15 Common topics debated on the Internet

A list of things that people argue about without having any idea what they're talking about

One of the more frustrating aspects of the Internet is also one of its strengths - it is the great equalizer. People from all walks of life can get together and debate about anything. It is frustrating because often times you find yourself debating on some issue you're an "expert" on with some high school kid who has no idea what they're talking about.

I will be debating a legal point or making a business argument only to find myself trading posts back and forth with some kid who is just plain clueless. They say teenagers act like they know it all. But the Internet has given them a venue to spout off their know-it-allisms to the world.  Many a time I'll be on some forum having just finished a 2 page response putting forth my argument only to realize that the people I'm arguing with aren't even adults. Doh!

Whether the topic be intellectual property law, capitalism, business ethics, politics, you name it, the net is full of people who will write passionately in response despite complete ignorance on the topic.  I've seen that a lot here on JoeUser, especially in the comments area.  People from the left and right will spout off, without even being aware of it, the "talking points" of the other side. Mindless parroting of straw man arguments and other idiocy is all too common on the net.

So let me rant out 15 points about nothing in particular that I've found are true but are often argued about by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

1) Capitalism isn't perfect. But it is the best system we have. Human beings act in their self interest and any system that wants to succeed on a large scale has to have a way of motivating people to do work that they may not want to do but benefits them and has the side effect of benefiting society.

2) All nations act in their own self interest but not to equal degrees.

3) The United States is the most benevolent leading world power in history. Pointing out its misdeeds and mistakes doesn't change that. Those who disagree need to look through history at other major powers and their actions.

4) Intellectual property law basically boils down to this: People who create things have the right to determine those things are used and distributed. Period.

5) Advertising will not pay for bandwidth intensive websites.

6) If you think George W. Bush or Bill Clinton are/were the worst Presidents in American history you should stop debating history and learn history instead.

7) If you think Democrats are all atheists or that Republicans are all devoutly Christian then you should spend more time looking into these things rather than spouting off on things you don't know about.

8) The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

9) Money can be exchanged for goods and services. Despite the wishes of some people, there is no referee who determines which jobs or careers are more worthy than others when it comes to deciding how much they get paid.

10) It is the state governments of the United States who perform nearly all the work that most people associate with what their tax dollars do (roads, schools, police, services, etc.). If you're arguing that the federal government should raise taxes so that it can do more "stuff" for the people you need to look at what the federal government actually does.

11) More people died and suffered long term from fire bombing Tokyo in 1945 than died/suffered from the atomic bomb in Hiroshima.

12) If you have two people paying taxes and one of them pays 90% of the taxes and the other 10% of the taxes and you give both of them a 25% cut to their taxes, the first man will receive 90% of the overall benefit and the latter will receive 10%.  Any fair tax cut will always provide the greatest benefit to the ones who pay the most.

13) Nearly every major world leader has some involvement with a major power. Arguing that "evil man X" once received help or support from the United States is idiotic because odds are same evil man X also received support from other major powers in some way as well. Moreover, it ignores the fact that times change. The #2 beneficiary of all time in today's dollars from American military aid was Joseph Stalin (UK was #1). The United States sent hundreds of billions of dollars (in today's dollars) to Stalin in World War II. Many of those weapons, and especially trucks, were later used to do hold down Eastern Europe. That doesn't make the US complicit.

14) Nearly all weapon systems and other military material used by Saddam Hussein came from France and Russia -- not the United States.

15) In any argument or fight, it is rare that both sides are "equally" wrong. In fact, most of the time, one side is definitively wrong and the other side is right. Those who attempt to use moral equivalence arguments to describe both parties are more interested in looking noble than acting noble.

update: renamed title to 15 common topics instead of "facts" since that was what I was getting at. ;)

18,735 views 40 replies
Reply #2 Top
I can't quote the exact line, it's been awhile since I've read it..But didn't you say Joeuser.com is for everyone?
Which means, like it or hate it, anyone who can read the article can make a comment. That's the power of the forum..
Unfortunately, when you start getting angered or frustrated because the 'kids' who argue without facts, you let them win the argument..
Even if you say the sky is blue, they can argue with you..To let them irritate you (which is the point) is to give in..regardless of all scientific data..

I have a point, I'll try to stop meandering..

Is it JoeUser.com..or Braduser.com? This isn't to attack you, but I got this crazy idea to point that out..Wrong, right, or moral equivalent, I could say it. Does that frustrate you?

In other words..If you're right and they're wrong..Then let that be the deciding decision..Not the arguing. Be comfortable in your truism and to hell with those who bellyache and yell about how you're wrong. You know better. You're the expert.
Reply #3 Top
"If you have two people paying taxes and one of them pays 90% of the taxes and the other 10% of the taxes and you give both of them a 25% cut to their taxes, the first man will receive 90% of the overall benefit and the latter will receive 10%. Any fair tax cut will always provide the greatest benefit to the ones who pay the most."
Well, it also just so happens that the one paying 90% of the taxes are the rich/elite class who really don't need a tax cut.

"In any argument or fight, it is rare that both sides are "equally" wrong. In fact, most of the time, one side is definitively wrong and the other side is right. Those who attempt to use moral equivalence arguments to describe both parties are more interested in looking noble than acting noble."
With most polticial arguments and philisophical arugments, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" Its all a matter of perspective. If your a zionist, you might consider the genocide of all people of islam as the "right" thing to do. If your a islamic fundamentalist, you might consider dropping a few anthrax laced chem warheads on Tel aviv the "right" thing to do. Just because you believe something is right or wrong doesn't mean that is the definitive "right" or "wrong". Do some reasearch in to a philisophy/religion called pantheism, it might shed light some light on how one CAN view the world.

And lastly, It would help alot if you could list all the sources that can validate some of these claims, eg #11


Reply #4 Top
The "long term" qualifiers in #11 are a bit confusing to me (as to their use). Accounting for the swing in statistics, the firebombing of Tokyo was (give or take) 100K dead. That doesn't include wounded, which would be at least that again.

On a strict "how many died almost immediately", Tokyo takes the cake. ~3x as many dead as Dresden, iirc, and some 30K more than Hiroshima.

More Japanese (and let's face it, civilians) were killed during the firebombing raids (some 300K?, iirc, including the Tokyo raids) than the 150K+ from the atomic bombs.
Reply #5 Top
Well spoken Brad.

I don't always agree with what you have to say, but you definately hit the mark with this one. Personal bias and irrational assumptions cannot replace facts.

Young people often regurgitate flawed dogmas dressed as philosophy; facts they probably pulled from TV, thier own group of like-minded friends, or other such "worthy" sources. Though it may be impossible to get ALL the facts on any given subject, people both young and old should think before they succumb to stream-of-conciousness ranting that makes them feel intelligent.

People should think about what they post and give up on the personal attacks, or the "I'm right, and if you don't agree you are a _____!" (Fill in the blank with anything along the lines of Racist, Communist, Christian Zealot, Nationalist, Troll, etc.)

I do not believe that everything is relative, nor do I believe I am always right. But I do believe that there is always more to an issue than you know, and whenever you think this is false, think again.
Reply #6 Top
Well I think it is more important that we get peoples observations. An opinion based on observation and experience is worth more than the truth at times. You can use what you hear on joeuser.com for marketing and political strategies. I think you will find if you look around is that the majority of America is ignorrant and/or stupid. Rarely does anyone take the time to educate themselves on any matter let alone "adult matters" ~snickers~. If the children or teenagers of America spout off on websites with ignorance and disdain for the facts then we have no one but ourselves to blame. So why not just run them all off into a dark corner where they can stay ignorant forever?! ~smiles~ I am glad some people are so modest in the knowledge of "everything" that they can debase an age group as a whole. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the so called "teenagers" weren't full grown adults ~chuckles~ At anyrate my duality says that you are absolutely correct and incorrect at the same time but always allowed to share any opinion ~smiles~ Hail to the almight engine of voice and ignorance ~bows to the internet~ :0)
Reply #7 Top
This is in response to Machiavelli_Incorporated's comments:

For someone who doesn't believe in right or wrong, you sure are quick to say that it is "wrong" and "unfair" to give large taxcuts to those who are paying the most money for the roads that you drive on and the ambulance/police forces who protect you.

And just because right or wrong aren't always definitive doesn't mean that they don't exist at all--there are more colors in the rainbow than black and white. :)

"Do some reasearch in to a philisophy/religion called pantheism, it might shed light some light on how one CAN view the world." Are you saying that that is the "right" way to view the world?

BTW Brad...I'm a sophomore.

:)
Reply #8 Top
I was simply wondering if you are getting agitated by the opinions of others, and if you really believe all 15 of your points to be factual, or are you throwing this all out into the open because it is simply your view and you're unloading? Whatever the case, you made quite a few points, and a few gross errors in judgement, because you can't be in possession of all the facts. But I really and truly see where you are coming from. But on the side of the teenagers: at least they are debating and learning. I had to go through a lot of lessons, and I'm STILL learning a tremendous amount (as a child-like adult). Keep feeding the youth, and you will be rewarded. Thanks for sharing the article.
Reply #9 Top
Good post but I'd say only about half of them at fact....the others are your opinion.
Reply #10 Top
It gets pretty frustrating having to fight the same misinformation over and over again in many forums on the internet.
Reply #12 Top
Brad - you remind me of Mike Moore... only he has the decency to quote sources when he shows us the 'facts'
You are one grossly biased individual.
Reply #13 Top
Obviously anything I say is my opinion.

Secondly, unlike Michael Moore, I'm not paid for my opinions so I'm not going to go and list which books and sources I used. If you disagree with one of my points, just say which one you disagree with and I can elaborate.

Thirdly, I opened up Joeuser to all people to use so that people could write about anything they want. I am glad for people to write about whatevery they want. I don't get frustrated with OTHER people, I get frustrated with MYSELF for letting myself get into debates with people who haven't really researched the topic. There are so many good things to discuss out there that I hate finding out that I'm wasting my time.

A good debate enlightens all participants. But there is nothing enlightening about debating with someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

And finally, I am a "grossly" biased individual. That's kind of the idea. I just wrote a post listing my biases after all. ;)
Reply #14 Top
A very interesting post Brad.

And of course, mostly correct.

Unfortunately, I have found that many people are willing to offer their opinion on virtually anything, while sometimes knowing virtually nothing of the facts surrounding that on which they offer their opinion.

However, I do have a question or two, and perhaps a point for further consideration.

Point #11 - is this true? I'd never heard this before. I also heard that a great many people died long after Hiroshima due to radiation problems. What are the numbers?

In terms of #3 and #13. As a Canadian, I can of course appreciate the relative benignness (is that a word?) of the US as the only remaining superpower, and some of the things they have done in the world. On the other hand, perhaps the US government should have been more involved with - a la George Soros - funding internal groups to advance democracy and open societies, rather than helping in the "any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine" fashion and arming some of these clowns to the teeth. I really feel that they could have done far more good in the world to date by using a George Soros type approach.

In terms of your closing statement, in #13, that the US wasn't complicit in helping the Sov's hold down Eastern Europe - this of course is nonsense. I mean, the US didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday; they knew damned well that Stalin had killed millions in his pogams in the 1930s, and many historians believe he killed far, far, more of his own citizens than Hilter ever did. The US simply made a strategic decision and then helped arm a terrible man that would help them defeat another terrible man.

Could the US reasonably forsee that some of their materials would help Stalin supress his own people and other countries? The only way you could say they weren't aware of this possibility/probability and therefore not complicit, is if the decision-makers were some bubble of naivety. And I think the presidents surround themselves with way too many smart, informed, people for that to have happened.

Complicit? Of course.

Was it the right decision? As to that question, who knows?


Reply #15 Top
Zionism & Pluralism

Advocating pluralism as a core value of Judaism, Rabbi Irwin Kula, who has recently succeeded Rabbi Yitz Greenberg as Director of CLAL, eloquently states:


For centuries, the tendency to absolutize any human understanding of God and/or Torah was held in check by the legitimacy and the mandatory recording of Rabbinic disputes (mahloqet). Mahloqet served as an internal self-critique mechanism. Today, because of the wider range of options available in modern culture, wider than at any [other] time in Jewish history, mahloqet may not be broad enough to correct runaways or tendencies to absolutize. Pluralism serves this role in the modern world. It serves as the self-corrective to all tendencies to absolutism. Pluralism does not require any abandonment of party or school of thought or any diminution of commitment. Nor does it require any admission that the other view is right. Pluralism is an admission of one's own limitations. Only if you are perfect and your method is perfect and you are always perfectly sure is pluralism superfluous. But perfection models do not work, they destroy others and ultimately self-destruct. Far from weakening Judaism pluralism is a commitment to a Judaism that is ahead of ourselves.

http://www.beki.org/bellerdt.html
Reply #16 Top
The falling of the towers on 911, unfortunately, brought riches to some and devastation to the population.
Having to rebuild it, brought riches to some., and devastation (financially) to the population.
If something happens to the new one, it will, again, bring riches to the rebuilders, and devastation to the population.

Did anyone notice how the stock market started to go "crazy" 10 days before 911?
Certain people changed their stocks completely and this continued even one hour before the planes hit the towers.
Those people got rich.

I'm sorry for going a bit off topic, but I get so angry at the situation of 911- the real situation, and looking at this new tower design and pictures, I can't help but feel crushed by the fact that people got rich with this, while others were killed, or had loved ones dead.
Reply #17 Top
Is it just me or does angel seek out posts that usually appear on the top ten..and just propagate in the comments section?
Reply #18 Top
I'm all on this one, it seems. Heh.

Brad, with the large amount of misinformation, opinions stated as facts (By people who are supposed to know what they're saying), and along those lines..
Those of us who have used blogs/forums/chatrooms/yada yada, it's easy to get into a mindset that Obviously someone else doesn't know what they're talking about! Where are their sources? (We should start a topic of Reputable Sources and the potentional of fallicy)
And so even for 'adults' it's possible to turn into a 13 year old thumbing her/his nose screaming, I can't hear you..lalalalala!!!!!
Reply #19 Top
Just a thought....

I noticed some comments here bordering on flames. Regardless of whether I agree or not, it's important to remember that "draginol.joeuser.com" is Brad's **personal** blog. This means that he's welcome to express his **personal** opinion, and he should be able to do so without being raked over the coals. The fact that he has a comments section means that he's opened it up for others to express their personal opinions in response to his--but there are ways to do that without flaming. If you're pissed, go take a walk and post later. Show a little love.

In other words....

Lighten up, please folks?
Reply #20 Top
Tory, yep yep yep! He is welcome to post his ultra-fanadango-uber personal opinion. And yeah, there are ways to do it without 'flaming'..Such an odd word, flaming..
However, what IF they desire to flame? I didn't sign a contract or verbally agree to be nice and civilized. It's nice to be nice, but sometimes it's more fun to be mean.
If a person gets too ruff, they have ways of taking care of it, though..Ugh, you notice the comments are more comments about the comments than the main topic?
I think we're off track..Or atleast I am. ^_^ Sorry!

Reply #21 Top
Regarding #11:

Yes, about 30,000 more people died immediately from the attack on Tokyo than from the atom bomb on Hiroshima. But the real story takes place beyond that where there was lingering and horrific deaths well beyond that. Radiation is nasty, but the US used a type of jellied petroleum for maximum damage in Tokyo and created super fire storms with them. But the after effects were massive contamination of the water and soil in Tokyo which Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not experience as much. Obviously "as much" is relative. Both were incredibly horrible. But it's not often covered just how horrific those fire bombings on Tokyo were.

One can never know the exact number of long term deaths but both had considerable long term health issues due to contamination in various ways along with lingering deaths. But what can't be disputed is that more people died in Tokyo than Hiroshima due to the actual bombing.

Regarding #3 and #13, often the argument is made that the US "arms" these nuts to the teeth. In reality, that is just not true. France, China, and Russia were Iraq's princple suppliers. And while the US did provide Stinger missiles to the Afghani's who were fighting the Soviet's, those weapons are quite specific.

When it comes to arming the world's screwballs, talk to France.

Regarding complicity in Eastern Europe -- most countries knew what happened in Eastern Europe. The US is no more complicit than say Canada in what happened in Eastern Europe.

Was it a good idea to help the Soviet Union defeat Nazi Germany? I don't feel that is really open to debate.

Which brings me back to the original issue: Often times I'll be debating some point and think to myself "How could anyone possibly be this naive or clueless?" Then I'll click on their profile (where it provides their age -- so we're not talking about JoeUser) and I'll smack myself thinking "Criminey, I've been wasting my time debating some colllege kid."
Reply #22 Top
Regarding flaming:

Bloggers on JoeUser can always remove a flame post. I'm used to being flamed. :)

I agree that citing sources is important when debating contentious issues. Which is something I really should write a blog about because I tend not to use sources when the information is commonly available. I.e. not commonly available in the sense that it's on some website but commonly available as in anyone who has researched the topic or even read a single book on the subject would know.

The Tokyo death toll vs. Hiroshima death toll is not obscure by any means (as one example). Pretty much every World War II book will actually make a point of mentioning the death toll difference. But heck, even for those people who don't like to read books, the History Channel regularly will make that point.

Or take the article here in question. Which topic is really controversal to anyone who's done even a mild amount of reading into these topics? Some are mathametical facts (tax cuts). Some are historical facts (Declaration of independence). Some require only a basic knowledge of history (US the most benevolent world power -- who would you prefer? Rome? The Mongols? Napolean's France? Victoria's England?). So when someone just make sa one line statement condemning the whole article I can only envision someone putting their hands over their ears, closing their eyes and going "La la la, I can't hear you!" :)
Reply #23 Top
Hey, I think I said that! But don't quote me, I don't have my sources. Mwahahaha!
Reply #25 Top
Frodo: Facts? Proof? Withut them your statements are mere speculation.