Debate Rounds (3)
In this writing I'll make points against their belief.
Thus, what I write will be a list of controversial statements, against the course of humanity.
We are on the edge of World War III and extinction, and some are so relaxed and passive that they'll deny this probability, and insult those with such a belief as 'alarmists'.
It's important to be aware of the times, and in these times, people are intelligent to speak knowledge of politics when political questions are asked.
Politics isn't an understanding of capitalism, but an understanding of human nature and world conditions.
Peace is the potential of society. Society is wrecked by people who insult others, especially to draw others into their understanding of world conditions and human nature.
People who are uncivil are accepted. These people ruin our experiences and cause us to make mistakes, but mainly they promote what isn't true. Continuation of false politics.
Our consumption rates are high, and we're evil to nature. Philosophy in these times is a risky field, you lose intelligence with the philosopher that's being taught. You eat, drink, and sleep; over the course of that time, you question whether you or others should live. This is illogical, during this time you show evidence that you want to live.
If your mind is unstable enough to deny life, do you not have a mental incapacity in such a way that there is need for you to be seen by a mental health expert? You visually promote species-suicidal things, promote suicide, and make others feel suicidal by throwing insults at the people who are sometimes smarter than you.
Scientists have picked up this behaviour, and it's a different cool to have some aggression. This is to disguise a false scientific process. It's a science to be wise, and when you are wise you are a scientist; you understand how things work, you will go about learning about the universe. The science taught is propaganda in light of promoting high consumption rates, world war 3, and although this can be appealing to us, it's not an intelligent view, it's intelligent pure.
Now a closer look into your argument, and hopefully I can produce a specific counter claim of our "inevitable doom" by nuclear war. The circumstances and situations that are important about nuclear weapons is that they have already been used. Although, it's very unlikely a majority of well educated, power hungry, and conscious people will ever choose to use nuclear weapons for destroying an enemy, it is used to threaten the enemy. The real use of nuclear weapons is diplomatic intimidation, like a Pope would use to excommunicate a subordinate country in its hegemony. The USA and Soviet Union set the precedents that world leaders still use today when it comes to nuclear warfare, in that it is used to threaten enemies that could potentially off balance peace and world power.
In conclusion of the first round, there are many ties between society and peace, like you mentioned. But, it's societies problem to figure out what to do with peace and a governments duty to find and preserver world balance and peace.
"Literacy". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved.
From: https://ourworldindata.org... [OnlineResource]
It's easy to sense a bias in your argument.
You have not accepted my argument for no reason whatsoever.
You also haven't contradicted my argument; your admiration for academia is not a logical conclusion - it's opinionated. I've stated why academia is not good for humanity, whereas, you have stated a belief that academia is good for humanity.
You've implied that rapid technological advances, lower mortality rates and more, are automatically good for humanity. This is opinionated and illogical. You would have to explain why they were good for humanity beforehand.
BATipton forfeited this round.
M0nK3Y forfeited this round.
BATipton forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.