Don't engage with omar. He is a petty teenager who gets paid to start wars in the comments. He is a psychotic liberal who attacks people who disagree and agrees with using physical violence against free-speech conservatives.
>>By your reasoning Anarchy would be the best form of governance. Guess I understand what you views better than you do.
Nope, I already explained this. I am for tax cuts. Not no government and no taxes. Don't be foolish. Since you are accusing me of this, by your logic, you want 100% tax rates. By your reasoning a dictatorship is the best form of government.
>>So no Republican actually is trying to do the right thing. Good to know.
Never said that. I said I don't follow congressman, so I don't know.
>>This source is better.
Your source is all over the place, I don't know where to look.
>>Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here.
More taxes is an awful solution, like I said, no matter how many taxes the gov. gets, they always overspend. Your argument is complete feelings. Lowering spending is a common sense solution. Every time taxes have been increased the gov. continues to overspend. Make a reasonable budget to eventually get out of debt. Every liberal policy(almost) will make national debt even more, such as healthcare, paying off student loans, every socialist policy that is so called "free." Of course taxes are necessary, but hiking them is useless.
"Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here."
I've already said I am for taxation.
"Who is a Republican that wants to the fix the problem and is actively trying to get something done by laws?"
I don't follow a lot of congressman, etc. I know Tucker Carlson wants it fixed tho. Too many republicans are establishment RINO'S.
"Don't know what you mean by "TDS"."
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
"Do you know what would also help? Reducing taxes for them as well."
Agreed.
Trump's tax plan reduced taxed for all. https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
I'm not getting into an argument over what Trump's intentions are. If he is doing what you say he is(or what u think he is) then I totally condemn it.
It allows for more economic growth. Government wastes our taxes and overspends, so raising them is foolish. Government needs to tremendously cut down on spending.
"If the Republican party did care then they would be fixing the problem. Guess when you have a person who is part of the upper-class who likes to keep as much money as possible by reducing taxes and not fixing tax loopholes that I am sure he benefits from. If you really cared about fixing these tax loopholes you wouldn't be a Republican."
Some republicans do want the problem fixed. I am a conservative and I want it fixed. I assume you are talking about your TDS. Trump is a successful business man who wants to lower taxes because it helps businesses thrive and help the economy. Now whether he is right that it will help or not, that is his intention. For example, I am strongly against raising the gas tax the Trump admin. has been discussing, because it has an immediate impact upon middle class families who are dying right now.
To get out of debt, we should reduce regulations on private businesses. We also need to fix the tax loopholes on big corporations like Amazon who don't pay taxes.
Like, I said, I believe in some government. There is a balance to be had. I specifically said I believe in limited government. I don't understand your churches and state argument. Explain like I'm a 5 year old(legit). Yes, Obama doubled the national debt from all the other president's combined.
Examples of when he indirectly called me racist is in round 4, go to the re-tweeting and NFL kneeling.
"Secondly calling a racist person racist isn’t poor conduct at all. By that same logic I can say you had poor conduct since you call sources Bias, call people Bias, call people SJW’s, and you make attempted character assassinations by claiming people are being bribed."
I said he called me racist, not the allegations against Trump. I only called you a SJW. Not a debater. And that's true. Vox is bias, and so is the NY Times. They paraphrase what in their opinion Trump meant, and also take things out of context. Not poor conduct.
My opponent claimed someone was bribed, not me. I claimed that people were bribed sarcastically by going off my opponent's logic. I made actual arguments on the things I claimed they were bribed. He started that. Not me. You should change your vote on that. Can't even pay attention to the debate.
obviously I believe in some government, you did not respond to my previous comment.
I believe in government, I'm not for getting rid of it. You are putting words in my mouth. Churches should tax avoid or get very limited taxes, as that is a good example of separation of church and state.
I believe in some intervention on private businesses, but I think for the most part very limited, and limited taxes down to a rate below 20%, probably 15.
I believe they should have the same rights as others. They already do have same rights if I'm not mistaken.
I like small government because the more government there is the more corrupt it gets and the gov. ends up ruling so many aspects of your life. It is not their job to tell everybody and private businesses what to do.
That would be infringing upon separation of church and state. Marriage is to be determined privately, and is characterized as a cultural or religious tradition, not a government intervention. Less government is not fascist, it's anti-fascist.
Believing in silencing people with different opinions and using violence against them is what you are for. Sounds pretty fascist to me.
That depends. A large percentage of illegals don't have a lot of experience, don't speak English, or don't have the necessary requirements to be in the U.S. I believe that immigration helps the economy, but legally. We have to control and know what people are in our country and make sure they would contribute to society. Since the legal immigration process is slow, I believe in a comprehensive reform to speed it up a little and perhaps accept some more people.
"" Like I said in my first argument, Trump is right to say some are criminals."
- The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals "
Trump was addressing specifically the people he was talking about(violent criminals) and pointing out the problem with illegal immigration. Saying some doesn't imply a majority, the violent criminals are obviously some as well. He was just focusing on the large issue. He never specified a quantity, he just said "they are bringing crime, rapists", but he was focusing on this particular group so he mentioned the good people so it would imply that while yes, some are good, a lot are also bad, and that was the focus of his point.
The final example and borderline is this one in your vote...
and my personal favorite...
" Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't."
You don't even do an explanation for this. I did respond to this by saying "You can't fully stop crime from natives, as it is unpredictable. However, you can stop crime over the immigration issue by knowing who is coming in that they are no criminals, and also by building a wall you can stop drug smuggling and human trafficking, a huge crisis. You can reduce a huge amount of crime by building a wall so criminals aren't able to walk through undetected, but it is hard to reduce crime in the U.S. because it is unpredictable, and when people do commit crimes, they are punished."
You don't even address this.
It is clear you are biased, but the site voting policy does not account for it. The vote will stand, but unjustly. You also did not point out the many flaws in con's argument's, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)
You already know you are bias and have inherent bias in voting. It's not a secret that you vote from an SJW's perspective, which is why I generally don't vote in debates, to keep my potential bias out of it and let fair voters do fair voting.
You only had 2 relevant points that awarded Con argument points which were.....
"One of my favorite arguments Con made against pro was regarding the Black voters claim to which they responded with,
" That's racist to assume someone's economic or social position based on their race."
- This completely destroys Pro's argument regarding this point since Pro's argument against the claim was that Trump was simply trying to appeal to them. Making prejudicial assumptions regardless of intent is still racist as Con pointed out."
He wasn't making an assumption. Statistically, the single motherhood rate for blacks is the highest ever at 72%, Blacks account for the majority of crime and murder despite them being 13% of the population, the unemployment rate for blacks is the highest among all groups (which Trump has gotten down to record numbers), 58% of their youth is unemployed, the poverty rate is at 20%, highest among all major races, the lowest sat score benchmark percentage at 20%,etc.
Now Trump was saying some of these things are affected by democratic policies, specifically economically(because he is a business man), and he has shown that he is doing good for black people by the lowest unemployment rates and booming economy for blacks. Blacks are statistically worse at things than other races. Trump was making a pitch to try something new in Trump, being a business man and not your typical president(not even a politician). Claiming this is racist is very opinionated and not clear and cut.
He never "implied" that. You are putting words in his mouth. He said some, not most, that is your own opinion and implication of what he meant, not judging on what the debaters said during the debate.
"They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
where in there does he say MOST. He doesn't.
"The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals"
You are implementing your own thoughts into the vote, not on what was said during the debate. He also never said most, where did you get that from?
"" Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't.""
I rebutted to this in the debate "You can't fully stop crime from natives, as it is unpredictable. However, you can stop crime over the immigration issue by knowing who is coming in that they are no criminals, and also by building a wall you can stop drug smuggling and human trafficking, a huge crisis. You can reduce a huge amount of crime by building a wall so criminals aren't able to walk through undetected, but it is hard to reduce crime in the U.S. because it is unpredictable, and when people do commit crimes, they are punished." I also added some more stuff, but your bias mind isn't able to comprehend it.
I addressed those arguments in the first couple of points in each round. Of course your vote it won't get taken down tho, because the voting policy is corrupt,.
thx for the bias vote, u do realize i was mimicking con when i said "they were getting paid off" because con said the exact same thing in his argument?
At the time I wrote that I was either doing it from a religious perspective, I didn't rly know what it was, or it was from a slavery perspective. I'm not sure what I think of it, I'm undecided. My initial thoughts on this is government shouldn't regulate it because we should be a free market society, but also I'm not sure about whether women could be harrassed or assaulted, i.e. the dangers of it. I'm not educated on this as of right now, only the slavery aspect of it. I will clarify next round.
How disingenuous of you. The first debate I created I put in parentheses "where morality stems from does not count" and you wouldn't accept it. As soon as I deleted that one and made this a fresh one and forgot to put that, you immediately accepted. Now I know your real motives behind that. Shame you couldn't be decent enough to say something about it.
To hard to copy and paste all of those. I will put the link to all of them, and you can simply quote me on it. I will clarify if needed on my position.
The statements on DDO are short statements stating what you believe, not an essay with statistics.
The only one that actually applies to this discussion(also u didn't respond to my last comment)
>>Oh so your Religion does not impact your political views? Who offers this "right" God? That debate would be so easy for me to win but I don't really want to ruin your already poor win ratio. I feel sorry for you.
lmao illegal immigration has nothing to do with God. It is a matter of knowing who comes in and out of the country, which people would contribute, and not knowing what violent criminals or drug smugglers are coming in.
THICCCCC
That sentence doesn't even make sense.
I never even tagged you or was talking to you in the first place. You proved my point by trying to start wars in the comments. I'm done here.
ok bud
Don't engage with omar. He is a petty teenager who gets paid to start wars in the comments. He is a psychotic liberal who attacks people who disagree and agrees with using physical violence against free-speech conservatives.
>>By your reasoning Anarchy would be the best form of governance. Guess I understand what you views better than you do.
Nope, I already explained this. I am for tax cuts. Not no government and no taxes. Don't be foolish. Since you are accusing me of this, by your logic, you want 100% tax rates. By your reasoning a dictatorship is the best form of government.
>>So no Republican actually is trying to do the right thing. Good to know.
Never said that. I said I don't follow congressman, so I don't know.
>>This source is better.
Your source is all over the place, I don't know where to look.
>>Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here.
More taxes is an awful solution, like I said, no matter how many taxes the gov. gets, they always overspend. Your argument is complete feelings. Lowering spending is a common sense solution. Every time taxes have been increased the gov. continues to overspend. Make a reasonable budget to eventually get out of debt. Every liberal policy(almost) will make national debt even more, such as healthcare, paying off student loans, every socialist policy that is so called "free." Of course taxes are necessary, but hiking them is useless.
"Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here."
I've already said I am for taxation.
"Who is a Republican that wants to the fix the problem and is actively trying to get something done by laws?"
I don't follow a lot of congressman, etc. I know Tucker Carlson wants it fixed tho. Too many republicans are establishment RINO'S.
"Don't know what you mean by "TDS"."
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
"Do you know what would also help? Reducing taxes for them as well."
Agreed.
Trump's tax plan reduced taxed for all. https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
I'm not getting into an argument over what Trump's intentions are. If he is doing what you say he is(or what u think he is) then I totally condemn it.
It allows for more economic growth. Government wastes our taxes and overspends, so raising them is foolish. Government needs to tremendously cut down on spending.
"If the Republican party did care then they would be fixing the problem. Guess when you have a person who is part of the upper-class who likes to keep as much money as possible by reducing taxes and not fixing tax loopholes that I am sure he benefits from. If you really cared about fixing these tax loopholes you wouldn't be a Republican."
Some republicans do want the problem fixed. I am a conservative and I want it fixed. I assume you are talking about your TDS. Trump is a successful business man who wants to lower taxes because it helps businesses thrive and help the economy. Now whether he is right that it will help or not, that is his intention. For example, I am strongly against raising the gas tax the Trump admin. has been discussing, because it has an immediate impact upon middle class families who are dying right now.
To get out of debt, we should reduce regulations on private businesses. We also need to fix the tax loopholes on big corporations like Amazon who don't pay taxes.
Like, I said, I believe in some government. There is a balance to be had. I specifically said I believe in limited government. I don't understand your churches and state argument. Explain like I'm a 5 year old(legit). Yes, Obama doubled the national debt from all the other president's combined.
Examples of when he indirectly called me racist is in round 4, go to the re-tweeting and NFL kneeling.
"Secondly calling a racist person racist isn’t poor conduct at all. By that same logic I can say you had poor conduct since you call sources Bias, call people Bias, call people SJW’s, and you make attempted character assassinations by claiming people are being bribed."
I said he called me racist, not the allegations against Trump. I only called you a SJW. Not a debater. And that's true. Vox is bias, and so is the NY Times. They paraphrase what in their opinion Trump meant, and also take things out of context. Not poor conduct.
My opponent claimed someone was bribed, not me. I claimed that people were bribed sarcastically by going off my opponent's logic. I made actual arguments on the things I claimed they were bribed. He started that. Not me. You should change your vote on that. Can't even pay attention to the debate.
Trump attacked NFL players who took a knee.
Trump implied that white supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting racism.
Trump said there are "some very fine people" among white supremacists.
Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas."
Once, Trump pointed to an attendee at a rally and said “Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him.”
These are some of the ones he took out of context and din't make a good argument on.
obviously I believe in some government, you did not respond to my previous comment.
I believe in government, I'm not for getting rid of it. You are putting words in my mouth. Churches should tax avoid or get very limited taxes, as that is a good example of separation of church and state.
I believe in some intervention on private businesses, but I think for the most part very limited, and limited taxes down to a rate below 20%, probably 15.
I believe they should have the same rights as others. They already do have same rights if I'm not mistaken.
I like small government because the more government there is the more corrupt it gets and the gov. ends up ruling so many aspects of your life. It is not their job to tell everybody and private businesses what to do.
That would be infringing upon separation of church and state. Marriage is to be determined privately, and is characterized as a cultural or religious tradition, not a government intervention. Less government is not fascist, it's anti-fascist.
Believing in silencing people with different opinions and using violence against them is what you are for. Sounds pretty fascist to me.
No, because they also have to show why they are here and how they will help economically, you get so many people who will not help.
I found your twitter- https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath
Believing in silencing people with different opinions and using violence against them is what you are for. Sounds pretty fascist to me.
That depends. A large percentage of illegals don't have a lot of experience, don't speak English, or don't have the necessary requirements to be in the U.S. I believe that immigration helps the economy, but legally. We have to control and know what people are in our country and make sure they would contribute to society. Since the legal immigration process is slow, I believe in a comprehensive reform to speed it up a little and perhaps accept some more people.
says the fascist.
oohhh i voted for the wrong side accidentally, bsh you can remove it.
Your second vote point was...
"" Like I said in my first argument, Trump is right to say some are criminals."
- The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals "
Trump was addressing specifically the people he was talking about(violent criminals) and pointing out the problem with illegal immigration. Saying some doesn't imply a majority, the violent criminals are obviously some as well. He was just focusing on the large issue. He never specified a quantity, he just said "they are bringing crime, rapists", but he was focusing on this particular group so he mentioned the good people so it would imply that while yes, some are good, a lot are also bad, and that was the focus of his point.
The final example and borderline is this one in your vote...
and my personal favorite...
" Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't."
You don't even do an explanation for this. I did respond to this by saying "You can't fully stop crime from natives, as it is unpredictable. However, you can stop crime over the immigration issue by knowing who is coming in that they are no criminals, and also by building a wall you can stop drug smuggling and human trafficking, a huge crisis. You can reduce a huge amount of crime by building a wall so criminals aren't able to walk through undetected, but it is hard to reduce crime in the U.S. because it is unpredictable, and when people do commit crimes, they are punished."
You don't even address this.
It is clear you are biased, but the site voting policy does not account for it. The vote will stand, but unjustly. You also did not point out the many flaws in con's argument's, and didn't fairly weight those into the vote. (i.e. taking quotes out of context) or indirectly calling me racist (poor conduct.)
You already know you are bias and have inherent bias in voting. It's not a secret that you vote from an SJW's perspective, which is why I generally don't vote in debates, to keep my potential bias out of it and let fair voters do fair voting.
You only had 2 relevant points that awarded Con argument points which were.....
"One of my favorite arguments Con made against pro was regarding the Black voters claim to which they responded with,
" That's racist to assume someone's economic or social position based on their race."
- This completely destroys Pro's argument regarding this point since Pro's argument against the claim was that Trump was simply trying to appeal to them. Making prejudicial assumptions regardless of intent is still racist as Con pointed out."
He wasn't making an assumption. Statistically, the single motherhood rate for blacks is the highest ever at 72%, Blacks account for the majority of crime and murder despite them being 13% of the population, the unemployment rate for blacks is the highest among all groups (which Trump has gotten down to record numbers), 58% of their youth is unemployed, the poverty rate is at 20%, highest among all major races, the lowest sat score benchmark percentage at 20%,etc.
Now Trump was saying some of these things are affected by democratic policies, specifically economically(because he is a business man), and he has shown that he is doing good for black people by the lowest unemployment rates and booming economy for blacks. Blacks are statistically worse at things than other races. Trump was making a pitch to try something new in Trump, being a business man and not your typical president(not even a politician). Claiming this is racist is very opinionated and not clear and cut.
His name is the murderer's name
He never "implied" that. You are putting words in his mouth. He said some, not most, that is your own opinion and implication of what he meant, not judging on what the debaters said during the debate.
my bad lol
"They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
where in there does he say MOST. He doesn't.
You obviously didn't even read the debate. you said "The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals"
THATS ALL YOU SAID, you didn't even adress my point, and this is completely false. Shame on you for making such a bias vote.
And then you say he won on the sources??
That wasn't even what the debate was about.
"The problem is that Trump actually stated that SOME are good people and that MOST are criminals"
You are implementing your own thoughts into the vote, not on what was said during the debate. He also never said most, where did you get that from?
"" Why then is it ok for Trump to ignore the bigger source of crime and focus on the smaller one? The answer is it isn't.""
I rebutted to this in the debate "You can't fully stop crime from natives, as it is unpredictable. However, you can stop crime over the immigration issue by knowing who is coming in that they are no criminals, and also by building a wall you can stop drug smuggling and human trafficking, a huge crisis. You can reduce a huge amount of crime by building a wall so criminals aren't able to walk through undetected, but it is hard to reduce crime in the U.S. because it is unpredictable, and when people do commit crimes, they are punished." I also added some more stuff, but your bias mind isn't able to comprehend it.
I addressed those arguments in the first couple of points in each round. Of course your vote it won't get taken down tho, because the voting policy is corrupt,.
thx for the bias vote, u do realize i was mimicking con when i said "they were getting paid off" because con said the exact same thing in his argument?
U shoulda copied and pasted this 😢 *cry*
U shoulda copied and pasted this 😢 *cry*
lol :D remember you have to almost waive this round
Got that last round submitted w/ less than one minute on the clock lmao I was sweatingggg
Would it technically be legal for me to copy and paste another vote and use as proof for my vote because I would agree with everything he said?
Response?
Glad to know your bias.
Still did not adress it. reported.
What about the rule break by con in the final round? He was supposed to waive.
I specifically commented 'I will clarify if needed on my position." what do you not get about that??
At the time I wrote that I was either doing it from a religious perspective, I didn't rly know what it was, or it was from a slavery perspective. I'm not sure what I think of it, I'm undecided. My initial thoughts on this is government shouldn't regulate it because we should be a free market society, but also I'm not sure about whether women could be harrassed or assaulted, i.e. the dangers of it. I'm not educated on this as of right now, only the slavery aspect of it. I will clarify next round.
My bad, I see what your saying. I was saying in the context of prostitution in slavery.
idk man i'll give u benefit of the doubt
I meant to say that in addition with the other things I wrote after it. Please don't use that against me.
Omar- "You are actually trolling here. I am done speaking to you."
says the troller lmao
How disingenuous of you. The first debate I created I put in parentheses "where morality stems from does not count" and you wouldn't accept it. As soon as I deleted that one and made this a fresh one and forgot to put that, you immediately accepted. Now I know your real motives behind that. Shame you couldn't be decent enough to say something about it.
To hard to copy and paste all of those. I will put the link to all of them, and you can simply quote me on it. I will clarify if needed on my position.
The statements on DDO are short statements stating what you believe, not an essay with statistics.
The only one that actually applies to this discussion(also u didn't respond to my last comment)
>>Oh so your Religion does not impact your political views? Who offers this "right" God? That debate would be so easy for me to win but I don't really want to ruin your already poor win ratio. I feel sorry for you.
lmao illegal immigration has nothing to do with God. It is a matter of knowing who comes in and out of the country, which people would contribute, and not knowing what violent criminals or drug smugglers are coming in.