Arguments

ITT: We hone in on our argumentation skills. Post typical liberal arguments and we will dissect them and provide counter-arguments.

Previous thread:

Other urls found in this thread:

westerndefence.org/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2356
strawpoll.me/12087652
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Everyone has the right to health care

THATS SLAVERY

i agree.

Even as a conservative.

That said, rangeban.

Can't homosexual incest be normalized with the same argument that non-incestuous homosexual act have been?

>Set up straw men then knock them down in a circle-jerk
You're not honing anything, OP. You're self-congratulating against arguments that aren't being articulated well by people intending to present them poorly.

The age of the earth proves Christianity wrong

>Everyone has the right to health care
Everyone has the right to care for their health.
They do not have a right to any means they select on the basis of them merely selecting it.
To say such would mean you could in theory enslave people to an ideal on an arbitrary basis.
You might say its an argument from absurdity.
But the issue is the inconsistency with the premises the defense of your argument is based upon.
To say others should work for me but not for themselves is contradictory in a society where consent and/or equality is valued.
Unless you're king, no slaves.

Why do you want to let people die on the street when we could just have single payer healthcare?

There is no genetic basis for race. It is very possible you have more in common, genetically, with someone from the Congo than your next door neighbor.

See this?
>Everyone has the right to healthcare
Isn't an argument. It is merely a statement. This poster has not knocked down the argument, because no one has presented the argument. Instead, the poster has rejected a statement by making assumptions about what the underlying premise behind the statement intend, then argued with those.

This is what is called a strawman. It has nothing to do with debate or argumentation.

>The age of the earth proves Christianity wrong
Define 'Christianity'.
It certainly doesn't prove the notion God exists as wrong, nor does it prove many of the conceptions of Christian religion wrong in any way.
In fact the existence of earth is evidence Christianity is true as its a fiber of consistency within the text, the church, and the scientific reality of our observations.
It's also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if they say directly after that "because...x"
Not really, feel free to post an argument and I will deconstruct.

>There is no genetic basis for race. It is very possible you have more in common, genetically, with someone from the Congo than your next door neighbor.
Completely false.

There are many non-literal stories in the Bible and the story of creation is generally thought to be one of them.

If you don't believe in every statement in the bible then you are picking and choosing, just as I do.

>Not really, feel free to post an argument and I will deconstruct.

>In fact the existence of earth is evidence Christianity is true as its a fiber of consistency within the text, the church
You're adorable. Your ability to think critically? Not really worth anyone's time.

>underlying premise

>Knocking down premises to assail a conclusion of one who holds them isn't arguing
>strawman
Actually, no one was misrepresented.
You seem to be jumping the gun.
Have you read any philosophy at all?
Formal arguments =/ all arguments
Argumentation is a process of dialectical reasoning whether it be Socratic, Aristotelian, or
Aquinean in nature.

Would you please elaborate on how your next door neigbour is surely closer to you than someone rom congo on the genetic level?

Nice argument my man, really made me think.

How is saying the story is not literal the same as picking and choosing what to believe?

It isn't ethical to steal from some people to give to others

stupid leaf

aside from a few "hard" facts; most of what exists today is socially constructed. Objective truth rarely exists and "facts" do not matter.

Take for example the periodic table.
“When you look closely, you realize that it could have been organized very differently. It could be ordered by atomic weight, rather than atomic number, it could include isotopes, it could exclude elements that don’t exist in nature, and so on,” he says. “The way we classify things is always a function of both mind and world.”
quote from Jesse Prinz, a philosophy professor at City University of New York

get this dumbass: things in the bible were not all meant literally

I know it's hard for your 70 IQ nigger ass to comprehend that though

>if you don't believe every statement in a collection of books deemed somewhat arbitrary then you are cherry picking
It's actually more consistent because you are presuming the Bible to be a monolithic literary construction.
This is not the case.
One might be more inclined to examine each book on a case by case basis.
>muh non-constructive criticism
no one cares lol?
Are you new to debate or arguing?
polemics are the lowest type of discourse, they pass time and provoke response.
Here's mine, now please give me something to work with.

how do you know what is literal and what isn't?

because you cannot define whiteness exactly, you cannot have a white identity.

>Why do you want to let people die on the street when we could just have single payer healthcare?
I don't. But to say that I do not do everything in my power to stop it and therefore I approve it is wrong as because it simply doesn't logically follow.
I am impotent in regards to providing healthcare to everyone, and I can not force the majority to give that which they see fit using for themselves.
You would essentially be arbitrarily saying "These people's well being is better than these other people's."
It is contradictory to our current political values, but if you want to overturn those then by all means do so.

The quality of Sup Forums threads today is astounding

he's just proving that he doesn't get the difference between an norm for practical reasons from "facts" or "data". tsk.

[Note I don't buy into this but I want to see people deconstruct it]:

Equality is a force for moral good and we should seek to maximise it in society.

Interpretation is a huge part of any context. By carefully shifting back away from statements as being "no longer literal" or simply saying that some were never meant to be taken literally on whatever basis shows concession from the "almighty word of god" to a different power. One that others may choose to exercise as freely as you do.

I already know the bible isn't the word of god and is a collection of works over time made by a bunch of dudes, but the argument hadn't gone there yet.

Gang up and ridicule

>how do you know what is literal and what isn't?
I feel like this is epistemic denial in a boolean alliance with a false dichotomy to create an odious yet unassailable conclusion.
Perhaps you might provide the standard.
My standard is based upon what is consistent and what is not.
If it is absolutely inconsistent one might say The Bible is wrong.
But to say "I see it is inconsistent here and I can not be wrong therefore the Bible is wrong" that is just retarded.

>not the word of god

*God, it's a name.
Proofs?

There are no good or bad people. The way the act is determined by their environment.

You start insulting too early, just 2 posts and you already Say idiot to the other. If You want to redpill people You first need to connect, make them feel confident and in the position to dialogue, so their ideas and opinions are show for you to debate.

People who don't want to take in refugees have no compassion

what the fuck
I was prepared to post what this idiot said
but if you think about it, really just is people with different evolutionary advantages.
Then again I've never really been srs racist.

>I feel like this is epistemic denial in a boolean alliance with a false dichotomy to create an odious yet unassailable conclusion.
wow ur smart.
>But to say "I see it is inconsistent here and I can not be wrong therefore the Bible is wrong" that is just retarded.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here

Define moral; maximize and society. Checkmate

How is interpreting something as literal or not a concession from "the almighty word of God"? If someone interprets something in the Bible different from someone else that does nothing to the words themselves.

Godwin this one is always fun. So Hitler is not evil and should receive compassion not hatred. Watch normies try to wriggle themselves out of that.

westerndefence.org/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2356

Why can't I just take the bible like any other story like a Harry Potter book? Even one of those has life lessons in it to be gleamed.

>wow ur smart.
Plebbit tier response.

>I don't understand what you're saying

>Find passage in Bible which does not appear to be correct because it is inconsistent with the data
>say Bible is incorrect
>someone else comes along and shows how a reinterpretation of the text (which is itself theologically consistent with the other texts) makes it consistent with the data
>claim this person's interpretation is wrong and mine is right there the Bible is wrong

Science is a division of philosophy.
Philosophy is a division of Theology (finding derivations of truth from a central truth which blinds like the sun thus itself is hidden yet it illuminates other things).

Truth is a fragment, a relic of a once perfect kingdom shattered by the iniquity of man.
We must recompose

It was a mistranslation, day can also be translated as era and geologically the earth is estimated to have gone through seven distinct eras.

I thought Trump created a Kakistocracy. Turns out it's an Ouro-cracy. For the Burger levels of education out there, these mean "government by turds" and "urine-democracy" respectively. First one is real. Second Trump made up with his bumblefuckery: strawpoll.me/12087652

I agree, there are life lessons in the Bible and Harry Potter but I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you are arguing?

See
The church canon is kinda arbitrary if you notice when apocrypha was taken out of it. Why was it canon before and suddenly not? How can you trust it after that? Some of it was made non canon in times after 0 AD.

Taking the bible as wholly literal stories and not mostly archetypal metaphors is retarded.

The age of the earth does not prove Christianity wrong only the creation story. Christianity being a moral guide for how to live life.

Equality as an ideal rather than a means to achieving an ideal makes it oppressive in the end.
Read "Harrison Bergeron"
That's Equality as an ideal rather than Equality as a means to an end.
Look at the Bible for Equality as a means to an ideal.
An ideal being kinship among men, what better basis than an Equality in Imago Dei.
>maximize and society
What does this mean?

>Durrr hurr look how sm4rt I am.

They do have compassion...Compassion for their own families future in a society free from subversion and violence. And compassion for the efforts of those who came before them which created such prosperous nations.

Prove it

the government should spend money on public works creating in equal amount of jobs to the number of unemployed.

Lack of empathy is usually characterized as evil.
in the end he had a tight hold on his own people, he sent the "master" aryans as cannon fodder when his own troops got fucked.
He had an agenda at first but in the end he knowingly did not give a single shit about others lives.

The earth is not 612 bamdobingorion years old. According to the religion of science, there were no oceans. No oceans. No water. Then blammo. Atlantic Ocean from a space cloud. In one day. Those bugs that look exactly like leaves? Completely random and guided by muh INVISIBLE MARKET HANDS REEEEEE

If we agree that we can interpret works how we like, and we both say that after reading Harry Potter that wizards aren't real, why can't I read the Bible as a fictional work with moral stories and say god does not actually exist? It's all up to interpretation, afterall.

>There are no good or bad people
proofs?
>determinism
Even if their actions are determined by their environment why does this mean men can not be moral?
How did the ancient fatalists reconcile great moral heights with everything being subject to fate?
How did the Calvinists reconcile these things as well?
>inb4 they didn't
They wrote numerous works
Calvin devoted his entire life to nothing but lectures, writing multiple books at once, and reading philosophy.
And as for the ancients, we are here aren't we?
Their children have prospered an inherited a great moral heritage.

But the refugees flee violence and subversion, just have some compassion man and let them in. Don't people have a right to build up a better life for themselves?

The earth is now a pear reeeee. The cameras used to film nuclear explosions always survive. And the moon landing wasn't a bunch of cardboard inserts to simulate terminator lines. Not at all

Burger king makes better burgers than McDonald's but the service is more efficient in McDonald's

It's actually either 4 or 15 distinct epochs, depending on how you classify it.

>I am un-ironically retarded
4chin edition

That's just an organizational technique and has no effect on the actual data.

For example, whether or not the number of isotopes are listed on the official chart does not change the actual number of isotopes a given element has.

I can write a research paper twice with the criteria in different order, but the information presented is fundamentally the same.

I agree that you can read the Bible however you like. But, your subjective view of something will not change any objective truth, if there is any.

>read the Bible as a fictional work with moral stories and say god does not actually exist?

Define "exist"

Tariffs and protectionist policies are detrimental to purchasing power worldwide, and only serve to coddle the weak.

Multiple tribes and religions across the planet have suggested the earth's lived in many separate "ages" of humanity. The most immediate one I can remember are the Aztecs, who believed we're in the 5th age. The previous age ended in fire, the one before in a flood, the one before that in a hurricane, and the first being "jaguars ate them all." I'm being entirely serious with that.

My point is that in the most literal sense of the Bible, one could argue God started our 5th age.

>user, I would like to refer you to user
I once had to reference myself for a paper on a paper I had to write to avoid self plagiarizing.
>lawyers are kikes among kikes

>socially constructed
Define this
If it means "man made"
Then any proposition aside from the one which can not be made can justifiably be made.
>periodic table
It was organized so we could predict further elements, which is exactly what Mendeleev did.
>taxonomy doesn't matter
When you say "facts" don't matter of course this is the conclusion.
Blue pill post.

Sure, some flee violence and subversion. And some bring it with them. The ones who bring it with them are not welcome for obvious reasons. And the ones fleeing it did not have the heart to fight it in their ancestral lands, so they will not fight it here. Neither group is able to serve the long term goals of the host nation.

Then why do black ppl have black babies and white ppl have white babies? Are the storks raycis?

I am just going off this, I know it's just six but that could be an error, it's still just theory.

Globalisation is inevitable and instead of engaging in a futile fight it should just be embraced.

>There is no genetic basis for race
>muh race is arbitrary genetically
Then we shall just define nigger and get rid of niggers.
No racial theoreticals involved.

>if there is any
Feel free to produce it. I'm glad to see you step away from the bible as a source of absolute authority, though.

That is to say that I can think of god kind of like how people think of Dumbledore, a concept, a character that isn't in the real world.

I am starting to think this. But it won't be man made... Isaiah 40:17

>tfw Harry Potter heavily borrows biblical archetypes.

That is one ugly woman

How do we determine if anything is in the real world?
Dumbledore might very well exist coincidentally, I don't think it's likely but I don't think it can be ruled out.
Just like how Richard Parker was fictional, then not, then fictional again.
In fact his story came true after it was written down.

What poor pagans would we be?
Men have pagan hearts by nature, that is to say religious hearts.
Can we not be heroic even if it is futile?
Why surrender when the dream is achieved by resisting?

Please tell me this is a LARP post.

>PLANEt
>PLANE
>round

Argument: A pedophile is not a pederast, no one can choose who to feel atraction to.

Please provide counter-argument. Bonus for cynical ones.

Putin

Define globalization. Do you mean global trade or a one world government.

>*God, it's a name
Go watch fucking Indiana Jones bro
God is a title, just like Satan is called god in the Bible and there are verses that reference other gods. Your semitic deity YHWH/whatever the hell else is referred to as GOD or LORD in what is probably get most ubiquitous English translation of the Bible.

Regardless, this entire argument is stupid bc if god created animals (including humans) god is tarded

>Be god
>Make birds without physiological blind spot by starting the optic nerve behind the retina
>Make water-dwelling mammals with blowholes
>Make mammals with hair mounted to muscles like the rachis is in a bird's feather
>Make humans with shitty hair that won't work with those muscles to retain heat, include a blind spot just to fuck with em, take away blowholes so they die from pneumonia bc lol I made them have to drink and breathe through the same hole *snicker*


If this guy's not a dumbass, he's an asshole...

Whether or not if this is true they should keep it to themselves, not being coming out as a virtuous pedophile that hasn't acted. We are already seeing kikes trying to advocate pedosexuality and lowering of the age of consent.

"I don't think it's likely" is good enough for me, unbelievable claims that are true tend to have some kind of real backing to them. I prefer bias less and less biased methods, but we can't always use those. In the end that means faith and consensus, but I don't usually hear religious people condemn that, because if they do then the only foothold they have is delusion.

Equality means different things to different people. Some people view it as equal opportunity, some view it as ensuring equal outcome.

Pragmatically, simply allowing people the same opportunity has been the traditional western approach and in practice has produced by far the wealthiest and overall most technically impressive nations in human history.

Many countries during the time of the Eastern bloc attempted to ensure equal outcome through forced redistribution of wealth. The end result was the economic destruction of essentially every country involved. It was a massive failure.

Part of the reason it didn't work is the nature of the word "equality" itself, it's largely a subjective term. Is a population with evenly distributed resources and varying individual capacity to collect more resources (potentially a result of differing genetics) equal? What about a population with similar genetics but vastly different individual experiences and educational level? Fundamentally, no two people are truly "equal" short of being clones raised under identical circumstances. Equality is an abstract idea that is largely unachievable. It makes no sense to micromanage the lives of millions of people in pursuit of a foundationally impossible goal.

It is healthier for the degenerates, who let their nation turn to shit, to learn the hard lesson. Large groups of people do come these crossroads over time. They have to fight for their country. And they should've acted sooner or differently to prevent the downward spiral. Look at this current example, it's a special group of idiots who won't fight to make their homeland better, but will risk death to walk to a prosperous host nation, and then rape the native women en masse. And this outcome was predicted, btw, it was no surprise. Of course there are other groups of less culpable refugees

This is true to an extent, however until there are unified regulations regarding worker's rights, wages, environmental protection etc., trade barriers will need to be in place. If that were not the case, then the introduction of any regulation that increases the costs of doing business would be directly proportionate to a loss of your country's industry in that area. Examples of this would include Chinese steel vs. American steel. Now, you could say that all this would mean is that every country on the planet would then begin to specialize in a certain area, developing necessary infrastructure to make the production of that good more cost-effective than anywhere else on the planet, but governments are not intended to look out for the interests of every person on the planet, they are intended to govern their own citizens, and to embrace such free trade, while beneficial on the world scale, would result in unemployment and economic damage in the foreseeable future for their own country, until such time as the economy could be focused into a specific sector. Even then, there's a risk of overspecialization. While it's unrealistic that an entire country's economy would be focused in only one sector e.g. car manufacturing, it's entirely plausible that a country's economy would be overemphasized on one particular sector, leaving anyone without the skills to succeed in that sector out in the cold, essentially. One only needs to look at London vs. the rest of England to see that in practice. London is overwhelmingly finance based (91% of its production was in the services industry), and if you're not doing something in that industry then it's extremely hard to make a living. Where then does that leave anyone who's not good with numbers, or didn't get a university degree? Well, that's why protection of other areas of industry is important. Again, if a government has any responsibility, it is to look after the well-being of its citizens.

Now critique the argument

>TFW when welcome to Western civ, wanna watch The Bibl- I mean Steven Spielberg's ET? I mean Star Wars, I mean etc

This thread is literally cancer. Liberals have no arguments; only feelings.

Northern European Whites are the dindus of the White world

Northern Europeans
>Literal jack shit in the way of ancient civilizations
>A bunch of savage chimps who raped their own parents
>Weren't anything until the started to leech of Southern European tech
>Have to lie about their heritage with their "WE WUZ ROMANZ, WE WUZ GREEKZ" tier arguments


Niggers:

>Literal jack shit in the way of ancient civilizations
>A bunch of savage chimps who raped their own parents
>Weren't anything until the started to leech of Northern African tech
>Have EGYPTIANZ, WE WUZ MOORZ" tier arguments

Everything is unlikely.
The fact that things are when they might even more easily not be makes everything unlikely.
Unlikelihood seems to be the norm, so I don't know how you plan on dealing with this.
>some kind of real backing
Again, what's "real"?
not as in, "le deep wut is reealitee" but I mean, presuming things exist, how do we go about differentiating?

>I have a bias for non-bias methods
Let me guess, you are the one who determines if they are bias?
>faith and consensus
Not really.
>the only foothold they have is delusion
So what?
no really, so what?
even on the secular worldview, religion is still top dog because its the fanatic who refuses to give in who wins, the fanatic survives.
>this name is a title despite it being a name
oh really can you prove that?
>muh pop culture
aright.
>Satan is called god
"God" or "god"?
And source pls

>implying God made things at different evolutionary intervals to fuck with scientists
literally "fossils are devil's deception" tier.
Go back to /r/atheism

>only serve to coddle the weak
The weak are the basis of societies.
All globalist societies are unhappy and fail.
There have been however numerous, happy, content, and successful peasantries.
It just so happens "The weak" are the basis for anything strong.

>all nordic countries in the top 25
Weak desu

>Weren't anything until the started to leech of Southern European tech

Ideally and sometimes in practice regulation is meant to stop an entity (company) from imposing uncompensated cost on others (the people nearby, the river where people fish)

If China doesn't want to regulate waste, then their land will eventually turn to shit, which it kind of does. It means the other countries get their cheap steel and the problem is now china's. If the regulation really was that important then China will have to regulate eventually lest they all die of toxins from the air and rivers. If it isn't, then let them have it.

If you can't compete with the overhead of shipping goods across the ocean then you will have to adapt, much like most people do.

Some places do overspecialize and it does cause harm when those sectors go to the dogs, I'll agree. However that is an error by regulation or natural resources, and not one caused by a trade agreement.