3RU7AL

Technically, any two people who commit a crime together is a conspiracy, so technically, anyone who makes the case for their guilt is engaging in a conspiracy theory.

• Color me skeptical about mere posting of fact getting you banned but I won't claim to have contradicting evidence.
  

Of course this is going to lead to people being wary of what kind of information they share with their doctors going forward, even if it's potentially life-saving information.

That’s why I’m saying you’re trying to have it both ways.

3Ru......it is impossible to imagine nothing

False eRu,  we can conceptualize truly non-occupied space and Ive done that with my Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline/List for 15 - 20 years

Or are you saying that we replace worn out cells with even more worn out cells?

Yes, on this debate site you can win a debate when there are 0 arguments against yours by a full forfeit. Isn't that something from nothing?

it is impossible to imagine nothing

False we can conceptualize truly non-occupied space.

it is the absence of existence

Wickard vs Filburn

harassed me via PM

Of course there cannot be such “thing” as no-“thing”.

two or more individuals conspire to commit a crime

Nothing could be defined as "a complete lack of any existence whatsoever". 

in order to give businesses an incentive to switch to wartime production and hire workers, retool, and expand their plants.

It has to do with his administration. Like Coal and I keep pointing out .

Quite. I just think that no one intentionally act like an asshole(except maybe Wyited). Maybe some people are way sensitive to things like this but to me, all these cold and harsh tones used in debate arguments just feel like what would be normally expected for an argument. You are here to fight with words, well. I still respect your effort to make arguments respectful, I just think it is ok with or without.

3. During rebuttals, take your opponent's argument in its best case. You do not want to leave ambiguity where the judge can think "well, I can imagine a scenario where this argument might be able to stand up to these refutations better, so perhaps this refutation does not stand up if you took the argument in good faith." Taking your opponent's argument in its best case is advice I got repeatedly (mostly because I was bad at following it lmao). Show how, even in the absolute best case scenario with the kindest possible assumptions, the argument is still incorrect and does not outweigh your arguments. Then go on to say that "if their argument fails in the best case scenario with the kindest possible assumptions, in a realistic scenario, the argument completely and utterly falls apart."

80% of all US dollars in existence were printed in the last 22 months (from $4 trillion in January 2020 to $20 trillion in October 2021)

Conspiracy theorists would point out that the definition of a conspiracy is simply two or more people conspiring to commit a crime,

That is not a current Fed policy. Why are you spamming threads with useless information?

It's bad enough that it's going to take 5 years to reverse the self-induced inflation with the current Fed monetary policies.

Also, in a dream, if I were to bash my dream hand with a dream hammer and feel pain that would obviously not prove that the hammer objectively exists physically.

It all depends on whether I am the *only* option or not.

Redefining a woman to anything with 2 legs and a dress is not.

I am specifically referencing the tactic of "thought terminating cliches"

“so, there is no moral obligation to prevent human suffering and hypothermia”

That’s not what I said, that is yet another assumptive straw-man from you.