Eh, not really a 'need to go in depth, I'd think.
I suppose birds of a feather, flock together, wolf packs, human packs, and such.
But we're all human, able for the 'most part, to 'recognize that.
mairj23's angle of 'just white people are racist is a bit much, in my view.
Just look at Africa, Rwandan genocide, and all the other inter-tribal strife.
Same as the rest of the world, 'cultures clashing, as they sometimes do.
'Really would help to define and contextualize what you mean by "Systemic racism is real in America", I 'think.
Lessens the chances that it becomes a debate of defining terms.
Though I'm fond of freeform debates myself, at times.
I just find it difficult to follow along the debate, to check points Pro or Con clearly and remember, I also disagree with both of you on a number of your interpretations and arguments of the Bible, but 'also oddly am an atheist not 'much interested in the subject of religion.
Tried to read a few times, just can't get into it.
Slightly, though I think it's demonstrable that Atheists and Agnostics 'have converted to theism, at times.
I don't really have a habit of reading Mall's debates, but I suppose I'll check for a bit to see how this one goes between Mall and MisterChris.
Man, I hate debating topics I have little understanding of.
I usually end up bull******* the debate.
Not that my sides right or wrong, or even that I'm saying the right or wrong words,
But I don't 'know if I'm saying the right or wrong words, 'or if my side is right or wrong.
Darn, I thought I was Con somehow. . .
Well, finish what you start I suppose.
Hm, clarification on 'right?
One could say all Americans have a right to guns, but what's meant by that is Americans who aren't mentally crazed, Americans who don't have a criminals past banning them from guns.
So if I made the argument that all nations had the right to nuclear weapons, but then clarified it by countries of significant power or trust, would that meet your title of,
All nations should have a 'right to nuclear weapons?
If not, I'll go the every country has a right to nuclear weapons route, never mind their past or present,
But then make my arguments based on those countries not having a right to exist or that nuclear weapons should be allowed to all, never mind their past or present, in order to achieve some sort of objective.
If a person 'doesn't have the right to be offended, is there much they can do?
Usually if offended, a normal person would insult the person back, or say heck with you and avoid them.
Maybe in a workplace tell your supervisor and have them work something out, or have the supervisor put something in the persons file.
Low brow people, would respond with violence, though I suppose insults are low brow too.
And rich people would sue for slander, libel, or defamation.
But if you don't have the right to be offended, why would you do anything other than accept, and cope?
Don't you have 'days to think about it, research?
Seems early to throw in towel. .
Well, it sounds a fun debate, for whoever accepts.
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3300/fc03298.htm
Eh, not really a 'need to go in depth, I'd think.
I suppose birds of a feather, flock together, wolf packs, human packs, and such.
But we're all human, able for the 'most part, to 'recognize that.
mairj23's angle of 'just white people are racist is a bit much, in my view.
Just look at Africa, Rwandan genocide, and all the other inter-tribal strife.
Same as the rest of the world, 'cultures clashing, as they sometimes do.
Personally I'm not bothered by the topic.
'Lot of wiggle room for whoever accepts though, to win, 'I think.
How does one judge superiority or inferiority?
"I won't be able to respond the last 2 rounds because of some summer work I have to do." - TheUnderdog
Darn, I was curious how debate would progress.
'Really would help to define and contextualize what you mean by "Systemic racism is real in America", I 'think.
Lessens the chances that it becomes a debate of defining terms.
Though I'm fond of freeform debates myself, at times.
I just find it difficult to follow along the debate, to check points Pro or Con clearly and remember, I also disagree with both of you on a number of your interpretations and arguments of the Bible, but 'also oddly am an atheist not 'much interested in the subject of religion.
Tried to read a few times, just can't get into it.
The truth about UFOs to be exposed in US government report | 7NEWS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lxtwKB0Fuc
Never read Mein Kampf, but I gotta say I found Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard 'pretty terrible.
I actually liked how short and simple it was.
I suppose some people philosophers have written entire books, in responses to arguments made by some other philosophers, in history.
Too bad about the forfeit and concession, Ancap460's Round 1 looked strong to me.
Slightly, though I think it's demonstrable that Atheists and Agnostics 'have converted to theism, at times.
I don't really have a habit of reading Mall's debates, but I suppose I'll check for a bit to see how this one goes between Mall and MisterChris.
"Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels"
Just need less people.
Ah well.
Man, I hate debating topics I have little understanding of.
I usually end up bull******* the debate.
Not that my sides right or wrong, or even that I'm saying the right or wrong words,
But I don't 'know if I'm saying the right or wrong words, 'or if my side is right or wrong.
I actually don't really have an opinion on schools.
Thanks for the thought in your second round, my mistake though, still getting used to site.
Also apologies for my second round being a bit. . Villainous? Insane?
Just the way that it worked out.
Note, nothing Lemming says in comments should be used against him in voting process.
I don't think your stance is that 'no countries should possess nuclear weapons though, is it?
Darn, I thought I was Con somehow. . .
Well, finish what you start I suppose.
Hm, clarification on 'right?
One could say all Americans have a right to guns, but what's meant by that is Americans who aren't mentally crazed, Americans who don't have a criminals past banning them from guns.
So if I made the argument that all nations had the right to nuclear weapons, but then clarified it by countries of significant power or trust, would that meet your title of,
All nations should have a 'right to nuclear weapons?
If not, I'll go the every country has a right to nuclear weapons route, never mind their past or present,
But then make my arguments based on those countries not having a right to exist or that nuclear weapons should be allowed to all, never mind their past or present, in order to achieve some sort of objective.
If a person 'doesn't have the right to be offended, is there much they can do?
Usually if offended, a normal person would insult the person back, or say heck with you and avoid them.
Maybe in a workplace tell your supervisor and have them work something out, or have the supervisor put something in the persons file.
Low brow people, would respond with violence, though I suppose insults are low brow too.
And rich people would sue for slander, libel, or defamation.
But if you don't have the right to be offended, why would you do anything other than accept, and cope?
What a long time that took. . .