Has he even conceded a single point?
If not is there point carrying on.
If yes try and make analogies using the thing he conceded on.
Just call him a coward for not accepting (Don't have to but you can if you want to).
Uncle Grandpa trash but Steven Universe is not bad. The community I think is awful but not the show.
For some reason I saw the original Ben 10 but never saw Teen Titans even though I think they came out in similar times. I would have rather watch Teen Titans because I can still watch it now compared to Ben 10.
>> But I've heard Steven Crowder say that he never edits or take out things in his videos and that everything is 100% there.
Have you watched his Change My Mind? He fast-forwards them to the parts that have people talking. I think he sits there for a couple of hours so if he actually did release the full video unedited it would be a couple of hours.
>>Wouldn't you think it'd be some kind of challenge debating him since he's very smart (it seems) he knows his stuff, talks really fast and has his sources right on the spot. Dunno, perhaps it's an intimidation tactic but he's very well spoken
Yes he knows the facts that in the folder but that doesn't actually mean he is smart. If he cheats and changes definitions around then I can complain about that but if he works with my definitions then he can't win.
>> there are some things I agree with him on in certain Change my mind segments, like the Abortion ones. (Pro-Life) and of course I definitely agree with him and I'm on his side of there are only 2 genders.
Okay but doubtful Steven has a better argument than I and since I haven't seen him just leave a debate. I am sure I can eventually make him look like a dumb dumb.
It is doubtful he would put me in the final cut. He does kind of remove content from the Change My Mind segments so if I really made him look bad. I think he would not even show it so I would be hoping someone records me beating him with whatever topic or I just get someone to record it.
Where did you get the definition from?
Are you referring to the name of their group the National Socialist German Workers' Party?
Need I not remind you that if a person calls them self something but does not adhere to the principles of said group then they are lying about who they are.
>>Could you perhaps name a few outrageous claims of mine so that I can defend them?
No you should have done that when you made the claim. I am not going to find countless examples you didn't substantiate instead I rather not spend more of my time discussing this.
Do you want to end this without ad-hominems or name-calling or can you not help yourself?
Let's agree to disagree until you decide to create a debate that I would accept or you accept a debate that I created.
Where was the research shown by your claims? Oh wait there wasn't any.
I don't have an ego more so a standard you don't follow. You make claims that don't make sense and are not supported.
If you need to look at my claims before you accept the debate. That would mean you won't accept any debate because in order to see my claims you are required to accept my debate.
Don't waste your time. He has the courage to debate you in the comment section but is to much of a coward to actually accept the debate he is having with you in the comment section.
You can also see that he gets his news from right wing propaganda. He would call them right wing news sources but we both now they are propaganda channels like Steven Crowder which I am sure is where he got that Hitler was a socialist meme from.
Steven Crowder claiming that Hitler is a liberal socialist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybWkpt_3Jo
If he was going to accept the debate he would have done it by now.
>> I'm asking so its clear what it is that Con is signing up for.
>>Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?
I can argue both ways. I am sure not the answer you wanted but that is all I want to give and I don't want to change the title. I like it.
>>Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?
If I answer that question would you accept the debate? If not why are you asking?
I don't want to rebut your other points. I am going to stick to this. Try not to make this longer than it needs to be which is partly why I am got tired of responding to a debate.
>>I guarantee you won't advocate for white people when they are a minority.
If they are being picked on the majority then yes. Do you actually have anything to guarantee I won't or isn't only your word?
>>You concede that these groups aren't oppressed, then you bring up the fact they are a minority.
Where did I concede anything? Them being a minority is important.
I said I won't waste my time with the concentration so I won't. It clear to see you don't know what you are talking about because you don't know what a concentration camp is and included a whataboutism in it as well.
>>Okay, inject your personal foolish opinion about Crowder without citing any examples. :)
How about supposed to educated a person who believe propaganda? If you don't understand how Steven Crowder is propaganda I can't help you. Why not accept my debate instead of debating me here?
I am not replying to anymore comments. It is a waste of my time. I have already rebutted your claims and like your other rebuttals they were insufficient.
>>Carlos is a self describes "queer". Check his Twitter.
If I call myself the n-word should you call me by that?
>>Saying something isn't inherently bad means: there is nothing negative about it
Where did you get this. If something isn't inherently bad then it would mean in circumstances it can be used in a bad or good way.
Not inherently bad = nothing negative does not follow. Is the n-word inherently bad? No. It is due to the context. If there wasn't any slavery the n-word wouldn't as bad as it is now. You even mentioning inherently bad goes to show what you don't know because not a single word ever is inherently bad.
>>thanks for quoting me and proving I'm telling the truth.
"Ok, being gay and Mexican are inherently bad." I thought you would understand what you said. You are saying being gay and Mexican are inherently bad. Can you not read or something? I am proving you think being gay and Mexican are inherently bad then you contradict yourself later on.
>>I challenge you to evaluate hate crime per capita statistics.
per capita? I don't think I need to waste my time to show the statistics when I pretty sure I am right. This might not be enough for you but please go try and find statistics of your own. Make sure it is per capita.
>>Cite exactly where I said Mexicans and gays being represented by the media hurt me or anyone.
Quote me saying that. All I see is you saying being Mexican and gay are inherently bad.
>>Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
I think there is a biological element that should be mentioned, and if its not rigorously defined, I would assume race to be a sort of social construct with a biological connotation or a genetic factor. I assume when someone says "Mexican" they are referring to an ethnicity or nationality, and if there is a racial element, that would in all likelihood be multiracial.
I am guessing you are talking about the gene that influences skin color. Yes they are brown and from Mexico. The Mexico part is all that is needed to call them Mexican since the definition does state a race can be a grouping based on shared social qualities. Shared social quality can be geographical location.
>>These people aren't in a cultural that oppressed them today
They are still a minority.
Republicans are deporting family they care about while using concentration camps (don't actually contest with this because I can't actually take you seriously because a sliver of research into concentration camps would yield you the knowledge that in fact US are using concentration camps).
I can make more examples for blacks and I haven't done the research to see if those very arguments are true for Mexicans as well. I think they are but that is just my opinion.
>>I think that Carlos is trying to play the victim to get his political enemy banned.
Think what you want. YouTube say what he did and acted upon it.
>>They debunk a lot of his videos.
When watching Steven Crowder now. I either get too frustrated with the awful arguments he makes mixed in with the bottom of the barrel jokes or stick till the end wondering where my brain cells have gone. It is like watching other propaganda channels. You learn less about the specific thing when the video is over if you take them seriously.
>>I don't think it is fair to bring up the n-word as a hypothetical like this.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
>>Stephen mentioned facts, not slurs.
Did you not see the part when he said you were only hired because he was Mexican and gay? Where was the facts? Even excluding that everything else was insults not facts. It was a fact that Steven said it about Carlos but lispy queer is not a fact and his imitations weren't either.
>>I said that there is nothing inherently wrong with being gay or Mexican, then you proceed to ask me if I am against homosexuality and mexicans. Don't know how much more clear I can be on the matter....
Re-read what you said earlier and come back to me or better yet let me quote you "Ok, being gay and Mexican are inherently bad.". Don't believe me go check for yourself. If it isn't your position I'll move on.
>>but being gay or Mexican isn't something bad. Autism is bad. So, I don't think there is an equivalence for making fun of one vs the other.
I was speaking about how he was using Mexican and being gay. He was using it in a derogatory way. From something that isn't bad he used it in a bad light.
>>We shouldn't be so sensitive.
Not everyone can take jokes or insults. We ought to value people's mental health over someone saying derogatory things about people. You mentioned you are white. Being white it is more likely you go through less harsh experiences due to the color of your skin but with other races that is not the case. Some due to the majority picking on the minority and other about the minority in question engaging with the stereotypes. There are other things but I will leave it at that.
>>The point is that we culturally sometimes pride people for being gay or Mexican.
Why do you care about what people do with their own time that isn't impacting others in a harmful way unless of course you harmed by Mexicans and gays being represented by media.
>>I would not accept that Mexican is meant as a race without proof. Mexico is a country, and not a country predicated on a racial construct.
Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
>>I don't remember him saying the "n-word". There aren't a lot of times that word should be used, so I probably wouldn't support it.
I was supposed to add an if to it. If the n-word was used in the same scenario as when Steven was insulting Carlos would you agree with it?
>>Ok, being gay and Mexican are inherently bad.
So you are against homosexuality and Mexicans?
>>I don't think that those are on the same level as autism. If you want to consider ethnicity and sexuality to be the same as mental illness, that is on you.
You can't change being gay, Mexican or autistic. That is the problem I have with what he said.
>>No reason to be so sensitive.
Oh so when a minority is being picked on a majority we shouldn't care. Okay. (sarcasm)
>>People pride each other now for their "diversity", not for autism.
What does this got to do with anything?
>>We weren't talking about YouTube regulations, so I don't know why you brought them up. We were discussing if it was a joke, which it was.
Did you not realize that Carlos v Steven part has more to it then just that video? I am simply telling the story that you neglected to mention.
>>Not really. If you consider it within the context of his channel, it isn't bad.
How about Steven Crowder saying the n-word in a similar context to what you consider isn't that bad?
>>By mentioning he is gay and Mexican, he is using satire to show how left-leaning news sources like to have a defacto affirmative action program.
By mentioning he is gay and Mexican. He is attacking a person based on traits he cannot change. It is like using autistic in a derogatory way. Do you accept if Steven Crowder called an autistic child autistic while smiling about it?
>>They try to get super "diverse" pendants. He also adds "not gay" "half asian" before his employees' names sometimes. He is a comedian, and you can't take everything he says at face value
Allowing comedians to hide behind the slogan it's just a joke bro is nonsense. If Steven Crowder could actually make a joke he would not pick on low hanging fruit implying his racism and homophobia when using Mexican and gay in a joking way. Instead of picking on things he has accomplished which you know would actually take talent to mock he instead picks those. Kind of suspicious don't you think? Bad jokes don't excuse you for the comments deemed to be harassment and if you actually looked at Youtube's guidelines. What Steven did is harassment. Even if I accept it's just a joke bro it still harassment which is why Youtube took action.
*******************************************************************
Why use asterisks, top and bottom of your response?
*******************************************************************
Conspiracy theories lack evidence which is why we don't see scientist believe in the flat Earth because they have the knowledge to know the Earth is round.
This is a problem because if conspiracy theories become more prevalent it would mean the public are less and less trusting of academia. Democracy requires people to be knowledgeable not based their decisions on feelings. If they do then they wouldn't understand a fake populist from a real one which can come from things like climate denial. This is under the assumption that people want to live under democracies. If they do but still vote for people who don't support democracies without knowing it then they won't understand the problem. A person not understanding the problem doesn't understand what to improve. They will carry on thinking they are right only to realize one day they f*cked up or maybe they die before that happens.
>>The Contender only needs to say No in the first round and the debate's over.
If he/she says no then that person wouldn't be against socialism which would mean they are on the same side as the instigator. The contender doesn't win. He/She is just an idiot if they do that.
Everything happens for a reason. Don't need to tell me but things rarely happen out of a whim like you were hit in the head and now you are a changed man. It is best you know how it happened because it can lead to a greater understanding of yourself. Maybe just help you know the past or maybe it can make you a better person now.
Shame this very knowledge you are using becomes non-existence when debating the existence of God by seeing if science does go along with God's attributes or not.
Has he even conceded a single point?
If not is there point carrying on.
If yes try and make analogies using the thing he conceded on.
Just call him a coward for not accepting (Don't have to but you can if you want to).
Search "The Phone Part 2 The Amazing World of Gumball" on YouTube and go to 3:29 or whenever Gumball is doing an impression the phone.
Favorite scence from gumball was when he was imitating a steretypical Chinese woman on a phone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_K1SXvFE5A
3:29
Uncle Grandpa trash but Steven Universe is not bad. The community I think is awful but not the show.
For some reason I saw the original Ben 10 but never saw Teen Titans even though I think they came out in similar times. I would have rather watch Teen Titans because I can still watch it now compared to Ben 10.
Left when I think they were airing a new Ben 10. Was there for the original then Alien Force then left for that new one.
I miss the time not the show. Kind of part of it but not the reason I like the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWPwfQcPS5s
Pivot when you know Zelda is better than Peach.
When is she ruling the kingdom? After you save her?
Her hair is fake and tell me a woman who has side burns?
You still big lose
Zelda can use a bow. Peach uses an umbrella.
Zelda's hair is better. She doesn't have side burns like Peach.
Zelda looks real. Peach looks more like a blow-up doll.
You big loser.
Zelda has a butt.
Peach has been f*cked by Bowser.
Zelda also has better looking hair.
Peach also has weird lips.
You lose.
You pick Peach?
Zelda
>> But I've heard Steven Crowder say that he never edits or take out things in his videos and that everything is 100% there.
Have you watched his Change My Mind? He fast-forwards them to the parts that have people talking. I think he sits there for a couple of hours so if he actually did release the full video unedited it would be a couple of hours.
>>Wouldn't you think it'd be some kind of challenge debating him since he's very smart (it seems) he knows his stuff, talks really fast and has his sources right on the spot. Dunno, perhaps it's an intimidation tactic but he's very well spoken
Yes he knows the facts that in the folder but that doesn't actually mean he is smart. If he cheats and changes definitions around then I can complain about that but if he works with my definitions then he can't win.
>> there are some things I agree with him on in certain Change my mind segments, like the Abortion ones. (Pro-Life) and of course I definitely agree with him and I'm on his side of there are only 2 genders.
Okay but doubtful Steven has a better argument than I and since I haven't seen him just leave a debate. I am sure I can eventually make him look like a dumb dumb.
You have 9 days so more than a week.
Stipe Miocic is better.
Beat better competition in heavyweight and remained champion for a longer period of time.
It is doubtful he would put me in the final cut. He does kind of remove content from the Change My Mind segments so if I really made him look bad. I think he would not even show it so I would be hoping someone records me beating him with whatever topic or I just get someone to record it.
>>Nazism: national socialism
Where did you get the definition from?
Are you referring to the name of their group the National Socialist German Workers' Party?
Need I not remind you that if a person calls them self something but does not adhere to the principles of said group then they are lying about who they are.
>>Could you perhaps name a few outrageous claims of mine so that I can defend them?
No you should have done that when you made the claim. I am not going to find countless examples you didn't substantiate instead I rather not spend more of my time discussing this.
Do you want to end this without ad-hominems or name-calling or can you not help yourself?
Let's agree to disagree until you decide to create a debate that I would accept or you accept a debate that I created.
Where was the research shown by your claims? Oh wait there wasn't any.
I don't have an ego more so a standard you don't follow. You make claims that don't make sense and are not supported.
If you need to look at my claims before you accept the debate. That would mean you won't accept any debate because in order to see my claims you are required to accept my debate.
Don't waste your time. He has the courage to debate you in the comment section but is to much of a coward to actually accept the debate he is having with you in the comment section.
You can also see that he gets his news from right wing propaganda. He would call them right wing news sources but we both now they are propaganda channels like Steven Crowder which I am sure is where he got that Hitler was a socialist meme from.
Steven Crowder claiming that Hitler is a liberal socialist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybWkpt_3Jo
I'll add that I have the burden of proof so that the opponent only needs to rebut my claims sufficiently.
>>I want someone like BMD
If he was going to accept the debate he would have done it by now.
>> I'm asking so its clear what it is that Con is signing up for.
>>Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?
I can argue both ways. I am sure not the answer you wanted but that is all I want to give and I don't want to change the title. I like it.
You are here still talking to me instead of accepting a debate thinking it would be an easy win.
What is your excuse? You like wasting your own time.
Guess you are a coward and an admirer. I would be thankful but you are Dr.Franklin.
>>Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?
If I answer that question would you accept the debate? If not why are you asking?
If you both think you can win why aren't you accepting?
Is it because both of you are actually liars who don't actually back up their words with action?
Why would I use the facts that I possibly use in the debate?
Several ad hominems thrown by you yet you are too much of a coward to accept the debate.
Okay.
It was a question.
The contender can't say no because Con is the one saying no not Pro socialism is completely evil.
Saying Yes is not a good argument you need to say why.
Can I rebut in Round 1 or am I only allowed to make arguments?
I don't want to rebut your other points. I am going to stick to this. Try not to make this longer than it needs to be which is partly why I am got tired of responding to a debate.
>>Swear words are inherently bad
How?
>>completely alters the tone of the question.
It alters the tone so much that the person on the other side needs no evidence or explanation with their claims?
>>I guarantee you won't advocate for white people when they are a minority.
If they are being picked on the majority then yes. Do you actually have anything to guarantee I won't or isn't only your word?
>>You concede that these groups aren't oppressed, then you bring up the fact they are a minority.
Where did I concede anything? Them being a minority is important.
I said I won't waste my time with the concentration so I won't. It clear to see you don't know what you are talking about because you don't know what a concentration camp is and included a whataboutism in it as well.
>>Okay, inject your personal foolish opinion about Crowder without citing any examples. :)
How about supposed to educated a person who believe propaganda? If you don't understand how Steven Crowder is propaganda I can't help you. Why not accept my debate instead of debating me here?
I am not replying to anymore comments. It is a waste of my time. I have already rebutted your claims and like your other rebuttals they were insufficient.
>>I generally don't support using the n-word.
Not answering the question again.
>>Carlos is a self describes "queer". Check his Twitter.
If I call myself the n-word should you call me by that?
>>Saying something isn't inherently bad means: there is nothing negative about it
Where did you get this. If something isn't inherently bad then it would mean in circumstances it can be used in a bad or good way.
Not inherently bad = nothing negative does not follow. Is the n-word inherently bad? No. It is due to the context. If there wasn't any slavery the n-word wouldn't as bad as it is now. You even mentioning inherently bad goes to show what you don't know because not a single word ever is inherently bad.
>>thanks for quoting me and proving I'm telling the truth.
"Ok, being gay and Mexican are inherently bad." I thought you would understand what you said. You are saying being gay and Mexican are inherently bad. Can you not read or something? I am proving you think being gay and Mexican are inherently bad then you contradict yourself later on.
>>I challenge you to evaluate hate crime per capita statistics.
per capita? I don't think I need to waste my time to show the statistics when I pretty sure I am right. This might not be enough for you but please go try and find statistics of your own. Make sure it is per capita.
>>Cite exactly where I said Mexicans and gays being represented by the media hurt me or anyone.
Quote me saying that. All I see is you saying being Mexican and gay are inherently bad.
>>Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
I think there is a biological element that should be mentioned, and if its not rigorously defined, I would assume race to be a sort of social construct with a biological connotation or a genetic factor. I assume when someone says "Mexican" they are referring to an ethnicity or nationality, and if there is a racial element, that would in all likelihood be multiracial.
I am guessing you are talking about the gene that influences skin color. Yes they are brown and from Mexico. The Mexico part is all that is needed to call them Mexican since the definition does state a race can be a grouping based on shared social qualities. Shared social quality can be geographical location.
>>These people aren't in a cultural that oppressed them today
They are still a minority.
Republicans are deporting family they care about while using concentration camps (don't actually contest with this because I can't actually take you seriously because a sliver of research into concentration camps would yield you the knowledge that in fact US are using concentration camps).
I can make more examples for blacks and I haven't done the research to see if those very arguments are true for Mexicans as well. I think they are but that is just my opinion.
>>I think that Carlos is trying to play the victim to get his political enemy banned.
Think what you want. YouTube say what he did and acted upon it.
>>They debunk a lot of his videos.
When watching Steven Crowder now. I either get too frustrated with the awful arguments he makes mixed in with the bottom of the barrel jokes or stick till the end wondering where my brain cells have gone. It is like watching other propaganda channels. You learn less about the specific thing when the video is over if you take them seriously.
>>I don't think it is fair to bring up the n-word as a hypothetical like this.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
>>Stephen mentioned facts, not slurs.
Did you not see the part when he said you were only hired because he was Mexican and gay? Where was the facts? Even excluding that everything else was insults not facts. It was a fact that Steven said it about Carlos but lispy queer is not a fact and his imitations weren't either.
>>I said that there is nothing inherently wrong with being gay or Mexican, then you proceed to ask me if I am against homosexuality and mexicans. Don't know how much more clear I can be on the matter....
Re-read what you said earlier and come back to me or better yet let me quote you "Ok, being gay and Mexican are inherently bad.". Don't believe me go check for yourself. If it isn't your position I'll move on.
>>but being gay or Mexican isn't something bad. Autism is bad. So, I don't think there is an equivalence for making fun of one vs the other.
I was speaking about how he was using Mexican and being gay. He was using it in a derogatory way. From something that isn't bad he used it in a bad light.
>>We shouldn't be so sensitive.
Not everyone can take jokes or insults. We ought to value people's mental health over someone saying derogatory things about people. You mentioned you are white. Being white it is more likely you go through less harsh experiences due to the color of your skin but with other races that is not the case. Some due to the majority picking on the minority and other about the minority in question engaging with the stereotypes. There are other things but I will leave it at that.
>>The point is that we culturally sometimes pride people for being gay or Mexican.
Why do you care about what people do with their own time that isn't impacting others in a harmful way unless of course you harmed by Mexicans and gays being represented by media.
Continues...
>>I would not accept that Mexican is meant as a race without proof. Mexico is a country, and not a country predicated on a racial construct.
Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Is this good enough for you?
>>I don't remember him saying the "n-word". There aren't a lot of times that word should be used, so I probably wouldn't support it.
I was supposed to add an if to it. If the n-word was used in the same scenario as when Steven was insulting Carlos would you agree with it?
>>Ok, being gay and Mexican are inherently bad.
So you are against homosexuality and Mexicans?
>>I don't think that those are on the same level as autism. If you want to consider ethnicity and sexuality to be the same as mental illness, that is on you.
You can't change being gay, Mexican or autistic. That is the problem I have with what he said.
>>No reason to be so sensitive.
Oh so when a minority is being picked on a majority we shouldn't care. Okay. (sarcasm)
>>People pride each other now for their "diversity", not for autism.
What does this got to do with anything?
>>We weren't talking about YouTube regulations, so I don't know why you brought them up. We were discussing if it was a joke, which it was.
Did you not realize that Carlos v Steven part has more to it then just that video? I am simply telling the story that you neglected to mention.
>>Not really. If you consider it within the context of his channel, it isn't bad.
How about Steven Crowder saying the n-word in a similar context to what you consider isn't that bad?
>>By mentioning he is gay and Mexican, he is using satire to show how left-leaning news sources like to have a defacto affirmative action program.
By mentioning he is gay and Mexican. He is attacking a person based on traits he cannot change. It is like using autistic in a derogatory way. Do you accept if Steven Crowder called an autistic child autistic while smiling about it?
>>They try to get super "diverse" pendants. He also adds "not gay" "half asian" before his employees' names sometimes. He is a comedian, and you can't take everything he says at face value
Allowing comedians to hide behind the slogan it's just a joke bro is nonsense. If Steven Crowder could actually make a joke he would not pick on low hanging fruit implying his racism and homophobia when using Mexican and gay in a joking way. Instead of picking on things he has accomplished which you know would actually take talent to mock he instead picks those. Kind of suspicious don't you think? Bad jokes don't excuse you for the comments deemed to be harassment and if you actually looked at Youtube's guidelines. What Steven did is harassment. Even if I accept it's just a joke bro it still harassment which is why Youtube took action.
Let me break it down:
"shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races"
In another way:
Showing discrimination or prejudice to other races.
It is implied it is based on their race.
*******************************************************************
Why use asterisks, top and bottom of your response?
*******************************************************************
Conspiracy theories lack evidence which is why we don't see scientist believe in the flat Earth because they have the knowledge to know the Earth is round.
This is a problem because if conspiracy theories become more prevalent it would mean the public are less and less trusting of academia. Democracy requires people to be knowledgeable not based their decisions on feelings. If they do then they wouldn't understand a fake populist from a real one which can come from things like climate denial. This is under the assumption that people want to live under democracies. If they do but still vote for people who don't support democracies without knowing it then they won't understand the problem. A person not understanding the problem doesn't understand what to improve. They will carry on thinking they are right only to realize one day they f*cked up or maybe they die before that happens.
Rants yes. Helpful maybe.
>>The Contender only needs to say No in the first round and the debate's over.
If he/she says no then that person wouldn't be against socialism which would mean they are on the same side as the instigator. The contender doesn't win. He/She is just an idiot if they do that.
Everything happens for a reason. Don't need to tell me but things rarely happen out of a whim like you were hit in the head and now you are a changed man. It is best you know how it happened because it can lead to a greater understanding of yourself. Maybe just help you know the past or maybe it can make you a better person now.
Why were you so open with changing your mind now?
Sorry about before.
Don't you remember me from when you BigBoonj?
Are you this guy?
https://www.debate.org/BiggsBoonj/
https://www.debateart.com/participants/BigBoonj
>>There’s a lot of YEC on his website.
You sure you are going to find a challenge?
Shame this very knowledge you are using becomes non-existence when debating the existence of God by seeing if science does go along with God's attributes or not.