Be the Best Devil's Advocate FOR SHARES

[Denecaep]

Okay, so I will be giving my shares to anyone who provides what I consider an extremely persuasive argument for the following claims. You may use evidence, a couple sentences, or even a fully developed paragraph on why the claim is true.

This, really, is a competition of debating skills, except luckily, you don't have to debate anyone (that might be a later thread )

Each claim is listed with the statement you have to argue is TRUE, as well as the number of shares that would be rewarded for providing a convincing argument. As the reward grows larger, you have a harder and more difficult argument to defend.

You DO NOT have to do all of them, just choose one or two or three or whatever and make the arguments. Realize that it has to be extremely convincing, so you won't necessarily get it, especially if someone else comes along with a far better argument.

Make sure you check out the JACKPOT at the bottom.


1. The individual mandate in ObamaCare is both constitutional and morally justified. (10 shares for the first 3 users with extremely convincing arguments)

2. Taxes should currently be higher on both upper-class and middle-class Americans. (20 shares for the first 2 users with extremely convincing arguments)

3. Voting should be compulsory in the United States of America. (50 shares for the first user with an extremely convincing argument)

4. The United States should have a dictator as head of state rather than a president. (100 shares for the first user with an extremely convincing argument)

5. Conservative Christianity is preferable to all other forms of religion or non-religion. (200 shares for the first user with an extremely convincing argument)

6. Rick Santorum should be the next President of the United States (300 shares for the first user with an extremely convincing argument)



ALSO, the person with the single most convincing, most creative, most awesome argument (and it can be in any of these categories) will win an additional 500 shares.

[Conoga]

Hitler fixed Germany or something like that.

Do I win?

Topics? This thread's topics are so Americancentric.

[Denecaep]

Hitler fixed Germany or something like that.

Do I win?

-.- No.

[Conoga]

Hitler fixed Germany or something like that.

Do I win?

-.- No.

This thread's topics are so Americancentric.

[Denecaep]

-.- No.

This thread's topics are so Americancentric.

Yep, they are. They're also MY shares.

[Perinpanland]

voting should be compulsory in the United States of America. No. America should not force citizens to vote. Voting is a right not a right not a responsibility and shouldn't be forced upon. Not voting is basically saying that you do not agree with whoever is running.

[Perinpanland]

voting should be compulsory in the United States of America. No. America should not force citizens to vote. Voting is a right not a right not a responsibility and shouldn't be forced upon. Not voting is basically saying that you do not agree with whoever is running.

[Denecaep]

voting should be compulsory in the United States of America. No. America should not force citizens to vote. Voting is a right not a right not a responsibility and shouldn't be forced upon. Not voting is basically saying that you do not agree with whoever is running.

Good argument... except you have to prove the statement(s) true. That's what makes it difficult.

[Perinpanland]

Rick Santorum should not be the next President of the United States. Making Rick the next president will put America back in the dark ages when it was ok to be rasict and slavery was not aboloished. America needs someone that will represent all races and all religions, not just Christianity. And alos, no birth control? No birth control = more teenage babies and more abortions

[Denecaep]

Rick Santorum should not be the next President of the United States. Making Rick the next president will put America back in the dark ages when it was ok to be rasict and slavery was not aboloished. America needs someone that will represent all races and all religions, not just Christianity. And alos, no birth control? No birth control = more teenage babies and more abortions

Once again, a persuasive argument. But please re-read the rules, and especially look at the large purple word.

[Perinpanland]

voting should be compulsory in the United States of America. No. America should not force citizens to vote. Voting is a right not a right not a responsibility and shouldn't be forced upon. Not voting is basically saying that you do not agree with whoever is running.

Good argument... except you have to prove the statement(s) true. That's what makes it difficult.

The statement is not true... it''s an opinion. All of these statements can not be true since they are all opinions. I believe this since I won't vote until i see a leader that will care for everyone but himself.

[Denecaep]

Good argument... except you have to prove the statement(s) true. That's what makes it difficult.

The statement is not true... it''s an opinion. All of these statements can not be true since they are all opinions. I believe this since I won't vote until i see a leader that will care for everyone but himself.

Okay, fine, it is an opinion. Nonetheless, you must argue for why you THINK it is true. It doesn't have to actually be your belief. That's why I chose difficult things to support. That's why it is called being the devil's advocate.

[Perinpanland]

Rick Santorum should not be the next President of the United States. Making Rick the next president will put America back in the dark ages when it was ok to be rasict and slavery was not aboloished. America needs someone that will represent all races and all religions, not just Christianity. And alos, no birth control? No birth control = more teenage babies and more abortions

Once again, a persuasive argument. But please re-read the rules, and especially look at the large purple word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2MKZZ9c4kQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnlGIbJ2 ... h_response

[Denecaep]

Once again, a persuasive argument. But please re-read the rules, and especially look at the large purple word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2MKZZ9c4kQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnlGIbJ2 ... h_response

Yes, yes, I know. I really don't think Santorum is good at all. I think he's nuts. That's why I think it would be difficult to defend.

[Lackadaisical2]

Presently the United States employs elections to decide who would be their best rulers, not only is this practice dangerous and costly, it is an ineffective method of selecting leaders. We can see the violence and disruption of the country that these elections cause very easily. From mass demonstrations from New York to the West Coast, where citizens put themselves against one another to the actions of madmen like Jared Loughner who seek to eliminate these elected officials in order for their own candidates to succeed. Yes, elections have and will continue to cause deep divisions within this great nation, but this is not their only evil.

Consider also that in the case of the presidency, a man may only hold the office for 8 years. This means that the country is continually being led by those with the least experience in running it. Would it not be better for one man to reign and hold office continually, so that we may be led by the best man among us and for his skills to be continually increased by the holding of that office? Look then to our foreign policies, which are now subject to change every two years with the election of new representatives in the House. Should not it be better for our allies to know we are stalwart and united, and for our enemies to know they cannot outlast or subvert us? In making our rulers elected we are weakened not just domestically as I have shown, but abroad as well.

And even economically, we suffer under this system of elections. Billions will be spent this year in promoting just the several candidates for presidency, while the public coffers are themselves emptied to administer the elections and count the votes, this massive waste of the citizenry's time and money could easily be solved by way of dictatorship. A man or woman who could unerringly steer our nations course toward continued prosperity and dominance without need to worry of the vicissitudes of the fickle and uneducated masses who as often side against their own interests and the interests of the nation as they choose the path which best befits us all.

[Rocinante]

Compulsory voting would be good in the US because it would provide a more truly accurate representation of the population's political beliefs and/or desires....If those of us who refuse to vote as a form of protest were disallowed that option and forced to make a choice, it might have quite an unpredicable influence on the course of american politics. Perhaps that new course might be more in line with the "true" will of the American public.

[Osterveim]

I'll argue for number four.

A Democracy is the most inefficent form of governance the world has ever seen. When people first former their civilizations in mesopotamia, Egypt, etc., did they elect their leaders? No. Whoever took control remained in control. One might ask, why does a dictator have the right to rule a country? The inherent purpose of a society, a state, is greater organization for the greater good. This increases the quality of life for all. I do not advocate nazism, or even brader fascism. In this hypotherical argument I am advocating secular, nobiased, benevolent totalitarianism. The most shining example of a dictatorship is the Roman Empire, usually regarded as the foundation of western civilization. The republic became corrupt, as all republics must, and so was replaced by the emporers. Under men such as Augustus and Tiberius the empire flourished. Even under the more mediocre emporers like Claudius there was prosperity. In a democracy the politician has no motivation to do what the people want, his or her goal is to pander to the masses for a fancy office and a high paycheck. If they fail then they simply aren't reelected. In a dictatorship if the leader fails his people than his life is over, he will be imprisoned or even killed, and his country will fall to turmoil.

[Perinpanland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2MKZZ9c4kQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnlGIbJ2 ... h_response

Yes, yes, I know. I really don't think Santorum is good at all. I think he's nuts. That's why I think it would be difficult to defend.

so do i get the 300 shares...

[Perinpanland]

The statement is not true... it''s an opinion. All of these statements can not be true since they are all opinions. I believe this since I won't vote until i see a leader that will care for everyone but himself.

Okay, fine, it is an opinion. Nonetheless, you must argue for why you THINK it is true. It doesn't have to actually be your belief. That's why I chose difficult things to support. That's why it is called being the devil's advocate.

i think it's true because voting is a right and if were to be forced to vote it might as well be some messed up dictatorship where we don't have a say

[Armedland]

Rick santorum is the best man for the job, with his social conservatism and AH GOD I CAN'T DO IT.

*throws self off bridge*
*lives*
*climbs back up*
*throws self off bridge again*
*lives*
*pretends to be dead*
"Fuck it"
*Shoots self*

[The Peoples SDAC]

Rick Santorum should be the next President of the United States.
Proof follows:
Given there are no parallel universes.
Given that I'm from the future, where Rick Santorum is President.
Given that we don't want to risk temporal paradox.
Given that Santorum is a term not to be used in polite company (Google it).
It is only logical that Rick Santorum should be the next President of the United States.

[Ursakov]

Rick Santorum should be the next Eternal President of the United States of Amerika because is the most kawaii candidate desu.
Mitt Romney is a silly baka and Obama is a Kenyan muslim atheist terrorst fascist socialist, nyaaa~

VOTE SANTORUM (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

[Nakarisaune]

I believe that Conservative Christianity is the most beneficial religion to follow, and the USA should become a conservative Christian country.

Firstly, homosexuality is not practiced in this religion. This is a benefit because gays don't contribute children to the society, and are bringing down the fertility rate, so population of the USA may fall if homosexuality is practiced and the country does not have the replacement rate fulfilled. Eventually, the USA will be too underpopulated to have a military, police force, or anything to enforce law. This means that people will be able to murder and steal, which would be breaking the Ten Commandments and displeasing God. Some may say that homosexuals are people too, and should have the right to love who they want, and that if God didn't want homosexuality, he would not have created it. However, God gave people free will to test them and see if they deserve to be in Heaven or Hell. Banning homosexuality would help more people go to Heaven.

Abortions would also be banned if the USA was converted. This would increase the number of children, meaning that the population will grow bigger so more can do useful jobs and help with the economy. The USA is a rich country anyway so it would be able to pay for extra supplies from overseas. More jobs will be needed to support the growing population, so unemployment will also be combated. Teenage pregnancies would certainly go down as teenagers probably don't want to be caring for a baby while so young, and this would increase marriage before procreation, as an increasing number of children to care for would mean that two parents are needed to care for both. If a woman wants an abortion because she was raped, then after giving birth, she can give it away. The baby would live. God would not send the woman to Hell for murdering the child.

It is good for the American people to worship God because it was He who gave them the country. Without God guiding them, the settlers would not have made it to the continent. Without God, the Americans would not have conquered the Plains. God inspired many artists, composers and writers. Without God, we would not have Handel's "Messiah", or da Vinci's "Madonna on the Rocks", or many other things that have changed lives. Christianity and God have improved what it is to be living, and we should continue, so that we can continue progressing.

There are many other issues to cover, but I fear I have already lost too much dignity to throw any more.

I leave you with a last thought: In this Easter season, we all eat chocolate eggs and have general fun. Would this be possible if Christianity was wrong?

(3 paragraphs, my dear. Beat that.)

[Tulija]

America should have a dictator as a head of state

America has progressed to a point of high development - however, it's system of governance is prone to mistakes like any other. And one of the largest mistakes politically possible is putting the nations future in the hands of a popularity contest. Yes, I'm referring to democracy. In allowing the people to vote for the most appealing candidate, you allow the typically virulent plague of slander and corruption to ooze it's way into what should be the most sacred position in office.

As a dictator, if he/she was adequately qualified to run, there would be considerable benefits. With the election taken out of the hands of the people (so easily seduced by diversionary tactics), you'd have the ability to exercise power in an effective and efficient way. Not only would a well educated dictator be able to make real change, but he'd be immune from the destructive agendas and quagmires of partisan politics, or the stifling two party system. Each individual would bring fresh ideas into office and be able to make real change, rather than lie to get into office and flip flop.

Because they could be honest without fear of manipulation by the media or turning of public opinion. That way the harder decisions could be made without infantile behaviours interjecting and ruining America's future.

[Northwest Slobovia]

The argument for a strong US leader is simplicity itself: money. Rather than the current silly system where the presidentially candidates spend buckets of money every four years on campaigning, we will reform the system along more elegant lines: trial by money. Anybody who wants to be dictator can attempt to outbid the current dicatator in an open-outcry auction. The winner gets to be Supreme Plutocrat, but all candidates pay the Treasury for the privilege.

The Supreme Plutocrat stays in power until successfully outbid. This guarantees that only the fiscally strong -- and we may assume fiscally informed -- will hold power. If incumbents and challengers can get others to help pay for their next victory, all the better... doesn't American deserve somebody with that kind of negotiating skill as head of state?

Not only are Americans spared the thousands of hours of political advertising and analysis they have to sit through now, the system continues to work the same way, but with no middle-men: it's all about money. Further, rather than the money being dissipated on those frivolous lies ads, it pays part of running the government. So, this system is a win all around, with no drawbacks.