Total posts: 2,186
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@TWS1405_2For topic 3 if the very reason that certain ethnicities run from the cops, resist arrest more violently and/or are overall less cooperative is due to racist approached from the cops traumatising their elders and even peers and leading to a phobia of cops as well as the cops being more anticipating of an abrasive interaction, these things combined can lead to topic 3 getting very muddied especially with how long of a topic title you gave.
You’re so wrong on all subjective opinions put forth. It’s the cult of victimology indoctrination that causes blacks to behave as they do when it comes to any authority figures: adults (their elders), teachers, law enforcement officers, etc. Cops are not inherently “racists,” and you know it.
“The victimology cult has in turn engendered a cult of black separatism. Inspired by the Black Power movement of the 1960s, which violently rejected whites as terminally evil, today’s separatism, in the same vein, flirts disastrously with the idea that, because white racism ineluctably drives black people outside the bounds of civic virtue, blacks shouldn’t be seriously punished or morally condemned for criminal behavior. Black transgressiveness is understandable, even “cool.” A typical consequence of this view was the feting of the four black youths who maimed several people in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, with the Nation of Islam setting up a defense fund for the “L.A. Four.” The most recent manifestation of the idea was Jesse Jackson’s intervention when a Decatur, Illinois, high school suspended for two years seven black teenagers who injured bystanders during a gang fight at a school football game. Jackson painted this response to thuggery as a racist attempt to deny “our children” an education.”
It’s not a topic “title,” it’s an introduction.
Only you would muddy it with nonsensical retorts. The reality of what the topic brings forth can be easily discussed, as there are several resources from which to pull from to address factually accurate truths vs the leftist fictional narrative.
“Seven: Excessive police brutality against blacks shows that racism reigns eternal.Certainly blacks have suffered greater police brutality than whites. But this constitutes not the prevalence of overt racism, but its last holdout; as Orlando Patterson argues, you’d expect racism to persist longest precisely among undereducated keepers of order working under conditions likely to spark impulsiveness. And most important, the police brutality situation is improving rapidly. For example, though I think Officer Justin Volpe would not have brutalized a white suspect as he brutalized Haitian Abner Louima, his expectation that the “blue wall of silence” would protect him proved false. In the Diallo and Dorismond killings, the undertraining of police officers to deal with chaotic, tense situations was much more at fault than white racism—and, of course, black officers have been involved in similar cases across the country, though such cases don’t get headlines in the liberal media.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The thing is I actually agree to you on some level but what do you mean by 'culture' and why can culture on one end not coincide with real racism on the other side?I am just perplexed why it's one or the other for you?
“That suggests that fathers can be replaced by a welfare check. The weakened black family gives rise to problems such has high crime, predation and other forms of anti-social behavior.
The cultural problems that affect many black people are challenging and not pleasant to talk about, but incorrectly attributing those problems to racism and racial discrimination, a need for more political power, and a need for greater public spending condemns millions of blacks to the degradation and despair of the welfare state.”
Culture as in “black culture” …
- The cult of victimology
- The cult of anti-intellectualism (“The “acting white” charge—which implies that you think yourself different from, and better than, your peers—is the prime reason that blacks do poorly in school.”)
- The cult of separatism (e.g., “The defense of affirmative action on the grounds of “diversity” is an expression of separatism.”)
“Today, these three thought patterns impede black advancement much more than racism; and dysfunctional inner cities, corporate glass ceilings, and black educational underachievement will persist until such thinking disappears.”
Black Pastor reacts to debate between BLM supportive speakers and Ben Shapiro: “It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture.”
Created:
Posted in:
Oh look, two pages in and 🐓 💩 so-called “rational” madman (an “experienced” debater. RN has not fully accepted the challenge he put forth.
Speaks volumes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
I never even argued with you to begin with. U give yourself too much credit. Child
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You put forth the challenge, I answered.
Either accept the topics you asked me to provide or piss off. Your excuses are pathetic. And they speak volumes of your intellectual cowardice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
thats why you go the judge route, choose people who wont vote bomb or hate vote you
No one has a choice in the people who vote. People vote for their own reasons. Be it legit and honest, or nefarious and assholish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
I didn't say in all his debates or even most. I said he has the ability. You're clearly not reading it throughly.
Uh, no. Clearly you’re not reading it correctly. I never said all his debates. I inferred his so-called self-professed “experience” debating. It s an umbrella generalation. Not specific to one or all. It’s a generalization.
Maybe you need to brush up on your English, not to mention reading comprehension skills. They’re both found wanting.
Also, I simply need to get my qualification for creating topic forums
Practice on someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
He has the full ability to dominate someone in a debate. I've seen it plenty of times in his debates.
😂
You’re clearly not reading the debates I’ve seen RM participate in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
The only one with the overly confident attitude (ie - Dunning Kruger Effect) that kicked this off is RM:
RationalMadman02.15.2023 09:35AM-->@TWS1405_2wanna step into the arena with me? you're gonna be crying to your reflection afterwards.Offer me 3 topics and the sides you want on them. I'll pick one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
are there any other topics you would like to debate him on?
No. I gave my three. Those are the three “topics.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
No, he didn’t accept the entirety of the topic. He doesn’t get to cherry pick parts he likes and parts he doesn’t. I gave the topics, either accept it in its entirety or don’t in its entirety.
And I don’t. Are what you think, only what can be proven. Let him speak for and prove himself.
Created:
Posted in:
All three are debatable “topics.” All three.
I gave you what you asked for. Topics.
You didn’t ask for a formulated proposed argument.
You asked for topics. I gave you three topics.
And you have to accept the topic in its entirety, no cherry picking.
Once you pic the topic, a formal argument will be made in the creation of the debate.
So stop making petty excuses.
Your apparent negative attitude is duly noted. 🙄
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
Offer me 3 topics and the sides you want on them. I'll pick one of them.
Original response here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8895/posts/374093
TOPIC ONE:
Racism is not a driving factor in (in)equality in the United States; any perceived disparity has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
TOPIC TWO:
Social-psychology and the Law play a central role in the Abortion debate that is oft ignored. So much so that those who advocate for the pro-life position believe abortion is legal murder and that [a] full-blown "human being" exists at conception worthy of all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law (in other words, they confuse cellular life with personhood in favor of ignoring the 14th Amendment - AND - fetal viability).
TOPIC THREE:
The issues surrounding violent encounters with police where black (mostly, and specifically) and brown people are concerned have more to do with the culture of those minorities and very little to do with the culture of policing. The social-psychology of policing is nuanced and more reactionary than proactive. As a result, their actions are predicated on the "in the field" (boots on the ground) circumstances on a case-by-case basis (e.g. no two traffic stops are equally the same; each one is always unpredictable).
As I agree with each topic I listed/put forth, I will take the PRO side on each.
- We will need to agree on the timeliness of responses (how many days to research and respond; takes time to read, formulate and write a cogent response).
- We will need to agree that when citing sources, so that each of us understand the context of each citation, no less than two quotes from each citation must be used giving context/relevance to why the cited source was even used as it directly relates to the argument/point being proffered.
- We will need to agree on no actual fallacious uses of the ad hominem argument (valid observations of attitude, behavior and demeanor are excluded).
- We will need to agree not to write lengthy paragraphs, but rather break down the points so its easily readable and coherent.
- We will need to agree to respond point by point and not convolute the discussion. In other words, do not take A1 and retort on it after you retort to A6. An orderly debate/discussion is necessary for not only our benefit, but the readers/voters as well.
- We will need to agree on credible sources where the author(s) have demonstrated their veracity by a clear bibliography of research conducted to substantiate their respective pieces. Opinion Editorials have to be judged on the sources they cite. Absolutely NO genetic fallacies will be used or tolerated.
- We will need to agree to stay on the subject agreed to and no deviations off the subject matter (no red herring or non-sequitur arguments).
- We will need to agree to keep as much subjective emotions out of the agreed upon topic so as to keep the format as productive as possible. Only objectivity backed by verifiable facts followed by the citations given to back each claim up.
If you have any terms to add, please do so. Otherwise, that's about all (the most important ones that come to mind) that I can think of off the bat.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
More of the greatest hits!
More of your childish behavior and consistent display of ignorance of the subject matter. Go figure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
No, we are in a time of self annihilation through factually inaccurate data contrary to factual reality.
Created:
Posted in:
Fascist hypocrite IWantFDR needs to go the same way of the Witch.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Non sequitur, dickhead.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
>@TWS1405_2Race hustlers, victimhood mentality, intraracial violence, and black women marrying the government welfare check is what curbed 20% of blacks acquiring more (generational) wealth. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.That’s a lie that white loser racists are all too ready to believe.
Cannot prove me wrong, so you name call. So childish of you.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Offer me 3 topics and the sides you want on them. I'll pick one of them.
TOPIC ONE:
Racism is not a driving factor in (in)equality in the United States; any perceived disparity has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
TOPIC TWO:
Social-psychology and the Law play a central role in the Abortion debate that is oft ignored. So much so that those who advocate for the pro-life position believe abortion is legal murder and that [a] full-blown "human being" exists at conception worthy of all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law (in other words, they confuse cellular life with personhood in favor of ignoring the 14th Amendment - AND - fetal viability).
TOPIC THREE:
The issues surrounding violent encounters with police where black (mostly, and specifically) and brown people are concerned have more to do with the culture of those minorities and very little to do with the culture of policing. The social-psychology of policing is nuanced and more reactionary than proactive. As a result, their actions are predicated on the "in the field" (boots on the ground) circumstances on a case-by-case basis (e.g. no two traffic stops are equally the same; each one is always unpredictable).
As I agree with each topic I listed/put forth, I will take the PRO side on each.
- We will need to agree on the timeliness of responses (how many days to research and respond; takes time to read, formulate and write a cogent response).
- We will need to agree that when citing sources, so that each of us understand the context of each citation, no less than two quotes from each citation must be used giving context/relevance to why the cited source was even used as it directly relates to the argument/point being proffered.
- We will need to agree on no actual fallacious uses of the ad hominem argument (valid observations of attitude, behavior and demeanor are excluded).
- We will need to agree not to write lengthy paragraphs, but rather break down the points so its easily readable and coherent.
- We will need to agree to respond point by point and not convolute the discussion. In other words, do not take A1 and retort on it after you retort to A6. An orderly debate/discussion is necessary for not only our benefit, but the readers/voters as well.
- We will need to agree on credible sources where the author(s) have demonstrated their veracity by a clear bibliography of research conducted to substantiate their respective pieces. Opinion Editorials have to be judged on the sources they cite. Absolutely NO genetic fallacies will be used or tolerated.
- We will need to agree to stay on the subject agreed to and no deviations off the subject matter (no red herring or non-sequitur arguments).
- We will need to agree to keep as much subjective emotions out of the agreed upon topic so as to keep the format as productive as possible. Only objectivity backed by verifiable facts followed by the citations given to back each claim up.
If you have any terms to add, please do so. Otherwise, that's about all (the most important ones that come to mind) that I can think of off the bat.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
wanna step into the arena with me? you're gonna be crying to your reflection afterwards.
Ha! So sure of yourself.
Offer me 3 topics and the sides you want on them. I'll pick one of them.
Challenge accepted.
I’ll reply in short order with 3 topics and the side I’ll take in each. Stay tuned.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Wrong.
“Psychological projection” is the correct terminology with a very specific definition in the context in which it is given.
The term projection by itself has a completely different meaning and lacks context.
ex·pe·ri·enced
/ikˈspirēənst,ekˈspirēənst/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
having knowledge or skill in a particular field, especially a profession or job, gained over a period of time.
RM displayed zero knowledge or any skills in debating. So no, he’s not experienced. He lacks the skill and by extension the knowledge required to display any measure of skilled debating.
Practice what you preach.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It’s psychological projection, not projection.
And no, you’re not. I’ve looked at some of the debates you were in. Some forfeited. Others you couldn’t put together a coherent sentence. It was nothing short of babbling. Also, no structure. No format. It was not debating. “Experienced debater”? More like delusions of grandeur.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You’re not even an experienced debater here.
Oh the irony of the psychological projection here.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
First P-Witch, you’re next.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
> @TWS1405_2Ben Shapiro.lolConservative talk radio.lolSo sad, what lower middle class white men need to build their self esteem.
Genetic fallacy
Genetic fallacy
Psychological projection fallacy.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Race hustlers, victimhood mentality, intraracial violence, and black women marrying the government welfare check is what curbed 20% of blacks acquiring more (generational) wealth. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.That’s a lie that white loser racists are all too ready to believe.
Prove it.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Race hustlers, victimhood mentality, intraracial violence, and black women marrying the government welfare check is what curbed 20% of blacks acquiring more (generational) wealth. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Racism made it hard for black families to build wealth
Really?
Who was the first female entrepreneur who became a millionaire? Was she white? Nope. She was black. Madame CJ Walker. Clearly racism didn’t stop her from making millions.
What about the top 20 wealthiest black people in the world? Did racism stop them from their endeavors to become famous but more importantly, RICH as hell!?! Of course not.
Racism didn’t stop all these black entrepreneurs from becoming millionaires throughout the 1800-1900s!!
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We all know you are a pedophile, and the resident DART troll.
So keep on trolling, troll.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You’re a child molester- prove me wrong.
Easy.
Loon in the mirror, you degenerate pedophile.
It’s called psychological projection for a reason.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Well, to date (or this post), you have NOT proven me wrong.
So…
FU!!
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Not my fault or problem you lack the readily available and widely known knowledge that I and others possess whereas you do not.
If we say it’s common knowledge, it is more so than not. You fall in the not since you don’t even live here.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
You've conflated widely available with widely known.
Nope.
Just because you’re not a part of the self-educated widely knowledgeable ones doesn’t negate the fact that it is widely available and easily verifiable.
So it sounds like it is in fact in dispute by more than half of your country.
Conservatives and educated folk outnumber the leftist idiocracy. We just don’t get all militant and destructive like they do. Forcing tolerance while being intolerant themselves. Remarkably gullible and willingly walking up to the cart to buy the snake oily democrats sell them on a daily basis.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
So not widely known.
When it’s ALL OVER THE INTERNET & MSM, yeah, it meets the definition of widely know AND easily verifiable.
So it is in dispute
No, not really. The only ones disputing anything is the left. The fbi. The democrats. All those who would be ostracized for their illicit activities. Which is precisely why the FBI and democrats (like Schiff) kept espousing Russian disinformation, disputing the truth.
The only thing in dispute is the truth, which the left, FBI, DOJ, Biden Inc and their cohorts have been disputing.
Grow a brain. Troll.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Your greatest hits - psychological projection
Created:
-->
@dustryder
->@TWS1405_2“Common knowledge does not need to be cited in your paper, because it is widely known, undisputed, easily verified, and generally not attributable to a specific author.”1. You are citing the requirements for academic papers, not persuasive argument or fruitful discussion.2. None of the assertions you've made are widely known, undisputed and easily verified.The fact you seem to think the assertion that there is a Biden criminal organisation that disrupted Trumps presidency and probably rigged the 2020 is widely known, undisputed and easily verified is easily the most dumbest thing that I've ever encountered on this site.
LOL!! It's a general definition, and even then, it applies to all things asserted. Even here. In an online discussion forum.
If I say the sky is self evidently blue, which IS common knowledge, you'd still ask for evidence.
Yes, every assertion I made in the OC are widely known (to the educated who actually make an effort to stay abreast of world events), the left's dispute is bunk, so it remains undisputed, and it is easily verifiable.
Are you related to Double_R? Doppleganger perhaps? Cause you act/behave JUST LIKE HIM (her, it, they, Z).
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So once again you refuse to watch/read information provided by a DART member with the intent to educate others and initiate a discussion.
Your laziness knows no bounds. Your denialism is infinite. You expect everyone else to do your work for you. Even if they drew you a damn picture you'd still ask for cliff notes.
Why are you here? What is your point on this site?
Right back at ya, fucking clown.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
“Common knowledge does not need to be cited in your paper, because it is widely known, undisputed, easily verified, and generally not attributable to a specific author.”
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Even the leftist media has been reporting on the investigative results. They cannot deny the truth, it only makes them look bad. As if they could make themselves look anymore worse than they already are. But they have been flipping on the democrats, Biden and the FBI as of late.
Clearly you live in either a plastic bubble or have your head in the sand! It’s common knowledge. It’s all over the internet and MSM, both sides. More on the truth telling side than the lying side, but it’s still there too.
You don’t want evidence. You want cliff notes.
Grassley made no claims. He stated facts. And everyone reads off paper or a teleprompter. Such a stupid comment to make on your part.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
It’s ALL common knowledge. As such, it doesn’t require proof.
Oh, and it’s clear you didn’t even take the time to watch the video. Which is in and of itself, proof.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Reading comprehension matters. Try again.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.
We all know you cannot prove ANY of your fallacious claims. So, as well already know, you’re the resident forum liberal Democrat LIAR-IN-CHIEF!! 🖕🏿
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Sources were given.
Genetic fallacies ≠ legit discrediting of said sources
Created:
Senator Grassley and Johnson’s investigation into Biden Inc criminality highly detailed here in this hearing statement.
It is clear that the Biden’s and all their co-conspirators did as Grassley laid out. An FBI agent was caught conspiring with foreign agents that ties that FBI agent to Hunter and the Biden family.
If the Biden Criminal Organization can disrupt a 4 year term of a sitting president with constant barrages of illicit and fallacious attacks, effectively setting that POTUS up for failure, it is more than plausible and more probable that they also conspired to rig the 2020 election (which is more or less self-evident at this point).
As these hearings continue, more truth will see the light of day and the snakes in the swamp will continue to be exposed.
This country is on the brink of total ruin if our government and GOP do not get their act together and clean house from the very TOP to the lowest basement level. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. Neither can the fact that the CCP has every hand, tooth and nail dug deep into our country on multiple levels.
Things for America and our way of life are at serious risk, and if something doesn’t change soon…that movie Red Dawn may become a very reality present day.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Attacking the source and not the context of the information provided is a classic genetic fallacy.
I don’t believe in any religion.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Your legit sources don’t say anything about ties to Biden or Clinton
Yeah, they do…denialist.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ha, Dan Bongino! I knew it. Losers like you get their news from Dan Bongino. Lol
Name Calling, ad hominem fallacy. Second sign of tried and true intellectual cowardice.
Also a genetic fallacy. Bongino is a valid source of info, as are all the others cited which you so conveniently ignored.
Typical liberal. Can’t prove their opponent wrong so they personally attack them and the cited sources with absolutely zero evidence to back their own stated (albeit poorly) position.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You are delusional. Did you collect all of Trump’s baseball cards yet?
First clear cut n dry sign of intellectual cowardice.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Name him
What, you’re not keeping up with the news?
Former SS Agent Dan Bongino breaks it down:
Created: