How can you say Republicans have better economy policies when they agree with tariffs where no credible economists agrees with?
How about stopping immigration even though immigration improves the economy?
I actually want to rip your head off. An expression of course.
The Republican atheist position really bothers me. You align with Religious people who dislike homosexuals are bad for the economy and try everything they can to discourage academia. This is under the assumption that you used the very same academia to come to the conclusion of atheism yet don't use the very same academia who say tariffs are bad, immigration is good and conservatives like in Alabama want to regress as in ban depiction of gay marriages and ban abortion.
Weird isn't it. DarthVader1 has the courage to make this debate in the first place but not have the courage to change his viewpoint if you were right by his perspective or carry on with his arguments. Does make me wonder if he is capable of changing his mind or can take being wrong. The least I know that he does not have the courage to carry on the debate. Everything else would be speculation.
Feel sorry for anyone who is voting on this debate. Clear win for Ramshutu but the voter would have to read a lot to get a sufficient vote explained.
I don't think it is a shock that a young right winger would plagiarize. If they actually looked through thoroughly what the right supports they would realize how bad they are. With older right wingers they realize they would have to change what they say a bit to not be copying from someone else. Both the young and old right wingers follow the same bad positions but in a different way. It would be something to copy from someone who made a really good point but another thing entirely to copy a bad point. I hope everyone realizes which one the instigator lies under.
No helping. I already gave that argument in the first debate that was deleted. If you stick around you would see the most important problem with the argument that I will levy.
>>Because both sides were arguing on implicitly different definitions - as I explained - they’re effectively arguing different resolutions. Neither of which appear to be the sensible interpretation of the debate description.
Oh. That makes more sense. I was going off both of them using the same definitions. Do you have a clear example where both were talking about two different things?
>>Beliefs are irrelevant - I vote on the arguments.
Where did I claim this? My position is vote on the arguments.
>>Both sides argue past each other on this front, and don’t bother to establish which is the correct way to view an affirmation of the resolution. While I could have gone straight for Tiwaz, on the grounds that his interpretation is close to the definitions; he subtly undermines that point himself, but not enough for me to take pros side.
Con started off with arguments then Pro did not clearly lay out what he was doing. Con used Pro's Round as the basis of his issues then it spiraled out of control. It would only be fair to deduct a conduct point for Tiwaz on the grounds of not being clear with what he was doing. Where did he mention in Round 1 that he was doing a "My first round was not dedicated to rebuttals, after all there was little point in me doing so before I layed out a simplistic case for my own side ". Saying "I will keep this first round quite short and to the point." doesn't mean that he will or will not talk about the rebuttals. Con had a problem with that very thing that Pro neglected to address. It is not out of question to expect rebuttals only to have a Round dedicated to only claims.
>>So how do I know what consistutes the resolution being affirmed? I don’t know:
Do you mean how do I know who gave better arguments when what was being debated on was not clearly laid out?
>>both sides argue their own view, and don’t really do anything to show their position is correct over the others.
Isn't rebuttals and making argument for their own positions enough reason to say that they think the arguments they are making are correct?
>>As I can’t chose which resolution is more accurate - both sides argue that their interpretation is the one that should be followed, but unless I missed something, neither explained why in a way that allows me to say “you know, that interpretation makes more sense”
What do you mean by interpretation? That can basically mean anything. I interpreted from this debate that Tiwaz is an Evangelical conservative who dislikes gays. I interpreted from the debate cthulhu is now real. Do you have a standard for this interpretation or is my cthulhu on the same level as Tiwaz being an Evangelical conservative who dislikes gays?
Just to point this out. You have not really addressed what my critique was. I'll lay it out in another way with what you said. If you take what they value by Tiwaz valuing his dislike for gays then this information has given him his basis for his dislike for gays whereas if you take what PinkFreud08 values that he likes gays he would use information that suits his narrative to support that.
If we go by values I can simply say I value PinkFreud08 and by showing my value I will vote for him. I can also say I value voting against gay-haters which is why I vote against them. See the problems with values in using that as a way to vote? The better way of doing things is if either side has provided a substantial enough argument for their burden in the debate. I found only PinkFreud08 doing so.
>> For Pro - it is exclusively that there is some harm visited upon society by homosexuals.
Supported with outdated data and points that didn't directly support what he was arguing for. Did you miss that?
>>For Con: this resolution appears to be “homosexuality is directly and on balance no more harmful to society than any other group”. Of course this is my paraphrasing of the way both presented their arguments.
Okay. He did say it is morally neutral then began to say how homosexuality is not harmful to society so close enough.
>>I think both sides proved their side of that resolution based on that specific value condition they interpreted.
Okay so what about how we know what they value is met sufficiently. Do you have another value that both have made substantial arguments?
>> Few people actively spell out their interpretation of the resolution and argue in support of it over the other. Meaning voters are often left to chose which of the two argued resolutions they prefer in this situationsr. Often one is a bit more intuive, or the definitions more specific - but in this case I can’t take cons side as the resolution doesn’t include his aspects, and I can’t take pros side as I don’t think “any harm whatsoever” is the default interpretation of “harmful to society”.
Don't understand this. Are you saying both did not provide a case for homosexuality being harmful or not harmful to society? I think you have already made it clear that they both have but you decide to talk about what they value. The problem is like you said they never said what there true intentions are you are inferring this. So basically your vote revolved around both sides doing sufficiently so equal that you can't find anyone of them doing a slight better than the other but under the assumptions of what they value both didn't meet your standards.
>>I do hope that I'm wrong about this accusation. The only reason I kept poking at you all in the comments was to either disprove or prove my hypothesis.
More like wasted our time with your opinions.
>>Good luck, I'm only typing this response because you and Freud seem to both be fond of calling your opponents idiots and absurd.
When someone can't find a counter or can't even be reasonable how are they are not the very least an idiot? Guess you like defending people who can't be reasonable or consistent or in other words that you are not very fond of idiots and/or people who make absurd statements.
Me voting for someone because they said so doesn't equal I always vote for them wining. It just means they asked me to vote for them and I did. If lets say PinkFreud08 decides to make a debate about Trump being the greatest and him being Pro and asked me to vote on it. I doubt I could vote for him because the arguments against Trump being the greatest would be so much better.
My RFD was clearly fair and your arguments hardly address what I said in a way that was enough to say my RFD is wrong.
3.) He was "testing" the moderators. This one would be me.
Your the idiot for having awful arguments and not acknowledging they were bad arguments. I can't help people who are incapable of helping themselves. You take the position homosexuality is harmful to society and expect to somehow be on the same level as you. For me in your eyes to vote fairly I would have to be a religious person who also dislikes homosexuals to be in the right frame of mind to vote for you because those arguments were awful. Outdated, insufficient and in cases didn't even provide a point for your side.
Complain all you like. I'll wait until Virutoso, bsh1, Ramshutu decide to check the vote.
>>I can take pros value and pro wins, I can take cons value and con wins
Would this be true in any scenario? This distinction to me doesn't actually mean anything. If I am interpreting this correctly every single debate you have voted on you would have to vote a tie because they value X which is why they debated in the way that they did. Even in debates what will you be arguing about? Their values or their arguments for how to best commit to that value or defend the value?
You are basically for women subjugation because Christianity values it. You would be for women freedom because a liberal society values. Am I wrong here?
>>I wasn't attempting to prove it here, or even necessarily argue about it here.
>> I must address anything I feel is a strawman directly.
Okay?
>>Furthermore, your prior vote was a clear example of a dishonest vote in all regards. I am not going to directly accuse you of vote rigging, but I just find your conduct there highly suspicious when coupled with your vote history.
Unfair to say. That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. My prior vote history is to vote for things I am interested in. That can be people asking me to vote or a debate I have an interest in like the 2nd vote I ever gave.
It is not a dishonest or a misrepresentation of my vote. You haven't even showed it to be the case. I am not going to tell you what I already said that was said in my RFD. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about for even taking this debate let alone not substantiating anything. If you actually read my vote I did represent your points. You are just triggered that someone actually took the time to read the BS you put through.
To sum up. You failed to show how I am dishonest or how my vote is misrepresenting what you said.
Don't argue with me because I frankly couldn't even care to. Complain to bsh1, Ramshutu or Virtuoso if you actually think your critique holds up.
I "omitted" what? I did the best I could sitting through the trash that was your debate. The last Rounds were nothing important to the specific topic at hand and since the more recent Rounds you could not substantiate the points you were making I don't even know why you even accepted this debate. The loss of this debate is on you and when someone else does vote on this debate they will vote for the instigator not you.
1) Trump supports. That in itself pretty much need empathy.
2) Don't understand how to make a coherent point. Did both of you fail English or something?
3) On top of all that you name-call. Really does go to show who the intolerable ones are.
This will be the last comment here because you guys are actually boring. It would be entertaining if you can provide a substantial point but guess you can't even fathom that. I can't help the helpless. That is what both of you are.
I said show me proof of every single BLM protest then saying how many were violent. Guess you can't even do the very thing you were supposed to be debating about.
Wait so you as the instigator of this debate have no evidence for your claims?
You can think all you like but this is a clear shifting of the burden of proof. You are incapable to debate the very debate you started and then move it on to me and expect me to do what you couldn't.
>>Really? Give me one instance where BLM protested against that. It doesn't and brainwashes the black people into believing that all of them are being killed by cops,which is a disgusting lie.
Shifting the burden of proof is not fulfilling your burden of proof. You don't actual have a substantial argument instead have claims supported without evidence.
>>If you had paid attention to the debate,you would have noticed that I posted the source from FBI which said 90% of blacks that are murdered are by other blacks. The BLM doesn't protest against that.
All you did here was prove that 90% of blacks were murdered by other blacks. Not that BLM doesn't protest against that. You don't even understand what this debate is about. It is about you backing up your claim that BLM brainwashes people yet you don't provide evidence for it.
>>BLM is definitely an incompetent organisation though,since black lives lost by black-on-black crime doesn't matter to them.
First give me evidence of a BLM representatives then give me evidence they don't care about black on black crime. You are clearly like Our_Boat_Is_Right and Dr.Franklin who can't provide evidence for their side. Are you even capable or are you incapable?
If you did understand your positions you would be able to defend it but guess that is not the case because you can't even answer simple questions and rebuttals to your position. You just provide comments which show how little you thought about what you believe.
>>Im done playing your little shitty games. The fact is BLM is a hate organization. One of the founders is on a terrorist list. They call for dead cops. They kill cops. They have riots, they torture trump supporters. No denying that.
This was no game. This was for you to prove any of your claims you were making. You claim that BLM is a hate organization yet I don't see proof. Is this all your feelings? It would actually be more interesting if you can support your claims but guess you are not capable in doing that.
>>Those were the 4 major protests. You have to prove that a BLM protest was not violent. I have proved that the 4 major ones were.Your turn
Did I ask about 4 protests or did I ask for you to tell me how many BLM protests they are then tell me how many of them were violent? You don't even understand what I was asking of you.
>>I have proved that Dallas, Ferguson, and Charlotte were violent.
There has only been 4 protests for the BLM? Is that your claim or do you actually realized you are painting an entire group based on 4 events?
>>So please try and name a major BLM protest where it wasn't violent
I am not playing along with shifting the burden of proof when I know the same courtesy is not shown to the person I am talking to. So are you actually going to prove me wrong and provide actual evidence for what you are claiming?
You have provided anecdotes.
You have yet to provide how many BLM protests they were then said how many of them were violent then made an actual claim based on those findings. You have skipped the evidence and went straight to claiming things you have not provided evidence for.
One link about about one event and one state of emergency is not a representation of every BLM protest. Are you actually going to try to provide evidence?
Still no evidence. You have made a claim and provided no evidence. Call upon your messenger or lord all you want. Doesn't change you haven't brought evidence. Do you actually have any or am I supposed to accept your second hand anecdotes?
None of your arguments breakdown the race of BLM supporters.
>>BLM doesn't do anything to help fatherless children or stop the single motherhood rate or help black people who drop out of schools. They only raise slogans against police officers like a bunch of hypocrites.
Not an argument.
Do you have numbers of how many BLM protests have occured and have you found out how many are violent?
It is really boring listening to comments that don't really help your case.
>>Do you? You call 4 riots that took place anecdotes?
How many BLM protests have taken place? Find that number out then compare it to 4.
>>That shows your position. People murdered by blacks in revenge in mass numbers are anecdotes. But if a black man gets killed,it's somehow "police brutality".
Don't know what to call this. I'll go with an attack but more importantly added really nothing.
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#cite_note-263
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#cite_note-comey-269
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#cite_note-271
The Ferguson riots,Milwaukee riots,Chicago shootings were all peaceful? Yeah,right.
I am getting 4 anecdotes from this. Do you have actual evidence or is this it?
Seems like the opposite of WisdomofAges.
I have heard of him but could you explain the joke?
@RationlMadman
Why did you bump?
Last one:
How can you say Republicans have better economy policies when they agree with tariffs where no credible economists agrees with?
How about stopping immigration even though immigration improves the economy?
I actually want to rip your head off. An expression of course.
The Republican atheist position really bothers me. You align with Religious people who dislike homosexuals are bad for the economy and try everything they can to discourage academia. This is under the assumption that you used the very same academia to come to the conclusion of atheism yet don't use the very same academia who say tariffs are bad, immigration is good and conservatives like in Alabama want to regress as in ban depiction of gay marriages and ban abortion.
Why Trump like you have admitted he has no experience when it comes to public office and if you didn't know he is a failed businessman?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html
What do you think of socialism?
Which party do you align with more: Democrats or Republicans?
I can't rip your head off. I don't know where it is.
Who would vote for if you could back when it was Hillary vs Trump?
Do you like Ben Shapiro?
Are you a conservative atheist?
Weird isn't it. DarthVader1 has the courage to make this debate in the first place but not have the courage to change his viewpoint if you were right by his perspective or carry on with his arguments. Does make me wonder if he is capable of changing his mind or can take being wrong. The least I know that he does not have the courage to carry on the debate. Everything else would be speculation.
I was going for more about covering all the points but if we actually go by what was relevant then I am sure it would be easier to vote on.
Feel sorry for anyone who is voting on this debate. Clear win for Ramshutu but the voter would have to read a lot to get a sufficient vote explained.
I don't think it is a shock that a young right winger would plagiarize. If they actually looked through thoroughly what the right supports they would realize how bad they are. With older right wingers they realize they would have to change what they say a bit to not be copying from someone else. Both the young and old right wingers follow the same bad positions but in a different way. It would be something to copy from someone who made a really good point but another thing entirely to copy a bad point. I hope everyone realizes which one the instigator lies under.
No real offense to Virutoso but I am doubtful.
Why would this be interesting?
Why didn't you see my first one with Virtuoso?
No helping. I already gave that argument in the first debate that was deleted. If you stick around you would see the most important problem with the argument that I will levy.
>>Because both sides were arguing on implicitly different definitions - as I explained - they’re effectively arguing different resolutions. Neither of which appear to be the sensible interpretation of the debate description.
Oh. That makes more sense. I was going off both of them using the same definitions. Do you have a clear example where both were talking about two different things?
>>Beliefs are irrelevant - I vote on the arguments.
Where did I claim this? My position is vote on the arguments.
>>Both sides argue past each other on this front, and don’t bother to establish which is the correct way to view an affirmation of the resolution. While I could have gone straight for Tiwaz, on the grounds that his interpretation is close to the definitions; he subtly undermines that point himself, but not enough for me to take pros side.
Con started off with arguments then Pro did not clearly lay out what he was doing. Con used Pro's Round as the basis of his issues then it spiraled out of control. It would only be fair to deduct a conduct point for Tiwaz on the grounds of not being clear with what he was doing. Where did he mention in Round 1 that he was doing a "My first round was not dedicated to rebuttals, after all there was little point in me doing so before I layed out a simplistic case for my own side ". Saying "I will keep this first round quite short and to the point." doesn't mean that he will or will not talk about the rebuttals. Con had a problem with that very thing that Pro neglected to address. It is not out of question to expect rebuttals only to have a Round dedicated to only claims.
>>So how do I know what consistutes the resolution being affirmed? I don’t know:
Do you mean how do I know who gave better arguments when what was being debated on was not clearly laid out?
>>both sides argue their own view, and don’t really do anything to show their position is correct over the others.
Isn't rebuttals and making argument for their own positions enough reason to say that they think the arguments they are making are correct?
>>As I can’t chose which resolution is more accurate - both sides argue that their interpretation is the one that should be followed, but unless I missed something, neither explained why in a way that allows me to say “you know, that interpretation makes more sense”
What do you mean by interpretation? That can basically mean anything. I interpreted from this debate that Tiwaz is an Evangelical conservative who dislikes gays. I interpreted from the debate cthulhu is now real. Do you have a standard for this interpretation or is my cthulhu on the same level as Tiwaz being an Evangelical conservative who dislikes gays?
Just to point this out. You have not really addressed what my critique was. I'll lay it out in another way with what you said. If you take what they value by Tiwaz valuing his dislike for gays then this information has given him his basis for his dislike for gays whereas if you take what PinkFreud08 values that he likes gays he would use information that suits his narrative to support that.
If we go by values I can simply say I value PinkFreud08 and by showing my value I will vote for him. I can also say I value voting against gay-haters which is why I vote against them. See the problems with values in using that as a way to vote? The better way of doing things is if either side has provided a substantial enough argument for their burden in the debate. I found only PinkFreud08 doing so.
Scroll down.
>> For Pro - it is exclusively that there is some harm visited upon society by homosexuals.
Supported with outdated data and points that didn't directly support what he was arguing for. Did you miss that?
>>For Con: this resolution appears to be “homosexuality is directly and on balance no more harmful to society than any other group”. Of course this is my paraphrasing of the way both presented their arguments.
Okay. He did say it is morally neutral then began to say how homosexuality is not harmful to society so close enough.
>>I think both sides proved their side of that resolution based on that specific value condition they interpreted.
Okay so what about how we know what they value is met sufficiently. Do you have another value that both have made substantial arguments?
>> Few people actively spell out their interpretation of the resolution and argue in support of it over the other. Meaning voters are often left to chose which of the two argued resolutions they prefer in this situationsr. Often one is a bit more intuive, or the definitions more specific - but in this case I can’t take cons side as the resolution doesn’t include his aspects, and I can’t take pros side as I don’t think “any harm whatsoever” is the default interpretation of “harmful to society”.
Don't understand this. Are you saying both did not provide a case for homosexuality being harmful or not harmful to society? I think you have already made it clear that they both have but you decide to talk about what they value. The problem is like you said they never said what there true intentions are you are inferring this. So basically your vote revolved around both sides doing sufficiently so equal that you can't find anyone of them doing a slight better than the other but under the assumptions of what they value both didn't meet your standards.
Continues...
>>I do hope that I'm wrong about this accusation. The only reason I kept poking at you all in the comments was to either disprove or prove my hypothesis.
More like wasted our time with your opinions.
>>Good luck, I'm only typing this response because you and Freud seem to both be fond of calling your opponents idiots and absurd.
When someone can't find a counter or can't even be reasonable how are they are not the very least an idiot? Guess you like defending people who can't be reasonable or consistent or in other words that you are not very fond of idiots and/or people who make absurd statements.
Me voting for someone because they said so doesn't equal I always vote for them wining. It just means they asked me to vote for them and I did. If lets say PinkFreud08 decides to make a debate about Trump being the greatest and him being Pro and asked me to vote on it. I doubt I could vote for him because the arguments against Trump being the greatest would be so much better.
My RFD was clearly fair and your arguments hardly address what I said in a way that was enough to say my RFD is wrong.
3.) He was "testing" the moderators. This one would be me.
Your the idiot for having awful arguments and not acknowledging they were bad arguments. I can't help people who are incapable of helping themselves. You take the position homosexuality is harmful to society and expect to somehow be on the same level as you. For me in your eyes to vote fairly I would have to be a religious person who also dislikes homosexuals to be in the right frame of mind to vote for you because those arguments were awful. Outdated, insufficient and in cases didn't even provide a point for your side.
Complain all you like. I'll wait until Virutoso, bsh1, Ramshutu decide to check the vote.
>>I can take pros value and pro wins, I can take cons value and con wins
Would this be true in any scenario? This distinction to me doesn't actually mean anything. If I am interpreting this correctly every single debate you have voted on you would have to vote a tie because they value X which is why they debated in the way that they did. Even in debates what will you be arguing about? Their values or their arguments for how to best commit to that value or defend the value?
You are basically for women subjugation because Christianity values it. You would be for women freedom because a liberal society values. Am I wrong here?
I wasn't boasting. If you consider laughing a boast it was Our_Boat_is_Right.
You literally have 2 wins and 7 losses.
>>At least I accept debates, not just up my winning percentage by accepting type1's debates.
Contradiction. I also accept debates like how you clearly mentioned me accepting Type1's.
I guess you are over laughing about your win percentage?
What was it again?
>>I wasn't attempting to prove it here, or even necessarily argue about it here.
>> I must address anything I feel is a strawman directly.
Okay?
>>Furthermore, your prior vote was a clear example of a dishonest vote in all regards. I am not going to directly accuse you of vote rigging, but I just find your conduct there highly suspicious when coupled with your vote history.
Unfair to say. That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. My prior vote history is to vote for things I am interested in. That can be people asking me to vote or a debate I have an interest in like the 2nd vote I ever gave.
It is not a dishonest or a misrepresentation of my vote. You haven't even showed it to be the case. I am not going to tell you what I already said that was said in my RFD. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about for even taking this debate let alone not substantiating anything. If you actually read my vote I did represent your points. You are just triggered that someone actually took the time to read the BS you put through.
To sum up. You failed to show how I am dishonest or how my vote is misrepresenting what you said.
Don't argue with me because I frankly couldn't even care to. Complain to bsh1, Ramshutu or Virtuoso if you actually think your critique holds up.
I "omitted" what? I did the best I could sitting through the trash that was your debate. The last Rounds were nothing important to the specific topic at hand and since the more recent Rounds you could not substantiate the points you were making I don't even know why you even accepted this debate. The loss of this debate is on you and when someone else does vote on this debate they will vote for the instigator not you.
I feel sorry for you both of you.
1) Trump supports. That in itself pretty much need empathy.
2) Don't understand how to make a coherent point. Did both of you fail English or something?
3) On top of all that you name-call. Really does go to show who the intolerable ones are.
This will be the last comment here because you guys are actually boring. It would be entertaining if you can provide a substantial point but guess you can't even fathom that. I can't help the helpless. That is what both of you are.
I said show me proof of every single BLM protest then saying how many were violent. Guess you can't even do the very thing you were supposed to be debating about.
Wait so you as the instigator of this debate have no evidence for your claims?
You can think all you like but this is a clear shifting of the burden of proof. You are incapable to debate the very debate you started and then move it on to me and expect me to do what you couldn't.
>>Really? Give me one instance where BLM protested against that. It doesn't and brainwashes the black people into believing that all of them are being killed by cops,which is a disgusting lie.
Shifting the burden of proof is not fulfilling your burden of proof. You don't actual have a substantial argument instead have claims supported without evidence.
>>If you had paid attention to the debate,you would have noticed that I posted the source from FBI which said 90% of blacks that are murdered are by other blacks. The BLM doesn't protest against that.
All you did here was prove that 90% of blacks were murdered by other blacks. Not that BLM doesn't protest against that. You don't even understand what this debate is about. It is about you backing up your claim that BLM brainwashes people yet you don't provide evidence for it.
>>BLM is definitely an incompetent organisation though,since black lives lost by black-on-black crime doesn't matter to them.
First give me evidence of a BLM representatives then give me evidence they don't care about black on black crime. You are clearly like Our_Boat_Is_Right and Dr.Franklin who can't provide evidence for their side. Are you even capable or are you incapable?
If you did understand your positions you would be able to defend it but guess that is not the case because you can't even answer simple questions and rebuttals to your position. You just provide comments which show how little you thought about what you believe.
>>Im done playing your little shitty games. The fact is BLM is a hate organization. One of the founders is on a terrorist list. They call for dead cops. They kill cops. They have riots, they torture trump supporters. No denying that.
This was no game. This was for you to prove any of your claims you were making. You claim that BLM is a hate organization yet I don't see proof. Is this all your feelings? It would actually be more interesting if you can support your claims but guess you are not capable in doing that.
>>Those were the 4 major protests. You have to prove that a BLM protest was not violent. I have proved that the 4 major ones were.Your turn
Did I ask about 4 protests or did I ask for you to tell me how many BLM protests they are then tell me how many of them were violent? You don't even understand what I was asking of you.
>>I have proved that Dallas, Ferguson, and Charlotte were violent.
There has only been 4 protests for the BLM? Is that your claim or do you actually realized you are painting an entire group based on 4 events?
>>So please try and name a major BLM protest where it wasn't violent
I am not playing along with shifting the burden of proof when I know the same courtesy is not shown to the person I am talking to. So are you actually going to prove me wrong and provide actual evidence for what you are claiming?
You have provided anecdotes.
You have yet to provide how many BLM protests they were then said how many of them were violent then made an actual claim based on those findings. You have skipped the evidence and went straight to claiming things you have not provided evidence for.
One link about about one event and one state of emergency is not a representation of every BLM protest. Are you actually going to try to provide evidence?
Still no evidence. You have made a claim and provided no evidence. Call upon your messenger or lord all you want. Doesn't change you haven't brought evidence. Do you actually have any or am I supposed to accept your second hand anecdotes?
>>every single BLM protest somehow turns violent. I wonder why. Its also promotes violence
Evidence?
Don't worry about it. You have 9 days. You can decide to do it early so you don't do it later on or have some free time then later on to vote on it.
Can you vote on this debate?
None of your arguments breakdown the race of BLM supporters.
>>BLM doesn't do anything to help fatherless children or stop the single motherhood rate or help black people who drop out of schools. They only raise slogans against police officers like a bunch of hypocrites.
What is BLM to you?
>>Black lives matter doesn't matter to black lives matter...only those lives lost by cop action.
Do you have evidence for this?
>>it does help my point that BLM sucks
Not an argument.
Do you have numbers of how many BLM protests have occured and have you found out how many are violent?
It is really boring listening to comments that don't really help your case.
>>Was a national emergency declared at any republican-based group riot?
Even if there was it still wouldn't help your point so basically a non-sequitur even if I answer it.
>>Do you? You call 4 riots that took place anecdotes?
How many BLM protests have taken place? Find that number out then compare it to 4.
>>That shows your position. People murdered by blacks in revenge in mass numbers are anecdotes. But if a black man gets killed,it's somehow "police brutality".
Don't know what to call this. I'll go with an attack but more importantly added really nothing.
>>If its a minority, WHY is that EVERYWHERE BLM goes, violence follows. It's not hard. Why is it not the same for other parties?
Evidence?
Do you have a source where they have analysed every single BLM protest and have found this to be the case or is this your opinion?
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#cite_note-263
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#cite_note-comey-269
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#cite_note-271
The Ferguson riots,Milwaukee riots,Chicago shootings were all peaceful? Yeah,right.
I am getting 4 anecdotes from this. Do you have actual evidence or is this it?