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 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.





If authoritarians take over, what will be the FIRST thing they get rid of?

Debate Information

Hello:

Guns, or the Press?

excon



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @jack
    If authoritarians take over

    Hello dunce.

    Do you live in a cave?

  • BarnardotBarnardot 530 Pts   -  
    @jack This is a very good topic because I think they need to get rid of the conspiracy theories who try to stir up society and make up big stories like no one laned on the moon and that COVID was all done by the government to kill its own people. Then we need to brake up all the hippie camps and get them working on army and air forces basis cleaning the bathrooms. But the one thing there got to be care full about is making the red necks think that there going to rule ok because they never will and even if they try it wont work because there so thick in the head that they keep bumping into things and braking them and any way they would spend to much time going around in there mat black rams with giant lights on top and shooting all the animals that move on the road side.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 530 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;We literally celebrate the gunpowder conspiracy plot on November 5th every year in the UK 

    Thats not a conspiracy theory. Guy Fox tried to blow up the parliament fact and no conspiracy 


    Operation Northwoods was a proposal like the other proposals that they had because they all got together to come up with proposals so that JFK could pick one so its not a conspiracy theory

    Gulf of Tonkin incident was an incident not a conspiracy theory oh well funny about that

    MK Ultra was a human experiment program and not a conspiracy theory

    Cointelpro was a series of projects and undercover stuff that the FBI did because thats there job they work under cover so theres no conspiracy theory there ether.

    Zersetzung was a psycho war fair program and because it was under cover doesn't have make it a conspiracy theory does it no it doesnt

    Watergate was spying and braking into a building and got tapes because tricky dicky recorded every thing so how was that a conspiracy theory it wasn't was it

    The Dreyfus Affair all holly wood actors have afairs so what and when he made it big in American Grafeeti of course he had all those chicks falling on his feet so there was no conspiracy theory there either.

    The burning of the Reichstag. was not a conspiracy theory it happened when the bolshies burnt the building so what conspiracy theory was there there like der nothing.

    The Astronoughts not landing on the moon is a conspiracy theory and the government bombing the WTC is a conspiracy theory and the chips in vaccines is a conspiracy theory  because there all made up by wakey dill heads who are Exstream and think that the government and big companies do bad things to every one because they have power and when these wakey dill heads were little there moms didn't gives them mothers milk and there dads beet the mess out of them so they became wired at school and rejected authority and there for doesn't trust any authority so they make up dum stories all the time about how the authorities are out to get every one and that they want to control them.


  • The first thing they get rid of / ignore is United States Constitutional guidelines........

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @Barnardot
    Thats not a conspiracy theory

    Right Barnie. I get it. Conspiracies don't exist because every documented conspiracy wasn't a conspiracy. You are a moron, buddy. 

    10 Conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot

    https://www.historyhit.com/conspirators-in-the-gunpowder-plot/

    True story behind Gunpowder Plot and its conspirators 

    https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/true-story-behind-gunpowder-plot-and-its-conspirators/news

  • BarnardotBarnardot 530 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature Well if your going to get your info from a mikey mouse comic then of course your going to think mikey mouse baloney any way Any way the thing is your trying to mix up conspirators with conspiracy theories which was the point that I all ready pointed out but for some funny reason you must have not red it. Funny about that I reckon. Were talking about conspiracy theories and Guy Fox wasn't one but wtc was one because it was total dog mess baloney that exstreamists made up.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @Barnardot
    if your going to get your info from a mikey mouse comic then of course your going to think mikey mouse baloney 

    Conspiracies happen Barnie. That's simply a fact. It is also a fact that you live in a country largely populated by brainwashed imbeciles, who have been convinced to laugh at their own tyranny. 

  • uertuert 7 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Conspiracy theories can turn out to be true and simultaneously a horrible way to form beliefs about reality. Now, even though determining whether something is or isn't a conspiracy theory is a little pedantic in my opinion, conspiratorial thinking is usually indicative of one or more of the following:

    1. Correlation = Causation claims
    Let's imagine a hypothetical conspiracy theory that says something along the lines of "Obama's presidency is a direct factor in the economic collapse of 2008" and I provide "evidence" which shows a nice plot of Obama's name relevance in the news and the strength of the US economy from 2007-2011 very closely correlated. Is that a good reason to believe the conspiracy? No! As we know now, the financial collapse of 2008 was a product of a housing bubble fueled by tacitly corrupt subprime mortgage schemes and a lack of fiscal regulation spanning years by then. Obama's relevance as a politician is completely irrelevant- and yet- an incredible amount of "Thanks Obama" republicans still blame him for mass layoffs during that time. Conspiratorial thinking justifies their thought process.

    2. Spurious Correlation
    Qanon members (a notorious modern conspiracy) have made claims that events like the Titanic sinking, Biden's campaign phone number, and the fact that Hillary won the popular vote are all co-aligned with the express purpose to cover a pedophilia / adrenochrome absorption scheme laid out by liberal leaders tracing back thousands of years. This is due to a myriad of factors from coincidental numerical associate to blatantly racist appeals to closet bigots transmitted via Facebook meme. Statistical literacy in the realm of conspiratorial thinking is a farce.

    3. Science Denialism En Masse
    A healthy dose of skepticism with regards to science is always beneficial to societal well-being (think crackpot Wakefield vaccines lead to autism study), but for conspiratorial thought to persist on topics like the moon landing, flat earth, etc. it requires a level of institutional distrust that is unhealthy for any rational actor to form a truly informed opinion, because it's literally impossible to be an expert in everything. Being able to have confidence in the scientific institutions we have established is critical to claims about much of what drives the modern world (bio, tech, econ, chem, etc.)

    Because of those issues, I tend to vehemently despise defense of conspiratorial thought -- even via hindsight (which is what you are attempting to do) because clearly that method of truth acquisition is horrible. Instead, we should use odd coincidences / correlations as springboards to launch genuine evidence collection and investigatory processes-- similar to how a scientist would first require testing a hypothesis before believing it.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @uert
    conspiratorial thinking is usually indicative of one or more of the following

    There's no such thing as "conspiratorial thinking". It's a term which somebody literally made up and has chosen to falsely associate with the very real fallacies you listed. I wish you were capable of understanding that nonsensical terminology like "conspiratorial thinking" is manufactured propaganda purposed to stop you questioning anything shoved down your throat by the mainstream western media. 

    Let's imagine a hypothetical conspiracy theory that says something along the lines of "Obama's presidency is a direct factor in the economic collapse of 2008" 

    That isn't a conspiracy theory. There are no conspirators.

    Qanon members (a notorious modern conspiracy) have made claims that events like the Titanic sinking, Biden's campaign phone number, and the fact that Hillary won the popular vote are all co-aligned with the express purpose to cover a pedophilia / adrenochrome absorption scheme laid out by liberal leaders tracing back thousands of years.

    And you are claiming to speak for what Qanon members believe, without actually being part of Qanon. If you aren't committing a textbook strawman fallacy, then at the very least you are generalising the views of some people and associating them with thousands of other people on the grounds that they are all part of the same group. That's the same fallacious thinking which the Nazis used.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited April 2023

    There's no such thing as "conspiratorial thinking". It's a term which somebody literally made up and has chosen to falsely associate with the very real fallacies you listed. I wish you were capable of understanding that nonsensical terminology like "conspiratorial thinking" is manufactured propaganda purposed to stop you questioning anything shoved down your throat by the mainstream western media. 

    Would I be wrong in say it is an oxymoron and not something that does not exist as much as it is a contradiction of terms forced together?


  • uertuert 7 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Very lovely response. Full of good faith arguments like "If you aren't in Qanon, how could you know what they believe?" and "There is no such thing as conspiratorial thinking - that's just what they want you to believe."
    There's no such thing as "conspiratorial thinking". It's a term which somebody literally made up and has chosen to falsely associate with the very real fallacies you listed. I wish you were capable of understanding that nonsensical terminology like "conspiratorial thinking" is manufactured propaganda purposed to stop you questioning anything shoved down your throat by the mainstream western media.

    My statement, very clearly, was an attempt to define conspiratorial thinking. Your claim that I'm falsely associating those fallacies with that term, is equivalent to saying that Merriam Webster falsely associates the word "gender" with "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" simply because you don't think the word sounds right in that definition. The fact of the matter is that some people produce all of their knowledge through the lens of those fallacious ways of thinking - which is what I'm defining as conspiratorial thought for the sake of this convo. I don't ever rely on a media influenced definition.

    In addition, I very graciously added the extra sentence at the end of my first response to explicitly indicate that conspiracy does have a place in questioning systems of power, you just shouldn't take the hypothesis formed fallaciously to be the ultimate conclusion - like all science does. Do you disagree with this notion? Do you like making conclusions based on these fallacious ways of thinking? I notice you leave this part of my statement out of your response...

     That isn't a conspiracy theory. There are no conspirators.

    Wow. There are no conspirators to my hypothetical conspiracy? What a shocker... If you could imagine a conspiracy (i.e. a group of people conspiring to believe that Obama caused the 2008 financial crisis) it would help your understanding of my point.

    And you are claiming to speak for what Qanon members believe, without actually being part of Qanon. If you aren't committing a textbook strawman fallacy, then at the very least you are generalising the views of some people and associating them with thousands of other people on the grounds that they are all part of the same group.

    I never once said that all Qanon members share that belief - simply that the claim has been made by members of that group. If you disbelieve me, I think a bunch of the Qanon philosophy gets outlined in the wonderful YouTube documentary "In Search of Flat Earth." That includes descriptions of the claims I made. If you would like, I could link the claims made by Qanon? They are not hard to find though.

    That's the same fallacious thinking which the Nazis used.

    This is ridiculous for three main reasons.

    Firstly, Nazis were some of the largest conspirators of all time believing in, from the top of my head, phrenology (head size classification), eugenics (holocaust), twin telepathy (twin experiments), semitic world domination (of course), and science denialism (academic persecution / book burning). The Nazi ideology is certainly entirely incompatible with my world view.

    Secondly, I'm (barely) classifying a group of people, but even so, I'm doing it based on their chosen beliefs and actions. Nazis were more of the "you look like this, thus you die" types. To say that my classification is similar to the Nazis is to say that governments' classification of "murderers" as criminals and their choice to lock them behind bars is also Naziesque. We make classifications and designations all the time - it's about making the fair ones.

    Thirdly, in what way have I even disparaged or dehumanized these people based on their classification? My only statement was that their method of thinking and coming to find sources of truth was highly susceptible to spurious correlation - an example of fallacious thinking caused by openness to conspiratorial ways of thinking. I never called them less than human, dumb, or the otherwise. A huge part of the Nazi ideology is taking that next step.

    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited April 2023
    @John_C_87

    It's not an oxymoron as such, because some people do think certain events are conspiracies. It is however pseudo-language which can be used to ridicule dissenters on the basis of mainstream popularity, without ever disproving what they believe. It's a type of "emperor has no clothes" fallacy. 
    uert
  • uertuert 7 Pts   -   edited April 2023
    @Nomenclature
    without ever disproving what they believe

    Marked fallacy because burden of proof is on the conspirators.

    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited April 2023
    @uert
    Very lovely response. Full of good faith arguments like "If you aren't in Qanon, how could you know what they believe?
    That isn't what I wrote, so I think you might need to learn how to read. You called Qanon a "notorious modern conspiracy", but it isn't a conspiracy. It's a group of people with similar political opinions who have been taken in by the writing of an anonymous internet troll. It's a far right political cult, not a conspiracy. 
    and "There is no such thing as conspiratorial thinking - that's just what they want you to believe."
    Don't make up fake quotes and pretend they are mine. If you want to continue misrepresenting what I've written then you can argue with someone else. I warned you about straw man arguments in my last post.
    My statement, very clearly, was an attempt to define conspiratorial thinking. 
    And I've explained to you once already that there's no such thing as "conspiratorial thinking". It's pseudo-language which doesn't stand up to thirty seconds worth of scrutiny.
    Your claim that I'm falsely associating those fallacies with that term
    It isn't a claim. I demonstrated it. Go back and read. Don't just stamp your feet and pretend I haven't explained why you are wrong.
    is equivalent to saying that Merriam Webster falsely associates the word "gender" with "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" simply because you don't think the word sounds right in that definition
    I don't know what this bizarre false analogy is about, but it doesn't have any relationship to anything I wrote, so you're just embarrassing yourself. If you don't want to address my objections in an intellectually honest manner then don't reply to me. 
    The fact of the matter is that some people produce all of their knowledge through the lens of those fallacious ways of thinking 
    No, the fact of the matter is that the fallacies you listed have nothing to do with conspiracies. If "conspiratorial thinking" and science denial were the same thing then conspiracies would be scientifically impossible. You're conflating completely separate issues and pretending they are one and the same.
    which is what I'm defining as conspiratorial thought for the sake of this convo. I don't ever rely on a media influenced definition.
    What a bona fide joke. You're using media terminology and then subsequently denying that your use of that terminology is influenced by media. Your statements are ridiculous to the point that they are offensive to anybody of even semi-reasonable intelligence.
    In addition, I very graciously added the extra sentence at the end of my first response to explicitly indicate that conspiracy does have a place in questioning systems of power, you just shouldn't take the hypothesis formed fallaciously to be the ultimate conclusion
    The first correct thing you've said. Well done.
    Wow. There are no conspirators to my hypothetical conspiracy?
    Are you expecting me to repeat myself? A conspiracy is something which involves conspirators, not a random hypothesis which you find difficult to believe. You appear to be truly confused about the meaning of conspiracy.
    I never once said that all Qanon members share that belief
    Buddy, you directly associated those views with Qanon. If you didn't mean to do that then you shouldn't have mentioned Qanon.
    simply that the claim has been made by members of that group.
    Get a grip, pal. Christians have claimed child sexual abuse is acceptable. Does that sound like I'm speaking about specific individuals or does it sound like I'm trying to create a false association?
    If you disbelieve me, I think a bunch of the Qanon philosophy gets outlined in the wonderful YouTube documentary "In Search of Flat Earth."
    You are doing it AGAIN! Your posts are false association after false association, with the odd fake quote and/or straw man argument thrown in for good measure. It is profoundly ironic reading through your ten thousand word posts, because not only are they loaded to bursting point with fallacies, but you are using them to complain about the use of fallacy!!!! It's enough to make me scratch my head in bewilderment.
    This is ridiculous for three main reasons.
    You are ridiculous, not my analogy. The Nazis falsely associated groups with particular character traits and/or beliefs exactly as you are doing.
    Firstly, Nazis were some of the largest conspirators of all time believing in, from the top of my head, phrenology (head size classification), eugenics (holocaust), twin telepathy (twin experiments), semitic world domination (of course), and science denialism (academic persecution / book burning)
    Listen to me please, you historically illiterate buffoon. Eugenics was popular at the time all over the world, including in the United States. The rest of this nonsense you have made up. All major powers in the world have conducted psychic research, including Russia and the United States, and the Nazis had some of the best scientists of the era. Without Nazi scientists and their rocket technology, which was light years ahead of anything the allies had, the US moon missions would never have happened and satellites would not have been invented.

