The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Redistribution of Wealth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,894 times Debate No: 61002
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (1)




Focusing first on your claim that the redistribution of wealth (or, more generally, resources) would somehow inherently destroy all incentive to work on the part of those from whom resources were taken, this is just patently untrue. It is a well-known historical fact of economics that, even when corporations are taxed at supposedly exorbitant rates (e.g., about 90% under FDR), American industry nevertheless thrives, CEOs still make out like bandits, the populace as a whole is no less likely to prosper (than under comparably low corporate tax rates), and nobody just abandons a highly profitable business model or product/service concept and moves to Tahiti to escape fiscal oppression. This logic applies to individuals as much as it does corporations; realistically, nobody with a billion-dollar idea is going to forgo pursuit of it simply because, after all is said and done, all taxes are paid and debts are settled, s/he'll be left with "only" a paltry, say, $78,000,000. That's just pure nonsense, hogwash, bunkum on its face, and we need only common human experience and a child's understanding of economic realities to see that. It's of course an entirely empirical question what the exact "tipping point" would be, i.e., the rate of taxation or seizure of capital (or however you care to define it) at which incentive actually would begin to appreciably suffer, but what is beyond rational debate is that a considerable percentage of the income and assets currently earned/held by the nation's wealthiest citizens could indeed be redistributed to some particular or general demographic (e.g., the country's neediest citizens [defined in some precise way] whether employed or not, those gainfully employed but earning less than $35,000/yr., those earning less than a certain amount who also have at least two dependents [spouse and one child], those recently laid off after 20 or 25 or 30 years, whatever; the specifics hardly matter at the outset of this debate) without their incentive to do exactly what they're doing now, and have done to generate such incredible wealth in the first place, being even marginally tangibly affected.

Your move.


I accept your debate challenge Pro!

R1: Excessive Taxation has Disadvantages

"It is a well-known historical fact of economics that, even when corporations are taxed at supposedly exorbitant rates (e.g., about 90% under FDR), American industry nevertheless thrives"

First, effective corporate income taxes haven't exceeded 50% [1]. This exorbitant rate was also when the U.S. economy was a global behemoth, accounting for almost 1/3rd of global GDP [2].

Second, the extreme tax rates you are talking about applied to individuals, not corporations.

"realistically, nobody with a billion-dollar idea is going to forgo pursuit of it simply because, after all is said and done, all taxes are paid and debts are settled, s/he'll be left with "only" a paltry, say, $78,000,000"

Capitalism is fueled by the profit motive. Enterprises and individuals supply each other with goods and services because of the rewards provided by the market.

Individuals and enterprises take risks all the time. Profit is the payoff of sound risk management. If a large corporation or a taxpayer had to pay 90% of their income to the government, profitable ventures would be less likely to occur. The potential payoff would be significantly lower, which would encourage investors to direct their funds towards stable, blue-chip accounts. Consequently, awe-inspiring yet unproven ventures would suffer because the reward (say, 9% of the profit after your proposed taxes) would not justify the potential risks.

I'll lay out my basic arguments.

C1: High Taxes are Immoral

The market economy rewards enterprises and individuals with equivalent earnings.

When the government imposes excessive taxes, it is essentially robbing the individual of their earnings, and instead consuming the fruit of the man's labor for its selfish purposes.

A slight degree of taxation is indeed justified, but when a government decides to tax excessively, it robs its citizens of their livelihood, and therefore degrades a man of his dignity and his freedom.

C2: High Taxes are Shortsighted

The 21st century has an interdependent global economy. Capital (human, financial, physical) is highly movable.

Let's compare two nations, the United States and China. The U.S. has a corporate income tax of 35%, while China has a corporate income tax of 25% [3]. A nation's corporate income tax rate heavily influences corporate headquarters location. If Apple moved its corporate headquarters to China, it would essentially get paid $4.7 billion by the Chinese government (let's call it a corporate tax refund) [4].

If the U.S. decides to impose sky-high taxes, individuals and corporations will leave our nation, depriving America of both tax revenues, human capital, and innovation.

Indeed, since 2012, over 21 U.S. companies have relocated their corporate headquarters outside of America [5].

America's personal income tax system has reached this point. However, California can provide a microsized example of what could happen -- more individuals are leaving this state than moving in [6].

Nations such as Great Britain and France are losing their most-talented workers because of their comparatively high income taxes [7].

I feel like my opponent won't respond, so I'll summarize my case with my arguments against redistribtion:

- High Taxes are Immoral

- High Taxes generate perverse incentives

- High Taxes encourage "Brain Drain"

- High Taxes suffocate Economic Growth

- High Taxes obstruct entrepreneurship and innovation



[1] (

[2] (

[3] (

[4] (

[5] (

[6] (

[7] (

Debate Round No. 1


If I confused individual and corporate tax rates under FDR, then I apologize. However, for purposes of this debate, the difference is quite inconsequential, as the issue at hand is whether, as a moral matter, wealth ought to be redistributed; and whether, furthermore, as a matter of pure economics, such redistribution could be achieved without destroying or even significantly undermining incentive, innovation, and other essential ingredients of a healthy free-market economy. If I misunderstand the parameters of this debate as you see them, then please correct me now. In the meantime, let me first rebut the arguments you've put forward and then make a few in support of my own position.

You yourself point out that, under FDR, individual tax rates for the uber wealthy were around 90%. Yet, a few sentences later, you warn that: "If a large corporation or ***a taxpayer*** had to pay 90% of their income to the government, profitable ventures would be less likely to occur" (emphasis mine). Obviously, the uber wealthy comprise taxpyers. Yet, under the last 8-10 years of the FDR administration, the American economy generally and new American enterprises in particular positively THRIVED! Now, how can that be if in fact, as you suggest, such exorbitant taxes on the rich (whether corporations or individuals) tend strongly to discourage profitable ventures? Was this period in American history simply an anomaly of sorts?

Moving on, now, to your numbered, more formal arguments:

C1: High Taxes Are Immoral.

"Equivalent earnings"? Equivalent to what, and how, exactly, is that equivalency measured?

You use the phrase "excessive taxes" without defining the word "excessive" as used in this context. Is 1% excessive? How about 2%? 5%? Who decides what constitutes excessive taxation, and upon what basis? Some would argue that ANY tax is unjustified in principle and therefore excessive, while most concede that at least some taxes in some amount are both morally acceptable and practically necessary for a free society to flourish. You seem to acknowledge as much when you admit, a line or two later, that "a slight degree of taxation is indeed justified." Okay, great. Now, define "slight." And justified how? You're making all sorts of assumptions here without clearly spelling them out or telling us the bases upon which they're supposed to plausibly rest. Please do so in your next entry.

Also, why do you say that, if a government overtaxes its citizens (whatever that comes to), it does so for "its [own] selfish purposes"? What if the government spent all of that revenue to build houses for the homeless or schools for the uneducated or hospitals for sick veterans of war? How could any of those purposes possibly, reasonably be described as "selfish"? I don't get it.

And as for this "robbery" concept, what's THAT all about? How is it that, say, a 7% tax might be perfectly warranted (by some standard or another) but a 7.1% tax would constitute robbery? How does a tax go from wholesome and proper to flat-out theft in the space of one-tenth of a percent? Absurd. But, if taxes are not inherently excessive and yet some level of taxation is tantamount to robbery, then that is precisely the case.

C2: High Taxes Are Shortsighted.

*Yawn.* Heard it all before. Empirical studies and known facts simply don't bear it out. And even if they did, let's consider a most relevant analogy.

Suppose you have eight kids playing in an oversized sandbox. The biggest kid currently possess 90% of the toys, much to the dismay of the other seven kids. When they complain about this and demand a more equal distribution of the toys, the big bully announces, "Fine, if you're going to insist on it, then I'll give some of my toys away. But if I have to do that, then I'll take the rest of my toys to another sandbox and play with a different group of kids, kids who won't be so insistent that I share my toys with them. And then you'll lose all the benefits of my being here, not the least of which is that I let you keep the other 10% of the toys, which are in fact the shiniest and most valuable toys in the whole wide world."

Clearly, nobody would regard the attitude of this de facto despot (read: Giant Corporation) as mature, reasonable, fair, decent, compassionate, or morally praiseworthy. On the contrary, we'd nearly all regard it as immature, unreasonable, unfair, indecent, selfish, and morally abhorrent. As downright bratty, petulant, petty, and crass, to be more specific. Likewise for a corporation which decides, essentially, to punish American workers and the economy as a whole by moving its operations to a "sandbox" friendlier to its executives' purely self-interested ambitions, their sheer, unadulterated, unapologetic avarice, even when it comes at the expense of decent wages for those without whom their brilliant ideas would be utterly worthless and cutting-edge products or services impossible to manufacture or provide.

Now for my own arguments:

I. Redstributing Wealth is a Moral Imperative.

I'll here simply quote a summary of Peter Singer's argument for wealth redistribution from his essay "Rich and Poor":

"suffering and death caused by lack of food, shelter, or medical care are bad
if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it
'Sacrifice' here means without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent
for example: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This may ruin my clothes but that would be insignificant while the death of the child would be very bad
we can reduce avoidable death and suffering by giving to famine relief etc. and the cost of doing so is a morally insignificant reduction in our standard of living
This argument applies both to immediate emergency famine relief and long term development aid.
therefore we ought to give to famine relief etc." [1]

It should be quite apparent how this argument could be tenably extended to wealth redistribution even within developed, relatively affluent nations such as the U.S. in which, despite their enormous concentrations of wealth in relation to poorer countries, there are nevertheless huge gaps in lifestyle, diet, access to quality affordable health care, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, happiness quotient, etc. between the rich and poor (i.e., those who make millions or even billions per year vs. those who make minuscule fractions of such sums per year, say $20-30,000/year).
Anticipating likely objections:

"Singer's argument is clear, and when you consider the drowning child example, pretty seductive.

But it does impose very high obligations on those of us who live in comparatively rich countries, and it may be just too demanding.

It limits our freedom to act
Singer demands that we must always make the morally best choice, nothing less will do.
This vastly reduces our freedom to make our own life choices as self-governing moral beings
It may require us to act against our best interests
It fails to recognise our own intrinsic moral value as persons
But perhaps we could impose limits to this - accepting that our own moral value means we should not sacrifice the interests of ourselves or those closest to us in order to aid others so long, of course, as we do not behave selfishly
It requires us not to favour those closest to us
It requires us not to favour other moral concerns we may have
i.e. not things that would benefit us, but other altruistic moral objectives we may want to fulfil
but then why should my moral concerns be more important than any others?

Singer adds 'neither our distance from a preventable evil nor the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation as we are, lessens our obligation to mitigate or prevent that evil.'

Should I treat people further away differently?
No: It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.
The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away.
But there are millions of other people who could help - so why should I?
One may feel less guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others, similarly placed, who have also done nothing. Yet this can make no real difference to our moral obligations.
For example: Am I am less obliged to pull the drowning child out of the pond if on looking around I see other people, no further away than I am, who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing?

Do people in rich nations have a duty to give to the poor?

The philosopher Thomas Pogge argues that there are two very clear reasons why they do:

Western colonisation and enslavement of poor countries is at least partly responsible for the conditions of the global poor
The conduct of richer nations imposes and supports unjust global structures and systems that harm the global poor when alternatives that would do less harm are possible

[Rich countries] enjoy crushing economic, political, and military dominance over a world in which effective enslavement and genocide continue unabated.

Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights, 2008"[2]

Having run out of space, I'll save my ancillary arguments for a later round, if such even prove necessary. The moral argument, outlined above, is by far and away the most important.




FDR imposed tax rates of 90% and America’s economy was fine!” [1]

The post-World War II era was an irregular situation in world history. The United States was an economic superpower, producing 1/3rd of global output [2].

The major nations such as Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union – all were facing economic devastation. The United States had global economic hegemony, and the excessive tax rates – while harmful – were not painful enough to destroy America’s unique position.

Also, the revenue system was entrenched with tax loopholes, which significantly reduced the effective marginal tax rates on the wealthy [3].

Furthermore, your argument doesn’t consider the impact of factors such as tremendous post-war savings and investment [4], the GI Bill, the deregulation of product and factor markets, and the reduction of the federal debt.

So, you’re “post-WW2 argument” fails to hold water because:

(1) The USA lacked global economic competition

(2) Effective taxes were significantly lower

(3) The economy thrived from different factors


R1: High Taxes are Immoral

I utilized the terms “excessive” and “slight” simply as broad adjectives; I agree that how these adjectives are used is a subjective decision, but most people would agree that rates such as 90% would be “excessive”, while a rate of 5% would be “slight”.

Unjustified Taxation

The philosopher John Locke crafted a vision that the government’s singular function was to “protect people’s natural rights… those being the right to life, liberty, and property”. In fact, Locke’s philosophy was the foundation of the American government.

When the government taxes individuals and redistributes income to different individuals, it fits the definition of theft. The definition of theft is "the removal of property through force", and redistribution fails to improve the common good, and instead simply deprives some for the benefit of others.

Productivity and Wages

Each worker's wage is linked to their marginal productivity. An individual's marginal contribution to the value of output is reflected in the worker's wage. This theory is almost universally accepted by economists [5] [6].

Therefore, the market's income distribution is fair, because people receive "wages that equal the value of their contribution to the economy's output" [6].

When the government redistributes income, it is depriving taxpayers of their earnings -- effectively discouraging them from being productive workers -- and rewarding the less productive workers.


R2: High Taxes are Shortsighted

First, your arguments about the "giant corporation" have no evidence to substantiate your claims. Now I'll show why higher taxes are bad.

The President's Council of Economic Advisers have stated that every $1 in tax revenues corrodes the economy by $1.50, after including compliance costs [7].

The University of California in Berkeley provided empirical evidence that shows $1 in tax increases reduces the economy by $3 [8].

The National Bureau of Economic Research has provided large swaths of empirical data showing that "tax[es] [are] an obstacle to the growth of small businesses." Indeed, a 17% reduction in marginal tax rates was simulated to increase business size by 28% [9].

Furthermore, high-income taxpayers provide the savings and investment which fuels economic growth. The productive output the wealthy contribute fosters economic development... (1) their incomes spent on consumption generates demand that reverberates throughout the economy, (2) their savings are invested to grow small businesses (through financial securities), and (3) their funds which are invested through venture capitalism foster entrepreneurship, innovation, and R&D.

Therefore, higher taxes are shortsighted:

(1) Higher taxes will significantly reduce America's economy (GDP) and produce inefficiency

(2) Higher taxes will kill jobs and middle-class livelihoods

(3) Higher taxes will corrode entrepreneurship and small business growth

(4) Higher taxes will diminish America's global competitiveness


R3: Redistribution Distorts Incentives

Labor earnings are equivalent to their marginal productivity (see my first argument). The highly productive and skilled workers are paid well, while the uneducated are not.

The market pays people fairly because they receive what they contribute to the economy.

If we redistribute incomes, the whole system of incentives is altered. The government will discourage individuals from improving their education and from investing in innovative, new products. The government will instead encourage low productivity and idleness. Indeed, because income subsidies will fall as incomes rise, the payoff of higher wages will be shortcut. This is already the case, as implicit marginal tax rates (from welfare programs) sometimes make higher wages less advantageous.

This system of incentives is terribly unhealthy for both the economy and America's culture. The culture of hard work and thrift will be damaged, and consequently, the economy will become grossly inefficient. People will become dependent on different people's income (production), and a culture of idleness will envelop among a segment of low-income workers, who will see living off the taxpayer's back as a better alternative than low-income jobs.

Pro fails to explain why the successful and hard working taxpayers should sacrifice, even though they made the correct economic decisions in life.

The poor will be encouraged to stay poor. The rewards from higher education and hard work would be eradicated.


R4: Low-Income Peoples

Expanding Opportunity

The accurate poverty rate is approximately 2% [9].

To be concise, material poverty "has been largely eradicated". Indeed, the bottom 5% of American citizens earn more than 95% of Indian citizens.

The United States economy provides vast opportunity for citizens to climb the income ladder and earn a comfortable living. As I showed earlier, typical high school graduates earn enough to sustain themselves. The type of material poverty you visualized only exists because of behavioral choices, and therefore is the result of individual choice, not society's err.

The market economy is the strongest engine for economic development and job growth in human history. A vibrant free market will generate the opportunities for all Americans to pursue their dreams and fulfill their livelihoods by earning an honest living, while also building a healthy economy. The pictures above also serve to validate this fact.

Improving People's Wages

The value of total production equals the value of incomes received throughout an economy [6]. Therefore, a healthy economy has growing productive capacity.

The growth in GDP is very dependent on private investment, the majority of which is supplied by the wealthy. Thus, the high-income Americans provide the investment capital which serves to increase real wages throughout the economy.

If we redistribute incomes away from the wealthy, this stream of funds will halt. Incomes will stagnate (contrary to popular beliefs, incomes have been rising with productivity, but employee benefits have supplanted earnings increases [11]).

This picture shows that the vast majority of income for low-income Americans are from earnings. If we destroy the investments which increase overall productivity levels, it could very well harm the poor, in the form of reduced capital levels.



The vast plethora of Americans have a choice of their future. Those who graduate "high school, [are] married, had no more than two children, and worked full time" have a trivial poverty rate of 1%" [10].

Therefore, people should be free to pursue their dreams and make their own decisions. That is the essence of freedom that forms the foundation of America itself. Redistribution of incomes has a wide array of consequences, and could very well increase poverty, due to the distortion of incentives.

Furthermore, if the government wants to augment the earnings among low-income peoples, it should promote productivity growth and capital accumulation, which would benefit everybody.

So the consequences of redistribution include these:

(1) A significant reduction in America's economy

(2) A large increase in unemployment and industry underutilization

(3) A reduction in entrepreneurship, innovation, and R&D,

(4) A distortion of vital economic incentives and associated economic imbalance

(5) A shattering of U.S. global competitiveness

(6) A massive theft from the productive to the low-income classes


"The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be." - Lao-Tzu



[1] Paraphrased

[2] (

[3] (

[4] Gordon, John. An Empire of Wealth. 2004. 349-381. Print.

[5] (

[6] Browning, Edgar. Stealing From Each Other. 2008. 4-9. Print.

[7] (

[8] Economic Report of the President (2003), p.77.

[9] (

Sawhill, "Behavioral Aspects of Poverty," p. 83.

[11] Reynolds, Arnold. Income and Wealth. Greenwood Press, 2006. 64. Print.

Debate Round No. 2


sconifer forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


sconifer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


sconifer forfeited this round.


Vote Contra.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sconifer 3 years ago
Another: I appreciate your honesty. You're far from alone, trust me. A while back I coined what I think a fairly clever quote to express the point: "Everybody hates socialism, until he begins to feel its benefits for himself." In other words, we'd have a socialist system tomorrow if we put the following on a national referendum tonight: "PROPOSED, that henceforth the nation's 10,000 wealthiest Americans shall each contribute 50% of their net worth to a National Fund each year, beginning Oct. 1, 2014, from which Fund the nation's 80,000,000 poorest citizens shall each receive $15-30,000 yearly, to be determined by their individual net worths." I guarantee this proposal would receive at least 80,000,000 votes.
Posted by Anotherpointofview 3 years ago
If I could get a check and not work I would gladly do that and hope others continued to work to enable my lifestyle. I'm just being honest.
Posted by sconifer 3 years ago
Anyway, get back to me when you have more letters after your name than "G.E.D." No offense, but you truly are a rather stupid man, and yet somehow, supposedly, quite financially successful. Hence, you are a perfect example of what drives liberals so nuts about wealth distribution in this country today: there obtains now a rather perverse, perhaps inexplicable inverse correlation between intelligence and wealth, such that the least educated and most intellectually challenged among us oftentimes fare far better in the marketplace than the most educated or at least the best intellectually equipped. Translation: if you wanna get rich in America today, DON'T GET AN EDUCATION! Just borrow money from Grandma and Honorable Mother (or however you got the capital to launch your own business; it sure as hell wasn't through saving up McDonald's money), invest in some uninspired start-up that sells cheap pieces of plastic of no real, meaningful, or perhaps even tangible value at, say, a 4,000% mark-up, hoard all the profits for yourself (and maybe your son, who will later "employ" you to perform the same services a chimp could for Christ-knows-how-much per hour or job), and then spend your "golden years" being contemptuous of working people, putting down the poor, and praising Caucasian Jesus! Can I get an Amen???

My prediction: being too lazy or dumb to actually respond to the FACTS I've presented, you'll claim you just don't have time to keep debating me; or continuing the conversation would be pointless because talking to me is like talking to a brick wall; or this is obviously hopeless because all "libtards" are the same and just won't listen to truth or reason; or [fill in the blank with your preferred excuse for not having the intellectual caliber, mental endurance, or intestinal fortitude to address my arguments with careful, logical, reasoned, fact-based arguments of your own]. Happens every time I debate someone in a forum like this; one day I'll learn not to bother.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
I have posted all I will here. I have given you the way to eternal life in my last post. Spit it up if you choose, but there it is.As Paul Harvey used to say, that is the rest of the story, good day.
Posted by sconifer 3 years ago
Finally (on this subject), no evolutionary biologist has EVER stated or implied that the simplest and earliest life-forms evolved from dirt. That's just an unbelievably silly statement evincing a rather abysmal ignorance of evolutionary theory, not to mention basic scientific precepts. Either you're legitimately that uneducated on the matter, or else you're deliberately distorting the facts in order to create an easily demolished straw man. In either case, you're not worth trying to engage in rational discourse about it.

Now, very lastly, I find it truly laughable, and further evidence of your troll-iness, that you actually have the temerity, the gumption, the sheer MAN-BALLS to sit there and tell me that everything I said about FDR, Hoover, the Great Depression, and the like, all of it thoroughly documented and diligently cited to sources all over the Internet (including Wikipedia, hardly known for its arrant liberal bias), is a lie, whilst everything YOU said is true just because YOU say it is. Nonsense! When the encyclopedia agrees with Person A and disagrees with Person B, all rational people would agree that Person A is right and Person B is wrong. Hence, no rational person would accept your historically inaccurate, empirically bogus claim, e.g., that Hoover (sworn in as president in March 1929) implemented the economic policies responsible for the Roaring Twenties - it's kind of difficult to usher in the Roaring Twenties via presidential policy when you don't become president until three months into the final year of the 1920s, LMAO!!! - or that the Great Depression, which ALL economic scholars and political historians agree began in August 1929 (two months before Wall Street collapsed), didn't actually begin until four years later, when the New Deal was enacted in 1933 (LMAO!!!). Likewise, no educated person would take seriously your claim that the Great Depression lasted until 1939; and even if it had, unemployment was at historic lows even before WWII.
Posted by sconifer 3 years ago
If you deny evolution, you're on the same intellectual footing as those who deny that the Holocaust ever happened, that the earth is round, and that man landed on the moon. So, why not believe all those things, as well? After all, NOT believing them requires faith, right?

The epistemic merits of our positions are anything but equal, sir. Virtually all of your religious beliefs, other than the airiest, most untestable bunch, are flatly, unequivocally contradicted by science. Science is not faith-based; it is based on observation, natural law, logical inference, and mathematics. You yourself subscribe to the findings of science, and demonstrate as much every day when you take an aspirin, trust a doctor to treat your illness, buy what you assume to be tested-as-safe food from the grocery store, expect an object to fall to the ground when you drop it, expect gasoline to fuel the engine in your car and cause it to propel forward, and on and on and on. So, we both accept the teachings of science... until, that is, they conflict with your religious beliefs, at which point you lose all respect for, and trust in, the scientific method, selectively ignoring what it tells us about the universe and its origins, as well as the origins of mankind and our all-but-certain individual and collective fates, in favor of some fairy tale virtually indistinguishable in its details from thousands of others which came before and have come since. I, meanwhile, being a rational man with consistent and steadfast principles, simply accept wherever science leads us, whether I like the implications or not.

I don't need to have transcended the boundaries of physical death to reasonably postulate that only slumber awaits us on the other side. The mere fact that I've no recollection of any experiences before my birth constitutes strong prima facie evidence that I'll experience nothing after death, either. The fact that consciousness depends on a functioning brain also strongly suggests this.
Posted by sconifer 3 years ago
Yes, there's a reason I sound intelligent: because I am. Three years at a private high school and seven years of higher education, including three in professional school. I used to practice law (poverty law, in fact, meaning I represented low-income folks free of charge), but I'm also a novelist who's been writing since the age of twelve. Now I make a fine living as both a writer and freelance editor, the bulk of which I donate to worthy charities - including the man on the street. And guess what? I don't even care if he uses my money to buy BOOZE! Omg! Imagine that! Giving freely of oneself, of one's own supposedly hard-earned income, to a complete stranger, and without the slightest concern as to whether his charity is being put to "good use." Thing is, old feller, "good use" is subjective; a bottle of bourbon might be just what a down-and-out street-dweller needs at some particular moment, in some particular situation he finds himself in, against the backdrop of a hard life in an unforgiving world full of complex and largely inscrutable personal choices. Who am I to say that bottle of bourbon won't do him more good, all things considered, than a hot meal or a warm bed, even if *I* personally wish he'd use it for such things instead? Answer: I am not; none of us is; none of us has any business judging someone else until we've walked a mile in his shoes. I'm pretty sure Jesus expressed basically the same sort of sentiment many times.

Anyhow, it's clear that you're not willing to engage in rational debate or respond intelligently to anything I've said, but have chosen instead to simply toss out a few vague anecdotes about your own life, insinuating, as all conservatives do, that if YOU can pull yourself up by your bootstraps, then so can everyone else! IOW, your entire philosophy hinges on the patently, flagrantly, demonstrably false premise that we all have roughly equal genetic abilities and access to more or less the same economic opportunities. Just ain't so.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
An unregenerayted man dies and has to be incarcerated. Imaginge hitler being let bloose on this earth without the restictions of this body. Or any other person with the law of death lodged in their spirit.

At the resurrection, both saved and unsaved are resurrected. The reborn man will get his glorified body back. And the unregenerated man will also receive his body back.Sick, cankered body. Every man will hear one of two words from God. " Enter into the joy of your Lord, or depart from me, for I never knew you".You have to take by faith that what I am saying is not true. Since you have never looked past yopur own death and saw for yourself God is not real.Just as I have to take by faith that God is real. Since I never saw past my own death either.So, we are both walking by faith, not by sight.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
Name ONE democrat policy that is good for America. Not just good for democrat voters. I said I am for tariffs. Maybe even your lightning fast mind can figure that is also a tax.

And ,you are again grossly misinformed about bible teachings. Did you also sit at the feet of those theologians in the cemetaries I addressed.
Now I will try to teach this as simply as I can so even you can understand it. We are spirit beings. We have souls( mind will and emotions) and we live in these earth suits( bodies.)When Adam sinned he passed the law of sin and death to all mankind. Everything will reproduce after its own kind.Man died spiritually. Now a spirit is not some ethereal being. It is more solid that what is physical. Just operates on a higher plane.God sent Jesus here to take to himself that law of sin and death. But it was on him illegally. He never sinned.So, after 3 days of that horror and that misery, God decalred that the final sacrifice for sin was now justified. Jesus was raised from the dead to head up a new race of man. The reborn man, the family of God. But the law of sin and death Still reigned in man. Man now had an option. Accept Jesus' resurrection from the dead, and trade his life for our law of death. Adam was the first man to be reborn. He was reborn fron life to death. Jesus came, paid the price for that law, and now we can accept Jesus's life which drives the law of death out.He was the first man to be reborn from death to life. Thwere was a second, third, and so on. I don't know what my number is , and don't care, but I am born of God and my firstborn brother is Jesus.Now for those who reject God's plan of redemption, they will die with that law of death still lodged in their spirit man.And that God could never let into his world.
So, when a reborn man dies, his soul,and spirit enter into spiritual environment. Which simply put is super( above) the speed of light.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
you sure sound intelligent. Of course when the wrappings are lifted we see someone who is grossly misinformed.You sound intelligent because of your much speaking.
I say exactly what I mean. The uni-verse is many eons of time in age. Man has only been here around 6000 years.Do not tell me what I think . I have been around me much longer than you and I know exactly what I think.And I am not at all interested in what any majority thinks.And if you have such faith in evolution, and are such a wizard of smartr, just create life from non-living material. You believe dirt did it, so, if yopu can't do it, then you are not as smart as dirt, at least not yet.And I spelled it right. Cemetery is how it should be spelled.Old dead religion.

I left that fast food job and got a job in an airplane engine company. The work ethic I learned there served me well in my new job.I have been on many jobs after that. But started being self-employed in 1978. That is why I never looked back. And I gave my all at that minimum wage job just as I did in my own business. I was privileged to have an honorable mother to instill in me the virtues of honor.

Manchin still votes most times in lockstep with democrats. And Robert byrd was hardly a conservative. The ONLY reason him or any democrat stopped being prejudiced against blacks because they saw a large voting block. All they had to do is get them on the government doll and they would enmass vote for them. It is the liberal policies that has effectively destroyed many black families. 60-70 % of black babies born out of wedlock. Black fathers are not to be found. Democrats are evil people for that alone.And I stand my ground about Roosevelt being an idiot. Your " facts" are not true and you know it. Ten year great depression, that is a fact.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture