I hear liberals criticize deregulation all the time. Why would they have a problem with deregulation if there is even a single unnecessary or harmful regulation somewhere. Deregulation merely means removing that harmful or useless regulation.
I am in the middle of a fierce campaign to prevent what could be a genocidal leader from taking complete power over this site (not an attack just we don't know what somebody with power could do until they get it). I need every point I can get. Please return it promptly
Thank God a conservative willing to defend their stupid ideology of thinking murder of babies and the elderly is wrong or their stupid ideology that it is wrong to cut off a child's penis
I think current dictionaries still have the correct definition usually, but redefining racism to include something like "people who benefit from systematic racism are automatically racist" and other such nonsense is dumb and actually waters down the term to the point of meaninglessness.
You can ask 5 different sociologists what they mean by terms like "systematic racism" and you will get 5 conflicting definitions.
The correct definition of systematic racism of course is actual systems that are created to intentionally harm certain groups or give certain racial groups preference.
But some stupid sociologist might define systematic racism as the results of disproportionate levels of criminality. Something that would only be systematic racism if there were extra laws on the books that were directed at overtly criminalizing being black.
Or they'll describe generational poverty as systematic racism, but the effects of generational poverty are the same on whites and blacks
I even heard sociologists try to claim banks doing credit checks is a form of systematic racism.
So of course when you define systematic racism like that, you are being dishonest. The American government, police and judges aren't all racists who are out to get non whites. It's silly. In order to prove actual systematic racism as properly defined you would need to show laws directed at blacks or racial discrepancies in policing that are a result of enforcing more laws or enforcing laws in an unequal manner.
And no, disproportionate sentencing as a result of blacks having more priors does not count, nor do more drug arrests because blacks more often do drugs in public instead of the privacy of their house.
You just can't prove any actual systematic racism. Sociologists know this, which is why they attempt to redefine the word. They can't be like "white man bad", if they used proper definitions.
You guys were talking about 2 different things because you seemed to be using the wrong definition of racism. If your definition is in zero dictionary's from 10 years ago, than you are just making up definitions to defend the retarded worldview you have in your head
"He got 5,502 responses; 95% of those self-selected respondents said that life began at fertilization, when a sperm and egg merge to form a single-celled zygote"
It's a fine way to determine the belief of biologists. Please stop playing dumb. I would even guess that most of the biologists who answered are pro choice. How biologists define life is very specific and perhaps different than how the lay man does.
What you are doing here is trying to automatically dismiss good evidence merely because you don't like the conclusions.
Nobody wit an IQ of 80 or above can try to claim that there was not enough study participants
I will give an RFd either way. Probably Wednesday or Thursday. I believe. I don't know how much I will get into the RFD, it depends on whether I can write it out while reading it on a word document or if I will be restrained to a pen and a pad.
"Bones argument that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization is not true. This is based on a brief filed in the Supreme Court."
I actually seen a study on this where there was a questionnaire sent to biologists. The ones who answered admitted it was when life started. Some of the ones who did not answer would occasionally send emails back bitching that the intent of the question was for obvious conservative talking points.
"Bones argument that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization is not true. This is based on a brief filed in the Supreme Court."
I actually seen a study on this where there was a questionnaire sent to biologists. The ones who answered admitted it was when life started. Some of the ones who did not answer would occasionally send emails back bitching that the intent of the question was for obvious conservative talking points.
Because of the way my phone renders some of the debate, it would make it difficult for me to judge fairly and I don't have access to a computer often at the moment.
It looks like you made a couple of mistakes. I would say you seem to have formulated the debate to be about an outright ban, which is tough to defend. No pro life people usually advocate for that.
You seem to also be letting con get away with advocating for pragmatism . Something liberals will often lean on when looking at abstract concepts like abortion, you can probably look at how they debate against capital punishment for some clues on how to handle that.
I think you could have also pushed for considering an unborn fetus a human being . Con would talk about dangers to the mother of the unborn child, but failed to explain why the mother's health should supercede the innocent child's. I think you could have made some very strong appeals to emotion.
Yes appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy, but as somebody who argued devil's advocate, I can tell you that several times I have been beaten by appeals to emotion because judges can't see through them.
I do think whiteflame made several mistakes as well, but you PMed me to see if I wanted to vote, so I thought I would give you some of my opinions. I don't feel like I should vote at the moment and I don't know which way I would vote, if I did have the ability to go carefully through this at the moment.
I need to prepare for politics if I win the election. Why wait for absolute power to corrupt me. Procrastinating is bad.
Depends on whether it is politically expedient to claim so in the moment or not.
Currently yes, but I hear that if I work hard, I can be converted to master race Jew.
You did really well in this debate. Thanks for exploring this topic
What about debating a single thing that is scientifically inaccurtin the bible instead of all things
We can debate universal healthcare maybe. Let me finish looking through your interests
We can debate universal healthcare maybe. Let me finish looking through your interests
That's what Ii am trying to do.
I hear liberals criticize deregulation all the time. Why would they have a problem with deregulation if there is even a single unnecessary or harmful regulation somewhere. Deregulation merely means removing that harmful or useless regulation.
Kritik 1: Truthful nonsense either doesn't exist or is only nonsense due to lack of understanding.
Just debate what op wants. Don't be a dick. You know he means obvious statements of fact. I would take con here also but argue the way it was intended
Because he seems like he opposes basing his belief system around the fact that he is part of some superior race chosen by God to rule over filthy Goy
Is con violating site rules by taking an antisemitic position in this debate?
I told you to give me your email address. You broke the rules but I think you deserve some prize. Your choice
Join the discord and you might have something you can use tomorrow morning
I wouldn't mind debating an AI but that is just too many characters. Maybe bring it down to between 2k and 10k
I made an argument in the last round. Not a full forfeitures. Maybe partial
She was quite obviously not an alt and the mods shouldn't have even humored that nonsense.
You offered zero rebuttals to prose contentions so not sure how you expect to win this.
BTW, it would go further to prove you are good by arguing and winning by taking the position you are bad at debating.
I started a debate so I could prove it
That would be a mistake
I am in the middle of a fierce campaign to prevent what could be a genocidal leader from taking complete power over this site (not an attack just we don't know what somebody with power could do until they get it). I need every point I can get. Please return it promptly
The site only lets me vote against you if you participated in the debate, but just know that mentally I docked you one invisible point
I just realized you wrote in English. Sorry the debate was supposed to be in German. That should have been a conduct points against you
Bro, don't do 6 arguments poorly. Do one argument well.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the soap bubbles, and I did not speak out—because I was not a soap bubble
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
So is this about the ethics of popping soap bubbles or whether soap bubbles should be allowed rights?
The mods can use a translation app. You are fine
I am too scared to ask if he used Google translate or if he already is better at Esperanto than me.
Fuck I still have time to post. Didn't expect to come back to that. Nice and I have Thanksgiving off of work
It's also not enforceable and if the mods start enforcing things like that, than they should consider resigning.
Don't try to use misspelling against me. English is not my first language. I am a southerner.
Thank God a conservative willing to defend their stupid ideology of thinking murder of babies and the elderly is wrong or their stupid ideology that it is wrong to cut off a child's penis
I wish I could. I do work 6 days a week and am just on here when I am on break at work and can't do anything anyway
The description to me doesn't come across as a rule so much as a musing to merely fill space so the debate could be started
I at least posted a round
I think current dictionaries still have the correct definition usually, but redefining racism to include something like "people who benefit from systematic racism are automatically racist" and other such nonsense is dumb and actually waters down the term to the point of meaninglessness.
You can ask 5 different sociologists what they mean by terms like "systematic racism" and you will get 5 conflicting definitions.
The correct definition of systematic racism of course is actual systems that are created to intentionally harm certain groups or give certain racial groups preference.
But some stupid sociologist might define systematic racism as the results of disproportionate levels of criminality. Something that would only be systematic racism if there were extra laws on the books that were directed at overtly criminalizing being black.
Or they'll describe generational poverty as systematic racism, but the effects of generational poverty are the same on whites and blacks
I even heard sociologists try to claim banks doing credit checks is a form of systematic racism.
So of course when you define systematic racism like that, you are being dishonest. The American government, police and judges aren't all racists who are out to get non whites. It's silly. In order to prove actual systematic racism as properly defined you would need to show laws directed at blacks or racial discrepancies in policing that are a result of enforcing more laws or enforcing laws in an unequal manner.
And no, disproportionate sentencing as a result of blacks having more priors does not count, nor do more drug arrests because blacks more often do drugs in public instead of the privacy of their house.
You just can't prove any actual systematic racism. Sociologists know this, which is why they attempt to redefine the word. They can't be like "white man bad", if they used proper definitions.
You guys were talking about 2 different things because you seemed to be using the wrong definition of racism. If your definition is in zero dictionary's from 10 years ago, than you are just making up definitions to defend the retarded worldview you have in your head
Thanks
"He got 5,502 responses; 95% of those self-selected respondents said that life began at fertilization, when a sperm and egg merge to form a single-celled zygote"
It's a fine way to determine the belief of biologists. Please stop playing dumb. I would even guess that most of the biologists who answered are pro choice. How biologists define life is very specific and perhaps different than how the lay man does.
What you are doing here is trying to automatically dismiss good evidence merely because you don't like the conclusions.
Nobody wit an IQ of 80 or above can try to claim that there was not enough study participants
I will give an RFd either way. Probably Wednesday or Thursday. I believe. I don't know how much I will get into the RFD, it depends on whether I can write it out while reading it on a word document or if I will be restrained to a pen and a pad.
Do you mind adding 72 hours to the voting period please?
I suspect it is. I think Mike hinted at the possibility before.
Open up voting again and let me break the tie. Or get Mike to do it
"Bones argument that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization is not true. This is based on a brief filed in the Supreme Court."
I actually seen a study on this where there was a questionnaire sent to biologists. The ones who answered admitted it was when life started. Some of the ones who did not answer would occasionally send emails back bitching that the intent of the question was for obvious conservative talking points.
"Bones argument that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization is not true. This is based on a brief filed in the Supreme Court."
I actually seen a study on this where there was a questionnaire sent to biologists. The ones who answered admitted it was when life started. Some of the ones who did not answer would occasionally send emails back bitching that the intent of the question was for obvious conservative talking points.
"Is it possible to love every person"
I don't know, ask your mother.
Nice. Glad I can still make history
Only you can turn complimenting a man on his dick, and turn it into something gay.
Because of the way my phone renders some of the debate, it would make it difficult for me to judge fairly and I don't have access to a computer often at the moment.
It looks like you made a couple of mistakes. I would say you seem to have formulated the debate to be about an outright ban, which is tough to defend. No pro life people usually advocate for that.
You seem to also be letting con get away with advocating for pragmatism . Something liberals will often lean on when looking at abstract concepts like abortion, you can probably look at how they debate against capital punishment for some clues on how to handle that.
I think you could have also pushed for considering an unborn fetus a human being . Con would talk about dangers to the mother of the unborn child, but failed to explain why the mother's health should supercede the innocent child's. I think you could have made some very strong appeals to emotion.
Yes appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy, but as somebody who argued devil's advocate, I can tell you that several times I have been beaten by appeals to emotion because judges can't see through them.
I do think whiteflame made several mistakes as well, but you PMed me to see if I wanted to vote, so I thought I would give you some of my opinions. I don't feel like I should vote at the moment and I don't know which way I would vote, if I did have the ability to go carefully through this at the moment.
I actually saw the images on Hunter's laptop. Dude has a huge dick and likes cocaine and whores. He seems cool, too bad he has a piece of shit dad