Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

51
77
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:128
Arguments:104
Total Votes:151
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (33)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (61)

Debate Creator

jolie(9803) pic



Evolution teaches that the strong survive - liberals want to protect the weak...

Evolution teaches that the strong survive.

Liberals want to protect the weak.

Liberals go against evolution.

Liberalism is not natural.

Liberalism is a mental disorder

that should NOT be allowed to reproduce.

True.

Side Score: 51
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 77
1 point

Liberalism is destroying this country.

Side: True.
flameaway(27) Disputed
1 point

This is an unsupported argument that simply does not address the posited evolutionary question.

Please provide the genes that select for political party affiliation...

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

We can surly agree that natural selection is the mechanism that results in a species evolving toward characteristics which increase survivability. Further we can most likely agrees that these characteristics include physical strength and endurance as well as intelligence and cunning in the hunt for food. The weak and dull witted are then least well adapted to survive. If Liberals are prone to cater to the weak, it logically follows that they work against natural selection. Sooooo there ya go.

Side: True.
1 point

Well..., I am sure you have heard of the gay gene. Well, there's a liberal gene too. We haven't found it yet but, like the Higgs Boson, we will. And when we do, we can begin work to actively to neutralize it.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Warjin(1577) Disputed
1 point

Then Why are conservatives dying off? I guess evolution is working its course, survival of the fittest at it's best.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Wait..., what??? Conservatives? Dying off? Whad'ya talking about homie?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

To the people on that --> side:

You guys are so easy ;)

Side: True.
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

If your a liberal, your thinking has most probably been effected by global warming.

Side: True.
2 points

Well, the global warming hiatus is over. Global warming is picking up where it left off 14 years ago. There may be something to what you say, but... me... a liberal?

Side: True.
1 point

Protecting the weak does kind of refute the notion of evolution.

Side: True.
flameaway(27) Disputed
3 points

Protecting the weak does not deny evolutionary selection within social animals.

For example, older people have more experience but are in general weaker physically than adults in their prime. However, the wisdom that can come with age is a widely acknowledged benefit that comes from feeding and protecting elder members.

Also child are much weaker than adults. What evolutionary benefit arises from failing to protect children?

:)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Environment(3) Disputed
1 point

Well you obviously did not know the meaning behind my statement. You're first mistake was you false presumption that I mean 'weak' as in 'someone who cannot take care of themselves'- which you clarified with your false analogy that included an evolutionary necessity and predisposition (taking care of a child).

But to clarify I meant 'weak' as in unable to take care of themselves (e.g. a disabled person). This excludes children as the care for a child is necessary for evolutionary progress.

There is a reason people get to point where they cannot reproduce and they get old and die. And people try there hardest to prevent that by giving the best care to these individuals (and its not for you illusory meaning 'wisdom'. You know, as well as I, that most people care for elders for the simple reason of emotional attachment. Essentially the fallacy your expressing is wishful thinking.

Maybe in the case of Einstein one will try there best to keep him alive so he could illuminate more physical laws, but this is obviously a rare case.

Side: True.

If you're liberal you're an arrogant species,who is certainly not the fittest to survive;liberals are weak who're slow on the uptake and so stick to their own perspective.

Side: True.
1 point

You can only flout nature's law of natural selection for a limited time and then the results of this artificially created unnatural state will come back and bite a large chunk out of your bum, where the Liberals keep their brains.

Side: True.
flameaway(27) Disputed
2 points

The problem with your argument, besides the fact that it's biased and unsupported is that humanity has been preserving the weak since the beginning of recorded history.

Human society is not Darwinian, those who think it is simply do not understand natural selection or the advantages of society.

This confusions is not terribly surprising because of the greed based culture we have is supported by technology and not interaction between individuals.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

I agree - with one small tweak:

Formation of societies was Darwinian (groups are better at some tasks than individuals), it's just that actions which natural selection favors for individuals (greed, shunning the weak, etc.) might be counter-balanced with activities that preserve the group (cooperation, protecting the weak, etc.) for social species.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

There is nothing wrong with helping people who need it. .

Side: True.
2 points

If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, if you teach a man to fish he eats for life. Not all help will have the overall desired outcome.

Side: True.
Sitar(3682) Disputed
1 point

Do unto others as you have have them do unto you. Render unto Caser what is Caeser's, and God what is God's. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Absolutely, taking away people's hard earned cash and giving it to fat, lazy bastards who can't even be bothered to get up and go to work in the morning is stupid.

Side: True.
-1 points

Liberal logic. lol!!! Should I say it again? Why not? Liberal logic. BWAHAHAHA! Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

Side: True.
flameaway(27) Disputed
2 points

What argument are you making here? Seems that your comment adds nothing to the argument other than an unsupported commercial for you side of the issue.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
daver(1771) Clarified
0 points

I would contend that biogenes is pointing out the obvious fact that these two words when used together create an oxymoron.

Side: True.
4 points

Survival of the fittest, not the strongest.

Biological fitness has nothing to do with strength.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

Survival of the fittest, not the strongest.

Strong is used in the title of the debate, not fit. Fitness has nothing to do with this debate. Weak is also used in the title of this debate...Where is fitness in the title?

The only place where fit works in this debate is, you're not fit to debate.

Side: True.
3 points

No, Flewk is right. I created the debate and I botched the wording. He caught the mistake. That's just the way it is.

Side: True.
flewk(1192) Disputed
2 points

Evolution teaches that the strong survive

Evolution teaches that the fit* survive.

Just needed to fix that to match the actual theory of evolution.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
3 points

Survival of Fittest is one factor in evolution consistent with conservatism, but Mutual Aid is also a factor in evolution that is consistent with liberalism.

Kropotkin on
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Liberalism is not natural.

Are airplanes natural??

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
flameaway(27) Clarified
2 points

"Liberalism is not natural"

Are children born Conservative? Do they come genetically coded with full knowledge of the Republican platform?

Side: True.
JustIgnoreMe(4334) Clarified
2 points

I was quoting (in bold italics) and then responding to an item in the debate description.

Side: True.
1 point

As a matter of fact,YES! Children ARE born conservative. Try to take a 2 year old's toy and giving it to some other 2 year old. The first 2 year old will start screaming, "Mine, mine, mine..." and then they glare at you like, "You freaking liberal bastard! Taking my shit away and giving it to someone else. THIS IS NOT A TOY-REDISTRIBUTION ZONE!!!!"

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Trololololol.

Having fun?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

As a matter of fact... yeah.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

If only the strong survive by means of evolution.....Why are elephants afraid of mice? Why are elephants (GOP) afraid of donkeys (liberals)? It appears that elephants are just plain chicken.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Why are elephants afraid of mice?

well, actually...

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
2 points

Don't really care, ACTUALLY

Side: True.
1 point

Evolution deals with individual survival in the terms given by this debate. To wit: The strong[should be fittest] individuals in a species will survive.

We are social animals that survive by cooperation. Social structures do not arise from genetics but political action. Liberalism is a political philosophy and is not open to genetic selection. In other words, people often reproduce without first checking each others political philosophy.

Therefore the basis for this debate is flawed and does not address an issue within the sphere of evolution.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

You have just entered, The Jolie Zone...

where arguments, that are for or against, the flawed debate, do not address the issue.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Do you mean to suggest it's wrong to help the weak? What should be done with them then? And do you believe only liberals want to help the weak?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Why does not natural imply that it has a negative affect? I don't follow that step in your logic. Just because something is not natural it should not be allowed to reproduce/continue? If so, your problem is not specific to liberals.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!