    Besides which, none of this crap has anything to do with the fact that you have been using the beliefs of particular individuals to manufacture prejudice against entire groups, just like the Nazis did.

    I've wasted enough time reading your fallacious pile of dung. Have a nice evening.

    In fact, before I go, let me put something in bold, in the vague and futile hope it might sink in on some level.

    There is no such thing as "conspiratorial thinking." There is rational thinking and there is irrational thinking. Included under the umbrella of irrational thinking is the false equivalence between irrational thinking and conspiracies.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 828 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Violation of Terms of Service

    "Nomenclature" said:  Listen to me please, you historically illiterate buffoon.

    More evidence he should be banned.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold

    Stalking is an offence under American law. You're committing a criminal offence by continuously following me around this site, trying to persuade everybody you meet to join in your harassment campaign. See:-

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @uert
    Marked fallacy because burden of proof is on the conspirators.

    No it isn't. Not when you ridicule their beliefs with pseudo-language on the implied basis they are false. 

  • uertuert 7 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Very lovely response. Full of good faith arguments like "If you aren't in Qanon, how could you know what they believe?
    That isn't what I wrote, so I think you might need to learn how to read.
    Literal quote: "And you are claiming to speak for what Qanon members believe, without actually being part of Qanon."
    You called Qanon a "notorious modern conspiracy", but it isn't a conspiracy. It's a group of people with similar political opinions who have been taken in by the writing of an anonymous internet troll. It's a far right political cult, not a conspiracy. 
    This is exactly why I initially stated that it's quite pedantic to try and exactly define what is and isn't a conspiracy. I'm 100% sure, however, that the child adrenochrome absorption scheme plot, which a non-trivial percent of Qanon folk believe is true (I hope this statement considered qualified enough to meet your anti-nazi standards), would be considered a classic example of conspiracy by a vast majority of the population. Which makes it one by virtue of how language is used and defined in general.
    and "There is no such thing as conspiratorial thinking - that's just what they want you to believe."
    Don't make up fake quotes and pretend they are mine. If you want to continue misrepresenting what I've written then you can argue with someone else. I warned you about straw man arguments in my last post.
    Exact quote: "I wish you were capable of understanding that nonsensical terminology like "conspiratorial thinking" is manufactured propaganda purposed to stop you questioning anything shoved down your throat by the mainstream western media."
    My statement, very clearly, was an attempt to define conspiratorial thinking. 
    And I've explained to you once already that there's no such thing as "conspiratorial thinking". It's pseudo-language which doesn't stand up to thirty seconds worth of scrutiny.
    Language is what a society agrees upon it to mean. The word "computer" has changed meaning hundreds of times in the past century. My first post attempted to define the term "conspiratorial thought" for the sake of discussion. We can play pedantic games all day long and is why I prefaced my first message with how I find that debate kind of pointless. If you're going to respond, please address, you know, the actual argument please?
    It isn't a claim. I demonstrated it. Go back and read. Don't just stamp your feet and pretend I haven't explained why you are wrong.
    Clearly, I don't think you have done that. You continue to misunderstand the point of the discussion as being about the traditional media notion of conspiracy rather than the grouping of fallacies I have defined. Also, a debate is inherently two-sided? I don't know why you are getting so offended because I called something you said a "claim."
    is equivalent to saying that Merriam Webster falsely associates the word "gender" with "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" simply because you don't think the word sounds right in that definition
    I don't know what this bizarre false analogy is about, but it doesn't have any relationship to anything I wrote, so you're just embarrassing yourself. If you don't want to address my objections in an intellectually honest manner then don't reply to me. 
    Hmm I don't know how to help you here. It's obvious you don't genuinely want to understand what argument I'm making. It's not intellectually dishonest to present an analogy that you don't comprehend. I'll try it again though - I'm attempting to define a phrase "conspiratorial thinking" by exhibiting a few fallacious ways of knowledge production. So, when you say, "CONSPIRATORIAL THINKING DOESN'T EXIST MANNNNNNNN" (sorry for the straw man, you don't talk in all caps) it overlooks the entire point of the discussion up until that point. As if you were contradicting the notion of a dictionary definition on the basis of "I don't like that definition for that word though" alone.
    The fact of the matter is that some people produce all of their knowledge through the lens of those fallacious ways of thinking 
    No, the fact of the matter is that the fallacies you listed have nothing to do with conspiracies. If "conspiratorial thinking" and science denial were the same thing then conspiracies would be scientifically impossible. You're conflating completely separate issues and pretending they are one and the same.
    100% not true at all and not accurately representing my argument. Double whammy.

    A religious person could believe in modern medicine because God allows the medicine to take on medicinal properties. They could fully distrust science, but still believe in something that is completely true (medicine helps people). Most ultimately true conspiracies are much the same way. A group of people believe something en masse, based on the fallacious ways of knowledge production described above, then someone ends up finding actual evidence of the conspiracy's truth. The formation of the conspiracy, and the initial belief in its truth is entirely fallacious, and I would argue, still societally damaging to do hastily, yet could still end up true.

    Did I ever say that "science denial" is the same as "conspiratorial thinking"? No. I said that science denial is an indicator of when folks accept that conspiratorial types of thinking are good ways to produce knowledge.
    which is what I'm defining as conspiratorial thought for the sake of this convo. I don't ever rely on a media influenced definition.
    What a bona fide joke. You're using media terminology and then subsequently denying that your use of that terminology is influenced by media. Your statements are ridiculous to the point that they are offensive to anybody of even semi-reasonable intelligence.
    Great arg. "What a bona fide joke." What would you define as media terminology? I don't think I've ever heard knowledge production and deep conversations about epistemology on the mainstream news...
    In addition, I very graciously added the extra sentence at the end of my first response to explicitly indicate that conspiracy does have a place in questioning systems of power, you just shouldn't take the hypothesis formed fallaciously to be the ultimate conclusion
    The first correct thing you've said. Well done.
    Which is, drumroll please, my entire point! Thanks for agreeing with me in the only part of your response which actually addresses the content of the debate rather than the attempt to rigorously define words to an incredibly subjective and arbitrary standard.
    Are you expecting me to repeat myself? A conspiracy is something which involves conspirators, not a random hypothesis which you find difficult to believe. You appear to be truly confused about the meaning of conspiracy.
    Are you expecting me to repeat myself? Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical? It's something that could feasibly exist as a topic of a conspiracy, so I used it as an example of correlation = causation because in real life you can't often isolate two variables from a real conspiracy that easily. It was an attempt to make the rhetoric clearer - another example of your pointless pedantry.
    I never once said that all Qanon members share that belief
    Buddy, you directly associated those views with Qanon. If you didn't mean to do that then you shouldn't have mentioned Qanon.
    If you'll re-read my statement, I qualified my statements with "some" and "many." But keep ranting about this illusory prosecution...
    simply that the claim has been made by members of that group.
    Get a grip, pal. Christians have claimed child sexual abuse is acceptable. Does that sound like I'm speaking about specific individuals or does it sound like I'm trying to create a false association?
    Fair enough point, but I think there's a distinction to be made between making that association for example making purposes (like saying "here are some of the things that Christians have done wrong...") and going on to list bad things, and malicious intent (like saying "Christianity is evil since they have thought..."). Very very clearly, I was in attempt to do the former. If you don't believe me, I really don't know what kind of damage to Qanon believers you think I'm causing.
    You are doing it AGAIN! Your posts are false association after false association, with the odd fake quote and/or straw man argument thrown in for good measure. It is profoundly ironic reading through your ten thousand word posts, because not only are they loaded to bursting point with fallacies, but you are using them to complain about the use of fallacy!!!! It's enough to make me scratch my head in bewilderment.
    I just thought that the documentary was good and gave evidence to back the claims I was making about Qanon members - you are throwing a fit because I provided evidence buddy.
    You are ridiculous, not my analogy. The Nazis falsely associated groups with particular character traits and/or beliefs exactly as you are doing.
    Completely dropping my entire second point justifying how we classify some groups based on actions / beliefs they have rather than physical traits like a majority of Nazi persecution.
    Firstly, Nazis were some of the largest conspirators of all time believing in, from the top of my head, phrenology (head size classification), eugenics (holocaust), twin telepathy (twin experiments), semitic world domination (of course), and science denialism (academic persecution / book burning)
    Listen to me please, you historically illiterate buffoon. Eugenics was popular at the time all over the world, including in the United States.
    Very true. And a shame. And still shows how Nazis were inclined to believe things without good evidentiary standards...? I don't see your point.
    The rest of this nonsense you have made up. All major powers in the world have conducted psychic research, including Russia and the United States, and the Nazis had some of the best scientists of the era. Without Nazi scientists and their rocket technology, which was light years ahead of anything the allies had, the US moon missions would never have happened and satellites would not have been invented.
    Why is this a helpful point for you to make? I never claim that Nazis were dumb or something... I said that they had some horrible societal justifications on the back of poor evidential standards stemming from "conspiratorial thought" (the fallacies I had listed.)
    Besides which, none of this crap has anything to do with the fact that you have been using the beliefs of particular individuals to manufacture prejudice against entire groups, just like the Nazis did.
    Once again, you have not outlined one instance in which I instigate prejudice (and once again, conveniently drop the entire part of my post which discusses how I haven't done so). 
    There is no such thing as "conspiratorial thinking." There is rational thinking and there is irrational thinking. Included under the umbrella of irrational thinking is the false equivalence between irrational thinking and conspiracies.

    Attempting to strip the world into black and white (rational and irrational) removes any kind of nuance from the discussion. There are all kinds of ways that human beings come to believe things. I think those found in conspiracy groups are often some of the worst because they often engage in the fallacies I outlined above. That is the point. Did I hit my 10,000 word limit yet?

