Total posts: 2,186
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Food ≠ gender & trans ideology holidays. False equivalency fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
I got a 100k pay raise in January, and now I am getting another 100k pay raise with our new contract in August.
Easy to claim IwantRooseveltagain, trying to sound all important and special, but we all know you’re full of shit 💩!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Birthright Citizenship does not apply to illegals
- What just law in any time or nation would make a newborn child a criminal? Good humans don't require lawful obedience from those who can't control their circumstance, actions, who can't comprehend law itself.
Nice appeal to emotion with that informal fallacy (e.g., Ignoratio Elenchi).
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
- "Critics" is quite the reduction of multiple Congresses and Supreme Courts, a century and a half of US Federal law as well as six centuries of English Common Law. It would be far more accurate to say "The mainstream of American jurisprudence has long claimed..." rather than dismissing a (sic) core American value and tradition as merely"critics." (sic)
This is nothing short of a Tu quoque and Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy.
Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
- One of the revolutionary aspects of the American Revolution was the assertion that governments are empowered by poltical (sic) allegience (sic) rather than the other way around- that people claim thier (sic) nation and no sovereign can claim an unwilling citizen as subject.
It never ceases to amaze me how you ignore the factually accurate information that contradicts your assertion(s), and spin off with these fallacies and semantics games that have nothing to do with the point being made (i.e., special pleading fallacy). The 13th and 14th Amendments came about after (and because of) the American Revolution, as well as the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 (e.g., reconstruction, citizenship for freed slaves and their future generations - but not Chinese Immigrants).
Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
- The current law regarding birthrights citizenship was implemented by the 14th Ammendment (sic) and affirmed more or less continuously ever since but most especially by United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was decided 6-2 by Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals (although the two most conservative members of that court dissented, both Democrats) and upheld and affirmed by generations of Supreme Courts, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal. Yes, there is also a long-standing minority tradition of dissent to this tradition that has failed to appeal to the center of American politics for generations.
I knew someone would bring up US v Womng Kim Ark. That case was decided specifically on Chinese immigration where the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 is concerned, and not immigration across the board (all nationalities).
The ruling in that case was inherently flawed, as the Justices failed to review the legislative history behind the 14th citizenship cause...instead looking to Common Law, which had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.
"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution."
The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, there is no law greater than it, which means you do not look to ancient and archaic laws that came before it in order to apply the Constitution in present (and future) day. You look to the legislative history that gave rise to it.
From the case: "In Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., the right of the United States to expel such Chinese persons was placed upon the grounds that the right to exclude or to expel all aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent [169 U.S. 649, 700] nation, essential to its safety, its independence, and its welfare; that the power to exclude or to expel aliens, being a power affecting international relations, is vested in the political departments of the government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far as the judicial department has been authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the paramount law of the constitution, to intervene; that the power to exclude and the power to expel aliens rests upon one foundation, are derived from one source, are supported by the same reasons, and are in truth but parts of one and the same power; and therefore that the power of congress to expel, like the power to exclude aliens, or any specified class of aliens, from the country, may be exercised entirely through executive officers; or congress may call in the aid of the judiciary to ascertain any contested facts on which an alien's right to be in the country has been made by congress to depend. 149 U.S. 711, 713 , 714 S., 13 Sup. Ct. 1016."
I am still reading the case, but this section stood out as part and parcel of what I have asserted.
- Spakovsky's dismissal of goverment's (sic) obedience to the Consistitution (sic) and SCOTUS interpretations as "executive fiat" is absurd and clearly looking to falsely, dangerously empower the least lawful executive in American history (Trump). Let's be sure to note that for legal backing Spakovsky is relying heavily on John C Eastman's reading, the same Eastman who has now lost all jurisprudential credibilty (sic) by writing the false, dangerous legal framework for the Republican's attempt to overthrow American Democracy in 2020. (Spakovsky first published this essay in 2011).
I see your point, but he isn't wrong in that the government has in fact failed to remain obedient to their oath of office. Same goes for SCOTUS over the years. They are not supposed to legislate from the bench, and yet they have on many occasions (e.g., Obergefell v Hodges, Bostock v. Clayton County, GA).
- Spakovsky (and also you by emphatic extension) misrepresents Trumball's authorial, originalist intent. When asked by fellow Senator Cowan whether his Amendment would not also have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, Trumball answered "Undoubtedly." The context being that both Chinese and Roma immigrants were were (sic) thought to be especially inseperable (sic) from the sovereign will of their overseas masters.
It wasn't a matter of mere thought, but rather by the laws and historical precedence establish that restricted such migration and allowance to denounce their allegiance/citizenship in order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States.
- This is not a Conservative v. Liberal debate. This is a Conservative, Liberal, Republican, and Democrat v. MAGA and other racist extremists (sic) debate.
Wrong. This is a national security and sovereignty debate.
Why is it when other countries have laws and regulations that are far stricter than the US no one cares, but when we want to enforce our own nation's laws and protect its sovereignty, it is always a "racist extremist" issue!?! Double standards and hypocrisy, anyone, anyone...
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Listening to his entire show, he made some good points and played audio of another person (forget name) who said something to the effect of Biden, when he was VP, went to the corporations and media and asked them to do what they couldn't do because it would violate the First Amendment. What they couldn't do has everything to do with the hardened push to indoctrinate people, namely children, into the alphabet soup ideology. The audio of the person said they were getting backing from the United Nations, among other groups (to include the US Government via Democrats), like the holy Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence going around insulting people (namely Catholics) who do not subscribe to that ideological nonsense.
And just like YouFound_Xlam said in The Holy Month of Pride. (debateart.com), there are more than 125 days committed to the alphabet soup basket mental cases, but one day to honor veterans who died during their respective tours of duty is absolutely FUBAR!!!!
All across the West, adolescent girls are suddenly identifying as ‘trans’ with friends, clamoring for hormones and surgeries. Teen girls who are struggling with anxiety and depression, but who had no childhood history of gender dysphoria at all.
The info provided in the video clip linked in the OP is not factually inaccurate.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Created:
Posted in:
"The Republican Party...and being a party of progress they determined to incorporate into the Constitution of the United States an amendment, that should define American citizenship - white and black, native and foreign born, in unmistakable terms, and for all time. That was the origin of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Let us look at the language of that amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Mark you then: "all person," no matter what their color, black or white, blonde or brunette - no matter where born, native or naturalized: The Constitution says, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens thereof, and of the States wherein they reside." That is the affirmative part of the amendment."
...
"Fellow-citizens, that amendment was passed in Congress by the Republican vote, with every Democratic vote opposed. It was passed in three-fourths of the State Legislatures, with every Republican vote in every Legislature in favor of it, and every Democratic vote in every Legislature opposed to it, and to this hour there has never been in any convention of the Democratic party, National, State, county, or district, a single declaration so far as I have seen agreeing to abide by and enforce that amendment." - pg. 141
"...in a Republic where suffrage is universal, we cannot permit a large immigration of people who are to be forbidden the elective franchise." - pg. 235
Political Discussions Legislative, Diplomatic and Popular, 1856-1886, James G. Blaine, printed 1887.
"This Amendment was proposed by Congress, June 16th, 1866, and was declared to be a part of the Constitution, July 21st, 1868, by a concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress. ... According to the opinion given by Mr. Justice Swayne, as already quoted, the emancipation of a slave removes the obstacle to his citizenship. Aliens become citizens by naturalization; slaves, by emancipation." - pg. 254
"The act passed Congress in April, 1866, known as the Civil Rights Bill, gave expression to this opinion. It declared all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, to be citizens of the United States." - pg. 255
"Citizens are either native-born or naturalized. Every person born in the country is, from time of birth, prima facie a citizen. An alien can become a citizen only by compliance with the rule of naturalization prescribed by Congress.
...
In 1790, Congress passed an act requiring two years' residence before a foreigner could become a citizen. In 1795, the time was extended to five years, and in 1798 it was extended to fourteen years. But in 1802, it was reduced to five years, which is the time now required.
...
"...a declaration, on oath, of his purpose to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince or state;..." - pg. 88
"The children of persons duly naturalized, who were under twenty-one at the date of such naturalization, shall be considered citizens, if residing in the United States." - pg. 89
Andrews Manual to the Constitution - Revised Edition, Isreal Ward Andrews, D.D., L.L.D, printed 1887
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
- Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
- Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
"The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country." (emphasis added)
"Most legal scholars say such a move would directly contradict the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
~ Those legal scholars would be wrong, as equally as wrong as previous lower court and SCOTUS decisions have been in the distant past (many before the 14th was even passed), as outlined in this article: Supreme Court set clear precedent on birthright citizenship | The Hill
The fact remains that the US Government (via democrats/liberals) have been purposely misinterpreting the 14th in created an illegitimate "birthright citizenship" whereas illegal aliens are concerned. The legislative intent, discussions, and final agreements between the states in passing and ratification of said amendment make it crystal clear.
Whoever becomes the next POTUS, I do hope they end this corruption where illegal aliens and their popping out anchor babies are concerned. They have no right to citizenship without going through the naturalization process.
NOTE: the two cited books at the beginning of this post cannot be linked to online (at least I did not look), because I own the books.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
When gay marriage was legalized, plenty of people supported gay marriages.
Not really. Liberals don’t outnumber conservatives and independents.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Fact checkers have about as much weight as the legacy media (MSM).
People write fact checks with an agenda. Then we learn later the truth and the fact checkers lied on purpose.
You didn’t disprove anything with that subjective opinion of yours. But hey, thanks for contributing.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Homosexuality was becoming more and more tolerated before it was accepted.
But gay marriage wasn’t.
Created:
-->
@Savant
International Water Resources Association?
IWantRoseveltAgain.
Created:
-->
@Savant
And so you were. Just checking.
If you were IWRA, well..
Created:
-->
@Savant
That’s ignorance on your part. So much has happened that we never thought would over the past three plus decades, yet they have. It’s onky a matter of when, not if.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's what they said about pandering to and legitimizing gender and transgender ideology being taught/forced upon children.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's what they said about letting men into women's spaces (e.g. bathrooms, showers, sports, etc.)
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's what they said about illicit narcotic drugs.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's what they said about gay marriage.
Created:
JFC! I am watching this video, listening to it, and the evil plans that began with the Rockefellers to present day with W.H.O., the U.N. and UNESCO is just madness!!!!!
"In March, UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), two agencies within the United Nations, along with the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) published a group of "new legal principles" that would advance "decriminalization efforts" globally, and principal 16 stated "sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual."
"“With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage,” the United Nations says.""
There is more, but the underlining goal is a movement, one of many plans, to reduce the world's population by 90%. Targeting children with all this hyper-sexualization from birth to pre-teen years in order to have a full grab hold on controlling the population. Screwing up kids psychologically through the gender and transgender ideology indoctrination and pushing the decriminalization of pedophilia and a push to sexualize kids in practice is insanity!
Going beyond this brainwashing and destroying the minds of tomorrow's adults via today's children, the W.H.O. is gearing up their end game goal to control literally everything: you, food, water, plants, pets, animals...it's called ONE HEALTH.
All of this evil doctrine begins with the Fabian Socialists. Huxley's bools BRAVE NEW WORLD was the plan that laid the foundation for all this corruption. Ever hear of Rockefeller's "operation lockstep"?
Looking back over the past 5 decades, it is clear this evil plan has been in motion long before us...as such things takes time, it cannot be done overnight. Each operation has been achieved in lock step for sure. I knew for sure that once gay marriage was granted, the transgender clowns would come out of the woodworks like cockroaches. Sure as shit they did. When that happened, I knew pedophilia would be next. It's on the verge of being pushed as acceptable. This shit the woman talks about in the cited video is coming to fruition, has been proven to be true with the historical events she mentioned, and it will only get worse before it gets better.
Thoughts?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
Created:
I really wish the mods would start grounding you for a while. Your direct rudeness and ad hominem attacks throughout the TDS & anti-GOP state nonsensical posts are not only annoyingly obnoxious (oft inaccurate), they’re a drain on everyone’s IQ when they read your tripe.
Just go on a vacation or something. Please.
Created:
You idiots need to understand that “fallacy” only applies if the authority is bogus.
That’s not how logical fallacies work, especially the appeal to authority one…🤦♂️ GP was correct in his initial observation since you never cited the source in your OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
BLM at this point is not even trying to "help black people" anymore I
Uh, they never were to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Reparations maybe?
BINGO!!! But not for thee, only me. As in... the individual.
Just look at Patrice Cullors. That was her intent from day one. Selfishness, greed, power, and control.
White guilt, not guilty white.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it has less to do with wokeness and more to do with the lack of knowledge to keep their criminal racketeering and money laundering going under the radar. So they’re bleeding cash faster than they can steal it.
Created:
If readability is to be chosen, then the voting guide need to be updated to clearly outline how a participant produces their arguments vs just mere spelling & grammar.
Meaning, a giant blob of text vs separate paragraphs, proper " " quotations, bolding for emphasis, italics for emphasis or other legit reasoning (like citing a legal case), correctly using the hyperlink for citations vs a long line of URL text, etc.
Clarity in the rules will make voting requirements and executing votes much easier.
Created:
The legibility category under voting for debates in an inaccurate term which causes confusion.
Based on this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1790/posts/76387
That category should be "Spelling & Grammar."
It's clear whoever used "legibility" for this rating criteria clearly doesn't understand what "legibility" means (in an online/printed environment).
Since the "In-Depth Voting Guide" specifically uses "Spelling & Grammar," so should the voting criteria category it relates to, and not legibility.
Legibility is an informal measure of how easy it is to distinguish one letter from another in a particular typeface.
What is Legibility? Legibility pertains to the quality of the text, in particular, how clear the text appears to the reader. It’s about how easily a reader can recognize, distinguish and read individual characters in the text.
Created:
As is your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Created:
Your psychological projection is endless.
Created:
Another trolling thread.
Created:
Posted in:
Easy solution. STOP SPENDING taxpayers money ON FUCKING PORK PROJECTS AND BULLSHIT to outside countries that HATE AMERICA!!!
Created:
Posted in:
Atheism isn’t a “thing,” like a table that can be seen, touched and utilized. It’s merely the opposite of theism. It’s a thought counter to another thought. Thoughts exist in that they are conceived in one’s mind, and communicates to another’s mind. That’s it. Happy now, troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
🤦♂️ it’s not even about borrowing, it’s about being financially frugal with one’s cash flow. Duh!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
If (fantasy) arguments are bunk!
Also, he borrowed money to begin his fortune and paid it all back shortly thereafter (borrowing it).
If blacks actually exercised personal responsibility and accountability with their money, they’d be able to get out of the hood and leave behind black redneck culture for a more successful life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>You cannot prove the existence of A without clearly defining what A even is!!!Definition =/= proof of existence
This thread is nothing short of TROLLING!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
The topic is not about what atheism is, but to prove if atheism exists
OMG!!! Talk about the most ironically asinine circular argument I’ve ever seen!!!
You cannot prove the existence of A without clearly defining what A even is!!!
You’ve dove off the deep end of the stupid cliff on this one, BK.
Created:
Posted in:
We already have those laws.
Cite them!!!
Never mind. We know you can’t and won’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Well said and great points put forth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont believe in atheism, since there is no proof that it exists.We heard stories about it, but stories are for babies.So unless you can prove to me that you and your atheism actually exist, the only logical thing to do is to believe in God since I know that he exists as I can feel him talking to me.
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind.
You clearly are ignorant of what atheism/atheist is.
Created:
Posted in:
VegaagiantsLegally it means any person who identifies as a woman
No it doesn’t.
Cite a US Code to back this idiotic claim.
Created:
@Double_R
In Trump we have a man who is a:
- Pathological liar
- Ignoramus
- Petulant
- Childish
- Vile
- Racist
- Narcissist
- Conspiracy theorist
- Idiot
Double_Rno one compares to Trump on any of these.
- Biden does (TWS1405_2)
>@<<<TWS1405_2>>>No, he doesn't. You know that.
Biden is a proven pathological liar
Biden is an ignoramus and demonstrates that daily with his gaffes, among other stupid shit he says and does.
Biden is petulant. You lying dog faced pony soldier!!
Biden is childish, for damn sure! He’s demonstrated that on more than one occasion.
Biden is vile.
Biden is most definitely a bonafide racist.
Biden is clearly a narcissist and demonstrates that often throughout his career.
Biden has used terms that imply he believes in conspiracy theories…like “The New World Order” he has referenced more than once.
Biden is an idiot. Again, demonstrates that daily.
He is very much alike, and demonstrably so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yes. Agree. Completely. But they need to admit the problem before they can enact that solution.Alright. Fair enough. For one moment I thought you and Kaitlyn were soulmates.
I have faith in all humanity. Even blacks. But it does boil down to choice. Choosing personal responsibility and accountability in making one better and contributing to society.
Created:
Posted in:
You white supremacists will never be part of the solutions
You libtard imbeciles will never be part of the real world. All you know what/how to do is be a part of the fucking problem. Ignoramuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Ok, so we might agree, given the hypothetical proposal, that culture is learned and blacks could solve their problems by changing their culture and habits.
Yes. Agree. Completely. But they need to admit the problem before they can enact that solution.
Created:
Posted in:
vegasgianta,
You’re a troll. All you do is troll. You are a disruption and a disgrace to DART. I can see orogami is doing a Bang up job of being a moderator when it comes to you. 🤦♂️🙄
You’re a troll. All you do is troll. You are a disruption and a disgrace to DART. I can see orogami is doing a Bang up job of being a moderator when it comes to you. 🤦♂️🙄
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Ok, let me see if I got what you explained.If all of a sudden the government put forth a decisive policy to indoctrinate black kids all over the US so that they behave as competitive as asian kids (just to name a suceessful culture), ensuring that their black parents don't get involved, the problem of the black american will be solved?
The parents of Asians are involved in their life, as should BOTH parents of blacks (but they aren’t). No such proposed policy would work without them. It’s precisely why black kids who are fatherless have the problems they do, and why generation after generation the black (redneck) culture is perpetuated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Yeah, but IWRA is in your face nasty with name calling and asserting he is better than everyone else. This clown Vegas is more like RM. I could be wrong. But honestly, I pay neither no mind as they’re both (VG & IWRA) not worth my time.
Created:
Posted in:
Pathetic. The “I know you are, but what am I” retort because YOU got caught/called out for being a sock puppet account of a former user.
Created:
Posted in:
TWS1405_2 is terrified of actual debate. Lol
Lie.
I’ve been challenged before by you, RationalMadman, and when I accepted and complied with your request to provide three topics of interest. You tucked tail and ran so fast that you used some petty excuse to leave DART.
No one has challenged me to a debate on a topic that I have an interest in. I’m not going to waste my time formally debating subject matter I have zero interest in.
Created: