The Instigator
Dann
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kenneth_Stokes
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Fascism is the best system of governance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,171 times Debate No: 32278
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Dann

Pro

Fascism or National Socialism is the best system of governance.

With National Socialism, as it was in Germany, the country sought to band its citizens together in a sense of unity based on their shared identity. I contend that this is superior to the democratic, capitalist, laissez faire system.

In Germany, the National Socialists provided excellent transport, the most advanced thinkers of the day and mandated public health. They looked after their own citizens. Naturally, the genocide that they brought about is thee major sticking point, but I posit that you cannot reject the political system on the basis of the evils that its progenitors committed.

I assert that a publicly mandated physical fitness program is something that all western societies should have. I assert that the sense of common purpose, unity and kinship fostered under such a system is something that all responsible and forward thinking countries should strive to attain.

Finally, I assert that the benefits to be had from such a society are superior to that of democracy. Furthermore, I believe the active role that a fascist government takes in the lives of its citizens is, in the long run, less oppressive than the democratic / capitalist method.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

I, as a Fascist, accept this debate in the name of Devil's Advocacy. However, not to debate semantics,but your view of Fascism is corrupted and incorrect. Fascism =/= National Socialism. Nazism = National Socialism. Fascism =/= Nazism. They are all three separate things that can survive without the other and still hold its own identity. Fascism at the core is brought into existence by three basic elements: national unity, the merging of state and corporate power, and an idea of a new beginning or a unique social importance. The national unity comes from the symbol of the state in which the citizens resign in. Some Liberal Fascist argue that unrestricted Fascism holds humanity in its entirety as a common unity, but since there is conflict with at least one state towards another, then unity under the state and other residing cultures is the next best thing. The merging of state and corporate power comes from the belief that a.) corporations should be managed heavily to prevent corruption and to insure a stable economy and b.) no other state or person should take direct benefits from the national land. Take Africa for example. After colonialism, the colonist (whoever occupied a territory) entered the land into the Free Market which allows for investors to solely dig and sell African resources to no other foreign buyers. Which is why Africans are so poor yet live on resource rich land. The third idea of a "new beginning" or "unique social importance" is vital. During a Fascism movement, Fascist are always direct toward a system of total change (social and federal) that is different from the norm. But I think it's best if I give you a quote directly from Benito Mussolini.

"In order to understand the Fascist movement one must first apprehend the underlying phenomena in all its vastness and depth. In point of fact, Italian Fascism has not only been a political revolt against weak and incapable governments... but also a spiritual revolt against old ideas which had corrupted the sacred principles of religion, of faith, of country. Fascism, therefore, has been a revolt of the people." --Benito Mussolini [This quote is on the back of my book, "The Doctrine of Fascism".]

Now for the actual debate and rebuttals.

"In Germany, the National Socialists provided excellent transport, the most advanced thinkers of the day and mandated public health. They looked after their own citizens."

Fascism or National Socialism had nothing to do with transport and advanced thinkers. At least not to the extent that you believe. Although Germany rebuilt--and therefore modernized--many of its railroads and other transportation after WW1, under Fascist rule, the rule itself did not direct to such actions. For example, if the previous government believed that building new roads and means of transportation were bad (which the didn't), THEN one could say that Fascism is the cause of a better system of transportation. The point is that the development of transportation was natural and would have occurred without Fascism. As for the thinkers--although there were national philosophers inspired by Hitler, you must understand that Germany itself has always had a great history with intellectuals. It isn't as if Fascism spurred this new intellectual renaissance. As for, "they looked after their own citizens". Not quite. Not only did Hitler inprison or kill anyone who defied his rule, but it wasn"t citizenship that Nazi's cared about, it was obedience. For if citizenship was the common unity, then mass murder and hateful propaganda would not have occured different inner-nationally.

"I assert that a publicly mandated physical fitness program is something that all western societies should have. I assert that the sense of common purpose, unity and kinship fostered under such a system is something that all responsible and forward thinking countries should strive to attain."

Let me go so far as to say that an individuailistic, consumerist society like the West (United States of America and Canada) will NEVER welcome fascism or any forms of, as they call it, "Big Government", into their personal lives. No matter how well they benefit from it. The mere thought of it angers them. [Years of mental training to hate the state? Who knows.] Such an implication will definately cause riots. With that being said, Fascism, although good, is not for everybody. May I also point out that Fascism during this time of age, with the Free Market being involved and corporations holding the most wealth, will never be accepted. The transition of wealth from banking elite to the state will anger them greatly, causing an economic panic which could lead to an economic collapse for all countries.

To refute the claim that "Fascism is the best form of government", I can simply say as I said before: it isn't for everyone. If a society does not like its government, the people will revolt. With that being said, the "best" form of government is of that where the people are generally happy. And since most of modern society lives by individualistic standards, then a government and economy that supports that is what is best.


Debate Round No. 1
Dann

Pro

"Although Germany rebuilt--and therefore modernized--many of its railroads and other transportation after WW1, under Fascist rule, the rule itself did not direct to such actions. For example, if the previous government believed that building new roads and means of transportation were bad (which the didn't), THEN one could say that Fascism is the cause of a better system of transportation. The point is that the development of transportation was natural and would have occurred without Fascism. As for the thinkers--although there were national philosophers inspired by Hitler, you must understand that Germany itself has always had a great history with intellectuals."

My point being that the previous democratic government didnt care enough to modernise and advance the countries transport. Under a fascist ideology, such as National Socialism, the advancement of the welfare of the people and infrastructure of the country became a very real ideal to attain. This simply wouldn't, and does not, happen in most of the democratic world. The actual betterment of their citizens and of the country at large is the motor in such a system. Capitalistic means are used to attain a higher quality of life for all the countries citizens, and are not an end in themselves, as they are in democratic capitalist countries.

My contention is that the striving towards the realisation of an ideology benefits all who are included in that ideology. Infrastructures are for the good and use of all. Money is distributed more evenly than in a capitalist country. It is spent on things that benefit the greatest many because the ideology necessarily involves the advancement of the nation. And by nation, I mean the collective of nationals who comprise the country.

There were many great scientists and thinkers who were nurtured under the Nazi regime. Werner Braun for instance. It's not rocket science. That saying is used, implying that rocket science is a supremely difficult subject. The Nazi scientist Werner Braun was Dr Rocket Science. Advances in technology made by the Nazi regime were superior to all.

The Nazi Armed Forces were also the worlds foremost power. As a stand alone fighting force, they were incomparable. It took the might of the British, Russians, Americans and lots of other nations to defeat them. What made this Armed Forces so formidable? What made their scientists so forward thinking and innovative? I submit that it was the holding of, and striving towards, a definite common ideal that imbued Germans with this extra dimension. It gave them a certain je ne sais qua. The nazi ideology was passionate about their people and the society that they lived in. It eradicated unemployment, it got rid of the malign influences of a free press, it held in its aim an evolution of the people and nation as a whole in body, mind and spirit, and it showed.

I also contend that there is nothing wrong with imprisoning people who defy your rule.

It is perhaps true that those in the West find the idea of fascism abhorrent. However, you said that if a society does not like its government, the people will revolt. I contend that no one in the west ever likes their government, yet they do not revolt. It is often said that people are obese, lazy, their minds nullified by vacuous entertainments. The west is rich. It is rich in technology and it is spoiled. Collectively,, it has no true aspirations, no ideals to attain. Should a responsible government not mandate that its citizens shall comprise the healthiest nation on earth, for its own good? Should a responsible government not push its citizens to attain their fullest potential in sports, academia, the arts? Should a responsible government not have an overarching ideology that it seeks to galvanise it subjects to attain? I believe that it should. I do not believe that a government should merely be an administration, it should be a father and a leader, a pioneer of human endeavour. That is why fascism as adopted by the National Socialist party is the best system of government the world has known.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

"My point being that the previous democratic government didnt care enough to modernise and advance the countries transport. Under a fascist ideology, such as National Socialism, the advancement of the welfare of the people and infrastructure of the country became a very real ideal to attain."

False. It wasn't that the previous establishment didn't care, they were just occupied with preparations for the war (WW1). And the advancement of welfare wasn't obtained by an ideal, they (Germans) simply defied the Treaty of Versailles heavy fines, which allowed the Germans to use their remaining capital (land, factories, tranportations, trained professors, educational facilities, etc) to slowly, but surely, boost their economy in order to pay off certain fees. Keep in mind that German soil was never bombed, it was the lack of resources that made them submit.

"This simply wouldn't, and does not, happen in most of the democratic world. The actual betterment of their citizens and of the country at large is the motor in such a system. Capitalistic means are used to attain a higher quality of life for all the countries citizens, and are not an end in themselves, as they are in democratic capitalist countries."

Not to be rude, but I don't understand these last three sentences. The first is intelligible to a degree but the last two are either missing a few words, missing a solid subject, or certain words are switched. If you wish to elaborate in the next round, I won't scourge you for doing so.

"My contention is that the striving towards the realisation of an ideology benefits all who are included in that ideology."

And it also doesn't benefit those who do not believe in such an ideal. But I will address this along with another statement of yours. Moving on.

"There were many great scientists and thinkers who were nurtured under the Nazi regime. Werner Braun for instance. It's not rocket science. That saying is used, implying that rocket science is a supremely difficult subject. The Nazi scientist Werner Braun was Dr Rocket Science. Advances in technology made by the Nazi regime were superior to all."

Let's be frank. Braun and MANY, MANY other great thinkers of science, military strategy, philosophy, and other highly regarded aspects were either not National Socialist or were pressued into becoming a National Socialist by fear of death, social isolation, fraud, inprisonment, or the loss of work. Meaning that they were not National Socialist at heart. In Braun's case, he only joined in fear that he would lose his job. And when Braun voiced his opinion about the harsh treatment of others, he was threatened with hard labor by an SS gaurd. May I, once again, point out that simply because an advancement was made under the Nazi power, does not mean that idea of National Socialism made or inspired it. Like I said, such advancements would have been made regardless of the inventor's politics.

"The Nazi Armed Forces were also the worlds foremost power. As a stand alone fighting force, they were incomparable. It took the might of the British, Russians, Americans and lots of other nations to defeat them."[etc.]

That is a wide misconception. The common person sees Germany as the only power on the Axis forces. When in fact there was Japan, Italy, and many collaboraters, co-belligerents, allies, and puppet states whom, although some may have worn the Nazi brand, were in heart and thought, not Nazis[1]. For most of the civilians in the occupied land and puppet states cared nothing for the Nazis, nor did they have a say. Keep in mind that there were various amounts of large-scale revolts against the occupation. Also, it has been professionally debated many times that the Soviet Union could have and most likely would have won the war alone due to their sheer numbers and superior economy. Of course at a much slower pace. To say that it "took" all of the Allies to defeat them is nonsense. Keep in mind that 70% of Nazi soldiers were deployed to the East, which consumed 80% of their resources alone in 4 years[2]. Simply because numerous nations were involved, doesn't mean they were needed. They didn't call it the "Soviet Steam-roller" for nothing...

"I submit that it was the holding of, and striving towards, a definite common ideal that imbued Germans with this extra dimension. It gave them a certain je ne sais qua. The nazi ideology was passionate about their people and the society that they lived in."

Once again, most occupied civilians didn't support Nazis. In fact, there was a shortage of labor because many people fled, went into hiding or refused to work. Which is why the basis for the Nazi economy was forced hard labor. And, again, Nazis weren't "passionate" about their own people; regular citizens or, at times, even fellow Nazis. Unless you were a high ranking public official, if you went against Nazism even as a Nazi, you were probably jailed, killed, or sent to hard labor. The "passion" Nazis showed to non-Germans is similar to that of a pimp who tells his escorts he loves them only when he's fornicating with them, and disregards them otherwise.

"I also contend that there is nothing wrong with imprisoning people who defy your rule."

Alas. This is the point I wanted to address earlier. By nothing wrong, I assume you mean nothing morally wrong. In to which I say: you're misguided. Automatic imprisonment of a person simply because they went against a rule is far from right. But that isn't the topic of this debate.

To jail someone who disagrees with you contradicts the meaning of your, "striving towards the realisation of an ideology benefits all" statement. There is a difference between changing the mind of a person and unifying the people in comparison to placing those who agree with you in a high social status and marginalizing those who don't. By doing so, you aren't for the people, nor are you striving to be. I could go on, but I feel the point is made.

"It is perhaps true that those in the West find the idea of fascism abhorrent. However, you said that if a society does not like its government, the people will revolt. I contend that no one in the west ever likes their government, yet they do not revolt. It is often said that people are obese, lazy, their minds nullified by vacuous entertainments. The west is rich. It is rich in technology and it is spoiled. Collectively,, it has no true aspirations, no ideals to attain. Should a responsible government not mandate that its citizens shall comprise the healthiest nation on earth, for its own good?...[etc.]"

What you're failing to realize is that Materialism is a form a government, one that rivals Nationalism, something that Fascism is sublinked to. The West, Japan, South Korea, are Materialist at heart. They are not guided by the logic of social unity, as they are individualist who seek the satisfaction of their personal desires next to the well beings of friends, family, and lovers. That's it. Nothing else. State, foreigners, and, hell, even other individuals in their own society are irrelevant unless they share a common interest to another individual. This form of government uses consumerism as its social economic policy. It is the collective of indiviudals that somewhat, in way binds them together (and I use the word "bind" loosely). Because unlike Communism, Fascism, or any other form of idea, pleasing yourself is not something that has to be taught--it's human nature.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2]




Debate Round No. 2
Dann

Pro

False. It wasn't that the previous establishment didn't care, they were just occupied with preparations for the war (WW1). And the advancement of welfare wasn't obtained by an ideal, they (Germans) simply defied the Treaty of Versailles heavy fines, which allowed the Germans to use their remaining capital (land, factories, tranportations, trained professors, educational facilities, etc) to slowly, but surely, boost their economy in order to pay off certain fees. Keep in mind that German soil was never bombed, it was the lack of resources that made them submit.

I fear I must remind my opponent that the two world wars were not fought back to back. There was period of 21 years between the end of one and the start of the other. So the previous establishment were not occupied with preparations for world war 1. The establishment prior to the Nazis was a democratic one, who were bound by the Treaty of Versailles AS A RESULT of WW1. My point is that they agreed to be bound, since they had no ideals, no pride in their nation, no thought of unity between their countrymen, no particular desire to be an active government who looks after its citizens and puts them first. National Socialism however, did. It was very nationalistic. They said we are Germans and we are proud to be German. It said since we are all Germans together, we look after one another and of the Germanic people as a whole and we strive to become a nation of supermen. How noble! How uncommon! How right!

Regards the 3 sentences you didn't understand. I said that advancing the welfare of the citizenry doesn't happen in democratic countries. People are allowed to get fat if they so wish, they are allowed to become a malign influence, the government and local councils don't particularly care if the infrastructure is optimal so long as it is enough to get by. Contrast that with a National Socialist government where the country runs supremely smoothly and on time, the nation is fit, healthy and happy and the government is not only always going about ways to make the lives of their people better, but also to make the people better too. In such a country, money is used for the attainment of ideals, rather than the ideal being the attainment of money.

Braun was an enthusiastic nazi. Of course, in hindsight it would be impossible for him to retain his ideals in public, but he joined the party and was in the inner echelons. After the war, the US poached many nazi minds for themselves and look what the US became. They went to space, they put men on the moon, they designed and still design most of the worlds most advanced weaponry and technology.
Such advancements would not be possible unless there was an attitude of advancement underpinning such endeavours. And THAT was the raison d'"tre of National Socialist Germany. Out of such a atmosphere came plenty of brilliance.

It simply did take all of the allies to defeat Nazi Germany. Of course there were other countries involved in the Axis Powers, but they were merely a supporting cast, a sidekick -Germany was the main protagonist. On the side of the Allies however, you had 3 global superpowers and numerous other advanced nations all fighting the Nazis.. That's not to denigrate the war in the pacific or anything, but it just illustrates the original point of how formidable the German Forces were. I believe that fact is undisputed anywhere in the world by anyone. They were like nothing before or since.

Occupied civilians. I never said occupied civilians did support the Nazis. I said the Nazis were passionate about their own people and the society that they lived in. If I were a teacher, I would rather remove the disruptive pupil from my classroom for the sake of the other children than allow him a free hand to disrupt, interrupt and corrupt. And so it stands that it is morally ok to remove persons from society who seek to sow dissent against your rule and undermine the foundations you have been laying for the benefit of those in your charge. That is why the free press should be abolished and why it is ok to imprison political adversaries. The more time you spend combating their insidious influence on your citizens,the less time you have to spend ensuring their advancement. Such influences should be dealt with swiftly and appropriately.

Regards your last paragraph. That only serves to support the point that Fascism, and particularly National Socialism is the best system of government there is. I don't feel the need to refute any of itsincethose are the very reasons why Nazism is superior.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

Alright. I'll give you the win for the first two paragraphs. But the others...

It appears that you're contradicting yourself. You say Fascism is for the people, yet you are willing to oppress and detain any citizen who opposes your rule, whether they be an intellectual or a common fool. Have you forgotten Albert Einstein--he who deliberately refused to return to Germany BECAUSE of Nazism? Has he not contributed more to science and achieved more miraculous things in America? Einstein, a pacifist, WANTED The Allies to brace for war against the Germans. Surely if Einstein was in your class you would have had him thrown out with other disruptive/thought-provoking pupils. With that said, I shall repeat: the Nazis WERE NOT passionate about their own people, but only their party and people who supported them, citizens or not. The only reason Braun was accepted into the inner-circle was because of his knowledge, nothing more. He wasn't enthusiastic about the party, and even if he was, it was all a ploy for the welfare of his life/career--not true enthusiasm.

Ultimately, Nazism does not truly represent the core of Fascism or nationalism nor was it for the people, meaning all Nazi-based sources and arguments are void.

And again, it did not "take all of the allies to defeat Nazi Germany". Simply because they were involved does not mean the Soviet Union wouldn't have crushed them alone--which they would have as proved before. Meaning, by your terms, that the Soviet Union was the most formidable, not Nazi Germany. Simply because I ask for my friends' help to clean my room doesn't mean I need their help, as I could easily do it by myself, but within a longer period of time.

And now for my actual stance in the debate. There are many forms of Fascism, and it seems you've chosen the most extreme form of it--detaining opposing views, restricting free press, using Nazism as an example, etc--and therefore I must form a statement against that version alone. However, I don't need to, as you have already shown and proved that Fascism (your version) in not the best form of government for it is not a government, but a rule of separate management enforced among the weak or the different by brutal force and/or oppression. No wonder my so many "Nazi" generals plotted to kill Hitler. For if it were a government, then it would attempt to unify all people by conversion, not oppression. Thus, you have proved your own declaration to be false.





Debate Round No. 3
Dann

Pro

"It appears that you're contradicting yourself. You say Fascism is for the people, yet you are willing to oppress and detain any citizen who opposes your rule, whether they be an intellectual or a common fool. Have you forgotten Albert Einstein--he who deliberately refused to return to Germany BECAUSE of Nazism?"

Yes, Fascism is for the good of the people. Let it be understood that whatever system you have in place, it will be divisive. Take democracy for instance. In the US it is split between Democrat and Republican. In the UK it is split between Conservative and Labour, mainly. This is simply human nature. Not merely human nature, but nature itself. Opposition is an unavoidable part of life. It is how you deal with opposition that counts. In a democratic country, a parties efforts are largely distracted by trying to overcome their opponents critiques and by trying to discredit their opponent. It takes the form of smear campaigns and the pejorative use of the word politicking. What does this benefit a nation? In such a system you will always find a schism, with each sect having their own particular niche, their own particular selling points. With fascism, the government has full and total control and looks after the entire nation. None of this favouring sections of society and chasing a particular demographic. There is no need to specialise and thus limit the party since opposition is banned. The best way to deal with your opposition is to remove it entirely. Albert Einstein - one of the greatest minds to have ever lived, but he was a Jew. He would be given no quarter in Germany. Like I said, we can't discredit the system on the basis of the evils of its progenitors. It was unfortunate, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

The nazis were passionate about their own people. They mandated that they shall all be fit, healthy specimens for the sake of the people as a whole and they they shall all act and move and think as one, when it comes to their nationhood. They put the whole nation to work and did not let them rest on their laurels and pay them a salary to be unemployed, as they do in the UK.

You should read Brauns biography. Of all the Nazi minds that the US poached, you will find that none of them really believed in National Socialism. Were the US just picky about which nazis they recruited? Or did they, after the fact, seek to rewrite their history? Braun put his name to the list because his political ideals were aligned with the Nazis, like many, many others. It simply wouldn't behoove the US to employ their former enemies of such an evil regime. So what was the impetus in recruiting them? Was it their brilliance first and foremost? Or was it that they were never really 'in to it'? Or was it serendipitously both at the same time? I think you'll find that utility comes first. Making it justifiable in the eyes of the public comes second.

The Red Army were formidable alright. The second greatest force of WW2. So, if it was just the Nazis vs the Reds, I contend that the Nazis would have skipped through Stalingrad and conquered Moskva in no time. But, as it is, they were stretched on numerous fronts fighting all of the worlds superpowers. If those other resources were directed to the war against the Russians, it would be no contest.

Your last paragraph did not make any sense. The good of the people isn't always the will of the people. It takes a noble and strong leadership to enforce the people against their will to do what is just and in their own best interests at times. But for one to win the people around to wanting to do what is best, there lies a demigod.

Fascism, and in particular National Socialism, is the best form of government there can be.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

Kenneth_Stokes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Dann

Pro

My opponent unfortunately never made it to the last round. This is understandable - there simply is no better system of government than a fascist one. The prospect of formulating an argument against it would send most people cowering away so I shall show empathy with my opponent.

I believe that humanity should divine itself a purpose. Even if life is objectively meaningless, we have intellect, the ability to learn, do, become better, stronger, faster. I believe a life is wasted if it does not seek to fulfil and surpass its potential in every regard. I believe that a true and just government should be more than just an administrative force, it should also make the most of the people whom it governs. I believe a strong, unopposed leader who holds the citizens best welfare at heart and who has balls is the best a nation can ask for. I believe National Socialism, or Fascism in general, provides the answer. They are systems built on the advancement and betterment of the people and thusly the nation. That should be first and foremost in government business.

Vote for me. Vote against wishy-washy, emasculated, greed-led democracy and vote for your brethren, for their health and happiness, for their true prosperity, for their virtue, for kinship, for your nation. National Socialism. The best style of government.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

Sorry for the forfeit. It was due to unforeseen inconveniences that were not of my will.

In this last round, I simply wish to state that I have effectively refuted most, if not all, of my opponents arguments. Arguments such as: Nazis's brought an intellectual renaissance of some sorts, they were the most formidable army, they were a government for the people, that a sense of nationalism healed the debt, and many other sub-arguments.

Furthermore, I feel that I effectively made my opponent contradict himself many times and rendered many of his points void. Although I don't believe my opponent understands this as he constantly restates void arguments. But to reiterate my final response: the form of governance that my opponent advocates is not truly a government for the people, but an oligarchy that oppressed all opposing and non-conformist ideologies. Which is why many "Nazis" plotted to kill Hitler. If it was truly for the people, then high-ranking members of your own party would not plot to kill you. Thus, National Socialism, by your definition, is not for the people. And in a broader sense, Fascism is not the best form of government for society will never accept it, meaning that the only way for a Fascist to get into power is from brutal force, as you've described, which I replied, is not for the people. The "best" form of a government is one that seeks a general compromise for all people, not just the few or the majority. Using fitness is not satisfactory as the U.S. has fitness programs during high school, and if an individual chooses not to exercise after high school, then having a government force them to will only lead to more problems. I could go on and on about the many social revolutions Fascism, especially Nazism, will cause, but my point has been made numerous times.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 4 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
The forfeit was due to inconveniences within myself. I in know way intend to forfeit the debate, so post your conclusion in the final round and I'll post mine. Sorry.
Posted by Dann 4 years ago
Dann
What can you say? People like to stick to their hot topics
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 4 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
I'm somewhat upset that a unique debate such as this is getting less views than that of the same religious, economic, gay marriage, or frivolous debates that pop up dozens of times every week. :(
No votes have been placed for this debate.