So this debate is about if the Bible even had a small impact on how Westerners view heroism?
Also if the Bible made the West free?
Missed out the time frame so you can easily add it in to suit your narrative. I guess I can argue with the free part but I don't think I can argue with the heroism part.
I am glad you didn't bother to respond to my critiques. Whatever that comes out of your mouth wasn't worth listening to when you pretty much said I called you a KKK member. If anyone actually thinks you look better in this they value lying less than swears.
Oh and where was my "vile ad hominem attacks" to Our_Boat_is_Right and RationalMadman speaking about their vote? I'll wait.
I didn't know you cared so much about a friends list. I would literally have to remove at least half of them if I cared about it. Not to mention I have thou shall not be named on my friends list. To each their own I guess.
>> but that doesn’t harm his point that to be Jewish is more of a cultural (or religious as he directly states) thing than a racial one.
Bearing in mind Dr.Franklin made no reference to culture whatsoever. His argument was this "Nothing about being Jewish or being part of a religion." which was dependent on the link you rejected. Meaning this was an appeal to the source not independent of it so if you reject the source you reject his paraphrase of the source. I can't believe you are going to get away this shit vote.
>>which he failed to do in light of pro’s alternative explanations for why any of these things might not be based on belief in orange (or whatever race's) superiority.
Well he can't be racist because of x explanation not basing this off of how lackluster his justification for any of this was.
>>he doesn’t show a racist intent or motivation. Probably racist, and certainly disliked, does not bridge the gap into racist.
What the fuck. I have to literally read his mind and even if I reach that, I don't think it would be enough for the piece of shit Ragnar to think he is a racist. "Probably racist" is not enough? If Ragnar actually had a standard I would only think him wearing white clothes, with a white cone hat and saying exactly the same things the KKK said to even meet that bar yet it doesn't matter how trash Dr.Franklin's arguments were and I have clearly pointed it to be the case.
>>As a fellow voter who believes in voting the evidence instead of bias, I applaud your vote integrity.
Go fuck yourself. You are heavily biased and I can't believe how much I am getting fucked. I hope I get a second opinion from a vote moderator then I'll go from there.
>>So Trump called someone Korean and pretty, which doesn’t say anything bad about anyone who isn’t Korean.
I am sorry didn't think you would miss this but you did.
"He pretty much said why isn’t this pretty Korean lady negotiating with North Korea?"
>>Pro amazingly defends that, showing that Omar weaponizes racist accusations even at inanimate objects and the USA in general
Oh my fucking God. Literal shit tier response. I didn't know Omar being a racist discredits Trump being a racist. Literally violence isn't violence if you were the one being violent second.
>>Trump talking back to her could be called cultural elitism, but thinking she’s inferior due to her skin color as opposed to where she’s from was not clearly shown.
Again shit tier response. Trump should know they have resided in America for most of their life yet he still said what he said. Meaning anyone can easily infer that they should go back to their racial country. I even used the KKK as an example yet that wasn't enough for you it was racist. He essentially said the same thing the KKK did. What the actual fuck
>>With this con has reached a minimal BoP to be taken seriously, but it does not conclusively win the debate by itself given pro’s excellent defense.
Actually go fuck yourself. I did way more than reach the "minimale BoP" and Dr.Franklin's arguments were literal shit tier.
>>Trump for example was not shown to be in favor of forced deportations of any US citizens (which to point out the difference is not to defend the KKK as con claims).
There is two ways to take this. If Trump doesn't follow all that the KKK does then he isn't akin to them or if Trump doesn't physically act on it then it isn't akin to the KKK. Bearing in mind how irrelevant it is to Trump being racist. You don't need to deport people to be racist nor do you need to follow every single thing that the movement did you just did need to say racist things.
>> I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
I didn't know you didn't read his description on this debate which clearly states "Racist-a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races". By me adding the syllogism this it is an implied agreement on what a racist is. A person who shows or echoes discrimination or prejudice. I don't need support when he never disagreed with what I said.
>> Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
Neither the link nor what he said suggested that she would be a useful negotiator. From what was released all that Trump knew was that her parents were from Korea not she has ever been nor has a lot of knowledge about it. You are clearly missing what occurred in the debate if this is actually what you think Dr.Franklin did.
>> I haven't a clue what possible benefit he believes comes from doing it that way.
I can't believe you would add such a redundant statement here. It is almost as if you are intentionally voting based on not what this debate is about whether Trump is or isn't racist. My role was not to show the positives of Trump being racist it was to show that he is racist.
>>This doesn’t show that he believes Native Americans are inferior, or that he is prejudiced against Warren for her race
Oh did you just miss an option like used a race-traitor as an insult to a person he didn't know was Native American or not? Wow I thought it wasn't clear how shit your vote was but this has got to be clear. I also like how you clearly missed his vacuous justification "you are a human being". I can't actually believe you are getting away with fucking me over so much on this site.
If it doesn't warrant violence. I don't agree with your analogy as it being realistic but hypothetically sure. This doesn't mean you can just bring in real world examples because I seriously don't want to have this conversation.
>>No one directly dies if there isn't "universal healthcare." We have universal healthcare in the sense if you go to the hospital you can't get turned away. I will repeat what I said.
When the vote is on my side, it is on Squid to decide whether or not it is worthy to report it. I personally think you do not know what you are talking but given you know how the RFD works given how many debates you have voted on I will still not get what I want out of this.
You even call me out for making arguments that were not in the debate. Your a liar for what you said or you didn't even bother do read the debate. Whichever it maybe it really doesn't matter.
Evidence was not given that Yang's UBI would work. He didn't even explain what way the UBI would work and I asked him and he refused to answer. He didn't even acknowledge I even talked about it.
I asked for clarification about your vote then I asked where did DynamicSquid sufficiently argued for UBI. This isn't contradictory.
Important details you missed out:
I made a policy argument in Round 1 which DynamicSquid didn't even bother to critique. He said there was no evidence when I specifically gave a link that stated ACA enrolled 73.8 million people in which Biden supports a better version of it.
Didn't define work so forgive me if I don't know specifically which way the UBI works in order to argue against it.
My "pre-fiat Kritik" was perfectly valid. Being on a winning side is a reason in supporting a side.
1,000 a year is vastly different from 1,000 a month yet you don't mention that anywhere. Even if DyanmicSquid directed the debate to UBI working it doesn't mean my point that him using the Alaskan UBI as an argument is any less valid given the difference in what we are talking about.
You basically said here that UBI goes to neither side.
>>This point does favor Biden, as it mitigates the effectiveness of Yang’s attempts at passing policies.
I am arguing for Biden so I am guessing this is a point for me. 0-1
>>Don’t pull this BS, the same logic says Trump should be president for life (which would be its own debate), because he’s a more popular president than any contenders. Pro of course repeats the relevancy problem.
From this I gather Pro didn't make a compelling enough argument against Con instead this is what you are saying that isn't implied in anything Con said. I am unsure if you give this to Pro or this goes to neither side. 1-1 or 0-1
>>Pro counters that Yang wants to be a president for more policies, and that a single debate is an unfair measure to judge him (this would have been an ideal time to link more things by which to judge him).
I don't know who has this point and you haven't made it clear who has the better background in politics. I don't know how I didn't win this and you haven't made it clear who won this part.
>>Note: Biden has not been shown to be an unfeeling robot, so this point doesn’t carry much weight given that Biden probably likewise cares about humans.
From this I gather that this goes to neither side.
So if it wasn't clear it would either be a draw or a point for my side unless I read your unclear direction of who won by each point.
Government provided food stamps yes but Yang I think wants to remove the welfare system eventually as in not have welfare but just the UBI. DynamicSquid can jump in if I am wrong.
Whether or not people get a job for 12k, it is still not enough to get you out of poverty and I think from looking at Alaska it will increase the gap to reach above poverty.
If you look at this debate Alaska has a higher income needed to not be poor. I guess the UBI has something to do with it. It is only 1,000 a year and if this is true I can't imagine the impact of a 12,000 a year UBI would have. Meaning people would still have to work. This is an assumption and UBI's are all pretty shitting if they don't you know, universally provide basic income. Alaska's UBI is not a basic income for anyone so I don't see how Yang's would help people from welfare or have people quit there job for 12k.
Don't you think people would work for things that entertain them as in video games?
>>Plus, I'll bet that this will soon be extended to illegal immigrants, so with the help of "sanctuary" states America will turn into a giant refugee camp. And that's just the economy
Do you know that immigration is a boon for the economy?
You quoting something isn't proof. I don't accept your word nor should you accept mine. Go find the link like how you found the quote before you come talking to me about what I said.
Yes but you did make the statement that he was something that you later disagreed with. At least you understood it. It is up to you if you want to find out if by definition Yang is a socialist or not instead of just taking my yes as gospel.
Communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
Unless the money is owned by each person and is according to their ability and needs. If not then no.
>>Really makes me want to believe that Trump always lies.
The link does not claim that. It claims this:
True 5% Mostly True 10% Half True 14% Mostly False 21% False 35% Pants on Fire 15%
>>Keep doing what you're doing though, It really helps us win.
What am I doing?
If you want to create a debate that I deem worthwhile I'll accept. Given your recent record, it has been more than 2 months since your last debate so I don't even know what you are doing in the debate section. To comment?
We both know how little this matters when it comes to a functioning website:
"top debater for my age group on Debate.org, and top 100 on Debate.org."
So this debate is about if the Bible even had a small impact on how Westerners view heroism?
Also if the Bible made the West free?
Missed out the time frame so you can easily add it in to suit your narrative. I guess I can argue with the free part but I don't think I can argue with the heroism part.
Woah your like a reverse white nationalist.
I am glad you didn't bother to respond to my critiques. Whatever that comes out of your mouth wasn't worth listening to when you pretty much said I called you a KKK member. If anyone actually thinks you look better in this they value lying less than swears.
Oh and where was my "vile ad hominem attacks" to Our_Boat_is_Right and RationalMadman speaking about their vote? I'll wait.
I didn't know you cared so much about a friends list. I would literally have to remove at least half of them if I cared about it. Not to mention I have thou shall not be named on my friends list. To each their own I guess.
>> but that doesn’t harm his point that to be Jewish is more of a cultural (or religious as he directly states) thing than a racial one.
Bearing in mind Dr.Franklin made no reference to culture whatsoever. His argument was this "Nothing about being Jewish or being part of a religion." which was dependent on the link you rejected. Meaning this was an appeal to the source not independent of it so if you reject the source you reject his paraphrase of the source. I can't believe you are going to get away this shit vote.
>>which he failed to do in light of pro’s alternative explanations for why any of these things might not be based on belief in orange (or whatever race's) superiority.
Well he can't be racist because of x explanation not basing this off of how lackluster his justification for any of this was.
>>he doesn’t show a racist intent or motivation. Probably racist, and certainly disliked, does not bridge the gap into racist.
What the fuck. I have to literally read his mind and even if I reach that, I don't think it would be enough for the piece of shit Ragnar to think he is a racist. "Probably racist" is not enough? If Ragnar actually had a standard I would only think him wearing white clothes, with a white cone hat and saying exactly the same things the KKK said to even meet that bar yet it doesn't matter how trash Dr.Franklin's arguments were and I have clearly pointed it to be the case.
>>As a fellow voter who believes in voting the evidence instead of bias, I applaud your vote integrity.
Go fuck yourself. You are heavily biased and I can't believe how much I am getting fucked. I hope I get a second opinion from a vote moderator then I'll go from there.
>>So Trump called someone Korean and pretty, which doesn’t say anything bad about anyone who isn’t Korean.
I am sorry didn't think you would miss this but you did.
"He pretty much said why isn’t this pretty Korean lady negotiating with North Korea?"
>>Pro amazingly defends that, showing that Omar weaponizes racist accusations even at inanimate objects and the USA in general
Oh my fucking God. Literal shit tier response. I didn't know Omar being a racist discredits Trump being a racist. Literally violence isn't violence if you were the one being violent second.
>>Trump talking back to her could be called cultural elitism, but thinking she’s inferior due to her skin color as opposed to where she’s from was not clearly shown.
Again shit tier response. Trump should know they have resided in America for most of their life yet he still said what he said. Meaning anyone can easily infer that they should go back to their racial country. I even used the KKK as an example yet that wasn't enough for you it was racist. He essentially said the same thing the KKK did. What the actual fuck
>>With this con has reached a minimal BoP to be taken seriously, but it does not conclusively win the debate by itself given pro’s excellent defense.
Actually go fuck yourself. I did way more than reach the "minimale BoP" and Dr.Franklin's arguments were literal shit tier.
>>Trump for example was not shown to be in favor of forced deportations of any US citizens (which to point out the difference is not to defend the KKK as con claims).
There is two ways to take this. If Trump doesn't follow all that the KKK does then he isn't akin to them or if Trump doesn't physically act on it then it isn't akin to the KKK. Bearing in mind how irrelevant it is to Trump being racist. You don't need to deport people to be racist nor do you need to follow every single thing that the movement did you just did need to say racist things.
>> I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
I didn't know you didn't read his description on this debate which clearly states "Racist-a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races". By me adding the syllogism this it is an implied agreement on what a racist is. A person who shows or echoes discrimination or prejudice. I don't need support when he never disagreed with what I said.
>> Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
Neither the link nor what he said suggested that she would be a useful negotiator. From what was released all that Trump knew was that her parents were from Korea not she has ever been nor has a lot of knowledge about it. You are clearly missing what occurred in the debate if this is actually what you think Dr.Franklin did.
>> I haven't a clue what possible benefit he believes comes from doing it that way.
I can't believe you would add such a redundant statement here. It is almost as if you are intentionally voting based on not what this debate is about whether Trump is or isn't racist. My role was not to show the positives of Trump being racist it was to show that he is racist.
>>This doesn’t show that he believes Native Americans are inferior, or that he is prejudiced against Warren for her race
Oh did you just miss an option like used a race-traitor as an insult to a person he didn't know was Native American or not? Wow I thought it wasn't clear how shit your vote was but this has got to be clear. I also like how you clearly missed his vacuous justification "you are a human being". I can't actually believe you are getting away with fucking me over so much on this site.
Good luck
You ready?
Sure. I did check other debates at the time and found I like this one more than others.
If it doesn't warrant violence. I don't agree with your analogy as it being realistic but hypothetically sure. This doesn't mean you can just bring in real world examples because I seriously don't want to have this conversation.
>>No one directly dies if there isn't "universal healthcare." We have universal healthcare in the sense if you go to the hospital you can't get turned away. I will repeat what I said.
Then no.
Thank you for making a good faith effort in addressing my position. Thank you for being what I expected from the moderation team.
If I directly die if I don't get healthcare, would you consider that ground for political violence?
When the vote is on my side, it is on Squid to decide whether or not it is worthy to report it. I personally think you do not know what you are talking but given you know how the RFD works given how many debates you have voted on I will still not get what I want out of this.
You even call me out for making arguments that were not in the debate. Your a liar for what you said or you didn't even bother do read the debate. Whichever it maybe it really doesn't matter.
Evidence was not given that Yang's UBI would work. He didn't even explain what way the UBI would work and I asked him and he refused to answer. He didn't even acknowledge I even talked about it.
I asked for clarification about your vote then I asked where did DynamicSquid sufficiently argued for UBI. This isn't contradictory.
Important details you missed out:
I made a policy argument in Round 1 which DynamicSquid didn't even bother to critique. He said there was no evidence when I specifically gave a link that stated ACA enrolled 73.8 million people in which Biden supports a better version of it.
Didn't define work so forgive me if I don't know specifically which way the UBI works in order to argue against it.
My "pre-fiat Kritik" was perfectly valid. Being on a winning side is a reason in supporting a side.
>>that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.”
1,000 a year is vastly different from 1,000 a month yet you don't mention that anywhere. Even if DyanmicSquid directed the debate to UBI working it doesn't mean my point that him using the Alaskan UBI as an argument is any less valid given the difference in what we are talking about.
>>Sure, I would be. What's your point?
I am for political violence in that specific circumstance just like you.
Can you quote me where you deemed he sufficiently argued for Yang's UBI?
Sure
Would you be for political violence if that hypothetical law was true?
I'll come back when you can engage with my hypothetical.
>>NOTE: This isn’t weighing into my vote.
You basically said here that UBI goes to neither side.
>>This point does favor Biden, as it mitigates the effectiveness of Yang’s attempts at passing policies.
I am arguing for Biden so I am guessing this is a point for me. 0-1
>>Don’t pull this BS, the same logic says Trump should be president for life (which would be its own debate), because he’s a more popular president than any contenders. Pro of course repeats the relevancy problem.
From this I gather Pro didn't make a compelling enough argument against Con instead this is what you are saying that isn't implied in anything Con said. I am unsure if you give this to Pro or this goes to neither side. 1-1 or 0-1
>>Pro counters that Yang wants to be a president for more policies, and that a single debate is an unfair measure to judge him (this would have been an ideal time to link more things by which to judge him).
I don't know who has this point and you haven't made it clear who has the better background in politics. I don't know how I didn't win this and you haven't made it clear who won this part.
>>Note: Biden has not been shown to be an unfeeling robot, so this point doesn’t carry much weight given that Biden probably likewise cares about humans.
From this I gather that this goes to neither side.
So if it wasn't clear it would either be a draw or a point for my side unless I read your unclear direction of who won by each point.
I gave the hypothetical and you give me a hypothetical back?
I am sorry you can't engage with hypotheticals instead engage with I guess assuming my intentions.
Are you telling me you can't engage with hypotheticals?
I didn't say guns. I didn't say it happens.
Why?
You do know under that definition a principle can be you can kill me and the law won't punish you for it. What do you say to that?
I am sorry if nuance is too difficult for you to understand.
Blame boat for being one note and needing me to walk it through for him to understand how he is wrong.
Define policy
Government provided food stamps yes but Yang I think wants to remove the welfare system eventually as in not have welfare but just the UBI. DynamicSquid can jump in if I am wrong.
Whether or not people get a job for 12k, it is still not enough to get you out of poverty and I think from looking at Alaska it will increase the gap to reach above poverty.
Does killing people count as a policy?
If you look at this debate Alaska has a higher income needed to not be poor. I guess the UBI has something to do with it. It is only 1,000 a year and if this is true I can't imagine the impact of a 12,000 a year UBI would have. Meaning people would still have to work. This is an assumption and UBI's are all pretty shitting if they don't you know, universally provide basic income. Alaska's UBI is not a basic income for anyone so I don't see how Yang's would help people from welfare or have people quit there job for 12k.
>>won't have to work a day in their lives
Don't you think people would work for things that entertain them as in video games?
>>Plus, I'll bet that this will soon be extended to illegal immigrants, so with the help of "sanctuary" states America will turn into a giant refugee camp. And that's just the economy
Do you know that immigration is a boon for the economy?
Can you prove he doesn't care?
You quoting something isn't proof. I don't accept your word nor should you accept mine. Go find the link like how you found the quote before you come talking to me about what I said.
Aren't you supposed to farm votes?
>>I'm probably wrong again aren't I?
Yes but you did make the statement that he was something that you later disagreed with. At least you understood it. It is up to you if you want to find out if by definition Yang is a socialist or not instead of just taking my yes as gospel.
>>Yang's a scumbag
Why?
Are you going to find that quote and link it to me?
Why should I stand by a comment if I don't know I said it?
Pivot to you actually finding where I said that? Okay.
Do you want to find the definiton of socialism?
My ideology and what I said in May are two different things.
>>I have this quoted, I can't find the link through the many comments over time.
Wherever you found this, click on the top where the URL is and copy it here. If you found the quote I am not asking for too much to link the link.
I am not going to reply if you don't do this.
Is that it?
I thought you were going to call him a socialist after that or something.
How about people (Russia) who disagree with you on policy (taking over the Us and enacting a dictatorship)?
Quote me please with a link to it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=communism&oq=communism&aqs=chrome..69i57.1625j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
Unless the money is owned by each person and is according to their ability and needs. If not then no.
What you said isn't communism.
>>Being a crazy leftist fascist.
Name me a position that I hold that is crazy leftist fascist.
>>Fair point. I changed it.
Well well.
>>Maybe in the future. Forums are just more productive in my opinion.
Is this the forum to you as well?
How is he a commie?
>>Really makes me want to believe that Trump always lies.
The link does not claim that. It claims this:
True 5% Mostly True 10% Half True 14% Mostly False 21% False 35% Pants on Fire 15%
>>Keep doing what you're doing though, It really helps us win.
What am I doing?
If you want to create a debate that I deem worthwhile I'll accept. Given your recent record, it has been more than 2 months since your last debate so I don't even know what you are doing in the debate section. To comment?
We both know how little this matters when it comes to a functioning website:
"top debater for my age group on Debate.org, and top 100 on Debate.org."
>>Andrew Yang is like one of the leftist democrats there
I would consider a socialist to be a leftist as in someone who wants socialism. Don't think Yang wants that to happen given his policies.
Are you to much of a coward to add me as a reciever?
I have 3,500 characters to use. I don't have time to present all the lies Trump has stated. I just linked it.