• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Debate Classifieds [W:163]

Fair enough, and how about actually quoting the Sources in the argument to make it easier?

How about this . 5 posts each.

1 opener

3 responses (one response to the opener, and then 2 back and forths)

1 Conclusion.

Each post has be be short enough to fit in one post.

Or maybe 1 opener 4 reponses and one conclusion?

Hi RGacky3,

I got your last PM, unfortunately I've reached the limit allowed for PM and cannot send out any more messages. I'll have to unload some from my box....trying to figure out how.

Anyway, yes I can be the first. As for the length of each post - any limit to the numbers of words?
 
Hi RGacky3,

I got your last PM, unfortunately I've reached the limit allowed for PM and cannot send out any more messages. I'll have to unload some from my box....trying to figure out how.

Anyway, yes I can be the first. As for the length of each post - any limit to the numbers of words?

I'd say the back and forth should have no limit .... perhaps the intro and conclusion should have a limit? I dunno, it's up to you.
 
I'd say the back and forth should have no limit .... perhaps the intro and conclusion should have a limit? I dunno, it's up to you.

I guess we won't put any limit to the intro and conclusion as well. Okay, we're set to go. I'm leaving for work now and will gather up my intro tonight, so my first post will be tomorrow....assuming that's okay with Redress.
 
moo
Socialist outlaw unionization??? What are you taking about?

They are revisionists with an awful history. Its one reason they must move from name to name-as they ruin each.

I'd like to present a formal debate challenge to either Gringo AllStar or US Conservative. I'm interested in having either of you backup the claim that National Socialism was leftwing in nature. The structure would be as follows:

Post 1: Presentation of arguments.
Post 2: Countering arguments from opposing side.
Post 3: Ask questions to the opposing side.
Post 4: Closing statement.

My suggestion for judges would be:

- TurtleDude (Libertarian)
- American (Conservative)
- NoC_T (Independent)

The question: Given Nazi Germany's policies before/during World War II, would you consider the regime to be left leaning or right leaning?
 
I'd like to present a formal debate challenge to either Gringo AllStar or US Conservative. I'm interested in having either of you backup the claim that National Socialism was leftwing in nature. The structure would be as follows:

Post 1: Presentation of arguments.
Post 2: Countering arguments from opposing side.
Post 3: Ask questions to the opposing side.
Post 4: Closing statement.

My suggestion for judges would be:

- TurtleDude (Libertarian)
- American (Conservative)
- NoC_T (Independent)

The question: Given Nazi Germany's policies before/during World War II, would you consider the regime to be left leaning or right leaning?

I just dont have the time right now, maybe middle of next week? Thanks for the challenge though! :)
 
Fine, set up a day next week.



I just dont have the time right now, maybe middle of next week? Thanks for the challenge though! :)

Hhmmm...wha hoppin to Gringo Hatuey?Maybe you shouldaa lent him a calendar.:mrgreen:
 
Hhmmm...wha hoppin to Gringo Hatuey?Maybe you shouldaa lent him a calendar.:mrgreen:

I just dont have the time right now, maybe middle of next week? Thanks for the challenge though! :)

Well, his answer was simple. A poster who posts 10.66 times a day, has no time for 5 posts.
 
Well, his answer was simple. A poster who posts 10.66 times a day, has no time for 5 posts.

Sorry but wouldn't a proper debate take researching and posting sources and such?? CMon man thought you were better then that.
 
Also Hatuey it wasn't a right or left question it was if the nazis were socialist or not.. already being dishonest I see.
 
#1.
Also Hatuey it wasn't a right or left question it was if the nazis were socialist or not.. already being dishonest I see.

#2.
Sorry but wouldn't a proper debate take researching and posting sources and such?? CMon man thought you were better then that.

#1. Challenged posted over a month ago. That's how long you've been avoiding it and incidentally how long you've had to research the subject. If you can't answer a challenge after 1 month and yet find the time to post every single day, you probably shouldn't be making ridiculous claims that can't be defended in a debate challenge.

#2. You're tripping over yourself trying to avoid a challenge. If you never had the facts, knowledge or studies to back it up (and from the original thread, it's obvious you didn't), then just say so. It's not that big of a deal. It's just an internet forum. Now, as far as the challenge question goes:

- If you demonstrate that National Socialism was leftwing in nature, you'd do it demonstrating that they fit under the generally accepted definition of socialism (i.e. they use socialist policies, generally support ideas brought by Marxist/Leninist/Socialist etc. schools of thought, had trade agreements with other socialist countries etc.)
- If I demonstrate that that National Socialism wasn't leftwing in nature I'd do it by showing that they didn't fit under the generally accepted definition of socialism (i.e. they didn't use socialist policies, generally didn't support ideas brought by socialist schools of thought, opposed socialism etc.)

It's alright if you don't want to take the challenge. It wouldn't take much to prove that Nazism wasn't socialist/leftwing at all.
 
Last edited:
#1.

#2.

#1. Challenged posted over a month ago. That's how long you've been avoiding it and incidentally how long you've had to research the subject. If you can't answer a challenge after 1 month and yet find the time to post every single day, you probably shouldn't be making ridiculous claims that can't be defended in a debate challenge.

#2. You're tripping over yourself trying to avoid a challenge. If you never had the facts, knowledge or studies to back it up (and from the original thread, it's obvious you didn't), then just say so. It's not that big of a deal. It's just an internet forum. Now, as far as the challenge question goes:

- If you demonstrate that National Socialism was leftwing in nature, you'd do it demonstrating that they fit under the generally accepted definition of socialism (i.e. they use socialist policies, generally support ideas brought by Marxist/Leninist/Socialist etc. schools of thought, had trade agreements with other socialist countries etc.)
- If I demonstrate that that National Socialism wasn't leftwing in nature I'd do it by showing that they didn't fit under the generally accepted definition of socialism (i.e. they didn't use socialist policies, generally didn't support ideas brought by socialist schools of thought, opposed socialism etc.)

It's alright if you don't want to take the challenge. It wouldn't take much to prove that Nazism wasn't socialist/leftwing at all.

He does a two step like stinger....do ya think?:shock:
 
He does a two step like stinger....do ya think?:shock:

Whatever happened to that guy? Anyways. Yeah, I noticed. Whether the challenge is about Nazis being leftwing or the Nazis being socialists is irrelevant. If you show that Nazis were socialists in practice, you're at the same time showing that they're leftwing. It's the in practice stuff that he's not equipped to deal with. It was evident when I first called him on it in the thread.
 
Last edited:
Whatever happened to that guy? Anyways. Yeah, I noticed. Whether the challenge is about Nazis being leftwing or the Nazis being socialists is irrelevant. If you show that Nazis were socialists in practice, you're at the same time showing that they're leftwing. It's the in practice stuff that he's not equipped to deal with. It was evident when I first called him on it in the thread.

It a damn shame that trolls come to a site with the name DEBATE in it and troll.The winger trolls on this site is the main reason that i don't post much anymore.Sad.:(
 
Whatever happened to that guy? Anyways. Yeah, I noticed. Whether the challenge is about Nazis being leftwing or the Nazis being socialists is irrelevant. If you show that Nazis were socialists in practice, you're at the same time showing that they're leftwing.
Maybe not. One can advocate socialist economic policies and be considered right wing. Politics is not a linear model progressing from left to right. Rather, it is a circle where authoratarian leftism can , though not always, blur into authoratarian rightism.

Consider the following people and movements:
-Huey Long
-Father Coughlin
-Russian seperatists / Ukraine
-Stern Gang

All of these people and movements advocated socialist economic policies from right wing populist perspectives. So, are they right wingers or left wingers?
 
Last edited:
Maybe not. One can advocate socialist economic policies and be considered right wing. Politics is not a linear model progressing from left to right. Rather, it is a circle where authoratarian leftism can , though not always, blur into authoratarian rightism.

Consider the following people and movements:
-Huey Long
-Father Coughlin
-Russian seperatists / Ukraine
-Stern Gang

All of these people and movements advocated socialist economic policies from right wing populist perspectives. So, are they right wingers or left wingers?

I haven't seen Father Coughlin,Huey Long any Russian separatists nor any Stern Gangsters trollin DP lately.What forum are the hangen in?:2wave:
 
-Huey Long - Huey Long is considered right wing by people who don't understand the progressive movements of the 20th century. Huey Long makes Obama look like a neo-con.
-Father Coughlin - Considered right wing because well... he kind of was.
-Russian seperatists / Ukraine - Never heard of them. What kinda music do they play?
-Stern Gang - Same as above.

:shrug:
 
Father Coughlin - Considered right wing because well... he kind of was.
Yes, Father Coughlin was so right wing economically that he even supported FDR. His support for him waned only when he felt that FDR did not go far enough:
Social Security History

Of course, everybody knows what a right winger FDR was. Uhoooh, wait a minute.... .

Stern Gang - Same as above.
The Stern Gang was a militia of secular Jewish thugs (Jewish in the ethnic sense, not in the religous sense) who combined left wing economics with right wing nationalism.
 
Last edited:
Father Coughlin - Considered right wing because well... he kind of was.
Yes, Father Coughlin was so right wing economically that he even supported FDR. His support for him waned only when he felt that FDR did not go far enough:
Social Security History

You forgot to mention he was also an anti-semite, supported Hitler and Mussolini in their fight to stop communism, and religiously was indistinct from most social conservatives today. :shrug:

Of course, everybody knows what a right winger FDR was. Wait a minute.... .
Stern Gang - Same as above.
The Stern Gang was a militia of secular Jewish thugs who combined left wing economics with right wing nationalism.

Never heard of them. :shrug:
 
You forgot to mention he was also an anti-semite, supported Hitler and Mussolini in their fight to stop communism, and religiously was indistinct from most social conservatives today. :shrug:

I never denied that he was anti semite. I said that he combined leftist economic with right wing nationalism. 1930s right wing nationalism overwhelmingly had a dose of anti semitism. The fact that communism was also dogmatically atheist, and Fathe Coughlin was a theist, probably influenced his opposition to communism.

Never heard of them.
They are extinct now. But, here is some information:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)
 
Last edited:
Maybe not. One can advocate socialist economic policies and be considered right wing. Politics is not a linear model progressing from left to right. Rather, it is a circle where authoratarian leftism can , though not always, blur into authoratarian rightism.

Consider the following people and movements:
-Huey Long
-Father Coughlin
-Russian seperatists / Ukraine
-Stern Gang

All of these people and movements advocated socialist economic policies from right wing populist perspectives. So, are they right wingers or left wingers?

Yes. I think using the term 'left wing' and 'right wing' as a descriptive term is too simplistic; many groups refer to themselves as 'Third Positionists' as a result, or as a front, depending on your biases.

As for the Nazi Party being 'left' or 'right', it had elements of both early on, and after Hitler's purges it was neither, just a personality cult.

Otto Strasser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goebbels was a left winger, for what it's worth, before he switched to Hitlerism.

Born at Windsheim in Bavaria, Otto Strasser took an active part in World War I. On 2 August 1914 he joined the Bavarian Army as a volunteer. He rose through the ranks to lieutenant and was twice wounded.[1] He returned to Germany in 1919 where he served in the Freikorps that put down the Bavarian Soviet Republic which was organized on the principles of workers' councils. At the same time, he also joined the Social Democratic Party. In 1920 he participated in the opposition to the Kapp Putsch. However, he grew increasingly alienated with that reformist-socialist party's stand, particularly when it put down a workers' uprising in the Ruhr, and he left the party later that year. In 1925 he joined the NSDAP, in which his brother had been a member for several years, and worked for its newspaper as a journalist, ultimately taking it over with his brother. He took the 'socialist' element in the party's programme seriously enough to lead a very socialist-inclined faction of the party in northern Germany together with his brother Gregor and Joseph Goebbels. His faction advocated support for strikes, nationalisation of banks and industry, and — despite acknowledged differences — closer ties with the Soviet Union. Some of these policies were opposed by Hitler, who thought they were too radical and too alienating from parts of the German people (middle class and some Nazi-supporting nationalist industrialists in particular), and the Strasser faction was defeated at the Bamberg Conference (1926), with Joseph Goebbels joining Hitler. Humiliated, he nonetheless, along with his brother Gregor, continued as a leading Left Nazi within the Party, until expelled from the NSDAP by Hitler in 1930.
 
Yes. I think using the term 'left wing' and 'right wing' as a descriptive term is too simplistic; many groups refer to themselves as 'Third Positionists' as a result, or as a front, depending on your biases.

As for the Nazi Party being 'left' or 'right', it had elements of both early on, and after Hitler's purges it was neither, just a personality cult.

Goebbels was a left winger, for what it's worth, before he switched to Hitlerism.

Thanks for the information about Goebbels. I had heard rumors that a number of the early nazi street fighters were former communists who had switched sides as the Nazis grew in poweer, but I had no idea that somebody as senior as Goebbels was also affiliated with leftism. I think the Posse Commiatus (far right farm / ranch militia movement in the 1980s), though despising real and imagined "communism" as un american, also took a dim view of large scale capitalism.

Anectodally, I knew a man once who was affiliated with, but not a member per se of a militia, allowed various groups to leave second amendment and sovereign citizen material at his business etc. Needless to say, he was vocally against any and all positions of the Democratic party.

At the same time, he made a few remarks to me that gave me the impression that while being a small scale capitalist himself, he did not like more successful, larger scale capitalists, and that he might even support policies restricting them. I never mentioned the irony to him.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the information about Goebbels. I had heard rumors that a number of the early nazi street fighters were former communists who had switched sides as the Nazis grew in poweer, but I had no idea that somebody as senior as Goebbels was also affiliated with leftism. I think the Posse Commiatus (far right farm / ranch militia movement in the 1980s), though despising real and imagined "communism" as un american, also took a dim view of large scale capitalism.

Anectodally, I knew a man once who was affiliated with, but not a member per se of a militia, allowed various groups to leave second amendment and sovereign citizen material at his business etc. Needless to say, he was vocally against any and all positions of the Democratic party.

At the same time, he made a few remarks to me that gave me the impression that while being a small scale capitalist himself, he did not like more successful, larger scale capitalists, and that he might even support policies restricting them. I never mentioned the irony to him.

i more or less agree with your friend on that, there's a critical mass people can reach within capitalism where their money-based influence and power gets completely out of control. though that's true within any system, regardless of money, as Stalin, Hitler, Robespierre, napoleon, Bismark, Tojo, etc, show. more to the point it's probably wise to restrict anyone, for any reason, from excessive power...in any form.
 
- Debate Type: TRUE DEBATE
- Debate Topic: SEN. BERNIE SANDERS CAN STILL WIN/THE 2016 ELECTION IS NOT OVER.
- Debate Position: This is false, and I'm willing to challenge this false statement with facts and sources, and I am looking for someone who is willing to rebut with sourced material in likeness.
- Date Available: Friday: April 1, 2016
- Notes: See Debate Position
 
:lamo


Its comical that you can see me telling you numerous times I am more than willing to have a discussion and even a formal debate with you...and all you have to do is respond to the initial comment that inspired you to enter the fray in the first place.


Simple beginning. Answer the question.



I challenge VanceMack to a debate concerning the the 'raised black fist' and the 'white power' salute. In that debate we will address 3 specific issues:

1. Is the raised black fist racist?
2. Is the raised black fist comparable (historically, culturally, symbolically, etc.) to the white power salute?
3. Are these physical displays of solidarity equivalent but on different sides of a racial spectrum?

This is only open to VanceMack.

Number of posts: 5 posts.
Word Limit: The forum set post word limit. No minimum on the wording.
Sources: Videos, images, news reports, books published by real publishes (i.e. no e-publishers or anything silly like that), academic journals, etc.
Time limit: For brevity's sake - 10 days (meaning: 2 days to write a post).

Challenge expires: May 16th, 2016 at 12AM PT.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom