>>Don't engage with omar. He is a petty teenager who gets paid to start wars in the comments.
You are really the same but I can't blame it on you because on your DDO it says you are 15. I think it would be fair to insult you if you stay this bad at making arguments when you turn 18. Calling me a petty teenager when you are also one. Wars? That only happened once.
>> He is a psychotic liberal who attacks people who disagree and agrees with using physical violence against free-speech conservatives.
You should watch American Psycho when you are old enough to not get scared of women, blood and horror elements. I say justified not agree with. There is a difference. I hope you understand that.
By your reasoning Anarchy would be the best form of governance. Guess I understand what you views better than you do.
>>I don't follow a lot of congressman, etc. I know Tucker Carlson wants it fixed tho. Too many republicans are establishment RINO'S.
So no Republican actually is trying to do the right thing. Good to know.
>>Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Oh. Didn't think you drop even further then you already are. Don't know the logical conclusion of your own arguments and think I have TDS.
>> Trump's tax plan reduced taxed for all. https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
This source is better.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
As you can see a tax cut aimed at the middle class actually benefits the rich. Who would have thought Trump cared about his own interest before the majority who voted for him.
>>It allows for more economic growth. Government wastes our taxes and overspends, so raising them is foolish. Government needs to tremendously cut down on spending.
Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here.
>>Some republicans do want the problem fixed. I am a conservative and I want it fixed.
Who is a Republican that wants to the fix the problem and is actively trying to get something done by laws?
>>I assume you are talking about your TDS.
Don't know what you mean by "TDS".
>> For example, I am strongly against raising the gas tax the Trump admin. has been discussing, because it has an immediate impact upon middle class families who are dying right now.
Do you know what would also help? Reducing taxes for them as well. The problem is that Trump has made it really clear with his most recent tax plan that he is only cared about reducing the taxes of the wealthy and not the middle class. If Trump cared about the middle class he would cut taxes for them. You support a president that lies about being a populist by showing his true intentions with the laws he passes. So basically the not-wealthy people who voted for him were conned and will still carry on being conned because I am sure they haven't even heard of what he has actually done instead of what he "promises" to do.
>>To get out of debt, we should reduce regulations on private businesses.
The debt is paid off with taxes not reduced regulations. I have very little faith that you know anything from what your idols have thought you. Whether it be Ben, Steven or even parents. Do some reason and actually talk about the surface. I ask you to explain but you can't then you commit a non-sequitur in the statement you made and to what I asked of you as well.
>>We also need to fix the tax loopholes on big corporations like Amazon who don't pay taxes.
If the Republican party did care then they would be fixing the problem. Guess when you have a person who is part of the upper-class who likes to keep as much money as possible by reducing taxes and not fixing tax loopholes that I am sure he benefits from. If you really cared about fixing these tax loopholes you wouldn't be a Republican.
>>Like, I said, I believe in some government. There is a balance to be had. I specifically said I believe in limited government.
This does not help me understand what you mean. What do you mean by limited government? You keep saying it but don't explain it.
>>I don't understand your churches and state argument.
I was asking questions. Like this one: should churches pay taxes?
>>Yes, Obama doubled the national debt from all the other president's combined.
This is clearly a case of whataboutism. You are not addressing my point instead you point to someone else who has done it from a straw-man you have created of me. My argument wasn't Trump did this and Obama didn't. My argument was directly targeting your claim about a 20% tax rate. Who is going to pay for the debt if the tax goes to 20%? Try this time to actually address my argument instead of committing a whataboutism about a straw-man you created for me. It wasn't Trump who said he wanted a 20% tax rate it was you so do refrain from talking about Trump or Obama.
Just to know your opponent:
He argues in bad faith. Uses data that does not support his claim. Is an anarchist and uses complex words to try get a simple point across. I could list more but to simply make an argument that is supported by evidence would win you this debate. He won't concede on any point because he is incapable of changing his mind.
If you want evidence of this exact same debate with an actual competent debater just type the title of this debate on DDO to really see what kind of person you are dealing with.
Good luck. Not like you need it for him.
You didn't answer my question. Should churches pay taxes?
I didn't not put words in your mouth. I pointed to the logical conclusion with the information you give me. Surely you want to abandon the state because it will lead to the least amount of corruption.
You don't understand what the separation of church and state was the church not being connected to the government. This would be impacting laws. Taxes are not a connection to the state in the same sense because the church can't say we want this law for this amount of money. So your argument for churches not paying that much taxes is a non-sequitur.
Have you seen the national debt? Whose going to pay it back when you have taxes down to 20%? I am not arguing for 100%. I am arguing for taxes which just about allows economic growth. The more the United States pays off from the national debt the less future generations would have to suffer because of it.
I would take this but don't have a particular liking to the original Zelda. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask were better.
I dislike Mario from the little I have played of the Super Mario 64 so I wouldn't want to take that games side.
Churches tax avoid. Should that still be the case?
The logical conclusion of your stance of government would be the removal of the state. Basically anarchism. If your basis for small government is that big government is corrupt why not remove all the corruption by simple removing the government?
About your stance of private business so are you for the complete de-regulation of the government on private businesses?
So the church should be bound by laws of the government?
I don't take your position seriously. If you were an actual Christian you would want a Monarchy but these conservatives are playing around as if they want small government. I am sorry what the hell does that even mean? Conservatives make a vacuous statement like small government so that they don't have to deliver on actual promises.
Believing a minority should not have the same right as the majority sound pretty fascist to me.
Thanks.
I did try to ask Debaticus to do it but he said no even though his vote was for me stated in his reasoning of the vote which was "stepped in shit" that came from my DDO reference of my meme.
Thanks.
Sorry about not really having a criteria in mind but we were really quick about making the debate and most of the time I was helping Wrick-It-Raplh understand what imgflip which I found from a debate with Type1 and Sparrow. We weren't even ready to say how many memes there would be which can be found in the several comments at the start.
I am not voting on this debate. This is a joke and the more I try to explain my vote on this the more I am confused about what the hell is going on in this debate.
Your question even if I answer yes or no is a non-sequitur to the argument at hand so I don't see the need to addressing. Don't give me more questions in the comment section and actually address my points in the debate.
You said I "didn't address it".
I said "doubt it would get taken down" because your point is false.
My point logically follows and is not biased.
So I don't see how it would be taken down.
>>How disingenuous of you. The first debate I created I put in parentheses "where morality stems from does not count" and you wouldn't accept it.
False accusation. I read the title the first time and thought it was a waste of time. When you told me about it the next day then I decided either you going to carry on annoying me or I will accept the debate. I accepted the debate. I did not read it the first but I did the second time.
>>As soon as I deleted that one and made this a fresh one and forgot to put that, you immediately accepted.
You don't understand. I saw the message of you deleting the debate then I looked at the debate section and realised it was still there. That meant you were going to allow other people to accept the debate. I thought this has gone on long enough since you weren't going to delete the debate I might as well accept the debate so that you don't keep on making the same debate.
>>Now I know your real motives behind that. Shame you couldn't be decent enough to say something about it.
>>I said "aren't necessarily less effective". I'm not arguing with you... I'm not "dropping" arguments.
What do you mean by "aren't necessarily less effective"?
What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
Why are you not bringing in your own definition of effective instead of the made up one you use?
>>Less regulations on who could come, keep it the same, or something else?
Don't know would require more knowledge of what the regulation is before I can say I want to improve, remove or add.
>>What do you think of birth right citizenship,
I think it easier that way. Haven't really thought about it when I don't think is the most important issue.
>>merit-based immigration,
I don't see how this is not met already. From my data immigration is a good thing for the economy so don't see why even add the merit part.
>>ways to keep track of immigrants with work visas?
Isn't this already in place? I don't know if it is bad or good since I haven't seen data to say it is.
>>Easier to attain I would disagree. You don't need a criminal background check before buying a car. The 86 dead people gives merit to the idea that cars may be more effective weapons.
It was mainly adding onto the cheap claim. Guns are cheaper and in some states don't require the person to have a license in order to have one. With cars it requires a driving test which is difficult for people who don't know how to drive. A person who is incapable with a gun can still buy it without having a test but do need a background check. Guns are easier to attain for these reasons. I can think of more but I'll leave it at that.
>>Effective, the actual effect, ex breaking every bone and dying
successful in producing a desired or intended result.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/effective
A gun can provide a desired result at a much further range by doing it quieter while also being the cheaper option. Where did you get your definition from?
>>No, I am out of ways to communicate with you, and you don't seem to have any idea what I have been asking repeatedly, nor any semblance of contextual awareness
Okay so I am meant to understand a person who is incompetent at getting his point across?
In this comment you basically said you don't understand what I am asking of you nor do you show any sign of improving that.
See how easier it is to make your point simple in order for it to have a higher chance of the reader not being confused? I am getting the impression you are doing this on purpose in order for me to not understand and you have some sort of point when you don't.
Why did you drop the value argument?
Why didn't you define effective?
Why did you say aren't less effective than guns without stating how you got to that position?
>>You were making statements about the effectiveness of guns and cars as weapons.
My argument still stands. Guns can be used at a further range, can be quieter, is easier to attain and is cheaper. Please actually understand what I am saying before you try to rebut it.
So is that a yes or no?
I don't know why feelings over facts thinks he can win an argument when this site values facts over feelings.
So what if I was talking about you but did not put you in as a receiver?
Would you respond to it?
So if I was talking about you wouldn't respond to it?
Didn't I ask you to debate me or did that also slip out of your memory?
Is this what it has come down to? You not being able to comment back. Oh well. I should expect no less from a conservative.
>>Don't engage with omar. He is a petty teenager who gets paid to start wars in the comments.
You are really the same but I can't blame it on you because on your DDO it says you are 15. I think it would be fair to insult you if you stay this bad at making arguments when you turn 18. Calling me a petty teenager when you are also one. Wars? That only happened once.
>> He is a psychotic liberal who attacks people who disagree and agrees with using physical violence against free-speech conservatives.
You should watch American Psycho when you are old enough to not get scared of women, blood and horror elements. I say justified not agree with. There is a difference. I hope you understand that.
>>I don't know of that which I've done to warrant such discourtesy from you
You argue in bad faith. I know it would show in this debate if you go into the realm of public vs private healthcare.
>>Attack my character again, and I will block you. Have a nice night, sir.
I just have. Block me because I can't stand you. The better people know what you are the easier it is to dismiss your points.
You got this.
>>I've already said I am for taxation.
By your reasoning Anarchy would be the best form of governance. Guess I understand what you views better than you do.
>>I don't follow a lot of congressman, etc. I know Tucker Carlson wants it fixed tho. Too many republicans are establishment RINO'S.
So no Republican actually is trying to do the right thing. Good to know.
>>Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Oh. Didn't think you drop even further then you already are. Don't know the logical conclusion of your own arguments and think I have TDS.
>> Trump's tax plan reduced taxed for all. https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
This source is better.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
As you can see a tax cut aimed at the middle class actually benefits the rich. Who would have thought Trump cared about his own interest before the majority who voted for him.
>>It allows for more economic growth. Government wastes our taxes and overspends, so raising them is foolish. Government needs to tremendously cut down on spending.
Guess you don't care about the national debt. The likely conclusion is that in order for the government to not be wasteful is to not even give them any money. So you are for anarchy if you actually followed what you are saying here.
>>Some republicans do want the problem fixed. I am a conservative and I want it fixed.
Who is a Republican that wants to the fix the problem and is actively trying to get something done by laws?
>>I assume you are talking about your TDS.
Don't know what you mean by "TDS".
>> For example, I am strongly against raising the gas tax the Trump admin. has been discussing, because it has an immediate impact upon middle class families who are dying right now.
Do you know what would also help? Reducing taxes for them as well. The problem is that Trump has made it really clear with his most recent tax plan that he is only cared about reducing the taxes of the wealthy and not the middle class. If Trump cared about the middle class he would cut taxes for them. You support a president that lies about being a populist by showing his true intentions with the laws he passes. So basically the not-wealthy people who voted for him were conned and will still carry on being conned because I am sure they haven't even heard of what he has actually done instead of what he "promises" to do.
>>To get out of debt, we should reduce regulations on private businesses.
The debt is paid off with taxes not reduced regulations. I have very little faith that you know anything from what your idols have thought you. Whether it be Ben, Steven or even parents. Do some reason and actually talk about the surface. I ask you to explain but you can't then you commit a non-sequitur in the statement you made and to what I asked of you as well.
>>We also need to fix the tax loopholes on big corporations like Amazon who don't pay taxes.
If the Republican party did care then they would be fixing the problem. Guess when you have a person who is part of the upper-class who likes to keep as much money as possible by reducing taxes and not fixing tax loopholes that I am sure he benefits from. If you really cared about fixing these tax loopholes you wouldn't be a Republican.
>>Like, I said, I believe in some government. There is a balance to be had. I specifically said I believe in limited government.
This does not help me understand what you mean. What do you mean by limited government? You keep saying it but don't explain it.
>>I don't understand your churches and state argument.
I was asking questions. Like this one: should churches pay taxes?
>>Yes, Obama doubled the national debt from all the other president's combined.
This is clearly a case of whataboutism. You are not addressing my point instead you point to someone else who has done it from a straw-man you have created of me. My argument wasn't Trump did this and Obama didn't. My argument was directly targeting your claim about a 20% tax rate. Who is going to pay for the debt if the tax goes to 20%? Try this time to actually address my argument instead of committing a whataboutism about a straw-man you created for me. It wasn't Trump who said he wanted a 20% tax rate it was you so do refrain from talking about Trump or Obama.
To RM:
Just to know your opponent:
He argues in bad faith. Uses data that does not support his claim. Is an anarchist and uses complex words to try get a simple point across. I could list more but to simply make an argument that is supported by evidence would win you this debate. He won't concede on any point because he is incapable of changing his mind.
If you want evidence of this exact same debate with an actual competent debater just type the title of this debate on DDO to really see what kind of person you are dealing with.
Good luck. Not like you need it for him.
You didn't answer my question. Should churches pay taxes?
I didn't not put words in your mouth. I pointed to the logical conclusion with the information you give me. Surely you want to abandon the state because it will lead to the least amount of corruption.
You don't understand what the separation of church and state was the church not being connected to the government. This would be impacting laws. Taxes are not a connection to the state in the same sense because the church can't say we want this law for this amount of money. So your argument for churches not paying that much taxes is a non-sequitur.
Have you seen the national debt? Whose going to pay it back when you have taxes down to 20%? I am not arguing for 100%. I am arguing for taxes which just about allows economic growth. The more the United States pays off from the national debt the less future generations would have to suffer because of it.
I would take this but don't have a particular liking to the original Zelda. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask were better.
I dislike Mario from the little I have played of the Super Mario 64 so I wouldn't want to take that games side.
Churches tax avoid. Should that still be the case?
The logical conclusion of your stance of government would be the removal of the state. Basically anarchism. If your basis for small government is that big government is corrupt why not remove all the corruption by simple removing the government?
About your stance of private business so are you for the complete de-regulation of the government on private businesses?
So the church should be bound by laws of the government?
I don't take your position seriously. If you were an actual Christian you would want a Monarchy but these conservatives are playing around as if they want small government. I am sorry what the hell does that even mean? Conservatives make a vacuous statement like small government so that they don't have to deliver on actual promises.
Believing a minority should not have the same right as the majority sound pretty fascist to me.
Believing the government should not be in the business of civil unions seems pretty fascist to me.
Say what you want. I will avoid you because you don't listen to reason.
Read something wrong. My bad.
Why can't blamonkey finally take his spot as the best?
You did say you were going to debate him.
He is a triggered conservative who copies from his idols. No wonder he dislikes people who aren't fake.
Thanks for the vote.
You shouldn't really do that.
You should also remove the gaps in your arguments. That list was unnecessary as well.
For 3 days?
Thanks.
I did try to ask Debaticus to do it but he said no even though his vote was for me stated in his reasoning of the vote which was "stepped in shit" that came from my DDO reference of my meme.
Can you change your vote or are you have a problem doing it?
Kind of being pushy since there is 2 hours left and I was doing other things until I realised I had notifications waiting for me to answer to on DDO.
Did you report yourself? Is that how you are trying to remove it?
Thanks.
Sorry about not really having a criteria in mind but we were really quick about making the debate and most of the time I was helping Wrick-It-Raplh understand what imgflip which I found from a debate with Type1 and Sparrow. We weren't even ready to say how many memes there would be which can be found in the several comments at the start.
I don't know what you mean but Ragnar was countering Debaticus' vote.
"Ragnar gave all categories to you"
What do you mean?
Why are you are not voting on only the first criteria?
If you are saying he is not capable. I agree with you.
Biased: showing an unreasonable like or dislike for a person based on personal opinions
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/biased
I think he is using this definition.
You should have focused on what the economy does on immigration. The argument for immigration is better than against based on economy.
I am not voting on this debate. This is a joke and the more I try to explain my vote on this the more I am confused about what the hell is going on in this debate.
Are you against freedom of using whatever profile picture you want?
Your question even if I answer yes or no is a non-sequitur to the argument at hand so I don't see the need to addressing. Don't give me more questions in the comment section and actually address my points in the debate.
You said I "didn't address it".
I said "doubt it would get taken down" because your point is false.
My point logically follows and is not biased.
So I don't see how it would be taken down.
Doubt it would get taken down.
I'll bring the vote back up. Just have to confirm something.
Due to the voting competition mostly.
>>How disingenuous of you. The first debate I created I put in parentheses "where morality stems from does not count" and you wouldn't accept it.
False accusation. I read the title the first time and thought it was a waste of time. When you told me about it the next day then I decided either you going to carry on annoying me or I will accept the debate. I accepted the debate. I did not read it the first but I did the second time.
>>As soon as I deleted that one and made this a fresh one and forgot to put that, you immediately accepted.
You don't understand. I saw the message of you deleting the debate then I looked at the debate section and realised it was still there. That meant you were going to allow other people to accept the debate. I thought this has gone on long enough since you weren't going to delete the debate I might as well accept the debate so that you don't keep on making the same debate.
>>Now I know your real motives behind that. Shame you couldn't be decent enough to say something about it.
False accusation.
>>What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
You are actually trolling here. I am done speaking to you.
>>I said "aren't necessarily less effective". I'm not arguing with you... I'm not "dropping" arguments.
What do you mean by "aren't necessarily less effective"?
What metric are you using to get this conclusion?
Why are you not bringing in your own definition of effective instead of the made up one you use?
>>What is your stance on immigration?
A good thing.
>>Less regulations on who could come, keep it the same, or something else?
Don't know would require more knowledge of what the regulation is before I can say I want to improve, remove or add.
>>What do you think of birth right citizenship,
I think it easier that way. Haven't really thought about it when I don't think is the most important issue.
>>merit-based immigration,
I don't see how this is not met already. From my data immigration is a good thing for the economy so don't see why even add the merit part.
>>ways to keep track of immigrants with work visas?
Isn't this already in place? I don't know if it is bad or good since I haven't seen data to say it is.
>>Easier to attain I would disagree. You don't need a criminal background check before buying a car. The 86 dead people gives merit to the idea that cars may be more effective weapons.
It was mainly adding onto the cheap claim. Guns are cheaper and in some states don't require the person to have a license in order to have one. With cars it requires a driving test which is difficult for people who don't know how to drive. A person who is incapable with a gun can still buy it without having a test but do need a background check. Guns are easier to attain for these reasons. I can think of more but I'll leave it at that.
>>Effective, the actual effect, ex breaking every bone and dying
successful in producing a desired or intended result.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/effective
A gun can provide a desired result at a much further range by doing it quieter while also being the cheaper option. Where did you get your definition from?
>>No, I am out of ways to communicate with you, and you don't seem to have any idea what I have been asking repeatedly, nor any semblance of contextual awareness
Okay so I am meant to understand a person who is incompetent at getting his point across?
In this comment you basically said you don't understand what I am asking of you nor do you show any sign of improving that.
See how easier it is to make your point simple in order for it to have a higher chance of the reader not being confused? I am getting the impression you are doing this on purpose in order for me to not understand and you have some sort of point when you don't.
Why did you drop the value argument?
Why didn't you define effective?
Why did you say aren't less effective than guns without stating how you got to that position?
>>You were making statements about the effectiveness of guns and cars as weapons.
My argument still stands. Guns can be used at a further range, can be quieter, is easier to attain and is cheaper. Please actually understand what I am saying before you try to rebut it.
>>No, it does not mean the "best" way to murder someone.
Say what you said in the simplest way you can.
>>This may be impossible
So you are making this up?
>>I would consider Dead to be maximally effective in the context of homicide.
Does this mean the best way to murder someone?
>>I am really curious about what you are referring to though.
What comment?
>> I'm asking about effectiveness.
What metric are you comparing effectiveness?