Hombre is a bilingual way to say someone is bad for what they are doing. "bad hombre" is a phrase used to express that.
"one of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones. We have some bad, bad people....we have some bad hombres and we are gonna get them out."
He even says a close English version first. He was referencing all the bad people before directly before that. Just because it is blingually spanish does not mean it is a racial slur. Most of them come from Mexico anyway, so how is that racist?
"The point is that his argument specifically targets Hispanics. That's why he says Hombres. That's a form of racial slur. It's lock calling a French person jock."
Are you kidding me? The bad hombres are drug dealers and smugglers. Bad hombres insults someone based on the content of their character, not skin color. This is definitely not clear and cut. You can't claim this is an example of racism when you are just hypothesizing it has to do with Mexicans and not drug smugglers and violent criminals.
So we have drug dealers that we wan't to stop. He said we need strong borders. We need borders to stop the drugs. Wanting a border to protect our nation isn't racist. It's borders from drugs and illegals. Not just Mexicans. The bad hombres are the violent criminals and drug dealers. He is deporting some illegal families because they are illegal. It has to do with illegal immigration, not race. The left always makes it about race. He is putting some drug dealers in jail. But some come across the border unmarked because we don't have border security so we can't put them in jail, which is why we need to build a wall. Majority of republicans are not racist to wan't border security. I wan't a wall, but I'm not racist. Given how stupid and intellectually dishonest you are being on this, I'm gonna pass on the debate myself.
look at the most recent vote. He makes generalizations and doesn't survey the main arguments, as well as not addressing the semantics by con. His conduct point, particularly me "disrespecting" con, is shown to have no examples of such a thing and is his own opinion.
"The impact that time has on the probability that Trump is racist isn't as significant as you're making it out to be. People don't change often. It's unlikely that Trump has genuinely reformed." You cited that allegation in 1991. That is 28 years.
Should I revise it to "It's very unlikely that Trump can't change in 30 years?" Is that better?
Hey stop moving the goalposts. I used RM's definition and proved fake news and you have not contested it, which tells me you know I'm right. You won't convince me otherwise, because you have dodged it 2 times now. Bye!
lol so i'm rating this based on which memes are good and so far i have wrick it ralph up by 4 memes...so omar better get rly good memes, 4 to tie, 5 to win, good luck.
So who knows if Trump read the book? He probably didn't. He just said "the things he wrote about me are probably true." Even if he did, he can't possibly direct it at that one quote from O'Donnell that you cherry-picked. It seems like Trump really hate him, so we don't know what Trump was referencing. You are the one who said people can't change in 30 years. Not me. Trump changed from a Liberal to a Republican, but I thought people can't change. The only being not being intellectually honest are the ones who take things out of context and try to spin it in a way that makes Trump look bad. In the CNN debate, I actually made really good arguments in the final round that RM couldn't respond to, because he had misinformation.
"Even if the evidence brought up is old, if there is enough of it throughout the years it would show sustained racially charged behaviours that is more likely than not to have carried forward into present days."
I agree. But whether the evidence throughout the years is credible or accurate is what the this whole debate surrounds.
To be fair, I'm not interested in allegations. "The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true." This was a snipet from an interview. What is he referencing? Give me the full interview link and then I'll decide. Trump also allegedly said he wants short Jewish people counting his money in that same statement. He doesn't sound very serious.
So now your saying people can't change in 30 years. OK BUD
I could probably debunk that too, however I did say it had to be fairly recent years, and that is over 20 years ago, probably more. He was still a liberal at that time before he changed to a republican in the early 2000's.
You are very vague on your sources. "Con's link showed the suing of Washington post and not Cnn, therefore disproving pro's link."
I actually disproved his claims in the next round, giving 4 credible sources which RM pretty much conceded to. Look at other votes and read the policy's before publishing votes, it would help you.
"How many developed nations do you need before you realise public healthcare works? Guess you still can't give evidence. Oh well."
It is too expensive, drives down doctors, raises taxes, and is not quality. It also gets rid of people's private insurance, which is completely wrong. There are 3 things you can get in healthcare- affordability, universality, and quality. Each health care system guarantees no more than 2. Private healthcare you get affordability(which I would like costs to go down on more), and quality. Public healthcare you can get universality and affordability, but then everyone would have equally poor quality. Or you could have universality and quality, in which the country would go bankrupt to to it's ridiculous expensiveness.
Something being a necessity does not make it a right. Food is a necessity, but I do not have the right to take it from you or force you to give it to me. Similarly, healthcare is a necessity for someone in need of medical assistance, but they do not have the right to go to a doctor and demand treatment they cannot afford.
" I shame people who are incapable of being rational but have no barrier apart from their emotion clouding their judgement."
This is a perfect example of the liberal mindset. Because you have different political opinions than me, I can shame you. This statement you made is an opinion, and is very shaky ground. I would argue the same for liberals, that they are stupid, but that doesn't get you anywhere and doesn't make you look intellectual. I respect and understand their views, and think there views are stupid, but I don't shame them. I still debate intellectually without throwing insults. They simply have a different opinion than me.
"You don't even know what you are talking about yet you think you can educate me? It is really ironic coming from you."
Your the one who thought FOX reported to be objective 😂
"Objective journalism can be achieved without having a conservative for each liberal. Conservatism and liberalism are ideas which mean a liberal can give the conservative point of view but guess that is not good enough for you."
More different views means more different views being expressed to viewers, which means more objectiveness.
"Sad to see Fox News are just a bunch of reactionaries.
“FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news"
http://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/CDAE195spring2016/Emily%20K%20fox%20news.pdf
Whereas CNN actually want to have "accurate information" as a goal (See RM quote in Round 1)."
That is a general statement. Going off one sentence for each network is not very bright. No wear does it say they don't want accurate information.
CNN wants to, yet why would I believe CNN? They have given unreliable information so many times as I outlined in the debate. Everybody knows CNN is liberal. Literally everybody. If you fail to recognize that I feel bad.
"Wow dismissing something you deem "Reliable study's"? Really goes to show how little you care about evidence. Don't worry you are at home with the Republican party."
This is actually sad lmao yes it is a reliable study as far as the actual stats go, again, it never says those 60% are right it is just a survey of people's opinions.
Ran out of space nxt comment...
"So is FOX subjective journalist or too much of a coward to stand by being objective?
If they are not doing objective journalism why do you watch them? For entertainment? Surely you can find something more entertaining than Fox & Friends."
I have nothing else today right now but educate your mind, so here I go.
FOX admits they have a conservative point of view, specifically on primetime night shows. Their daytime reporting is actually pretty unbiased, shows like Shephard Smith, Bret Bair, and Chris Wallace(who is a bit left of center) report both sides and dont have a strong bias either way. I would also like to mention FOX, no matter what show, always has a lot of liberal guests on to talk with and have a good amount on both sides, where as CNN barely has any Trump supporters on at all.
No cable news network is objective. I watch them because I like to learn more from a Conservative viewpoint, learn more from guests on the show(both parties) and to also watch Tucker Carlson roast his guests. So yes, to a degree it is entertainment.
"Like this one (cites link) Shame that Republicans don't want public healthcare but you still support them."
OK, I see the study. It doesn't mean or say that those 60% are right, they are reporting their opinions about it. I don't want public healthcare because I believe it doesn't work. Putting shame on people that have a different opinion than you is not very intellectual.
XD.
Hombre is a bilingual way to say someone is bad for what they are doing. "bad hombre" is a phrase used to express that.
"one of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones. We have some bad, bad people....we have some bad hombres and we are gonna get them out."
He even says a close English version first. He was referencing all the bad people before directly before that. Just because it is blingually spanish does not mean it is a racial slur. Most of them come from Mexico anyway, so how is that racist?
I completely agree.
"The point is that his argument specifically targets Hispanics. That's why he says Hombres. That's a form of racial slur. It's lock calling a French person jock."
Are you kidding me? The bad hombres are drug dealers and smugglers. Bad hombres insults someone based on the content of their character, not skin color. This is definitely not clear and cut. You can't claim this is an example of racism when you are just hypothesizing it has to do with Mexicans and not drug smugglers and violent criminals.
How is this racist lmao this is an iconic meme
So we have drug dealers that we wan't to stop. He said we need strong borders. We need borders to stop the drugs. Wanting a border to protect our nation isn't racist. It's borders from drugs and illegals. Not just Mexicans. The bad hombres are the violent criminals and drug dealers. He is deporting some illegal families because they are illegal. It has to do with illegal immigration, not race. The left always makes it about race. He is putting some drug dealers in jail. But some come across the border unmarked because we don't have border security so we can't put them in jail, which is why we need to build a wall. Majority of republicans are not racist to wan't border security. I wan't a wall, but I'm not racist. Given how stupid and intellectually dishonest you are being on this, I'm gonna pass on the debate myself.
You referring to this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AneeacsvNwU
can you cite the bad hombres speech? Gimme a link or sumthing so it gives me a sense of context?
You wanna do it here or actual debate?
There actually isn't. I could rebut evryone of your claims of Trump's racism. Wanna debate it?
In real life Trump isn't racist. That is your opinion too btw that comment u wrote
Generally when arguing w/ him that's true, i'll give you that, however that was a good point by him saying that voting should be fair.
"we'll have to agree to disagree on that one." lol so in other words RM just shut you up and you couldn't respond
Yes, I believe I debunked his arguments, but most of those are also based on facts and common sense.
"but fell short in real life where it actually counts." I will create a debate on Trump's racism if you want, and we can debate.
look at the most recent vote. He makes generalizations and doesn't survey the main arguments, as well as not addressing the semantics by con. His conduct point, particularly me "disrespecting" con, is shown to have no examples of such a thing and is his own opinion.
Thanks for the vague feedback. I have debunked all of my opponent's claims.
It seems as although you think Trump is racist.
I wasn't tryna "get u" or something, I just knew it was against CoC.
oh ok gotcha
I reported a couple of vote bombs and counter vote bombs, against CoC.
"The impact that time has on the probability that Trump is racist isn't as significant as you're making it out to be. People don't change often. It's unlikely that Trump has genuinely reformed." You cited that allegation in 1991. That is 28 years.
Should I revise it to "It's very unlikely that Trump can't change in 30 years?" Is that better?
Does the winner get all the categories votes? i.e. conduct, grammar, sources
Hey stop moving the goalposts. I used RM's definition and proved fake news and you have not contested it, which tells me you know I'm right. You won't convince me otherwise, because you have dodged it 2 times now. Bye!
lol so i'm rating this based on which memes are good and so far i have wrick it ralph up by 4 memes...so omar better get rly good memes, 4 to tie, 5 to win, good luck.
that was a rebuttal and you are not even contesting it lol
plus i couldn't post in round 3 so if there were any new arguments it's because I couldn't do it in round 3.
so in your description are you saying the one best meme out of all of them, whoever put it, wins and gets the vote?
ye i already knew you were a radical leftist u dont have to tell me lul
lol read my final round i use his own definition and article he quoted and proved fake news not my prob u cant read lmao
lol and why u always tryna start crap and argue in the comments lmao dm me if u wanna argue
Funny you said that, because I actually used RM's definition and article he cited and brought clear evidence of fake news USING HIS DEFINITION.
I made claims before that round too. RM didn't respond although he had the full power too, probably because he knew my arguments were so good.
bop
So who knows if Trump read the book? He probably didn't. He just said "the things he wrote about me are probably true." Even if he did, he can't possibly direct it at that one quote from O'Donnell that you cherry-picked. It seems like Trump really hate him, so we don't know what Trump was referencing. You are the one who said people can't change in 30 years. Not me. Trump changed from a Liberal to a Republican, but I thought people can't change. The only being not being intellectually honest are the ones who take things out of context and try to spin it in a way that makes Trump look bad. In the CNN debate, I actually made really good arguments in the final round that RM couldn't respond to, because he had misinformation.
"Even if the evidence brought up is old, if there is enough of it throughout the years it would show sustained racially charged behaviours that is more likely than not to have carried forward into present days."
I agree. But whether the evidence throughout the years is credible or accurate is what the this whole debate surrounds.
To be fair, I'm not interested in allegations. "The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true." This was a snipet from an interview. What is he referencing? Give me the full interview link and then I'll decide. Trump also allegedly said he wants short Jewish people counting his money in that same statement. He doesn't sound very serious.
So now your saying people can't change in 30 years. OK BUD
lol ur so funny and quick witted bro 😂😂
I hope a someone accepts this. Pro's argument is easily debunkable.
Sorry to bother you so much with some of these inexperienced voters. Can you remove vsp19's vote? Clearly he hasn't read the COC and voting rules.
First of all, I said I could debunk that argument. Second, there is little to no evidence throughout the years, which I have debunked in this debate.
Vox probably brought the interview out of context anyway. Never trust Vox.
I could probably debunk that too, however I did say it had to be fairly recent years, and that is over 20 years ago, probably more. He was still a liberal at that time before he changed to a republican in the early 2000's.
bop
Thanks for being fair. I appreciate it sincerely.
I actually respect that you can vote and have a fair opinion on debates without(for the most part) incorporating your own liberal beliefs.
You are very vague on your sources. "Con's link showed the suing of Washington post and not Cnn, therefore disproving pro's link."
I actually disproved his claims in the next round, giving 4 credible sources which RM pretty much conceded to. Look at other votes and read the policy's before publishing votes, it would help you.
Can you take a look at melcharaz's vote? He barely explains sources at all and he doesn't show the poor conduct by con.
Great biased vote. I'm not going to particpate in the comment wars you keep instigating. Make a debate if you want to debate it.
Those things are debateable though. No news org. is unbiased or doesn't have flaws.
"How many developed nations do you need before you realise public healthcare works? Guess you still can't give evidence. Oh well."
It is too expensive, drives down doctors, raises taxes, and is not quality. It also gets rid of people's private insurance, which is completely wrong. There are 3 things you can get in healthcare- affordability, universality, and quality. Each health care system guarantees no more than 2. Private healthcare you get affordability(which I would like costs to go down on more), and quality. Public healthcare you can get universality and affordability, but then everyone would have equally poor quality. Or you could have universality and quality, in which the country would go bankrupt to to it's ridiculous expensiveness.
Something being a necessity does not make it a right. Food is a necessity, but I do not have the right to take it from you or force you to give it to me. Similarly, healthcare is a necessity for someone in need of medical assistance, but they do not have the right to go to a doctor and demand treatment they cannot afford.
" I shame people who are incapable of being rational but have no barrier apart from their emotion clouding their judgement."
This is a perfect example of the liberal mindset. Because you have different political opinions than me, I can shame you. This statement you made is an opinion, and is very shaky ground. I would argue the same for liberals, that they are stupid, but that doesn't get you anywhere and doesn't make you look intellectual. I respect and understand their views, and think there views are stupid, but I don't shame them. I still debate intellectually without throwing insults. They simply have a different opinion than me.
"You don't even know what you are talking about yet you think you can educate me? It is really ironic coming from you."
Your the one who thought FOX reported to be objective 😂
"Objective journalism can be achieved without having a conservative for each liberal. Conservatism and liberalism are ideas which mean a liberal can give the conservative point of view but guess that is not good enough for you."
More different views means more different views being expressed to viewers, which means more objectiveness.
"Sad to see Fox News are just a bunch of reactionaries.
“FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news"
http://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/CDAE195spring2016/Emily%20K%20fox%20news.pdf
Whereas CNN actually want to have "accurate information" as a goal (See RM quote in Round 1)."
That is a general statement. Going off one sentence for each network is not very bright. No wear does it say they don't want accurate information.
CNN wants to, yet why would I believe CNN? They have given unreliable information so many times as I outlined in the debate. Everybody knows CNN is liberal. Literally everybody. If you fail to recognize that I feel bad.
"Wow dismissing something you deem "Reliable study's"? Really goes to show how little you care about evidence. Don't worry you are at home with the Republican party."
This is actually sad lmao yes it is a reliable study as far as the actual stats go, again, it never says those 60% are right it is just a survey of people's opinions.
Ran out of space nxt comment...
"So is FOX subjective journalist or too much of a coward to stand by being objective?
If they are not doing objective journalism why do you watch them? For entertainment? Surely you can find something more entertaining than Fox & Friends."
I have nothing else today right now but educate your mind, so here I go.
FOX admits they have a conservative point of view, specifically on primetime night shows. Their daytime reporting is actually pretty unbiased, shows like Shephard Smith, Bret Bair, and Chris Wallace(who is a bit left of center) report both sides and dont have a strong bias either way. I would also like to mention FOX, no matter what show, always has a lot of liberal guests on to talk with and have a good amount on both sides, where as CNN barely has any Trump supporters on at all.
No cable news network is objective. I watch them because I like to learn more from a Conservative viewpoint, learn more from guests on the show(both parties) and to also watch Tucker Carlson roast his guests. So yes, to a degree it is entertainment.
"Like this one (cites link) Shame that Republicans don't want public healthcare but you still support them."
OK, I see the study. It doesn't mean or say that those 60% are right, they are reporting their opinions about it. I don't want public healthcare because I believe it doesn't work. Putting shame on people that have a different opinion than you is not very intellectual.