>>Yes it does. If you weren't Religious you would be okay with legalizing gay marriage instead of creating cop out like the government shouldn't be in the business of it. Did you also steal that from the conservatives? Are you opposed to the law that made gay marriage legal?
This is a complete feelings argument. As a conservative, I believe in very limited government, so I don't believe government should be able to tell you which people you are allowed to marry and who you aren't. If I wasn't religious I would still be Conservative and believe government shouldn't tell you what to do. I am not opposed to the law that made it legal. If government wasn't in it, you wouldn't have legal problems with it. You are the one arguing feelings with straw-mans towards me saying "well if then you would be this".
I said "if I do" of course I won't, because I'm not stupid.
>>Alec already did. Shame you can't admit to it. It would be me stating your positions and showing you how this is Religiously motivated but then your argument will amount that no.
And I effectively explained how my religious position on gay marriage has nothing to do with my political belief. Admit to what? I already explained my political belief. Shame on you for arguing feelings in that comment and for not being able to read my response.
We all know you have no argument against me and you can't even name one belief yourself because you know there are none, which is why you won't accept the debate. Pretty classic for liberals to do. Look at my big issues, I wrote them over half a year ago, and I even have my stance on gay marriage on my profile- https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
I am arguing this and proving it with facts, but you are assuming I just "won't admit to it" with no facts to back it up.
That is a religious belief, yes. However, I don't argue that from a political standpoint. I think government shouldn't have to do with marriage and it should be done privately or by churches. I could care less if your gay and get married. It doesn't affect my politics.
FAX. Omar doesn't need to have facts or sources though, because as long as he says he doesn't want to debate you because conservatives are irrational, he automatically wins. That is his only argumentation skills. And then when he says "everything you do is based off religion", and ask for ONE example, ONE, he responds by saying "I don't need to because you already know". He constantly avoids and pivots because he knows he doesn't have a real answer backed up by facts, but rather childish feelings.
If I argue feelings then you will have an easy win. I will argue only facts, sound like a deal?
All you have to do is name one political belief I have based on religion(arguing morality stems from God or what not doesn't count), just a strict belief I have(ex. abortion, guns, etc.). My beliefs can be found here on my DDO page https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
You said >>maybe this explains y u r bad at debating(in response to me saying "Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.")
And what I'm saying is that you say that towards conservatives, I simply just replaced it with liberals. You admitting that was a bad debationg tactic is u admitting your bad at debating.
Will you accept my debate I challenged you too, or are you afraid all you have is feelings and insults, not facts?
Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.
>>I don't think I need to because you already use Religion as a basis to do anything which includes Religion.
Who is the anti-intellectual now? You can't name ONE belief? You are saying this because this is based no where in reality. You can't even prove your position.
>>Conservatives are ant-intellectual. How many times do I need to say that?
That is your opinion. Conservatives can have an honest debate with some people on the other side who actually can do it intellectually as well. All this is is confirmation bias.
I want to do it on gun control, because I would like to shred you. If not, that's ok, I understand you just insult instead of using facts.
Democrats are the party of no religion and which value feelings over facts which is ironic when Cenk Uger a SJW socialist made up the saying "google it" and uses that as his source for everything.
It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
It's not worth debating with omar. He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion. Omar, I don't know one conservative who argues on the basis of religion, so stop bringing religion up. If they do, I disagree because politics shouldn't be argued from a political standpoint. The only one being irrational is the one who can't have an honest discussion with the other side. Conservatives aren't the ones shouting down free speech and using violence against the other side. Conservatives advocate for intellectual discussion but prove the "tolerant left" isn't so tolerant.
It is based on population so while it still allows voices to be heard from farmers in Nebraska for example, those minority voices do not overshadow the more populated states. Every state counts. Conservatives in California are outnumbered by socialists, but again it does protect other minority voices because it is only a certain amount of delegates per state. Would you have an alternative to both systems if you believe they both silence voices?
Before he used the term "hombre" he said "we have some bad people" which is very similar to a Spanish version of "bad hombre." He was specifically addressing the violent criminals and drug smugglers in the context of when he said that. There is no evidence to suggest he was using it in a racist manner, especially when the context had no race implications. He has never accused illegals just because they are brown. You are subjectively implementing your own bias and like snoopy said, it is confirmation bias. Lets say wrick is right for the sake of the argument, let's say a 75/25 chance he was using it as racist. We still don't know almost 100% as the we do not know what Trump meant by saying it.
Our country has never been a democracy yet is the best in the world. I prefer a democratic republic because then if it is a democracy it is mob rule, which would turn into a dictatorship. Electoral College protects minority voices while at the same time letting majority be heard, but not to the extent they overshadow everybody else. It isn't an oligarchy, half of the people like Trump in our country. Good thing we don't have you running the laws or else the U.S. would be a disaster.
He didn't say how they were conspiracy or unreliable. He generalizes the websites as consipracy, but does not show how the actual sources given were conspiracy or unreliable, which is what he should do.
I still stand by my statement he is not justifying sources. I dropped it after you said it doesn't matter whether the voter addresses the actual sources or not. A rule change I propose is making the voter address the reliability of the sources cited, not the website behind the sources. And that is very reasonable. I said he is lying because he said everyone of my sources were conspiracy theorists. If I voted on your debate and said your source wasn't reliable because it is fake news and a leftist neo-nazi website, would you accept that vote?
Yours met voting standards, but I believe it was bias.
You are comparing the election to a debating site where the number of conservatives and liberals vary as a minute percentage of the 130M people in our country. Plus, people are supposed to put their own views aside and vote on which debater was better, so your point is nonsensical.
Good thing we have the electoral college to protect minority voices and prevent tyranny of the majority.
"PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about."
Rules: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate" He does not explain how my sources impacted the debate.
"Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support." The voter does not directly evaluate one source.
He attacks the websites for being "conspiracy theorists" but does not look at the actual articles cited, which is what the rules say, sources, not the website. If I voted and said someone in the debate using Fox News is not a good source because it is very right wing, that does not address the actual sources, which are reporting information, but rather the overall website.
And do far in this debate I have had 5 votes removed and 2 not removed, one of which is borderline. That's a pretty high success rate. I report votes I deem unfair or not up to voting standards. No one has voted for me this debate, so I can't report imaginary votes.
vsp19 only addressed 1-2 argument points. For his sources, he does not explain up to the site standards and addresses only his opinion about the website as a whole, not the specific article's i cited.
Yes, 'Votes should be done from as least opinionated as possible and start by looking at each side fairly. The voters should explain how they voted and why. " is an opinion. This is a good opinion tho because debates should be about debating skills, not just which side you agree with and turning it into DDO. What is so bad about this, or why is this an invalid opinion?
Don't feed Omar with comments, all he does is insist on attacking you for a different opinion. Don't engage. It's not worth it and is a complete waste of time.
Votes should be done from as least opinionated as possible and start by looking at each side fairly. The voters should explain how they voted and why. Debating is different from choosing a candidate for office.
Everyone knows it means man. He never used it on a racist manner. He said right before he said that about keeping out bad people and drug lords. Nothing racist about that. You are implying racism when you are being subjective about it.
This is a comment "Im not a Trump supporter but as a hispanic I just wanna say that bad hombres isnt offensive in the least.. CNN seems more offended by it for some reason ??๏ปฟ"
Description says "subjectively best meme gets the vote." Death put the meme he thought was best. I will know counter the counter-vote bomb with a counter-counter vote bomb ๐๐
>>Yes it does. If you weren't Religious you would be okay with legalizing gay marriage instead of creating cop out like the government shouldn't be in the business of it. Did you also steal that from the conservatives? Are you opposed to the law that made gay marriage legal?
This is a complete feelings argument. As a conservative, I believe in very limited government, so I don't believe government should be able to tell you which people you are allowed to marry and who you aren't. If I wasn't religious I would still be Conservative and believe government shouldn't tell you what to do. I am not opposed to the law that made it legal. If government wasn't in it, you wouldn't have legal problems with it. You are the one arguing feelings with straw-mans towards me saying "well if then you would be this".
I said "if I do" of course I won't, because I'm not stupid.
>>Alec already did. Shame you can't admit to it. It would be me stating your positions and showing you how this is Religiously motivated but then your argument will amount that no.
And I effectively explained how my religious position on gay marriage has nothing to do with my political belief. Admit to what? I already explained my political belief. Shame on you for arguing feelings in that comment and for not being able to read my response.
We all know you have no argument against me and you can't even name one belief yourself because you know there are none, which is why you won't accept the debate. Pretty classic for liberals to do. Look at my big issues, I wrote them over half a year ago, and I even have my stance on gay marriage on my profile- https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
I am arguing this and proving it with facts, but you are assuming I just "won't admit to it" with no facts to back it up.
get ready for omar to accept or start a petty war in the comments lmao
I think religion should be separate from politics.
That is a religious belief, yes. However, I don't argue that from a political standpoint. I think government shouldn't have to do with marriage and it should be done privately or by churches. I could care less if your gay and get married. It doesn't affect my politics.
FAX. Omar doesn't need to have facts or sources though, because as long as he says he doesn't want to debate you because conservatives are irrational, he automatically wins. That is his only argumentation skills. And then when he says "everything you do is based off religion", and ask for ONE example, ONE, he responds by saying "I don't need to because you already know". He constantly avoids and pivots because he knows he doesn't have a real answer backed up by facts, but rather childish feelings.
If I argue feelings then you will have an easy win. I will argue only facts, sound like a deal?
All you have to do is name one political belief I have based on religion(arguing morality stems from God or what not doesn't count), just a strict belief I have(ex. abortion, guns, etc.). My beliefs can be found here on my DDO page https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/
You said >>maybe this explains y u r bad at debating(in response to me saying "Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.")
And what I'm saying is that you say that towards conservatives, I simply just replaced it with liberals. You admitting that was a bad debationg tactic is u admitting your bad at debating.
Will you accept my debate I challenged you too, or are you afraid all you have is feelings and insults, not facts?
>>maybe this is why u r bad at debating
i said what i said because i was making the point you do that. THx for admitting ur bad at debating. U gonna accept my debate?
You don't need to be a genius to know that.
Because everything I copied down about the other side is true and liberals are anti-intellectual. it doesn't matter if I don't have facts, I can just call them anti-intellectual and then I automatically win.
>>I don't think I need to because you already use Religion as a basis to do anything which includes Religion.
Who is the anti-intellectual now? You can't name ONE belief? You are saying this because this is based no where in reality. You can't even prove your position.
>>Conservatives are ant-intellectual. How many times do I need to say that?
That is your opinion. Conservatives can have an honest debate with some people on the other side who actually can do it intellectually as well. All this is is confirmation bias.
I want to do it on gun control, because I would like to shred you. If not, that's ok, I understand you just insult instead of using facts.
I copied everything you said and replaced it with liberals. Bop.
Let's debate on gun control. I'm sure I can have an honest debate with facts and completely disembowel your position.
Name one political belief I have based on religion.
>>The other side are anti-intellectual for believing in God and denying climate change.
You are proving my point! People on both sides can actually have an intellectual argument about both, but instead you don't do it intellectually.
Democrats are the party of no religion and which value feelings over facts which is ironic when Cenk Uger a SJW socialist made up the saying "google it" and uses that as his source for everything.
It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of the Libtards not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
It's not worth debating with omar. He is a fascist who believes in censoring free speech and insults people who disagree with him politically without having an intellectual discussion. Omar, I don't know one conservative who argues on the basis of religion, so stop bringing religion up. If they do, I disagree because politics shouldn't be argued from a political standpoint. The only one being irrational is the one who can't have an honest discussion with the other side. Conservatives aren't the ones shouting down free speech and using violence against the other side. Conservatives advocate for intellectual discussion but prove the "tolerant left" isn't so tolerant.
lol your last round you waited 3 days until like 30 minutes before the deadline and now you post it like 5 minutes after I post mine #consistency
How'd you respond so fast lol ๐๐
I--am-a-de-bat-er, bop-bop-bop-bop-bop-bop-bop! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnVOUIvahYk)
All you are showing is your clear opinion and confirmation bias.
And know you drop the "bad hombres" and do an insane pivot.
Where did he say all immigrants?
It is based on population so while it still allows voices to be heard from farmers in Nebraska for example, those minority voices do not overshadow the more populated states. Every state counts. Conservatives in California are outnumbered by socialists, but again it does protect other minority voices because it is only a certain amount of delegates per state. Would you have an alternative to both systems if you believe they both silence voices?
Before he used the term "hombre" he said "we have some bad people" which is very similar to a Spanish version of "bad hombre." He was specifically addressing the violent criminals and drug smugglers in the context of when he said that. There is no evidence to suggest he was using it in a racist manner, especially when the context had no race implications. He has never accused illegals just because they are brown. You are subjectively implementing your own bias and like snoopy said, it is confirmation bias. Lets say wrick is right for the sake of the argument, let's say a 75/25 chance he was using it as racist. We still don't know almost 100% as the we do not know what Trump meant by saying it.
Our country has never been a democracy yet is the best in the world. I prefer a democratic republic because then if it is a democracy it is mob rule, which would turn into a dictatorship. Electoral College protects minority voices while at the same time letting majority be heard, but not to the extent they overshadow everybody else. It isn't an oligarchy, half of the people like Trump in our country. Good thing we don't have you running the laws or else the U.S. would be a disaster.
He didn't say how they were conspiracy or unreliable. He generalizes the websites as consipracy, but does not show how the actual sources given were conspiracy or unreliable, which is what he should do.
I still stand by my statement he is not justifying sources. I dropped it after you said it doesn't matter whether the voter addresses the actual sources or not. A rule change I propose is making the voter address the reliability of the sources cited, not the website behind the sources. And that is very reasonable. I said he is lying because he said everyone of my sources were conspiracy theorists. If I voted on your debate and said your source wasn't reliable because it is fake news and a leftist neo-nazi website, would you accept that vote?
If that vote is allowed to stand, you need some rule changes to prevent blatant lies.
Our country was never founded on democracy and never has been a democracy. Corporations don't own the country. Explain.
He does not expand on the conspiracy claim. Alex Jones didn't write the article, and the voter fails to explain how they are conspiracy theorists.
When he was using anecdotal, he was talking about the argument, not sources.
Your vote will stand, but I believe it was bias. I am not going to prove it because it wouldn't get it removed.
Some people are voting against me in a bias manner and I have got them removed, particularly the clear bias of vsp19.
>Guess you are against a democracy where the minority does lose out against the majority.
Yes, the country is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic.
Yours met voting standards, but I believe it was bias.
You are comparing the election to a debating site where the number of conservatives and liberals vary as a minute percentage of the 130M people in our country. Plus, people are supposed to put their own views aside and vote on which debater was better, so your point is nonsensical.
Good thing we have the electoral college to protect minority voices and prevent tyranny of the majority.
"PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about."
Rules: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate" He does not explain how my sources impacted the debate.
"Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support." The voter does not directly evaluate one source.
He attacks the websites for being "conspiracy theorists" but does not look at the actual articles cited, which is what the rules say, sources, not the website. If I voted and said someone in the debate using Fox News is not a good source because it is very right wing, that does not address the actual sources, which are reporting information, but rather the overall website.
And do far in this debate I have had 5 votes removed and 2 not removed, one of which is borderline. That's a pretty high success rate. I report votes I deem unfair or not up to voting standards. No one has voted for me this debate, so I can't report imaginary votes.
vsp19 only addressed 1-2 argument points. For his sources, he does not explain up to the site standards and addresses only his opinion about the website as a whole, not the specific article's i cited.
Yes, 'Votes should be done from as least opinionated as possible and start by looking at each side fairly. The voters should explain how they voted and why. " is an opinion. This is a good opinion tho because debates should be about debating skills, not just which side you agree with and turning it into DDO. What is so bad about this, or why is this an invalid opinion?
If you are a new member read the voting rules in CoC. This isn't DDO.
Are you calling Owen Benjamin a white nationalist?
Depends who the candidate. Maybe independent. "I don't care if he is a moderate" You were the one insisting he was conservative.
He is not a conservative like you claimed, he is a moderate.
Yes, precisely.
He also believes in global warming.
Trust me, he is an atheist. I've known him for over a year from DDO.
He has not endorsed Trump, doesn't particularly like Trump, and thinks Trump is racist.
He is close to conservative but not one. He has laxer stances on abortion and doesn't particularly endorse Trump. He is also atheist.
Don't feed Omar with comments, all he does is insist on attacking you for a different opinion. Don't engage. It's not worth it and is a complete waste of time.
Votes should be done from as least opinionated as possible and start by looking at each side fairly. The voters should explain how they voted and why. Debating is different from choosing a candidate for office.
Voters need to be held accountable for explaining their reasoning and doing it in a manner of the least bias possible.
Everyone knows it means man. He never used it on a racist manner. He said right before he said that about keeping out bad people and drug lords. Nothing racist about that. You are implying racism when you are being subjective about it.
This is a comment "Im not a Trump supporter but as a hispanic I just wanna say that bad hombres isnt offensive in the least.. CNN seems more offended by it for some reason ??๏ปฟ"
Nah, fair voting needs to be necessary, so therefore moderated voting should be. I don't want this cite turned into DDO.
Ah, I can't delete it. I'll get someone else to do it.
Description says "subjectively best meme gets the vote." Death put the meme he thought was best. I will know counter the counter-vote bomb with a counter-counter vote bomb ๐๐