Total posts: 1,065
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Barring the fact that you dropped about the states with the highest gun ownership having the lowest murder rates...
Australia banned guns and still regularly has mass shootings.
In fact, in 2022, YEARS after the gun ban was put into effect, Australia had its bloodiest year ever:
So. No. It isn't "gun culture" causing mass shootings. It is criminals having nobody to stand up to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I know this was bait for liberals, but my 2 cents:
1. He should have just let the officers detain him.
2. He was probably evading arrest. They probably clocked him speeding and then told him to pull over and he didn't. This is just a guess. But normally when that happens police do forcibly remove you from your car.
3. After he ran away, those police officers deserved to be fired the way they detained him the second time.
4. Why the fuck is New York protesting over an event in Tennessee. These nationwide protests have to be planned to mask something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Cops shooting people is American Culture.People shooting people is American Culture.I think it's referred to as The Second Amendment.Why the astonishment when someone gets shot.Bang Bang you're dead Punk.Next.
If that's "American gun culture" then explain to me why all the states with the highest gun ownership have the lowest amount of shootings and murders?
Most of these shootings and police interactions happen in gun free cities and states.
Maryland, for instance, is as strict as possible on guns and Baltimore is the most dangerous city in America.
Detroit literally banned guns and they have the most gang violence in the country. They also, depending on the year, are the most dangerous city in the United States.
Gun laws increase shootings and murders because only criminals don't follow the law, so they have killing sprees and the cops don't come for 5 minutes, at best, so nobody is caught and they can just do it again without consequence.
Arming the general public prevents that.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
These idiots actually believe they have a right to question cops doing their job
It's called the 1st and 4th Amendments.
Now, I don't go around yelling at cops. But this police state we have is out of hand.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The only entity that has the power to determine what you are “allowed” to say is the government
Or people who lynch others in the name of stopping a race...
There was a long period in the American South's history where it was literally a social crime for black people to act intelligent and speak "white."
Black people would be lynched for this. And it had nothing to do with the government. It was white supremacists in the south who hated the fact that black people are equal to them.
The only oppression in life isn't governmental. It can also be cultural and social.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You like Prager U?
I didn't expect that. But I guess it makes sense.
I'm personally on the fence about them.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, for starters. You don't want to love any of these women. You don't want to commit to them. You don't want to let them completely assimilate to your life and be the most intimate person to you.
So. Yeah. You don't actually value any of them. You just want to collect them, like trophies.
And they don't want to love or value you. You're just another item to them. If they loved you, they'd want to commit to you. They'd want to share their life with you and make you their priority. But seeing as they also want to share you, then it really means nothing at all. There's no intimacy, no commitment, no real love.
You also don't think you are man enough to stick to one woman. You think you need multiple trophies to make you happy. This is a very toxic self image. And it won't lead to happiness. They feel the same way. They'd rather collect endless shallow, meaningless, non-committal relationships rather than find someone worth committing to and having an amazing, personal, intimate life with.
So. Yeah. You all have a low opinion of each other and yourselves in this scenario.
But, do you. It's a free country. And consent is consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m pathologically addicted to getting the last word
No you aren't! 😉
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I mean. If you want to have such a low opinion of yourself and your wife and the girlfriend then do you.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How did you possibly get that from what I said? I said that the attacking of the Christian culture and strong belief served as the strongest deterrent against crime.
Nowhere does that conclude that non-Christians are all Hitler.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I apologize for misinterpreting your intentions
Created:
To clarify, the overwhelming majority of black people do not commit crimes. But many do believe and share the stereotypes and follow and encourage the control systems that cause a higher percentage of black people to commit crimes. So that is part of the problem.
My post is in no way stating black people are mostly criminals. I am merely attempting to explain why there is a much higher percentage compared to other "races." It is mainly these factors.
But, at minimum, these factors likely affect 80% of black people in general and prevent these black people from advancing further in their careers or progressing.
There's loads more I can write that goes into more detail. This was just an overview.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Wylted
@YouFound_Lxam
If I may interject here.
I am in a biracial relationship. Not that this should matter, but it gave me the opportunity to ask my girlfriend's family all the taboo questions that white people are not allowed to ask black people about race in America and what it means to be black, and more.
Now, my girlfriend's mom is a direct descendant of a civil rights reformer. Not MLK or anyone known, but someone who grew up in segregation and actually did things to fight it.
I am saying all this to set the groundwork for what I'm about to say:
Black people commit more crimes for a whole host of reasons.
I grew up around affluent minorities in a very ethnically diverse area. So I never understood why there was a propensity for black people to commit crimes, since all the black people I knew were not sny more likely to commit a crime than all my white friends.
Wylted is right... Partly. There are socioeconomic factors at play here. But they are the RESULT OF THE PROBLEM. Not the problem itself.
There's four main things that cause black people to go into crime:
1. The media pushes stereotypes of black people being poor, oppressed, and criminals. The music industry also glorifies black people like Tupak and biggie who were gang leaders. If you don't believe me. Go to a news website and look up what they are saying about black people. You will see totally bullshit narratives such as:
- Black people are poor.
- Black people are oppressed.
- Black people commit crimes.
- Black people are uneducated.
- White people do not like black people.
- Black people are forced to become gangsters.
All of this is completely untrue. Oprah isn't poor, oppressed, or a criminal. Neither are virtually all black football players and basketball players. And, right now, most pop music artists making millions are black. In 2008 and 2012 America elected a Black President. The Supreme Court has two black justices. And there is a Congressional Black Caucus.
Kevin Hart is one of the riches comedians. Daymond John is a very wealthy investor and entrepreneur. Morgan Friedman is perhaps the most successful actor of all time. Whoopi Goldberg literally went on an antisemitic rant on live television and wasnt fired. Kanye West is the richest music artist in history.
Clearly black people are not all poor oppressed criminals who cannot escape poverty unless they commit a life of crime. All these extremely successful black people prove that nartative is a load of bullshit.
But that is the narrative spoonfed through the media (not just the news media. It's also in movies and music and even fucking podcasts now).
The problem is, black people, just like anyone else, blindly believe whatever the media tells them, even if it doesn't make any fucking sense. They see Oprah bitch and moan about being oppressed and think she is oppressed, even though she has her own television network, is a rather savvy investor, and has 20 billion dollars and a bunch of successful brands she started. How the flying fuck is that oppression?
But the thing is, when people begin to believe they are oppressed, poor, and criminals, they begin to live that way. Even though they can become the Oprahs, Kevin Harts, Morgan Friedmans, Daymond Johns, and Obamas of society.
However, this is only part of the problem.
2. The same racist assholes who owned slaves used their influence to shove black people onto horrible living environments and take away their money and destory their infrastructure clear through to the 1970s.
Anyone else remember Black Wall Street? In Tulsa, Oklahoma? It wasn't a ghetto in the 1920s. It was an up-and-coming center of industry where black people were getting rich. There were a whole host of affluent black people living there, and, if we'd have let it alone, racism probably would have ended about 50 years earlier than it did.
The corporations, at that time run by white supremacists, didn't like this. So they used eminent domain to take land from black people, turning the Greenwood District in Tulsa into the high-crime area it is today.
They did the same thing to Harlem in NYC.
In the south, white supremacists used their money and influence, along with the white supremacists in government, to shove black people into undeveloped neighborhoods. They also made sure not to build any infrastructure there, provide no public transportation, and not employ any of them so that they stayed poor. This went on clear into the 1970s and 80s.
Moreover, the corporations (that were run by the White Supremacists) would purposely only hire a single token black person, and then just leave the positions open indefinitely for all other minority positions to keep black people from getting jobs. This also happened clear into the 1980s.
Most of the corporate racism didn't end until the 90s. Same with the racist housing and infrastructure barriers. But eminent domain was largely unused as a means of control by the 1970s.
By the 1990s, most of these mechanisms of control were ended. And the corporations got younger people who did not agree with white supremacy on the boards, which allowed major changes to happen.
So this is why many black people (around 33%) live in high-crime environments in households that do not have college degrees or good paying jog or infrastructure.
And there is definitely residue from this. But, over time, if we remove problems 1,3, and 4, these areas will either become hubs of industry or completely barren wastelands where nobody lives.
3. Single-Parent Homes
Black people, up until the 1970s, did not grow up in single parent homes. There was a really strong community and family unit. But the white supremacists started paying black preachers boatloads of money to begin pushing for things that would destroy the family.
As you all know, growing up in a single-parent household with no father is a very high correlation with criminal activity. This is especially true for boys who have no father to show them how to be a good man. There's no positive role model, so some of these kids join a gang because the gang leader acts like a father figure to them. Or they want to become a gang leader because those are the people making money and getting women and in power where they live.
But, for the overwhelming majority of black kids who do not join a gang, not having a father can lead to psychological issues and problems with aggression.
This isn't to say it is impossible to grow up in a single-parent household and not commit crime, many black people achieve this, but it is just a factor that makes one more likely to commit crime.
4. Removal of Christianity
This one is the most important reason. Until the 1980s, black people were largely committed Christians who had socially conservative values. These values looked down upon crime, divorce, abortions, and more. They also promoted community, father figures, and neighbors helping each other out.
When the White Supremacists began bankrolling black pastors, these black pastors began hyping feminism, divorces, abortion, and government welfare instead of the values that were helping the community better themselves.
So it is the combination of all these things that are causing black people to commit more crimes. And they are all caused by racism from rich white people who make trillions on this sort of oppression in the form of welfare housing, diversity grants, monopolizing the infrastructure in poor black areas, and getting government grants to build mediocre infrastructure for black people. They have a huge financial incentive to keep the black community in the mindset of point one, in the locations of point two, in the marriages of point three, and the anti-Christianity of point four, because it breeds helpless-feeling individuals who think they need a bailout and someone else to take care of them to be "equal."
To solve these problems, we need to stop the systems of control.
In all of these systems, all a person needs to do is become enlightened to it and realize they are not hopeless. That their skin color and environment do not define them. And that staying out of crime will lead to a much higher chance of success in life. And instill an entrepreneurial spirit that empowers black people to realize their potential.
If we did that, then the systems of control would fall apart, and racism in America would end.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Even further, the President can be banned by the moderation team and they can also undo his ban vetos by a simple majority.
Look, I don't see whiteflame or SupaDudz or any of the current moderators banning the President. But what if you become head mod and Wylted is still President? What would be stopping you from banning Wylted? You both obviously have a feud going on right now.
And what if Wylted makes the moderation chats public in a forum post? The mods would simply just ban his account. There's no accountability against rogue mods. The President means nothing.
We could at least make him the deputy mod and change the laws so that only the Head Mod can add other moderators. That would keep it fair, lmho.
This way the President actually means something but the moderation team still retains most of the power.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
He didn't call it bribery lmao. Like... He'd have to be a moron to call it that. But it was totally obvious that was what it was.
Like, I didn't vote anyways because I don't accept bribes. But it wasn't like Wylted said "here's a free debate win if you vote for me."
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Wylted
Well, here's how I see it:
I didn't vote in the last election, despite being prodded by Wylted and him giving me a free debate as a bribery.
Here's why:
The office of president has no power. He needs the mods to do things for him. He can't undo a ban himself. He can't initiate a ban himself. He can't make changes to the website. It's a totally useless office.
So why would I waste my time voting for someone who can't even do anything without asking someone else to do it? What does that accomplish?
And moreover, there is absolutely NOTHING in the rules that states mods have to obey the President. They "say" his opinion holds sway, but that doesn't mean anything.
So, for me, the real position of power is being a mod. They are better than the President. So why isn't at least one of them voted on? Wouldn't that provide the check the President is supposed to provide?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
@Vader
@whiteflame
What if the President had moderation abilities? That way the people have an equal voice with the mods and it prevents this sort of thing from occurring again.
Like, he doesn't have to be the head mod, but simply another mod that is popularly elected.
Created:
Ok...
Look past the bullshit liberal talking points to the data behind it. White Supremacy is in America. But so is Black Supremacy, which is much more prevalent. Nobody talks about that for some reason.
BLM and Ibrahim X Kendi were black supremacy on display. And nobody condemned it.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Not they should be "illegal".
Yeah but if he didn't phrase it like this, nobody would have clicked on it lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
1. Your proposed elo idea would create inflation over time. The elo jump has to be the same formula no matter what to prevent inflation. Or else we'll see like what happened after Kasparov suggested changes to it. Too much elo leading to extremely inflated scores. The formula is set up to have absolutely zero inflation, no matter the number of players.
I LOVE your idea about classes. That makes it a lot easier for tournaments and auto-matching, which is what I'd love to see. What if we had a function where you get matched with someone and you both have to complete an entire debate having only 10 or 20 minutes or an hour for your arguments? And if you run out of time then you automatically lose. There'd be a separate elo ranking for that and classical debates.
2. I like the idea, but let's make it more like 6 months of inactivity. Their name is removed otherwise. Like, take Bobby Fischer. Do you think his elo score should be removed entirely? He was a chess legend. Why shouldn't hos score remain up there? I think the same applies, in general, if the person is still active on the website.
3. Rating decay would mess with the elo system and slowly remove possible ranking achievements unless a steady stream of new accounts are flowing in. People can't just debate constantly. I work one job and am about to start a YouTube account and also have friends. I can't just spend my life debating. I don't think it's fair to penalize me for that. There's others like that I feel.
4. I think a full forfeiture should trigger an automatic loss without the needs for people to vote. That will essentially accomplish the same thing. And I think after 2 full forfeitures in a row, the account should be deactivated and therefore removed from the leaderboard.
I LOVE your idea about classes. That makes it a lot easier for tournaments and auto-matching, which is what I'd love to see. What if we had a function where you get matched with someone and you both have to complete an entire debate having only 10 or 20 minutes or an hour for your arguments? And if you run out of time then you automatically lose. There'd be a separate elo ranking for that and classical debates.
2. I like the idea, but let's make it more like 6 months of inactivity. Their name is removed otherwise. Like, take Bobby Fischer. Do you think his elo score should be removed entirely? He was a chess legend. Why shouldn't hos score remain up there? I think the same applies, in general, if the person is still active on the website.
3. Rating decay would mess with the elo system and slowly remove possible ranking achievements unless a steady stream of new accounts are flowing in. People can't just debate constantly. I work one job and am about to start a YouTube account and also have friends. I can't just spend my life debating. I don't think it's fair to penalize me for that. There's others like that I feel.
4. I think a full forfeiture should trigger an automatic loss without the needs for people to vote. That will essentially accomplish the same thing. And I think after 2 full forfeitures in a row, the account should be deactivated and therefore removed from the leaderboard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conservallectual
All of my Catholic friends believe that you aren't saved if you don't take communion. They also believe that the RCC is the only sure way to heaven and protestants only get there begrudgingly if they believe correctly (and by that they don't really define how).
They also all believe that only the Catholic Church teaches the one true faith and that leaving it means you are leaving Christianity.
So... Yeah... It's a cult. But that doesn't mean all the adherents are part of the cult.
Created:
Posted in:
Actually... wouldn't he be acting like a Hillary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@FLRW
Yeah. It was 100% mutual.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
His actions have consequences.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am actually a very courteous driver. I let people in, I signal. I don't slam on my brakes if I miss an exit. I actually go out of my way to not be an asshole to other drivers. I don't tailgate, and in fact I normally have double the distance other drivers do. I also make sure I gun it when I change lanes so the other person never has to slam on their breaks when I change lanes.
Until one of them is that special type of asshole who is weaving in and out of lanes, honking at people, and being a special kind of asshole. THEN I might (SOMETIMES) fuck with them.
But, you know, proceed to gaslight the whole situation and say it is my fault an aggressive piece of shit driver who tailgates everyone is being a piece of shit aggressive driver who is tailgating everyone.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Because I often find that it isn't like they all change at once. It is normally they all change at different times and then I need to find a new replacement. So, in all actuality, I am updating this thing every couple of months and, plus, when YouTube changes their distribution to something other than RSS that will be a pain in the ass too.
I should mention I curated a couple music playlists for years and that's how I know this stuff happens pretty regularly.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I had thought of the curation route, but channels often change drastically in 3 or 5 years. Too much maintenance work lmao.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
They used to be better before they went woke.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yeah I see those a lot too. 😂
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well, like I said, when I tried to customize it, I still got basic shit.
I also get comedy stuff too, but, for the most part, my YouTube feed is dumb content, even when I went out of my way to find smart content, it still only showed me stupid content.
The problem is YouTube, not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Of course it isn't. I was just making a point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
It just physics, human nature. You can't consume energy without pollution, you can't use power without corruption.
False. God is all powerful and not corrupt.
Windmills that use streams for a source of energy do not pollute.
You are accepting corruption in government. You are not only accepting it but DEFENDING it. Just admit it already.
You want the Democrats in power even though they are corrupt. Ergo, you want corruption in power
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Only a god-damned fool supposes there is such a thing as power without corruption.
So just say you want corruption already.
And also God rules the world. God is not corrupt. Therefore you would have to be a damned fool to suppose there ISN'T power without corruption.
As an Irish Catholic I wouldn't think claiming God is corrupt would become you.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Right now you are just making excuses for why you WANT corruption.
I, on the other hand, will hold out giving my support for candidates until they can display an ardent desire to be non-corrupt.
Notice I didn't say perfect, but I DID say non-corrupt. There's a MAJOR difference.
But YOU, on the other hand are just full of excuses. Just admit it already. You WANT corruption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Objectively, choosing the least corrupt party because it is less corrupt is by itself a very excellent reason.
1: they are both equally corrupt.
But even if I grant you, for the sake of argument, that the GOP is more corrupt, then why even accept corruption at all?
It sounds to me that you want corruption no matter what.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. The lesser corrupt of two parties is still corrupt. Why accept either one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
And yet none of that addresses the point that you want the Democrats, who are just as corrupt, to stay in power.
Democrats are just as corrupt. The whole party is bankrolled by the CCP.
If you hate Trump for selling out, then you should hate Democrats too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Now why would you want a party that investigates their political opponents, [1] rigs votes, [2] [4] and actively partners with enemies of the state like China [3] [5] to have the majority?
Make no mistake, the Republicans are not much better. The vote rigging indictments and convictions from the DOJ as of late and the disturbing connections to Russia make me skiddish about them being in control too.
But, come on now. The Democrats are not any better at all. They're just as compromised as the Republican party.
Both of the political parties suck. In the last election I literally did not vote for my representatives and wrote someone in for Congress because all my options sucked.
Created:
[DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT LOOKING FOR CUSTOMIZING MY YOUTUBE HOMEPAGE. THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR ME FOR SOME REASON. I ALREADY TRIED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES.]
I really love the idea of YouTube, but the content on there is mostly bullshit clickbait lists, pop culture drama, liberal news, and stupid marketing pitches for movies and products.
I was wondering if there was a website that is just like YouTube that only has intellectually enriching content.
I know about JoVE and Osmosis, which are cool, bur I'm looking for a catch-all. Not just visuals of science experiments on fringe topics or just stuff related to the human body. I am looking for a YouTube that is only educational, informative, and intellectually stimulating content for adults.
I also know there's documentary websites, but I am looking for more than documentaries. I literally am looking for a YouTube for educational and thought-provoking content.
I don't even care if it is just a special feed of YouTube videos or content in general, I just want something where educational, informative, and intellectually stimulating content is recommended for me.
Any ideas? I've scoured the internet and all I could find was stuff for children and preschoolers. So any help would be appreciated 👍.
Thanks in advance!
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Seems like an smart and effective us of Dem funds.
Let me get this straight... Handing money to your enemy who will use it against you is a "smart and effective use of" funds?
Wouldn't it be smarter and more useful to just spend the money on your own candidates?
Clearly you know absolutely nothing about how elections work if you think giving money to your opponents is how you win elections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
What was the original article? I want to read the comments lol
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@YouFound_Lxam
it is common knowledge that a lot of illegal immigrants will be involved in illegal activities.
For proof of this:
- 66.5% of undocumented migrants who were apprehended by border patrol in 2018 were convicted criminals.
- 6% of the prison population is illegal immigrants
- 21% of prisoners are foreign born
And in Texas 719 out of 100,000 immigrants commit a crime.
- Undocumented migrants are allegedly 142% more likely to be arrested for a crime in Arizona.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I mean. Obama didn't pass Obamacare all by himself and Biden didn't pass Build Back Better all by himself, but we still credit those people with those policies.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Is Trump still the President?
Created:
I mean are you retarded or what?
In my opinion, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that they are either extremely late and hoping you'll move out of the way, or extremely selfish and completely unable to think about anyone but themselves. Or the third option, it is both.
Idk. Whenever I'm in a hurry I just drive around people. I don't tailgate them until they move out the way.
Sometimes, for fun, when these people are tailgating me I'll purposely box them in with another car next to me and slow down to that other person's speed. The tailgater has no idea I'm doing it on purpose for a good 5 minutes most of the time. Then when they figure it out they're almost always too stupid to figure out to slow down and go around both of us.
Other times, if it's at night, I'll get over, let them pass, and then get back over, flip on my brights, and go back just far enough so they go straight into his eyes while I follow him.
Is this Christian? No. But sometimes it's satisfying as fuck.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Without citing the links I have no odea if you are making this all up. Also, Wikipedia and Washington Post are about as reliable as Russia Today.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
He was just a tad not clever or sophisticated enough to represent the U.S. on the World Stage.
Welp... Under his leadership, Russia didn't attack anyone, ISIS was nearly demolished, NATO paid their fair share, the Middle East signed the Abraham Accords, countries revised their tariffs, he negotiated a brand new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, and he got foreign countries to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into the United States and sign contracts for hundreds of billions more. And he did all of this in just 3 years.
How much more should he have done to be considered "clever or sophisticated enough"?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Napolean did all of this
Napoleon definitely is not considered a dictator. As per the Napoleon Foundation:
It is generally agreed that the regime installed by Napoleon was authoritarian. But simply calling it a dictatorship seems excessive. The presence of opposing powers, the strength of the principles limiting the action of the executive and the circumstances themselves all restricted the leader’s room for action.
Source:
Moreover, The History Channel says:
Napoleon worked to restore stability to post-revolutionary France. He centralized the government; instituted reforms in such areas as banking and education; supported science and the arts; and sought to improve relations between his regime and the pope (who represented France’s main religion, Catholicism), which had suffered during the revolution. One of his most significant accomplishments was the Napoleonic Code, which streamlined the French legal system and continues to form the foundation of French civil law to this day.In 1802, a constitutional amendment made Napoleon first consul for life. Two years later, in 1804, he crowned himself emperor of France in a lavish ceremony at the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris.
He was an emperor for sure, but certainly not a dictator. Every single king or emperor in global history was not a dictator, but many were. Napoleon was simply an emperor, not a dictator.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Trump didn't "step down after losing election" Trump refuses to this day to accept the reality that he lost.
Is Trump still the President?
Other than that, actual dictators have done all those things.
Name one dictator that did ALL of those things.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Trump might qualify for wannabe dictator or a failed aspirant to dictatorial powers.
I don't think he would. But debating armchair psychology is difficult when it's something like "aspirant to dictatorial powers."
IMHO aspirant dictators don't reduce regulations, cut taxes, hold billionaires accountable, deregulate and boost the private sector economy, cut the size of government, and then step down after losing election.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
So then you agree Trump was not a dictator
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I would like to debate you on whether Trump was a dictator. Since it is your claim. I will be the contender, you the instigator (you'll have to set it up so it works out this way)
On Balance: President Donald J. Trump Was A Dictator
PRO shall Only Argue That Former President Donald J. Trump WAS A Dictator While President Of The United States Of America
CON shall Only Argue That Former President Donald J. Trump WAS NOT A Dictator While President Of The United States Of America
All definitions will come from Merriam Websters online dictionary.
Specific definitions for debate:
DICTATOR: a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force
RULES:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. No Ignoratio Elenchis.
3. No trolls.
4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.
Debate set up:
10k characters
One week for arguments
One week voting period
You're instigator AND PRO
I'm contender AND CON
Created: