Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons! is the largest online debate website globally 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 on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.

Whenever somebody says it’s time to heal and move on, should we?

Debate Information


We DESTROYED Nazism.  We DESTROYED Japanese imperialism.  For the most part, those ideologies are DEAD.  However, instead of DESTROYING the slaveholder philosophy after the south LOST,  we LET them keep it.

I suggest that the problems we're experiencing TODAY are a direct result of not DESTROYING them when we could. 

The U.S. "moved on" from Reconstruction, thereby inflicting freed slaves with 100 years of Jim Crow.
The U.S. "moved on" from fascism after WW II.  Yet TODAY, 75 years later, fascism is once again, being inflicted upon the world. 

"Moving on" doesn't work.  It's time for DESTROYING our enemy once and for all..


Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +

Post Argument Now Debate Details +


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    "Healing and moving on" is about personal attitude, not about ignoring the horrors of the world. When someone is destroying your home, "healing and moving on" is not an option - however, once your home is destroyed, you can live your life constantly thinking about it, stuck in the perpetual loop of painful memories that overshadow any joy that you could possibly have... or you can move on, open the next page of the book of your life and never look back.

    In the US, for instance, slavery happened; Jim Crow laws happened. One option you have is to constantly think and talk about them, constantly blow the issue of racism today out of proportion, et cetera - then you get the current mess, with race-based college admissions, racial quotas all over the place, riots every time someone of the "oppressed race" gets killed by a rogue police officer, and moral police watching your every word and hitting you in the face as soon as you say something even remotely sensitive. Another option is to just live your own life in the amazing modern world, not think about other people's or your own race, treat everyone with dignity and respect, enjoy your life and make something amazing out of it.

    There are two countries: North Korea and South Korea. North-Koreans live and breathe the memory of being bombarded by Americans: it is at this point their national identity, being the last bastion of hope against the evil American imperialist regime. South-Koreans, on the other hand, said at some point, "Guys, all this saltiness is good and well, but we have to modernize and become a part of the prosperous international community - and leave the past to the history books". Guess which Korea is the one that constantly produces the technology that makes me and you being able to converse like this, and which only produces outdated equipment having the sole purpose of killing other humans and destroying their property.

    "Moving on" absolutely works wonders, as long as you are "moving on" in a reasonable way, and not in the "head in the sand" way.
  • jackjack 81 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:

    racial quotas all over the place, riots every time someone of the "oppressed race" gets killed by a rogue police officer, and moral police watching your every word and hitting you in the face as soon as you say something even remotely sensitive.
    Hello again, May:

    What came first - racists, or racism??

    I'd pick racists..  My bet is you'd pick racism..  I know you don't like brevity, but give it a shot.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  

    I have no problem with brevity, jack. I simply do not see the point of posting a chat-style response on a debate website - but to each their own.

    To your question, racism can only exist if racists exist, and vice-versa, by definition - therefore asking which came first makes little sense.

    Happy Thanksgiving!
  • NoUsernameNoUsername 15 Pts   -   edited November 27
    Argument Topic: Moving on does work. Moving on by "Destroying an enemy" is open door to destroying one's very own self

    Is your question "whenever somebody says its to time to heal, should we?" or "moving on doesnt work, should we destroy our enemy once for all?"
    If it is the latter, then I understand the question as "in order to heal, moving on doesnt work so do we need to destroy"?

    First, what does we imply by "in order to heal, we need to move on"?

    By to "heal", we understand to cure or stop a pain.
    So there must be something/someone that inflicts a pain.
    A pain is generated from a source that we can sometimes influence, and sometimes not.

    We can suffer pain from death, yet we cannot influence death. Then, the options to "heal" are somewhat limited and one may either:
    - accept the fact that the person is dead, digest it fully
    - reject the idea that the person is dead and be stuck in an alternate mental reality which will bring depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, angerness etc

    When the pain is generated by a source we can influence, more options are available:
    - ignore it like an ostrich
    - accept it/refuse it in silence
    In these 2 previous options, most people tend to play the victim and complain about the pain without doing nothing to stop it
    - accept it through a conscious action (for example when one forgives someone else)
    - reject it

    There are many ways to reject something or someone. Yet, they all require to take an action; to fight either mentally or physically against something or someone.
    For example, we may take action to get out of a depression by meeting new people, stop our addictions, cut with toxic people. All these require to take action against something or someone.

    Or for example, it may involve to defend oneself by physical force or to attack someone/something to prevent harm (rising against a law or else).

    So we now understand that in order to heal, moving on requires to accept what we cannot influence such as fate but to take action against what/who brings the pain.
    But does healing by moving on necessarily implies that the taken action is just and fair?

    Your underlying question was, "moving on doesnt work so we need to destroy completely."
    Destroying also implies to take action (an extreme one). So your assertion is "in order to heal we must destroy completely", then what does it mean to "destroy"?

    You mentionned the destruction of past enemies:
    However, Nazism has never been destroyed. Very few things are destroyed actually.
    They are just made quiet, minimized, deplaced. For the case of nazis, it was to everybody's knowledge at that time that it was still alive and that the officers were fleeing to other countries, such as in the US or in the south american continent.

    Thus, "destruction" may not be an action that can fully and permanently stop a person or an injustice.

    Also, why should some believe they have the "right" to destroy something/someone that they call an "enemy"?

    Is your enemy necessarily mine or mine yours?

    If you have an "enemy" then it also makes you an enemy (of that person).
    Then, who would be more entitled to "destroy" the other?
    Each one of you would be persuaded to have justice and fairness on his side.

    For example, you mentionned nazism: the "french resistants" were THE enemy. They were the enemies of the nazis and the enemy of the french government of Vichy and so, of the whole nation.
    They would use terrorist actions such as bombings of railroads or killings. They were viewed as terrorists enemies who had to be destroyed. Yet, while they were "enemies", were they wrong to be so?

    Nope. As you see, an "enemy" may be so for a fair and just cause which benefits the common good.

    This is why, mankind as a whole would need to decide who is/what is an enemy.

    For that to happen, we would have to define what is "evil", meaning, what is the main force that prevent/destroy collective well being and common good of humanity (and not just the common good of some part of the world..).

    Then, and only then, we may identify the "enemy".

    Yet, unfortunately, the "enemy" would be hardly destroyable because to do so, this would require from mankind to collectively take action to heal from his situation; which takes us back to what I mention earlier: most are not ready to fight and would rather choose the 2 first options (ignore or accept the situation in silence and play the victims).

    So, my answer is YES to the question "whenever somebody says its to time to heal, should we?": otherwise, let's accept and bear the consequences of our idleness without playing the victim;


    NO to the question "moving on doesnt work, should we destroy our enemy once for all?" since, in order to heal pain or injustice, moving on requires to take action against a collective enemy for the common good of mankind.
    Failing to respect these conditions would then, justly and fairly, make one the enemy of all that would need to be destroyed.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021, all rights reserved. | 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch