Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abe Lincoln pwns Obama

studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 7:08:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here is an interesting clip I read from an article today:

Obama's plan for change is to commandeer industries and subtly eliminate the middle class and the productive work force, by redistributing their toils to the unproductive, eliminating our choices and services.
President Obama's only credential prior to his election was his work as a community organizer, in contrast to Abraham Lincoln, who said it best:
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot life the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they should do for themselves."
How can two men be so different?

Any thoughts? Remarks? Personally, I find Abe Lincoln to be both more intelligent and insightful (when he was alive) in comparison to Obama. (*Awaits a strong disapproval by wjmelements*) Lincoln knew what he was talking about. The presented clip says it all ;)
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".

There really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. Never has been, never will. United we stand, divided we fall. Lincoln himself quoted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is completely true. The nation needs to be unionized and focused on togetherness to have the ability to give freedoms to the people. Rezz is just jealous Lincoln was far superior in intelligence to him and most Americans of the past and present ;)
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:07:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yeah, because like, everyone I am against is because I'm jealous of them. Totally, man.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:07:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".

There really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. Never has been, never will.

The nation needs to be unionized and focused on togetherness to have the ability to give freedoms to the people.

This makes little sense, if any at all.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:09:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:07:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Yeah, because like, everyone I am against is because I'm jealous of them. Totally, man.

Give me a logical and real reason as to why I should be against Lincoln, and maybe I'll change my mind. So far, you have given no real proof as to why you should be against him.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:09:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Lincoln himself quoted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is completely true.
Actually, if you remove all internal structure of a house and have all of the walls fall inwards, they will support each other despite being divided against each other. So, how does that affect Lincoln's quote?
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:11:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:09:55 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Lincoln himself quoted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is completely true.
Actually, if you remove all internal structure of a house and have all of the walls fall inwards, they will support each other despite being divided against each other. So, how does that affect Lincoln's quote?

The quote is metaphorical and figurative. mongeese, I know you are intelligent enough to realize Lincoln's intentions of his quote. You merely created your post to give some b.s. ;)
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:14:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:07:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".

There really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. Never has been, never will.

The nation needs to be unionized and focused on togetherness to have the ability to give freedoms to the people.

This makes little sense, if any at all.

I guess I didn't really clarify myself. I do stand by the fact that there really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. When I mentioned giving "freedoms" to the people, I meant the government's way of giving rights/liberites (which, of course, are taken into consideration by that same government) to the people. I am having trouble explaining the concept. Maybe in several minutes I will think of a better way to elucidate my theory.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:14:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:11:41 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:09:55 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Lincoln himself quoted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is completely true.
Actually, if you remove all internal structure of a house and have all of the walls fall inwards, they will support each other despite being divided against each other. So, how does that affect Lincoln's quote?

The quote is metaphorical and figurative. mongeese, I know you are intelligent enough to realize Lincoln's intentions of his quote. You merely created your post to give some b.s. ;)

What, can walls not metaphorically support each other while being metaphorically divided against each other? :)
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:16:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:14:40 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:11:41 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:09:55 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Lincoln himself quoted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is completely true.
Actually, if you remove all internal structure of a house and have all of the walls fall inwards, they will support each other despite being divided against each other. So, how does that affect Lincoln's quote?

The quote is metaphorical and figurative. mongeese, I know you are intelligent enough to realize Lincoln's intentions of his quote. You merely created your post to give some b.s. ;)

What, can walls not metaphorically support each other while being metaphorically divided against each other? :)

Ha. I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but I assume you are with wjmelements in a mutual hatred towards Lincoln?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:18:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:14:21 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".

There really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. Never has been, never will.

The nation needs to be unionized and focused on togetherness to have the ability to give freedoms to the people.

This makes little sense, if any at all.

I guess I didn't really clarify myself. I do stand by the fact that there really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. When I mentioned giving "freedoms" to the people, I meant the government's way of giving rights/liberites (which, of course, are taken into consideration by that same government) to the people. I am having trouble explaining the concept. Maybe in several minutes I will think of a better way to elucidate my theory.

Well, rights and freedoms are different; a freedom is a thing in itself, but a right is some inherent claim to a freedom; rights can't be 'given' by a government, because rights are existent beyond governmental recognition; it's a question of whether or not the government provides access for so-said rights to be exercised; but, then again, I don't believe in 'rights', so it doesn't really matter.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:23:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:18:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:14:21 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".

There really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. Never has been, never will.

The nation needs to be unionized and focused on togetherness to have the ability to give freedoms to the people.

This makes little sense, if any at all.

I guess I didn't really clarify myself. I do stand by the fact that there really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. When I mentioned giving "freedoms" to the people, I meant the government's way of giving rights/liberites (which, of course, are taken into consideration by that same government) to the people. I am having trouble explaining the concept. Maybe in several minutes I will think of a better way to elucidate my theory.

Well, rights and freedoms are different; a freedom is a thing in itself, but a right is some inherent claim to a freedom; rights can't be 'given' by a government, because rights are existent beyond governmental recognition; it's a question of whether or not the government provides access for so-said rights to be exercised; but, then again, I don't believe in 'rights', so it doesn't really matter.

Cody, I find myself to agree with a vast majority of your posts, including this one. For some reason, when I try to explain my logic or feelings toward a certain subject, it comes out as drivel or missing the point. I also do not believe in rights; I find them to cause unneccessary controversy. I mean, humans are the ones that came up with rights in the first place. I feel that rights are just a concept and cause nothing but headache.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:24:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:16:41 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:14:40 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:11:41 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:09:55 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Lincoln himself quoted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is completely true.
Actually, if you remove all internal structure of a house and have all of the walls fall inwards, they will support each other despite being divided against each other. So, how does that affect Lincoln's quote?

The quote is metaphorical and figurative. mongeese, I know you are intelligent enough to realize Lincoln's intentions of his quote. You merely created your post to give some b.s. ;)

What, can walls not metaphorically support each other while being metaphorically divided against each other? :)

Ha. I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but I assume you are with wjmelements in a mutual hatred towards Lincoln?

I don't really hate dead guyds very much.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:26:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:24:17 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:16:41 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:14:40 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:11:41 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:09:55 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Lincoln himself quoted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is completely true.
Actually, if you remove all internal structure of a house and have all of the walls fall inwards, they will support each other despite being divided against each other. So, how does that affect Lincoln's quote?

The quote is metaphorical and figurative. mongeese, I know you are intelligent enough to realize Lincoln's intentions of his quote. You merely created your post to give some b.s. ;)

What, can walls not metaphorically support each other while being metaphorically divided against each other? :)

Ha. I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but I assume you are with wjmelements in a mutual hatred towards Lincoln?

I don't really hate dead guyds very much.

You understand what I mean, mongeese. Man, I think you're feeling quite cynical today ;)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:31:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:23:16 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:18:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:14:21 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".

There really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. Never has been, never will.

The nation needs to be unionized and focused on togetherness to have the ability to give freedoms to the people.

This makes little sense, if any at all.

I guess I didn't really clarify myself. I do stand by the fact that there really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. When I mentioned giving "freedoms" to the people, I meant the government's way of giving rights/liberites (which, of course, are taken into consideration by that same government) to the people. I am having trouble explaining the concept. Maybe in several minutes I will think of a better way to elucidate my theory.

Well, rights and freedoms are different; a freedom is a thing in itself, but a right is some inherent claim to a freedom; rights can't be 'given' by a government, because rights are existent beyond governmental recognition; it's a question of whether or not the government provides access for so-said rights to be exercised; but, then again, I don't believe in 'rights', so it doesn't really matter.

Cody, I find myself to agree with a vast majority of your posts, including this one. For some reason, when I try to explain my logic or feelings toward a certain subject, it comes out as drivel or missing the point. I also do not believe in rights; I find them to cause unneccessary controversy. I mean, humans are the ones that came up with rights in the first place. I feel that rights are just a concept and cause nothing but headache.

