Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Justification for Large Military

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:12:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it works only if the costs are sustainable.

Given that military spending is well below the average since WWII, I think this is not a problem.

Cheers, thanks for the credit. :)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So our current military budget is sustainable?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:34:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

Mainly because their fanatical, or they know we won't use it most likely.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:34:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

Mainly because their fanatical, or they know we won't use it most likely.

Would that change if we spent 400 billion a year on defense?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:38:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Military budget only makes up around 20% of the US budget, so yes it is. While we do have a deficit, other material can be cut instead.

Note this doesn't necessarily mean the military budget should or shouldn't be cut, just that it is sustainable.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:44:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Military budget only makes up around 20% of the US budget, so yes it is. While we do have a deficit, other material can be cut instead.

Note this doesn't necessarily mean the military budget should or shouldn't be cut, just that it is sustainable.

Every part of the budget is sustainable when taken on its own. You can justify spending on everything based on the fact that there's something else that can be cut. It doesn't change the fact that current military spending levels are completely unnecessary.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 11:03:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:44:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Military budget only makes up around 20% of the US budget, so yes it is. While we do have a deficit, other material can be cut instead.

Note this doesn't necessarily mean the military budget should or shouldn't be cut, just that it is sustainable.

Every part of the budget is sustainable when taken on its own. You can justify spending on everything based on the fact that there's something else that can be cut. It doesn't change the fact that current military spending levels are completely unnecessary.

I agree, I was arguing the statement of whether our military is sustainable or not, not whether it is necessary or not.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 12:26:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Collectivist propaganda in action: using the pronoun 'we', when describing the political class.

E.g. We ran a substantial deficit last year due to our military budget.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:08:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 12:26:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Collectivist propaganda in action: using the pronoun 'we', when describing the political class.

E.g. We ran a substantial deficit last year due to our military budget.

We the people...

If you don't love America, get the f*ck out. Just renounce your citizenship and apply for refuge status and then YOU can be all that you can be...as a Bolivian Individualist.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:14:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:08:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:26:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Collectivist propaganda in action: using the pronoun 'we', when describing the political class.

E.g. We ran a substantial deficit last year due to our military budget.

We the people...

If you don't love America, get the f*ck out. Just renounce your citizenship and apply for refuge status and then YOU can be all that you can be...as a Bolivian Individualist.

That's not much of an argument, unless you want to defend the proposition that the only two options are "leave" or "shut up and fall in line".
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:24:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Our BUDGET is not sustainable. Our military budget has rarely if ever been a smaller part of GDP since WWII.

What this means is that entitlements are the main problem.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:25:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:14:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:26:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Collectivist propaganda in action: using the pronoun 'we', when describing the political class.

E.g. We ran a substantial deficit last year due to our military budget.

We the people...

If you don't love America, get the f*ck out. Just renounce your citizenship and apply for refuge status and then YOU can be all that you can be...as a Bolivian Individualist.

That's not much of an argument, unless you want to defend the proposition that the only two options are "leave" or "shut up and fall in line".

You are either part of this country or you are not. As far as criticizing her after that, the options are innumerable, but yeah - love it or leave it, and loving it does not mean don't criticize. It just means - be a part of the country or GTFO.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:27:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:35:28 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:34:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

Mainly because their fanatical, or they know we won't use it most likely.

Would that change if we spent 400 billion a year on defense?

We spend 600 billion. We spend well over 2 trillion on entitlements. If you want to save money, focus on what we are actually spending on.

Regarding the bolded, what about the rest of the Middle East, South Korea, Taiwan, SE Asia, and more recently the former USSR? And China is now part of the WTO.

Oh, but I guess NK and Iran are more important. :/
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.

Count the casualties globally since WWII. Then count the casualties during WWII. So, erase your sarcasm, and you actually get a true statement.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:38:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:25:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:14:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
We the people...

If you don't love America, get the f*ck out. Just renounce your citizenship and apply for refuge status and then YOU can be all that you can be...as a Bolivian Individualist.

That's not much of an argument, unless you want to defend the proposition that the only two options are "leave" or "shut up and fall in line".

You are either part of this country or you are not.

What does "being part of a country" mean? Nationality is notorious for being both fictional and a convenient mechanism for the politicization of birth.

Props for your passionate identitarianism, though.

As far as criticizing her after that, the options are innumerable, but yeah - love it or leave it, and loving it does not mean don't criticize. It just means - be a part of the country or GTFO.

1. I like that, for whatever reason, you assign the United States a gender.

2. Does criticizing militarism count as not being "part of the country"? If so, I'm curious about the level of social and political conformity required to satisfy you.

3. I find it peculiar that you only offer the choice between assimilation or expulsion. I question whether you could tolerate without angst someone who wanted neither American citizenship nor repatriation--that is, someone who just wants to dwell indifferently. Refugees and stateless persons are a good example, and the fact of their frequent persecution (a result of their lack of a formal legal or political status) suggests that most people are similarly incapable of tolerating their existence.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:46:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.

Count the casualties globally since WWII. Then count the casualties during WWII. So, erase your sarcasm, and you actually get a true statement.

http://www.regjeringen.no...

http://www.bmj.com...

400K deaths due to war each year since WW2. 2013 - 1947 = 76

76 X 400,000 = 30.4 million

That doesn't count genocides since WW2

http://simple.wikipedia.org...

That puts us right around 35 million dead due to war since WW2.

Can I be sarcastic again?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:49:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:38:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:25:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:14:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
We the people...

If you don't love America, get the f*ck out. Just renounce your citizenship and apply for refuge status and then YOU can be all that you can be...as a Bolivian Individualist.

That's not much of an argument, unless you want to defend the proposition that the only two options are "leave" or "shut up and fall in line".

You are either part of this country or you are not.

What does "being part of a country" mean? Nationality is notorious for being both fictional and a convenient mechanism for the politicization of birth.

Props for your passionate identitarianism, though.

As far as criticizing her after that, the options are innumerable, but yeah - love it or leave it, and loving it does not mean don't criticize. It just means - be a part of the country or GTFO.

1. I like that, for whatever reason, you assign the United States a gender.

2. Does criticizing militarism count as not being "part of the country"? If so, I'm curious about the level of social and political conformity required to satisfy you.

3. I find it peculiar that you only offer the choice between assimilation or expulsion. I question whether you could tolerate without angst someone who wanted neither American citizenship nor repatriation--that is, someone who just wants to dwell indifferently. Refugees and stateless persons are a good example, and the fact of their frequent persecution (a result of their lack of a formal legal or political status) suggests that most people are similarly incapable of tolerating their existence.

No - WE - be a part of the country or don't. After that, it's all up to you, but you can't exclude yourself. At that point, denounce your citizenship and GTFO.

Participation is an ultimatum. After that, it's up to the individual.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:52:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:08:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:26:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Collectivist propaganda in action: using the pronoun 'we', when describing the political class.

E.g. We ran a substantial deficit last year due to our military budget.

We the people...

If you don't love America, get the f*ck out. Just renounce your citizenship and apply for refuge status and then YOU can be all that you can be...as a Bolivian Individualist.

States don't hold ontological supremacy. Try again.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:54:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:27:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:35:28 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:34:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

Mainly because their fanatical, or they know we won't use it most likely.

Would that change if we spent 400 billion a year on defense?

We spend 600 billion. We spend well over 2 trillion on entitlements. If you want to save money, focus on what we are actually spending on.

Regarding the bolded, what about the rest of the Middle East, South Korea, Taiwan, SE Asia, and more recently the former USSR? And China is now part of the WTO.

Oh, but I guess NK and Iran are more important. :/

What about the rest? Your position pre supposes a more violent world with nuclear weapons and without us hegemony. There is absolutely no way to prove what history would look like either way but we can make best decisions as to what will serve the world best going forward. Of which I don't think a bloated military budget and adventurism can be justified as a net positive.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:55:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:49:32 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:38:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:25:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You are either part of this country or you are not.

What does "being part of a country" mean? Nationality is notorious for being both fictional and a convenient mechanism for the politicization of birth.

Props for your passionate identitarianism, though.

As far as criticizing her after that, the options are innumerable, but yeah - love it or leave it, and loving it does not mean don't criticize. It just means - be a part of the country or GTFO.

1. I like that, for whatever reason, you assign the United States a gender.

2. Does criticizing militarism count as not being "part of the country"? If so, I'm curious about the level of social and political conformity required to satisfy you.

3. I find it peculiar that you only offer the choice between assimilation or expulsion. I question whether you could tolerate without angst someone who wanted neither American citizenship nor repatriation--that is, someone who just wants to dwell indifferently. Refugees and stateless persons are a good example, and the fact of their frequent persecution (a result of their lack of a formal legal or political status) suggests that most people are similarly incapable of tolerating their existence.

No - WE - be a part of the country or don't.

That is a demand, not an argument. Besides, you still haven't explained what it means to be "part of the country", so it's not even a demand to which I could acquiesce.

After that, it's all up to you, but you can't exclude yourself. At that point, denounce your citizenship and GTFO.

I'm not excluding myself. With any luck, I'd be positioned such that I would be neither inside nor outside--neither an American citizen nor a deportee. I'd just sort of be here, doin' stuff.

Participation is an ultimatum. After that, it's up to the individual.

An ultimatum supported by an assertion. Compelling.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.

Count the casualties globally since WWII. Then count the casualties during WWII. So, erase your sarcasm, and you actually get a true statement.

Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:02:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:52:48 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:51 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:26:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Collectivist propaganda in action: using the pronoun 'we', when describing the political class.

E.g. We ran a substantial deficit last year due to our military budget.

We the people...

If you don't love America, get the f*ck out. Just renounce your citizenship and apply for refuge status and then YOU can be all that you can be...as a Bolivian Individualist.

States don't hold ontological supremacy. Try again.

I don't give a f*ck if you exist, Descartes. But, since I have t assume you do, and since I am a part of the country, as is every other person who chooses to be, if you're choosing not to be, quit being a metaphysical p*ssy and take the next existential express the f*ck out of my country.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:04:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:55:53 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:49:32 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:38:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:25:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You are either part of this country or you are not.

What does "being part of a country" mean? Nationality is notorious for being both fictional and a convenient mechanism for the politicization of birth.

Props for your passionate identitarianism, though.

As far as criticizing her after that, the options are innumerable, but yeah - love it or leave it, and loving it does not mean don't criticize. It just means - be a part of the country or GTFO.

1. I like that, for whatever reason, you assign the United States a gender.

2. Does criticizing militarism count as not being "part of the country"? If so, I'm curious about the level of social and political conformity required to satisfy you.

3. I find it peculiar that you only offer the choice between assimilation or expulsion. I question whether you could tolerate without angst someone who wanted neither American citizenship nor repatriation--that is, someone who just wants to dwell indifferently. Refugees and stateless persons are a good example, and the fact of their frequent persecution (a result of their lack of a formal legal or political status) suggests that most people are similarly incapable of tolerating their existence.

No - WE - be a part of the country or don't.

That is a demand, not an argument. Besides, you still haven't explained what it means to be "part of the country", so it's not even a demand to which I could acquiesce.

After that, it's all up to you, but you can't exclude yourself. At that point, denounce your citizenship and GTFO.

I'm not excluding myself. With any luck, I'd be positioned such that I would be neither inside nor outside--neither an American citizen nor a deportee. I'd just sort of be here, doin' stuff.

Participation is an ultimatum. After that, it's up to the individual.

An ultimatum supported by an assertion. Compelling.

Let's try as a question - do you consider yourself a citizen of this country?

(though, your meander through existence philosophy is an incredibly weak one...we'll get to that in a moment, though)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:08:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whatever happened to askbob
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:12:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:04:47 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:55:53 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
An ultimatum supported by an assertion. Compelling.

Let's try as a question - do you consider yourself a citizen of this country?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Legally, I'm a citizen.

(though, your meander through existence philosophy is an incredibly weak one...we'll get to that in a moment, though)

Presupposing that it is weak--and oversimplifying it as "meandering"--is a luxury that you do not have. Also, trying to foreshadow your argument does not help you.