Total posts: 1,065
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, because starving children in africa bring quite the profit for buisnesses there.
*Corrupt corporations run by billionaires who don't care.
There. Fixed it for ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its what I expected to hear from a libertarian.A few things here:
1. Libertarians actually don't hate charities.
2. I'm a voluntaryist, while libertarian I am quite different from your standard libertarian.
3. What I've stated is 100% true:
http://corruptionwatchghana.org/2021/04/01/foreign-aid-and-corruption-in-africa/
https://fee.org/articles/how-international-aid-failed-africa-and-made-poverty-worse/
https://www.theafricareport.com/228189/african-union-stuck-between-political-blockages-and-a-lack-of-finances/
The government and aid both destroy local businesses leading to further poverty that if neither existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I didnt know government made it illegal to donate food to africa. Thats too bad ☹
No. But they do tariff the fuck out of food and pass all sorts of laws making it effectively illegal for people to complete with the corporations in Africa, which destroys the economy.
Also, a mot of time charities cause the local food businesses to close down, and then when the charity stops sending food, the African city is worse than before the aid.
The answer is to teach Africans how yo grow food, fish, and things like that, then Africa will not have a food problem.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a very interesting idea. But we actually are not running out of food. There is enough food in the average grocery store to feed tens of thousands of people, and so much of it is thrown lut due to government mandates.
The problem is not lack of food. The problem is that governments around the would enact laws that stifle the free flow of food to all nations.
The problem is not lack of food. The problem is that governments around the would enact laws that stifle the free flow of food to all nations.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump and Meadows were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States. They were not acting alone. And we aren’t talking about ordinary citizens, we are talking about people inside the government who violated their oath of office.
But yet:
Trump lost so he was not ultimately successful in cheating.
And:
It was bent by Trump. Trump and Republicans cheated
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If Trump successfully cheated, as you claim, then it was not a free nor fair election, right?
A free and fair election necessarily implies ZERO cheating. If there's significant cheating, enough, in your own words, to literally bend the election, then that is not a free nor fair election.
If anything, according to your analysis, this would mean that potentially millions of Democrats were not represented in 2020 because Trump cheated successfully. Doesn't that bother you in the slightest that you admit the election was, in some capacity "bent" to the point where it made a difference?
I could give two shits whichever side cheats, the fact is, cheating that is successful is a threat to our Democracy. It doesn't matter who cheated. If Trump lost illegitimately, who is to say he will lose illegitimately in 2024? Why can't he just "cheat better" next cycle? After all, according to Democrats he successfully cheated his way into the White House in 2016.
And there has been a lot of illegitimate election activity that was successfully indicted by the DOJ thus far, Democrats and Republicans alike. This tells me that our elections are neither free nor fair. Mark Meadows is the most recent example of this, but there have been others, like the vote buying scheme in Louisiana:
Or this Tennessee Senator who illegally coordinated secretly with an independent PAC:
I'm just saying, there's plenty of evidence our elections are neither free nor fair. Welcome to the club!
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So, if it was bent, then it was not free nor fair, and if it was not free nor fair, then how do you know Biden won and Trump lost?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So then you necessarily agree that the 2020 election was undermined?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I think you know, linguistically that "undermining" and "working to undermine" are completely different.
You said Mark Meadows is undermining our elections. You didn't say he worked to undermine them.
"Undermining" implies he is successful. "Working to undermine" implies he has not succeeded.
The definition of undermine:
"to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly" (merriam webster)
Mark Meadows did not do this. He burned a few pieces of paper. He did not subvert our entire electoral process or an election.
I know he didn't do this, because even you admitted it was the most free and fair election in U.S. history.
Ergo, Mark Meadows cannot undermine our elections. He can work to undermine them, but, unless he is more powerful than the Pentagon, he can't undermine our elections.
I am glad you don't think he can undermine our elections. I was worried that you fell off the reservation for a second.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Mark Meadows's corrupt and criminal conduct in undermining free and fair elections in the USA?
If our elections can be undermined by Mark Meadows, then they are neither free nor fair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Isn't that basically all debates, though?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Welp, as any good person would do:
Cognitive warfare:
Robots replacing people:
Western IQ scores plummeting:
NATO defense trainings in Western Europe:
Election fraud indictments and convictions in the last few months:
And that's just SOME of the ones from THIS YEAR.
But I'm not a fucking chatbot, so what do I know about how to read and research things? Clearly a chatbot knows everything.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The news about meadows burning documents in the White House is in every major newspaper in the country.
But what DIDN'T make the news was the fact that NATO admitted there is cognitive warfare going on in western countries, that the WEF is planning on removing people's jobs and replacing them with robots, and more.
No. No. What REALLY fucking matters is some guy burned pieces of paper from a former president who lost an election more than 2 years ago. That is what is "news."
Not the coming mass unemployment, the dumbing down of western intelligence, and the fact our own military is scared shitless that we don't have a defense against cognitive warfare, which makes people brainwashed and stupid. Fuck all that. That's not REAL news at all!
Or how about this one? NATO just finished multiple defense trainings in countries that border Ukraine to test "defense readiness." If Russia is failing miserably in the Ukraine, then why suddenly have all these major war games in bordering countries?
But, you know, keep talking about the "real" news of a commission jerking off to a has-been President who isn't even the frontrunner yet for 2024 and his cronies.
Ignore, also, all the election fraud convictions, indictments, and more of both Democrats and Republicans that happened this year by the DOJ. That's not important either, apparently.
Fuck off you ignorant buffoon.
Created:
When you see footnotes like this [73] it’s a good indication the article is from Wikipedia.
Only to the unlearned individual. Journal articles, the Congressional Research Service, and ProCon.org all use that style of footnotes, in addition to other places as well.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You mean facts about politics that you are never going to see on FOX or the other idiot only media that you read and watch
Considering I don't watch Fox News or most news in general that statement was laughable. I actually spend a lot of time reading encyclopedia articles, watching videos by doctors, researchers, and more, and reading intelligence briefings and other such reports. Much better than "idiot news media" like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, NYPost, WSJ, or FOX.
I still asked for the source. It was because I wanted to read it. It seemed to have a lot of citations and worth checking out.
Created:
You're back!
I was beginning to think you'd gone. I missed your hyper-political posts lol.
What source is this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The fact is, there is no specific mandate against homosexuality in the Bible, and it does not say it is a sin.
Except for this one:
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13, NASB)
Oh, and this one:
‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 NASB95)
AND this one:
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, (1 Timothy 1:10, NASB95)
Oh, AND this one:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, (1 Corinthians 6:9, BSB)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It sounds to me that you are arguing how organ harvesting is PRACTICED is morally wrong, and I agree with you.
Did you know you aren't just allowed to donate an organ to someone else who wants it? Your organ actually has to be APPROVED? What nonsense is that? Do you think the motherfucker on death row cares if your organ is a little fatty? He wants to fucking live. If that one gets a little bad later on, he can find another organ.
They throw out tens of thousands of organs a year because they aren't "good enough." While people literally die waiting for an organ. What madness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Post #11:
You seemed to be agreeing with Geon's statement here, were you not?
Created:
Conspiracy theory:
Wylted is Vermin Supreme
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
You changed the definition of holistic to be about systems instead of parts of a whole. They are entirely different definitions.
But anyways... Multiple psychological researchers say you are wrong. For instance, AARP writes:
That may sound unlikely, but as researchers are discovering, a person's sexual orientation is not carved in stone. In her influential book Sexual Fluidity, psychology professor Lisa M. Diamond chronicled her research on 80 nonheterosexual women over a period of 10 years. During that time, Diamond discovered, a significant number of the women had reported changing their sexual orientation. The most frequent cause for the U-turn? The "switchers" had fallen in love with a member of the opposite sex.
source: https://www.aarp.org/home-family/sex-intimacy/info-2017/can-sexual-preference-change-at-midlife.html
Moreover:
Several studies suggest that changes in sexual orientation among trans people are quite common. Among 115 Dutch participants, for example, 33% of trans women and 22% of trans men reported experiencing changes in their sexual attractions. This was true of 49% of trans masculine and 64% of trans feminine individuals in a 2015 study of 452 participants from Massachusetts, with the majority of these changes occurring after social transition. In another 2013 study of 507 U.S. trans men who’ve started transitioning (including hormones and/or surgery), 40% reported some shift in sexual attractions. Almost identical results were found in a 2005 study of 232 U.S. trans women who had undergone surgical and hormonal transition, where 43% reported significant shifts in their sexual orientation (of 2+ points along the 7-point Kinsey scale).
All more instances of sexual orientation changing.
So, no. I am not misinterpreting anything. Multiple scientific studies, psychologists, and respected science publications and news outlets completely disagree with your outdated sexual bigotry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
holistic does not require that every part of a given system are in harmony
Let's look at that definition again:
dealing with or treating the whole of something or someone and not just a part
And let's look at what you said again:
holistic does not require that every part of a given system are in harmony
Do you see your straw man yet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I am arguing that holistically, being homosexual is something out of an agents control.
Holistic: dealing with or treating the whole of something or someone and not just a part (cambridge dictionary)
Your claim, therefore, being homosexual is ALWAYS out of the agent's control.
I found two real-life examples of homosexuality being a choice. There's hundreds more out there, such as:
In fact psychologists themselves have documented that it is perfectly normal for sexual orientation to change over time:
According to psychologist Dr. Jennelle in the YourTango Expert video above, sexual identity is more than just being 100 percent gay or 100 percent straight. Rather, sexual identity is dimensional and constantly changing, and there are several places you can fall along the spectrum.And yes, your positioning on the spectrum can change in radical ways over time.
Moreover:
In her book, Sexual Fluidity, psychology professor Lisa M. Diamond researched 80 non-heterosexual women over a 10 year period. She discovered that many of these women reported falling in love with a member of the opposite sex, despite their previous lesbian sexual orientation.
Same source as above.
People change their sexual orientation all the time. It's a fact of life. Your views are out of date with science and not based in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Are you arguing they didn't choose to be gay? You claimed sexuality in all people is immutable. I found two examples it wasn't. Therefore your premise is wrong. Sexuality is mutable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
On a more serious note:
I have two cousins. Both gay. Both started straight. Were straight for years. Then one day just "decided" and then never went back to being straight.
If it was a choice for them... Then it obviously follows that it is a choice for others as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Well Leo's dead and I'm alive so.
Welp... According to science, you're stupider than he is:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I diffused this guys argument for God in about 100 characters
The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions. - Leonardo Da Vinci
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
@YouFound_Lxam
Do I sense a debate coming on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well isn't that what the god of Christians promotes, encourages and commands?
I would like to formally debate you on this topic. You will argue the Christian God does command Christians to vote against LGBTQ+ rights. I will take CON.
Burden of Proof is shared. You make the first argument, since it is your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Looking forward to it!
Created:
Posted in:
TOPIC:
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine provides improved immune response to the virus vs. natural Immunity
STANCES:
PRO Shall Only Argue That The mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Provides Improved Immune Response To COVID-19 vs. Natural Immunity
CON Shall Only Argue That The mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine DOES NOT Provide Improved Immune Response To COVID-19 vs. Natural Immunity
* * *
DEFINITIONS:
All terms shall first be defined from Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary available here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical
And if Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary cannot provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used for all other words.
Specific definitions for debate:
COVID-19: SARS-Coronavirus-2019 and all variants.
Natural Immunity: immunity from COVID-19 that does NOT come from vaccines. Does NOT include "partially-vaccinated" individuals. Only those with no COVID mRNA vaccine of ANY kind.
mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: the Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine that was approved for emergency use by the FDA
Improved: an immune response resulting in less chance of severe COVID-19 symptoms and lower chance of death
* * *
RULES:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. No Ignoratio Elenchis.
3. No trolls.
4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.
5. Sources in comments or at bottom of round
----------------
- 10,000 characters
- One week for responses
- 3 rounds
- One week for voting
- 8 point system
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Why don't we do this, then:
The Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Provides Superior Immunity To Natural Immunity Over The Course Of One Year With A Booster Shot Every 3 Months
I think that is specific enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
How would you like to define it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions. - Leonardo Da Vinci
Created:
Also...
"Don't listen to experts." - James Dyson
Created:
If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done. - Peter Ustinov
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Want to do the third one?
On balance, the use of mRNA vaccinations to combat COVID-19 has been successful
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Dispensing with certain well-known pests who should have been banned ages ago
That doesn't sound ominous at all. . .
How do you determine who is a "pest" to exterminate? What is the criterion.
This seems to be a direct contradiction to your previous campaign promise of:
More fair and balanced vote moderation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Sigh. Would you like you have a crack at writing it? You seem to also know what you'd like to debate haha.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
antibody serology tests
Are the most inaccurate antibody tests out there:
They did not name the specific type of antibody test they used. There's different ones. But most of the ones used for COVID are abysmal and rife with false positives and other sensitivity problems. They are not reliable at all for studies due to the false positive rates. So for only 500 test cohorts, this is not a reliable study at all
Spare the condescending tone in your propaganda, please. It is apparent you feel the need to talk down on others to make yourself feel better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Ok. Now let's talk logistics.
I will be CON, you will be PRO.
The topic is:
On Balance: The COVID-19 Vaccine Is Less Dangerous Than COVID-19
I am suggesting the following Description:
STANCES:
PRO Shall Only Argue That The COVID-19 Vaccine IS Less Dangerous Than COVID-19
CON Shall Only Argue That The COVID-19 Vaccine IS NOT Less Dangerous Than COVID-19
* * *
DEFINITIONS:
All terms shall first be defined from Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary available here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical
And if Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary cannot provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used for all other words.
Specific definitions for debate:
COVID-19: SARS-Coronavirus-2019 and all variants.
COVID-19 vaccine: The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine
Dangerous: threatening to overall health.
* * *
RULES:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. No Ignoratio Elenchis.
3. No trolls.
4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.
5. Sources in comments or bottom of argument
------------------
As far as constraints:
- 10,000 characters per argument
- One week per argument
- One week for voting
- 4-point voting
- 3 or 4 rounds
I want you to go first. So I think you'll have to set it up.
Does this sound good to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
So you think that, on balance, the COVID vaccine is less dangerous than COVID?
Because I'd be willing to debate that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That study has no methodology section detailing how they measured the antibodies. Also, from what I can gather, it had a very small sample size of, like 500 total participants, and there is no information at all as to the length of time between vaccination and infection in this study.
The mere fact the authors did not reveal any of this data plainly is highly suspicious and not the best practices for epidemiological studies.
Created:
Posted in:
Specifically for COVID-19 illness?
I'm asking because the side effects of COVID-19 are worse than getting covid for most age groups. COVID, for instance, doesn't cause blindness or deafness or blood clots.
I had wanted to debate immunity, not dangerousness, since it is apparent from the data that, on balance, the COVID vaccine is not better than getting COVID.
Created:
Posted in:
It doesn't even have to be lifetime. It can be 10 years or 20 years. I know vaccines have waning efficacy and it is possible to outlive your immunity to something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I am merely trying to debate:
The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine provides better immunity than that seen in uninoculated patients over the lifetime of those inoculated.
Is there a way you'd prefer to set that up?
I specified no comorbidities because I don't want one of those stupid technicality debates or "well for people who are immuno-compromised the vaccine is better, therefore you're wrong."
Most of my debates on here have been who can create the best loophole and drive a freight train through it and not on topic at all. So I am trying to specifically debate vaccine efficacy vs natural immunity for a normal human being who is not immunocompromised. Because for immunocompromised the debate is entirely different. And they make up a small percentage of the population anyways.
Is there some way you'd arrange it? Because this vaccine is different from the smallpox vaccine, which worked by creating natural immunity, so it would be better to get the smallpox vaccine than get smallpox for most people. But mRNA vaccines work differently, so it is a legitimate debate now.
Created:
Posted in:
I would like to be CON.
STANCES:
STANCES:
PRO Shall Only Argue That Four Doses Of The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine DOES Provide Better Immunity From COVID-19 Than Natural Immunity Over The Course Of A Healthy Human Being With No Comorbities's Lifetime.
CON Shall Only Argue That Four Doses Of The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine DOES NOT Provide Better Immunity From COVID-19 Than Natural Immunity Over The Course Of A Healthy Human Being With No Comorbities's Lifetime.
* * *
DEFINITIONS:
All terms shall first be defined from Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary available here:
And if Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary cannot provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used for all other words.
Specific definitions for debate:
COVID-19: SARS-Coronavirus-2019 and all variants.
Natural Immunity: immunity from COVID-19 that does NOT come from vaccines. Does NOT include "partially-vaccinated" individuals. Only those with no COVID mRNA vaccine of ANY kind.
Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Only the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine that was approved by the FDA for Emergency Use (e.g. the one given EUA authorization by the FDA).
mRNA vaccine: Only the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine that was approved by the FDA for Emergency Use (e.g. the one given EUA authorization by the FDA).
* * *
RULES:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. No Ignoratio Elenchis.
3. No trolls.
4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.
I would like you to set up the debate so I am properly the contender and not going first. Since you disagreed with me on my original debate with Intelligence_06, I would like you to state your case first.
If you think your case is completely airtight, then you have nothing to worry about by going first. After all, you do have a degree microbiology and are a medical researcher.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Created: