Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fox News Has Gone Full Anarcho-Capitalist

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 10:32:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
- Just last Friday, Fox News said to privatize the entire city of Detroit including housing, roads, and the fire department.

- Fox News has anchors saying abolish the IRS and airs ads of Ted Cruz saying to abolish the IRS and sign the petition.

- Fox News bashes Chris Christie, McCain, Graham and defends Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.

- Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are essentially weekly guests on Fox News.

- Bill O'Reilly says to shut down the NSA.

- Fox News always defends the Tea Party and rarely gives a nod to Neo-Cons.

I agree with all of the above except for privatizing the fire department as I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I just thought it was worth noting because people still think Fox is statist interventionist when at this point it has really changed.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 10:32:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:35:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That' not even minarchist yet (police, courts, national defense). The day Fox convinces a large portion of brainless conservatives to become peaceful market actors who believe in the NAP, I will pay you $10,000.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:43:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As for Detroit police...

"Almost on cue in response to my earlier post on private police comes this story from Detroit, "911 is a Joke." As the government collapses and the people are unable to rely on the Detroit PD for protection of for 911 to provide assistance in a timely manner, two things have occurred. The first is that more and more people are buying firearms and weapons for self defense, and they are using them! Self-defense related justifiable homicides are up nearly 80% over the previous year and are a whopping 2,200% higher than the national average! In addition to resorting to self-defense as means of protection, private police firms have entered Detroit to meet the demand for security, and it seems like business is booming."
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 12:24:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 12:15:44 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
seriously? No reply?

Debate me bro

Everyone wants to take on the GeoLaureate and borrow my time for their own purposes. Frankly, I don't need to engage in any more debates to prove or appease anyone.

My debate record speaks for itself. My old debates occurred at a time when I held more extreme views, less debate skill, near impossible resolutions to uphold, and yet I have won 70% of them. If I started debating now, I would probably do better than my previously unpolished self.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 12:31:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 12:24:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:15:44 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
seriously? No reply?

Debate me bro

Everyone wants to take on the GeoLaureate and borrow my time for their own purposes. Frankly, I don't need to engage in any more debates to prove or appease anyone.

No and I understand that but the purpose of this site is to debate....

My debate record speaks for itself. My old debates occurred at a time when I held more extreme views, less debate skill, near impossible resolutions to uphold, and yet I have won 70% of them. If I started debating now, I would probably do better than my previously unpolished self.

Well this weekend I head to my cottage, and I'll be back on the monday (5th) care to debate me then?

My math sucks .. but ... isn't 80% higher than 70%? And isn't 39 debates higher than 32?
Thank you for voting!
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 12:45:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 10:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
- Just last Friday, Fox News said to privatize the entire city of Detroit including housing, roads, and the fire department.

- Fox News has anchors saying abolish the IRS and airs ads of Ted Cruz saying to abolish the IRS and sign the petition.

- Fox News bashes Chris Christie, McCain, Graham and defends Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.

- Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are essentially weekly guests on Fox News.

- Bill O'Reilly says to shut down the NSA.

- Fox News always defends the Tea Party and rarely gives a nod to Neo-Cons.

I agree with all of the above except for privatizing the fire department as I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I just thought it was worth noting because people still think Fox is statist interventionist when at this point it has really changed.

I largely agree with the view that Fox has supported the thing called "Anarcho-Capitalism," although I refuse to use that name.

It describes Plutocracy. Simple plutocracy.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 1:07:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 12:45:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
I largely agree with the view that Fox has supported the thing called "Anarcho-Capitalism," although I refuse to use that name.

It describes Plutocracy. Simple plutocracy.

An absence of government cannot be a type of government. Derp. Further, governments have been notorious for aiding in the accrual of undeserved corporate profits, well and the existence of corporations per se.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 1:36:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 12:31:13 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:24:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No and I understand that but the purpose of this site is to debate....

Well this weekend I head to my cottage, and I'll be back on the monday (5th) care to debate me then?

My math sucks .. but ... isn't 80% higher than 70%? And isn't 39 debates higher than 32?

Your profile indicates a Liberal Democrat for Obama, very tempting!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 1:38:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 1:36:20 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:31:13 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:24:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No and I understand that but the purpose of this site is to debate....

Well this weekend I head to my cottage, and I'll be back on the monday (5th) care to debate me then?

My math sucks .. but ... isn't 80% higher than 70%? And isn't 39 debates higher than 32?

Your profile indicates a Liberal Democrat for Obama, very tempting!

Well stew it over for a bit and PM me when you decide. No pressure.

BTW here is an interesting article I found! You might enjoy the read. I know I did.
http://www.livescience.com...
Thank you for voting!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 1:47:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 1:38:58 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/30/2013 1:36:20 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Your profile indicates a Liberal Democrat for Obama, very tempting!

Well stew it over for a bit and PM me when you decide. No pressure.

BTW here is an interesting article I found! You might enjoy the read. I know I did.
http://www.livescience.com...

A very primitive analysis. It negates the fact that Liberals support eugenics programs like Planned Parenthood and the minimum wage.

Conservatism = conserving the limited government of 1776. Also upholds traditional values. Racism is not a traditional value.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."
-- Ron Paul
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 1:58:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 1:47:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 1:38:58 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/30/2013 1:36:20 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Your profile indicates a Liberal Democrat for Obama, very tempting!

Well stew it over for a bit and PM me when you decide. No pressure.

BTW here is an interesting article I found! You might enjoy the read. I know I did.
http://www.livescience.com...

A very primitive analysis. It negates the fact that Liberals support eugenics programs like Planned Parenthood and the minimum wage.

Neither of these are eugenic programs .. I'm going to sig this ..

Conservatism = conserving the limited government of 1776. Also upholds traditional values. Racism is not a traditional value.

Oh boy .. (see below)

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."
-- Ron Paul



Funny .... the man cites the politician who was caught blurting out racist slang like it was going out of style!
(http://thinkprogress.org...)
And yes racism at the time was a traditional value, slavery was around in the ancient times in Africa, and furthermore would be abolished in Britain long before the US would change...

As for individualism over collectivism .. well .. you wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for collectivism right now ..
Thank you for voting!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:21:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 12:24:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:15:44 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
seriously? No reply?

Debate me bro

Everyone wants to take on the GeoLaureate and borrow my time for their own purposes. Frankly, I don't need to engage in any more debates to prove or appease anyone.

My debate record speaks for itself. My old debates occurred at a time when I held more extreme views, less debate skill, near impossible resolutions to uphold, and yet I have won 70% of them. If I started debating now, I would probably do better than my previously unpolished self.

Before, most of your debates were against those who were unskilled, new to the site, and therefore not any good who any consistent user of this site can reliably beat; those who forfeited, which do not count as true "wins"; and those you lost. Why not make a list of those you'd debate, and a list of topics you'd debate, and then make it easier for those who wish to challenge you to do so? Otherwise, you're dodging. That's not to say this is "wrong", but in a debating website where the custom and convention is to debate, it does create question marks over your stances.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
gordonjames
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:24:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 10:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

"Obamacare: the efficiency of the DMV, the compassion of the IRS"

I just loved your closing tag line.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:35:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 12:24:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:15:44 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
seriously? No reply?

Debate me bro

Everyone wants to take on the GeoLaureate and borrow my time for their own purposes. Frankly, I don't need to engage in any more debates to prove or appease anyone.

My debate record speaks for itself. My old debates occurred at a time when I held more extreme views, less debate skill, near impossible resolutions to uphold, and yet I have won 70% of them. If I started debating now, I would probably do better than my previously unpolished self.

My god you're retarded....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:58:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 10:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

- Fox News ... defends Mike Lee.

Author of a budget with a 25% income tax. The federal government can take just a quarter of people's income. That's totally acceptable.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 11:10:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 1:07:46 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:45:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
I largely agree with the view that Fox has supported the thing called "Anarcho-Capitalism," although I refuse to use that name.

It describes Plutocracy. Simple plutocracy.

An absence of government cannot be a type of government. Derp. Further, governments have been notorious for aiding in the accrual of undeserved corporate profits, well and the existence of corporations per se.

"Plutocracy" refers to a system in which the wealthy elite are granted unrestricted power.

Removing laws for the most powerful, (Anarcho-Capitalism) allows these wealthy elite forces to operate with very few restrictions.

"An absence of government" becomes a meaningless term when we remove "government" simply to replace it with totalitarian rule by a very small, unelected minority. Unless the Anarcho-Capitalist can explain why the powerful plutocrats will not become even more powerful if they are no longer forced to respect any laws, or any societal rules.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 1:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Except for the whole "let's preserve traditional marriage," and "abortion is murder," thing.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 4:26:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do not think that it can be argued that Fox NEWS is not plutocratic, if we allow me to use that term interchangeably with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Most American media is highly invested in corporate control of our political system, and this includes the "liberal" outlet of MSNBC. The parent company of which is owned by GE, a company that makes millions from the wars it pretends to oppose on it's "liberal" news outlet.

Fox NEWS is not different. It should be remembered that Fox NEWS, stalwart defender of American patriotism, is not an American company. This fact is disguised by the fact that it is headquartered in the US, and broadcasts throughout the country.

The company is controlled with an iron fist by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian national, with considerable help from the Saudi Royal Family. (Prince Alwaleed bin Talan, specifically.) Former Liberty Media CEO John C. Malone is another ultra-powerful controller of Fox NEWS. This plutocrat owns more real estate in the United States than any other private landowner in the country, including Bill Gates, Donald Trump and Carlos Slim.

These three controllers of Fox NEWS have priorities that are unique to them individually, including repealing estate taxes (John C. Malone), protecting the petroleum industry (Prince bin Talan), and the acquisition of political power (Murdoch.)

Unlike other news outlets in America, Fox NEWS is controlled through a constricted bottle neck of powerful decision makers. Very, very few men control the agenda of this company, all of them billionaires, and all of them plutocrats who have very little humility or compassion.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 4:43:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 11:10:08 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/30/2013 1:07:46 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:45:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
I largely agree with the view that Fox has supported the thing called "Anarcho-Capitalism," although I refuse to use that name.

It describes Plutocracy. Simple plutocracy.

An absence of government cannot be a type of government. Derp. Further, governments have been notorious for aiding in the accrual of undeserved corporate profits, well and the existence of corporations per se.

"Plutocracy" refers to a system in which the wealthy elite are granted unrestricted power.

Removing laws for the most powerful, (Anarcho-Capitalism) allows these wealthy elite forces to operate with very few restrictions.

"An absence of government" becomes a meaningless term when we remove "government" simply to replace it with totalitarian rule by a very small, unelected minority. Unless the Anarcho-Capitalist can explain why the powerful plutocrats will not become even more powerful if they are no longer forced to respect any laws, or any societal rules.

In an Ancap system, all legal restrictions to entry, including intellectual property, will not be there, making it easier for new firms to arise to challenge the firms with high market shares. With so much competition available, consumers will have more reasonable choice, thus reducing the power of the rich.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 5:20:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 10:21:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Before, most of your debates were against those who were unskilled, new to the site, and therefore not any good who any consistent user of this site can reliably beat;

You are an idiot. I beat TheSkeptic, Danielle, Apologician, mercedesdanz, and rogueagent; all highly skilled debaters, two of which are in the top 5 of this site. I have also faced off in close debates against Ragnar_Rahl, JustCallMeTarzan, RoyLatham, InquireTruth, and KRFornier; also top tier legend debaters.

Don't sit here and act like choose easy battles when on my first day here I searched the top 10 debaters, picked one, and challenged him to a debate on day one.

The debates with lower tier debaters are those in which they initiated. When I challenge someone to a debate, it's only against established or provably skillful members.

those who forfeited, which do not count as true "wins"; and those you lost.

