You know that the Quran was translated into English and every single person on this site can Google the age of Aisha and find out she married Muhammad (pbuh) at 6 right?
Does Muhammad (PBUH) care if you convert people or not?
Does your God care if you convert people?
Serious question because if you think what I said is wrong and you aren't arguing against it, than you are allowing others to believe what I said and possibly turning away potential Muslims
Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)
How is it a perfect book when it's prophet brags about fucking his 13 year old cousin and is sexually intimate with little boys and wants them to and I quote "suck on his tongue"?
I don't have any strong opinions though. I talked them into lowering the character limit for the debate though and am slightly regretting it, because chopping words is as much work as writing them.
I wanted to mention it in the debate but every round prior to the final one I wrote out about 15k characters and had to squeeze them down to 10k. It's an irrelevant point to weighing the arguments but I thought it would be amusing to mention.
"I am only interested in a serious and professional debate"
You won't get that debate by handcuffing your opponent to an opinion that no highschool graduate has. If you are confident they seceded because of a few Jews owning slaves than you should have no problem defending that position.
What I am saying is that a lot of people think the war is not as simple as just saying it is about slavery.
That there was a myriad of reasons for the war and that slavery was the least of them. Nobody who says the war was not about slavery, argues it was about state's rights other than people dumbing down the reasons for rhetorical purposes.
"the slave trade in America was racially motivated"
Damn, I thought there might be some sort of financial motive to have free labor but I guess not.
"If you believe the South left to protect its states' rights or that slavery was not the cause then challenge the debate."
Your 2nd rule for the debate only allows con to argue it was for state's rights. So if I think it's because Lincoln was a faggot and southerners didn't want to associate with fags, I would automatically lose the debate for breaking rule number 2.
you are arguing the south fought to preserve the jewish slave trade than argue it, not sure why you are forcing your opponent to argue they were fighting for states rights though
1. chatGPT
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Manvell
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Fraenkel
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig
5. Hoggan, David L The Forced War: When peaceful revision failed. Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, p. 50 pg. 452-453
6. https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/
7. Day, Donald, Onward Christian Soldiers, Newport Beach, Cal.: The Noontide Press, 2002, p. 56.
8. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-hitler-wanted-conquer-new-%E2%80%98lebensraum-east%E2%80%99-188255
9. https://www.history.com/news/germany-world-war-i-debt-treaty-versailles
10. Grebler, Leo (1940). The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria–Hungary. Yale University Press. 1940 Page78
11. https://library.randolphschool.net/c.php?g=237930&p=1581974
12. https://academic.oup.com/book/6769/chapter-abstract/150885033?redirectedFrom=fulltext
"Sadly the reading I've done on it doesn't indicate any connection between these laws and trying to combat Aids"
Neither of us speak the language. All these articles are in English, and the predominantly liberal media has an agenda. Even if you disagree that the media is predominantly liberal, I think you have to admit that the media organizations that chose to pick up this story were more likely liberally than not.
That means their audience is more likely liberal and a headline like "Uganda bans gays" is going to get more clicks (how online sites make money) than an article titled
"Ugandans desperate to solve aids rates of 10% that are steadily climbing are faced with tough decisions to balance public health and liberal values"
"rather to 'protect traditional values' and hallucinations of God demanding it."
Uganda's citizens have an average IQ of 84. Not kidding look it up. The people in government are not going to make public appeals quoting statistics to these people. They aren't going to get into academic talk about what types of activities are most likely to spread aids and talks of aids prevention.
When making appeals to people who are superstitious and with such low IQs, your best bet isn't to bring up intricate reasons for policy proposals. Your best bet is to use the exact rhetoric you mention
"The laws in question target anyone who identifies as anything other than heterosexual. "
Seeing as how those laws specifically exist because of the sheer amount of Aids in uganda, I think you know the law does not target asexuals. I am not going to say I don't lie in debates but you already won lol.
1. Chat GPT
2. Mein Kampf (Adolph Hitler) ch. 4
3. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/eugenics_malthu.html
4. https://www.britannica.com/question/How-many-people-died-during-World-WarII#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20the%20total%20number,the%20war's%20casualties%20are%20inexact.
5. https://www.riseagainsthunger.org/articles/fao-reports-828-million-face-hunger/
6. https://www.microblife.in/how-many-acres-to-feed-one-person-for-a-year/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire_in_World_War_II#:~:text=In%201939%20the%20British%20Empire,30%25%20of%20its%20land%20mass.
8. Random post I remember reading on stormfront about Hitler requesting peace in several letters
9. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-bright-side-of-the-black-death#:~:text=The%20Black%20Death%20was%20so,when%20the%20plague%20reached%20London.
10. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/
It is post 34 of the thread where he gives the topics quoted below
"The definitions the must be standardized are the following:
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
1. Weaver of fate provided a definition of justified which probably should be in the description so neither of us waste character space on it.
2. I would like the debate to be rated if possible, if not than not a deal breaker just a personal preference.
3. Whiteflame usually tries to avoid voting on and reading debates about this and related topics, you might want to check with him before you have the disadvantage of only having one judge.
So I just read the bill has what's called "aggravated homosexuality" which is a worse offense than homosexuality.
Homosexuality is exactly what you think it is. Two men having sex with each other or drinking bud light. Aggravated homosexuality which is what the American media was kvetching about which results in life imprisonment is where a gay person molests a child, or where somebody is intentionally spreading aids. They are literally kvetching that the punishment for child molestation and intentionally spreading aids is to stiff.
I should have known that since "they" are behind repealing laws about the intentional spreading of aids in California.
Can you write out all the laws in the description of the debate. Most of us just have access to English language sources who tend to exaggerate and sensationalize any laws the perceive as not woke.
For example CNN has stated some anti LGBT laws in Uganda can result in the death penalty, but knowing CNN that could be something like raping a child would lead to death .
So basically I can know how a bunch of woke retards interpret the laws but I can't know the laws unless you put them in the description.
Ok thanks. This debate was about efficiency and I was intentionally laying some traps because I usually like to control my opponent's arguments as well.
I know if I was arguing outside of the parameters of this debate for socialism, I would struggle to make an argument about wealth inequality, given that I believe it to be a terrible argument against capitalism. I did try to formulate a good argument for why wealth inequality was bad outside of debate in general, just to challenge myself but the best reasons I found were still pretty poor reasons.
"Also in case I don't say this later: Pro, thank you for making this one fun to read."
Thanks, that's usually my intent because I know judges are doing the voters a favor by reading the debate.
okay I will give him some time to respond
Your mom cannot reasonably exist in the words of the bible.
Anything could bee spun into anything. Thee question is what explanation is more plausible for things like that given the full context.
"The burden of proof is on you to prove it would be a mistake."
Burden of proof has been met. I chased off RM and changed the COC to be less stupid, and am currently influencing mods in a good direction
I want to debate that the song "they don't care about us" is antisemitic. Would either of you be interested?
When people argue Islam isn't peaceful, they usually use quotes from the Koran. Personally I would use all the terrorist attacks to prove my point.
You know that the Quran was translated into English and every single person on this site can Google the age of Aisha and find out she married Muhammad (pbuh) at 6 right?
Does Muhammad (PBUH) care if you convert people or not?
Does your God care if you convert people?
Serious question because if you think what I said is wrong and you aren't arguing against it, than you are allowing others to believe what I said and possibly turning away potential Muslims
WTF you removed me as a friend. I thought we were cool.
The claim about Aisha and the boy whose tongue he was sucking on are 2 different claims. Not the same one. I was not calling Aisha a boy.
Please go ahead and debunk the prophet (pbuh), marrying Aisha.
You are right. Aisha was not 13 but 6
You are going to hell for lying about the Quran.
Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)
I think you mean foreskin not foreknowledge. He is a Jew, so he is circumcised. Nobody is going to argue Jesus was not circumcised
How is it a perfect book when it's prophet brags about fucking his 13 year old cousin and is sexually intimate with little boys and wants them to and I quote "suck on his tongue"?
it is judges only so your vote won't count but would still love to see your feedback
Countries that played a role in American revolution
1. America
2. England
3. Cherokee nation
4. Italy
5. France
6. Spain
America won because there was a bigger chess match going on. England just could not hit America with everything they had.
I don't have any strong opinions though. I talked them into lowering the character limit for the debate though and am slightly regretting it, because chopping words is as much work as writing them.
I wanted to mention it in the debate but every round prior to the final one I wrote out about 15k characters and had to squeeze them down to 10k. It's an irrelevant point to weighing the arguments but I thought it would be amusing to mention.
I appreciate it. My favorite line was when you said:
"A lot of Pro’s case consists of rambling that goes off topic,"
And then posted the following in the comment section;
"Great first argument!"
I appreciate that.
So glad to look and see 24 hours left so I can procrastinate one more day
"I am only interested in a serious and professional debate"
You won't get that debate by handcuffing your opponent to an opinion that no highschool graduate has. If you are confident they seceded because of a few Jews owning slaves than you should have no problem defending that position.
What I am saying is that a lot of people think the war is not as simple as just saying it is about slavery.
That there was a myriad of reasons for the war and that slavery was the least of them. Nobody who says the war was not about slavery, argues it was about state's rights other than people dumbing down the reasons for rhetorical purposes.
"the slave trade in America was racially motivated"
Damn, I thought there might be some sort of financial motive to have free labor but I guess not.
"If you believe the South left to protect its states' rights or that slavery was not the cause then challenge the debate."
Your 2nd rule for the debate only allows con to argue it was for state's rights. So if I think it's because Lincoln was a faggot and southerners didn't want to associate with fags, I would automatically lose the debate for breaking rule number 2.
you are arguing the south fought to preserve the jewish slave trade than argue it, not sure why you are forcing your opponent to argue they were fighting for states rights though
R2 sources
1. chatGPT
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Manvell
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Fraenkel
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig
5. Hoggan, David L The Forced War: When peaceful revision failed. Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, p. 50 pg. 452-453
6. https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/
7. Day, Donald, Onward Christian Soldiers, Newport Beach, Cal.: The Noontide Press, 2002, p. 56.
8. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-hitler-wanted-conquer-new-%E2%80%98lebensraum-east%E2%80%99-188255
9. https://www.history.com/news/germany-world-war-i-debt-treaty-versailles
10. Grebler, Leo (1940). The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria–Hungary. Yale University Press. 1940 Page78
11. https://library.randolphschool.net/c.php?g=237930&p=1581974
12. https://academic.oup.com/book/6769/chapter-abstract/150885033?redirectedFrom=fulltext
"Sadly the reading I've done on it doesn't indicate any connection between these laws and trying to combat Aids"
Neither of us speak the language. All these articles are in English, and the predominantly liberal media has an agenda. Even if you disagree that the media is predominantly liberal, I think you have to admit that the media organizations that chose to pick up this story were more likely liberally than not.
That means their audience is more likely liberal and a headline like "Uganda bans gays" is going to get more clicks (how online sites make money) than an article titled
"Ugandans desperate to solve aids rates of 10% that are steadily climbing are faced with tough decisions to balance public health and liberal values"
"rather to 'protect traditional values' and hallucinations of God demanding it."
Uganda's citizens have an average IQ of 84. Not kidding look it up. The people in government are not going to make public appeals quoting statistics to these people. They aren't going to get into academic talk about what types of activities are most likely to spread aids and talks of aids prevention.
When making appeals to people who are superstitious and with such low IQs, your best bet isn't to bring up intricate reasons for policy proposals. Your best bet is to use the exact rhetoric you mention
"The laws in question target anyone who identifies as anything other than heterosexual. "
Seeing as how those laws specifically exist because of the sheer amount of Aids in uganda, I think you know the law does not target asexuals. I am not going to say I don't lie in debates but you already won lol.
They usually both get it right. I agree
I wanted to let the man who made the decision, speak for himself
editing the argument down means citation number 5 can be ignored
1. Chat GPT
2. Mein Kampf (Adolph Hitler) ch. 4
3. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/eugenics_malthu.html
4. https://www.britannica.com/question/How-many-people-died-during-World-WarII#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20the%20total%20number,the%20war's%20casualties%20are%20inexact.
5. https://www.riseagainsthunger.org/articles/fao-reports-828-million-face-hunger/
6. https://www.microblife.in/how-many-acres-to-feed-one-person-for-a-year/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire_in_World_War_II#:~:text=In%201939%20the%20British%20Empire,30%25%20of%20its%20land%20mass.
8. Random post I remember reading on stormfront about Hitler requesting peace in several letters
9. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-bright-side-of-the-black-death#:~:text=The%20Black%20Death%20was%20so,when%20the%20plague%20reached%20London.
10. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/
round 1 sources
less than 500 words to complete my argument. can't wait to post it
I don't plan to use the term "Moore's law" , but what do you think the over under is on the term appearing in this debate?
I am certainly not a Nazi, not that there's anything wrong with that.
No, it's literally on his profile.
I assume everyone is, until they tell me different.
Don't think I didn't notice that you put me in a position where I am required to prove to a Jew that Hitler was right.
Google luck. Somebody will definitely be here to accept
Good to know for future reference.
where you at dawg?
It is post 34 of the thread where he gives the topics quoted below
"The definitions the must be standardized are the following:
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
Didn't know that and let me look at the thread
1. Weaver of fate provided a definition of justified which probably should be in the description so neither of us waste character space on it.
2. I would like the debate to be rated if possible, if not than not a deal breaker just a personal preference.
3. Whiteflame usually tries to avoid voting on and reading debates about this and related topics, you might want to check with him before you have the disadvantage of only having one judge.
I only mentiond the aggravated homosexuality which can get you life in prison. Regular homosexuality is punishable by up to 7 years
So I just read the bill has what's called "aggravated homosexuality" which is a worse offense than homosexuality.
Homosexuality is exactly what you think it is. Two men having sex with each other or drinking bud light. Aggravated homosexuality which is what the American media was kvetching about which results in life imprisonment is where a gay person molests a child, or where somebody is intentionally spreading aids. They are literally kvetching that the punishment for child molestation and intentionally spreading aids is to stiff.
I should have known that since "they" are behind repealing laws about the intentional spreading of aids in California.
Can you write out all the laws in the description of the debate. Most of us just have access to English language sources who tend to exaggerate and sensationalize any laws the perceive as not woke.
For example CNN has stated some anti LGBT laws in Uganda can result in the death penalty, but knowing CNN that could be something like raping a child would lead to death .
So basically I can know how a bunch of woke retards interpret the laws but I can't know the laws unless you put them in the description.
Ok thanks. This debate was about efficiency and I was intentionally laying some traps because I usually like to control my opponent's arguments as well.
I know if I was arguing outside of the parameters of this debate for socialism, I would struggle to make an argument about wealth inequality, given that I believe it to be a terrible argument against capitalism. I did try to formulate a good argument for why wealth inequality was bad outside of debate in general, just to challenge myself but the best reasons I found were still pretty poor reasons.