Is he not allowed to submit arguments?
You posted your argument today and somehow he forfeited on the same day even though there is a 3 day window to post an argument.
"That implies that I erred and then retrospectively managed to conceal said error. Since no error was made, I never covered myself."
My implication was that it was difficult for me to pluck holes in the statement.
"No. If the people participating intended for it to be serious, that would be enough for me to consider it a trial, all other boxes being checked, even if a moderator were not in support of it."
Okay.
"We're not going to engage in that kind of speculation."
Okay.
So how about if the call-out thread rule was removed and the public trail rule was removed?
Would it be a hypothetical yes to this:
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
Hypothetical then. Just remove the public trial rule.
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
Covered yourself really well there.
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
Okay. Should have kept it to myself. My mistake. The only thing the contender needs to do in order to not be influenced by what I said is simply miss out the only evidence Speedrace gave.
"If I had to counter all the bullshit you spew out, that would take a few thick books."
Filled with emotion not anything that can rebut my claims.
Make a debate about the border wall and I will accept.
You are clearly wrong and when you get shamed by voters you might understand how bad your position is. If not you are irrational like I said before.
Make sure to actually define what you mean by border wall. Have also a link to a proposed plan so that I understand exactly what you mean.
"First you say that I should disprove the evidence against the wall, then you say that the BoP is on me."
You are incapable of reading facts so I want to see how bad your problem actually is.
"But don't use the Quartz article as it twists statistics and shows no real evidence. Thank you."
I am not changing. Quartz does a really good job sourcing what they say.
"And by the way, a letter from some "economists" without ANY statistics or facts is not evidence of anything."
1,471 economists is not "some" and they are more knowledgeable about the economy than non-economists. With this in mind I accept their professional opinion.
If scientists came up and said there is a consensus in the science community is real. Are you going to say there are no facts or evidence still?
If you can bring in an economist that supports what you are saying not something like Breitbart or the Daily Caller.
"And where do they get that fact from, I wonder?"
Arguing the person who said the fact instead of the fact itself. Quartz sends you to an article on their website where they have the evidence. Do click more I know that is difficult for you.
"Please, use a better website for your sources and actually READ the article before posting it. The article twists statistics and pulls random facts out of nowhere."
Give me a break. You do not even know what you are talking about. Now it is your turn to provide proof of the border wall being effective. Have any?
"But even if illegal immigration from Mexico is indeed at historic lows, that isn't an argument against building the wall. Just because an issue is decreasing doesn't mean it should be ignored."
Do you not agree the burden is on the person proposing the border wall to say how this would help the situation more? Do you have evidence that states the border wall will be helpful? Quartz has laid out illegal immigration will not be reduced by border wall.
"Just because most apprehensions (not crossings, apprehensions!) of heroin happen at official border crossings doesn't mean we should ignore the issue of heroin that's smuggled over the border. "
Still have yet to say how effective this would be. Quartz has also laid out that a border wall will not be effective at stopping heroin.
"This is unrelated to the topic. And I don't know where they got this fact from."
"Under Trump, the DHS focus on immigration and on the southern border ignores the real terrorism threat to US citizens, law enforcement officers and terrorism experts have been saying for months."
This means instead of focusing on ineffective procedure like the border wall instead focus on right-wing terrorism. Right wing terrorism is more of a threat than illegal immigration which is why that should be more of a priority than illegal immigration.
"That claim is hilariously wrong. First of all, the statistic provided only measures convictions and not actual number of crimes commited. Second of all, it measures convictions for only one state."
How are you a criminal if you are not convicted?
Do you have other states where illegals commit more crime than the native population?
"Again, the article twists facts. The correct conclusion would be, "deporting illegal immigrants would be very expensive". But deportation is unrelated to the wall."
You are lying. Economists say immigration is a boom to any country that accepts them.
