"As for you thinking that the children who have sex with adults are not harmed by it at first because of defense mechanisms the victims themselves did not say that they were not harmed by it because of defense mechanisms. They said things more like "I didn't realize that it was abuse so I didn't think of it as wrong" and "the only reason that I knew that it was wrong is because he tried to hide what we were doing when the door opened" and ""
This is an over reliance on their words as a way to explain their repressed feelings. Obviously these people are not aware of their own psychological defense mechanisms. I saw torture as normal. Sometimes I even brought it onto myself. For example I wanted my siblings to have a normal childhood, so when they would do anything wrong, I'd take the blame myself and the punishment so they never had to experience it.
I will take a while to actually argue because I am calling up psychologists who have experience in childhood sexual abuse. Many of which claim a lot of these victims don't view themselves as victims and many believe that nothing is wrong with what happened.
I am obviously not going into detail about this in the comments and I haven't fully researched the position I took in this debate yet, but you don't seem to realize what being a victim means. I thought my childhood was good, because I had no frame of reference. I can't understand how that problem would be compounded if I was experiencing abuse in a way that was physically stimulating and where I was seduced into doing it voluntarily.
I have talked to a lot of people who do recall these childhood experiences fondly, but they don't realize the harm though I can see it clearly. Their hypersexual nature causing them to get pregnant at 13 for example. The fact they can't platonic relationships with others of the sex they abused him
You are dense. I was literally tortured as a child. I can tell you in the moment a lot of psychological defenses made the events tolerable. It wasn't until I got away from the frequent torture that the trauma fully surfaced. It has nothing to do with social stigma though. These are psychological defense mechanisms
It's unfair for pro to get 10000 characters to prevent a case and then con only gets 5000 because the other 5000 is dedicated to rebuttals. If you do it the way I suggest both opening cases are 10k characters bother rebuttal rounds are 10k characters. In a 3 round debate the final round will be for impact analysis and counter rebuttals. In a 4 round debate r3 is for counter rebuttals and R4 is for conclusions and analysis.
This is the fairest way in my opinion and everyone has exactly equal characters for contentions, rebuttals and counter rebuttals
"Disappointingly, Con has chosen not to address a single argument I made in the first round despite agreeing that I would take full BoP. Without rebuttals to address, my points remain standing. So with that, I'll clearly have to spend the rest of this round responding to Con's points. "
Why do people still do this? Round 2 is the rebuttal round normally. Obviously con is not going to make rebuttals in the argument round
I don't know if I can judge this. It's kind of annoying seeing the term agnostic used incorrectly over and over. Agnosticism is on a spectrum of belief to disbelief. Agnosticism is not between theistic and atheistic.
Agnosticism is merely a philosophical concept that says, one can never have enough evidence to know whether God is real or not. All agnostics are either theistic or atheistic . Most I agree would be atheists.
Lack of belief in God and a lack of a positive disbelief in God would also both be considered atheistic.
"If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?"
That's how debates should be judged. You are right it shouldn't be based on how much you buy or believe an argument.
I haven't read Oro's RFD. I can't tell you whether he judged this correctly or not, but if he is weighing arguments based on how believable they sound to him, he is judging incorrectly.
I am watching interviews with the writer of the "Trauma Myth" and she thinks that child sexual abuse is very harmful. If I limited my response to Susan Clancy quotes it would be enough to win this debate.
She is concerned about the myths of how sexual abuse effects victims prevents victims from being recognized and coming forward
"Hmm... so when I ask if government should intervene in my vagina or should people have the freedom to choose who grows in their body when your saying it's the leftists outlawing my personal autonomy?"
This is a special exception. Just like the social contract the woman has a type of unwritten contract with her child not to murder it. When leftists claim this is about men wanting to control women it's disingenuous. The anti abortion laws are about preventing murders.
"so when I ask if government should intervene in our American right to vote or should people have the freedom to choose their president by majority every four years, you're saying its the leftists trying to illegally hold on to the White House?"
Is this your way of arguing against making elections secure, because you know that insecure elections where cheating is allowed will always be won by Democrats because of their lack of morality?
I doubt punching you in the nuts would cause them to fall off, even if it did likely some physical pain would be attached to the outcome so some harm would be caused.
