Virtuoso is busy doing stuff for the site.
Ramshutu is in the contest.
You are as well.
Titanium might.
Pinkfreud08 is barely on.
And I take way too much time to vote in a debate and I put too much detail so it would take a lot out of me just to take one debate and the same pay off as another vote someone has put in. Example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/638?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
"Funny you said that, because I actually used RM's definition and article he cited and brought clear evidence of fake news USING HIS DEFINITION."
I don't know what debate you were reading but he used the actual definition of Fake News whereas you used your own. Even then when you have 2 definitions to work with you still couldn't prove that CNN is Fake News.
You don't know what you are talking about.
He simply stated if Fraser is going to be punished. Will should also be punished or maybe he should never have egged him since he never agreed with doing it in the first place. That is a bad argument and for you to make it more than that shows how little you understood with what was going on in the debate.
You can't provide evidence for the extra-ordinary claim you made "Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely."
So you moved the goalpost to "He was the victim, not the perpetrator of the egg attack."
Disregard what I said as if I didn't tell you how it is unfair. You really are a conservative. An independent would actually know how to think for him/herself instead of being biased with what party they have allegiance to. Hell rant? Did you miss the bulk of what I said earlier? This must be you conceding that this debate has an unfair burden on your opponent.
"This is fair because Pro chose to accept."
Call it what you want but it is unfair. Telling someone to take the radical position but you are not doing the same gives more of a burden to your opponent to give a really compelling argument. When you sit on the fence with yes or no you can pick what you like which suits your narrative meanwhile the radical has to make the best argument ever and even at that point they will lose if both were comparable in debate skill.
I am still sticking that you are a conservative. I'll drop the Religious argument because your source is completely ridiculous and the claim that video made is completely out there that I can't even imagine anything can survive in lava let alone people in the core existing. It would require compelling evidence that I don't think you are capable of giving.
"my arguments were so good."
I call that delusion if you actually read my breakdown you would realise even by your own definition what you stated was not Fake News.
"I actually made really good arguments"
But you still think I voted based on biases even though you admitted making "good" arguments as in new arguments which were not given in Round 1. You gave RM 1 Round to respond to your claims.
"Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely."
Quote?
"you were suggesting how powerful and potent Anning's speech was to demand powerful attack against him so why didn't the egg-smasher use speech instead of violence? "
My case was in order to stop false information spreading he requires to be silenced in that context. He is not powerful by his physicality or his presence on Twitter but he can be later on. The debate was about if he was justified or not in the egg attack.
"Omar tried to justify how dangerous the speech of the guy inciting violence against certain religions and ethnicities is but if speech is so powerful why didn't Will just talk against the guy?"
What?
"Obviously, I found your argument more appealing politically but I think the political appeal was precisely what weakened your case."
I still stand by that comment but if Brendo does not want to do the debate again if it ends in a tie I will surely provide evidence to support my case. I will get you to believe violence is justified based on political actions.
Thanks for the vote anyway.
"It is too expensive, drives down doctors, raises taxes, and is not quality. It also gets rid of people's private insurance, which is completely wrong. There are 3 things you can get in healthcare- affordability, universality, and quality. Each health care system guarantees no more than 2. Private healthcare you get affordability(which I would like costs to go down on more), and quality. Public healthcare you can get universality and affordability, but then everyone would have equally poor quality. Or you could have universality and quality, in which the country would go bankrupt to to it's ridiculous expensiveness."
You got this from Ben Shapiro? Haha. You seriously can't think for yourself and you need your conservative idols to think for you. The problem here is that public healthcare gives affordability, quality and accessibility. Which means Ben is wrong and since you are parroting him you are also wrong. If there were so good at something why are they so bad when compared to other countries?
"Something being a necessity does not make it a right."
Whose making that argument? I did not.
What is a right then?
"I still debate intellectually without throwing insults."
You can't debate me intellectually when you are an anti-intellectual. It doesn't make sense and I would say the Republican party is the party of irrationality which believes in God and still have people who deny climate change and support America even though they are committing genocide in places like Yemen.
"Your the one who thought FOX reported to be objective 😂"
So you actually watch FOX for the entertainment? Wow. If not guess you like your news subjective.
"More different views means more different views being expressed to viewers, which means more objectiveness"
What? You did not deny what I said but made a worse point than I did. Different views does not mean more objectivity. For something to be a fact other ideas must be incorrect. This is dependent on what is being talked about but from your statement I doubt you even know that.
"No wear does it say they don't want accurate information."
So are you saying FOX wants to give accurate information? That is objectivity in news. If you don't say that then my point that they are reactionaries is still valid because you did not rebut that claim.
"Everybody knows CNN is liberal. Literally everybody. If you fail to recognize that I feel bad."
Liberal doesn't mean wrong and you can still be doing objective reporting while only being liberal. If you don't understand that I feel sorry for you.
