Alec

So, your a libertarian?

ROC:4

LOC:2

What about Antifa?  They're pretty violent and illogical (https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html).

Being a pedophile and a mugger are not worthy of the death penalty.

Under what charge?

Other countries like Brazil had slavery.  However, Brazil went socialist for some time and they are now an economic failure.  America on the other hand, is capitalist and abolished slavery before Brazil did.  Capitalism is the cause of America's Success.

I vote Capitalism.

"Ethiopia has yet to conquered by the imperialists."  And it's why they are one of the poorest nations in Africa

(https://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Africa-Per-Capita-GDP-map-1024x925.png).  They should get invaded just like the rest of the continent for the reasons I previously stated.

@ethang5

"The idea is stupid. America would have to invade and win 65 different countries."  55 different countries (https://africacheck.org/reports/how-many-countries-in-africa-how-hard-can-the-question-be/) and 54 if Western Sahara is part of Morocco (I recognize it as a different country, but I digress).  Also calling your opponent stupid or racist is poor conduct.

"And each country won would need troops stationed there to keep the territory, lowering the total number of soldiers for further invasions."  The US has a big army.  We can do it.  We spend about 12x more on out military then Africa and Our GDP is 9x as big.  Invading Africa is from a military standpoint is easy to do.

"Only 2 groups think this is possible, the ignorant, who know nothing about Africa except what they've see in old National Geographic programs, and racists."  I am in neither of these groups.  

@KingLaddy01

"Tekashi 6ix9ine needs to be murdered."  No he shouldn't.  You may not like them but you shouldn't post stuff like this even as a joke because then employers might fire you on the basis of it.  You can get into a lot of trouble for saying certain individuals should be murdered.

Anyway, diseases can be managed and contained by castrating anyone and everyone who has HIV/AIDS in order to reduce the spread of the disease.  This way, people with HIV are less motivated to have sex and as a result, don't spread the disease. 

To cure every other STD, which are treatable, we simply impose the following on Africans who have an STD:

-Fine them $200 per STD

-Make it illegal for them to have sex.

The reason why they would endure the above discrimination is to provide incentive for them to get the disease treated.  Once this is done, they won't be fined for STDs and if they pass another test, they would be allowed to have sex.  Since they would be richer under an American owned Africa, they would be able to afford this.  If they can't, then they would have to do 14-22 hours of community service per STD in order to pay off their debt, depending on how long it takes them to get there.  More distance means more time to get there, and as a result, means that they would owe the government more money if the government is paying for the road trip.

Something they could do is they could build solar panels in the Sahara, therefore making us less reliant on coal for energy.  This method will also help give Africa electricity, which can improve health conditions as well as various other things.

@ethang5

All of Africa combined(except Egypt, but they won't add much) has a military budget of around $40-50 billion (https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2016/65-years-military-spending).  The USA has a military budget of around $800 billion (https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320).  The USA would win, especially from help from NATO.  The only opponents would be Russia and China, but both of these nations are hypocritical because China invaded Tibet and has yet to let them be an independent nation, and Russia invaded Ukraine via Crimea.

Lets say China and Russia ignore their hypocrisy and help the Africans get independence in order to stop American expansion.  There may be a WWIII, but it won't go nuclear.  Russia and China are probably too worried about retaliations for that due to the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.  It probably would be conventional warfare.  If we win the support of the UN (we should since the UN wishes to eliminate poverty and an invasion would help do that) then it would be the USA and NATO and potentially even the African locals (who don't want to be poor) vs Russia and China.  Russia and China don't have a strong military compared to the US, and their military is too busy with the places they want to invade.  Their militaries could get bigger due to Patriotism, but for the next 4 years or so, their military would be pretty untrained and would lose in battles.  By the time their soldiers are trained, the US would have enough time to install education programs in Africa that make the locals okay with being in a US territory.

What's wrong with the idea?  Here are some pros to the invasion:

1: It would increase the GDP per capita of the Africans.

2: It would help expand human rights within Africa.

3: It would cause financial aid to skyrocket to the continent.

4: The US can mine it's natural resources.

5: It makes the US more powerful.

6: It gives the US an opportunity to redraw borders, therefore ending the splitting up of cultures performed by European colonialism.  It allows culturally similar people to merge with another and to exclude other cultures from their own country.

7: The UN should be okay with it.  They wish to eliminate poverty worldwide, and an African invasion would help do that.  It also can make Africa first world.

8: It helps make Africa more racially diverse.  I don't care too much for racial diversity, but liberals do and this would help them support the idea.

9: Better education for the Africans.  This helps the natives prosper.

10: Less STD spreading due to the contraception that Africans would be able to buy, reducing abortions and the spreading of STDs including HIV.

11: If the US doesn't treat them like slaves, then it gives Africa a better reputation of the west.  This causes terms to increase between Africa and the current USA.  Africa would treat much of the west better due to their alliance with America.

Still think it's a stupid idea?  I think it's pretty decent.

This is on unpopular opinion I have:

The USA should invade the entirety of Africa.  This would increase the GDP per capita of the Africans, it would increase human rights and the US can mine Africa for it's natural resources.  It also prevents China from influencing it, which they kindof have been doing.  

I think it makes you an independent.  But more left because the left tends to hold a grudge against bankers.

ROC:2

LOC:2

To address your puppy argument, I don't think the analogy is consistent because puppies are not human beings.  It would be more accurate to compare a fetus to a foster kid because they are both human.

To respond to your military argument, the US military defends freedom and life worldwide.  If the US was not involved with the middle east, then it would leave a power vacuum, creating ISIS.  ISIS kills way more people then the US did in the region and ISIS provides less freedom then the middle east does under American occupation.  If you think the US military is bad, tell that to South Korea and Japan, who need the US military to protect them from communism.  I think the US should get rewarded for all of the military protection we do.

"When you say, "Would I be willing to sacrifice the entire GDP of the entire US ($18 trillion) to save one life?  No.  I'm not causing everyone in the country to be broke just to save 1 random life." it sounds a lot like, (and clearly the doctors wouldn't be broke, so there'd simply be some economic reshuffling, I mean, the money wouldn't just disappear into thin air)"  My point was that life has limited value, a high value, but a limited value nonetheless.  You would be willing to pay 1 penny to save a life, but not spending $18 trillion for the same goal.  This is because the value of life is somewhere in between these 2 extremes.

"We could declare a state of emergency and prioritize ectogenesis as the most important national project in history and put our best DOD scientists on the case!!!"  What are DOD scientists?

I support the technology, but I want people to pay for their own artificial wombs.

If the technology is good enough and cheap enough, then I support it.

#2 sounds like the best long term option.

"So now conservatives are going to pass a bill that gives all women free embryonic extraction at 5 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  How much does it cost?  I'm not saying that I'm against it yet, but I'm curious.

Sorry for doing this forum again, but I told someone who was interested that  would create a forum for this topic.  My stance on this is that the minimum wage should be $0.00/hour because if a poor person does not like their job due to the lack of salary, the government could provide them with a job.

"If the US tries that in even one country then all American expatriates and tourists abroad will have one giant target on their backs no matter where on planet earth outside of the US they are."  I'm assuming this is a summary of your previous point since they were similar.  In the island nations, where many american tourists tour, they aren't going to discriminate against Americans because their economy revolves largely around tourism and if they give up tourism, then they give up a large portion of their economy.

If the US says they will use this method against anglophone countries within their sphere (exception to Canada, because they are too big), then other countries won't be scared about losing their sovereignty because they wouldn't think they are on the list.  As a result the American tourists won't be oppressed in popular tourist countries like those in the Caribbean islands.  

"you want to claim to have some control over what is and is not allowed in a womans body regardless of what the woman wants." 

As an example, we have control over a rapist when telling him not to rape because it infringes on the rights of the victim. 

