Completely done to get easy wins. Scientists don't reject the claim and since Religion isn't rational you have pretty much won the debate if you simply parrot what science says. It would really take something for you to lose to a Young-Earth creationist.
Make a debate where there is actual contention. I don't think you realize defending an obvious point isn't a contention. You are openly admitting yes I want an idiot to accept this debate because no rational person would take the con position.
You were going to use Avril Lavigne or Attack on Titan even though in previous pickings none of them had to do with them?
Clearly false about the similar part. You can use courtesy call Attack on Titan as your number 1 because that wasn't the one I picked. It was my second choice. Since I was only allowed 1 for each you could have easily used my Attack on Titan Courtesy call if you wanted to.
To people who don't know what I did was. I added more than 1 song that could have been what I picked. That is not going to be voted on instead can simply be another song to listen to. I thought I didn't need to say this but since my opponent doesn't understand I am sure there are other people who won't understand either.
Homophobia comes with white supremacy. Most if not all of them are Christians so homophobia is prevalent in white supremacy. Not all Christians are homophobic but being Christian and being a white supremacist leads very little to wonder. If they think blacks are inferior they would also think homosexuality is also inferior. Kind of implied but I doubt a person wouldn't give the ground to me instead of defending them.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksqcbij8SOE
I made a long-ass topic comment about it when a conservative on this site was defending Steven Crowder.
If you have a history and I am guessing you are making similar arguments back then and now. Why are you trying to use similar arguments that didn't work in the past?
>> Even though in reality, this disparity [in crime rates] is caused by poverty, lack of education, and high rates of single mothers, not black people being mentally disturbed or inferior.
Didn't see that for some reason. Cool take. Sorry.
>>So it's logical that whites commit more crime, but illogical that blacks commit more crime? You have not shown anybody ANY basic facts that prove white people commit more crime than black people. The US government statistics say otherwise: 50% of the crime is committed by 13% of the population.
Do answer why blacks commit more crime to avoid being associated with the term racist. Sure people can still call you racist but it will not be justified if you response clearly makes sure you are not associated with that.
I would debate you but since you use common sense as an argument it is very much doubtful it would be eventful. Entertaining but I don't care about having a laugh instead discussion that leads to new knowledge not different ways you can paint the same bad arguments. That can be considered new knowledge so I would like good new knowledge then.
>>I don't hold any ideas dear, actually. Attaching emotion to an idea is always a bad thing to do.
This is not the case. When debating about an argument we should ought to value rationality but I am talking about ideas you hold dear outside rationality as in before you do make arguments for it or through rationality you have become more emotional about the results. So basically not emotional about the arguments but before and after the arguments.
Emotion is not bad. It is just bad about when used in replace of rational thought.
I guess attaching to your arguments can be a problem if you don't understand you are being emotional. If you understand you are you will be aware enough to avoid using that in your arguments while also using that as an incentive to carry on making rational arguments if you are capable that is.
>>Food for thought (and I admit I didn't read the full report), but is there any explanation for the reported decline in undocumented immigrants? Is it increased resources (i.e. more agents, etc). If so, then perhaps a wall would lessen our dependence on "human" security measures along the border? in other words, perhaps if there is a wall, between points A and B, then that will mean won't necessarily need as many agents stationed between A and B?
I wouldn't know. I mainly made it to see if someone can make legitimate arguments for the border wall but guess not. A maybe reducing undocumented immigrants is not something I take seriously but if someone does make an argument I think I can find data how undocumented immigrants arrive into the country and find out either they are right or wrong. If they are right I would say it still doesn't make the border wall effective for the other reasons I laid out but if they are wrong then they would have to find another point.
The person can say yes but lie. The person can say no but lie. Sure there are two answers but given that the person might not know themselves good enough they would still be lying. Unintentional lying is still lying.
>>Evry country by basic laws, not globalism shitty laws
So globalism would have different laws than lets say the United States? That is not inherent to globalism because my hypothetical of what if the US constitution was adopted globally?
Corrections:
so the burden is on the instigator to provide how Trump’s wall would be more effective.
so the burden is on the contender to provide how Trump’s wall would be more effective.
Completely done to get easy wins. Scientists don't reject the claim and since Religion isn't rational you have pretty much won the debate if you simply parrot what science says. It would really take something for you to lose to a Young-Earth creationist.
Make a debate where there is actual contention. I don't think you realize defending an obvious point isn't a contention. You are openly admitting yes I want an idiot to accept this debate because no rational person would take the con position.
You were going to use Avril Lavigne or Attack on Titan even though in previous pickings none of them had to do with them?
Clearly false about the similar part. You can use courtesy call Attack on Titan as your number 1 because that wasn't the one I picked. It was my second choice. Since I was only allowed 1 for each you could have easily used my Attack on Titan Courtesy call if you wanted to.
Thanks didn't realize. I knew he didn't know what he was talking about now I am sure of it.
A conspiracy theorist made a more convincing argument than a person who used what was scientifically agreed upon?
I'll add conspiracy theorist to the list of Athias being an anarchist, Religious and generally a person who makes bad arguments.
To people who don't know what I did was. I added more than 1 song that could have been what I picked. That is not going to be voted on instead can simply be another song to listen to. I thought I didn't need to say this but since my opponent doesn't understand I am sure there are other people who won't understand either.
>> I know you'll have something, so I don't want to accept.
Guess you are backing down.
>>By your logic though, Dave Rubin would be pro life for not challenging Ben Shapiro on abortion too toughly. Dave Rubin is pro choice.
What logic? I didn't give my arguments yet.
Homophobia comes with white supremacy. Most if not all of them are Christians so homophobia is prevalent in white supremacy. Not all Christians are homophobic but being Christian and being a white supremacist leads very little to wonder. If they think blacks are inferior they would also think homosexuality is also inferior. Kind of implied but I doubt a person wouldn't give the ground to me instead of defending them.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksqcbij8SOE
I made a long-ass topic comment about it when a conservative on this site was defending Steven Crowder.
Here it is:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1924
Accepting?
I ain't answering what I will be spoiling in my debate.
I guess so.
What?
Okay.
How long is he banned for?
If you have a history and I am guessing you are making similar arguments back then and now. Why are you trying to use similar arguments that didn't work in the past?
I won't understand how to make bad arguments? Thanks for that. At least you know your place and mine.
You fight bad arguments with other bad arguments?
>> Even though in reality, this disparity [in crime rates] is caused by poverty, lack of education, and high rates of single mothers, not black people being mentally disturbed or inferior.
Didn't see that for some reason. Cool take. Sorry.
>>So it's logical that whites commit more crime, but illogical that blacks commit more crime? You have not shown anybody ANY basic facts that prove white people commit more crime than black people. The US government statistics say otherwise: 50% of the crime is committed by 13% of the population.
Do answer why blacks commit more crime to avoid being associated with the term racist. Sure people can still call you racist but it will not be justified if you response clearly makes sure you are not associated with that.
>>Any evidence...blacks commit more crime and tear themselves apart. Look at Africa
Comparing a third world group to a first world group?
Third world group = Less socio-economic advantage, less technology to get to the top, less goods to make their lives better.
First world group= Change less to more with what I said at the top.
I'll debate you when I want more wins to the detriment of me learning something important.
@RationalMadman
>>Type1 is evolving, Sparrow is afloat.
Is that to me?
I would debate you but since you use common sense as an argument it is very much doubtful it would be eventful. Entertaining but I don't care about having a laugh instead discussion that leads to new knowledge not different ways you can paint the same bad arguments. That can be considered new knowledge so I would like good new knowledge then.
Do you want to debate about anything then?
>>I don't hold any ideas dear, actually. Attaching emotion to an idea is always a bad thing to do.
This is not the case. When debating about an argument we should ought to value rationality but I am talking about ideas you hold dear outside rationality as in before you do make arguments for it or through rationality you have become more emotional about the results. So basically not emotional about the arguments but before and after the arguments.
Emotion is not bad. It is just bad about when used in replace of rational thought.
I guess attaching to your arguments can be a problem if you don't understand you are being emotional. If you understand you are you will be aware enough to avoid using that in your arguments while also using that as an incentive to carry on making rational arguments if you are capable that is.
>>Food for thought (and I admit I didn't read the full report), but is there any explanation for the reported decline in undocumented immigrants? Is it increased resources (i.e. more agents, etc). If so, then perhaps a wall would lessen our dependence on "human" security measures along the border? in other words, perhaps if there is a wall, between points A and B, then that will mean won't necessarily need as many agents stationed between A and B?
I wouldn't know. I mainly made it to see if someone can make legitimate arguments for the border wall but guess not. A maybe reducing undocumented immigrants is not something I take seriously but if someone does make an argument I think I can find data how undocumented immigrants arrive into the country and find out either they are right or wrong. If they are right I would say it still doesn't make the border wall effective for the other reasons I laid out but if they are wrong then they would have to find another point.
Well at least you changed your mind.
Want to debate about other things that you hold dear?
Maybe Ben Shapiro?
Why did you ask that?
The person can say yes but lie. The person can say no but lie. Sure there are two answers but given that the person might not know themselves good enough they would still be lying. Unintentional lying is still lying.
You have neither prove it or stated how it is inherent.
>>Evry country by basic laws, not globalism shitty laws
So globalism would have different laws than lets say the United States? That is not inherent to globalism because my hypothetical of what if the US constitution was adopted globally?
Do answer both questions.
Globalism implies every country abides by the same laws. That verse says the same.
What do you have a problem with?
I don't really think he delved into what conservatives support as policies compared to what their Religious books states.
Corrections:
so the burden is on the instigator to provide how Trump’s wall would be more effective.
so the burden is on the contender to provide how Trump’s wall would be more effective.
Okay.
>>Prove how that exodus qoute supports open bordrs
So no for open borders. How about globalism?
You have 13 days so even if you wait until your opponent completes their arguments you will still have time to accept this debate.
Are you willing to debate this at that time?
Exodus 12:49
If you don't think that is then how about globalism?
Are you a Christian?
If so why are you not for open borders?
Are you for open borders now?
It was before it was proven to be true.
Why can't researchers do the same with find which form of healthcare is more effective?
What is the difference between science testing a theory and researches checking which form of healthcare is more effective?
Last question didn't really go into the direction I wanted it to.
What is the difference between an opinion and fact?
If public healthcare is more effective than private healthcare.
Is Bernie right then?
So people can be right?
Do you?
Then that scientist is right.
Do you have a problem with what I said?
@RationalMadman
It is about his problem with using the word right or wrong. Gravity is just the context I am using.
You are not answering my question. I will ask it again:
Do you agree a scientist proving gravity as a fact is right?
@RationalMadman
Gravity being a fact is not important to this discussion.
Gravity is a fact found out by people.
Do you agree a scientist proving gravity as a fact is right?
Can a scientist be right about gravity?
Last question was dumb I knew you were going to say that.
Deleted my message because I found a more relevant question.
If no-one is right then why do you support conservatism?
Who is right then?
I thought you would be addressing my vote. Guess not.
Do you have something that liberals are wrong about?