avatar
34 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago
    • a year ago

      @chandlebrowning Congrats for advancing to the next round!

      @debatejak Great job, thanks a lot for participating!

      • a year ago

        Hmm when is criticism unnecessary or necessary? As analytical people shouldn't we be criticising more? As long as it's constructive I view criticism nessisary, because that's how we learn. And criticism of Hillary Clinton is still necessary, not only because Hillary Clinton is still alive and still can still effect the nation in the world, but also she did lose to Trump. And I think it's important to criticize her and analyze and critique why and how that happened.

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward interesting, would you say that we should stop criticizing after she dies?

        • a year ago

          @debatejak that really depends on if it's relative or constructive. I agree with you on discussing Benghazi is no longer relative or constructive. But when I think about it we often criticize people long after they passed. For example do we not today criticize the founding fathers for owning slaves? I suppose the key word is necessary. And what is necessary depends on the context. But I think for any one side to claim that some sort of critique criticism or analogical debate is no longer necessary, is basically censorship. This is different then saying oh this criticism isn't helpful or constructive. As with most criticism, we learn more about the critic than the subject. So if criticism is not constructive or helpful that should just give us information on the critic.

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward how can criticism be necessary if it is not helpful or constructive?

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward why is saying that certain criticism is unnecessary the same as censorship? Couldn't I say that you have the right to criticize, but also say that the criticism is unnecessary?

        • a year ago

          @debatejak that is a bit of a conundrum because essentially we're criticizing when criticizing is necessary. In short, criticizing is necessary if the speaker feels it's necessary. Then we can criticize the critic based on the Merit or subject of what he saying, and we can criticize that. I don't think it does anyone any good to limit what we criticize.

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward sounds like the "critic of the critic" isn't allowed to say that the original criticism was unnecessary, which is a limit on criticism, which is a paradox. Seems like the paradox rests on the absolute assertion "criticizing is necessary if the speaker feels it's necessary." Someone's feelings can't be off? Criticism is always a right, but why does that mean it is always necessary?

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward is it ever possible to "beat a dead horse"?

        • a year ago

          @debatejak you forget that no criticism or critic has any right to be heard. No one can make you listen to them.

        • a year ago

          @debatejak yes it is possible to beat a dead horse, but that tells us that the rider is a fool and tells us nothing of the horse.

        • a year ago

          @debatejak I think criticism as reflection is necessary. And helps analytical thinkers process what has happened and perhaps prevent same cases from happening in the future. Yes it can't be sometimes constructive or helpful because hindsight usually isn't. But I view social Politics as a type of science, and in science it never hurts to go back and analyze and question what we already know to be true. And if someone feels that's necessary, it's only really an opinion to say it's not. Sure it might feel unnecessary and frivolous to you, but I think the underlying structure of the debate is an understood that's unnecessary therefore you shouldn't do it. And when it comes down to what people should and shouldn't do I am more on the side of there should be more criticism an analytical thinking.

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward Examining the past and commenting on it becomes 'criticism' ....and since we should never stop examining the past and commenting on it - suggests that there is no 'statute of limitations' on criticisms.

          PRO suggests a 'statute of limitations' ....but that is only for being tried in a court of law for a crime a second time....criticisms might 'evolve' as more information comes forward. Someone might get off some crime on a 'technicality' or due to malfeasance of a lawyer or a jury...and later on, evidence might come forward to prove a person is guilty when judged innocent (or proved innocent when found guilty)...and appropriate action AND commentary is justified and essential.

          We critique past Presidents - even back to Geo. Washington....and with every new biography that comes out, if more/new information comes to light, we might have to 'adjust' our thinking about that person.

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard correct there really isn't a statute of limitations on criticism. It's applied in freedom of speach that we enjoy.

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward seems like we are allowed to question everything, except whether or not the question was necessary. How is that promoting analytical thought? Logic, by definition, filters out unnecessary information to arrive to a conclusion. Creating a rule that someone isn’t allowed to look at a critique and conclude that it was unnecessary is antithetical to your cause.

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward I’ve heard that response before, but not sure it works in this context. I’ll rephrase. Do you think that someone can go overboard with their criticism and dwell on something to the point that it is unhealthy?

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward ok....if all criticism is necessary, why wouldn’t I listen to it. How do I decide which criticism to listen to?

        • a year ago

          @debatejak I will give you my thought on the question you asked Daniel.... YES - people can go 'overboard'...and can dwell on things to the point of unhealthy. It happens frequently. BUT - most people will ignore it and it too shall pass.

          OTOH - for the debate topic - Hillary is still worthy of examination and criticism...and will be for decades...even after her death.
          It will be worthy of examination as to how a corrupt DoJ and corrupt FBI Director can look at hundreds of classified e-mails on an illegal private server and not push for indictment. It will be a lesson that the Obama Administration was totally and thoroughly corrupt in the DoJ. They swept away many investigations that should have had a special/independent investigator to look at things like: ATF Fast And Furious, IRS targeting conservative Groups, Benghazi coverup (and no -it was not the most investigated....it was another 'obstructed' by delays and coverups in releasing requested information), Hillary's e-mail server, the Pay to Play and Clinton Foundation (that should employ 100 investigators to look at potential fraud there.)

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard just for clarity, I suggested an "informal version" of double jeopardy. And just like the court system, criticism can and should continue if new facts are brought to light. I think that is why "at this point in time" is a key phrase in the topic

        • a year ago

          @debatejak I guess you'd have to use your own judgment on that one.

        • a year ago

          @debatejak if the debate was titled criticism built on lies and propaganda is unnecessary and harmful to our society I would agree with you.

        • a year ago

          @debatejak Informal - sure - because that means people can ignore it if they feel that the existing coverage of criticisms has not been adequate. The half-life on criticisms of Hillary might be 50 years..... she is crooked, corrupt - and the main stream media has not adequately covered her potential crimes with any amount of reasonableness. (Consider the alleged Trump-Russia collusion with ZERO evidence of anything improper or illegal - except we now find a 'dirty dossier' fabricated for Hillary by a group that is highly unethical...and that dossier was illegally used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. All this 'nothing' - and yet Trump has a special prosecutor looking at him. Hillary, OTOH - had Obama, Mueller and Lynch corruptly covering up for her crimes....and the media claims...'the matter was investigated' ...which is the biggest recent lie!

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward but you just said that I shouldn't judge any criticism as unnecessary. How can I use my own judgement if it takes me to a conclusion you assert is always wrong? That is the issue I have absolute rules, like "all criticism is necessary," it presupposes something as true without a chance to test it.

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward so there is some criticism that is unnecessary?

        • a year ago

          @debatejak You are right, my thinking Is flawed, and I see that now, so I changed my mind.

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward that's good, but I am more confused than ever

        • a year ago

          @debatejak I think I misclassified this debate on a "should argument" to a ""Is criticism actually warranted" and if its warranted or necessary is a judgement call. like "should Clinton be blamed for lives lost in bangazi?" answer "No." she didn't kill those people, and her actions may have also saved lives. And if people criticizing hillary had any moral highground they would still be exploding over the Niger ambush, but they are silent when it's their idiot in office... hmmm wounder why...

        • a year ago

          @mvineyard thank you for your conclusions, as well as the clarity of how you formulate them

        • a year ago

          @daniel_jongeward Here - you are way into the wild and wacky side.

          Here is a fact: For many months - the Obama administration claimed that the Benghazi attack was a 'spontaneous demonstration' that went bad. Susan Rice went on TV the following Sunday - 5 times - repeated that lie. Hillary repeated that lie - MULTIPLE TIMES.

          YET - in several e-mails from Hillary to friends - the day after the attack, she reported it was a terrorist attack. (Why honesty to friends - but lies to the pubic and Congress?)
          Allegations from whistle blowers are that Hillary was at the top - and the State Department had knowledge of moving weapons from Libya to Syria. (Sounds like the need for a special investigation.)

          AND - PRO repeated what the Main Stream Media has claimed (and the claim is a proven lie) - that Benghazi is the 'most investigated' event ever. However - a Congressional investigation is NOT the same as a DoJ investigation, and the President & Dept. of State did stonewall requests for data for years...never complying with data requests. How can the Congress properly investigate a lying hiding/scheming organization that refuses to turn over requested data.

          Every time an Embassy or Consulate is attacked - it is appropriate for a review to be conducted. If the main Embassy had been hit - (like Niger?) - the results might have been - 'we need better intel'....and the hit was possibly unavoidable. OTOH - when all other countries had pulled their people from Benghazi because it was too unsafe, when Hillary had denied ADDITIONAL security requests over the past months, and sending the Ambassador - possibly to facility the gun running? Definitely bears investigating...and that is a far cry from what happened under Bush.

          SO - Hillary deserves criticism for lying about Benghazi. Proven fact. Further investigation under an HONEST DoJ needs to be conducted to see if she was lying about the mission of the Ambassador. AND - we need more information (this time - an honest assessment) - of the intel that says that there were 'assets' that were 'spinning up' and were going to help those in Benghazi - but Hillary 'turned it off' and prohibited any efforts to provide support - early on in the attack. Maybe something could be done. All we have is her statements - and she is a proven liar.

      • a year ago

        Great debate @debatejak was a lot of fun!

      • a year ago

        Great debate! I voted Con because his arguments were more universal. You don’t have to be consearvative to still be criticizing Hillary.

        • a year ago

          @debatejak @chandlebrowning

          Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @ninadabit