The Debate Hall Social Thread

[ballin4life]

I prefer to see it more as a personal revelation. I do not think pro-choice people are wrong, and I do not consider myself to be pro-life. I just think that when you have super relative issues such as this we need to hold off on it until we set down a legal/moral standard. Simple as that.

Sure. I was just pointing out that that facebook status doesn't necessarily get across the above point. Someone could definitely interpret that status the way I said.

Condoms are great bro. People need to use condoms more. I see nothing bad about them. People are gonna **** regardless of what we do, it is in our very nature and instincts. The people time sex was not a problem was during the more oppressive times in human history when people were super ignorant and KEPT that way by the culture and superiors.

Ok, so condoms are ok. What about the morning after pill?

I do not consider myself a troll. How do you take a screen shot anyways so I post this here. Keep in mind almost everybody that commented on that status are involved with Speech and Debate with me, so they are not completely idiots (Besides the feminist arguments"

I was kinda joking ... but you can see how a random pro choice person might get mad right (I mean, it happened to you)? Not saying your overall goal was to troll people but it certainly was going to have that effect

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So... Seems the ponies haven't come here yet. Anyone else here big on My Little Pony?

 

[Savon]

No. Stop now. Never speak of it again. K thx bai.

Ballin4life I have no issue with the morning after pill. I personally draw the 2-3 month period in the beginning for an abortion. After that I look at it as the point of no return, but honestly speaking abortions can be so easily avoided. Stop ****ing irresponsibly. I know we have condoms and all, but still people just need to have more self control in general.

 

[adumbrodeus]

so... Seems the ponies haven't come here yet. Anyone else here big on my little pony?

omg, yes, best show ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

In the wake of the royal wedding, I'm wondering about the purpose of monarchs in constitutional monarchies, and whether they are beneficial or necessary for the society they "rule".

What is their role in society?

Should this be a separate thread?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

So... Seems the ponies haven't come here yet. Anyone else here big on My Little Pony?

I have been pondering how to turn it into a debate for about a month now, really can not think of a formal format to put the debate in. Maybe a morality debate, but I do not see a MlP debate lasting to long.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

"What makes MLP so attractive as a TV show"?

@Bob: tourist attraction.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

@Bob: tourist attraction.

I must say, I can't disagree with you on that. I can't see the point in having them. Yes, some of them have a constitutional role, but other people can easily replace them. In short, why bother with monarchs? It seems like a backward and heavily outdated tradition, that should be abolished.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I agreed, until someone (IIRC Pluvia?) said that they bring in more in tourist money than they cost. Even (or rather, especially) if there's no political importance, that's still a pretty good deal...

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I agreed, until someone (IIRC Pluvia?) said that they bring in more in tourist money than they cost. Even (or rather, especially) if there's no political importance, that's still a pretty good deal...

I suppose, but they cost an awful amount of money; decadence appears to be a common theme among royalty.

I was wondering if we'd be interested in a thread as to how best deal with climate change? I was thinking of making one, but I'm not really sure if I can be bothered if no-one's interested.

 

[Aesir]

Bin Ladins dead. ZING

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Edit: I decided the content of this post is better suited for PM's.

 

[Dre89]

Bin Ladins dead. ZING

I just want to clarify something, didn't Wikileaks leak evidence of American soldiers shooting injured journalists and bombing buildings of innocent people just to kill one person?

 

[Aesir]

I just want to clarify something, didn't Wikileaks leak evidence of American soldiers shooting injured journalists and bombing buildings of innocent people just to kill one person?

Well considering they didn't use bombs to kill bin ladin this time, probably not.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dre, do you have a link about that? THe biggest wikileaks issue I see now with bin laden is how Pakistani tipped off osama whenever US troops approached.

 

[Aesir]

Dre, do you have a link about that? THe biggest wikileaks issue I see now with bin laden is how Pakistani tipped off osama whenever US troops approached.

Obama Death Stare > Paki Intelligence

http://wonkette.com/444876/heres-the-death-stare-face-obama-made-waiting-yesterday

 

[Dre89]

I don't have a link, I was genuinely asking, because I thought I remember someone here saying that.