I think we all know who this is an alt of. You guys have every right to ban me for speaking the truth about him, but nobody should deny what is plainly obvious
He is right. Right wing should be defined basically as anti statist and left wing should be defined as pro statist. Under this definition people like Adolph Hitler Mussolini and che Guevara all have their similar ideologies on statism on one side and anti statists like Thomas Jefferson would be on the right side of the political spectrum. When I am arguing against leftism it's usually an argument against the fact you guys want to be subjects to the government as opposed to free citizens.
When you ask questions like "should government intervene here or should people have freedom" the left always chooses government intervention at the cost of negative liberties
The native Americans were mistreated and fell victim to immigration and cultural genocide. Is it really right wingers that push for mass immigration and cultural genocide or is that some other group?
I'm pretty close to libertarian which is about as right wing as it gets and by your definition that would make Republicans (the conservative party) liberal
I actually intend to vote on this debate. For whatever reason once I place a holder vote it won't let me edit the vote. Can you delete my holder vote please. I swear the site changed as I could alter the vote before
leftwing= Government interventionists. Thinks the government should control everything
rightwing= prioritizes individual liberty over government interventionism.
One of the biographies from a cop that was there when the body was taken says the scene was much more intense than what the mainstream narrative says and they were close to a shootout with the secret service
The law was for them to technically keep the body in Dallas, so yes the secret service was corrupt which I define as not behaving ethically.
We also have decided as a country that freedom is more important than life even, so no the police had good reasoning to illegally question Holme's but it was unethical because it violated his rights.
As far as the Waco thing is concerned I think you can just Google footage of the initial ATF withdrawal and see a camera person's camera get shoved. Now it wasn't headlined anywhere because nobody but me thought it was a big deal, but it's pretty clear to see on footage.
Left wing politics is not about prioritizing human rights, if it was than humans would be better off when leftists like Kim Jung un and Hitler get into power not worse off. Even if we leave out the autocrats who are by definition leftists, we still have left wing politicians at local levels who have policies that harm human rights in their own cities. It's true the left hates property rights and wants oligarchs who control the government to be in charge of them, but to say they prioritize or even care about human rights is silly.
"No journalists reported unprovoked violence"
I think some journalists who went into Chaz were attacked and felt their life was under threat. Even left wing journalists we're in fear.
However I am pretty critical of government at all levels, so no I am not supporting a lot of the police response. It's just idiots at the left are looking at some justified police action as unacceptable while for some reason leftwing journalism ignores actual fucked up things the police did. We also see that some hostility was to be suspected. I saw a video of police trying to get a protestor medical aid while being bombarded with cement bricks and bottles thrown at them, so basically attempted murder by the crowds.
The police corruption that did occur during this situation include
1. Putting undercover agents in the crowd.
2. Allowing rioters to attack small businesses that were targeted because they were owned by Asians and Jews.
3. Using hit squad type tactics to put isolated protestors in unmarked vehicles and just drove away.
4. We have reports of BLM protestors being dropped off bricks on street corners where protests were planned and it was never investigated which liberal was funding those sorts of things.
As far as the misinformation spread. We know for a fact that George Floyd died of a drug overdose, the cop recognized a medical emergency and called an ambulance for Floyd. We know that George Floyd because of prior arrest videos always says "I can't breathe" and shouts out for his mother.
So the information basically got so severe that Derek Chauvin who by the way is a piece of shit, despite being completed innocent was railroaded by mob justice. Imagine if he was declared innocent that judge and members of that jury would have been murdered by the mob.
Police did so many corrupt things in response to the retarded group think that idiots in the public vowed down to because their low IQ brain dead sheep thinking was as follows
"Derp the TV portrayed things in a way that gets lots of views so obviously the TV is true and there is nothing else to think about"
Look, police behaved in a corrupt way. Never ever should undercovers be in the crowd. Never ever should the police actually enforce curfues. Never ever should American citizens be taken away in black vans by mysterious masked men grabbing them and not identifying themselves.
Funny thing is. I oppose those gestapo tactics whether they are used on the left or right. You are evil though so you support them if used on the right and oppose them when they are used on the left
The JFK assassination kinda exposed a lot of corruption in government.
They did stuff like illegally remove JFK'S body from Dallas and almost got in a shootout with the local police because of it.
A lot of people will excuse the behavior of the feds and secret service because in the initial moments after this occured there was a lot of uncertainty about just what was going on.
It's a bullshit excuse though. Laws, particularly laws that outline roles and responsibilities of different bodies of government are created mostly for our of the ordinary circumstances like in the after effects of unusually catastrophic events.
.
The same thing happened with the feds over stepping their authority directly after other events. For example the shootout in Waco. A member of the press was filming the ATF in retreat and one of the ATF agents was annoyed and shoved their camera. The press have the legal right to film though and that legal right is supposed to protect them from ATF agents doing that sort of thing
It's understandable why the agent did it. He probably just had a couple of friends die in that shootout and felt the camera was disrespectful, but the laws are set up to definitively determine the rights of people in those stressful times.
9/11 had a lot of instances in the direct aftermath of NY city police over stepping their authority because they felt extraordinary circumstances Gave them more rights.
Hell just after the Boston Bombing the government mandated an illegal lockdown. To show just how stupid the feds are, they actually risked losing the bombers because of the lockdown. The brothers were not found until the lockdown was lifted so private citizens could help in the efforts.
Once again, not surprising the feds are stupid, it's not surprising they stomp on people's rights either, it's insane though. Our rights are outlined not for times where it is convenient for the government to allow us to have them, but for times when it is inconvenient.
Another thing. Just after the Aurora Colorado shooting. The police lied to the shooter's lawyer and held him up from getting to his client and advising him.
The COVID protocols, many where illegal and exactly what government protections are set out to prevent. We accept that the greater good must often times be sacrificed for individual freedoms. The government is often judged by the results of events and how they effect the collective, so it makes sense why they would do things that are unethical like make "emergency protocols" that displace current and normally operating policies, but it's unethical.
Once you study history and see things like autocrats taking power because of laws created for special circumstances, you start realizing how dangerous it is.
For example Julius Caesar and Hitler both used emergency powers to take complete control of their nations.
So yes the JFK assassination perhaps brought even more light to government overstepping it's boundaries.
I'd argue the BLM riots did nothing but spread misinformation and then get idiots riled up and angry acting on the misinformation. This was probably done because the left wants a federal police force instead of local police forces
I assure you I don't give a shit about arguments in the comments, when and if I allocate points on this debate, it won't factor in. I think most people on the site are like that. I mean most of the site allows confirmation bias into their voting, but at least they don't factor in the comment section
"As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. PRO must show that the BLM protests (and only the BLM protests) were WORSE by any applicable standard than the attack on our US Capitol. If CON can show that Jan. 6th was worse by some standards, PRO's argument must fail."
This is why I don't even like voting on your debates. This isn't even remotely true. This is definitely a shared burden debate. I don't know how the debate precedes after this and Don't know if I'll have to accept your framing of BOP yet, but it's incorrect. This isn't a policy debate, it is merely a debate to assess the damage caused by the BLM protests vs the damage caused by the capital protest by the standards you guys define worse as
This site is absolute shit, and the I ability to get a single competent voter on these debates is proof. It is why I have a hard time even trying to win debates. I know the voters usually just go with the less ridiculous opinion and then deal in a lot of confirmation biases, instead of doing an actual impact analysis.
Despite the ambiguity of the term "worse" it should be easy to come up with a clear winner.
First you judge who wins the debate on how to apply the term worse and do an impact analysis based on that. I have not read the debate but perhaps pro argued "worse" means more damage to tangible items like physical property, while con thought worst meant "more damage to American institutions".
I know if no moral framework is argued in the debate, the judging is still easy. You would base worst on weighing the damages on each side against each other, preferably using money as a tool. How much money is oligarchs feeling safe worth vs how much money are protecting the economic interests of minorities whose businesses were looted by antifa/black blok lead riots across America .
Yeah, I am considering reading and judging. I am probably the slowest voter here though. So it is a huge commitment. I take a bunch of notes and usually read the debate several times.
Currently I am trying to build a poker bankroll again, so I am playing like 16 hours a day, it's hard to get time for anything else in.
I tried. Most of his political beliefs are tied to whether it is a policy that hurts poor people more than rich people. If it hurts poor people more, usually he supports the policy.
For example he is for Chinese levels of COVID-19 projections . Something that would have almost no effect on the rich while hurting the poor and minorities significantly.
Take the negatives of any policy position he suggests and just do the math on whether the negative ramifications will hurt poor people more than the wealthy and you'll see there is a pattern to his beliefs
"“Policemen are more hesitant to shoot black people”
If we assume this applies outside of firearms, this only compounds that DC was racist due to him committing crimes toward African Americans when other cops would apparently be more hesitant and/or opt to select white victims instead."
This should be reworded to say
"Chauvin is racist for being equally resistant to attacking two different ethnicities, while other cops are quicker to shoot one ethnicity over the other, which somehow makes them not racist"
I can guess oramagi's argument without reading this. Let me see.
"Well you see, Jan 6th protest was very harmful to rich white people, while the BLM riots a bunch of black neighborhoods and businesses were burned down and looted, so therefore the Jan 6 protest was worse"
You can always count on oromagi to come down on the side of the wealthy against the poor.
Yes, literal torture.
"As for you thinking that the children who have sex with adults are not harmed by it at first because of defense mechanisms the victims themselves did not say that they were not harmed by it because of defense mechanisms. They said things more like "I didn't realize that it was abuse so I didn't think of it as wrong" and "the only reason that I knew that it was wrong is because he tried to hide what we were doing when the door opened" and ""
This is an over reliance on their words as a way to explain their repressed feelings. Obviously these people are not aware of their own psychological defense mechanisms. I saw torture as normal. Sometimes I even brought it onto myself. For example I wanted my siblings to have a normal childhood, so when they would do anything wrong, I'd take the blame myself and the punishment so they never had to experience it.
I will take a while to actually argue because I am calling up psychologists who have experience in childhood sexual abuse. Many of which claim a lot of these victims don't view themselves as victims and many believe that nothing is wrong with what happened.
I am obviously not going into detail about this in the comments and I haven't fully researched the position I took in this debate yet, but you don't seem to realize what being a victim means. I thought my childhood was good, because I had no frame of reference. I can't understand how that problem would be compounded if I was experiencing abuse in a way that was physically stimulating and where I was seduced into doing it voluntarily.
I have talked to a lot of people who do recall these childhood experiences fondly, but they don't realize the harm though I can see it clearly. Their hypersexual nature causing them to get pregnant at 13 for example. The fact they can't platonic relationships with others of the sex they abused him
I will confirm double_R did mean subjective in a different context than what the rules are for unmoderated debates
You are dense. I was literally tortured as a child. I can tell you in the moment a lot of psychological defenses made the events tolerable. It wasn't until I got away from the frequent torture that the trauma fully surfaced. It has nothing to do with social stigma though. These are psychological defense mechanisms
It's unfair for pro to get 10000 characters to prevent a case and then con only gets 5000 because the other 5000 is dedicated to rebuttals. If you do it the way I suggest both opening cases are 10k characters bother rebuttal rounds are 10k characters. In a 3 round debate the final round will be for impact analysis and counter rebuttals. In a 4 round debate r3 is for counter rebuttals and R4 is for conclusions and analysis.
This is the fairest way in my opinion and everyone has exactly equal characters for contentions, rebuttals and counter rebuttals
Just getting to round 2. Here is a quote
"Disappointingly, Con has chosen not to address a single argument I made in the first round despite agreeing that I would take full BoP. Without rebuttals to address, my points remain standing. So with that, I'll clearly have to spend the rest of this round responding to Con's points. "
Why do people still do this? Round 2 is the rebuttal round normally. Obviously con is not going to make rebuttals in the argument round
I don't know if I can judge this. It's kind of annoying seeing the term agnostic used incorrectly over and over. Agnosticism is on a spectrum of belief to disbelief. Agnosticism is not between theistic and atheistic.
Agnosticism is merely a philosophical concept that says, one can never have enough evidence to know whether God is real or not. All agnostics are either theistic or atheistic . Most I agree would be atheists.
Lack of belief in God and a lack of a positive disbelief in God would also both be considered atheistic.
"If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?"
That's how debates should be judged. You are right it shouldn't be based on how much you buy or believe an argument.
I haven't read Oro's RFD. I can't tell you whether he judged this correctly or not, but if he is weighing arguments based on how believable they sound to him, he is judging incorrectly.
"“We atheists believe that nature simply exists. Matter is. Material is.” (Madalyn Murray O’Hair, What on Earth Is an Atheist? 1972)"
Thanks for remembering Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She has a great story as well as the story of her famous son.
Not sure why you think being an idiot is a superpower.
I am watching interviews with the writer of the "Trauma Myth" and she thinks that child sexual abuse is very harmful. If I limited my response to Susan Clancy quotes it would be enough to win this debate.
She is concerned about the myths of how sexual abuse effects victims prevents victims from being recognized and coming forward
"What I have brought up is essentially within the consideration of a question."
What made you decide to express the thoughts you have in this sentence in such a stupid way?
Seriously this sentence is retarded. Reword it to sound like a human please.
"Hmm... so when I ask if government should intervene in my vagina or should people have the freedom to choose who grows in their body when your saying it's the leftists outlawing my personal autonomy?"
This is a special exception. Just like the social contract the woman has a type of unwritten contract with her child not to murder it. When leftists claim this is about men wanting to control women it's disingenuous. The anti abortion laws are about preventing murders.
"so when I ask if government should intervene in our American right to vote or should people have the freedom to choose their president by majority every four years, you're saying its the leftists trying to illegally hold on to the White House?"
Is this your way of arguing against making elections secure, because you know that insecure elections where cheating is allowed will always be won by Democrats because of their lack of morality?
Another case of obfuscation
I doubt punching you in the nuts would cause them to fall off, even if it did likely some physical pain would be attached to the outcome so some harm would be caused.
Go ahead and post your round. I know you think a lot about how to morally justify fucking children and your arguments are already written
That's called obfuscation. Don't be a moron. Me punching you in the nuts would absolutely cause harm
I am accepting but please keep your arguments shorter than 30k you fucking pervert
Is there a reason you need 30k characters to discuss why fucking children is a good ideal? Can't you take it down to like 10k?
I think we all know who this is an alt of. You guys have every right to ban me for speaking the truth about him, but nobody should deny what is plainly obvious
He is right. Right wing should be defined basically as anti statist and left wing should be defined as pro statist. Under this definition people like Adolph Hitler Mussolini and che Guevara all have their similar ideologies on statism on one side and anti statists like Thomas Jefferson would be on the right side of the political spectrum. When I am arguing against leftism it's usually an argument against the fact you guys want to be subjects to the government as opposed to free citizens.
When you ask questions like "should government intervene here or should people have freedom" the left always chooses government intervention at the cost of negative liberties
The native Americans were mistreated and fell victim to immigration and cultural genocide. Is it really right wingers that push for mass immigration and cultural genocide or is that some other group?
I'm pretty close to libertarian which is about as right wing as it gets and by your definition that would make Republicans (the conservative party) liberal
Thanks
I actually intend to vote on this debate. For whatever reason once I place a holder vote it won't let me edit the vote. Can you delete my holder vote please. I swear the site changed as I could alter the vote before
What is your definition of rightwing?
I would define left and right wing as follows
leftwing= Government interventionists. Thinks the government should control everything
rightwing= prioritizes individual liberty over government interventionism.
The difference between Russians and Americans is that Russians know their media is nothing but propaganda
I don't understand why someone voluntarily removed a vote they put a lot of thought and effort into.
One of the biographies from a cop that was there when the body was taken says the scene was much more intense than what the mainstream narrative says and they were close to a shootout with the secret service
The law was for them to technically keep the body in Dallas, so yes the secret service was corrupt which I define as not behaving ethically.
We also have decided as a country that freedom is more important than life even, so no the police had good reasoning to illegally question Holme's but it was unethical because it violated his rights.
As far as the Waco thing is concerned I think you can just Google footage of the initial ATF withdrawal and see a camera person's camera get shoved. Now it wasn't headlined anywhere because nobody but me thought it was a big deal, but it's pretty clear to see on footage.
Left wing politics is not about prioritizing human rights, if it was than humans would be better off when leftists like Kim Jung un and Hitler get into power not worse off. Even if we leave out the autocrats who are by definition leftists, we still have left wing politicians at local levels who have policies that harm human rights in their own cities. It's true the left hates property rights and wants oligarchs who control the government to be in charge of them, but to say they prioritize or even care about human rights is silly.
"No journalists reported unprovoked violence"
I think some journalists who went into Chaz were attacked and felt their life was under threat. Even left wing journalists we're in fear.
However I am pretty critical of government at all levels, so no I am not supporting a lot of the police response. It's just idiots at the left are looking at some justified police action as unacceptable while for some reason leftwing journalism ignores actual fucked up things the police did. We also see that some hostility was to be suspected. I saw a video of police trying to get a protestor medical aid while being bombarded with cement bricks and bottles thrown at them, so basically attempted murder by the crowds.
The police corruption that did occur during this situation include
1. Putting undercover agents in the crowd.
2. Allowing rioters to attack small businesses that were targeted because they were owned by Asians and Jews.
3. Using hit squad type tactics to put isolated protestors in unmarked vehicles and just drove away.
4. We have reports of BLM protestors being dropped off bricks on street corners where protests were planned and it was never investigated which liberal was funding those sorts of things.
As far as the misinformation spread. We know for a fact that George Floyd died of a drug overdose, the cop recognized a medical emergency and called an ambulance for Floyd. We know that George Floyd because of prior arrest videos always says "I can't breathe" and shouts out for his mother.
So the information basically got so severe that Derek Chauvin who by the way is a piece of shit, despite being completed innocent was railroaded by mob justice. Imagine if he was declared innocent that judge and members of that jury would have been murdered by the mob.
Police did so many corrupt things in response to the retarded group think that idiots in the public vowed down to because their low IQ brain dead sheep thinking was as follows
"Derp the TV portrayed things in a way that gets lots of views so obviously the TV is true and there is nothing else to think about"
Look, police behaved in a corrupt way. Never ever should undercovers be in the crowd. Never ever should the police actually enforce curfues. Never ever should American citizens be taken away in black vans by mysterious masked men grabbing them and not identifying themselves.
Funny thing is. I oppose those gestapo tactics whether they are used on the left or right. You are evil though so you support them if used on the right and oppose them when they are used on the left
The JFK assassination kinda exposed a lot of corruption in government.
They did stuff like illegally remove JFK'S body from Dallas and almost got in a shootout with the local police because of it.
A lot of people will excuse the behavior of the feds and secret service because in the initial moments after this occured there was a lot of uncertainty about just what was going on.
It's a bullshit excuse though. Laws, particularly laws that outline roles and responsibilities of different bodies of government are created mostly for our of the ordinary circumstances like in the after effects of unusually catastrophic events.
.
The same thing happened with the feds over stepping their authority directly after other events. For example the shootout in Waco. A member of the press was filming the ATF in retreat and one of the ATF agents was annoyed and shoved their camera. The press have the legal right to film though and that legal right is supposed to protect them from ATF agents doing that sort of thing
It's understandable why the agent did it. He probably just had a couple of friends die in that shootout and felt the camera was disrespectful, but the laws are set up to definitively determine the rights of people in those stressful times.
9/11 had a lot of instances in the direct aftermath of NY city police over stepping their authority because they felt extraordinary circumstances Gave them more rights.
Hell just after the Boston Bombing the government mandated an illegal lockdown. To show just how stupid the feds are, they actually risked losing the bombers because of the lockdown. The brothers were not found until the lockdown was lifted so private citizens could help in the efforts.
Once again, not surprising the feds are stupid, it's not surprising they stomp on people's rights either, it's insane though. Our rights are outlined not for times where it is convenient for the government to allow us to have them, but for times when it is inconvenient.
Another thing. Just after the Aurora Colorado shooting. The police lied to the shooter's lawyer and held him up from getting to his client and advising him.
The COVID protocols, many where illegal and exactly what government protections are set out to prevent. We accept that the greater good must often times be sacrificed for individual freedoms. The government is often judged by the results of events and how they effect the collective, so it makes sense why they would do things that are unethical like make "emergency protocols" that displace current and normally operating policies, but it's unethical.
Once you study history and see things like autocrats taking power because of laws created for special circumstances, you start realizing how dangerous it is.
For example Julius Caesar and Hitler both used emergency powers to take complete control of their nations.
So yes the JFK assassination perhaps brought even more light to government overstepping it's boundaries.
I'd argue the BLM riots did nothing but spread misinformation and then get idiots riled up and angry acting on the misinformation. This was probably done because the left wants a federal police force instead of local police forces
Why did you ask for your vote to be removed
I assure you I don't give a shit about arguments in the comments, when and if I allocate points on this debate, it won't factor in. I think most people on the site are like that. I mean most of the site allows confirmation bias into their voting, but at least they don't factor in the comment section
If you wrote this in English, somebody might accept
Not only are hyperlinks available but pro seems to be aware of how to use them
Some ody just told me hyperlinks are available for debates, so I think I will award argument points later
"As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. PRO must show that the BLM protests (and only the BLM protests) were WORSE by any applicable standard than the attack on our US Capitol. If CON can show that Jan. 6th was worse by some standards, PRO's argument must fail."
This is why I don't even like voting on your debates. This isn't even remotely true. This is definitely a shared burden debate. I don't know how the debate precedes after this and Don't know if I'll have to accept your framing of BOP yet, but it's incorrect. This isn't a policy debate, it is merely a debate to assess the damage caused by the BLM protests vs the damage caused by the capital protest by the standards you guys define worse as
This site is absolute shit, and the I ability to get a single competent voter on these debates is proof. It is why I have a hard time even trying to win debates. I know the voters usually just go with the less ridiculous opinion and then deal in a lot of confirmation biases, instead of doing an actual impact analysis.
Despite the ambiguity of the term "worse" it should be easy to come up with a clear winner.
First you judge who wins the debate on how to apply the term worse and do an impact analysis based on that. I have not read the debate but perhaps pro argued "worse" means more damage to tangible items like physical property, while con thought worst meant "more damage to American institutions".
I know if no moral framework is argued in the debate, the judging is still easy. You would base worst on weighing the damages on each side against each other, preferably using money as a tool. How much money is oligarchs feeling safe worth vs how much money are protecting the economic interests of minorities whose businesses were looted by antifa/black blok lead riots across America .
Yeah, I am considering reading and judging. I am probably the slowest voter here though. So it is a huge commitment. I take a bunch of notes and usually read the debate several times.
Currently I am trying to build a poker bankroll again, so I am playing like 16 hours a day, it's hard to get time for anything else in.
From experience they take a good 12 hours to approve you even after hitting 100 posts. I will try. I know I will get the 5 posts in today
I am not qualified to vote yet. I need 100 posts
I tried. Most of his political beliefs are tied to whether it is a policy that hurts poor people more than rich people. If it hurts poor people more, usually he supports the policy.
For example he is for Chinese levels of COVID-19 projections . Something that would have almost no effect on the rich while hurting the poor and minorities significantly.
Take the negatives of any policy position he suggests and just do the math on whether the negative ramifications will hurt poor people more than the wealthy and you'll see there is a pattern to his beliefs
I will try to place my vote on this debate first. If either party wants to cash app me money to ensure I vote against them, I would be happy to oblige
My girlfriend is not a rational woman, but she is a slut, so she would still kiss you while I watch
Masks also help make it harder to identify traps, am I right?
"“Policemen are more hesitant to shoot black people”
If we assume this applies outside of firearms, this only compounds that DC was racist due to him committing crimes toward African Americans when other cops would apparently be more hesitant and/or opt to select white victims instead."
This should be reworded to say
"Chauvin is racist for being equally resistant to attacking two different ethnicities, while other cops are quicker to shoot one ethnicity over the other, which somehow makes them not racist"
I can guess oramagi's argument without reading this. Let me see.
"Well you see, Jan 6th protest was very harmful to rich white people, while the BLM riots a bunch of black neighborhoods and businesses were burned down and looted, so therefore the Jan 6 protest was worse"
You can always count on oromagi to come down on the side of the wealthy against the poor.