"Ran out of space nxt comment..."
Not addressed in the next comment so you basically wasted my time with this response.
"but educate your mind, so here I go."
You don't even know what you are talking about yet you think you can educate me? It is really ironic coming from you.
"where as CNN barely has any Trump supporters on at all."
Objective journalism can be achieved without having a conservative for each liberal. Conservatism and liberalism are ideas which mean a liberal can give the conservative point of view but guess that is not good enough for you.
"No cable news network is objective."
Sad to see Fox News are just a bunch of reactionaries.
“FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news"
http://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/CDAE195spring2016/Emily%20K%20fox%20news.pdf
Whereas CNN actually want to have "accurate information" as a goal (See RM quote in Round 1).
"OK, I see the study. It doesn't mean or say that those 60% are right,"
Wow dismissing something you deem "Reliable study's"? Really goes to show how little you care about evidence. Don't worry you are at home with the Republican party.
"I don't want public healthcare because I believe it doesn't work."
How many developed nations do you need before you realise public healthcare works? Guess you still can't give evidence. Oh well.
"Putting shame on people that have a different opinion than you is not very intellectual."
No what I should do is allow them to spout their anti-intellectual positions? Remember when you said "educate your mind". I class that as an insult so you are a hypocrite. I shame people who are incapable of being rational but have no barrier apart from their emotion clouding their judgement. Facts don't care about your feelings. Really should find another profile picture it is really insulting for the actual intellectuals.
"Reliable study's like CDC, Pew Research Center,"
Like this one https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-continue-to-say-ensuring-health-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/ right?
Shame that Republicans don't want public healthcare but you still support them.
"This is why I have a critique of CNN way more than FOX or MSNBC, because they claim to be objective journalists, when in fact we all know they clearly have a left-wing bias."
So is FOX subjective journalist or too much of a coward to stand by being objective?
If they are not doing objective journalism why do you watch them? For entertainment? Surely you can find something more entertaining than Fox & Friends.
"anti-intellectual"
You gave no number but gave the word "recent" and you call me the "anti-intellectual". Incapable of knowing recent is dependent on what the person thinks it is given the scenario.
"I would never be that ridiculous and cheap to need racist examples in this present moment. As long as it is fairly recent, I won't be judgy."
What in numbers and words would you say is "fairly recent"?
"in present day."
What do you mean?
Right now?
Last week?
This month?
This year?
This debate is unfair and since Death23 is beating you in the other debate you want to go down to a specific that you think can win.
I am saying he is not brave enough to voice his opinions on a debate because he knows his side is wrong. That isn't the bravest thing a person can do since stopping an anarchist, communist or a nationalist is more brave.
Right wingers are irrational I do know that which is why I called him that.
I will answer the question if you are capable enough to make a debate about it. A debate the less cowardice thing to do. It means you think you are so right that the people who will vote also will agree with you. Shame that you don't even think that your idea is even a good one. You make the debate.
I guess I can add coward to the list. You are not brave enough to actually stand by your positions in a debate instead resort to carrying on this conversation here. Either you are irrational which you are or you are a bad faith actor. I doubt you would be on this site if you were a bad faith actor but irrationality is enough reason for you to be here instead of doing the rational thing which is commit to a debate and see for yourself if what you say is right or wrong.
I shouldn't be talking about this but his source is false. You are not even talking about it so it would not be a problem of the debate. If I was debating I would have said he hasn't filled his burden of proof but if it was shared then I will give my proof but I will acknowledge his source to be incorrect because 1) It is not even sourced properly 2) Even when you find the source it has no mention of Religion.
The height and width have to be the same. The resolution of my computer is 1366x768. In order for it to not show white bars if the actual image is 1366x768 it would require the image to be 768x768 which means a lot from the right and left have to be cropped out in order to do so which does reduce the quality of the picture on this site and might not even be usable.
That has got to be a joke. He made things up. He implied a meaning that was not made clear in the debate.
Virtuoso is busy doing stuff for the site.
Ramshutu is in the contest.
You are as well.
Titanium might.
Pinkfreud08 is barely on.
And I take way too much time to vote in a debate and I put too much detail so it would take a lot out of me just to take one debate and the same pay off as another vote someone has put in. Example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/638?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
Can you guys/gals vote on this debate?
Whose fault was it that the definitions weren't clearly laid out and what both parties burdens were?
Your 2nd and last one in Round 5 were funny.
Radical?
You really need help if you actually think I am.
In the final Round when you are supposed to be rebutting instead of bringing in new arguments? Okay.
Lol who supports the Republican party and is a theist?
Not me.
"Funny you said that, because I actually used RM's definition and article he cited and brought clear evidence of fake news USING HIS DEFINITION."
I don't know what debate you were reading but he used the actual definition of Fake News whereas you used your own. Even then when you have 2 definitions to work with you still couldn't prove that CNN is Fake News.
It decreases the size of the font automatically if it doesn't fit in the box.
The Round 4 last one was really funny.
I guess one could be but the rest I don't think are dank enough.
You don't know what you are talking about.
He simply stated if Fraser is going to be punished. Will should also be punished or maybe he should never have egged him since he never agreed with doing it in the first place. That is a bad argument and for you to make it more than that shows how little you understood with what was going on in the debate.
Do you want to get banned again?
I liked your Round 2 3rd one. It is realistic.
Okay. It doesn't matter anyway since all I got to do is do the same amount you submitted.
So 3 every Round?
Or is it whatever you do?
Or maybe 1 for Round 1.
2 for Round 2,
3 for Round 3.
How about that?
Only 1?
I say 2 or 3 each Round but for Round 1 I'll do 1 as well.
Yeah that was what you are supposed to do.
Foundation? So you didn't actually quote where he did the "sandwiching" instead you bring up a quote that doesn't support your point? Okay.
You can't provide evidence for the extra-ordinary claim you made "Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely."
So you moved the goalpost to "He was the victim, not the perpetrator of the egg attack."
Disregard what I said as if I didn't tell you how it is unfair. You really are a conservative. An independent would actually know how to think for him/herself instead of being biased with what party they have allegiance to. Hell rant? Did you miss the bulk of what I said earlier? This must be you conceding that this debate has an unfair burden on your opponent.
"This is fair because Pro chose to accept."
Call it what you want but it is unfair. Telling someone to take the radical position but you are not doing the same gives more of a burden to your opponent to give a really compelling argument. When you sit on the fence with yes or no you can pick what you like which suits your narrative meanwhile the radical has to make the best argument ever and even at that point they will lose if both were comparable in debate skill.
I am still sticking that you are a conservative. I'll drop the Religious argument because your source is completely ridiculous and the claim that video made is completely out there that I can't even imagine anything can survive in lava let alone people in the core existing. It would require compelling evidence that I don't think you are capable of giving.
"my arguments were so good."
I call that delusion if you actually read my breakdown you would realise even by your own definition what you stated was not Fake News.
"I actually made really good arguments"
But you still think I voted based on biases even though you admitted making "good" arguments as in new arguments which were not given in Round 1. You gave RM 1 Round to respond to your claims.
What is your position all guns should be allowed?
It is not fair to ask your opponent to take the most radical position and you not doing the same.
"Brendo pointed this out from Round 1 in reverse, saying that violence is an even more free and offensive expression than speech and if you justify that you are forced to defend Anning's right to speak rudely."
Quote?
"you were suggesting how powerful and potent Anning's speech was to demand powerful attack against him so why didn't the egg-smasher use speech instead of violence? "
My case was in order to stop false information spreading he requires to be silenced in that context. He is not powerful by his physicality or his presence on Twitter but he can be later on. The debate was about if he was justified or not in the egg attack.
"Omar tried to justify how dangerous the speech of the guy inciting violence against certain religions and ethnicities is but if speech is so powerful why didn't Will just talk against the guy?"
What?
Make a debate and I will accept if I want to.
More than likely I will.
I will do so right now.
Thank you.
Sorry for the long read.
"Obviously, I found your argument more appealing politically but I think the political appeal was precisely what weakened your case."
I still stand by that comment but if Brendo does not want to do the debate again if it ends in a tie I will surely provide evidence to support my case. I will get you to believe violence is justified based on political actions.
Thanks for the vote anyway.
"It is too expensive, drives down doctors, raises taxes, and is not quality. It also gets rid of people's private insurance, which is completely wrong. There are 3 things you can get in healthcare- affordability, universality, and quality. Each health care system guarantees no more than 2. Private healthcare you get affordability(which I would like costs to go down on more), and quality. Public healthcare you can get universality and affordability, but then everyone would have equally poor quality. Or you could have universality and quality, in which the country would go bankrupt to to it's ridiculous expensiveness."
You got this from Ben Shapiro? Haha. You seriously can't think for yourself and you need your conservative idols to think for you. The problem here is that public healthcare gives affordability, quality and accessibility. Which means Ben is wrong and since you are parroting him you are also wrong. If there were so good at something why are they so bad when compared to other countries?
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-in-hospital-mortality-rate-for-acute-myocardial-infarction-ischemic-stroke-and-hemorrhagic-stroke-2015
"Something being a necessity does not make it a right."
Whose making that argument? I did not.
What is a right then?
"I still debate intellectually without throwing insults."
You can't debate me intellectually when you are an anti-intellectual. It doesn't make sense and I would say the Republican party is the party of irrationality which believes in God and still have people who deny climate change and support America even though they are committing genocide in places like Yemen.
"Your the one who thought FOX reported to be objective 😂"
So you actually watch FOX for the entertainment? Wow. If not guess you like your news subjective.
"More different views means more different views being expressed to viewers, which means more objectiveness"
What? You did not deny what I said but made a worse point than I did. Different views does not mean more objectivity. For something to be a fact other ideas must be incorrect. This is dependent on what is being talked about but from your statement I doubt you even know that.
"No wear does it say they don't want accurate information."
So are you saying FOX wants to give accurate information? That is objectivity in news. If you don't say that then my point that they are reactionaries is still valid because you did not rebut that claim.
"Everybody knows CNN is liberal. Literally everybody. If you fail to recognize that I feel bad."
Liberal doesn't mean wrong and you can still be doing objective reporting while only being liberal. If you don't understand that I feel sorry for you.
"Ran out of space nxt comment..."
Not addressed in the next comment so you basically wasted my time with this response.
Glad we agree on something.
"but educate your mind, so here I go."
You don't even know what you are talking about yet you think you can educate me? It is really ironic coming from you.
"where as CNN barely has any Trump supporters on at all."
Objective journalism can be achieved without having a conservative for each liberal. Conservatism and liberalism are ideas which mean a liberal can give the conservative point of view but guess that is not good enough for you.
"No cable news network is objective."
Sad to see Fox News are just a bunch of reactionaries.
“FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news"
http://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/CDAE195spring2016/Emily%20K%20fox%20news.pdf
Whereas CNN actually want to have "accurate information" as a goal (See RM quote in Round 1).
"OK, I see the study. It doesn't mean or say that those 60% are right,"
Wow dismissing something you deem "Reliable study's"? Really goes to show how little you care about evidence. Don't worry you are at home with the Republican party.
"I don't want public healthcare because I believe it doesn't work."
How many developed nations do you need before you realise public healthcare works? Guess you still can't give evidence. Oh well.
"Putting shame on people that have a different opinion than you is not very intellectual."
No what I should do is allow them to spout their anti-intellectual positions? Remember when you said "educate your mind". I class that as an insult so you are a hypocrite. I shame people who are incapable of being rational but have no barrier apart from their emotion clouding their judgement. Facts don't care about your feelings. Really should find another profile picture it is really insulting for the actual intellectuals.
"Reliable study's like CDC, Pew Research Center,"
Like this one https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-continue-to-say-ensuring-health-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/ right?
Shame that Republicans don't want public healthcare but you still support them.
"This is why I have a critique of CNN way more than FOX or MSNBC, because they claim to be objective journalists, when in fact we all know they clearly have a left-wing bias."
So is FOX subjective journalist or too much of a coward to stand by being objective?
If they are not doing objective journalism why do you watch them? For entertainment? Surely you can find something more entertaining than Fox & Friends.
"anti-intellectual"
You gave no number but gave the word "recent" and you call me the "anti-intellectual". Incapable of knowing recent is dependent on what the person thinks it is given the scenario.
"I would never be that ridiculous and cheap to need racist examples in this present moment. As long as it is fairly recent, I won't be judgy."
What in numbers and words would you say is "fairly recent"?
"in present day."
What do you mean?
Right now?
Last week?
This month?
This year?
This debate is unfair and since Death23 is beating you in the other debate you want to go down to a specific that you think can win.
Can you vote as well?
Can you vote on this debate?
To RationalMadman:
I am saying he is not brave enough to voice his opinions on a debate because he knows his side is wrong. That isn't the bravest thing a person can do since stopping an anarchist, communist or a nationalist is more brave.
Right wingers are irrational I do know that which is why I called him that.
I will answer the question if you are capable enough to make a debate about it. A debate the less cowardice thing to do. It means you think you are so right that the people who will vote also will agree with you. Shame that you don't even think that your idea is even a good one. You make the debate.
Sheesh. Good luck. I got Sparrow winning this won.
I guess I can add coward to the list. You are not brave enough to actually stand by your positions in a debate instead resort to carrying on this conversation here. Either you are irrational which you are or you are a bad faith actor. I doubt you would be on this site if you were a bad faith actor but irrationality is enough reason for you to be here instead of doing the rational thing which is commit to a debate and see for yourself if what you say is right or wrong.
Why couldn't you use prayer instead of using fancy words?
Does it mean more than just prayer?
What do you mean by " direct tie "?
I shouldn't be talking about this but his source is false. You are not even talking about it so it would not be a problem of the debate. If I was debating I would have said he hasn't filled his burden of proof but if it was shared then I will give my proof but I will acknowledge his source to be incorrect because 1) It is not even sourced properly 2) Even when you find the source it has no mention of Religion.
The height and width have to be the same. The resolution of my computer is 1366x768. In order for it to not show white bars if the actual image is 1366x768 it would require the image to be 768x768 which means a lot from the right and left have to be cropped out in order to do so which does reduce the quality of the picture on this site and might not even be usable.