Where to ExodusPosted 3 years Ago

At 7/28/2018 2:14:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
Although many called it earlier, years ago, the site is dying. I like the community a lot, that's why I continue to visit DDO. When DDO dies, the individuals of the community will go their separate ways (which has exponentially occurred the last few years), never to come together as a community again. The only solution to this is to exodus to the same place.

The only feasible location is Edeb8. The other two I can think of--createdebate and debateisland-- are absolute sh!t and would never work. Yet, even though Edeb8 is the most feasible option, I could never imagine the community reconvening there.

Therefore the only solution, as I see it, is for a respected and well-known DDO member to create a website extremely similar to DDO that we can all reconvene at. Someone who knows stuff about web development. I don't know who has those two qualifications, but a bunch of cool people made sites for polls and stuff for past DDO presidential elections.

I feel that if enough major members of the community agreed to the exodus, the majority of the community would move as well.

Use Civid. The admin is extremely active and takes suggestions from users to improve the site. He has a dedicated page for it. The site is still developing though so it doesn't have all the proper features, but so far it's really good.
Forums Home > Debate.org

I have very sad newsPosted 3 years Ago

At 7/30/2018 2:12:08 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.brennanmathenafh.com...

This is a deeply sad evening. Some of you may already know about it. Some of you might not. There is no way to say this other than to simply state it.

Lannan has passed away.

While I am reluctant to speculate as to what caused his death, the family requested that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to a suicide prevention organization.

Rest in Peace Lannan. You were one of my first friends on this site, and we had some candid conversations. I appreciate all the times you gave me advice for my debates and I hope the family will get through these troubled times.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Thoughts on Syrian strike?Posted 4 years Ago

Are the Neo-Cons making a comeback in U.S foreign policy?
Will this be a repeat of Iraq?

Discuss
Forums Home > Politics

Ethnic NationalismPosted 4 years Ago

At 4/9/2018 1:07:00 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/9/2018 12:49:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/9/2018 2:47:39 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/9/2018 1:53:00 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/9/2018 1:46:41 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/9/2018 1:32:13 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/8/2018 8:21:25 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/8/2018 12:25:31 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/4/2018 1:50:54 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/2/2018 8:50:55 AM, desmac wrote:
At 4/1/2018 11:20:32 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
I would like to talk about ethnic nationalism and the creation of ethnostates. For those that do not know, ethnic nationalism basically means that the nation would be defined by ethnicity, and its inhabitants would share an ethnic background (a nation comprised of almost entirely one ethnic group). This nation would be called an ethnostate. I believe that this is not actually a bad idea, and that it could be beneficial. Here's my reasoning:

1. It is obvious that different ethnic groups clash. Different beliefs, different cultures, and racial differences/tensions usually create some trouble for a nation containing a lot of diversity. Ethnostates and ethnic nationalism would allow ethnic groups to live in nations with people they share a background with. Racial tensions and differences, cultural differences, and many other problems with too much diversity would no longer exist.

2. Mixing races reduces diversity. With a very diverse nation, races mix. Many consider this a good thing, but that is not necessarily the case. The mixing of races actually reduces diversity in the long run. Over time, races mix, and they are eventually lost and replaced by whatever is created by the mix. Genetic diversity on a global scale is also lost. Ethnostates would reduce this mixing, maintain human diversity, and maintain the genetic diversity of the human race on a global scale.

3. Ethnostates would also remove the problem of groups of people voting or taking stances on certain issues based on specific concerns shared by the group, rather than their actual beliefs or voting patterns.This problem, called a voting block, is a major issue when it comes to elections or decisions on issues that can have effects on a large scale.

4. Ethnostates would also help to solve the problem affecting third world countries in which they lose people with higher IQ's, leaving them with fewer people that can help and be useful.

Now, I want people to realize that an ethnic nationalism does not mean forcing certain races out of a country. It would simply mean providing financial incentives for certain ethnic groups to leave, and changing immigration to favor one specific ethnic group. Others can still enter, it would just be more difficult, and it would benefit them more financially if they didn't. Ethnic nationalism is also not necessarily racist, and I want to make sure people understand that I am not racist. I do not see certain races as inferior, I just think it could benefit everyone if they were more separated. Anyway, I would like to see what people have to say about this, though I realize this is a very controversial idea.

Where would you start this plan?

In the United States, for example, you would provide financial incentives for minorities to leave, and then you would change immigration laws to favor whites. Funnily enough, immigration laws favoring whites used to exist until relatively recently, so this might not actually be that hard to do.

What ethnicity are Americans?

I have been using the terms race and ethnicity interchangeably, but that is not technically correct. Americans do not have a specific ethnicity or race, as the country is very diverse, which is not necessarily a good thing. The racial/ethnic demographics of the U.S. are as follows:

Whites (including Hispanics and Latinos): 73.7%
Blacks: 12.6%
American Indian/Alaskan Native: 0.8%
Asian: 5.1%
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Other: 4.7%
Two or more races: 3.0%

If there is no ethnicity, then the ethostate can't exist. How do you plan on creating an ethostate then? Your argument makes sense for Europeans, but for a country like America, Canada , Australia it won't work.

Sorry, but I'm not sure you understand what I am saying here. An ethnostate in America would not be comprised of the "American ethnicity," which does not exist. It would be comprised of whites. You provide incentives for all other races to leave, change immigration policies to favor whites, and the country could become a white ethnostate over time.

Why should whites be favored?
Whites are the majority in the United States, so it would make much more sense to create a white ethnostate.
If people don't voluntarily leave, then what will happen?
Then they stay in the country. Eventually, minorities would likely be mostly absent, but it would take time, and no ethnostate would ever be comprised of 100% one specific race. If people belonging to minorities don't want to leave the ethnostate, then they don't have to. They just forgo the financial benefit or invite financial disadvantages, which is their choice. It's not like I'm proposing a 100% white ethnostate in which all minorities are forced out. That would be unreasonable, unethical, and incredibly difficult.

I don't think you understand the idea of an ethnostate. There is no basis for something like a "white" ethnostate, it's only a term used by people like Richard Spencer and other White nationalists. The term "ethno" specifically refers to ethnicity, not race.
An ethnostate is divided by common ethnic ancestry. Different races have different ethnic ancestries.
Yes, but whites as a whole do not have a common ethnic ancestry.
You are mistaken that they would be social cohesion if the population is more homogeneous. The regional differences are way too stark in the U.S for all whites to have a sense of identity. A white guy from the South would probably feel more comfortable with another black in the south when compared to a white guy in New York. The regions itself are de facto nations that have very different cultures and attitudes.
Race is one of the most powerful dividers, even among ideologies or political views. Even though regional differences do exist, whites tend to identify and relate more with other whites.
I don't think it works like that in America.
If you go by IQ scores for intelligence (which is incredibly flawed in the first place) whites are not at the top. Asians, Indians , Jews , Nigerians all have much higher IQ scores on average. What should we do do with those whites who have low IQ scores?
First, IQ is the best and most reliable measure of intelligence we have. Second, you cannot make the generalization that Jews as a whole have a higher average IQ than whites. Ashkenazi Jews do, as well as Asians. Nigerians, however, most definitely do not. Some sources place the average IQ of Nigeria in the high 60's, and others place it in the low 80's. The average IQ of whites as a whole is 100. As for what to do with whites with a low IQ, I would support the voluntary eugenics program implemented in Singapore to raise average IQ. I'm not going to get into exactly how that would work here, as I have another thread devoted to it.
Forums Home > Society

Varrack vs Tajshar2k gun debatePosted 4 years Ago

At 4/9/2018 9:39:00 PM, YYW wrote:
Taj asked me to explain why I observed that he didn't weigh the benefit of defensive use against PRO's reduction in net gun violence. This was one of various reasons why PRO won and CON lost.

Taj wrote this, in his debate:

"[PRO] himself admits that there are atleast 67,000 SDGU a year. That number is greater than the amount of gun homicide and suicide put together which he says is roughly 33,000"

The issue of clash is whether the greater good is served by banning semi-automatic guns or not.

Simply saying that one speculative number is bigger than a less speculative number does not mean that there was any weighing going on. Worse, CON never identified what the actual benefit was because his data on self defensive gun use were compiled in isolation. Even ignoring the fact that his figure is speculative, CON offered nothing to suggest that crime was actually thwarted by self defensive gun use. Worse, even if crime was thwarted, CON would have had to explain why gun use was causally connected to preventing crime and that other means couldn't have prevented the crime allegedly thwarted. None of that happened.

But outside of CON's own claim, PRO never admitted what Taj was claiming that he admitted. It wouldn't have mattered if he did, because PRO's data more clearly and directly linked gun ownership to gun violence. PRO would have had to deal with this, in order to still claim a benefit and he would have had to discount his benefit against the fact that he doesn't have the data to back up his claim that there are 67,000 relevant instances a year. By CON's own admission, the majority of them are speculative.

So, we're left with the claim that 'it is perhaps possible that in up to 67,000 instances of crime were potentially committed under circumstances where the victim had a firearm in their possession'. That's not a benefit; it's conjecture. That's not to say that PRO's data is without fault, but it's less speculative than CON's.

At the end of the day, CON didn't weigh the benefit of defensive use against PRO's reduction in net gun violence because he never identified a concrete benefit in the CON world, and even if he did, he lacked the foundation to claim that the benefit is unique to the CON world. Simply saying that guns were self defensively used does't mean that they changed the outcome of a crime's commission.

After reading your justification, I accept your reasoning. Should have gone in more detail regarding SDGU, and I should have given more offensive arguments

I'll definitely keep this in mind when I do future debates. Thank you for your constructive criticism.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Varrack vs Tajshar2k gun debatePosted 4 years Ago

At 4/9/2018 3:43:02 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/9/2018 12:54:44 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
YYW has asked that I ask any questions on a thread so I have made this.

Could you explain what you meant by "didn't weigh the benefit of defensive gun use against PRO's reduction i net gun violence"?

I believe that in the debate, I mentioned this in the last round.

"At this point, Pro has pretty much conceded my argument on SDGU, because he himself admits that there are atleast 67,000 SDGU a year. That number is greater than the amount of gun homicide and suicide put together which he says is roughly 33,000."

I showed that SDGU have saved more lives than 33,000 lives than Pro proposed, so would that not show that I have weighed the benefit?

Don't you think it would've been much easier had you PM'd him directly?

Good idea.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Varrack vs Tajshar2k gun debatePosted 4 years Ago

YYW has asked that I ask any questions on a thread so I have made this.

Could you explain what you meant by "didn't weigh the benefit of defensive gun use against PRO's reduction i net gun violence"?

I believe that in the debate, I mentioned this in the last round.

"At this point, Pro has pretty much conceded my argument on SDGU, because he himself admits that there are atleast 67,000 SDGU a year. That number is greater than the amount of gun homicide and suicide put together which he says is roughly 33,000."

I showed that SDGU have saved more lives than 33,000 lives than Pro proposed, so would that not show that I have weighed the benefit?
Forums Home > Debate.org

Ethnic NationalismPosted 4 years Ago

At 4/9/2018 2:47:39 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/9/2018 1:53:00 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/9/2018 1:46:41 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/9/2018 1:32:13 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/8/2018 8:21:25 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/8/2018 12:25:31 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/4/2018 1:50:54 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/2/2018 8:50:55 AM, desmac wrote:
At 4/1/2018 11:20:32 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
I would like to talk about ethnic nationalism and the creation of ethnostates. For those that do not know, ethnic nationalism basically means that the nation would be defined by ethnicity, and its inhabitants would share an ethnic background (a nation comprised of almost entirely one ethnic group). This nation would be called an ethnostate. I believe that this is not actually a bad idea, and that it could be beneficial. Here's my reasoning:

1. It is obvious that different ethnic groups clash. Different beliefs, different cultures, and racial differences/tensions usually create some trouble for a nation containing a lot of diversity. Ethnostates and ethnic nationalism would allow ethnic groups to live in nations with people they share a background with. Racial tensions and differences, cultural differences, and many other problems with too much diversity would no longer exist.

2. Mixing races reduces diversity. With a very diverse nation, races mix. Many consider this a good thing, but that is not necessarily the case. The mixing of races actually reduces diversity in the long run. Over time, races mix, and they are eventually lost and replaced by whatever is created by the mix. Genetic diversity on a global scale is also lost. Ethnostates would reduce this mixing, maintain human diversity, and maintain the genetic diversity of the human race on a global scale.

3. Ethnostates would also remove the problem of groups of people voting or taking stances on certain issues based on specific concerns shared by the group, rather than their actual beliefs or voting patterns.This problem, called a voting block, is a major issue when it comes to elections or decisions on issues that can have effects on a large scale.

4. Ethnostates would also help to solve the problem affecting third world countries in which they lose people with higher IQ's, leaving them with fewer people that can help and be useful.

Now, I want people to realize that an ethnic nationalism does not mean forcing certain races out of a country. It would simply mean providing financial incentives for certain ethnic groups to leave, and changing immigration to favor one specific ethnic group. Others can still enter, it would just be more difficult, and it would benefit them more financially if they didn't. Ethnic nationalism is also not necessarily racist, and I want to make sure people understand that I am not racist. I do not see certain races as inferior, I just think it could benefit everyone if they were more separated. Anyway, I would like to see what people have to say about this, though I realize this is a very controversial idea.

Where would you start this plan?

In the United States, for example, you would provide financial incentives for minorities to leave, and then you would change immigration laws to favor whites. Funnily enough, immigration laws favoring whites used to exist until relatively recently, so this might not actually be that hard to do.

What ethnicity are Americans?

I have been using the terms race and ethnicity interchangeably, but that is not technically correct. Americans do not have a specific ethnicity or race, as the country is very diverse, which is not necessarily a good thing. The racial/ethnic demographics of the U.S. are as follows:

Whites (including Hispanics and Latinos): 73.7%
Blacks: 12.6%
American Indian/Alaskan Native: 0.8%
Asian: 5.1%
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Other: 4.7%
Two or more races: 3.0%

If there is no ethnicity, then the ethostate can't exist. How do you plan on creating an ethostate then? Your argument makes sense for Europeans, but for a country like America, Canada , Australia it won't work.

Sorry, but I'm not sure you understand what I am saying here. An ethnostate in America would not be comprised of the "American ethnicity," which does not exist. It would be comprised of whites. You provide incentives for all other races to leave, change immigration policies to favor whites, and the country could become a white ethnostate over time.

Why should whites be favored?
Whites are the majority in the United States, so it would make much more sense to create a white ethnostate.
If people don't voluntarily leave, then what will happen?
Then they stay in the country. Eventually, minorities would likely be mostly absent, but it would take time, and no ethnostate would ever be comprised of 100% one specific race. If people belonging to minorities don't want to leave the ethnostate, then they don't have to. They just forgo the financial benefit or invite financial disadvantages, which is their choice. It's not like I'm proposing a 100% white ethnostate in which all minorities are forced out. That would be unreasonable, unethical, and incredibly difficult.

I don't think you understand the idea of an ethnostate. There is no basis for something like a "white" ethnostate, it's only a term used by people like Richard Spencer and other White nationalists. The term "ethno" specifically refers to ethnicity, not race.

You are mistaken that they would be social cohesion if the population is more homogeneous. The regional differences are way too stark in the U.S for all whites to have a sense of identity. A white guy from the South would probably feel more comfortable with another black in the south when compared to a white guy in New York. The regions itself are de facto nations that have very different cultures and attitudes.

If you go by IQ scores for intelligence (which is incredibly flawed in the first place) whites are not at the top. Asians, Indians , Jews , Nigerians all have much higher IQ scores on average. What should we do do with those whites who have low IQ scores?
Forums Home > Society

Ethnic NationalismPosted 4 years Ago

At 4/9/2018 1:46:41 AM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/9/2018 1:32:13 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/8/2018 8:21:25 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/8/2018 12:25:31 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/4/2018 1:50:54 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/2/2018 8:50:55 AM, desmac wrote:
At 4/1/2018 11:20:32 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
I would like to talk about ethnic nationalism and the creation of ethnostates. For those that do not know, ethnic nationalism basically means that the nation would be defined by ethnicity, and its inhabitants would share an ethnic background (a nation comprised of almost entirely one ethnic group). This nation would be called an ethnostate. I believe that this is not actually a bad idea, and that it could be beneficial. Here's my reasoning:

1. It is obvious that different ethnic groups clash. Different beliefs, different cultures, and racial differences/tensions usually create some trouble for a nation containing a lot of diversity. Ethnostates and ethnic nationalism would allow ethnic groups to live in nations with people they share a background with. Racial tensions and differences, cultural differences, and many other problems with too much diversity would no longer exist.

2. Mixing races reduces diversity. With a very diverse nation, races mix. Many consider this a good thing, but that is not necessarily the case. The mixing of races actually reduces diversity in the long run. Over time, races mix, and they are eventually lost and replaced by whatever is created by the mix. Genetic diversity on a global scale is also lost. Ethnostates would reduce this mixing, maintain human diversity, and maintain the genetic diversity of the human race on a global scale.

3. Ethnostates would also remove the problem of groups of people voting or taking stances on certain issues based on specific concerns shared by the group, rather than their actual beliefs or voting patterns.This problem, called a voting block, is a major issue when it comes to elections or decisions on issues that can have effects on a large scale.

4. Ethnostates would also help to solve the problem affecting third world countries in which they lose people with higher IQ's, leaving them with fewer people that can help and be useful.

Now, I want people to realize that an ethnic nationalism does not mean forcing certain races out of a country. It would simply mean providing financial incentives for certain ethnic groups to leave, and changing immigration to favor one specific ethnic group. Others can still enter, it would just be more difficult, and it would benefit them more financially if they didn't. Ethnic nationalism is also not necessarily racist, and I want to make sure people understand that I am not racist. I do not see certain races as inferior, I just think it could benefit everyone if they were more separated. Anyway, I would like to see what people have to say about this, though I realize this is a very controversial idea.

Where would you start this plan?

In the United States, for example, you would provide financial incentives for minorities to leave, and then you would change immigration laws to favor whites. Funnily enough, immigration laws favoring whites used to exist until relatively recently, so this might not actually be that hard to do.

What ethnicity are Americans?

I have been using the terms race and ethnicity interchangeably, but that is not technically correct. Americans do not have a specific ethnicity or race, as the country is very diverse, which is not necessarily a good thing. The racial/ethnic demographics of the U.S. are as follows:

Whites (including Hispanics and Latinos): 73.7%
Blacks: 12.6%
American Indian/Alaskan Native: 0.8%
Asian: 5.1%
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Other: 4.7%
Two or more races: 3.0%

If there is no ethnicity, then the ethostate can't exist. How do you plan on creating an ethostate then? Your argument makes sense for Europeans, but for a country like America, Canada , Australia it won't work.

Sorry, but I'm not sure you understand what I am saying here. An ethnostate in America would not be comprised of the "American ethnicity," which does not exist. It would be comprised of whites. You provide incentives for all other races to leave, change immigration policies to favor whites, and the country could become a white ethnostate over time.

Why should whites be favored?
If people don't voluntarily leave, then what will happen?
Forums Home > Society

Ethnic NationalismPosted 4 years Ago

At 4/8/2018 8:21:25 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/8/2018 12:25:31 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/4/2018 1:50:54 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 4/2/2018 8:50:55 AM, desmac wrote:
At 4/1/2018 11:20:32 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
I would like to talk about ethnic nationalism and the creation of ethnostates. For those that do not know, ethnic nationalism basically means that the nation would be defined by ethnicity, and its inhabitants would share an ethnic background (a nation comprised of almost entirely one ethnic group). This nation would be called an ethnostate. I believe that this is not actually a bad idea, and that it could be beneficial. Here's my reasoning:

1. It is obvious that different ethnic groups clash. Different beliefs, different cultures, and racial differences/tensions usually create some trouble for a nation containing a lot of diversity. Ethnostates and ethnic nationalism would allow ethnic groups to live in nations with people they share a background with. Racial tensions and differences, cultural differences, and many other problems with too much diversity would no longer exist.

2. Mixing races reduces diversity. With a very diverse nation, races mix. Many consider this a good thing, but that is not necessarily the case. The mixing of races actually reduces diversity in the long run. Over time, races mix, and they are eventually lost and replaced by whatever is created by the mix. Genetic diversity on a global scale is also lost. Ethnostates would reduce this mixing, maintain human diversity, and maintain the genetic diversity of the human race on a global scale.

3. Ethnostates would also remove the problem of groups of people voting or taking stances on certain issues based on specific concerns shared by the group, rather than their actual beliefs or voting patterns.This problem, called a voting block, is a major issue when it comes to elections or decisions on issues that can have effects on a large scale.

4. Ethnostates would also help to solve the problem affecting third world countries in which they lose people with higher IQ's, leaving them with fewer people that can help and be useful.

Now, I want people to realize that an ethnic nationalism does not mean forcing certain races out of a country. It would simply mean providing financial incentives for certain ethnic groups to leave, and changing immigration to favor one specific ethnic group. Others can still enter, it would just be more difficult, and it would benefit them more financially if they didn't. Ethnic nationalism is also not necessarily racist, and I want to make sure people understand that I am not racist. I do not see certain races as inferior, I just think it could benefit everyone if they were more separated. Anyway, I would like to see what people have to say about this, though I realize this is a very controversial idea.

Where would you start this plan?

In the United States, for example, you would provide financial incentives for minorities to leave, and then you would change immigration laws to favor whites. Funnily enough, immigration laws favoring whites used to exist until relatively recently, so this might not actually be that hard to do.

What ethnicity are Americans?

I have been using the terms race and ethnicity interchangeably, but that is not technically correct. Americans do not have a specific ethnicity or race, as the country is very diverse, which is not necessarily a good thing. The racial/ethnic demographics of the U.S. are as follows:

Whites (including Hispanics and Latinos): 73.7%
Blacks: 12.6%
American Indian/Alaskan Native: 0.8%
Asian: 5.1%
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Other: 4.7%
Two or more races: 3.0%

If there is no ethnicity, then the ethostate can't exist. How do you plan on creating an ethostate then? Your argument makes sense for Europeans, but for a country like America, Canada , Australia it won't work.
Forums Home > Society

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.