Right wingers deny scientific facts more than left wingers

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.

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.

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.

And like I said before, instead of attacking me (coward, irrational, biased) try debunking my arguments instead.

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.

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.

Instead of attacking me (ad hominem), try to attack my arguments.

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.

If I am wrong, please name which of points 1-6 is wrong and how it is wrong.

Running away?
I haven't ran instead challenged you. You are incapable of reading data and are definitely biased about Trump.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

First you say that I should disprove the evidence against the wall, then you say that the BoP is on me. Sure, I'm fine with that. But don't use the Quartz article as it twists statistics and shows no real evidence. Thank you.

And by the way, a letter from some "economists" without ANY statistics or facts is not evidence of anything.

https://equitablegrowth.org/open-letter-from-1470-economists-including-me-on-immigration/

"And where do they get that fact from, I wonder?"
Arguing the person who said the fact instead of the fact itself. Quartz sends you to an article on their website where they have the evidence. Do click more I know that is difficult for you.

"Please, use a better website for your sources and actually READ the article before posting it. The article twists statistics and pulls random facts out of nowhere."
Give me a break. You do not even know what you are talking about. Now it is your turn to provide proof of the border wall being effective. Have any?

"But even if illegal immigration from Mexico is indeed at historic lows, that isn't an argument against building the wall. Just because an issue is decreasing doesn't mean it should be ignored."
Do you not agree the burden is on the person proposing the border wall to say how this would help the situation more? Do you have evidence that states the border wall will be helpful? Quartz has laid out illegal immigration will not be reduced by border wall.

"Just because most apprehensions (not crossings, apprehensions!) of heroin happen at official border crossings doesn't mean we should ignore the issue of heroin that's smuggled over the border. "
Still have yet to say how effective this would be. Quartz has also laid out that a border wall will not be effective at stopping heroin.

"This is unrelated to the topic. And I don't know where they got this fact from."
"Under Trump, the DHS focus on immigration and on the southern border ignores the real terrorism threat to US citizens, law enforcement officers and terrorism experts have been saying for months."
This means instead of focusing on ineffective procedure like the border wall instead focus on right-wing terrorism. Right wing terrorism is more of a threat than illegal immigration which is why that should be more of a priority than illegal immigration.

"That claim is hilariously wrong. First of all, the statistic provided only measures convictions and not actual number of crimes commited. Second of all, it measures convictions for only one state."
How are you a criminal if you are not convicted?
Do you have other states where illegals commit more crime than the native population?

"Again, the article twists facts. The correct conclusion would be, "deporting illegal immigrants would be very expensive". But deportation is unrelated to the wall."
You are lying. Economists say immigration is a boom to any country that accepts them.

"The undocumented are crossing the border at historic lows."
A problem with this statement is that we can't really measure the amount of immigrants crossing the border. 400 000 is just the number apprehended, not the actual number of crossings. So they're kind of twisting statistics, because the only fact there is that the amount of apprehendings of illegal immigrants at the border is at historic lows. But even if illegal immigration from Mexico is indeed at historic lows, that isn't an argument against building the wall. Just because an issue is decreasing doesn't mean it should be ignored.

"Heroin from Mexico is a big problem. A wall won’t stop it."
I will use the same argument as before. Just because most apprehensions (not crossings, apprehensions!) of heroin happen at official border crossings doesn't mean we should ignore the issue of heroin that's smuggled over the border. And the fact that most people caught smuggling drugs are Americans changes nothing.

"The biggest terror threat is from right-wing extremists."
This is unrelated to the topic. And I don't know where they got this fact from.

"Native-born Americans commit more crime."
That claim is hilariously wrong. First of all, the statistic provided only measures convictions and not actual number of crimes commited. Second of all, it measures convictions for only one state.

"Immigrants add more to the economy than they take."
Again, the article twists facts. The correct conclusion would be, "deporting illegal immigrants would be very expensive". But deportation is unrelated to the wall.

"Even if his wall is funded, Trump won’t outlast Texas landowners."
And where do they get that fact from, I wonder?

Please, use a better website for your sources and actually READ the article before posting it. The article twists statistics and pulls random facts out of nowhere.

I want to push this further along.
Here is my evidence which states why the border wall would be a bad thing.
https://qz.com/1517758/border-wall-facts-to-read-before-trumps-speech-tonight/
Every single bold point is what Trump gets wrong and why the border wall if were done for those reasons would be a failure.
Tell me opposing evidence to this. Just forget about what I said earlier. It is best for me to provide evidence and for you find counter-evidence and we can discuss it.

I want to ask questions before I give my side.
What do you mean by the border wall?
Why would you advocate for it (Evidence)?

I've given you many arguments. But OK, one argument: Southern Border Wall. Let's debate ONLY this one and see if it's rational.

It irrational to support Trump because when I ask Trumpists like you give me a rational argument. You are incapable.

I'm not sure that believing an atheist can't be a Republican is rational.

Your facts about illegal immigration... were wrong
Missed words.

I am rational. I support my claims with facts if necessary. Your facts about illegal immigration and my facts about 1st Amendment were right. That is what separates us. You don't know when you are wrong and still bring up facts that don't even support your point and I make mistakes and replace false facts with actual facts.

I would tell you, but it would fly right over your head.

Do tell me how you are rational.

Do tell me when you will be able to stop making unnecessary comments. Adios, Omar.

Do tell me how an irrational person uses the exclamation mark rationally.

Hello, lovely. You know people use exclamation marks not only to signify emotion, right?

The exclamation mark has come back.

Nice profile pic, Unnecessary!

Guess the title of the irrational atheist really does fit you.

Sure, Unnecessary.

Exclamation mark? Guess you are getting emotional.

You don't add an article if you're talking about a proper noun. You should know that, Mr Grammar Nazi.

Look, another unnecessary comment!

Missed the an in between I'm and irrational.
Never thought I find someone who wants to be irrational. Guess I have.

No actually that would be great. I'm Irrational Atheist, you're Unnecessary.

Still here?
Guess I assumed too much that you would not like to occupy your time with "crappy online debate website" but guess not.
If you have a name for me I have name for you as well. How about irrational atheist?

You know what, from now on I'll just call you "Unnecessary" because everything you say is unnecessary to a productive debate. Bye, Unnecessary.

You are irrational, If you don't think you are guess you are just like a theist. Incapable critiquing their own view points.
If it is such a "crappy" online debate website why are you still here?

Unnecessary. Hope you have something else to do than call people irrational all day on some crappy online debate website.

happy=happen

Incapable of introspection. An Irrational atheist who supports Republican party. Can happy even though they are very few and none of them which can provide point for believing in what they believe.

Like I said, any further discussion is unnecessary.

You changed your comment which is why my response might seem like I am not addressing what you said.
I do not agree with you. Do tell me what I agree with you on?

Thank you for admitting you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong. I'll try one more time then go along believing what you want when I can justify what I believe and you can't.

Constitution says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You said this " You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others"

No law is allowed to prohibit the free excerise of Religion. Meaning the 1st Amendment does not protect gay people from persecution. You have added "harm" to the 1st Amendment where it has not included any. It required laws like the Civil rights Act of 1964 to make that happen.

What is your response?

I already told you that I agree with you. Any further discussion is unnecessary.