Interesting. Personally, I think that the idea of 'rights' is entirely dependent on their objective existence, that is, rights would exist even if a government did not acknowledge them; however, rights also assume that they exist for the purpose of protecting something valuable, but humanity has no value, save for that which it essentially assigned to itself, ergo, humanity isn't objectively valuable, therefore, rights can't objectively exist, and therefore cannot exist at all; I would argue that only privileges exist, as access to these kinds of institutions must be granted on an individual basis, and are transient in nature; privileges don't exist objectively, but only in the societies in which they are theorized; furthermore, unlike the idea of rights, privileges can be taken away, whereas rights continue to exist, regardless of status.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:39:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:31:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:23:16 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:18:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:14:21 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".

There really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. Never has been, never will.

The nation needs to be unionized and focused on togetherness to have the ability to give freedoms to the people.

This makes little sense, if any at all.

I guess I didn't really clarify myself. I do stand by the fact that there really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. When I mentioned giving "freedoms" to the people, I meant the government's way of giving rights/liberites (which, of course, are taken into consideration by that same government) to the people. I am having trouble explaining the concept. Maybe in several minutes I will think of a better way to elucidate my theory.

Well, rights and freedoms are different; a freedom is a thing in itself, but a right is some inherent claim to a freedom; rights can't be 'given' by a government, because rights are existent beyond governmental recognition; it's a question of whether or not the government provides access for so-said rights to be exercised; but, then again, I don't believe in 'rights', so it doesn't really matter.

Cody, I find myself to agree with a vast majority of your posts, including this one. For some reason, when I try to explain my logic or feelings toward a certain subject, it comes out as drivel or missing the point. I also do not believe in rights; I find them to cause unneccessary controversy. I mean, humans are the ones that came up with rights in the first place. I feel that rights are just a concept and cause nothing but headache.

Interesting. Personally, I think that the idea of 'rights' is entirely dependent on their objective existence, that is, rights would exist even if a government did not acknowledge them; however, rights also assume that they exist for the purpose of protecting something valuable, but humanity has no value, save for that which it essentially assigned to itself, ergo, humanity isn't objectively valuable, therefore, rights can't objectively exist, and therefore cannot exist at all; I would argue that only privileges exist, as access to these kinds of institutions must be granted on an individual basis, and are transient in nature; privileges don't exist objectively, but only in the societies in which they are theorized; furthermore, unlike the idea of rights, privileges can be taken away, whereas rights continue to exist, regardless of status.

I enjoyed reading your philosophy. I find myself pondering about the nature of "rights" frequently. The main reason I am against abortion is because I believe the fetus has a right to life. But why do I think the fetus has a right to life? Merely because that is what I've been taught? I know I'm going off on a tanget, but I just hate when most of my peers try to defy the teachers or think they can get away with anything simply be remarking that "they have the right to free speech" or "have the right to protest." Many of my peers just use rights as a way to avoid punishment or make a mockery out of the educational system. As I attend a Catholic school, about 95% of my classmates are just ignorant in general...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:49:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/9/1860 5:45:37 PM, Abraham Lincoln wrote:
A house divided against itself cannot stand

If it can't stand, then let it become two seperate houses, neither of which would hae nearly as many internal conflicts. But no, the house must remain, even if it cannot stand. WHAT???
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:50:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:39:51 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:31:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:23:16 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:18:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:14:21 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 7:28:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Abraham Lincoln showed America that this country is not about freedom.

It's about "unity".

There really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. Never has been, never will.

The nation needs to be unionized and focused on togetherness to have the ability to give freedoms to the people.

This makes little sense, if any at all.

I guess I didn't really clarify myself. I do stand by the fact that there really is no such thing as "freedom" nowadays. When I mentioned giving "freedoms" to the people, I meant the government's way of giving rights/liberites (which, of course, are taken into consideration by that same government) to the people. I am having trouble explaining the concept. Maybe in several minutes I will think of a better way to elucidate my theory.

Well, rights and freedoms are different; a freedom is a thing in itself, but a right is some inherent claim to a freedom; rights can't be 'given' by a government, because rights are existent beyond governmental recognition; it's a question of whether or not the government provides access for so-said rights to be exercised; but, then again, I don't believe in 'rights', so it doesn't really matter.

Cody, I find myself to agree with a vast majority of your posts, including this one. For some reason, when I try to explain my logic or feelings toward a certain subject, it comes out as drivel or missing the point. I also do not believe in rights; I find them to cause unneccessary controversy. I mean, humans are the ones that came up with rights in the first place. I feel that rights are just a concept and cause nothing but headache.

Interesting. Personally, I think that the idea of 'rights' is entirely dependent on their objective existence, that is, rights would exist even if a government did not acknowledge them; however, rights also assume that they exist for the purpose of protecting something valuable, but humanity has no value, save for that which it essentially assigned to itself, ergo, humanity isn't objectively valuable, therefore, rights can't objectively exist, and therefore cannot exist at all; I would argue that only privileges exist, as access to these kinds of institutions must be granted on an individual basis, and are transient in nature; privileges don't exist objectively, but only in the societies in which they are theorized; furthermore, unlike the idea of rights, privileges can be taken away, whereas rights continue to exist, regardless of status.

I enjoyed reading your philosophy.

Thank you.

I find myself pondering about the nature of "rights" frequently. The main reason I am against abortion is because I believe the fetus has a right to life. But why do I think the fetus has a right to life? Merely because that is what I've been taught?

I don't believe in a "right to life" for anything, but I don't believe that a fetus should be punished for something that it did not willingly do; furthermore, I believe that the fetus ought to be allowed the chance to contribute to the society in which it would be born; we can't judge the fetus if it has never had a chance to aid our society; for all we know, we could be terminating a possible prodigy who could have found an answer to one or more global issues; I don't like taking chances like that.

I know I'm going off on a tanget, but I just hate when most of my peers try to defy the teachers or think they can get away with anything simply be remarking that "they have the right to free speech" or "have the right to protest." Many of my peers just use rights as a way to avoid punishment or make a mockery out of the educational system.

Agreed; even assuming that rights did exist, they aren't unlimited; if they were, there would be absolutely no social order; man is a social creature by nature, and with the lack of a final, authoritative hierarchy, our 'society', or whatever is left thereof, would certainly break down. In the context of schools, students should only have the privilege of speaking freely if they have demonstrated competence and diligence in study; if they don't take the time to do the work assigned, and to actually put forth an effort, then there is no reason for society to reciprocate and give the students what they so obviously desire; my system works on maximizing self-interest insofar as they are willing to work to continue achieving their desires; eventually, every man will have achieved maximum satisfaction, as his productivity will peak, and so too will the array of available privileges at his disposal.

As I attend a Catholic school, about 95% of my classmates are just ignorant in general...

Agreed. The percentage is probably a bit underestimated, though.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:52:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:49:43 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/9/1860 5:45:37 PM, Abraham Lincoln wrote:
A house divided against itself cannot stand

If it can't stand, then let it become two seperate houses, neither of which would hae nearly as many internal conflicts.

Well, even if you eliminate the central conflict dividing the aforementioned house, then it's quite likely that the two divided houses will find their own issues to debate and battle over, thus probably creating and even higher number of divisions and conflicts; just a possibility, though.

But no, the house must remain, even if it cannot stand. WHAT???

If it can't stand, then it clearly can't remain; it must be made to stand, so that it might.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:53:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh dang, is it me or am I smelling a lot of post-modernism/nihilism/something to do with not believing in rights. Good stuff.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:55:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:09:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Yeah, because like, everyone I am against is because I'm jealous of them. Totally, man.

Give me a logical and real reason as to why I should be against Lincoln, and maybe I'll change my mind. So far, you have given no real proof as to why you should be against him.

You made an accusation against me, and now you ask me to "prove" why I "should be against Lincoln". WHY SHOULD I NATURALLY BE FOR LINCOLN? I've also already told you why I don't particularly like Lincoln; it's clearly because I'm against this unity thing, and clearly, and I think that freedom is pretty important. Change your mind. Because you're like, the end all be all judge of me. No, screw you.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:58:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:53:28 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Oh dang, is it me or am I smelling a lot of post-modernism/nihilism/something to do with not believing in rights. Good stuff.

Lol - where have you been? I've been 'preaching' my lack of belief in the concept of rights for a couple of weeks, now; refer to my posts here: http://www.debate.org...
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 8:59:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

I don't believe in a "right to life" for anything, but I don't believe that a fetus should be punished for something that it did not willingly do; furthermore, I believe that the fetus ought to be allowed the chance to contribute to the society in which it would be born; we can't judge the fetus if it has never had a chance to aid our society; for all we know, we could be terminating a possible prodigy who could have found an answer to one or more global issues; I don't like taking chances like that.

Completely agreed.

I'd like to read your opinion on the issue of capital punishment. Most Christians, at Catholic school and just in general society, support the death penalty. However, I completely disagree. If one is a true Christian, wouldn't that mean that he/she would be forgiving and supportive of allowing someone a second chance in life. Christians are called to show compassion and support one another. There are those Christians like mongeese who support the death penalty with "one loses the right to life when he has taken that right from someone else." However, I believe mongeese's logic is flawed. It gravely urks me why so many Christians support the death penalty. (Those Christians who support the death penalty with biblical quotes, you must remember that it was a completely different culture than it is now. Ideas, concepts, and acceptance of what is right and wrong have also greatly altered.)
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 9:02:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:55:37 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:09:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Yeah, because like, everyone I am against is because I'm jealous of them. Totally, man.

Give me a logical and real reason as to why I should be against Lincoln, and maybe I'll change my mind. So far, you have given no real proof as to why you should be against him.

You made an accusation against me, and now you ask me to "prove" why I "should be against Lincoln". WHY SHOULD I NATURALLY BE FOR LINCOLN? I've also already told you why I don't particularly like Lincoln; it's clearly because I'm against this unity thing, and clearly, and I think that freedom is pretty important. Change your mind. Because you're like, the end all be all judge of me. No, screw you.

Dude, chill. I kind of forget how fervent you are about anarchy and freedom. I completely understand that; we just have completely different views. I just get upset when people show disgust toward Lincoln; I honestly do not believe that anyone at that time could have done a better job than him as president ;)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 9:05:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 8:59:23 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:

If one is a true Christian, wouldn't that mean that he/she would be forgiving and supportive of allowing someone a second chance in life.

I can't say that I agree with this statement under all circumstances.

Christians are called to show compassion and support one another. There are those Christians like mongeese who support the death penalty with "one loses the right to life when he has taken that right from someone else."

Mongeese's statement is entirely dependent on the generally-accepted assumption that rights exist, so clearly, I can't agree with it.

It gravely urks me why so many Christians support the death penalty. (Those Christians who support the death penalty with biblical quotes, you must remember that it was a completely different culture than it is now. Ideas, concepts, and acceptance of what is right and wrong have also greatly altered.)

Our culture may have changed, but that doesn't mean that all values have to; take the 10 commandments, for example; those were brought about in the Old Testament, but we can't just disregard them for that reason; if you're a Christian, then I don't understand why you would be advocating the idea of Moral Relativism; from a strictly Christian viewpoint, I would say that while society's idea of morality changes, morality in and of itself does not change, similar to society's ideas about the shape of the Earth, and its place in the galaxy, and the structure of the atom.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 9:07:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 9:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:55:37 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:09:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Yeah, because like, everyone I am against is because I'm jealous of them. Totally, man.

Give me a logical and real reason as to why I should be against Lincoln, and maybe I'll change my mind. So far, you have given no real proof as to why you should be against him.

You made an accusation against me, and now you ask me to "prove" why I "should be against Lincoln". WHY SHOULD I NATURALLY BE FOR LINCOLN? I've also already told you why I don't particularly like Lincoln; it's clearly because I'm against this unity thing, and clearly, and I think that freedom is pretty important. Change your mind. Because you're like, the end all be all judge of me. No, screw you.

Dude, chill. I kind of forget how fervent you are about anarchy and freedom. I completely understand that; we just have completely different views. I just get upset when people show disgust toward Lincoln; I honestly do not believe that anyone at that time could have done a better job than him as president ;)

Let me ask this: do you think that forcing the South to come back into the Union was the right thing for Lincoln to do? I'm assuming that your answer will be a resounding "YES", so my next question is, why?
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 9:17:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 9:07:12 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 9:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:55:37 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:09:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Yeah, because like, everyone I am against is because I'm jealous of them. Totally, man.

Give me a logical and real reason as to why I should be against Lincoln, and maybe I'll change my mind. So far, you have given no real proof as to why you should be against him.

You made an accusation against me, and now you ask me to "prove" why I "should be against Lincoln". WHY SHOULD I NATURALLY BE FOR LINCOLN? I've also already told you why I don't particularly like Lincoln; it's clearly because I'm against this unity thing, and clearly, and I think that freedom is pretty important. Change your mind. Because you're like, the end all be all judge of me. No, screw you.

Dude, chill. I kind of forget how fervent you are about anarchy and freedom. I completely understand that; we just have completely different views. I just get upset when people show disgust toward Lincoln; I honestly do not believe that anyone at that time could have done a better job than him as president ;)

Let me ask this: do you think that forcing the South to come back into the Union was the right thing for Lincoln to do? I'm assuming that your answer will be a resounding "YES", so my next question is, why?

First, I would like to state that I believe the South was unjustified in its split from the North. Right after Lincoln was elected ex officio, South Carolina overreacted and split from the Union. They did not even give Lincoln a chance to try and improve conditions for both the North and the South. Almost instantaneously, six or seven more states joined the Confederacy and suddenly you have a complete division of the North and South. The premises of the Confederacy's initial split were faulty. Therefore, I do believe Lincoln was correct in forcing the South back into the Union. The North could not have survived without the agriculture and trading of the South; the South could not have survived without the industry and factory labor of the North. Economically and morally, Lincoln was justified in bringing back the North and South. I am sure I will arouse the animosity of mongeese and wjmelements, and possibly even you, Cody. However, I carry deep emotion in regards to the North, South, and the Civil War era as a whole.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 9:24:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/19/2009 9:17:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 9:07:12 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/19/2009 9:02:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:55:37 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:09:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/19/2009 8:07:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Yeah, because like, everyone I am against is because I'm jealous of them. Totally, man.

Give me a logical and real reason as to why I should be against Lincoln, and maybe I'll change my mind. So far, you have given no real proof as to why you should be against him.

You made an accusation against me, and now you ask me to "prove" why I "should be against Lincoln". WHY SHOULD I NATURALLY BE FOR LINCOLN? I've also already told you why I don't particularly like Lincoln; it's clearly because I'm against this unity thing, and clearly, and I think that freedom is pretty important. Change your mind. Because you're like, the end all be all judge of me. No, screw you.

Dude, chill. I kind of forget how fervent you are about anarchy and freedom. I completely understand that; we just have completely different views. I just get upset when people show disgust toward Lincoln; I honestly do not believe that anyone at that time could have done a better job than him as president ;)

Let me ask this: do you think that forcing the South to come back into the Union was the right thing for Lincoln to do? I'm assuming that your answer will be a resounding "YES", so my next question is, why?

First, I would like to state that I believe the South was unjustified in its split from the North. Right after Lincoln was elected ex officio, South Carolina overreacted and split from the Union. They did not even give Lincoln a chance to try and improve conditions for both the North and the South.

Considering Lincoln's platform, was it not reasonable of the southern states, because with SC, to expect hardships concerning relations between the clearly-pro-northern Lincoln and the Southern States?

Almost instantaneously, six or seven more states joined the Confederacy and suddenly you have a complete division of the North and South. The premises of the Confederacy's initial split were faulty.

I hardly think that they were faulty; Lincoln was clearly in favor of lowering, if not eliminating states' rights, so was it not prudent, though ultimately futile, to try and secede before the South's plight worsened?

Therefore, I do believe Lincoln was correct in forcing the South back into the Union. The North could not have survived without the agriculture and trading of the South; the South could not have survived without the industry and factory labor of the North.

As far as the North is concerned, why is the North's dependence on the South a just reason for the North to coerce the South to rejoin the Union? It sounds to be like the North was merely using the South as a means to its own survival.

Economically and morally, Lincoln was justified in bringing back the North and South. I am sure I will arouse the animosity of mongeese and wjmelements, and possibly even you, Cody. However, I carry deep emotion in regards to the North, South, and the Civil War era as a whole.

Why exactly do you give the North the moral high ground in the Civil War?