"im pretty sure any flat earthers are trolls or flat out autistic" Not all autistics are flat earthers. RM and I are both autistic and I don't think either of us believes in a flat earth.
If interested, you can make a debate on if free speech is good. I agree with that so I won't debate with you on it but RM might. He takes a lot of debates.
"You see, if we allow people to speak of pure loathing of a particular race, gender or lifestyle-type, we naturally will have speakers encouraging people to 'end them by force'." They won't become mainstream, so it's not going to negatively affect society. It's not like race based slavery will come back, unless it is blacks enslaving whites. If your worried about whites advocating for killing black people, given that not even the KKK supports this, I doubt it would gain enough popularity to be a threat.
The 1st amendment states, "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.". If this didn't apply to secular speech, it would merely say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
You should report justincole's vote. He failed to examine how the arguments were superior or how the conduct was better. He didn't even explain much on his sources.
You outrank Bsh 1 in terms of this site alone and California has more people then New York, therefore is more prominent of a state. My system combines ideology with rank on this site although exceptions exist.
I think I am a Texas too. RM is California, since he thinks he liberal like California. He also thinks he is better then all of us, and California (stereotypically) thinks they are too good for the US.
A lot of votes are because you have a history of forfeiting debates. The fact that you didn't forfeit is the reason why we tied that other debate and why your only behind by 4 points this time. Your getting better.
"Stalin FORCED people to do his will. God doesn't. " Stalin told people to be communist and act it or he would torture the in Gulags. God told people to be Christian and act it or else he would torture them in hell.
"Where does God say we must sell everything and give away our possessions?" Mathew 19:21(https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm). The pope said that you cannot serve both God and money. He probably supports this passage.
"God does show us what Heaven and Hell are like." You know how some people claim to have visited hell and tell us to accept Christ? They visit hell. This is what I mean by (showing people what hell and heaven are like)
If most people are going to hell, aren't God's standards too strict for heaven? Can't he create an Earth like realm for everyone who would have gone to hell to inhabit instead of inhabiting hell?
People go to hell because God sends them there. Denying this on the basis of free will is just like saying, "Stalin didn't send the Right wing Russians didn't go to the gulags. The Right wing Russians deserve to go there for choosing to disobey Stalin".
"Do people have a choice on where they end up?"
They have to pick from 2 terrible options; sell all you have and give to the poor, as what Jesus commanded, or to burn in hell forever. They are both terrible options.
"You want the reward (heaven), but not want to have to do the work (live a good life), is that correct?" I don't want to go to heaven. I merely want to avoid hell and if that means going to heaven, so be it. God doesn't judge the standard by if you live a good life. He judges it by how well you follow his word, including doing things that the majority pf people won't do, such as selling all you have and giving to the poor. His standards are so tough, I'll be surprised if over 10% of the world population meets them.
In your desert analogy, if all god does is tell us in our head to travel east, we might confuse that for our own thoughts. If God showed us what heaven and hell were like before we got there, I imagine more people would go to heaven out of "free will". Yet he does not do this.
If you have a taser, you can use it much more freely against an intruder, since the intruder won't die. A thick jacket conducts electricity so I think a taser would work in stunning an intruder with a gun.
I think if your a murderer, you should die by a formula I call PL^3. If you killed 1 person by shooting, then getting experimented on while conscious is too harsh. If you killed 10+ people or enough people to the point that it would be almost impossible to accurately prescribe pain, then death by experimentation sounds like a good idea. If you murdered less people, then PL^3 sounds like a good formula.
P is the amount of pain the victims died with.
L is the number of lives the murderer took.
If you murder 1 person by a shooting, such a murderer deserves to be shot.
If you murder 2 people by a stabbing, such a murderer deserves to be killed by a method 8x as painful as getting stabbed.
I would want these executions to be public in stadiums so ticket sales can pay for the execution and can provide the government with more money.
This is my idea. Let me know what you think of it.
Why can't the NRA develop tasers instead of guns? Tasers are safer while providing comparable protection. They are also more profitable in the long term since tasers are more expensive.
I hate God because he said most of us will burn in hell forever. A God that burns his creation in hell forever just for sinning a few thousand times does not deserve my respect.
As of right now, you have a little more then an hour left to post your argument.
Being black should not give you an advantage of N word rights. If blacks are allowed to say it, whites should be allowed too.
It's the internet. I can't tell if your joking or being serious. I'm not offended, but I tend to take what people say seriously on this site.
You shouldn't type the N word publicly because you might get in trouble for it.
Maybe you both can debate this topic with each other if your both interested.
The opponent forfeited, you might want to argue. Even a rudimentary argument is better then what he did.
"im pretty sure any flat earthers are trolls or flat out autistic" Not all autistics are flat earthers. RM and I are both autistic and I don't think either of us believes in a flat earth.
You're back!
You're liberal and no offense but your all alone.
I don't know what the debate is about.
Your best represented by Hawaii.
"I reside in a nation that lacks USA's First Amendment" What country is that?
Change this debate to, "All Jews are descended from fallen angels and run the Illuminati" and I think I'll accept the debate.
I'm considering accepting this debate.
If interested, you can make a debate on if free speech is good. I agree with that so I won't debate with you on it but RM might. He takes a lot of debates.
The BoP is on you since your advocating for banning something.
"You see, if we allow people to speak of pure loathing of a particular race, gender or lifestyle-type, we naturally will have speakers encouraging people to 'end them by force'." They won't become mainstream, so it's not going to negatively affect society. It's not like race based slavery will come back, unless it is blacks enslaving whites. If your worried about whites advocating for killing black people, given that not even the KKK supports this, I doubt it would gain enough popularity to be a threat.
The 1st amendment states, "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.". If this didn't apply to secular speech, it would merely say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
You might want to delete supadudz's vote.
You should report justincole's vote. He failed to examine how the arguments were superior or how the conduct was better. He didn't even explain much on his sources.
How about you argue for the existence of white male privilege and justincole argues against it since I think he made a mistake on the positions.
Your position in the description contradicts your stance on the issue.
I might accept this.
Sounds like a good idea. I don't have time now, but maybe later?
It's cheap, it saves lives and an eye for an eye is a proportional means of justice.
You outrank Bsh 1 in terms of this site alone and California has more people then New York, therefore is more prominent of a state. My system combines ideology with rank on this site although exceptions exist.
I saved NY to represent Bsh1.
I want New Zealand to bring back the death penalty for murder so this guy can get killed painfully.
I hope the Christchurch shooter gets the death penalty. Lethal injection is too nice. He deserves more pain.
I think I am a Texas too. RM is California, since he thinks he liberal like California. He also thinks he is better then all of us, and California (stereotypically) thinks they are too good for the US.
But Kentucky isn't a prominent state and Florida is. Your #2, soon to be #3 on this site. You should be represented by a more populous state.
I hope neither candidate runs this country.
Colorado is taken. I could use Wyoming for you.
Your Florida. In elections, your a prominent state and your a political moderate, just like Florida. Guess what state I used to represent me?
Do you think I should make a forum post that compares DART users to states in the US?
Funny.
I was saying that I don't have enough time to debate this. I thought Type1 wanted me to accept this debate.
Make this debate spring break and I might accept. I think I'm too busy to accept debates.
A lot of votes are because you have a history of forfeiting debates. The fact that you didn't forfeit is the reason why we tied that other debate and why your only behind by 4 points this time. Your getting better.
I don't publicly complain when there are votes against me. You shouldn't either.
Sorry I forgot to add your name to the below comment. I know your Christian, but what denomination?
"Stalin FORCED people to do his will. God doesn't. " Stalin told people to be communist and act it or he would torture the in Gulags. God told people to be Christian and act it or else he would torture them in hell.
"Where does God say we must sell everything and give away our possessions?" Mathew 19:21(https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm). The pope said that you cannot serve both God and money. He probably supports this passage.
"God does show us what Heaven and Hell are like." You know how some people claim to have visited hell and tell us to accept Christ? They visit hell. This is what I mean by (showing people what hell and heaven are like)
If most people are going to hell, aren't God's standards too strict for heaven? Can't he create an Earth like realm for everyone who would have gone to hell to inhabit instead of inhabiting hell?
"How do people end up in Hell?"
People go to hell because God sends them there. Denying this on the basis of free will is just like saying, "Stalin didn't send the Right wing Russians didn't go to the gulags. The Right wing Russians deserve to go there for choosing to disobey Stalin".
"Do people have a choice on where they end up?"
They have to pick from 2 terrible options; sell all you have and give to the poor, as what Jesus commanded, or to burn in hell forever. They are both terrible options.
"You want the reward (heaven), but not want to have to do the work (live a good life), is that correct?" I don't want to go to heaven. I merely want to avoid hell and if that means going to heaven, so be it. God doesn't judge the standard by if you live a good life. He judges it by how well you follow his word, including doing things that the majority pf people won't do, such as selling all you have and giving to the poor. His standards are so tough, I'll be surprised if over 10% of the world population meets them.
In your desert analogy, if all god does is tell us in our head to travel east, we might confuse that for our own thoughts. If God showed us what heaven and hell were like before we got there, I imagine more people would go to heaven out of "free will". Yet he does not do this.
I predict this debate will be good.
If you have a taser, you can use it much more freely against an intruder, since the intruder won't die. A thick jacket conducts electricity so I think a taser would work in stunning an intruder with a gun.
I think if your a murderer, you should die by a formula I call PL^3. If you killed 1 person by shooting, then getting experimented on while conscious is too harsh. If you killed 10+ people or enough people to the point that it would be almost impossible to accurately prescribe pain, then death by experimentation sounds like a good idea. If you murdered less people, then PL^3 sounds like a good formula.
P is the amount of pain the victims died with.
L is the number of lives the murderer took.
If you murder 1 person by a shooting, such a murderer deserves to be shot.
If you murder 2 people by a stabbing, such a murderer deserves to be killed by a method 8x as painful as getting stabbed.
I would want these executions to be public in stadiums so ticket sales can pay for the execution and can provide the government with more money.
This is my idea. Let me know what you think of it.
Why can't the NRA develop tasers instead of guns? Tasers are safer while providing comparable protection. They are also more profitable in the long term since tasers are more expensive.
"So far, my first impressions of this website are not what I was expecting.". If you want to debate a higher rank, make the rating higher.
I hate God because he said most of us will burn in hell forever. A God that burns his creation in hell forever just for sinning a few thousand times does not deserve my respect.
"I absolutely agree with you" by type 1.
This is a concession.