Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

6
8
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:14
Arguments:15
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (6)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (8)

Debate Creator

jolie(9805) pic



Modern societies have removed competition - the strongest survive - from the human race.

We try to get along.  We try not to offend.  We take from the rich and give to the poor.  We protect the weak.  We put warning level on everything to protect the stupid people.  We cuddle the handicap.  This makes the human race weak.  We need to put Darwinism back into society and let the weak perish in order to make the human race stronger.  In order for the strong to propagate their genes and let the weak genes die out.

Or at least that is what this author says about Hitler's world view.  Hitler blamed the Jews for inverting the "natural" order.  What Hitler says is that abstract thought—whether it’s normative or whether it’s scientific—is inherently Jewish.  Any idea which allows us to see each other as human beings—whether it’s a social contract; whether it’s a legal contract; whether it’s working-class solidarity; whether it’s Christianity—all these ideas come from Jews.  And so for people to be people, for people to return to their essence, for them to represent their race, as Hitler sees things, you have to strip away all those ideas. And the only way to strip away all those ideas is to eradicate the Jews. And if you eradicate the Jews, then the world snaps back into what Hitler sees as its primeval, correct state: Races struggles against each other, kill each other, starve each other to death, and try and take land.


True.

Side Score: 6
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 8
1 point

"Anti-Semitism of the Hitlerian kind—where you use the Jews to explain the whole planet—that is more resonant at times of, let’s call it, ‘globalization crisis.’ And I see the period of 1914 to 1941 as globalization crisis. And what I worry about is that we are to some extent repeating this."

What if the world sees the U.S. as the source of its problems? Could they take out the U.S. in one massive preemptive strike? Biblical scholars say that the U.S. is not referenced in the book or Revelations which talks about Armageddon. How is it that the most powerful country in the world is not referenced?

Side: True.
1 point

It isn't referenced because it is a stupid book that doesn't really predict anything.

Side: True.
1 point

I can't ignore the bible because:

1. It will reduce the traffic to this debate.

2. There are many religious fanatics who take it literally and will stop at nothing to try and make it happen. For example, ISIS is trying desperately to force a confrontation with the western world. It sees such a confrontation as preordained. It matters how wackos are interpreting religious books.

Side: True.
Jace(5189) Disputed
1 point

Hitler was insightful in some instances; his perspective on the purported innate attributes of Jews, however, was not such an instant. Nor does that particular aspect of his ideology readily translate to the argument you appear to be advancing regarding globalization and the U.S.

I would suggest that a not inconsequential portion of the world does fault the U.S. for its problems, and I would argue that many of them are not entirely incorrect. We have a long standing history of intervention at the expense of other nations and peoples for our express benefit. And ultimately, what matters more than the reality of our intervention is its perception. Fortunately for us, the likelihood of other nations overcoming their differences to join military forces against us in adequate numbers to pose a threat is unlikely. I suspect the U.S. will destabilize itself into obsolescence and vulnerability before the proposed scenario occurs; many of history's greater (read powerful) nation-states ended this way.

That the Bible does not mention the U.S. in Revelations is not particularly revealing, since the Bible fails to mention many things by virtue of not actually being a legitimate predictor of events, and etc.

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

We can't ignore the bible because:

There are many religious fanatics who take it literally and will stop at nothing to try and make it happen. For example, ISIS is desperately trying to force a confrontation with the western world. It sees such a confrontation as preordained. It matters how wackos are interpreting religious books.

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

But, It's called "becoming civilized". Are we forever to live by the "Law of the Jungle", or do we someday use our brains for something other than to decide just who is "tough enough" to live! One of humanity's most intelligent persons is almost completely paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair! He's not about to show how "tough" he is (unless, maybe you want to consider "mental toughness".

Well, let me see., would I rather be smart, or drag my woman around by the hair!?? If we needed to do THAT to survive, we should have remained Neanderthals! Oh....apparently some of us did!

Side: True.
1 point

Although i agree that Modern society has "controlled" growth and select improvement groups...it is too late,much to late to revert back to your warped view of Darwinism. If the Guardians of our Realm choose to reverse course and instead of inhibiting Global progress instead of selective progress, it could not be controlled. You'd have floating houses and anti gravity shoes. People would be living in the "near" space which would endanger satellites surrounding our planet that give us this blessed way of life of ours. Control....is needed to prevent something "catastrophic".

Sincerely, Q

Side: True.
1 point

Evolution has never selected for the optimal creature, only the merely adequate from the best available attributes. There is little enough to suggest that human compassion exists in such excess as to have become counter-evolutionary (if it had, we would expect there to be corresponding evolutionary consequences). Moreover, there is still plenty of disparity, intolerance, violence, and etc that suggests we are not nearly so mutually supportive and "soft" as OP implies.

The premise also assumes the continued validity of survival of the fittest, and neglects the possibility of having evolved to a point where we as a species have the luxury of supporting members whom would be selected against under more onerous circumstances.

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

What do you define as 'strong'?

This debate ultimately comes down to how narrow minded you are in your view of 'strength'.

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

Strong is defined as those who survive. Whether that is through brute strength, mental capacity, physical adaptation (genetics), or just plain old stubborn stupidity (those who are to stupid to know that they should be dead and too stubborn to die).

So.... how narrow minded is that definition?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
instig8or(3308) Disputed
1 point

Then no, modern society hasn't removed competition.

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

Darwin suggested that it will not be the most intelligent or knowledgeable that will survive, but the most adaptable.

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

That is not true.. There is still a lot of competition, especially at work places and that can't be stopped

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