EMW

This is not a debate, but input on suggestions. America is getting more and more stupid, any thoughts on curing it?

Pay attention and participate in society. No one seems to be reading newspapers, learning about events happening in the local area and the world. Most people seem to ignorant because they don't care enough to put the effort in to find out what's happening in the world.

This goes back to the ignorant or unintelligent semi-debate VIP and I had.

I do not think it is become more stupid. I do, however, people learn a lot less because they don't need to. When you have wikipedia, or m-w.com, who needs to learn grammar or facts. Not to mention spellcheck on everything...

I think the ignorance is the same...we just notice it because we are highly intelligent. When you are a reader, or someone who follows the news, people who don't seem pretty dumb to us because it is second nature.

I would watch the news every now and then, and then I had a news writing class about a year ago. Every class period our professor would give us a quiz on what happened in the news the night before. I got used to going to cnn.com at least twice a day, and I still do it now. I'm glad I do.

I have to take a five minute shower and go to work, but I will be back later to write more.

Quite frankly I don't think schools are teaching the right things. We are learning things we never use and not learning the vital things we need to survive. The education system wastes so much time teaching so little and people are taught to rely on the system rather than go get knowledge themselves. If you want to be on the cutting edge you can't learn it at school, all curriculum are at least one or two years behind. You have to go out into the world and get information. Schools also don't really "teach" creativity and people are running out of places to learn it. That's one of the reasons I like the performing arts so much is because people there are so creative. People who can't see creatively really have very little value in a work environment.

I agree with VIP. The whole education system is mad. The things that are taught are never applied to real life. Now, by all means, learning non-important information is important in developing the brain, however, regurgitating facts and then forgetting them does not do any good.

What I meant by the dumbing of America is how easily people are persuaded to flow with the rest of society.

I personally hate the liberal viewpoint. Very stupid, no offense to anyone. The NEWS is the persuader, and people listen to everything they hear. It is frustrating.

Facts are important, and America has its smart people doing the rocket science, but we are loosing all of our morals. I am tired of half the country not liking itself. That is dumb, and is going to lead to our downfall.

One of the causes of the Romans was that the people had to much. We would think that throw-up pits are a stupid thing, but we are no different. Our isles are full of loose-weight products. Instead of trying to obtain food, we are everyday struggling to loose it. Greece got to spread out. We have a base in almost every country.

I see America turning on itself. Isn't it about time that we woke up?

envisageworks wrote:What I meant by the dumbing of America is how easily people are persuaded to flow with the rest of society.

I personally hate the liberal viewpoint. Very stupid, no offense to anyone. The NEWS is the persuader, and people listen to everything they hear. It is frustrating.

In what ways do you mean?

The country needs to be bold. We are doing what we did in Vietnam. Too afraid to make any real impact. We failed in Vietnam because of the haters back here not liking what we were doing. And the only reason why they didn't like what we were doing because it was the first war that was broadcasted on television. But war is war! Even though the individual events might have seemed cruel, that is what war is! Our country should have backed itself up.

This is what we are doing with the war right now. We are not being bold enough because we are afraid of not being politically correct. From what I have heard from my dad and his unit is that the people love us there, but the news makes it sound like we are doing a bad thing. And if the country cant back itself up, we need to pull out!

And no, I don't hate the liberal viewpoint, that was a little harsh. I don't like its cowardliness though. By all means, we need to save the Earth and respect individual choice, but human life should always be first priority, and morals should always be applied.

Religion and government SHOULD be together. Religion is the only boundary humans have. Without religion, there are no rules, without rules there are no morals, and without morals, the world just gets worse and worse.

The viewpoint that I don't like is the, "other humans have every right, and we need to surrender to their needs" type of viewpoint.

The world is naturally selfish and cruel, and a firm hand is the only way to keep it in order.

Saving the environment and giving aid to Africans is very very good, but when it comes to war, our country should be backed up completely by itself. Too much freedom of speech leads to too many individuals contrasting their beliefs. This eventually leads to very bias and hard-headed views, which leads to division, and that leads to the downfall of our country.

The statements I cant stand:

We shouldn't have dropped the nuclear bombs.
Bush is making money off this war, and is a terrible president.
The United States is a bully, and should not mess (help) with other countries.
Animal life is more important than human life.
We deserve more from our government.
*Let people be people, and do not interfere with their choices, even if it already or will involve us.

And really, that last statement sums up most of the liberal viewpoint. Personally, if the country can't agree, then those for the war should agree to pull out and play it safe.

So, sorry if anyone took offence to that. I am not saying that I know how to heal the country, I am just pointing out its flaws. And again, I am not just bashing liberals, I am just bashing that specific view, and am relating the "dumbing of America" to it.

Tell me what you think...

I really don't like the liberal system, I'm a conservative and I can see what your saying but your wording looks very much like a dictatorship. I will post more when I can form a coherent opinion about what you just said and what I think about it.

envisageworks wrote:The country needs to be bold. We are doing what we did in Vietnam. Too afraid to make any real impact. We failed in Vietnam because of the haters back here not liking what we were doing. And the only reason why they didn't like what we were doing because it was the first war that was broadcasted on television. But war is war! Even though the individual events might have seemed cruel, that is what war is! Our country should have backed itself up.

Yes, but to justify what happens in a war, the war itself has to be justifiable.

This is what we are doing with the war right now. We are not being bold enough because we are afraid of not being politically correct. From what I have heard from my dad and his unit is that the people love us there, but the news makes it sound like we are doing a bad thing. And if the country cant back itself up, we need to pull out!

Some people love us there.
I lived in Saudi Arabia for seven years. Though they did act like they liked us--actually they tended to fawn over us--they did so because that's how they survive. We had just protected them from Iraq (we moved there right after Desert Storm).
They live in a society where you either fight, or you live in silence. We know those who fight hate us, and we assume that those who don't fight must love us. Or we assume that because they run in the streets and scream, "I love America!" means they love us. No.
Say we needed help. Something pretty bad happened, like the Mormons began bombing buildings and fighting to be the government, and Russia came to help us. Two years...three years...we'd be pretty appreciative. But then...then it doesn't seem like they are leaving...four years, five years... Meanwhile, innocent civilians are getting killed, both by our fire and the terrorists. But don't worry, Russia tells us. They are only going to stay until they defeat the terrorists.

Okay, so every time you leave your house, you fear for your life. Will you get shot by Mormons? Mormon sympathizers? Or even the Russians? You don't know. And if the Russians think you are hiding Mormon sympathizers, they can burst into your house and arrest you. Not to mention that the Mormons and Mormon sympathizers may kill you for sympathizing with Russia. Before Russia came, the Mormons were oppressive, but you didn't necessarily think you had to fear for your life. Not to mention you actually had an economy. With the Russians taking over, you have no economy.

Do you love the Russians? Or do you just want everything to stabilize? If the Russians just leave, sure the Mormons will take over, but at least the country will be stable. But the Russians swear they won't leave until they defeat the Mormons. Sure, the Russians are wiping out tons of Mormons, but the Mormon numbers keep growing, because those who sympathized with the Mormon's decide they can't take it anymore and just want to get rid of the Russians so they can have some peace.

It is so much more complicated than US = good, terrorists = bad. Even the best of the good may turn bad if they are desperate enough.

You cannot fight a war against an ideology without wiping out everyone who holds that ideology. Think back to the last time that happened...it was about 64 years ago...A highly charismatic, yet surprisingly dim leader...a good ole' boy who rallied a nation by placing the blame for all of the nation's problems on a certain group...

And no, I don't hate the liberal viewpoint, that was a little harsh. I don't like its cowardliness though.

It is not cowardice. It's simply another manner of thinking.

Religion and government SHOULD be together. Religion is the only boundary humans have. Without religion, there are no rules, without rules there are no morals, and without morals, the world just gets worse and worse.

Absolutely not. As much as I encourage our politicians to be religious, GOVERNMENT should not be. You need to separate government and people. The people who work in the government are more than welcome to be religious, however, they cannot base their decisions off of one religion alone.

You say they should be one in the same, but what if that religion was Islam? Or Buddhism? When you say religion, you mean Christianity. Because if we were arguing that Islam and government should go together, I think you would not have made that statement. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

The viewpoint that I don't like is the, "other humans have every right, and we need to surrender to their needs" type of viewpoint.

The world is naturally selfish and cruel, and a firm hand is the only way to keep it in order.

Yes, but that firm hand should come from an unbiased world police group, such as the UN. Giving one country that responsibility is just asking for trouble. So, say your mother belongs to a Neighborhood Coalition that regulates the aesthetics of your neighborhood. If your neighbor breaks the rules, would you want your mother to chastise them, or the Coalition?

Saving the environment and giving aid to Africans is very very good, but when it comes to war, our country should be backed up completely by itself. Too much freedom of speech leads to too many individuals contrasting their beliefs. This eventually leads to very bias and hard-headed views, which leads to division, and that leads to the downfall of our country.

There is no such thing as too much freedom of speech, barring that the speech infringes on other's basic rights. Such as the old "Fire in a crowded theater" adage.

I agree, however, that the US should come first. We need to help those in need, but we should not neglect ourselves.

We shouldn't have dropped the nuclear bombs.

Unfortunately, that was necessary.

Bush is making money off this war, and is a terrible president.

No way he's making money off this war. Nobody is truly making money off of this war. But he is a pretty terrible president. Not the worst, but he definitely won't be remembered in a good light unless circumstances arise down the road.

The United States is a bully, and should not mess (help) with other countries.

Help, and mess, are two very different terms.

We deserve more from our government.

That's kind of ambiguous, but in certain aspects, we deserve more from our elected officials.

*Let people be people, and do not interfere with their choices, even if it already or will involve us.

That depends on the choice. If their choices do not negatively impact us, or any innocent parties, then they should be able to do what they want to do.

And really, that last statement sums up most of the liberal viewpoint. Personally, if the country can't agree, then those for the war should agree to pull out and play it safe.

It's not "playing it safe". It's the most logical conclusion to an illogical war.

So, sorry if anyone took offence to that. I am not saying that I know how to heal the country, I am just pointing out its flaws. And again, I am not just bashing liberals, I am just bashing that specific view, and am relating the "dumbing of America" to it.

Tell me what you think...

Don't apologize. If people take offense, they should get a reality check.
As a debater, you never apologize unless you do something blatantly offensive.

One thing about Iraq that went terribly wrong is that fact that we didn't really get as much support from the Iraqis as we expected. I remember at the beginning of the war some of my friends were in the Marine corps and they were helping train the Iraqi soldiers. No one in Iraq seems to want to be free. They seem to be perfectly fine with the way things are. Allah put Saddam there to govern them and so it's their duty to do what he says. If the Iraqis don't want to rise up and demand freedom from oppression we can't give it to them, no matter how hard we try. In the past the U.S. has usually waited to see a revolt or revolution before it lends a hand but in Iraq we didn't really do that.

You cannot fight a war against an ideology without wiping out everyone who holds that ideology. Think back to the last time that happened...it was about 64 years ago...A highly charismatic, yet surprisingly dim leader...a good ole' boy who rallied a nation by placing the blame for all of the nation's problems on a certain group...

Yes but he did what needed to be done. If he didn't get Japan to attack and fire up the American war machine before Germany took over England we'd all be speaking German.. Or Japanese, whoever won after we lost.

America was formed for religious freedom, we shouldn't have an endorsed religion in the government.

Ha ha, unbiased world police, UN, that made me laugh.

President Lincoln was predicted to be looked on as one of the worst presidents in history. He suspended the rights of free speech and habeas corpus. He broke rules, spied on people and did things that people scoffed at and looked down upon. I highly recommend that everyone read the review the Chicago times wrote for the Gettysburg address. Everyone hated the Civil war and wanted nothing but for it to end but Lincoln did what he had to do in order to achieve a decisive victory. (something that I don't believe Bush is doing now) So in many ways I to agree with Connor, if we are going to go to war we need to go there to achieve a goal. We need to swiftly and decisively achieve that goal and then bring the boys back home. Many of the democrats and liberals are doing the same thing that the copperheads did in the civil war.

I'm sorry but bringing the troops home now would be good for us and infinitely bad for Iraq. We can't pull out now we have to fix what we've done and finish what we've started. We leave now and it well end up worse than when we got there.

I think that you should always apologize if you think you might have offended someone. As debaters we tend to think that everyone has the ability to turn off their feelings but we have to be in touch with the reality that many people will take offense to some of the things we say. I quite often will upset someone just because I assume that they can differentiate between me arguing with their beliefs and me telling them that they are a horrible person. If you think there is the slightest chance that you have upset someone you should apologize for it. Not only does it show humility and grace but it reminds us that we are not here to bite each others head off.

VIP wrote:One thing about Iraq that went terribly wrong is that fact that we didn't really get as much support from the Iraqis as we expected. I remember at the beginning of the war some of my friends were in the Marine corps and they were helping train the Iraqi soldiers. No one in Iraq seems to want to be free. They seem to be perfectly fine with the way things are. Allah put Saddam there to govern them and so it's their duty to do what he says. If the Iraqis don't want to rise up and demand freedom from oppression we can't give it to them, no matter how hard we try. In the past the U.S. has usually waited to see a revolt or revolution before it lends a hand but in Iraq we didn't really do that.

Exactly. They have the ideology that an appointed leader is only in power due to Allah's will.

You cannot fight a war against an ideology without wiping out everyone who holds that ideology. Think back to the last time that happened...it was about 64 years ago...A highly charismatic, yet surprisingly dim leader...a good ole' boy who rallied a nation by placing the blame for all of the nation's problems on a certain group...

Yes but he did what needed to be done. If he didn't get Japan to attack and fire up the American war machine before Germany took over England we'd all be speaking German.. Or Japanese, whoever won after we lost.

Actually, the United States was already taking actions against the Axis. They had already amended the American Neutrality Pact to assist the Allies. It was only a matter of time before they entered the war.

Ha ha, unbiased world police, UN, that made me laugh.

I was writing in a rush, and meant to add on some disclaimers about the U.N. They are definitely NOT unbiased.

President Lincoln was predicted to be looked on as one of the worst presidents in history. He suspended the rights of free speech and habeas corpus. He broke rules, spied on people and did things that people scoffed at and looked down upon. I highly recommend that everyone read the review the Chicago times wrote for the Gettysburg address. Everyone hated the Civil war and wanted nothing but for it to end but Lincoln did what he had to do in order to achieve a decisive victory. (something that I don't believe Bush is doing now) So in many ways I to agree with Connor, if we are going to go to war we need to go there to achieve a goal. We need to swiftly and decisively achieve that goal and then bring the boys back home. Many of the democrats and liberals are doing the same thing that the copperheads did in the civil war.

What's the goal?
For Lincoln, it was simple and concrete: free the slaves.
For Bush, it's end terrorism. Impossible.

I'm sorry but bringing the troops home now would be good for us and infinitely bad for Iraq. We can't pull out now we have to fix what we've done and finish what we've started. We leave now and it well end up worse than when we got there.

It will only get worse. Our presence there is what is driving people who would not otherwise be terrorists join up. Look...there has been fighting in the Middle East for thousands of years. The ONLY way it would ever cease would be if every single Middle Eastern nation become a democracy. For smaller countries, the US forcing them is plausible...but for countries such as Saudi Arabia...well, that would be World War IV.

I think that you should always apologize if you think you might have offended someone. As debaters we tend to think that everyone has the ability to turn off their feelings but we have to be in touch with the reality that many people will take offense to some of the things we say. I quite often will upset someone just because I assume that they can differentiate between me arguing with their beliefs and me telling them that they are a horrible person. If you think there is the slightest chance that you have upset someone you should apologize for it. Not only does it show humility and grace but it reminds us that we are not here to bite each others head off.

Doesn't that contradict his paragraph about political correctness? We should be bold, but apologize a lot just in case?

Lincoln was not all about freeing the slaves, he just used that as a political front, or publicity stunt to get support for what he did. Freeing the slaves was the right thing to do but that's not why he went to war.

America would have entered the war but the public would not have supported it. FDR needed to make the public angry enough to support another over seas war and he did so by provoking an attack by Japan.

Granted, most of us don't really understand fully what happens in the middle east but there is a huge mess over there and we can help the Iraqis learn to fight for themselves. I just don't know if they really want us to, the system is so screwed up over there, they're constantly assassinating their leaders, the sunis and oh boy, I think it's the kurds, have been at war for what, 1500 years now? We just stirred it up. It's possible to reconcile their conflict but it will take more than America to do it. We need Iraq to help a little too.

WWIV? Did I miss WWIII or something?

Political correctness is altering your own views for the sole reason of making someone else more comfortable. Just because we are on opposite sides of a debate or an issue does not mean we are making personal assaults. Many people think that me attacking what they believe is me attacking them and I don't think that's true. If you ever think someone might be taking something personally I think you should apologize.

VIP wrote:Lincoln was not all about freeing the slaves, he just used that as a political front, or publicity stunt to get support for what he did. Freeing the slaves was the right thing to do but that's not why he went to war.

No, it was not all about freeing the slaves. There are ALWAYS ulterior motives.
Lincoln's main concern was keeping the US together and stopping states from conceding. States were conceding because they wanted slavery to expand into the territories. Not to mention the South was freaking out because not only were the northern stations growing in population, their industrial output far exceeded that of the South. Calling it a war against slavery was a brilliant move that helped rally the black Americans against the South.

America would have entered the war but the public would not have supported it. FDR needed to make the public angry enough to support another over seas war and he did so by provoking an attack by Japan.

Okay, I was talking about Hitler...I wasn't sure if you were talking about Hitler as well...

WWIV? Did I miss WWIII or something?

Yes. World War Z.

Seriously, that's what happens when I post at like 1 am after I get off of work. My brain forgets wars...

Political correctness is altering your own views for the sole reason of making someone else more comfortable. Just because we are on opposite sides of a debate or an issue does not mean we are making personal assaults. Many people think that me attacking what they believe is me attacking them and I don't think that's true. If you ever think someone might be taking something personally I think you should apologize.

If I am ever engaged in a debate with someone who takes it personally in any way, I would disengage immediately. Short of blatant insults, there is little you need to apologize for, or else you would be apologizing every other sentence. Do you think you'd be apologizing at a podium debating against another contestant?

Religion and government SHOULD be together.

And who gets the ultimate right to decide which religion gets to marry government?

I just don't see it happening with the diversity in our country. It's an interesting idea, and one that is used in the Middle East for sure, but I don't think it would end up working over here.

rackfocus wrote:
If I am ever engaged in a debate with someone who takes it personally in any way, I would disengage immediately. Short of blatant insults, there is little you need to apologize for, or else you would be apologizing every other sentence. Do you think you'd be apologizing at a podium debating against another contestant?

No, heck no. But you must remember that this is the internet. You never know if the other person is educated of the rules of engagement or just a beginner with no formal debate experience. Beginners are probably a little "out of your league" but I still find myself up against them every once in a while.