The Working Mans Eventual Rebellion.
Debate Rounds (3)
On to the debate.
The core problem with modern day work and schooling is the sense that one is not contributing to something. People have become interchangeable parts on the assembly line of a more efficient economy.
By the same token, this is the same economy that delivers indoor heating and A/C, refrigerators, and cars. These are all recent inventions. Most consider these basic necessities of life.
Problems at work are actually very low on the list of risk factors for suicide. Mental health problems and social factors top the charts by a wide margin.
This brings us to the silver lining in a depressing cloud. Social interaction has never been at a higher level. Texting and telephone have brought new life to moments of downtime. Television should also be categorized as a social activity, the social parts of the brain activate when seeing other humans interacting with other humans.
The "midlife crisis" is the more common response to an inanely boring lifestyle. Not aggression.
My opponent is describing the current lower class as it is. They consider themselves expendable. Crime rises, people lose food and jewelry to drifters, etc. Jail is not fearsome, because it provides food and shelter from the elements.
The Red Scare was caused by WWI and WWII, the fear was larger than the actual problem. We have the same thing today with Muslims, fear of Muslims but this fear is far more in hand than the fear of Communism in the First and Second Red Scare.
This example you cite supports my point: the general populace supported the United States government.
The risk factors for suicide are as follows, most important listed first:
The effects of the most commonly used drugs support the oppositite of my opponent's position. Marajuna is known for its calming effects, used by 14.8 million of the 22 millon stated by my opponent. Perscription drugs such as pain relivers and anti-anxiety pills make up 7 million of the 22 million stated by my opponent.
The goal of these people is not military action against the USA, it is to remain calm, mellow, and rational.
Thinking of violent crime is completely different than actually commiting a violent crime. Everyone has thought of a bank robbery, who wouldn't? But actually robbing a bank is a different matter.
Note that the FBI reports that the estimated volume of violent crimes in 2010 dropped 6 percent compared with the 2009 figure. Crime is going down, not up. There is no cause for alarm.
Who is the target of violent crime. Not the United States government, as my opponent contends. This would be akin to attacking an army base with a handgun, or a police station with a knife.
Also, nothing is happeneing on the scale my opponent's contend. In 2009, the estimated rate of aggravated assaults was 262.8 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants.
To even contemplate the idea of a phisycal attack on the United States Government is ubsurd.
This is the only way out of the current two-party system.
Note the lack of popularity of Ron Paul. He is the political way out of the two-party system, and was shot down in short order.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't prove that frustration will lead to class consciousness. Yes, frustration exists. No, frustration doesn't mean the frustrated will become conscious together. That said, Con suggests that commodity fetishism accommodates social alienation. He doesn't engage the matter of consciousness from commodity fetishism in the first place. There are fallacies on both sides. It would be a draw if Con didn't portray unsubstantiated generalities as a bad thing. Unsubstantiated generalities are good because they entail argumentation without prejudice to particular physical outcomes. Unsubstantiated generalities are also required to theorize in advance of experience. Is Con expecting an actual rebellion as proof? Conduct goes to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.