That is your opinion. You can’t own an election. Nor did any election just announce a change of its date after it has happened. No election has disappeared all of a sudden. What is stolen, if anything, is electoral votes. The election itself because it is there Is not stolen no matter what.
AHHHHHH I misused Russell's teapot here.. I meant to say that per Russell's teapot it would be Pro's burden to disprove this unfalsifiable claim(proving the inverse), which he failed to do. The default is neither no god nor there being one. The default is neither there being one nor there being none.
The first part of the topic statement assumes that the opposing faction is atheist, so either the second part should be dropped or this claim is unprovable or unfalsifiable, which is unfit for a topic. Just a suggestion, dropping the second part of the topic would arguably make a better topic.
If you think any definitions I have used is wrong, you can directly say why it is wrong, not to get all implicit like this. If you refuse to clarify, I will keep assuming I am right until I have been proven wrong in a future time.
You know what, all definitions are exploitable, and a lack of definitions is the most exploitable. Unlike the working class, the definitions won't feel like they are being exploited.
If people deserve to eat meat, then capitalists "deserve" their money due to their money being made by legal methods(even though exploiting the working class isn't what you would call moral). As for non-capitalist rich people such as Kylie Jenner: They don't even actively exploit people, they just get unnecessarily large amounts of money for doing stuff. Maybe they do, because they are legally making money(although also amorally) Should they have this amount of money? No.
I can see what you are saying, women are not UNFAIRLY paid less. Yet, there is statistically still a gap due to women literally tend to work in jobs that pay less, comparatively to for example, men.
We could have another debate on the same topic if you really want. However, different firms can simply have different salaries, and maybe in some industries women tend to work in firms with lower salaries (statistically, not voluntarily) for a job, resulting in 0.99/1$. Just because they do the same work doesn't mean they get to be paid the same all across the world. A computer mechanic in Silicon Valley might as well earn more money than, for example, a computer mechanic in a small town with not a lot of computers in there.
As for Truism debates, the correct penalty for starting them is to have no one accepting them and leaving it in the darkness, not to have someone voting for the conceding faction. The person who accepted the other side because either they misinterpreted the topic or did not even do the minimal research deserve the loss.
Maybe my wording is still that confusing there. I am trying to say that Islam is not sexist ideally(in Quran), not sexist considered by themselves, but sexist considered by other people outside the culture.
Well, maybe such misinterpretation was due to my poor choice of words that I have in writing text. I don't think women have a fixed "place" or don't know how to distinguish ethically, but simply that women in Islam are told that what they are supposed to do and gladly accepts it as they think it is right, well at least a numerous portion of them minus outliers.
Does women being brainwashed upon entering the religion so they will accept their place count as oppression? Because that is the only question. We think they are, but they don't.
The fact that you failed to rule out cases in which the mother is in physical danger makes your position x100 harder to defend. I can understand why ppl say fetuses are alive(after a certain stage) but it makes no sense to say that a fetus's life is more important than the mother's.
I would stand no chance in this debate due to my browser(in China) filtering out most of the pro-Taiwan independence sources written in English and most sources against Taiwan independence are either IN Chinese or are sourced from them which makes the entire job 10x harder.
"Intelligence is the type of dude to not only ask the teacher why they forgot the homework is due but to ask the student why he or she expects anything less than a good ass-whooping for it."
The American propaganda is really kicking in huh? Chinese manufacturers are not making bad products because they are bad at making things, but because they are given less money and are expected to return more, leading a general decrease in quality. The manufacturers are not the ones to blame, the people that provided them such little money are. As for "lose more freedom", no, China is giving enough freedom to the citizens(and the rights can be revised through a collective effort, and not filibustered every time lol), rather America is giving people too much rights in some areas(e.g.guns) and too little in others (e.g.abortion). A divided house doesn't stand, lincoln would be crying if he sees what America is today.
There is a way of proving that China today benefits the world as it is being taught, and as "oppressive" as it sounds, without him, China may be an anarchy.
Since I don't want to read through the borg cube again, I will say it here: It is very probable that the Bible did not include a sentence only coherent in English when the bible itself was mostly not written in English and all English copies can be said to not be the bible at all, maybe.
Again, this is too easy for a kritik. Obviously it isn't a single person, it's millions of people that died within gas chambers. They simply won't just open one for killing one person.
They stole votes, not the election, if anything.
That is your opinion. You can’t own an election. Nor did any election just announce a change of its date after it has happened. No election has disappeared all of a sudden. What is stolen, if anything, is electoral votes. The election itself because it is there Is not stolen no matter what.
You can't just equalize different people. That is like saying "you are white" to a black dude and expect nothing from it.
Said someone who has casted 0 votes and received 0 votes.
AHHHHHH I misused Russell's teapot here.. I meant to say that per Russell's teapot it would be Pro's burden to disprove this unfalsifiable claim(proving the inverse), which he failed to do. The default is neither no god nor there being one. The default is neither there being one nor there being none.
Objection. Even if you are a master, you can only take one padawan at a time according to the most basic SW knowledge.
"Which religion is truth"
The first part of the topic statement assumes that the opposing faction is atheist, so either the second part should be dropped or this claim is unprovable or unfalsifiable, which is unfit for a topic. Just a suggestion, dropping the second part of the topic would arguably make a better topic.
“THBT the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism.”
Lemme guess, 100% of it is caused by the big bang, an event unrelated to human races?
Do you mean "Pantheism does not deny the individuality of human beings"? Change it to that I will accept.
Socialism cannot be yours. It belongs to the people. 'My socialism' can literally be argued as something that does not exist.
I am starting to suspect if you are an alt of one of the banned users on the site.
We are not diplomacies. That is what I interpret as when every letter is capitalized.
Ideally. Ideally the power transfer is 100%. Show me statistics that debunk mine.
I do sometimes. Sometimes my opponent clearly can have massive advantages regarding definitions and I can choose to not see them before they see it.
What is "My socialism"? Juche?
If you think any definitions I have used is wrong, you can directly say why it is wrong, not to get all implicit like this. If you refuse to clarify, I will keep assuming I am right until I have been proven wrong in a future time.
I do. And I'm tired of pretending it's not.
You know what, all definitions are exploitable, and a lack of definitions is the most exploitable. Unlike the working class, the definitions won't feel like they are being exploited.
If people deserve to eat meat, then capitalists "deserve" their money due to their money being made by legal methods(even though exploiting the working class isn't what you would call moral). As for non-capitalist rich people such as Kylie Jenner: They don't even actively exploit people, they just get unnecessarily large amounts of money for doing stuff. Maybe they do, because they are legally making money(although also amorally) Should they have this amount of money? No.
You mean labor? You can’t just call them slaves.
I can see what you are saying, women are not UNFAIRLY paid less. Yet, there is statistically still a gap due to women literally tend to work in jobs that pay less, comparatively to for example, men.
We could have another debate on the same topic if you really want. However, different firms can simply have different salaries, and maybe in some industries women tend to work in firms with lower salaries (statistically, not voluntarily) for a job, resulting in 0.99/1$. Just because they do the same work doesn't mean they get to be paid the same all across the world. A computer mechanic in Silicon Valley might as well earn more money than, for example, a computer mechanic in a small town with not a lot of computers in there.
You can't steal an election, it will always be there.
And poor people did not have anything unfair, they just made bad decisions. LOL
As for Truism debates, the correct penalty for starting them is to have no one accepting them and leaving it in the darkness, not to have someone voting for the conceding faction. The person who accepted the other side because either they misinterpreted the topic or did not even do the minimal research deserve the loss.
Or if both factions agree to delete this debate.
As noble as your intentions are, this is considered a votebomb and not a valid vote.
Sadly, I no longer hold this opinion anymore. I can however put up the same topic with me as Pro and you as Con.
Always remember to define your terms before the debate starts, even if that inherently benefits you.
Back in my days, we only needed two debates to vote.
Maybe my wording is still that confusing there. I am trying to say that Islam is not sexist ideally(in Quran), not sexist considered by themselves, but sexist considered by other people outside the culture.
Well, maybe such misinterpretation was due to my poor choice of words that I have in writing text. I don't think women have a fixed "place" or don't know how to distinguish ethically, but simply that women in Islam are told that what they are supposed to do and gladly accepts it as they think it is right, well at least a numerous portion of them minus outliers.
Does women being brainwashed upon entering the religion so they will accept their place count as oppression? Because that is the only question. We think they are, but they don't.
If 1% of the people can abort legally, it is considered legal, and not illegal. Am I wrong?
The fact that you failed to rule out cases in which the mother is in physical danger makes your position x100 harder to defend. I can understand why ppl say fetuses are alive(after a certain stage) but it makes no sense to say that a fetus's life is more important than the mother's.
a 10-year old is denied healthcare because "abortion is illegal". Think for yourself, aye?
I would stand no chance in this debate due to my browser(in China) filtering out most of the pro-Taiwan independence sources written in English and most sources against Taiwan independence are either IN Chinese or are sourced from them which makes the entire job 10x harder.
"Intelligence is the type of dude to not only ask the teacher why they forgot the homework is due but to ask the student why he or she expects anything less than a good ass-whooping for it."
That is the benefit of surveillance.
The American propaganda is really kicking in huh? Chinese manufacturers are not making bad products because they are bad at making things, but because they are given less money and are expected to return more, leading a general decrease in quality. The manufacturers are not the ones to blame, the people that provided them such little money are. As for "lose more freedom", no, China is giving enough freedom to the citizens(and the rights can be revised through a collective effort, and not filibustered every time lol), rather America is giving people too much rights in some areas(e.g.guns) and too little in others (e.g.abortion). A divided house doesn't stand, lincoln would be crying if he sees what America is today.
There is a way of proving that China today benefits the world as it is being taught, and as "oppressive" as it sounds, without him, China may be an anarchy.
Definitely not expecting you to debate CON here. Good luck.
You realized you are on CON? I thought you are for this opinion.
What?
. ..
I think overall this debate is honestly one on whether if the English bible is the bible at all.
But otherwise, that is exactly what is being said in Mark 16.16. It says exactly this.
Since I don't want to read through the borg cube again, I will say it here: It is very probable that the Bible did not include a sentence only coherent in English when the bible itself was mostly not written in English and all English copies can be said to not be the bible at all, maybe.
"I believe that the self is an illusion and that there is no logically substantiated line between me and another."
Not mutually exclusive. I am you, you are still you. The self still can exist, it just encompasses everybody.
How about some votes?
I suggest changing the topic to "...source that ANYONE was executed in a gas chamber..." if you ever want to debate this topic again.
Again, this is too easy for a kritik. Obviously it isn't a single person, it's millions of people that died within gas chambers. They simply won't just open one for killing one person.