because the statistics and most historians agree that it was inneffective if not harmful.

[QUOTE=griftadan]because the statistics and most historians agree that it was inneffective if not harmful.[/QUOTE]

Wha? I've come to understand the New Deal as capitalism's saving grace.

*****************

The winner of our debate will challenge someone else to one!

oh. well whatever, i'll leave the debate to you two.

[QUOTE=griftadan]oh. well whatever, i'll leave the debate to you two.[/QUOTE]

Huh?

well if you guys are going to debate it i can't start with you to sharpen your sense of the subject, that wouldn't be fair.

Perpetual's idea definitely leaves more room for a variety of political, social, economic, and philosophical angles. It's a well-rounded topic.

I would enjoy a New Deal debate simply because it would give me the opportunity to learn a bunch of new stuff, but it might end up being like a high school debate, i.e. we would just be repeating what more established thinkers have already postulated about it.

the new deal was only ineffective because it didn't go far enough.

they needed to spend a lot more to break out of the depression and WWII was the first excuse that came along to spend crazy amounts of money

debate the end of national sovereignty, America's role in this and whether it will ultimately be good for humanity or not.

We could debate whether or not "globalization" is threatening sovereignty or not.

yes, globalization!

[QUOTE]We could debate whether or not "globalization" is threatening sovereignty or not[/QUOTE]
sovereignty ended with world war two.

[QUOTE=The Tway]sovereignty ended with world war two.[/QUOTE]

Hardly.

Ooo I like Tway's topic.

EDIT: On the other hand I don't want to debate it if Tway's gonna argue about it anyway. :p

As of now for me it's a tossup between PerpetualBurn's idea and the "is a loss of national sovereignty good for humanity" bit of Tway's idea. I could go for Danish's modification of Tway's idea too but I prefer the previous ones.

Danish, what's your AIM?

[QUOTE]Hardly.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a super-loose definition of sovereignty you've got there

[QUOTE=The Tway]sovereignty ended with world war two.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a very detailed argument you got there.

it wasn't an argument it was a statement of fact

Here's one idea that I just had, inspired by the vegetarianism thread and a biodiversity class I took last year:

"Can the welfare of the planet's natural biology be improved only at the cost of human economic welfare?"

that comes down to the science way to much. it would either be nothing but speculation or really boring. or both.

Debate whether socialism necessarily requires a high degree of government control over economy.

whatever the topic may be. It should be made clear the meaning/definition and all the ends and outs of it. Just to make it more insightful sp?

[QUOTE=The Tway]wow that's a super-loose definition of sovereignty you've got there[/QUOTE]

It's probably the same as yours.

Hey I have an idea for a future debate thread:
Cain vs Tway

It'll average 1,005 words per post--Cain with his 2,000 and Tway with his 10. Pamphlets vs sound bytes, the battle of two era's of media.

[QUOTE]era's[/QUOTE]

Plurals don't use apostrophes, dammit!

[QUOTE=Broadway Danny Rose]Hey I have an idea for a future debate thread:
Cain vs Tway

It'll average 1,005 words per post--Cain with his 2,000 and Tway with his 10. Pamphlets vs sound bytes, the battle of two era's of media.[/QUOTE]

I can see that. Detailed arguments pitting against the 10 word idiocies of a retard who sees no truth but his own fantasies.

Sovereignty has certainly not ended with WWII. Globalisation, deregulation of worldwide economy, and neoliberalism in itself is making deeper holes in sovereignty, especially in third world countries, than 39-45 ever did. (WWII was the start of a massive wave of decoloniation, btw.)

me, Marxist? Hardly :p

I still think the practicality of instilling democracy worldwide is a good one

[QUOTE]It's probably the same as yours.[/QUOTE]
the only countries that excercised anything that i would begin to describe as soveriegnty throughout the cold war were the US and USSR.

I don't think you can claim to be living in a soveriegnty-based system when hardly anybody has it.

[QUOTE], than 39-45 ever did[/QUOTE]
haha you can't even read you ****ing cunt

Socialism versus Capitalism.

[QUOTE=Broadway Danny Rose]Hey I have an idea for a future debate thread:
Cain vs Tway

It'll average 1,005 words per post--Cain with his 2,000 and Tway with his 10. Pamphlets vs sound bytes, the battle of two era's of media.[/QUOTE]

Nah, with Tway I can kick back and relax about the word count.

To be honest, though, I have no time at present to involve myself in a debate thing, at least formally. All of the topics suggested (although they're REALLY good, some of them) are going to neccesitate a lot of research on my part that I don't really have time for. I was up for it a few days ago, but it's seemed to meander since then whereas my non-intranet life has gotten more hectic. :(

Sorry Danish. I am honored that you would challenge me!

Anyway, give me a few more days at least. I may return to this soon.

Did Danish mention his 'capitalism conflicting with democracy' idea in here? I'd like to see it debated, with whoever, or at least read some more about it.