Do make sure to tell Speedrace that source is not properly sourced and when finding the actual source it is a survey. Thank me later.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/measuringnationalwellbeing/july2017tojune2018
I also have the idea that the data is fabricated. No mention of Religion so would like you to also mention that. Do make sure the readers know that Speedrace is incapable of sourcing properly. Remember people who are either Republican or Religious more than likely mis-represent data in order to lie about what it actually says. Again thank me later
More than likely he is the DDO profile of Our_Boat_is_Right. I wouldn't blame you if they think they are alike because the Republican party is the party of the establishment not facts feelings.
I want to push this further along.
Here is my evidence which states why the border wall would be a bad thing.
https://qz.com/1517758/border-wall-facts-to-read-before-trumps-speech-tonight/
Every single bold point is what Trump gets wrong and why the border wall if were done for those reasons would be a failure.
Tell me opposing evidence to this. Just forget about what I said earlier. It is best for me to provide evidence and for you find counter-evidence and we can discuss it.
If you put me in the receiver you don't need to @ me as well. DA improved on that and when you put me in the receiver I get notified on the message instead of constant notifications of really old debates that people just now comment on. Now I don't even get any emails regarding DDO so even that has gone down under.
I am rational. I support my claims with facts if necessary. Your facts about illegal immigration and my facts about 1st Amendment were right. That is what separates us. You don't know when you are wrong and still bring up facts that don't even support your point and I make mistakes and replace false facts with actual facts.
What about what I said about lucid dreaming?
Was that the second paragraph?
If so I don't really have too much control instead use it to pass time when I am bored. When I link it to a specific song in a video game I create narrative which I would consider an improvement. Sure I become the main character but I do improve character development like with Devil May Cry 5.
Meditation is not going to work for me. I have tried several and almost for a week but hasn't helped. Even when I was calm I hardly got anything from it or didn't feel like it improved my mood long enough to be useful.
Does lucid dreaming count?
I pretty much do it every single time I am bored or when I am fueled by something else. If I don't know what to do I can lucid dream and if I have music playing I can lucid dream to that. One example would be the trailer of Devil May Cry 5. I lucid dream being apart of the action while still having my eyes open. Don't know if this helps or not or if this is meditation.
The lucid dreaming does not improve me because when I am out of it I realise that wasn't real and I have to restart the music in order to get the lucid dream again in order to finish the story I have created. I think have been lucid dreaming most of my life so I think that is why I have been so accustomed to it and why meditation you are asking about doesn't work. I don't know if lucid dreaming can be considered meditation for me if it does make my mind more stable for the time of lucid dreaming but it tends to wear off really quickly when I am done with.
"I have spent 10 min just frustrated in some aggravating thought I was having but still feel better afterwards."
Opposite when I speak about how frustrated about afterwards I just feel worse.
"If suddenly it becomes a major fad I'd probably guess it was the whole green thing but if it baffled me I definitely would... spend my afternoons gardening."
Can't imagine myself being one with nature. That would be so boring.
"I practice mindfulness meditation 20min twice a day. I can't recommend it enough to remain clear headed, calm and peaceful. It's how I recaptured they 'spirituality' I lost from my life several years ago. I clearly have a need for it so I highly recommend it."
Tried it several times but failed.
"I'm normally curious why we like what we like or why things sell. If I look at something for a long time it's usually because it puzzles me in some way."
People like it and they sell. It take someone to actually have an interest in what they are buying for it to sell. This can be a video-games which I have been playing for the majority of my life and newer video-games would appeal to me because of my past experiences with them. I am not going to buy gardening equipment because I find no enjoyment or reason doing gardening.
Still here?
Guess I assumed too much that you would not like to occupy your time with "crappy online debate website" but guess not.
If you have a name for me I have name for you as well. How about irrational atheist?
You are irrational, If you don't think you are guess you are just like a theist. Incapable critiquing their own view points.
If it is such a "crappy" online debate website why are you still here?
Incapable of introspection. An Irrational atheist who supports Republican party. Can happy even though they are very few and none of them which can provide point for believing in what they believe.
You changed your comment which is why my response might seem like I am not addressing what you said.
I do not agree with you. Do tell me what I agree with you on?
Thank you for admitting you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong. I'll try one more time then go along believing what you want when I can justify what I believe and you can't.
Constitution says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You said this " You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others"
No law is allowed to prohibit the free excerise of Religion. Meaning the 1st Amendment does not protect gay people from persecution. You have added "harm" to the 1st Amendment where it has not included any. It required laws like the Civil rights Act of 1964 to make that happen.
"You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others, and nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say that you can exercise your religion if it directly harms others. Why are we even arguing if we agree?"
The constitution states this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
No mention of harm or even close to it. Do read the 1st Amendment for yourself if you think I am lying about what the constitution actually says.
"Freedom of religion doesn't equal freedom to do as you want."
Let me break this down for you.
Religion is a set of beliefs with an authority like God above it.
When committing to their beliefs they are exercising their right given to them by the 1st Amendment to do so.
The 1st Amendment does not say they are not allowed to stone gays since exercising their Religion can be stoning gays.
What part of this was wrong?
Running away?
I haven't ran instead challenged you. You are incapable of reading data and are definitely biased about Trump.
Okay.
Can a banned user create debates but not be able to post arguments to it?
Is he not allowed to submit arguments?
You posted your argument today and somehow he forfeited on the same day even though there is a 3 day window to post an argument.
Okay.
"That implies that I erred and then retrospectively managed to conceal said error. Since no error was made, I never covered myself."
My implication was that it was difficult for me to pluck holes in the statement.
"No. If the people participating intended for it to be serious, that would be enough for me to consider it a trial, all other boxes being checked, even if a moderator were not in support of it."
Okay.
"We're not going to engage in that kind of speculation."
Okay.
So how about if the call-out thread rule was removed and the public trail rule was removed?
Would it be a hypothetical yes to this:
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
Hypothetical then. Just remove the public trial rule.
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
Covered yourself really well there.
So basically in order for it to be a public trial it would require a higher-up to intend on it with the approval of other staff like Virtuoso. Am I right?
How about if it was expired but you would like the open the case again based on new evidence?
What is the difference between this and a public trial?
Would it be a public trial if you or Virtuoso accepted?
"Anti-Semitic speech"
Does it have to be blatant or can be done by using dog-whistling?
Would look to know on other rules as well.
Isn't this against the law?
Public execution and the executioner being Ramshutu.
Public trials if you didn't like the joke.
Do you have a link to your picture? I am able to remove the white bars on the left and right. Just noticed it right now.
Okay. Should have kept it to myself. My mistake. The only thing the contender needs to do in order to not be influenced by what I said is simply miss out the only evidence Speedrace gave.
"If I had to counter all the bullshit you spew out, that would take a few thick books."
Filled with emotion not anything that can rebut my claims.
Make a debate about the border wall and I will accept.
You are clearly wrong and when you get shamed by voters you might understand how bad your position is. If not you are irrational like I said before.
Make sure to actually define what you mean by border wall. Have also a link to a proposed plan so that I understand exactly what you mean.
"First you say that I should disprove the evidence against the wall, then you say that the BoP is on me."
You are incapable of reading facts so I want to see how bad your problem actually is.
"But don't use the Quartz article as it twists statistics and shows no real evidence. Thank you."
I am not changing. Quartz does a really good job sourcing what they say.
"And by the way, a letter from some "economists" without ANY statistics or facts is not evidence of anything."
1,471 economists is not "some" and they are more knowledgeable about the economy than non-economists. With this in mind I accept their professional opinion.
If scientists came up and said there is a consensus in the science community is real. Are you going to say there are no facts or evidence still?
If you can bring in an economist that supports what you are saying not something like Breitbart or the Daily Caller.
https://equitablegrowth.org/open-letter-from-1470-economists-including-me-on-immigration/
"And where do they get that fact from, I wonder?"
Arguing the person who said the fact instead of the fact itself. Quartz sends you to an article on their website where they have the evidence. Do click more I know that is difficult for you.
"Please, use a better website for your sources and actually READ the article before posting it. The article twists statistics and pulls random facts out of nowhere."
Give me a break. You do not even know what you are talking about. Now it is your turn to provide proof of the border wall being effective. Have any?
"But even if illegal immigration from Mexico is indeed at historic lows, that isn't an argument against building the wall. Just because an issue is decreasing doesn't mean it should be ignored."
Do you not agree the burden is on the person proposing the border wall to say how this would help the situation more? Do you have evidence that states the border wall will be helpful? Quartz has laid out illegal immigration will not be reduced by border wall.
"Just because most apprehensions (not crossings, apprehensions!) of heroin happen at official border crossings doesn't mean we should ignore the issue of heroin that's smuggled over the border. "
Still have yet to say how effective this would be. Quartz has also laid out that a border wall will not be effective at stopping heroin.
"This is unrelated to the topic. And I don't know where they got this fact from."
"Under Trump, the DHS focus on immigration and on the southern border ignores the real terrorism threat to US citizens, law enforcement officers and terrorism experts have been saying for months."
This means instead of focusing on ineffective procedure like the border wall instead focus on right-wing terrorism. Right wing terrorism is more of a threat than illegal immigration which is why that should be more of a priority than illegal immigration.
"That claim is hilariously wrong. First of all, the statistic provided only measures convictions and not actual number of crimes commited. Second of all, it measures convictions for only one state."
How are you a criminal if you are not convicted?
Do you have other states where illegals commit more crime than the native population?
"Again, the article twists facts. The correct conclusion would be, "deporting illegal immigrants would be very expensive". But deportation is unrelated to the wall."
You are lying. Economists say immigration is a boom to any country that accepts them.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/measuringnationalwellbeing/2016
Even this one has nothing to do with Religion.
Do make sure to tell Speedrace that source is not properly sourced and when finding the actual source it is a survey. Thank me later.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/measuringnationalwellbeing/july2017tojune2018
I also have the idea that the data is fabricated. No mention of Religion so would like you to also mention that. Do make sure the readers know that Speedrace is incapable of sourcing properly. Remember people who are either Republican or Religious more than likely mis-represent data in order to lie about what it actually says. Again thank me later
More than likely he is the DDO profile of Our_Boat_is_Right. I wouldn't blame you if they think they are alike because the Republican party is the party of the establishment not facts feelings.
His case was not that good. Hopefully people on this site will understand.
I plan on winning this won.
I want to push this further along.
Here is my evidence which states why the border wall would be a bad thing.
https://qz.com/1517758/border-wall-facts-to-read-before-trumps-speech-tonight/
Every single bold point is what Trump gets wrong and why the border wall if were done for those reasons would be a failure.
Tell me opposing evidence to this. Just forget about what I said earlier. It is best for me to provide evidence and for you find counter-evidence and we can discuss it.
I want to ask questions before I give my side.
What do you mean by the border wall?
Why would you advocate for it (Evidence)?
If you put me in the receiver you don't need to @ me as well. DA improved on that and when you put me in the receiver I get notified on the message instead of constant notifications of really old debates that people just now comment on. Now I don't even get any emails regarding DDO so even that has gone down under.
It irrational to support Trump because when I ask Trumpists like you give me a rational argument. You are incapable.
What was your profile on DDO?
Was it Club?
Your facts about illegal immigration... were wrong
Missed words.
I am rational. I support my claims with facts if necessary. Your facts about illegal immigration and my facts about 1st Amendment were right. That is what separates us. You don't know when you are wrong and still bring up facts that don't even support your point and I make mistakes and replace false facts with actual facts.
What about what I said about lucid dreaming?
Was that the second paragraph?
If so I don't really have too much control instead use it to pass time when I am bored. When I link it to a specific song in a video game I create narrative which I would consider an improvement. Sure I become the main character but I do improve character development like with Devil May Cry 5.
Meditation is not going to work for me. I have tried several and almost for a week but hasn't helped. Even when I was calm I hardly got anything from it or didn't feel like it improved my mood long enough to be useful.
Do tell me how you are rational.
Does lucid dreaming count?
I pretty much do it every single time I am bored or when I am fueled by something else. If I don't know what to do I can lucid dream and if I have music playing I can lucid dream to that. One example would be the trailer of Devil May Cry 5. I lucid dream being apart of the action while still having my eyes open. Don't know if this helps or not or if this is meditation.
The lucid dreaming does not improve me because when I am out of it I realise that wasn't real and I have to restart the music in order to get the lucid dream again in order to finish the story I have created. I think have been lucid dreaming most of my life so I think that is why I have been so accustomed to it and why meditation you are asking about doesn't work. I don't know if lucid dreaming can be considered meditation for me if it does make my mind more stable for the time of lucid dreaming but it tends to wear off really quickly when I am done with.
"I have spent 10 min just frustrated in some aggravating thought I was having but still feel better afterwards."
Opposite when I speak about how frustrated about afterwards I just feel worse.
"If suddenly it becomes a major fad I'd probably guess it was the whole green thing but if it baffled me I definitely would... spend my afternoons gardening."
Can't imagine myself being one with nature. That would be so boring.
Do tell me how an irrational person uses the exclamation mark rationally.
"I practice mindfulness meditation 20min twice a day. I can't recommend it enough to remain clear headed, calm and peaceful. It's how I recaptured they 'spirituality' I lost from my life several years ago. I clearly have a need for it so I highly recommend it."
Tried it several times but failed.
"I'm normally curious why we like what we like or why things sell. If I look at something for a long time it's usually because it puzzles me in some way."
People like it and they sell. It take someone to actually have an interest in what they are buying for it to sell. This can be a video-games which I have been playing for the majority of my life and newer video-games would appeal to me because of my past experiences with them. I am not going to buy gardening equipment because I find no enjoyment or reason doing gardening.
If only that were true but he is human and has the important position in the United States.
The exclamation mark has come back.
Guess the title of the irrational atheist really does fit you.
Exclamation mark? Guess you are getting emotional.
Missed the an in between I'm and irrational.
Never thought I find someone who wants to be irrational. Guess I have.
Still here?
Guess I assumed too much that you would not like to occupy your time with "crappy online debate website" but guess not.
If you have a name for me I have name for you as well. How about irrational atheist?
You are irrational, If you don't think you are guess you are just like a theist. Incapable critiquing their own view points.
If it is such a "crappy" online debate website why are you still here?
happy=happen
Incapable of introspection. An Irrational atheist who supports Republican party. Can happy even though they are very few and none of them which can provide point for believing in what they believe.
You changed your comment which is why my response might seem like I am not addressing what you said.
I do not agree with you. Do tell me what I agree with you on?
Thank you for admitting you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong. I'll try one more time then go along believing what you want when I can justify what I believe and you can't.
Constitution says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You said this " You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others"
No law is allowed to prohibit the free excerise of Religion. Meaning the 1st Amendment does not protect gay people from persecution. You have added "harm" to the 1st Amendment where it has not included any. It required laws like the Civil rights Act of 1964 to make that happen.
What is your response?
"You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others, and nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say that you can exercise your religion if it directly harms others. Why are we even arguing if we agree?"
The constitution states this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
No mention of harm or even close to it. Do read the 1st Amendment for yourself if you think I am lying about what the constitution actually says.
"Freedom of religion doesn't equal freedom to do as you want."
Let me break this down for you.
Religion is a set of beliefs with an authority like God above it.
When committing to their beliefs they are exercising their right given to them by the 1st Amendment to do so.
The 1st Amendment does not say they are not allowed to stone gays since exercising their Religion can be stoning gays.
What part of this was wrong?
Infinite regress?
So no-one should police the police police?