This one is interesting, and if I don’t accept it I’ll probably vote on it.
Just to clarify, you mean that Con would be arguing that something outside of our control will destroy us rather than us destroying ourselves, right? Because humanity is doomed to die out eventually, it’s Murphy’s law.
“OK, here is where I disagree. Black people can absolutely use the word nigger as a slur against other black people. I’ve seen it before.”
No, I agree with you to some degree. My total opinion about this is that like you said, it should be legal if not an incitement to violence. But then we get into the morality aspect of it and not just the legal realm. I think Black people shouldn’t get a pass because as you said, they are perfectly capable of using it as a slur. I think morally speaking, you obviously shouldn’t use it as a slur, but it’s okay to say it in a normal setting if it’s not excessive. For example, don’t say it around kids and stuff. But if you keep using it too much, I think that can give other people the idea that it’s okay to use the word whenever, which it’s not. Overall, don’t say it as a slur, and when not using it as a slur, keep in mind that it is technically a slur. It’s important to give the word respect at least, because it is a very heavy word with lots of connotations.
This one seems interesting. I think you shouldn’t be able to legally say it if (like you said) it’s used as a direct incitement to violence, for instance if you were repeatedly hassling someone with the words.
As for why Black people get a pass, I think it’s because people assume the word can only be used as a slur, and why would black people use as slur against themselves? By that logic, anyone can say it as long as they aren’t using it as a slur.
I’d add one more thing to that. You can use it if it is not as a slur, it’s not repeated and not just to get attention. It is a slur so you should give respect to it, even if you’re not using it as such, but you can use it a few times if necessary.
I put an asterisk on god and clarified what I meant in the description. My three big requirements are that the god your arguing for must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
I didn’t notice the whole satire thing at first and I almost flipped out LOL. Also, is your username saying that the founding fathers were smoking pot? Becuase if so that hilarious.
That's not really what I meant. I mean that you're supposed to imagine that there is a neutral person that both sides are trying to convince. I just wanted to make it clear that neither side could actually prove anything, and that it's a matter of opinion.
This is ridiculous. How is anyone supposed to argue against this? You can almost never prove a negative, so this is pretty favored to you. Just saying.
In that case, all your efforts are in vain, seeing as it can’t be too hard for you to do this.
Well thanks anyways. I always appreciate some commentary on my debate skills.
Sources Cited:
1. Macroeconomic Consequences of Tariffs - WP/19/9
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7255316/
3.https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf?ref=risingupwithsonali.com#:~:text=Under%20the%20Raise%20the%20Wage,projections%20underlying%20the%202019%20report.
4. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23532/w23532.pdf
5.https://www.epi.org/publication/why-america-needs-a-15-minimum-wage-2019/#:~:text=A%20%2415%20minimum%20wage%20would,the%20wage%20distribution%20since%201979.
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421522003779#sec6
7.https://labor4sustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/cleanenergy_10212015_main.pdf
votes
Dang, that sucks.
Is anyone still on this site?
Finally, somebody else who watches him!
I’ve had this debate twice already on this site, so there are people who would do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
This one is interesting, and if I don’t accept it I’ll probably vote on it.
Just to clarify, you mean that Con would be arguing that something outside of our control will destroy us rather than us destroying ourselves, right? Because humanity is doomed to die out eventually, it’s Murphy’s law.
“OK, here is where I disagree. Black people can absolutely use the word nigger as a slur against other black people. I’ve seen it before.”
No, I agree with you to some degree. My total opinion about this is that like you said, it should be legal if not an incitement to violence. But then we get into the morality aspect of it and not just the legal realm. I think Black people shouldn’t get a pass because as you said, they are perfectly capable of using it as a slur. I think morally speaking, you obviously shouldn’t use it as a slur, but it’s okay to say it in a normal setting if it’s not excessive. For example, don’t say it around kids and stuff. But if you keep using it too much, I think that can give other people the idea that it’s okay to use the word whenever, which it’s not. Overall, don’t say it as a slur, and when not using it as a slur, keep in mind that it is technically a slur. It’s important to give the word respect at least, because it is a very heavy word with lots of connotations.
You probably already know what I’m gonna say, but you’re gonna want to define “Tyranny”.
If anyone actually does accept this, I’ll be eager to watch it.
This one seems interesting. I think you shouldn’t be able to legally say it if (like you said) it’s used as a direct incitement to violence, for instance if you were repeatedly hassling someone with the words.
As for why Black people get a pass, I think it’s because people assume the word can only be used as a slur, and why would black people use as slur against themselves? By that logic, anyone can say it as long as they aren’t using it as a slur.
I’d add one more thing to that. You can use it if it is not as a slur, it’s not repeated and not just to get attention. It is a slur so you should give respect to it, even if you’re not using it as such, but you can use it a few times if necessary.
Votes
Cool, thanks!
Yeah, I like to learn from my mistakes. You're welcome to accept again if you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
I’d love to accept if it wasn’t for the minimum rating.
Votes
A better title might be “ America is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
You can’t argue that America is responsible for all terrorism.
I’d accept this one if I had more time on my hands. Sounds like a fun expanded trolley problem.
votes
votes
I’m never lending you any money.
Defining hate speech might be good to.
You should clarify if you mean free speech the principle, or free speech the law.
Free speech the law absolutely does not include threatening speech.
I also think you should probably remove your vote. If you want to do a real one, that’s fine, but if not that’s also okay.
Same here. I’m always down for a good god/no god debate.
I think you just described everyone on this site.
I’d accept if I had the time. Anytime after July 28 I’m available, so if no one has accepted by then, I’m in.
Maybe something like,
Valid: The property of being real and correct. In this case, Trans children are whatever gender they assume.
Might be a good idea to define valid.
I get that your a troll, but your the kind of person who is making the rest of us who support LGBTQ people look bad.
I’ll vote on this one soon
This one seems like a debate you would like?
This is kinda hard for your opponent to argue. They have to prove that there is no chance that they were fake, and 100% chance that they were real.
I put an asterisk on god and clarified what I meant in the description. My three big requirements are that the god your arguing for must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
What would you say in the case of them using gender affirming care?
Screw the exorcist, I think it’s time for a mental institution.
Ah, that makes sense.
You made this debate twice.
This debate is hilarious.
Votes
I don't really mind if he went over 10k characters. Most of it wasn't that great arguing anyways, and it was pretty short.
I didn’t notice the whole satire thing at first and I almost flipped out LOL. Also, is your username saying that the founding fathers were smoking pot? Becuase if so that hilarious.
Not to be super nit picky or anything, but by god, do you mean strictly Christian god, or any god? Also, “strong argument” is pretty ambiguous.
But it’s still a matter of personal opinion. You can’t actually prove anything.
No, I’m not actually trying to convince anyone, I’m just saying that this isn’t a debate about proving anything.
That's not really what I meant. I mean that you're supposed to imagine that there is a neutral person that both sides are trying to convince. I just wanted to make it clear that neither side could actually prove anything, and that it's a matter of opinion.
This is ridiculous. How is anyone supposed to argue against this? You can almost never prove a negative, so this is pretty favored to you. Just saying.