy old Cicero saying, "Oh the times, oh the customs", with a frowned expression! A lot of amazing things are coming up, in addition to those that have already come about. :) It is time to celebrate!
    As I get older, it's becoming exceedingly difficult to grab me by my scalp because I'm rapidly balding. You'll be far better off by grabbing me by my belt though. You can grab me by the belt anytime big boi. ;)  

    Yeah, you can even take his belt off and spank him with it. ;)
    Oh Geez, it's gonna be that kinda party huh? :p
    MayCaesarZeusAres42
  • EponEpon 4 Pts   -  
    How people approach politics and the current political situation.
    Debater123
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 1750 Pts   -   edited February 24

    I do think there is less polarization in the UK in comparison to the The USA as well as lots of other countries. While Tony Blair is by no means faultless he did revolutionize the parliament in the UK when he was in power. He created this middle road so the private sector was free to continue to operate however they wanted. One example of this is with health care; people can either choose private health care or choose the NHS. This way both the left and right are happy as no side can be accused of infringing on what the other wants. This is an example of the opposite of political polarization btw. Before Tony Blair, we had an endless amount of leaders wanting to either privatize everything or universalize everything. In this respect, I do think the UK is a little more politically evolved than the US.

    I have never seen any kind of middle road being done in the USA. It's like there is still an endless amount of leaders wanting to completely undo everything the other leader has done. At least that is the picture they portray to the public anyway; who knows what goes on behind the scenes? It has been said that in the UK at least when one party is in power that they will at times endorse policies presented by the other party although they hardly ever admit to doing this.



  • piloteerpiloteer 1222 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Objective proof? lol

    I said the data didn't support the claim, and that it was a myth... Do you have other studies?

    Regarding the obvious subjectivity of the subject and those studies... You realize that social research are not about individuals but groups, right? Whether you or I differ in opinion doesn't matter, there is no "proof" to be had, only data... The larger the data pool, the more accurate are the emerging patterns...  We're not talking about political surveys with 589 participants... Many studies have been ongoing for decades... The patterns are valid assessments of subjective group values... It's the basis of Marketing...  Markets are really just fields of subjective values... The Waltons, Bezos, Zucherberg, and every single big business out there all make very good use of such social studies... 
    Where's the proof that these studies are capable of exposing anything other than false pattern recognition, or that the concept of quality is static? Social data is useful as a means to keep a hand on the pulse of consumer attitudes, but that doesn't validate sociology as any kind of true science that can specifically lay out how quality is homogenized and objectively applied to all human beings globally. I do not have any sociology studies to fortify my claims because I try to never cite pseudoscientific articles to legitimize my assertions. If and when a sociology study can objectively predict the next president of the US, or give an exact date for the next stock market meltdown, then I'll certainly take a different view of sociology. But a valid science can predict a specific outcome when specific qualities are in motion are applied. Sociology cannot. I will happily concede there are very useful qualities of sociology just as history and journalism, but sociology farted in the elevator when all the sciences were in there. Science is not the proper categorization of sociology. 

    Regardless of the size of the data pool, the problem of your universal concept of quality is really the biggest hurdle for your argument to mount. What those (so called) studies elude to is the idea that our quality of life is a one size fits all glove, and the countries at the top of that list have the best pair of gloves. Some countries have a stronger sense of collectivism, and that's their choice, but in the country I live in, huge potions of the population would find that to be intrusive, thus bringing down their quality of life. One list the US is prominently put in the higher echelon is the percentage of money that we donate to others. Although others may not realize it, the US is one of the most charitable countries in the world. Our vision of a good quality of life is being allowed to keep more of our money so we actually do charitable deeds out of a genuine love and care for our fellow humans rather than charity that is enforced by law.   

        
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1222 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    It is my belief that the deterioration of the environment is not only more of a threat than covid 19, I also believe it is the number one threat to all nations. 
    Debater123
  • @ZeusAres42
    1: Then I don't know why you would say that, since it doesn't tie back into your claim of republicans being more authoritarian than democrats.


    I never said that, nor implied it. I have no idea where this response is coming from. Would you mind quoting exactly where I said Republicans are more authoritarian than democrats?

    Republicans nowadays only really feel antipathy towards the LGBTQ+ community, and since that's not through the government, but through a societal measure, which isn't authoritarian.
    Again, what I actually said was it was not in the interest of conservatism to be against LGTB and other communities; that is more right-wing extremism. If you read this carefully you will hopefully realize that I am actually defending conservatism here.

    2:
    A. Hate speech is free speech, this is the wiki def of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech:

    "Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term freedom of expression is usually used synonymously but, in the legal sense, includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."

    I'd also like to add that hate speech is literally any speech that offends another person, and can therefore be any speech.

    I am aware of the definition of free speech. Again, this is a conflation of liberty with license. Liberty is not a license to say whatever you want and to whom you want.   Hate speech is a hate crime that ultimately leads to a chaotic and unstable environment. https://www.theodysseyonline.com/what-are-liberty-and-license. FYI, hate speech is not a conservative goal. And just because the left is against it does not equate to the right being for it.

    B. It was implied that the left or a large part of it in America supports a gun ban... Furthermore, the right supports far less regulation than the Democrats, therefore making them less authoritarian.

    In the USA perhaps but not on a global scale. Globally speaking Some liberals also want little gun control while some conservatives want stricter control. I am not sure where you would put gun control on the political spectrum. Nonetheless, it is still true that neither conservatives nor liberals want an abandonment of gun control altogether at least generally. The extreme right would happily see no control at all perhaps and the extreme left would happily see all guns banned.

    C. The sentence was a response to your confusion on what I meant by economic regulation.

    Fair enough.

    D. Again, Democrats support far more than Republicans on environmental regulation, I think you missed what I said, I am not suggesting republicans completely abandon regulation in this field, but simply support less regulation than the democrats

    I don't think I missed what you said. It's just now that you've elaborated on what you said and I agree with you that this does appear to be the case, at least within the US.

    3: I am not denying I am not subjected to the effect of the current polarization in the United States.

    Fair enough.

    I also noticed you said I committed a fallacy via reactions, which one was it?
    I am going to stop using the fallacy reaction for the time being as I feel you might be taking this personally and I don't really want to get into a debate about fallacies.




  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    1: "Except at the moment, it is the US republicans I see making the most noise and interfering with how people go about their lives"

    2: Hate speech isn't a hate crime, no crimes are committed in the act of offending someone. I never said the right is for hate speech, no one is for truly offensive speech, "Although I may disagree with what you say, I while fight to the death for your right to say it."

    3: Are we not talking about just the USA and nothing beyond it? The outside world was not important in debate talk as far as I understood.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch