"I believe countries that expel Jews tend to also cite reasons for it...Such as accusing them of economic parasitism, disloyalty, undermining the government or culture, blood libel, and so on.”
I don’t disagree. Let’s look at some examples throughout history of where and why Jews have been expelled. (And no, I didn’t cherrypick the ones that fit a pro-Israel narrative, I asked ChatGPT to pick a diverse myriad of countries)
England (1290): Jews were expelled under King Edward I due to economic resentment and anti-Semitic myths.
France (1306, 1394): Expelled to cancel debts and confiscate property, fueled by Catholic anti-Jewish sentiment.
Spain (1492): The Alhambra Decree forced Jews to convert or leave, driven by the Inquisition and Catholic unification.
Portugal (1496): Expelled under royal pressure for religious conformity.
Russia/Soviet Union (19th–20th centuries): Pogroms and restrictive laws targeted Jews under nationalism and anti-Semitism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union)
Middle Eastern Countries (20th century): The Arab-Israeli conflict led to Jewish expulsions after 1948.
"I would be happy to debate about something, I don't know exactly what. I'm not really pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist though. I just oppose prejudice against any ethnic group, including Palestinians.”
We could debate about Palestinian vs. Jewish expulsion; although, I believe I’ve already proved my points, so maybe we should debate something else.
" your arguments gave me a headache, but I won't waste my time proving them wrong in a comment section honestly.”
I’ll offer you the same proposal as I did my opponent, AnonYmous_Icon: if you are going to say my arguments suck, then you’ve gotta to tell my why and how. My opponent has not done this, but hopefully you will.
"You are being inconsiderate with your sources, the UN you stated spoke against Hammas spoke against Israel and it's acts as well, you could have been fair and brought that out too.”
You are unclear here. What are you referencing in regard to the UN?
The UN is pretty antisemitic and even they admit that Hamas uses Palestinians as Human Shields; that was my point when I cited them as a source. I don’t understand what else you wanted me to mention.
I don’t believe that paying someone money, granting them land, and providing social services based on something that happened 100-200 years ago, that no one today has anything to do with is a good idea. Your argument certainly did not persuade me that it is.
"The Palestinians have been kicked out of every country they've ever been a part of" as an argument for the inherent evil of Palestinians is a dangerous one to make."
I made that argument to show that they are a group that causes trouble wherever they go, hence why they end up getting kicked out. Read my first argument and you will see explicitly the kind of trouble that they cause in the countries that exile them
"Especially when you apply the same logic to the other side.”
This is the differentiation that you fail to see.
Historically, when the Palestinians are expelled from a country, (as I talk about at length in my first argument) it’s because they have lead revolts, caused wars, take terrorists' side in a civil war, are terrorists themselves and because they are a social and economic burden on the country. Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan are all countries that have expelled and refuse to absorb Palestinians.
When Jews are expelled from a country, it’s usually because they are Jewish, and that particular country sees Jews as inferior. Take, for example, when Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 through the Alhambra Decree by Ferdinand and Isabella. The Spanish monarchs wanted Catholicism. So, they forced Jews to either convert to Christianity or leave the kingdom.
"I think you shouldn’t be able to legally say it if (like you said) it’s used as a direct incitement to violence, for instance if you were repeatedly hassling someone with the words.”
So then we agree! You can say the word if you’re using it as free speech, but you can’t use it if it is a direct incitement to violence.
"As for why Black people get a pass, I think it’s because people assume the word can only be used as a slur, and why would black people use as slur against themselves?”
OK, here is where I disagree. Black people can absolutely use the word nigger as a slur against other black people. I’ve seen it before.
I don’t want to start over and I don’t want you to forfeit. A forfeit happens when you don’t respond within the set timeframe. Ergo, it would take It would take multiple months to forfeit. Let’s just make the 5000 characters work.
"Morality is subjective, so you can do anything you want.”
That is stupid, here’s why:
First of all, morality is objective. It is the seven noahide laws.
Second of all, you think that it’s OK for anyone to do whatever they want, this is flawed because A) morality is objective, B) it states that you can’t do whatever you want, and C) Do you think Hitler’s actions were acceptable, or Stalin’s, or Mao’s, or as the left will say, Putin’s? Are their actions all acceptable just because they thought it was?
I think that there have to be rules:
You can do whatever you want, as long as you are following the basic rules. (Don’t steal, Don’t kill, etc.)
That is how a constitutional republic, the likes of what AMERICA actually is, works.
That’s why I put the … there. to show the adjectives but not connect them. That’s how English grammar works. And “unsympathetic to the suffering” and “awful” are pretty similar. It’s not that I need a reframing, but simply that if you’re going to cook in the kitchen, you’ve got to take the heat. If someone says something on the internet, they have to be willing to accept and learn from the response, not call them “trolls” and get offended.
I’m also pro-rank choice voting. I would put RFK first then trump then biden. But realistically RFK has no chance so I’d settle for Trump. The reason I prefer trump to Biden is simple: My life under the Trump administration is 100x better. There’s more crime, more debt, more wars, worse economy, worse inflation, what he did with Taliban is a disgrace, he is senile and he is a puppet for the DSP. I could keep going but I think I proved my point. I voted for biden in 2020 becuase I hated trump and it was so stupid. I still don’t like trump and I’m still pretty liberal, but he was a much better president than biden is. As for RFK, I think he’d be great, but he’s a third-party candidate and as long as trump is in the race, he’ll lose. Same thing with Jill Stien and Chase Oliver. They got no shot. I’d love to debate you in it btw. I really want to learn about the presidency stuff.
Alright, I made the debate.
**I meant James Buchanan, not William McKinley.
"I believe countries that expel Jews tend to also cite reasons for it...Such as accusing them of economic parasitism, disloyalty, undermining the government or culture, blood libel, and so on.”
I don’t disagree. Let’s look at some examples throughout history of where and why Jews have been expelled. (And no, I didn’t cherrypick the ones that fit a pro-Israel narrative, I asked ChatGPT to pick a diverse myriad of countries)
England (1290): Jews were expelled under King Edward I due to economic resentment and anti-Semitic myths.
France (1306, 1394): Expelled to cancel debts and confiscate property, fueled by Catholic anti-Jewish sentiment.
Spain (1492): The Alhambra Decree forced Jews to convert or leave, driven by the Inquisition and Catholic unification.
Portugal (1496): Expelled under royal pressure for religious conformity.
Russia/Soviet Union (19th–20th centuries): Pogroms and restrictive laws targeted Jews under nationalism and anti-Semitism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union)
Middle Eastern Countries (20th century): The Arab-Israeli conflict led to Jewish expulsions after 1948.
"I would be happy to debate about something, I don't know exactly what. I'm not really pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist though. I just oppose prejudice against any ethnic group, including Palestinians.”
We could debate about Palestinian vs. Jewish expulsion; although, I believe I’ve already proved my points, so maybe we should debate something else.
" your arguments gave me a headache, but I won't waste my time proving them wrong in a comment section honestly.”
I’ll offer you the same proposal as I did my opponent, AnonYmous_Icon: if you are going to say my arguments suck, then you’ve gotta to tell my why and how. My opponent has not done this, but hopefully you will.
"You are being inconsiderate with your sources, the UN you stated spoke against Hammas spoke against Israel and it's acts as well, you could have been fair and brought that out too.”
You are unclear here. What are you referencing in regard to the UN?
The UN is pretty antisemitic and even they admit that Hamas uses Palestinians as Human Shields; that was my point when I cited them as a source. I don’t understand what else you wanted me to mention.
I don’t believe that paying someone money, granting them land, and providing social services based on something that happened 100-200 years ago, that no one today has anything to do with is a good idea. Your argument certainly did not persuade me that it is.
If I were truly lying, as you allege, then please outline what I have lied about in your final Debate argument.
"The Palestinians have been kicked out of every country they've ever been a part of" as an argument for the inherent evil of Palestinians is a dangerous one to make."
I made that argument to show that they are a group that causes trouble wherever they go, hence why they end up getting kicked out. Read my first argument and you will see explicitly the kind of trouble that they cause in the countries that exile them
"Especially when you apply the same logic to the other side.”
This is the differentiation that you fail to see.
Historically, when the Palestinians are expelled from a country, (as I talk about at length in my first argument) it’s because they have lead revolts, caused wars, take terrorists' side in a civil war, are terrorists themselves and because they are a social and economic burden on the country. Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan are all countries that have expelled and refuse to absorb Palestinians.
When Jews are expelled from a country, it’s usually because they are Jewish, and that particular country sees Jews as inferior. Take, for example, when Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 through the Alhambra Decree by Ferdinand and Isabella. The Spanish monarchs wanted Catholicism. So, they forced Jews to either convert to Christianity or leave the kingdom.
Want to debate about it?
If I’ve lied, then point it out. In fact, I point out some of your lies in my third argument.
"I'm glad I missed the last round. Topic was really getting flat in substance . End getting circular.”
If that was true, then you would have said that in the round itself. I think you just forfeited on purpose and this is your masked concession.
"I think you shouldn’t be able to legally say it if (like you said) it’s used as a direct incitement to violence, for instance if you were repeatedly hassling someone with the words.”
So then we agree! You can say the word if you’re using it as free speech, but you can’t use it if it is a direct incitement to violence.
"As for why Black people get a pass, I think it’s because people assume the word can only be used as a slur, and why would black people use as slur against themselves?”
OK, here is where I disagree. Black people can absolutely use the word nigger as a slur against other black people. I’ve seen it before.
"I mean, free speech and everything, but its extremely offensive and wouldnt go well depending where you are.”
I agree. But this debate is about what you should be ABLE to do, not what you SHOULD do.
I don’t want to start over and I don’t want you to forfeit. A forfeit happens when you don’t respond within the set timeframe. Ergo, it would take It would take multiple months to forfeit. Let’s just make the 5000 characters work.
Thanks for the compliment btw.
Please vote.
"Morality is subjective, so you can do anything you want.”
That is stupid, here’s why:
First of all, morality is objective. It is the seven noahide laws.
Second of all, you think that it’s OK for anyone to do whatever they want, this is flawed because A) morality is objective, B) it states that you can’t do whatever you want, and C) Do you think Hitler’s actions were acceptable, or Stalin’s, or Mao’s, or as the left will say, Putin’s? Are their actions all acceptable just because they thought it was?
I think that there have to be rules:
You can do whatever you want, as long as you are following the basic rules. (Don’t steal, Don’t kill, etc.)
That is how a constitutional republic, the likes of what AMERICA actually is, works.
Please vote.
Please vote.
---
---
---
---
---
---
Please vote.
Can we lower the voting time frame?
Please vote.
Please Vote.
Please vote
Please vote.
Please vote
I encourage everyone to vote.
I encourage everyone to vote.
I encourage everyone to vote.
Done. When do you wanna post the link?
That’s up to the voters to decide.
Please vote.
Is no one gonna vote?
OK. Post the link.
Bro, you literally didn’t even give me a chance to give my argument.
"I will accept if you allow me to use videos for my round. I just want to record my response to you."
Not sure how to do that.
That’s why I put the … there. to show the adjectives but not connect them. That’s how English grammar works. And “unsympathetic to the suffering” and “awful” are pretty similar. It’s not that I need a reframing, but simply that if you’re going to cook in the kitchen, you’ve got to take the heat. If someone says something on the internet, they have to be willing to accept and learn from the response, not call them “trolls” and get offended.
DSP is Democratic Socialist Party. (most people refer to it as the DSA. Democratic socialists of America)
Alright. I just set up a forum debate.
I’m also pro-rank choice voting. I would put RFK first then trump then biden. But realistically RFK has no chance so I’d settle for Trump. The reason I prefer trump to Biden is simple: My life under the Trump administration is 100x better. There’s more crime, more debt, more wars, worse economy, worse inflation, what he did with Taliban is a disgrace, he is senile and he is a puppet for the DSP. I could keep going but I think I proved my point. I voted for biden in 2020 becuase I hated trump and it was so stupid. I still don’t like trump and I’m still pretty liberal, but he was a much better president than biden is. As for RFK, I think he’d be great, but he’s a third-party candidate and as long as trump is in the race, he’ll lose. Same thing with Jill Stien and Chase Oliver. They got no shot. I’d love to debate you in it btw. I really want to learn about the presidency stuff.
You too. Would you vote trump, biden or kennedy? I’m just curious because Idk really know yet who I’m for.
Exactly my point. You mentioned that you’re about half-republican and half-democrat; just out of curiosity, would you vote Trump, biden or kennedy?