I don't think anyone prominent is saying all Muslims are terrorists etc. If I wanted to say Blacks were more likely to commit crime, would that be OK to say?
If someone wanted to make a speech saying that being straight was the only real sexuality, he has the right to say this. If I were a priest, would I have sense in censoring Richard Dawkins from making a speech at a college campus? Historically, the right used your logic to censor people. Now it's the left that does it.
You may be unconformable with black panther calling for the enslavement of white people. If you are, then you can debate with them about their idea or you can simply leave the room. Censoring them undermines free speech.
If the space time fabric existed, then the moon would destroy the space time fabric twice a month since it orbits on an axis relative to earth. Down is close to the ground, it's not inherently south. Because of that, space time fabric is false.
I don't know a single atheist who has read the entire OT. The fastest way for someone who was never born an atheist is just to read select bible verses that show what the bible is.
That guy has the right to say that. I don't agree with him though. Dave Rubin is open minded although he should argue more with his guests. He's definitely no idiot. Are you a fascist since you are willing to insult and censor those who disagree with you?
I would vote for Gary Johnson because I support him more then other candidates and I want others to vote for him so he can be president. If I am to ask this of people, I would have to vote for him too.
I watch more Louder with Crowder. This does not mean I agree with everything he says.
You asked me about my ideologies, and I can place a link showing where my ideologies are:
My stance on guns is that anyone who is not a threat to other(s) should be allowed to have any gun they want. I can defend anything more right wing then the debate title to win. This is fair because Pro chose to accept.
It happens to a lot of people including myself so it's fine. I know what it is like. I try to maintain discussions with people like dustryder and I just don't have the endurance.
"I believe the Republic of Texas was vehemently for slavery."
There are 2 contentions that I have with this:
1: If they were pro slavery at one point, would they have wanted to join Mexico once they became anti slavery?
2: This does not explain how we got California, which was anti slavery.
I'm finally deciding to respond. Sorry for the huge delay.
"Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big"
That something is France's common language and culture. Austria Hungary lacked this.
"That said, I believe that the french royal crown lands were built up slowly over multiple centuries, and with some exception there was more of a cultural continuum."
I think that France got it's size the same way the U.K got it's size. By conquering. By sending your own people to the conquered area. By assimilating the locals heavily. France assimilated the octillians(at least that's what I think they were called) that were South of France and they don't want to break away. Austria Hungary conquered but failed to assimilate the lands that nation conquered and as a result, they lost their land.
"So, I'm not looking for situations that involve the US. I'm looking for situations that describe the same situation as the US."
"Also, though I'm not familiar with all your examples so I may be wrong, but none of those conflicts occurred as a result of excessive immigration."
It's how Mexico lost Texas and California.
"Did their countries break up on the basis of language? Do you have evidence for this?"
What else could it be in a way that is consistent?
"Do you have evidence for this? Are you sure it wouldn't have to do the(Puerto Rican) historical relationship with the US?"
The US treats PR pretty well. It is because of the US that the GDP per capita of PR is about double the Latin American average and easily the highest GDP per capita in Latin America, with one about as high as South Korea.
If every American gets $2000/month coverage, UHC in the US would cost about $7.68 Trilllion per year. This would triple our taxes. America cannot afford that. How does private healthcare cost $7.7 Trillion? Many places have UHC, but it's not good coverage. It's just basic coverage. A lot of the reason why other 1st world countries tend to have higher life expediencies then the US is because they:
-Don't have a heroin epidemic. This is why the US life expectancy has been going down whereas in Japan, they have been going up.
-Tend to live healthier lifestyles in general. The US is an obese nation. The way to cure that is not doctor visits. The cure to that is by being healthy.
You mention that people would be more productive in the workplace, however, that's only nominal since most days are not sick days.
You say that 45,000 people die due to our current healthcare model. How do you figure this? How many die due to a national healthcare system/UHC?
For those that can't afford it, they can live healthier lifestyles in order to avoid having to pay high health costs.
You state that wait times are nominal but this is not the case. If you have 7 days to live unless you get treatment/surgery, and there is a 10 day waiting period, your probably going to die.
I don't think that type1 should have gotten banned, even if he is a communist. RM has supported capitalism, he is about as left as Hillary Clinton is.(https://www.debateart.com/debates/424)
Technically, almost everyone has left wing and right wing beliefs. RM may be a progressive, but he's no socialist. He has defended capitalism many times. Even Type1 is against Affirmative Action. I don't like the 2 party system. We should be more individualistic then that.
If you don't want Omar 2345 debating you in the future, in your debate description, state, "Omar 2345 is not allowed to participate in this debate." and you could state it is an automatic loss on his part if he accepts.
Do you know how many people support abolishing plea bargaining?
Why is your profile picture a murderer as of the time of this comment?
I can list one stance you have on the basis of religion. Your stance on homosexuality.
I don't think anyone prominent is saying all Muslims are terrorists etc. If I wanted to say Blacks were more likely to commit crime, would that be OK to say?
If someone wanted to make a speech saying that being straight was the only real sexuality, he has the right to say this. If I were a priest, would I have sense in censoring Richard Dawkins from making a speech at a college campus? Historically, the right used your logic to censor people. Now it's the left that does it.
You may be unconformable with black panther calling for the enslavement of white people. If you are, then you can debate with them about their idea or you can simply leave the room. Censoring them undermines free speech.
How about you 2 have a debate on which party is better, democrats or republicans?
I'm pretty sure that conservatives are rational. You just disagree with them on a lot.
What's your job?
I don't think I can rap well.
Blamonkey is good at debating. He's is as of the time of this comment 8-0. I wish you good luck.
I agree with you on this.
If the space time fabric existed, then the moon would destroy the space time fabric twice a month since it orbits on an axis relative to earth. Down is close to the ground, it's not inherently south. Because of that, space time fabric is false.
Homosexuality is very rare, so it would be a minor concern.
First time I heard you take a right wing stance on an issue.
Australia needs the 1st and 2nd amendments.
I don't know a single atheist who has read the entire OT. The fastest way for someone who was never born an atheist is just to read select bible verses that show what the bible is.
That guy has the right to say that. I don't agree with him though. Dave Rubin is open minded although he should argue more with his guests. He's definitely no idiot. Are you a fascist since you are willing to insult and censor those who disagree with you?
Is Dave Rubin a conservative because he tolerates conservatives on his show, but he's a classical liberal, which is basically a libertarian.
I would vote for Gary Johnson because I support him more then other candidates and I want others to vote for him so he can be president. If I am to ask this of people, I would have to vote for him too.
I watch more Louder with Crowder. This does not mean I agree with everything he says.
You asked me about my ideologies, and I can place a link showing where my ideologies are:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o4FS1cNhF_czuC6yKrVDK0ISVYoGMg1sZVacyxRo70k/edit
I'm open to change my mind, but as of right now I would support Gary Johnson for President, although I'm not a libertarian on everything.
I'm not conservative right now although I might be in the future.
I think for myself. I happen to agree with the Conservatives on this issue.
Once again, your hell rant is off topic. However, finding anti gun people on the internet is easy.
My stance on guns is that anyone who is not a threat to other(s) should be allowed to have any gun they want. I can defend anything more right wing then the debate title to win. This is fair because Pro chose to accept.
Does anyone else realize that this is the 666th debate on this website(https://www.debateart.com/debates/666)?
I don't mean to be rude, but can you both post arguments?
free win for you. Enjoy.
What do you want to call the movie?
It happens to a lot of people including myself so it's fine. I know what it is like. I try to maintain discussions with people like dustryder and I just don't have the endurance.
There is a glitch that you might want to check out.
The link to the forum post is below:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1640
What is calvinism?
Pro wants me to know the film, but I don't. I"m sorry about that.
"I believe the Republic of Texas was vehemently for slavery."
There are 2 contentions that I have with this:
1: If they were pro slavery at one point, would they have wanted to join Mexico once they became anti slavery?
2: This does not explain how we got California, which was anti slavery.
I'm finally deciding to respond. Sorry for the huge delay.
"Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big"
That something is France's common language and culture. Austria Hungary lacked this.
"That said, I believe that the french royal crown lands were built up slowly over multiple centuries, and with some exception there was more of a cultural continuum."
I think that France got it's size the same way the U.K got it's size. By conquering. By sending your own people to the conquered area. By assimilating the locals heavily. France assimilated the octillians(at least that's what I think they were called) that were South of France and they don't want to break away. Austria Hungary conquered but failed to assimilate the lands that nation conquered and as a result, they lost their land.
"So, I'm not looking for situations that involve the US. I'm looking for situations that describe the same situation as the US."
"Also, though I'm not familiar with all your examples so I may be wrong, but none of those conflicts occurred as a result of excessive immigration."
It's how Mexico lost Texas and California.
"Did their countries break up on the basis of language? Do you have evidence for this?"
What else could it be in a way that is consistent?
"Do you have evidence for this? Are you sure it wouldn't have to do the(Puerto Rican) historical relationship with the US?"
The US treats PR pretty well. It is because of the US that the GDP per capita of PR is about double the Latin American average and easily the highest GDP per capita in Latin America, with one about as high as South Korea.
Oh.
"Not going to get into any specifics because that’s RM’s territory"
Wait, RM is from Palestine?
Are you a Palestine supporter?
Having Israel as an ally costs $28 billion to the US. What does the US get from this?
If every American gets $2000/month coverage, UHC in the US would cost about $7.68 Trilllion per year. This would triple our taxes. America cannot afford that. How does private healthcare cost $7.7 Trillion? Many places have UHC, but it's not good coverage. It's just basic coverage. A lot of the reason why other 1st world countries tend to have higher life expediencies then the US is because they:
-Don't have a heroin epidemic. This is why the US life expectancy has been going down whereas in Japan, they have been going up.
-Tend to live healthier lifestyles in general. The US is an obese nation. The way to cure that is not doctor visits. The cure to that is by being healthy.
You mention that people would be more productive in the workplace, however, that's only nominal since most days are not sick days.
You say that 45,000 people die due to our current healthcare model. How do you figure this? How many die due to a national healthcare system/UHC?
For those that can't afford it, they can live healthier lifestyles in order to avoid having to pay high health costs.
You state that wait times are nominal but this is not the case. If you have 7 days to live unless you get treatment/surgery, and there is a 10 day waiting period, your probably going to die.
How long is Type1's ban if it's temporary?
I think the schools should decide for themselves whether or not to have this class. Some schools can't afford it.
I am considering accepting this debate.
I don't think that type1 should have gotten banned, even if he is a communist. RM has supported capitalism, he is about as left as Hillary Clinton is.(https://www.debateart.com/debates/424)
Technically, almost everyone has left wing and right wing beliefs. RM may be a progressive, but he's no socialist. He has defended capitalism many times. Even Type1 is against Affirmative Action. I don't like the 2 party system. We should be more individualistic then that.
Is RM going right wing now? He was this moderately liberal guy from DDO.
Pro merely has to prove 1 thing to be true in order for him to win.
I think the only one should be punished is the teen who threw the egg. He might have been punished enough when he got slapped twice.
If you don't want Omar 2345 debating you in the future, in your debate description, state, "Omar 2345 is not allowed to participate in this debate." and you could state it is an automatic loss on his part if he accepts.
Truism debates go against the terms of service, I think.
"'Cause I'm living proof, and so are all of my kind that illegal immigration is a nightmare to which we are blind," Is RM an illegal immigrant?