Instigator
Points: 35

Right wingers deny scientific facts more than left wingers

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
Type1
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 5
Description
No information
Added:
To RationalMadman:
I am saying he is not brave enough to voice his opinions on a debate because he knows his side is wrong. That isn't the bravest thing a person can do since stopping an anarchist, communist or a nationalist is more brave.
Right wingers are irrational I do know that which is why I called him that.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
There is nothing brave about defending the Right-Wing if I'm going to be perfectly honest, here.
Bravery can come in destroying a corrupt Communist state but that's not actual Left-Wing politics at work that you'd be destroying, it's literally bullshit that is neither wing at all.
Added:
--> @BigBoonj
I will answer the question if you are capable enough to make a debate about it. A debate the less cowardice thing to do. It means you think you are so right that the people who will vote also will agree with you. Shame that you don't even think that your idea is even a good one. You make the debate.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
And like I said before, instead of attacking me (coward, irrational, biased) try debunking my arguments instead.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I am somehow a coward? You're the coward because you're not answering the question! Which point out of points 1-6 is wrong? It doesn't take a debate to do that, you know. You were perfectly fine with debating in the comments but as soon as I say something you can't disprove you try to get rid of me by telling me to make a debate. Make a debate yourself and invite me. Then we'll talk.
Added:
--> @BigBoonj
I guess I can add coward to the list. You are not brave enough to actually stand by your positions in a debate instead resort to carrying on this conversation here. Either you are irrational which you are or you are a bad faith actor. I doubt you would be on this site if you were a bad faith actor but irrationality is enough reason for you to be here instead of doing the rational thing which is commit to a debate and see for yourself if what you say is right or wrong.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Instead of attacking me (ad hominem), try to attack my arguments.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Even if I can't read data and if I am biased about Trump, that doesn't change the logic in my argument. If points 1-6 are wrong or don't make sense, please explain how.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
If I am wrong, please name which of points 1-6 is wrong and how it is wrong.
#99
Added:
--> @BigBoonj
Running away?
I haven't ran instead challenged you. You are incapable of reading data and are definitely biased about Trump.
#98
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Like I said, for my argument to be wrong one of my points would have to be wrong.
Are 400 000 illegal immigrants not caught while trying to cross the Mexican Border?
Is illegal immigration not bad?
Should these people not be stopped from entering the US illegally?
Does a wall not stop people from crossing the border by foot or car?
Obviously, the answer to all these questions is 'no'. Because I'm right.
#97
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
There we go. What I said exactly. You cannot disprove any of the 6 points as they are obvious, so you change the topic really quickly. Suddenly I have to make a debate, even thought you were fine with writing hundreds of comments to nitpick everything I say. If I am "clearly wrong", tell me how and why instead of running away.
#96
Added:
--> @BigBoonj
"If I had to counter all the bullshit you spew out, that would take a few thick books."
Filled with emotion not anything that can rebut my claims.
Make a debate about the border wall and I will accept.
You are clearly wrong and when you get shamed by voters you might understand how bad your position is. If not you are irrational like I said before.
Make sure to actually define what you mean by border wall. Have also a link to a proposed plan so that I understand exactly what you mean.
#95
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
If I had to counter all the bullshit you spew out, that would take a few thick books. So I'm just going to ignore your nitpicking and present my evidence. Which isn't some weird article that twists statistics, but logic.
(1) A wall should be built on the Mexican border. Why?
(2) At least 400,000 people try to enter the US illegally each year through the Mexican border by foot or car (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration).
(3) Illegal immigration is bad.
(4) Therefore, these people must be stopped from entering the US illegally.
(5) A wall stops people from crossing a border by foot or car.
(6) Therefore, building a wall would stop illegal immigrans from crossing the Mexican border by foot or car.
Simple.
To show how I am wrong, you would have to show how statements (2)-(5) are wrong. Please do so. If you don't I will exit the debate.
PS: A scientific consensus itself is not evidence. You're using the bandwagon fallacy and the argument from authority fallacy. You are also using the strawman fallacy by claiming that I use Breitbart and the Daily Caller as sources, which I don't.
#94
Added:
--> @BigBoonj
"First you say that I should disprove the evidence against the wall, then you say that the BoP is on me."
You are incapable of reading facts so I want to see how bad your problem actually is.
"But don't use the Quartz article as it twists statistics and shows no real evidence. Thank you."
I am not changing. Quartz does a really good job sourcing what they say.
"And by the way, a letter from some "economists" without ANY statistics or facts is not evidence of anything."
1,471 economists is not "some" and they are more knowledgeable about the economy than non-economists. With this in mind I accept their professional opinion.
If scientists came up and said there is a consensus in the science community is real. Are you going to say there are no facts or evidence still?
If you can bring in an economist that supports what you are saying not something like Breitbart or the Daily Caller.
#93
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfiture.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
shut up..............
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit by con.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF by CON, while Type1 made one, making it a 1v0, therefore, forcing me to vote PRO