So American soldiers haven't been doing anything dodgy at all? Like killing innocent people or anything?

 

[El Nino]

So American soldiers haven't been doing anything dodgy at all? Like killing innocent people or anything?

You are joking, obviously.

Collateral damage happens on both sides in any war. They killed bin Laden's son, two aides, and the wife of an aide because she got caught in the crossfire, and bin Laden's wife herself was shot in the leg when she tried to defend her husband. Bin Laden himself was not armed at the time, and no word on who else may have been armed. Pretty low casualty number considering there were a large number of children living in that house.

If you were asking about other operations going on around the world, then, yes, both Al Qaeda and the U.S. military have killed civilians and non-combatants numerous times. You could say that Al Qaeda actively targets civilians, whereas the U.S. does not. However, the political influence of the U.S. is greater than Al Qaeda's and the effects of U.S. policy have most likely directly and indirectly caused a much greater loss of human life. Also, the U.S. is not above imposing economic sanctions in certain countries, and civilians, not political leaders, are most effected by sanctions.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Dre, do you have a link about that? THe biggest wikileaks issue I see now with bin laden is how Pakistani tipped off osama whenever US troops approached.

Sauce?
10sauce

 

[rvkevin]

I think Dre. was referring to this and this.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Sauce?
10sauce

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...in-Laden-protected-by-Pakistani-security.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYkJHJvlX7Y

 

[Aesir]

Lets all stare in awe at the biggest assault on womens reproductive rights in history.

H.R 3 The redefining **** bill!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah, that is a bit ridiculous, I think that the US should stop giving the Pakistanis aid if they're using to fight alongside/protect their enemies.

Lets all stare in awe at the biggest assault on womens reproductive rights in history.

H.R 3 The redefining **** bill!

Link/synopsis please?

Also, what's everyone's opinion on Ryan's budget proposal?

To me it seems ridiculous. The centre-piece of their budget seems to based around letting the elderly bear the brunt of the increases in the cost of healthcare. The issue is that the budget proposal, ties Medicare benefits to the Consumer Price Index, and not the average cost of healthcare. As the cost of healthcare increases faster than the CPI, the elderly are going to have to pay for an increasing percentage of their healthcare. In short, they're screwing the elderly.

And Medicaid will suffer as well, receiving less funding. This will mean that the poor, often the people who will need healthcare most will have a much harder time finding healthcare.

Of course, it could be possible that they're cutting these things for a good reason, but they're not. The only good reason should be that they can't find the money elsewhere, but they can, they're planning to extend the Bush Era tax-cuts, if not reduce them further.

And they'll probably slip in something there about screwing Planned Parenthood as a policy rider. Which by the way actually provides useful health services to women who would have trouble finding those services elsewhere.

It seems as if this budget proposal is aimed at cutting back services to those who need it most, while enriching the rich. I think there is something deeply immoral with this approach.

 

[ballin4life]

Yeah, that is a bit ridiculous, I think that the US should stop giving the Pakistanis aid if they're using to fight alongside/protect their enemies.

US should stop giving aid to Pakistan and everywhere else regardless. The government is broke.

To me it seems ridiculous. The centre-piece of their budget seems to based around letting the elderly bear the brunt of the increases in the cost of healthcare. The issue is that the budget proposal, ties Medicare benefits to the Consumer Price Index, and not the average cost of healthcare. As the cost of healthcare increases faster than the CPI, the elderly are going to have to pay for an increasing percentage of their healthcare. In short, they're screwing the elderly.

Well, they're screwing the elderly relative to how good the elderly had it before.

It is kinda messed up though because of all the uncertainty being created. People plan out their retirements and then get screwed when policy changes. If this policy had already been in place, people might have planned differently and been ok, but suddenly putting it on everyone is going to screw them over.

And Medicaid will suffer as well, receiving less funding. This will mean that the poor, often the people who will need healthcare most will have a much harder time finding healthcare.

Is there some reason poor people are more likely to be unhealthy? Or are you referring to poor people being unable to pay?

Of course, it could be possible that they're cutting these things for a good reason, but they're not. The only good reason should be that they can't find the money elsewhere, but they can, they're planning to extend the Bush Era tax-cuts, if not reduce them further.

I'm a bit skeptical about the effects of the Bush tax cuts either way. The super rich can afford to have accountants that know how to minimize their tax burdens.

I'd support cutting taxes for everyone down to 10%. Tell me that wouldn't help the economy.

And they'll probably slip in something there about screwing Planned Parenthood as a policy rider. Which by the way actually provides useful health services to women who would have trouble finding those services elsewhere.

Meh, but they shouldn't be getting government funding ...

I would be 1000% against banning Planned Parenthood, but I don't think they should get money from the government either.

It seems as if this budget proposal is aimed at cutting back services to those who need it most, while enriching the rich. I think there is something deeply immoral with this approach.

Number 1 thing that should be cut is military/foreign stuff.

 

[Aesir]

US should stop giving aid to Pakistan and everywhere else regardless. The government is broke.

If you cut the military budget and let the tax breaks for the top 2% fall off you wouldn't need to do that.

Well, they're screwing the elderly relative to how good the elderly had it before.

It is kinda messed up though because of all the uncertainty being created. People plan out their retirements and then get screwed when policy changes. If this policy had already been in place, people might have planned differently and been ok, but suddenly putting it on everyone is going to screw them over.

And the fact that the elderly can't get insurance. Especially with a 5000 voucher. No insurer would take them, they're such a huge liability.

Is there some reason poor people are more likely to be unhealthy? Or are you referring to poor people being unable to pay?

Both probably.

Number 1 thing that should be cut is military/foreign stuff.

NO NOT THE CASH COW IT'S HOW I GET REELECTED!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well, they're screwing the elderly relative to how good the elderly had it before.

It is kinda messed up though because of all the uncertainty being created. People plan out their retirements and then get screwed when policy changes. If this policy had already been in place, people might have planned differently and been ok, but suddenly putting it on everyone is going to screw them over.

Yes, but you've got to remember that according to the congressional budget office, the elderly, by 2030 are going to end up paying around 68% of their healthcare expenses, as opposed to 25% under the current scheme. That's 43% more. It's massive. And remember these are the people who are retired, they can't afford this, heck in other developed countries, healthcare is free (well, public at least) for the most part; for everyone.

Is there some reason poor people are more likely to be unhealthy? Or are you referring to poor people being unable to pay?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that they're more likely to be overweight, and afflicted by preventable diseases.

I'm a bit skeptical about the effects of the Bush tax cuts either way. The super rich can afford to have accountants that know how to minimize their tax burdens.

I'd support cutting taxes for everyone down to 10%. Tell me that wouldn't help the economy.

Yeah, but... the government needs money to function. And a progressive tax rate makes more sense, because it has a more equitable effect on disposable income.

Meh, but they shouldn't be getting government funding ...

I would be 1000% against banning Planned Parenthood, but I don't think they should get money from the government either.

Without government funding, it wouldn't be there.

Number 1 thing that should be cut is military/foreign stuff.

That's a great idea. Why don't they do it? It seems to me that America is a lot more militaristic than other developed nations is there a reason why? (I don't live there)

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, but you've got to remember that according to the congressional budget office, the elderly, by 2030 are going to end up paying around 68% of their healthcare expenses, as opposed to 25% under the current scheme. That's 43% more. It's massive. And remember these are the people who are retired, they can't afford this, heck in other developed countries, healthcare is free (well, public at least) for the most part; for everyone.

I don't have a problem with people paying, but I kind of have a problem with the big change since it will mess up people' planning.

I think the idea of "retirement" for everyone is kind of silly. Many people are still capable of working at 65+, and I think those people should continue.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that they're more likely to be overweight, and afflicted by preventable diseases.

Oh, ok. I guess it makes sense.

Yeah, but... the government needs money to function. And a progressive tax rate makes more sense, because it has a more equitable effect on disposable income.

It's not equitable when you are taking more from some people ...

I think the whole idea of income taxes is bad, because it creates a disincentive to working. Consumption tax would be far superior.

Without government funding, it wouldn't be there.

Oh, ok. It shouldn't exist then.

Just because something has some benefits does NOT mean that it deserves to be funded. That's one of my problems with the government. The market looks at costs as well as benefits, but the government tends to ignore costs, hence a continual budget deficit.

That's a great idea. Why don't they do it? It seems to me that America is a lot more militaristic than other developed nations is there a reason why? (I don't live there)

Military industrial complex donates a lot of money to campaigns. I'd say it's also a leftover from the Cold War.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I don't have a problem with people paying, but I kind of have a problem with the big change since it will mess up people' planning.

I think the idea of "retirement" for everyone is kind of silly. Many people are still capable of working at 65+, and I think those people should continue.

However, you have to remember that they are the more vulnerable members of the community as well. You also have to remember that healthcare is extremely expensive and that without the government paying for it, they may not be able to afford it, even if they plan for these changes as one doesn't know how sick they'll be when they retire. And even if they do, some may be too poor to accumulate enough in savings to pay for it.

It's not equitable when you are taking more from some people ...

Yes, but those people can afford to pay for it, while others can't.

I think the whole idea of income taxes is bad, because it creates a disincentive to working. Consumption tax would be far superior.

A consumption tax would provide a disincentive to consume and the government would not be able to customise it as readily as an income tax.

Oh, ok. It shouldn't exist then.

Just because the market wouldn't put it there in the first place?

Just because something has some benefits does NOT mean that it deserves to be funded. That's one of my problems with the government. The market looks at costs as well as benefits, but the government tends to ignore costs, hence a continual budget deficit.

I think that's fair to say, but what if those benefits would not be readily attainable through other means and those benefits are indeed great?

Military industrial complex donates a lot of money to campaigns. I'd say it's also a leftover from the Cold War.

Ah. I hear that everyone really idolises military personnel, is that true?

 

[ballin4life]

A consumption tax would provide a disincentive to consume and the government would not be able to customise it as readily as an income tax.

Those are both benefits.

Just because the market wouldn't put it there in the first place?



I think that's fair to say, but what if those benefits would not be readily attainable through other means and those benefits are indeed great?

Well, if the market didn't put it there, how great could the benefits really be?

How do you measure the benefits being great? I don't think Planned Parenthood is a huge benefit to me, for example.

Ah. I hear that everyone really idolises military personnel, is that true?

Not "everyone", but a lot of people I guess. I wouldn't say idolizes, but there's a big thing with saying "support our troops".

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Those are both benefits.

So making the tax system unwieldy is a benefit? I mean, if the government can only modify one aspect of it, it's pretty unwieldy.

Well, if the market didn't put it there, how great could the benefits really be?

How do you measure the benefits being great? I don't think Planned Parenthood is a huge benefit to me, for example.

Well... I'm pretty sure it provides excellent reproductive healthcare services for women along with contraception. That's pretty important.

Not "everyone", but a lot of people I guess. I wouldn't say idolizes, but there's a big thing with saying "support our troops".

Right.

 

[Reaver197]

I don't know if anyone else here watches this Carl Sagan tribute series at all, but it's fantastic stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49i8HYMp2k&feature=player_embedded

Reminds me of this great serbian proverb:

Be humble for you are made of earth.
Be noble for you are made of stars.


Just wanted to post something to counter balance how depressing and divisive politics can be.

 

[Aesir]

I like regressive taxation.

Also A disincentive for people to spend money isn't exactly good for the economy.

 

[ballin4life]

So making the tax system unwieldy is a benefit? I mean, if the government can only modify one aspect of it, it's pretty unwieldy.

It's a good thing because one of the ways that politicians pay back the companies that contribute to their campaigns is through tax loopholes.

Also, it wouldn't make the tax system unwieldy, it would make it simple. This leads to transparency and makes it easy to manage. In the US at least, the income tax system is insanely complicated, and there are TONS of lawyers and accountants whose ONLY JOB is to do people's taxes. This is a ridiculous waste of resources - those are smart people who could be doing things that are actually productive.

Well, if the market didn't put it there, how great could the benefits really be?

What? The market has nothing to do with government tax systems.

Well... I'm pretty sure it provides excellent reproductive healthcare services for women along with contraception. That's pretty important.

See, "that's pretty important" isn't good enough. First, just because something is important does not mean it is cost effective. Second, it's just your opinion that something is important. If enough people agree with you and are willing to pay enough for this important thing, then some entrepreneur will go into business making the important thing to try to make some money.

I mean, I think that providing omelets to everybody is pretty important. Does that mean we need a subsidized omelet service?

I like regressive taxation.

Also A disincentive for people to spend money isn't exactly good for the economy.

Actually it is good, because it would incentivize people to save money - leading to more investment and more funds available for businesses to borrow. The US at least has had a problem with overconsumption - the country has even had NEGATIVE savings rates (meaning the average person was actually BORROWING money in order to consume more). This is due to the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low, btw.

Anyway the source of economic growth is the savings which allow for investment/technological development/additional capital/etc.

 

[Aesir]

Actually it is good, because it would incentivize people to save money - leading to more investment and more funds available for businesses to borrow. The US at least has had a problem with overconsumption - the country has even had NEGATIVE savings rates (meaning the average person was actually BORROWING money in order to consume more). This is due to the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low, btw.

Anyway the source of economic growth is the savings which allow for investment/technological development/additional capital/etc.

I'll be the first to admit that when it come to consumption tax I know very little about it, However from what I do know it's a regressive tax. (Though I have read some variations that are more progressive and can be just as progressive as a income tax.) I'd rather we not tax income, because you're taxing work basically. I say we tax the things we like the least most and tax the things we like the most least.

However A consumption tax at it's most basic level is regressive and I can't help but think it would negatively effect the people who spend the most (middle and working class income earners). Not on useless things, but on necessary goods and services.

It's my birthday so I had to make this brief but if you have more info you should post it up IE a link of some kind.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It's a good thing because one of the ways that politicians pay back the companies that contribute to their campaigns is through tax loopholes.

Also, it wouldn't make the tax system unwieldy, it would make it simple. This leads to transparency and makes it easy to manage. In the US at least, the income tax system is insanely complicated, and there are TONS of lawyers and accountants whose ONLY JOB is to do people's taxes. This is a ridiculous waste of resources - those are smart people who could be doing things that are actually productive.

True. A simple tax system would be better, but it would be better if one could modify it to suit one's purposes eg. tax breaks for charities etc.

What? The market has nothing to do with government tax systems.

Argh. I misquoted, you actually said that.

See, "that's pretty important" isn't good enough. First, just because something is important does not mean it is cost effective. Second, it's just your opinion that something is important. If enough people agree with you and are willing to pay enough for this important thing, then some entrepreneur will go into business making the important thing to try to make some money.

If saving lives is not important, I don't know what is. Also, the people that want this service are the ones who cannot pay for it, and I believe that they have a right to healthcare as well.

I mean, I think that providing omelets to everybody is pretty important. Does that mean we need a subsidized omelet service?

If providing omelets were a important enough then maybe we should. Also, the market can provide omelets and it does, but the market can't provide cheap and affordable healthcare for the poor and they need healthcare.

Actually it is good, because it would incentivize people to save money - leading to more investment and more funds available for businesses to borrow. The US at least has had a problem with overconsumption - the country has even had NEGATIVE savings rates (meaning the average person was actually BORROWING money in order to consume more). This is due to the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low, btw.

Good point.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I have a question, why does one need to apply to get into the proving grounds? Could we have an open proving grounds and a closed debate hall? Why do we need to close the proving grounds?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I have a question, why does one need to apply to get into the proving grounds? Could we have an open proving grounds and a closed debate hall? Why do we need to close the proving grounds?

Presumably to keep out trolls?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Presumably to keep out trolls?

If a troll wished to troll bad enough all he would have to do is was apply, I doubt the mods check the history of the what the person posted to see if he or she is a troll. If they do then props to them.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If a troll wished to troll bad enough all he would have to do is was apply, I doubt the mods check the history of the what the person posted to see if he or she is a troll. If they do then props to them.

I'm pretty sure that the trolls have got infractions, and the mods could easily check that.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I'm pretty sure that the trolls have got infractions, and the mods could easily check that.

I guess you are right about them getting infractions, but then what about former trolls who have changed their ways? Could they get in?