We also should control a woman when telling her she is not allowed to have an abortion because it infringes on the rights of the child.  By implying, "So what" to the science I have presented, you are conceding the claim that a fetus is not a human being.   Because of this, a fetus is a human being and I'm guessing even you confirmed this when stating, "So what" to the science I presented.

"Well I want to have control over what is and is not allowed in your body regardless of what you want and our reasons are identical."  There is not a living human being inside my body that might be killed.  So our reasons are not identical.

"So you can have no objection to my control if you demand your control."  I don't care about your body.  I don't care about your arm.  I don't care about your leg.  I don't care about your stomach, I don't even care about your uterus.  I care what's in it and that baby deserves life because of the science that confirms that it is a human being.  Abortion eliminates the sanctity of life.

The valid abortion seekers by my definition need to prove that an absence of abortion would kill them and that there are no alternative cures in order to get an abortion.

"In fact, you were the first to mention and I am asking questions about what you are saying."  Sorry about going off topic.  It happens to many people.

"Should the valid abortion seekers have to be involved at all with red tape?"  What is red tape?

What are you saying?

"you did mention arms"  Actually you mentioned them first when you said, "I suppose the kid best arm themself"

Abortion should be banned in virtually all situations, with the only potential exception being if (the mother will definitely literally die and if the reason she would die has no alternate cure).  Since this applies to less then .1% of abortions, abortions should be over 99.9% illegal.

"You must be a male and have absolutely no knowledge of women."  77% of pro life leaders are male(people who won't get pregnant), 100% of pro choice leaders are born (people who won't get aborted).  Although I won't be pregnant, you won't be an aborted fetus.  Ever notice how everyone who is pro choice is already born while the same is not true for the pro life crowd(not all pro lifers are immune to pregnancy).

"Too bad, it is an option."  It should not be.  Saying abortion should be legal because it was legal in the past is circular logic.

"I suppose the kid best arm themself"  Unborn babies can't carry guns.  This is about Abortion, not guns, so don't go off topic.

I think Welfare should be abolished.  If a poor person doesn't like their job due to a lack of salary, then the government could make them political placeholders with payment as a reward for signing up.

I support place and take as a way to expand.  Place and take in this context is placing so many Americans into foreign soil that they become the majority nationality group in that country.  You make sure they agree to vote for US annexation once this happens.  They also would go through the legal process that their host nation requires.  Once this is done, you get the locals (who are at this point, mostly American) to vote for annexation.  Then the USA annexes the land, claiming that most of the locals are okay with it.

Russia did this to get Crimea.  I propose a similar way to expand, but annexing whole nations at a time and without the genocide that the Russian military engaged in.  If we annex only a portion of the land, then it looks like we're taking land from the locals.  If we annex the whole country, then most of the locals are okay with it.

ROC 2

LOC 1.

Abortion should not be an option for the family because it infringes on the rights of the child.  I hope I am interpreting your question correctly.

The father should have no right to kill the fetus just as they have no right to murder his daughter.  The father does not have absolute power in the household, 

Almost no abortion is necessary, or justified.  If a woman does not want the kid, or if the father does not want the kid, they can set the kid up for adoption.

The father can set the kid up for adoption.

The father should have no right to kill an innocent fetus either.  The father probably would want his daughter to get restitution for the rape and wants to see the rapist put to justice.  He wants what's best for her, and restitution would help supply that within reason.

The USA should get bigger.

" then a man has the same right to privacy from the government to not be drafted and kill babies too."  Men get drafted in times of war and I think you're required to register for the draft if you are an adult male(exceptions apply) and the nation will send you to war if necessary.  So men don't usually have protection from the draft and women shouldn't have the right to an abortion.  If a woman gets raped, she can set the kid up for adoption.  If her life is in danger(for real) then there are other ways to save both lives.

Time for me to play a Ben Shapiro:

Your response and that Guardian article is incredibly emotional garbage and has no basis in facts or morality what so ever.  Science has confirmed that a fetus is a human being.  There is no getting around that.  If a woman does not want a kid for whatever reason, she can set the kid up for adoption.  If the woman did not want to be pregnant, then she shouldn't have had sex.  This is America.  You take responsibility for your actions here.

If you got raped under the worst conditions, you should have been prepared with a gun to protect yourself from the rapist.  None the less, you can still set the kid up for adoption.  Under my rule, the woman (once she has enough proof) can sue the rapist for about $1 million and if he is found guilty, he would have to pay an additional $1 million to the state.  If he can't afford this, then he is enslaved, castrated without painkillers, and sold to a tech company for the $2 million to make Iphones so innocent Chinese kids won't have to make them.  The woman gets the $1 million gradually so she doesn't end up broke like lottery winners.  Even if the rapist can afford the $2 million, the rapist still would get castrated painfully.

The rapist would also have to pay for the treatment of any STDs spread during the encounter, plus money for pain, suffering, and time of the treatment of such STDs.

I'm curious to see what others think of this plan.  Is it a good idea?

California should not break away to form it's own country.  It would cause the US to fall apart since other states would want independence too.  The US is not killing people on the basis of their political identity.  The Left is simply screwed because the SJWs went crazy and Donald Trump is a backlash.

I support some pretty far right policies myself.

Right of Center.

Right of Center(ROC): 1

Left of Center (LOC): 0

Hi.  I'm trying to see where DAC(Debate Art.Com) is at politically.  I remember DDO was right wing.  I think this site is Left wing.  I am trying to see if it's left or right wing.

"ALEC DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO EXPLAIN SHIT ABOUT HIS ARGUMENT VOTE FORCING ME TO ASK OTHERS TO VOTE THAT NOW"  Can you send the link for that?  I think I got my voting privileges removed because I didn't know how to vote.  I know how to vote now so I got them back.  I don't think I forced you to ask others to vote.  I may have asked you to but that's not forcing.

Jupiter's moons are too far away and too cold for colonization.

The moon also could be mined for materials.  It's proximity to Earth would make trade easier then Mars.

Your obstacle is a legitimate concern and it can be solved with solar panels and batteries which would store the energy for nighttime use.

I think the moon should be colonized first because it is closer to Earth then Mars is.

A better way to see how gun control has played a part in increasing/decreasing the homicide rate is to compare a place before it enacted a gun control policy and after it did.  This helps eliminate other factor's influence in the homicide result.

For example, it 1976, Chicago banned guns and their homicide rate increased.  Since then, they have decided to legalize guns in the city.  This led to a decrease in homicide.

I think we should lay off virtually every single teacher.  This way, the school saves money.

Students can get educated through Khan Academy or some other form of virtual education.  Students can go to school for this purpose as well as socialization.  If they choose to do Khan academy at home, then they don't get the socialization benefits that they would otherwise enjoy.

Students would be motivated to learn Khan academy in the classroom by paying $20 for the right to enter the class and whoever gets the least amount of khan academy points in a classroom out of a 21 kid classroom for that school day gets none of those dollars back, the student who is 2nd to last gets $2, the student who is 3rd to last gets $4 and so on until the winner gets double the amount they put into the pot.  This way, people have incentive to learn.

The teachers can participate in place and take (P&T) for the USA if they don't like their jobs due to the decreased salary.  If you comment responding to this post, I can tell you what P&T is.

The FBI found Brett Kavenough innocent.

I think racism is an ideology that is protected by the 1st amendment.

AR15s provide protection against multiple criminals better then a pistol does.

They also defend against a potentially tyrannical government.  Many people believe the government would never become corrupt in our lifetimes.  But they are often the same people who say Donald Trump is a corrupt president.  It is kindof inconsistent.

I seen Cowscreen and I do think they are the same person, but I think they changed their name.

I don't know if they are the same account.  I don't know cowscreen too well.