The Instigator
Adam2isback
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tough
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Real Democrats are superior to Occupy Democrats

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Tough
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,204 times Debate No: 78914
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Adam2isback

Pro

Real Democrats don't go around saying things that are completely unfactual, like how Denmark is the happiest country. No it ain't. A racist commentator in 2002 made nasty remarks about Senegalese players during a game against them. Denmark is one of the most openly racist countries in the world.
http://articles.latimes.com...

Real Dems have never said this nonsense.
Not even supporters of the welfare state say this nonsense.

For that reason real Democrats (voters and politicians alike) are superior.
Tough

Con

The Conclusion of Pro


Perhaps the most hilarious part of Pro’s narrow-minded and fallacious portrayal of Occupy Democrats and “Real Democrats” is their closing statement that the only reason that Occupy Democrats are inferior to Real Democrats is that they state nonfactual things (“unfactual is not a word in the English dictionary). There are three issue with this conclusion.


The first is that if this is the only reason that the resolution is true, then the degree of ‘superiority’ is really so small that it could be considered negligible and thus on that alone it can be concluded that they are relatively equal to each other.


The second is that if I can successfully prove that “Real Democrats” also say completely nonfactual things, Pro’s entire case is immediately destroyed.


The third is that if I can prove the Denmark point wrong in some way, Pro’s case is immediately destroyed.


In other words, Pro’s case is so easy to destroy that they have already lost this debate before I even begin to run my counter-case.


Things that “Real Democrats” say that are nonfactual:


The Statue of Liberty means everything. We take it for granted today. We take it for granted. Remember the Statue of Liberty stands for what America is. We as Democrats have to remind ourselves and remind the country the great principles we stand for. This is a place of protection. This is not a country of bullies. We are not an empire. We are the light. We are the Statue of Liberty.


JERRY SPRINGER, This American Life, Jan. 30, 2004


Barack Obama: “You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally.” – September, 2012


“Pakistan is a peace-loving, democratic country.” -Malala Yousafzai


“Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Mahatma Gandhi


I won’t bother explaining why these are nonfactual unless Pro tries to deny it and also would like to say that there were millions more I could have quoted but for the sake of being concise chose not to. All those I quoted support the ideal of democracy and are not members of the Occupy Movement.


The Racism Issue


Let’s say that Denmark were the most openly racist nation on Earth. Pro said they were only one of the most openly racist but let’s say they actually were number one at it. Would this be relevant to proving that they were not the happiest nation on Earth? Has Pro provided one shred of evidence linking being openly racist and being unhappy? The fact that Pro raised that not only proves how little there is against the point but also proves how illogical the entire resolution and Pro’s brain itself are. This is not an insult or ad hominem way of winning but simply an objective analysis of Pro and his/her debate.


Evidence relating to Denmark’s national Happiness Rating


UN Happiness Ranking 2015: 3rd


http://unsdsn.org...


UN Happiness Ranking 2013: 1st


http://unsdsn.org...


The only one being nonfactual prior to 2015 and after the 2013 report would have been anyone denying this.


I have proven three things in this debate:



  1. Non-Occupy, “Real”, Democrats state nonfactual things.

  2. Denmark being racist is irrelevant to the validity of their national happiness ranking/rating.

  3. Pro’s entire case is not only false but utterly irrelevant to both other points within itself and the resolution overall.

Debate Round No. 1
Adam2isback

Pro

No offense to con, and this really isn't ad homeim either, but are you trying to insult my intelligence?

Things that “Real Democrats” say that are nonfactual:
The Statue of Liberty means everything. We take it for granted today. We take it for granted. Remember the Statue of Liberty stands for what America is. We as Democrats have to remind ourselves and remind the country the great principles we stand for. This is a place of protection. This is not a country of bullies. We are not an empire. We are the light. We are the Statue of Liberty. -- Jerry Springer
Jerry Springer is a comedian who hosted his show that makes others laugh on a daily basis. He's known to say silly things from time to time. So he doesn't count.

Barack Obama: “You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally.” – September, 2012
This is his opinion on something. Yes, Obama's opinion a lot of the time is not right, but he's not claiming that China did this or that when they didn't or that they didn't do something when they did. He's merely stating his opinion on an ally.


The last two? Seriously? They're not Democrats. They're not Americans..


Our discussion is about Democrats. Like any politicians, like most Republicans (and I'm not saying Republicans are better, because if there had been an Occupy Republicans I'd be saying the same thing).

Let’s say that Denmark were the most openly racist nation on Earth. Pro said they were only one of the most openly racist but let’s say they actually were number one at it. Would this be relevant to proving that they were not the happiest nation on Earth? Has Pro provided one shred of evidence linking being openly racist and being unhappy? The fact that Pro raised that not only proves how little there is against the point but also proves how illogical the entire resolution and Pro’s brain itself are. This is not an insult or ad hominem way of winning but simply an objective analysis of Pro and his/her debate.
According to world ratings, racism is a big part of happiness. It's not a happy country for those who are suffering discrimination, and yes there have been cases. In 2002, one commentators for football (foreign variant) made some really mean remarks about Senegalese players (this was Denmark vs Senegal). Several were tried for rape (http://www.whatnextjournal.org.uk...)

UN Happiness Ranking 2015: 3rd

http://unsdsn.org......

UN Happiness Ranking 2013: 1st

http://unsdsn.org......

A
Sir, you use a source that is about as reliable as a kid's map to find directions (no rudeness intended). The UN statistics are proven to be very inconsitent
Take the Human Democracy Index. Why I believe it's nonsense.
s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" />
Also on top of the list are two countries, that much like Denmark, have a lot of racial problems, New Zealand is one of them. Lots of racist attacks.

So the UN statistics are unreliable for factual information.

I take it the Occupy Democrats probably get their info from the UN.

http://www.ibtimes.com...
According to the report, from trusted economic sources, it's Switzerland that's the world's happiness.
Tough

Con

Alright so let's break down something here.

Pro, who has full burden of proof in this debate, has yet to give a single valid reason for the resolution being true.

What Pro then proceeds to do is focus on totally irrelevant parts of my argument and try to strawman me (which I will render unsuccessful) and follows this up by deciding to possibly do something so ridiculously ironic that he proved me right twice over and himself wrong three.

The Comedian is 100% serious in his views as a Democrat and said that not in Jest but with sincerity. This isn’t important for me to win the debate though so for the sake of minimal effort I will drop it if need be.

The Barrack Obama quote is hilarious for two totally separate reasons. The first is that China was and is in no way at all USA’s closest ally and this is a severe insult to all its other allies to suggest. In addition, diplomacy is not what on Earth he meant to say there. Surely the guy who sends drones in to overthrow a government without any prior permission from the UN is not the same guy preaching about diplomacy. Democracy and diplomacy are also not related as much as one may think. The democrat would always put the good of the many above that of the few unless enough of the majority supported the right of the few to be cared for whereas the Republican would insist on rights regardless of what the majority people said was good or bad at the time. The Republican outlook is often far closer to diplomacy at it only works if you are able to sugar-coat the truth and not offend people while ignoring them and insisting on ‘inherent rights’ regardless of what they say or do to change you, the Democrats don’t need to master diplomacy as they need only cower to the many to ensnare their votes for the next election. Sometimes this spinelessness angers the populace and the intention backfires and makes the ‘many’ hate them but sometimes it works so well that it creates 2 terms of a president that went from economically left-wing Iranian diplomacy master Osama hunting badass to centrist, drone-abusing bully not too soon after his second term was confirmed.

You need to be an American to be a real democrat? That’s news to me. I thought a ‘real’ democrat was simply someone who supports democratic views but was not a member of the Occupy movement which is exactly what your resolution suggests. If you meant people who were literally members of the Democratic party then you’re completely and utterly wrong as the occupy movement is literally raw democracy in that it is a group of people using their numbers to get what they want and growing successfully by doing so whereas the Democratic party uses very undemocratic powers to enforce a series of laws that only serve that the majority see as moral at the time of election and what they think they can get away with doing even if the majority disagree.

If you studied or remotely understood Gandhi’s views and Malala’s extremely horrific ordeals and fight for democracy in a nation that so violently abhors it, you would understand that put together they are 2000x the democrat that Obama or Clinton ever were or will be. You don’t need to be American to be a real democrat.

Your UN point is so ironic that I almost pissed myself laughing.

You said that since Switzerland won in the very same report that I admitted Denmark came third in, that Denmark is not the happiest nation on Earth. Yet 2 sentences before that you were just beginning your rant about how unreliable a source those reports are since the oh-so-inconsistent UN made them. Let me explain this in simple terms to you; until 2015 and following the 2013 report, Denmark was considered the officially happiest nation on Earth. It isn’t racist to say this nor is it nonfactual. The Occupy Movement was only saying that until then. Now they only say that it is one of the happiest nations which, being 3rd in the world and all after having come 1st previously, is very factual indeed. If you do not understand that nations supporting the Occupy Movement’s ideals are consistently thrashing the happiness ratings in the UN reports and that this is what they meant rather than Denmark specifically then you don’t understand the point they were making.

It’s also ironic that you think the Occupy Movement would be more likely than your ten-inches-deep-in-UN-anus Obama and a variety of ‘real American democrats’ are literally spearheading the UN and always have been. Please get your facts together before your lack of them falls apart.

Debate Round No. 2
Adam2isback

Pro

Alright so let's break down something here.

Pro, who has full burden of proof in this debate, has yet to give a single valid reason for the resolution being true.

What Pro then proceeds to do is focus on totally irrelevant parts of my argument and try to strawman me (which I will render unsuccessful) and follows this up by deciding to possibly do something so ridiculously ironic that he proved me right twice over and himself wrong three.

The Barrack Obama quote is hilarious for two totally separate reasons. The first is that China was and is in no way at all USA’s closest ally and this is a severe insult to all its other allies to suggest. In addition, diplomacy is not what on Earth he meant to say there. Surely the guy who sends drones in to overthrow a government without any prior permission from the UN is not the same guy preaching about diplomacy. Democracy and diplomacy are also not related as much as one may think. The democrat would always put the good of the many above that of the few unless enough of the majority supported the right of the few to be cared for whereas the Republican would insist on rights regardless of what the majority people said was good or bad at the time. The Republican outlook is often far closer to diplomacy at it only works if you are able to sugar-coat the truth and not offend people while ignoring them and insisting on ‘inherent rights’ regardless of what they say or do to change you, the Democrats don’t need to master diplomacy as they need only cower to the many to ensnare their votes for the next election. Sometimes this spinelessness angers the populace and the intention backfires and makes the ‘many’ hate them but sometimes it works so well that it creates 2 terms of a president that went from economically left-wing Iranian diplomacy master Osama hunting badass to centrist, drone-abusing bully not too soon after his second term was confirmed.
But historically, China has been our ally.
https://en.wikipedia.org...;

You need to be an American to be a real democrat?
Yes I was talking about Democrats. I even capitalized it for you. I wasn't talking about democratic ideals. There's a reason I capitalized it, to make the distinction.

That’s news to me. I thought a ‘real’ democrat was simply someone who supports democratic views but was not a member of the Occupy movement which is exactly what your resolution suggests.
You read it wrong. I clearly made a reference to followers of the party.


If you meant people who were literally members of the Democratic party then you’re completely and utterly wrong as the occupy movement is literally raw democracy in that it is a group of people using their numbers to get what they want and growing successfully by doing so whereas the Democratic party uses very undemocratic powers to enforce a series of laws that only serve that the majority see as moral at the time of election and what they think they can get away with doing even if the majority disagree.
To the first sentence, that is correct.
The other point: that's wrong. Many Democrats have done good things for society. Same as Republicans. And I'm not picking on Occupy Democrats alone. I know Occupy Republicans would do the same nonsense.

If you studied or remotely understood Gandhi’s views and Malala’s extremely horrific ordeals and fight for democracy in a nation that so violently abhors it, you would understand that put together they are 2000x the democrat that Obama or Clinton ever were or will be. You don’t need to be American to be a real democrat.
Again wasn't using Democratic in that way.

Your UN point is so ironic that I almost pissed myself laughing.

You said that since Switzerland won in the very same report that I admitted Denmark came third in, that Denmark is not the happiest nation on Earth. Yet 2 sentences before that you were just beginning your rant about how unreliable a source those reports are since the oh-so-inconsistent UN made them. Let me explain this in simple terms to you; until 2015 and following the 2013 report, Denmark was considered the officially happiest nation on Earth. It isn’t racist to say this nor is it nonfactual. The Occupy Movement was only saying that until then. Now they only say that it is one of the happiest nations which, being 3rd in the world and all after having come 1st previously, is very factual indeed. If you do not understand that nations supporting the Occupy Movement’s ideals are consistently thrashing the happiness ratings in the UN reports and that this is what they meant rather than Denmark specifically then you don’t understand the point they were making.
Except the UN resolutions make mistakes a lot. The inconsistencies are too little. Take Canada for instance, a country that is pretty much Anglo-Norman like England, and Anglican. Australia is the same. Same culture, yet somehow they have a higher score than England itself. And this is the same map that says Scandinavia is superior, which is also incorrect.

Tough

Con

Pro has offered no constructive points past Round 1 which got utterly demolished by me in this debate leaving him to grasp at straws in my case without ever coming up with a new valid point that would prove the resolution true.

At best, Pro has proved real and occupy democrats to be equals but not at all explained why or how one is superior to the other.

I conclude that Pro hasn't met his burden of proof and that absolutely nothing in his Round 3 conclusion was even worth addressing as it was only refuting refutations rather than actually maintaining anything he himself said or coming up with a new point (which is too late to do in the last round anyway).

Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
I think the people you're talking about are the people that say Norway is the happiest country on Earth, and many recent reports have shown that.
Posted by Adam2isback 1 year ago
Adam2isback
This isn't RFD, as I did post this but it didn't go through from some reason
here's the Human Democracy Index map I posted
https://upload.wikimedia.org...
Please don't penalize me. I did post the link, you can see it. It just didn't go through, so it wouldn't be fair to me.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
robertacollier
One type Democrat superior to another? That's like saying sludge is better than slime.
Posted by gokuFNAF2 1 year ago
gokuFNAF2
FNAF not FANF.
Posted by gokuFNAF2 1 year ago
gokuFNAF2
He attacks people too.
Posted by Adam2isback 1 year ago
Adam2isback
gokuFanF2
Nah he's just an idiot. Not to be taken seriously. He thinks Denmark never had a colonial empire. Ha what a joke!
Posted by Adam2isback 1 year ago
Adam2isback
gokuFanF2
Nah he's just an idiot. Not to be taken seriously. He thinks Denmark never had a colonial empire. Ha what a joke!
Posted by gokuFNAF2 1 year ago
gokuFNAF2
Provideoman123 is a guy who attacks people.
Posted by Adam2isback 1 year ago
Adam2isback
@provideoman123
Unless you're just trolling me to annoy me with stupidity. Cause if not, then you're stupid.
Denmark did a lot of nasty things.

So this idea of an innocent Nordic people is complete comedy and quite frankly, entertainment, based on some pothead who was smoking weed.
Posted by Adam2isback 1 year ago
Adam2isback
@provideoman123
Now that's just completely dumb.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

These guys used to chop the arms off of innocent civilians in battle in the Danish West Indies and Gold Coast colonies. Just as bad as the Spanish. So that is a stupid statement.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
Adam2isbackToughTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to establish their assertions to be true. They provided one relevant source, that supported Con's assertion! [A second source, also supporting Con, is in the comments.] What they did provide was comedy, in the form of "They're not Democrats. They're not Americans." Which is ironic after claiming Jerry Springer can't be a Democrat for being a comedian. (I don't think Con pointed it out, but Springer was a Democratic mayor of Cincinnati.) Both used ad hominems. Pro uses the pejorative "Dems", but this isn't enough to take points from conduct.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Adam2isbackToughTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I would vote, but there is two reasons why I'm not going to award points to either side. 1. Both Pro and Con were extremely rude and disrespectful. Listen, if you can't debate in a decorous atmosphere without personally attacking your opponent to win a point, then I'd suggest visiting 4chan. And if you question the relevance of this reason, see "conduct." 2. Neither side had *good* arguments backed with evidence. Both sides of the arguments were about equally convincing, which wasn't a lot. Conclusion: Be respectful to your opponents. Don't insult people. And try to come up with arguments besides ad hominem after ad hominem.