Total posts: 14,582
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you try to paint this argument that supporters or Trump is claiming a wall is all that is needed, but that's just not the fact. The issue is multifaceted and I don't know anyone who has said otherwise, do you?
You are painting yourselves. All I hear is "build that wall" and "evil criminals and drugs and stuff".
Scare-mongering with an oversimplified "solution".
Please explain how "multifaceted" your views are.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so was it ever proposed or what was the outcome?
DJT rejected the proposal. That's why the government was shutdown.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
who's saying the wall is a perfect solution?
I believe you are.
What problems do you believe a wall will solve?
Have you just been spewing non sequiturs when you mention "cartels, human-trafficking, illegal drugs, murderers" and the like?
Please clarify your position on the matter.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
is anyone saying that any barrier is a stand alone option and doesn't need patrolling plus other security methods?
In the beginning, there was a tweet.
At 4:34 p.m. Aug. 5, 2014, Mr. Trump sent a message: “SECURE THE BORDER! BUILD THE WALL!”
Mr. Trump’s definition of “wall” has been a moving target since.
In the early days of the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump said the wall should be built of “precast concrete” with “no windows, no nothing.” He now says that he always meant that steel and “see-through” materials could work, too, and has, from time to time, mused about festooning the wall with solar panels. In December, he tweeted an image showing a puzzling rendering of a picketed “Steel Slat Barrier.”
Soon after taking office, the president commissioned eight prototypes of wall designs, four made of concrete and the remainder fabricated from steel and other materials. They ranged in height from 18 to 30 feet.
The models were tested last year, and the results were inconclusive, according to leaked documents showing that all of them could be breached with a determined effort and the right tools. But Trump administration officials say that the testing provided them with valuable information, and lessons learned were incorporated into an already built section of slatted 30-foot-high “bollard” fence near Calexico, Calif.
As Mr. Trump’s image of the wall changed, so did its price tag. He now wants $5.7 billion for the wall — but that number has bounced between $4 billion and $20 billion over the past three years. During the shutdown fight, he even suggested that he would accept an unspecified “down payment.”
Democrats have embraced the phrase border security, meant to describe a comprehensive approach that includes improvements in technology, new surveillance programs and increases in Border Patrol staffing. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
is that true, I don't recall hearing a counter proposal for any such thing or a willingness to allocate money for them, cite?
Texas GOP Rep. Will Hurd: Border wall "least effective" for security, need technology [LINK]
A 41-year-old former undercover CIA officer, Hurd represents one of the largest congressional districts in America, Texas’ 23rd, a vast expanse of land roughly the size of Georgia that stretches from San Antonio to El Paso.
Hurd’s district includes 820 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, more than any other member of the House of Representatives.
Instead, he proposes increasing security at points of entry, where the bulk of illegal drugs come into the U.S., improved technology along the border to create a "smart fence" and a "Marshall Plan for Central America" to address the root problems that are leading so many migrants to make the dangerous journey north. [LINK]
Democratic leaders are drafting their own version of a funding bill to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, which is expected to include at least $5 billion for border protection efforts like new technology and more law enforcement agents, according to multiple aides. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
ICE =/= "military and border patrol".
Stay on topic.
Apparently TheDredPriateRoberts doesn't want anyone talking about "deportations".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's pointless to quibble with you. You hate the military and border patrol.
As long as we're throwing out random, baseless characterizations, "it's pointless to quibble with you. You hate all foreigners."
When the Border patrol gets the wall they want, then they will ask for tunnel detectors, and you will say (OF COURSE)
TUNNEL DETECTORS DON'T REQUIRE A WALL. I am 100% in favor of a detection grid. As are most democrats.
"They will just dig deeper tunnels so NO YOU CANT HAVE ANY SEISMIC DETECTORS"
Literally NOBODY has said anything like that.
Just disband the military and border patrol and call it a day.
Literally NOBODY has said anything like that. Have fun burning down your own personal straw-men.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine if the military 20 years ago asked Congress for Humvee armored plates to protect from roadside bombs and the Congress said "steel doesn't work...they will just make bigger bombs"...Why do people hate border patrol and the military?
Adding plates to a humvee does not make an MRAP. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it's in the title, it's about stopping people getting in, you moved them by talking about deporting the illegals already in, stick to the topic.
You mean this title???????? "do you also support democrats declaring a national emergency?"?????????????????
Then you say, "it's the drain on my tax money that I don't like and should be stopped." [LINK]
Apparently it's NOT "off-topic" when you make baseless claims, but when I ask you for your evidence for those claims, THEN suddenly it's "stick to the topic".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Except border patrol says most of the cartel coyotes are not doing these things. Why do you hate border patrol?
Coyotes, who make thousands of dollars per person transported, can't figure out how to cut a hole in an unpatrolled, unmonitored wall in the middle of nowhere?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You do know the biggest Democrat loud mouths who don't want border security were in favor of it when Obama was president, right? Pull up Pelosie and Schumer on youtube and hear the very words that come out of their mouths about barriers and border security, as well as what they say about the illegals. They have walls around their homes.
Bushie Jr. said he wanted a wall from sea-to-shining-sea and democrats looked at the data and concluded that, yes, in some areas a wall-fence-barrier makes sense, where there are points of entry and patrols, but it does not make sense EVERYWHERE.
Your team is screaming bloody murder about super scary CRIMINALS and yes, CRIMINALS are super scary, EVERYONE ALREADY AGREES WITH YOU ABOUT THAT.
But when you make the logical leap to, "a wall is the perfect solution and will magically fix ALL CRIME!!!!!!!!!" this simply doesn't make any sense and there is no evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
MS-13 members have access to military grade weaponry and explosives. They can cut a hole in your unpatrolled, unmonitored wall in no time flat.MS-13 members enter the U.S. illegally, which proves gang violence isn't only a problem in Mexico, so again that is untrue.
Or dig a tunnel under it.
Or fly an ultralight over it.
Or take a boat around it.
Or smuggle anything they want through an under-funded, under-resourced LEGAL POE.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Randomly declares scope of discussion.this is about stopping illegals from coming in, the national emergency is about border security and or a wall, not deportation.
Randomly moves the goal-posts.
Randomly dodges questions regarding verifiable assertions.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
hmm these people seem to think it's an emergency
Drugs - An unpatrolled, unmonitored wall is easily breachable with common tools and or explosives which cartels already have access to.
Gang Violence - Gang violence is a problem in Mexico. A wall will have no effect on this.
Cartel Violence - Cartel violence is a problem in Mexico. A wall will have no effect on this.
Human Trafficking - Action should be taken, but a wall will have no effect on this.
Overdose deaths - 17,029 (35%) out of 47,600 involved prescription drugs. [LINK]
The GAO study released on 1 May analyzes the extent to which alternative tactics are used by criminal organizations. The United States Government Accountability Office’s study cites Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data showing that there were 67 discovered cross-border tunnels, 534 ultralight aircraft incursions, and 309 drug smuggling incidents involving fishing and recreational vessels along U.S. mainland borders from 2011 through 2016. [LINK]
Mexican cartels “transport the bulk of their drugs over the Southwest Border through ports of entry (POEs) using passenger vehicles or tractor trailers,” the Drug Enforcement Administration said in a 2015 report. “The drugs are typically secreted in hidden compartments when transported in passenger vehicles or comingled with legitimate goods when transported in tractor trailers.” [LINK]
Founder and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Human Trafficking Legal Center Martina Vandenberg told CNN that the majority of human trafficking victims in the United States — roughly two thirds — are actually U.S. citizens. What's more, Vandenberg said that the majority of foreign-born human trafficking victims come into the United States legally on visas. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
not from the "economic people" I've listen to, which explain how it's a drain, yet the ones who has it's a benefit have no real figures to support that.
Please reveal the identities of your "economic people" and their "real figures to support that" if you don't mind.
The American Action Forum, a nonpartisan, center-right-leaning think tank, released a study this week breaking down the economic consequences of deporting every unauthorized worker in the US.
The authors of the paper, Ben Gitis and Jacqueline Varas, said that based on an earlier American Action Forum study, the direct costs of dramatically expanding immigration-enforcement agencies and courts to deport roughly 11 million people would already cost the US government an estimated $400 billion to $600 billion.
But beyond the immediate costs of hiring thousands of immigration agents, lawyers, and support staff to remove millions of people from their homes, Gitis and Varas found that the economic effects of suddenly removing millions of workers from the labor force would be enormous.
They found, using estimates of output per worker in each of those industries, that the cost in lost output would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars (emphasis ours):
The upshot is that there are not enough American high-school dropouts to fill the labor gap, AND American high-school drop outs WILL NOT work those jobs, even if wages increased. THEREFORE labor AND production will move OVERSEAS (or more immediately to Mexico).
Moving labor and production overseas will impact large numbers of native citizen's jobs that are peripherally related to these industries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Jesus Christ. This is 100% anecdotal evidence.
Please provide some verifiable data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
"Well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.""We've seen growing use of self-propelled semi-submersibles (SPSSs) - low-profile vessels made out of marine-grade plywood [and] fibreglass with commercial engines. The smugglers spend up to a $1m (£665,000) to build one of these SPSSs for what is often just a one-way voyage. [LINK]Not according to two reports that I find reliable:DEA: Most Illegal Drugs Enter via Mexico, Cartels Greatest Criminal Threat to U.S. [Link]
Your link does not debunk "95% of the drugs are moving on the water".
It just harps on "Mexican Cartels", yes, of course, who are shipping drugs USING BOATS AND SUBMARINES and tunnels.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
your right, the punishment should be more harsh and e-verify should be mandatory for all business and increased fines, punishments for violations.
I don't really care about them working so long as they are paying proper taxes, it's the drain on my tax money that I don't like and should be stopped.
It's not a "drain" on your income. They are saving you money every time you buy a house, rent an apartment, or buy food at a grocery store or restaurant or pay for a cleaning service.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Says the person using idolatry.
Nice non sequitur.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Chilling videos...
Nice appeal to emotion.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Do you buy fruits and vegetables?correct that isn't illegal, entering the county w/o permission is, hence the term illegal or criminal alien, which one can't become until they actually enter the country illegally.
Do you eat at restaurants?
Do you live in a house or an apartment building?
If you do any of these things, then you are supporting immigrants and benefiting from their cheap labor.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
We already covered this.for the last time, you asked for citations and I provided them for you.
Thank you for quoting your sources.
However, "funded and organised" =/= ILLEGAL.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you must have some gift you should share with the world if you can tell which people are legally seeking asylum or whatever vs those who have other motives.
Another blatant appeal to ignorance. They will be screened WHEN THEY APPLY FOR ASYLUM. Not before. You are moving the goal-posts. Nobody is expected to guarantee that ALL asylum seekers are "non-criminals". That is what the screening process is for. Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
Secondly,
Officials from Guatemala and a recognized international judicial vigilance group confirmed to the media
Why on earth are these sources not specifically referenced? It is impossible to verify unnamed "officials" and "vigilance group".
...demanding that the Mexican government provide them with...
Who cares what their "attitude" is. Is it now suddenly illegal to ask for stuff?
...met with tear gas and rubber/bean bag bullets...
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
So we can choke them with tear-gas and bruise their children with non-lethal ammo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I am a commited atheist and a commited socialist. I would like to see a world that was run on rational, scientific principles, (ie not superstitious ones) and where a system resembing "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" applied.But I do not want such a world at any price, nor do I believe that 'ends justify means'. I wouldn't support a party that sought to bring about atheism or socialism 'by any means neccessary', History shows that people who do believe in 'by any means neccessary' are really only seeking power, not the implementation of rationalism or a utopian classless state.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I didn't claim that there is no absolute truth. I said I have no ability to know what things are absolutely true.
This is an excellent distinction.
Noumenon exists. Noumenon is beyond our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I recommend the book that it is an excerpt from, I read it last week. Very good read.
If you want to know what a "nihilist" "believes" then ask a nihilist. Don't take some christian's scare-mongering opinion as "fact".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
IDIOT...go pray now to YOUR GOD hoax....just do NOT HARM others with your BRAINWASHED STUPIDITY...GO to YOUR GOD...tell him all of your GOOD DEEDS so he will let you into his amusement park ...Then you can join the millions of other sheeple drone imbeciles..from the Roman catholic CULTand the latter day saint CULT, and the Jehovah's Witness CULT +++ to many other CULT Parasite organization drones to list.....and KILL EACH OTHER over who is RIGHT.....and be rebornover and over again to keep MURDERING each other for GOD ! FUN !
Reality check. Do you support freedom of religion?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
No? the coyotes and traffickers, that's all legal? It has always been illegal, but the size of the groups have certainly changed. What about the criminals trying to get in with the caravans? Don't think there's a single one? no traffickers either?
This is typical.
You are conflating "caravans" of refugees seeking asylum, funded by "evil-george-soros" (AND) a random mix of super scary CCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is simultaneously an appeal to fear and an appeal to ignorance.
How do I know you're not a murderer!? (baseless accusation and an appeal to ignorance)
Can you prove to me that you're not a murderer!!!?? (shifting burden of proof and an appeal to ignorance)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Look I am not going risk my identity for a moderator to track whether or not I followed the rules
It is technically impossible for you to view any web-page without revealing your IP address to the host.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I GRANT THAT SOMETHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE.False.
FOR THE SAKE OF THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.
IT'S SORT OF A "WHAT IF" HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You are leaping to conclusions.again you failed to invalidate what you wanted citation for.
I wasn't "attempting to invalidate" your statement.
I hadn't heard the charge that refugees were "funded and organized".
Sure, now I am convinced that they are "funded and organized" but strangely, you seem to be forgetting that this, in and of itself is not a crime.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
"Requesting asylum requires a person to be physically present in the United States, but it also involves presenting oneself to law enforcement and government officials, meaning the goal in those cases would not be to deceive or defraud the U.S. government but rather to work within the existing system."and how does that invalidate that the caravans aren't better organized and funded?
It highlights your red-herring. These are LEGAL refugees seeking LEGAL asylum. Pointing to "evil-funding" is an obvious genetic fallacy.
So first you scare-monger. MURDER-HUNGRY-RABID-DRUG-DEALING-FENCE-JUMPING-CRIMINAL-BAD-HOMBRES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!where did I make any such claim or statement?
It's paraphrasing the tone of your second link. [LINK]
and how does that invalidate that the caravans aren't better organized and funded?
It highlights your red-herring. These are LEGAL refugees seeking LEGAL asylum. Pointing to "evil-funding" is an obvious genetic fallacy.
And by the way - the "black hate groups" quote is FALSE according to your already cited snopes. [LINK]da fuk you talkin about?
Look at the second link you posted, about three quarters of the way down. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
From your first link -
"Requesting asylum requires a person to be physically present in the United States, but it also involves presenting oneself to law enforcement and government officials, meaning the goal in those cases would not be to deceive or defraud the U.S. government but rather to work within the existing system."
From your second link -
"Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. and the American Immigration Council. Guess who’s funding them? … none other than radical leftist billionaire: George Soros."
Your logical fallacy is - the genetic fallacy.
So first you scare-monger. MURDER-HUNGRY-RABID-DRUG-DEALING-FENCE-JUMPING-CRIMINAL-BAD-HOMBRES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then when that turns out to be PROVABLY FALSE (undocumented immigrants are statistically LESS likely to be criminals than native born citizens) THEN you demonize and dehumanize LEGAL refugees seeking LEGAL asylum by accusing them of being pawns of some presumably purely evil benefactor.
(IFF) George Soros has committed a crime (THEN) charge him with a crime.
(IFF) George Soros (or anyone else for that matter) chooses to spend money to assist LEGAL refugees seeking LEGAL asylum, then that is their god given right.
And by the way - the "black hate groups" quote is FALSE according to your already cited snopes. [LINK]
how far could you carry a child with not money and whatever food and water you could also carry?
This question is nonsensical. People can scavenge for or beg for food and water. They are hiking through Mexico, not the Sahara.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Citation please....better organized AND funded "caravans".
Created:
-->
@dustryder
DACA wasn't declared a national emergency though, right?
Good point. "Prosecutorial discretion" is ALWAYS part of enforcement.
You can't very well have a #1 priority without also having a #1000 priority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Suppose there are 600 people with fatal disease A. You have to choose betweentreatment 1 - 200 people will be saved - [there is a natural presumption that the other 400 may or may not live but at least have a fighting chance.]treatment 2 - there is a 1/3 chance everyone is saved, a 2/3 chance everyone diesNow suppose there are 600 people with fatal disease B. You have to choose betweentreatment 3 - 400 people will certainly die - [there is a natural presumption that the other 200 may or may not live but at least have a fighting chance.]treatment 4 - there is a 1/3 chance everyone is saved, a 2/3 chance everyone dies.What choices do you make?
Fixed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
With a limited community, many would be honest, some would not: and it wouldn’t not take long for such unrestricted voting to undermine fair competition - as it did in DDO.
You make some fair points, but I'd prefer a "thumbs up / thumbs down" system over the existing system at this point.
Both systems have their inherent flaws, but the existing system does not eliminate bias or cheating and involves exponentially more effort by moderators and voters.
Either way it still boils down to opinion, and the opinion of the people who supposedly validate or invalidate the opinions of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I think the main issue is that you want as many people to vote on debates - whom are verified - as possible to even out opinion and point of view. Even in the real world you can have multiple judges coming up with different decisions and more votes tend to balance that out.You could have an opt in mode that allows only “verified” voters to vote on your debate, and we could have stricter controls on who is verified or. It compared to regular voters. The only issue with that is that I’m sure everyone would use this mode, meaning that if you’re not “verified” you’re not going to be able to make many votes normally
I think the problem is that if you want more voters, you need to LOWER the barriers to entry (optionally remove the RFD requirement).
IntelligenceSquared has an (unqualified) audience vote simply "PRO" or "CON" depending on which side they found "more convincing".
The same people vote before the debate based on simply the debate resolution and then again after each round.
Then at the end, the team that swayed the most voters from their initial position is granted the win.
I believe the attempted pursuit of BOTH volume and "quality" is a losing proposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Debating seems very complicated. How many debaters are there on DA?
Participants in total: 468
But only 38 have participated in 3 or more debates. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
This would be interesting. I proposed before creating a voting bloc like we had on DDO. We'd assign someone to be the voting czar and assign people to vote
Yes, or some variation. This would keep people from being able to cherry pick either their "friends" or "enemies" debates with targeted votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I have another proposal.
What do you think of the idea of assigning 5 random voters (who have opted-in for voting) to each completed debate.
Only the randomly assigned voters would be able to vote on any particular debate.
This would disincentivize duplicate accounts and prevent vote bombing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think it'd naturally follow: I don't have any reason to believe any god or gods have ever existed, and thus I believe the worldview that doesn't require gods to exist is most consistent with reality." It seems a distinction without a difference. I'm at the Dawkins 6.9 on the 7 point scale of being convinced, but that doesn't mean I am certain.
I'd say, "A presumed theistic universe is scientifically and logically indistinguishable from a presumed atheistic universe".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
PM #1: “Hey, do you have a second to talk about your vote?”......PM #371: “I can’t believe you ignored the argument about widgets.Me : “I literally dedicated 50% of my RfD to your widgets.”PM #372: “You just ignored it”Me: “Seriously, read the RfD”PM #373: “But in the part about the widgets you brought in external information”Me: “You mean the part where your opponent disproved it?”PM: #374: “yeah, where did the opponent say widgets are too large?”Me: “in the part where he said “the widgets are too large to fit”.PM: #375: “But you ignored my whole argument about widgets. That’s not Tabula Rasa man.”Me: “How are you a teacher?”^^^This is literally every time I’ve placed a vote against magic.
Exactly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
you can spend days working on a debate and then nobody votes on it.when people do vote on your debate their RFD makes no sense.when mods review RFD's their opinions are too vague.These three things are literally the reason I attempt to vote on every single debate that there is with as comprehensive an RfD as I can. People may not always agree with how I come down, but I do my absolute best to be as dispassionate and fair as I can.I was far too pissed off in DDO at every other debate being a 0:0 draw
I appreciate your contribution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You lost to a guy who has 54 losses, 6 wins and 6 ties as is.This is because he was too stubborn, stupid, corrupt or superior to you at comprehending how you saw the debate and what was right/wrong with it.See how that works? Exactly, it's called bullshit.
And you are basing this "attack" on a sample size of exactly 1.
The debate was actually substantive and I learned some new approaches to an argument that is very complex and difficult to explain.
I gave my opponent the win because they provided insight instead of mere combativeness.
You initially offered to participate in a "test debate" but then you inexplicably refused, even though you had nothing to lose.
Does the concept of trying to convince your opponent instead of simply berating them frighten you to the point of running away from a zero risk debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I know this sounds crazy, but hear me out.
If you only allow the participants themselves vote on their own debate, then they will focus on convincing their opponent. [LINK]
This solves every possible concern you've mentioned in this post with basically zero policy changes.
It makes duplicate accounts pointless.
It makes vote bombs impossible.
It makes (tedious) vote modding unnecessary.
The other solution would be to have appointed judges (or mods) that have well established records that would be required to vote on all debates (it would be less work than all the tedious vote modding).
My key frustrations with the debate and voting system are that,
if you choose a judge, the debate doesn't count.
you can spend days working on a debate and then nobody votes on it.
when people do vote on your debate their RFD makes no sense.
when mods review RFD's their opinions are too vague.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Hmph. You're still attacking theism, not establishing atheism. I would suggest "the atheistic worldview is consistent with observation". That is why I am an atheist.
Deism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.
Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well stated. [LINK]EVEN IF IT'S JESUS, it doesn't explain WHY. It just takes "I don't know" into "I don't know, but Jesus did it."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If she does lose her citizenship it will because she sided with an enemy, not because she is muslim.
Historically, collusion with an enemy-of-the-state would be adjudicated with a charge of treason.
Stripping someone of their citizenship without a trial is an incredibly dangerous precedent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't get the impression that opposition or support for Begum is divided along religious lines. The argument is over nationality and citizenship, not religion.
So do you believe it's purely coincidental that non-christians are more likely to have their citizenship stripped from them?
Created: