I am somehow a coward? You're the coward because you're not answering the question! Which point out of points 1-6 is wrong? It doesn't take a debate to do that, you know. You were perfectly fine with debating in the comments but as soon as I say something you can't disprove you try to get rid of me by telling me to make a debate. Make a debate yourself and invite me. Then we'll talk.
Even if I can't read data and if I am biased about Trump, that doesn't change the logic in my argument. If points 1-6 are wrong or don't make sense, please explain how.
Like I said, for my argument to be wrong one of my points would have to be wrong.
Are 400 000 illegal immigrants not caught while trying to cross the Mexican Border?
Is illegal immigration not bad?
Should these people not be stopped from entering the US illegally?
Does a wall not stop people from crossing the border by foot or car?
Obviously, the answer to all these questions is 'no'. Because I'm right.
There we go. What I said exactly. You cannot disprove any of the 6 points as they are obvious, so you change the topic really quickly. Suddenly I have to make a debate, even thought you were fine with writing hundreds of comments to nitpick everything I say. If I am "clearly wrong", tell me how and why instead of running away.
If I had to counter all the bullshit you spew out, that would take a few thick books. So I'm just going to ignore your nitpicking and present my evidence. Which isn't some weird article that twists statistics, but logic.
(1) A wall should be built on the Mexican border. Why?
(2) At least 400,000 people try to enter the US illegally each year through the Mexican border by foot or car (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration).
(3) Illegal immigration is bad.
(4) Therefore, these people must be stopped from entering the US illegally.
(5) A wall stops people from crossing a border by foot or car.
(6) Therefore, building a wall would stop illegal immigrans from crossing the Mexican border by foot or car.
Simple.
To show how I am wrong, you would have to show how statements (2)-(5) are wrong. Please do so. If you don't I will exit the debate.
PS: A scientific consensus itself is not evidence. You're using the bandwagon fallacy and the argument from authority fallacy. You are also using the strawman fallacy by claiming that I use Breitbart and the Daily Caller as sources, which I don't.
First you say that I should disprove the evidence against the wall, then you say that the BoP is on me. Sure, I'm fine with that. But don't use the Quartz article as it twists statistics and shows no real evidence. Thank you.
And by the way, a letter from some "economists" without ANY statistics or facts is not evidence of anything.
"The undocumented are crossing the border at historic lows."
A problem with this statement is that we can't really measure the amount of immigrants crossing the border. 400 000 is just the number apprehended, not the actual number of crossings. So they're kind of twisting statistics, because the only fact there is that the amount of apprehendings of illegal immigrants at the border is at historic lows. But even if illegal immigration from Mexico is indeed at historic lows, that isn't an argument against building the wall. Just because an issue is decreasing doesn't mean it should be ignored.
"Heroin from Mexico is a big problem. A wall won’t stop it."
I will use the same argument as before. Just because most apprehensions (not crossings, apprehensions!) of heroin happen at official border crossings doesn't mean we should ignore the issue of heroin that's smuggled over the border. And the fact that most people caught smuggling drugs are Americans changes nothing.
"The biggest terror threat is from right-wing extremists."
This is unrelated to the topic. And I don't know where they got this fact from.
"Native-born Americans commit more crime."
That claim is hilariously wrong. First of all, the statistic provided only measures convictions and not actual number of crimes commited. Second of all, it measures convictions for only one state.
"Immigrants add more to the economy than they take."
Again, the article twists facts. The correct conclusion would be, "deporting illegal immigrants would be very expensive". But deportation is unrelated to the wall.
"Even if his wall is funded, Trump won’t outlast Texas landowners."
And where do they get that fact from, I wonder?
Please, use a better website for your sources and actually READ the article before posting it. The article twists statistics and pulls random facts out of nowhere.
No, let me break this down to you.
Commiting to your beliefs is NOT a right granted by the 1st amendment. You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others, and nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say that you can exercise your religion if it directly harms others. Why are we even arguing if we agree?
What do you not understand?! Freedom of religion doesn't equal freedom to do as you want. You're just arguing pointless semantics, when we agree on the issue!
Why does everything I say fly over your head? I already said, I'm for the First Amendment. Don't use the black-or-white fallacy: "if you're for the first amendment, you support gays being stoned". Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that you can stone gays if your religion tells you to. Freedom of religion and freedom to do what your religion tells you aren't the same thing. If you don't understand me, read this article: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-does-free-exercise-of-religion-mean-under-the-first-amendment/.
Allow me to make an analogy. In the US, the American Nazi Party is perfectly legal. They believe that Jews should be killed. And the government doesn't interfere. However, their beliefs don't protect them from punishment if they actually go and kill Jews. Same thing with religions: you are allowed to BELIEVE what you want, but you can't do what you want because of those beliefs. For example, ritual sacrifice and cannibalism are illegal. People are allowed to believe that sacrifice and cannibalism are good, they're not allowed to actually do them because it harms others.
No, I think you completely missed my point. Freedom of belief doesn't equal enforcement of belief. You are free to believe that gays should be stoned, but you can't stone them. If gays aren't stoned, does that somehow affect your belief that they should be? No. Believing something and doing something because of your belief are completely different things. You can believe what you want, but you can't commit crimes.
Safety of the citizens comes first of course, but we ensure safety by banning the crimes themselves, not the beliefs that such crimes are correct.
How did I become an atheist? Long story short, my mother is a theist but doesn't believe in any particular religion. My dad's an agnostic. When I was in kindergarten, I asked my mother where God was, and she said he was everywhere. I believed that but when I told that to my friend, he laughed and said "Is God in your shoe, then?" I nodded, and he took my shoe and screamed "God? Are you here?" That was when I first began questioning if God really existed. After all, if he could hear us and if he was everywhere, why wouldn't he reply?
Then, about a year ago, I saw a great YouTube video by Dr Shaym which showed how the existance of a metaphysical God would be illogical. While I was an atheist before, with the video I saw many new arguments against religion and I became convinced that God can't exist. I began researching about religion and atheism more and more, and found that atheism posed many questions which no religion could answer. I read the Bible and saw how unreliable, anti-scientific, and homophobic it was. And that's where I am now.
Sure.
For illegal immigration:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration. 400,000 illegal immigrants are apprehended (not the amount that cross the border, the amount caught) while crossing the Mexican border annually.
"Rich are benefitting more than the poor". Nope, doesn't work that way. Everyone benefits from a better economy. Better economy=more jobs=cheaper products=more businesses=better economy. If taxes are lowered, companies spend more money on their business, which grows the economy.
Paris Agreement is not effective because all it does is oblige countries to do all they can to fight climate change. It doesn't set any limits to pollution, it doesn't punish countries that pollute a lot. It's just a waste of time. The US doesn't need to be in the Paris Agreement to fight climate change.
What is pragmatic? Is making abortion illegal pragmatic? Many countries (Russia, for example) have laws banning abortion after the first 3 months, and only allowing it in medical cases. And it works perfectly fine.
Of course I am for the Civil Rights Act. But remember, the FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the RIGHT TO ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS are two very different things. One is given by the 1st amendment and 1 is not.
It is possible for rational people to support SOME of Trump's policies. Some of his policies/beliefs which I agree with:
Wall on Mexican border (relatively cheap way to prevent around half of illegal immigration to US).
Lower taxes for small and large businesses (benefits economy).
Leaving Paris Agreement (I think that climate change is a serious problem, but this agreement is not effective).
Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv (I support Israel).
And with some policies, like I already said, I disagree.
I'm pro-life because I don't believe it's moral to kill fetuses that are conscious, unless it's a threat to the mother's health.
I'm pro-gun because I think that law-abiding citizens owning guns is a good way to stop crime and for them to defend themselves.
I'm for the 1st Amendment because I think that freedom of speech and religion are necessary for a free society, and it's not up to the government to determine people's beliefs.
I'm for gay marriage because I see no reason to stop two consenting adults from marrying. Also, because I'm an atheist, I don't believe in all the my-religion-tells-me-to-hate-gays bullshit. I don't see how I was ever making a strawman. No, I did not become Atheist because I watched a YouTube video.
And finally I'd like to say that I shouldn't have said "I support Trump", I should of phrased it in a different way. I like him for some of his policies and that he's very straightforward and bold; but he has no experience and is a populist, which I dislike a lot. I'm a "Sometimes Trump" conservative. So come on, let's stop arguing and just agree to disagree.
I'm pro-life? That's because I don't like future babies being killed.
I'm pro-gun? That's because I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
I'm for 1st Amendment? Wow, what a shocker. That is so unatheist, right?
I'm for gay marriage? How does that conflict with atheism?
I support SOME of Donald Trump's policies? Wow, I must be Christian and Republican.
Marx was literally wrong about everything. He said crap like "the price of an object is determined by how much labor goes into it". That's inherently wrong. I could spend all day making mudcakes, but nobody will buy them.
And like I said before, instead of attacking me (coward, irrational, biased) try debunking my arguments instead.
I am somehow a coward? You're the coward because you're not answering the question! Which point out of points 1-6 is wrong? It doesn't take a debate to do that, you know. You were perfectly fine with debating in the comments but as soon as I say something you can't disprove you try to get rid of me by telling me to make a debate. Make a debate yourself and invite me. Then we'll talk.
Instead of attacking me (ad hominem), try to attack my arguments.
Even if I can't read data and if I am biased about Trump, that doesn't change the logic in my argument. If points 1-6 are wrong or don't make sense, please explain how.
If I am wrong, please name which of points 1-6 is wrong and how it is wrong.
Like I said, for my argument to be wrong one of my points would have to be wrong.
Are 400 000 illegal immigrants not caught while trying to cross the Mexican Border?
Is illegal immigration not bad?
Should these people not be stopped from entering the US illegally?
Does a wall not stop people from crossing the border by foot or car?
Obviously, the answer to all these questions is 'no'. Because I'm right.
There we go. What I said exactly. You cannot disprove any of the 6 points as they are obvious, so you change the topic really quickly. Suddenly I have to make a debate, even thought you were fine with writing hundreds of comments to nitpick everything I say. If I am "clearly wrong", tell me how and why instead of running away.
If I had to counter all the bullshit you spew out, that would take a few thick books. So I'm just going to ignore your nitpicking and present my evidence. Which isn't some weird article that twists statistics, but logic.
(1) A wall should be built on the Mexican border. Why?
(2) At least 400,000 people try to enter the US illegally each year through the Mexican border by foot or car (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration).
(3) Illegal immigration is bad.
(4) Therefore, these people must be stopped from entering the US illegally.
(5) A wall stops people from crossing a border by foot or car.
(6) Therefore, building a wall would stop illegal immigrans from crossing the Mexican border by foot or car.
Simple.
To show how I am wrong, you would have to show how statements (2)-(5) are wrong. Please do so. If you don't I will exit the debate.
PS: A scientific consensus itself is not evidence. You're using the bandwagon fallacy and the argument from authority fallacy. You are also using the strawman fallacy by claiming that I use Breitbart and the Daily Caller as sources, which I don't.
First you say that I should disprove the evidence against the wall, then you say that the BoP is on me. Sure, I'm fine with that. But don't use the Quartz article as it twists statistics and shows no real evidence. Thank you.
And by the way, a letter from some "economists" without ANY statistics or facts is not evidence of anything.
Could you rename this to "Perception is Reality 2" to make it easier for others to distinguish?
"The undocumented are crossing the border at historic lows."
A problem with this statement is that we can't really measure the amount of immigrants crossing the border. 400 000 is just the number apprehended, not the actual number of crossings. So they're kind of twisting statistics, because the only fact there is that the amount of apprehendings of illegal immigrants at the border is at historic lows. But even if illegal immigration from Mexico is indeed at historic lows, that isn't an argument against building the wall. Just because an issue is decreasing doesn't mean it should be ignored.
"Heroin from Mexico is a big problem. A wall won’t stop it."
I will use the same argument as before. Just because most apprehensions (not crossings, apprehensions!) of heroin happen at official border crossings doesn't mean we should ignore the issue of heroin that's smuggled over the border. And the fact that most people caught smuggling drugs are Americans changes nothing.
"The biggest terror threat is from right-wing extremists."
This is unrelated to the topic. And I don't know where they got this fact from.
"Native-born Americans commit more crime."
That claim is hilariously wrong. First of all, the statistic provided only measures convictions and not actual number of crimes commited. Second of all, it measures convictions for only one state.
"Immigrants add more to the economy than they take."
Again, the article twists facts. The correct conclusion would be, "deporting illegal immigrants would be very expensive". But deportation is unrelated to the wall.
"Even if his wall is funded, Trump won’t outlast Texas landowners."
And where do they get that fact from, I wonder?
Please, use a better website for your sources and actually READ the article before posting it. The article twists statistics and pulls random facts out of nowhere.
I've given you many arguments. But OK, one argument: Southern Border Wall. Let's debate ONLY this one and see if it's rational.
I'm not sure that believing an atheist can't be a Republican is rational.
Yeah, that would be great. Let's restart.
Are you going to publish your argument?
I would tell you, but it would fly right over your head.
Do tell me when you will be able to stop making unnecessary comments. Adios, Omar.
Hello, lovely. You know people use exclamation marks not only to signify emotion, right?
Nice profile pic, Unnecessary!
Sure, Unnecessary.
You don't add an article if you're talking about a proper noun. You should know that, Mr Grammar Nazi.
Look, another unnecessary comment!
No actually that would be great. I'm Irrational Atheist, you're Unnecessary.
You know what, from now on I'll just call you "Unnecessary" because everything you say is unnecessary to a productive debate. Bye, Unnecessary.
Unnecessary. Hope you have something else to do than call people irrational all day on some crappy online debate website.
Like I said, any further discussion is unnecessary.
I already told you that I agree with you. Any further discussion is unnecessary.
No, let me break this down to you.
Commiting to your beliefs is NOT a right granted by the 1st amendment. You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others, and nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say that you can exercise your religion if it directly harms others. Why are we even arguing if we agree?
What do you not understand?! Freedom of religion doesn't equal freedom to do as you want. You're just arguing pointless semantics, when we agree on the issue!
Why does everything I say fly over your head? I already said, I'm for the First Amendment. Don't use the black-or-white fallacy: "if you're for the first amendment, you support gays being stoned". Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that you can stone gays if your religion tells you to. Freedom of religion and freedom to do what your religion tells you aren't the same thing. If you don't understand me, read this article: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-does-free-exercise-of-religion-mean-under-the-first-amendment/.
Allow me to make an analogy. In the US, the American Nazi Party is perfectly legal. They believe that Jews should be killed. And the government doesn't interfere. However, their beliefs don't protect them from punishment if they actually go and kill Jews. Same thing with religions: you are allowed to BELIEVE what you want, but you can't do what you want because of those beliefs. For example, ritual sacrifice and cannibalism are illegal. People are allowed to believe that sacrifice and cannibalism are good, they're not allowed to actually do them because it harms others.
No, I think you completely missed my point. Freedom of belief doesn't equal enforcement of belief. You are free to believe that gays should be stoned, but you can't stone them. If gays aren't stoned, does that somehow affect your belief that they should be? No. Believing something and doing something because of your belief are completely different things. You can believe what you want, but you can't commit crimes.
Safety of the citizens comes first of course, but we ensure safety by banning the crimes themselves, not the beliefs that such crimes are correct.
How did I become an atheist? Long story short, my mother is a theist but doesn't believe in any particular religion. My dad's an agnostic. When I was in kindergarten, I asked my mother where God was, and she said he was everywhere. I believed that but when I told that to my friend, he laughed and said "Is God in your shoe, then?" I nodded, and he took my shoe and screamed "God? Are you here?" That was when I first began questioning if God really existed. After all, if he could hear us and if he was everywhere, why wouldn't he reply?
Then, about a year ago, I saw a great YouTube video by Dr Shaym which showed how the existance of a metaphysical God would be illogical. While I was an atheist before, with the video I saw many new arguments against religion and I became convinced that God can't exist. I began researching about religion and atheism more and more, and found that atheism posed many questions which no religion could answer. I read the Bible and saw how unreliable, anti-scientific, and homophobic it was. And that's where I am now.
Sure.
For illegal immigration:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration. 400,000 illegal immigrants are apprehended (not the amount that cross the border, the amount caught) while crossing the Mexican border annually.
"Rich are benefitting more than the poor". Nope, doesn't work that way. Everyone benefits from a better economy. Better economy=more jobs=cheaper products=more businesses=better economy. If taxes are lowered, companies spend more money on their business, which grows the economy.
Paris Agreement is not effective because all it does is oblige countries to do all they can to fight climate change. It doesn't set any limits to pollution, it doesn't punish countries that pollute a lot. It's just a waste of time. The US doesn't need to be in the Paris Agreement to fight climate change.
What is pragmatic? Is making abortion illegal pragmatic? Many countries (Russia, for example) have laws banning abortion after the first 3 months, and only allowing it in medical cases. And it works perfectly fine.
Of course I am for the Civil Rights Act. But remember, the FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the RIGHT TO ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS are two very different things. One is given by the 1st amendment and 1 is not.
It is possible for rational people to support SOME of Trump's policies. Some of his policies/beliefs which I agree with:
Wall on Mexican border (relatively cheap way to prevent around half of illegal immigration to US).
Lower taxes for small and large businesses (benefits economy).
Leaving Paris Agreement (I think that climate change is a serious problem, but this agreement is not effective).
Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv (I support Israel).
And with some policies, like I already said, I disagree.
I'm pro-life because I don't believe it's moral to kill fetuses that are conscious, unless it's a threat to the mother's health.
I'm pro-gun because I think that law-abiding citizens owning guns is a good way to stop crime and for them to defend themselves.
I'm for the 1st Amendment because I think that freedom of speech and religion are necessary for a free society, and it's not up to the government to determine people's beliefs.
I'm for gay marriage because I see no reason to stop two consenting adults from marrying. Also, because I'm an atheist, I don't believe in all the my-religion-tells-me-to-hate-gays bullshit. I don't see how I was ever making a strawman. No, I did not become Atheist because I watched a YouTube video.
And finally I'd like to say that I shouldn't have said "I support Trump", I should of phrased it in a different way. I like him for some of his policies and that he's very straightforward and bold; but he has no experience and is a populist, which I dislike a lot. I'm a "Sometimes Trump" conservative. So come on, let's stop arguing and just agree to disagree.
Nothing I support conflicts with my atheism.
I'm pro-life? That's because I don't like future babies being killed.
I'm pro-gun? That's because I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
I'm for 1st Amendment? Wow, what a shocker. That is so unatheist, right?
I'm for gay marriage? How does that conflict with atheism?
I support SOME of Donald Trump's policies? Wow, I must be Christian and Republican.
he's a socialist, so that qualifies as alt-left
Antifa, communists... stuff like that
Don't debate with Type1, he's an anti-semitic alt-left nutcase that hates conservatives.
Post your argument!
Marx was literally wrong about everything. He said crap like "the price of an object is determined by how much labor goes into it". That's inherently wrong. I could spend all day making mudcakes, but nobody will buy them.
Are you debating about the Christian God, or all deities in general?