    TLDR; Nomenclature continues to misunderstand that the debate is not about strict definitions, but epistemology and knowledge production. Calls me a Nazi again (lol). Gets quite mad.

  • uertuert 7 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Not a good look.
    No it isn't. Not when you ridicule their beliefs with pseudo-language on the implied basis they are false. 
    Again, never ridiculed. Simply argued that most conspiracies don't stand up to evidential scrutiny. All claims are implied false until the burden of proof has been met. Conspiracies typically don't meet that burden due to the fallacious way that they are constructed (see previous post).
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @uert
    Literal quote: "And you are claiming to speak for what Qanon members believe, without actually being part of Qanon."

    It's a literal quote because that was literally what you were doing. It's both literal and accurate. I assume you have no intention of apologising for inventing your own fake quote the first time, so this is the last reply you'll get from me before I mute you for straw man argumentation.

    This is exactly why I initially stated that it's quite pedantic to try and exactly define what is and isn't a conspiracy

    Then that undermines your entire use of the phrase "conspiratorial thinking" then, doesn't it? Way to go at debunking yourself. 

    Qanon is a political cult, not a conspiracy, so take a deep breath and admit you were wrong. If you lack the capability of admitting when you are wrong then you are in the wrong place. You need a pulpit not a debate website.

    I'm 100% sure, however, that the child adrenochrome absorption scheme plot, which a non-trivial percent of Qanon folk believe is true (I hope this statement considered qualified enough to meet your anti-nazi standards), would be considered a classic example of conspiracy by a vast majority of the population. 

    Sure, it's a conspiracy theory. But that has no relationship to your idea of a general form of reasoning called "conspiratorial thinking".

    Exact quote: "I wish you were capable of understanding that nonsensical terminology like "conspiratorial thinking" is manufactured propaganda purposed to stop you questioning anything shoved down your throat by the mainstream western media."

    And this is precisely why you are being muted. Because instead of admitting the incontestable fact that you invented a fake quote in order to exaggerate and misrepresent what I had actually written, you are instead pretending like you did nothing wrong. This is indicative of a form of mental illness, as is your use of alt accounts and your extraordinarily lengthy replies.

    Language is what a society agrees upon it to mean.

    You are not society. You are one arrogant quasi-wit who is using pseudo-terminology to smear and ridicule everything you don't like the sound of, without ever stopping to investigate its validity or non-validity. I've repeatedly explained to you the fallacy you are using, so clearly it is not going to register and you have no intention of ever listening. The idea of labels like "conspiratorial thinking" is to mock those with opinions which deviate from the popular. The fallacy is that popularity is the same thing as truth, or even probability, and it depends upon the dangerously false assumption that popularity is incapable of being influenced by those with social and/or economic capital. Every authoritarian society of the past 150 years has used a derivative of this same idea to control their population. 

    My first post attempted to define the term "conspiratorial thought" for the sake of discussion.

    You're just not listening. The phrase "conspiratorial thought" is pseudo-language. 

    We can play pedantic games all day long and is why I prefaced my first message with how I find that debate kind of pointless

    If you find it kind of pointless then why are you writing 10,000 word replies? I find you kind of pointless.

    Clearly, I don't think you have done that. 

    That's because your mind is not working correctly. 

     You continue to misunderstand the point of the discussion 

    You do not dictate the "point of the discussion". I believe you have some sort of personality disorder. Likely NPD.

    In any case, I'm not wasting any more time with someone who doesn't acknowledge anything except their own voice, so you're being muted. Open another alt and try again.



  • KekeeKekee 23 Pts   -  
    "If authoritarians take over"

    , every single society is authrotarian, some are more some are less.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 530 Pts   -  
    @Kekee ; every single society is authrotarian, some are more some are less.

    I think your being a bit stu pid there and didn't think it over at all. You might want to look up the word then spell it properly then find out what it means then change the stu pid remark you made.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited April 2023

    You might want to look up the difference between the words "your" and "you're" before giving out grammar advice, dopey.

    The burden of connection made by English grammar to established justice and common defense towards the general welfare was yours to establish when holding not Batmardot.

  • KekeeKekee 23 Pts   -  
    My point is that there are laws anywhere. And while you could call yourself free in less Authoritarian country you certainly are not living in Anarchist or Libertarian society. 

    Since our society is not authoritarian (according to Google) then what is our system then if not authoritarian? I cannot come up with other names.

    Way I see it term authoritarian is not written in stone but it is a spectrum. "Non-authoritarian" society is simply less authoritarian but being less authoritarian is not the same as being non authoritarian.

    If I decide that I am not going to pay my taxes I get in trouble with the law. If I decide to piss where I please I also get with the law. Hence human society is authoritarian by its nature.

    Name societies that have zero restrictions on your actions. Those would be not authoritarian.

  • BarnardotBarnardot 530 Pts   -  
    @Kekee ;Way I see it term authoritarian is not written in stone but it is a spectrum.

    Okay I get what you mean now. But as I said if you look up the word then you will see the word differently and then stop being so immature.

  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    jack said:
    Hello:

    Guns, or the Press?

    excon

    "IF"  authoritarians take over ?     .. already happened Jack .. fair and free press already gone ..   guns will come ... other essential liberties dropping like flies.    .. 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Let America have its guns they cannot feel safe without them and in a society where kids cannot feel safe at school without armed guards it's all good as they've found the  solution to school shootings , have a nation wide call to prayer

    Regards the press they would be better off without it as the same press convinced these people that a narrow minded compulsive called Trump was in fact a genius who would solve all the problems that the US faced .

    The majority of Americans identify as "Christian " ( hilarious ) they have the self same religious puritanical mindset as their ancestors and call themselves  the " land of the free" yet freedom of speech is only something they claim but no one believes as these prudes take offence at everything,  I read again yesterday yet another headmistress in the US has been fired for showing her students Michaelangelo's statue of David as it was deemed by freedom of speech loving Americans pornographic .....sounds more like Saudi Arabia everyday .
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  
    jack said:
    Hello:

    Guns, or the Press?

    excon

    Hello ex:

    Pardon me, but left off homosexuality..  Authoritarians are considering a "Kill the Gays" bill.  What has my beloved country come to????


    excon

  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 695 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Hello, slightly smarter nitwit

    That's Uganda, not the U.S., and no, everyone knows giving the death penalty for something as arbitrary as homosexuality is unconstitutional.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Luigi7255 said:
    @jack

    Hello, slightly smarter nitwit
    Hello fuk*hed:

    My question was IF authoritarians take over..  IF..  IF, Du*de! 

    To be CLEAR, the right-wing Republican lawmakers in various U.S. states are currently engineering a new wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation, a slate of proselytizing, activist U.S. religious groups have for years campaigned in parts of Africa, especially in countries like Uganda, and sown the seeds for even more hard-line measures there.

    Yeah, I know..  Truth is scary.  Deal with it.

    excon


  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  
    Luigi7255 said:
    @jack

    everyone knows giving the death penalty for something as arbitrary as homosexuality is unconstitutional.
    Hello again, dumbkoff:

    Everyone??  EVERYONE???  Du*de.  You're fu*king nuts.

    excon

  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 695 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Hello, now insane nitwit

    First off, they (U.S. Republicans) are not in any capacity considering giving the death penalty for homosexuality, that is just plain wrong; not even MTG is considering it. And any political "non-profit" like FotF will always do scummy things, but that's not the issue I have, it's that you are lying about one side of the political aisle. Secondly, that source that you use for the phrase "engineering a new wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation" is talking about transgender people, not gay people and homosexuality like you were talking about just the post before. Lastly, when I said "everyone", I meant everyone in the United States, somehow that went right over your head despite the fact I used the word "unconstitutional" and said "not the U.S.".

    Maybe get your head checked if me just saying the death penalty for gay people is unconstitutional sets you off.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  
    Luigi7255 said:
    @jack

    Hello, now insane nitwit

    First off, they (U.S. Republicans) are not in any capacity considering giving the death penalty for homosexuality, that is just plain wrong; not even MTG is considering it. And any political "non-profit" like FotF will always do scummy things, but that's not the issue I have, it's that you are lying about one side of the political aisle. Secondly, that source that you use for the phrase "engineering a new wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation" is talking about transgender people, not gay people and homosexuality like you were talking about just the post before. Lastly, when I said "everyone", I meant everyone in the United States, somehow that went right over your head despite the fact I used the word "unconstitutional" and said "not the U.S.".
    Hello L:

    It's a good argument..  You shouda used it instead of calling me names..  I just don't respond well to name calling..  Fuk you!

    excon

  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 695 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Hey, I'm just doing the same thing you did with Dee and Nomen, not like I hold ill will towards you specifically.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Luigi7255 said:
    @jack

    Hey, I'm just doing the same thing you did with Dee and Nomen, not like I hold ill will towards you specifically.
    Hello again, sh*thead:

    Nahhh...  They're Jew haters, and I correctly addressed them as such. That conversation is still going on after 6 years... If you believe they're innocent victims of my hate, you're not paying attention.   What I know about you is, you're NOT a Jew hater and I NEVER had a cross word with you.  Never called you a name.  Never did squat to you, but there you are flapping your gums about sh*t you know nothing about.  Now, if you wanna be lumped in with Jew haters, lemme know..  We can go round and round.

    excon


  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    jack said:
    Luigi7255 said:
    @jack

    Hey, I'm just doing the same thing you did with Dee and Nomen, not like I hold ill will towards you specifically.
    Hello again, sh*thead:

    Nahhh...  They're Jew haters, and I correctly addressed them as such. That conversation is still going on after 6 years... If you believe they're innocent victims of my hate, you're not paying attention.   What I know about you is, you're NOT a Jew hater and I NEVER had a cross word with you.  Never called you a name.  Never did squat to you, but there you are flapping your gums about sh*t you know nothing about.  Now, if you wanna be lumped in with Jew haters, lemme know..  We can go round and round.

    excon


    Some projection going on here I think    "Jew Haters"      "sh4thead" 

    Why are you fixated on the Jew ..  what did the Jew do to you ? 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @jack ;

    Nahhh...  They're Jew haters, and I correctly addressed them as such. 


    Yeah funny that we detest people like you and your buddies who admit enjoying fellow humans getting blown to shreds in Palestinian shopping centres , what do you suggest big mouth? Invite them over for dinner ......seriously.???

    Interesting also your buddy and his gang spent a month spreading anti Irish and Palestinian hate pieces and the American pretend Jews on here upvoted every vile remark made , but that's different isn't it?

    I don't back down to loudmouthed American toe rags 
  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    The authoritarians are taking over and unsurprisingly, the first target they need to control is free speech.      There are serious controls on free political speech in Australia in regards to criticizing certain protected and crime, terrorism,  and welfare prone minority groups.     Unsurprisingly, this was the thin edge of the wedge and once such legislation was in place, it was easy to do a bit of mission creep and extend these same protections from criticism to homosexuals and other sexually confused people that are an important component in left wing voting constituencies.  .     In Cananda, I am told, it is now illegal to "misgender" people suffering from gender dysphoria.     Leftists scream that "hate speech' is not free speech.     Actually, it is.       "Hate speech" is simply speech that leftards hate to hear.  
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:

    The authoritarians are taking over and unsurprisingly, the first target they need to control is free speech.    
    Hello B:

    Nice to see you again..

    Lemme remind our readers exactly who you are..  You HOLLER about free speech, but you're the one who wants to censor movies and music.  Somehow, you believe that if a kid sees a Lone Ranger movie, he'll wanna shoot up the neighborhood.. 

    So, I'm thinking you're not much of a free speech advocate at all, are you?

    excon
  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    Oh, hallo excon/jack.    Not nice to hear from you again.     But I see that once again I need to attempt to insert some logic through your usually impermeable skull so that you brain cells can synapse properly.

    Free POLITICAL speech is the foundation of democracy.     No political free speech, and you end up with no democracy.     Since your perceptive abilities are rudimentary, you probably have not been following how the Hunter Biden laptop scandal which would have swung the US elections towards President Trump.    This story was suppressed and surrounded by a blanket of lies by the CIA, the FBI, the US Justice Department, and the Big Tech moguls who did not want the US public to know about it.    Free speech is under attack in every western country by the totalitarians who hate democracy, who rather incredibly, you support.    What do you use for a brain?  

    Now, censorship of the entertainment industries just happens to already exist and is a fact of life.      Ratings for movies and computer games rate entertainment media to protect children and young adults from media which can, and does, affect their behaviour.    What I am saying is that those classifications are too liberal.      If we allow the entertainment media to continue to produce movies, "rap" songs and computer games glorifying violence, misogyny, gang behaviour, revenge, attention seeking behaviour, school shootings, and drug abuse, then people like yourself should not be surprised if kids today are behaving in ways that is shocking to previous generations.     If you can not see that yet, then the society that you live in and which is degenerating right before your eyes will continue to degenerate until you grow a brain and figure out what the real problem is.


  • jackjack 453 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Bogan said:

    If we allow the entertainment media to continue to produce movies, "rap" songs and computer games glorifying violence, misogyny, gang behaviour, revenge, attention seeking behaviour, school shootings, and drug abuse, then people like yourself should not be surprised if kids today are behaving in ways that is shocking to previous generations.
    Hello again, B:

    It's true.  Our kids are behaving badly and it's Elvis's fault..

    Du*de.  You're DANGEROUS!  And a little silly.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha..

    excon

    Sargonski
  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    If that is the best you can do then stop thinking that you have any brains at all.
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Bogan said:
    If that is the best you can do then stop thinking that you have any brains at all.
    Hello again, B:

    Nahh..  I believe I've encapsulated your position correctly..  Bad kids are bad because they listen to Guns 'n Roses..  Du*de.  That IS your position, no?   Of course, you don't like it when I say it..

    excon


  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    Thank you jack/excon for displaying to any impartial reader who may be reading our exchanges just how lacking in neuronal activity the people with your mindset really are..     Nobody is ever useless, Jack.   They can always be used as a bad example.    And you are doing sterling service for me by displaying to any young leftie reading this exchange how ignorant and befuddled the advocates of leftism can be.
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:

    And you are doing sterling service for me by displaying to any young leftie reading this exchange how ignorant and befuddled the advocates of leftism can be.
    Hello again, B:

    So, shoot'em up movies with Clint Eastwood are BAD bad for Americans???  I sure think that's what you're saying, but, of course, I can read..

    Look..  If you think we shouldn't make Doris Day movies cause they're harmful for our children, you can certainly say so...  But, you don't have the balls to stand up for your actual beliefs.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha.

    excon
  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Pathetic reply.    Not worth responding to.
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Bogan said:
    @jack

    Pathetic reply.    Not worth responding to.
    Hello again, B:

    So, if you DON'T believe that James Bond movies corrupt our youth, what the hell are you saying???  I truly can't tell..  Can you give me a list of the movies you approve of, and the ones you don't???  Who's gonna decide?  YOU???  DU*DE!!!

    excon
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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