I presented good arguments, they failed to refute and thus forfeited, not my fault. Some even admitted defeat as part of forfeiture.

Why not make a list of those you'd debate, and a list of topics you'd debate, and then make it easier for those who wish to challenge you to do so? Otherwise, you're dodging. That's not to say this is "wrong", but in a debating website where the custom and convention is to debate, it does create question marks over your stances.

I engage in debate on this debate site every week, I simply choose the less time consuming forum debate over the structured, long drawn out, time-limit debates. I don't have the time or desire to put that much effort into somewhat fruitless endevours.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 5:46:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 5:20:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:21:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Before, most of your debates were against those who were unskilled, new to the site, and therefore not any good who any consistent user of this site can reliably beat;

You are an idiot.

How pleasant to start. I did attempt to remain polite.

I beat TheSkeptic,

COUGH COUGH COUGH http://www.debate.org... COUGH COUGH lost by 12 points COUGH COUGH COUGH

Sorry, bad throat.

Danielle

HACK HACK COUGH COUGH http://www.debate.org... Rap Battles don't count COUGH COUGH COUGH other debates include ones with huge vote bombing problems COUGH COUGH HACK COUGH

Sorry, it is really quite bad...

Apologician

I'm getting nostalgic thinking about all these names.. some of these were before my time, and I'm old on this site now! Also, this person had competed in 7 debates, losing half of them anyway. Is this person of a different more famous account? I wouldn't know, because we're getting so old they could give me first hand accounts of Jesus.

mercedesdanz

This person took part in two debates, one of which being a forfeit case.

rogueagent;

Another debater with a lot of forfeits yet still wins.

all highly skilled debaters

two of which are in the top 5 of this site. I have also faced off in close debates against Ragnar_Rahl, JustCallMeTarzan, RoyLatham, InquireTruth, and KRFornier; also top tier legend debaters.

This reminds me of an old man warbling about the past. You've lost to the new and improved generation, and hold on to victories of the past. The thing is, however, we've moved on. My dad beat me at Chess when I was seven, and since refuses to play me at Chess, claiming he's better than me because of it. The difference between you and him is that his unfounded superiority is done tongue in cheek: he recognises that times have changed, and that his 'title' doesn't mean anything, really. I'd claim your debating skills are just going to be arthritic: old and unused and so struggle to be as good as you once were (and frankly you were not of the standard of the truly great like Bluesteel, Roy, etc. to begin with).

Don't sit here and act like choose easy battles when on my first day here I searched the top 10 debaters, picked one, and challenged him to a debate on day one.

Was it on your first day? I can't tell, you're being too vague by only mentioning this really quite meaningless accomplishment.

"Hey, on my first day playing chess, I challenged Kasparov to a game against me on day one to show how good I am!" Person one claimed.
"What happened?" Person two responded.
"Oh, I was completely destroyed."
"So...why bring it up?"
"It shows how skilled of a Chess player I am! I lost to Kasparov!"

The debates with lower tier debaters are those in which they initiated. When I challenge someone to a debate, it's only against established or provably skillful members.

those who forfeited, which do not count as true "wins"; and those you lost.

I presented good arguments, they failed to refute and thus forfeited, not my fault. Some even admitted defeat as part of forfeiture.

You've got your causal chain the wrong way around there my friend.

Why not make a list of those you'd debate, and a list of topics you'd debate, and then make it easier for those who wish to challenge you to do so? Otherwise, you're dodging. That's not to say this is "wrong", but in a debating website where the custom and convention is to debate, it does create question marks over your stances.

I engage in debate on this debate site every week, I simply choose the less time consuming forum debate over the structured, long drawn out, time-limit debates. I don't have the time or desire to put that much effort into somewhat fruitless endevours.

Pick a shorter debate limit then. I in real life enjoy the monologue debates where one only makes a single pitch without rebuttals on an issue. Does this not appeal for its complete lack of time needed? Or even then, you can set lower character limits.

However, if we put to one side the fact that i think you "ought" to debate again, it is still factual that by not debating formally, on a formal debating website, you are discrediting your cases. Formal debates make stronger one's case, giving more time and effort, but on a purely aesthetic level makes the argument more polished, clear, and beneficial to those reading it. To not commit to formal debates simply makes your case seem less defendable. I am not trying to be aggressive over this: I am just stating what I think is true.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 6:30:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 11:35:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
That' not even minarchist yet (police, courts, national defense). The day Fox convinces a large portion of brainless conservatives to become peaceful market actors who believe in the NAP, I will pay you $10,000.

I'll see that and raise you a billion simoleans.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 6:46:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 5:46:08 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
How pleasant to start. I did attempt to remain polite.

Lying about my record is not polite.

I beat TheSkeptic,

COUGH COUGH COUGH http://www.debate.org... COUGH COUGH lost by 12 points COUGH COUGH COUGH

Sorry, bad throat.

I beat him: http://www.debate.org...

Danielle

HACK HACK COUGH COUGH http://www.debate.org... Rap Battles don't count COUGH COUGH COUGH other debates include ones with huge vote bombing problems COUGH COUGH HACK COUGH

I excluding rap battles from this particular analysis. I beat her in a debate: http://www.debate.org...

Also, I essentially beat her in the Determinism debate where I was winning until the last 5 seconds before voting expiration, someone vultured the debate by giving her points at the last seconds to ensure her a victory. I'm not saying she did it, but a dickriding vote bomber did. Though remember, you accuse me of having won via vote bomb when in fact it was her who was caught red handed in vote bombing scandals.

For me, I have no one on my side on this site, everyone is ideologically opposed to me, especially back then. Even my own friend who joined this site voted against me unanimously on all my debates.

Apologician

I'm getting nostalgic thinking about all these names.. some of these were before my time, and I'm old on this site now! Also, this person had competed in 7 debates, losing half of them anyway. Is this person of a different more famous account? I wouldn't know, because we're getting so old they could give me first hand accounts of Jesus.

He was highly regarded as a skilled debater well-versed in philosophy. His stature is determined by his performances and instantly gained respect, not the quantity of his debates.

mercedesdanz

This person took part in two debates, one of which being a forfeit case.

Still a knowledgeable person who established himself as legitimate immediately but didn't stay long.

rogueagent;

Another debater with a lot of forfeits yet still wins.

He had formal debate experience in the real world when I had literally none.

all highly skilled debaters two of which are in the top 5 of this site. I have also faced off in close debates against Ragnar_Rahl, JustCallMeTarzan, RoyLatham, InquireTruth, and KRFornier; also top tier legend debaters.

This reminds me of an old man warbling about the past. You've lost to the new and improved generation, and hold on to victories of the past. The thing is, however, we've moved on. My dad beat me at Chess when I was seven, and since refuses to play me at Chess, claiming he's better than me because of it. The difference between you and him is that his unfounded superiority is done tongue in cheek: he recognises that times have changed, and that his 'title' doesn't mean anything, really. I'd claim your debating skills are just going to be arthritic: old and unused and so struggle to be as good as you once were (and frankly you were not of the standard of the truly great like Bluesteel, Roy, etc. to begin with).

The new members don't impress me. The old members are far more skilled than what I see today. I have no nostalgia for the past DDO and wish for the old days, I enjoy the way it is through all of its phases.

Was it on your first day? I can't tell, you're being too vague by only mentioning this really quite meaningless accomplishment.

"Hey, on my first day playing chess, I challenged Kasparov to a game against me on day one to show how good I am!" Person one claimed.
"What happened?" Person two responded.
"Oh, I was completely destroyed."
"So...why bring it up?"
"It shows how skilled of a Chess player I am! I lost to Kasparov!"

I didn't make the point to prove accomplishment, I made the point to negate your insinuation that I pick easy fights when the contrary is true.

Pick a shorter debate limit then. I in real life enjoy the monologue debates where one only makes a single pitch without rebuttals on an issue. Does this not appeal for its complete lack of time needed? Or even then, you can set lower character limits.

However, if we put to one side the fact that i think you "ought" to debate again, it is still factual that by not debating formally, on a formal debating website, you are discrediting your cases. Formal debates make stronger one's case, giving more time and effort, but on a purely aesthetic level makes the argument more polished, clear, and beneficial to those reading it. To not commit to formal debates simply makes your case seem less defendable. I am not trying to be aggressive over this: I am just stating what I think is true.

I see nothing disagreeable here.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 7:15:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In an Ancap system, all legal restrictions to entry, including intellectual property, will not be there, making it easier for new firms to arise to challenge the firms with high market shares. With so much competition available, consumers will have more reasonable choice, thus reducing the power of the rich.

With no regulations, no laws, and more or less full anarchy in our market systems, social constructs such as "firms," "consumers," "markets," and "shares," are not possible. All of these things rely on strong social support systems that can be relied upon.

Unable to afford militias, the poor will be easily subjugated by "the rich."

But these are moot topics. AC is an unworkable system without aid from a zombie Apocalypse.

All of those great points I made regarding the plutocratic nature of Fox NEWS, and this is what I am responding to. I would rather agree on the broad strokes of the topic. Can we simply agree that there are any similarities between plutocracy and unbridled capitalistic control?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 9:43:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 12:45:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/29/2013 10:32:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
- Just last Friday, Fox News said to privatize the entire city of Detroit including housing, roads, and the fire department.

- Fox News has anchors saying abolish the IRS and airs ads of Ted Cruz saying to abolish the IRS and sign the petition.

- Fox News bashes Chris Christie, McCain, Graham and defends Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.

- Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are essentially weekly guests on Fox News.

- Bill O'Reilly says to shut down the NSA.

- Fox News always defends the Tea Party and rarely gives a nod to Neo-Cons.

I agree with all of the above except for privatizing the fire department as I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I just thought it was worth noting because people still think Fox is statist interventionist when at this point it has really changed.

I largely agree with the view that Fox has supported the thing called "Anarcho-Capitalism," although I refuse to use that name.

It describes Plutocracy. Simple plutocracy.

You made the statement, you have the burden of proof. I get where you make this (rather poor and over simplified) generalization from, but I do not have to proof why it's wrong, you have to prove why it's right.

I know from the WWII post plus this it seems like I'm picking on you, I'm not though. lol

also, i think we came to a consensus on the WWII misconceptions post, so not even going to bother replying to it.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:17:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 4:43:46 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/30/2013 11:10:08 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/30/2013 1:07:46 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/30/2013 12:45:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
I largely agree with the view that Fox has supported the thing called "Anarcho-Capitalism," although I refuse to use that name.

It describes Plutocracy. Simple plutocracy.

An absence of government cannot be a type of government. Derp. Further, governments have been notorious for aiding in the accrual of undeserved corporate profits, well and the existence of corporations per se.

"Plutocracy" refers to a system in which the wealthy elite are granted unrestricted power.

Removing laws for the most powerful, (Anarcho-Capitalism) allows these wealthy elite forces to operate with very few restrictions.

"An absence of government" becomes a meaningless term when we remove "government" simply to replace it with totalitarian rule by a very small, unelected minority. Unless the Anarcho-Capitalist can explain why the powerful plutocrats will not become even more powerful if they are no longer forced to respect any laws, or any societal rules.

In an Ancap system, all legal restrictions to entry, including intellectual property, will not be there, making it easier for new firms to arise to challenge the firms with high market shares. With so much competition available, consumers will have more reasonable choice, thus reducing the power of the rich.

1. Not true. For instance, price gouging is perfectly legal under an anarcho-capitalist system, yet is a restriction to entry. Power, once concentrated, tends to stay in the hands of those who have it.
2. Is it just me, or did you change a lot of the Big Issues recently?