Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
If you assume God exists and lets say the Bible is the word of God and science can only be in line with God then yeah you would be true but those are still assumptions.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Same reason men and women find women's breasts attractive. They have a particular feature they like and latch onto it with their partners or while judging other people.1st
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why people find men's breasts attractive?
Why don't you fully comprehend what you are saying?
Why I spoke about that earlier?
Which one?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I said more than one point so I want you to be more specific about what you are specifically targeting with the why.But why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Where did you mention that?This is a topic for Christians to discuss.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ask men and women who get turned on by men's breasts. You don't have a case you are just spurting out words you don't fully comprehend. I have already addressed this that by saying anything can be sexual. From feet to hair. Did you miss that?Women breasts are considered sexual and nudity, not a mans
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So its a belief then? Guess this was entirely useless since you haven't exactly gave anyone new information.Omar, I believe in a God.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
My breaking point is when independent sources have information that Iran have a nuclear weapon and a representative of the Iranian government has the intent of bombing US or their allies. The intent must be said not implied. Yes there are cases where they can be hiding their true agenda but highly doubtful Iran bombing won't slip outside the government.what's your breaking point?
what about all the death to america chants their people do?
This isn't argument for Iran having the intent of blowing up US or is an argument for Iran having nuclear weapons. I don't care what people say when they can't back it up. I care about what they say when they can back it up. When it is proven they have nuclear weapons then they go in the US rant again then I think it would be the right thing to do to go to war with them. I would personally try and make them you know give up their weapons instead of murdering a ton of people but I am going by fair US defense rules not by my own standard which the US should be are the peacekeepers of the world.
what about the fact that they are religious fanatics who might be okay with sacrificing their people to get a few good shots in at israel or the usa?
Not an argument for Iran having a nuclear bomb or when they do have the bomb having the intent of using it.
you seem to be suggesting an iran with nukes isn't a problem. i dont know what rock you are living under, or if you are taking your crazy meds properly
I live in a house depending on your definition can be rock but I don't think I am under the actual definition. If you meant it metaphorically then no I do know the threat of Iran but I just don't see the information to support that.
Just to make things clear. You have yet to answer the most important questions in making this a fair assault on Iran.
1) Evidence of them having nuclear weapons?
2) Evidence of their intent of using those nuclear weapons after the time they had those weapons?
An independent source would be greatly appreciated but lets just stick to that.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Then change the deal then. No-one has yet to give me evidence of Iran breaking the last deal so making them sign a new one if they deem it fair they would accept in return of not being bombed. Problem solved. No war.The missiles hold no bearing within the "nuclear deal". That's why its called a bad deal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You can't prove God did anything so this is useless. God could have started evolution or didn't. Neither you or I have the information to say about what we don't know.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
So a women can't show her breasts but a man show his?
This issue does get into some thornier grey areas, however. For instance, should artwork depicting nudity be banned? Some of the greatest masterpieces contain full or partial nudity, masterpieces like Botticelli's The Birth of Venus or, more recently, Hockney's Peter Getting out of Nick's Pool. Ancient Greek art is littered with phallic imagery, sex scenes, and other nudity. What do we do about these kinds of images, and how do we distinguish them from other kinds of images containing nudity?
Anything can be considered art so nude sculptures can't be allowed if you take a hard-line stance to in the form of female/male genitalia and women's breasts. So basically nude art is not a good defense for having nude sculptures because anything can be considered art so if you allow nude sculptures on the basis it is art you are going to have to allow rule34 stuff as well while also porn-stars nudes as well. All of them can be considered art so adults content rules would be useless if it was based on what is art.
That is under the assumption that you don't want the rules put in place to not be arbitrary.
Another thorny area might be sex scenes in movies. Does the fact of what is being portrayed make the content "adult" even if the actors' bodies are not visibly exposed or nude? Or what of clips of movies or shows like Game of Thrones, where nudity is displayed? These obviously have artistic merit, so should they be prohibited?
If no male or female genitalia is shown or female breasts then I guess it would abide by the rules you currently have as in what can be worn on the beach. If sexual content like seen from sex scenes is adult content then like I said in the last paragraph anything can be considered adult content. From feet to hair can be sexual so you would pretty much have to ban everything. Even animals and even in-animate objects. Animals are considered sexual to people who like bestiality and in-animate objects like dildos are used to pleasure humans.
Basically just keep it to what is considered societally okay on the beach. The only real critique I had was with the question I gave at the top. If answered sufficiently then from my eyes you shouldn't change anything from the beach standard.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
We already had that deal, and President Trump is placing sanctions because Iran is still making missiles, purportedly to point them at Israel, and also supporting certain militant groups.
Evidence of Iran making missiles and in the agreement did it say they weren't allowed to make missiles?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
here is an article that says if iran opts out of the treaty, and doesn't let inspectors in, it may become impossible to tell if they are working on a bombi think that article also talks about how they plan to enrich more than is allowed under the plan, unless they get economic relief from sanctions. just google words like iran and enriching to find out more on that.
If this is the best you can find then your claims are insufficient. The best you can come up with as if statement. Lets say Iran are making a nuclear bomb. Why is US yet again intervening into matters that don't concern them? Because of their ally Israel? They are only an ally of the US when a Republican is in charge. When a Democrat is in charge they besmirch their name like how Netanyahu disrespected Obama in his political ad?
So the US ought to value protectionist ethno-state like Israel is what you are saying?
here is an article from seven years ago. it talks about iran stating it intends to expand its nuclear program and wipe israel off the map.
They had 7 years to make a bomb. Does making a nuclear bomb take a long time to make or did they keep their end of the bargain with the Iran nuclear deal? Whatever it is you would have to conclude they are not a threat. Even if they are currently still trying to make a bomb for 7 years haven't you heard of a thing called espionage? I am supposed to believe one of if not the greatest superpower on Earth can't even find evidence of this bomb being in development or find Iran's end of the deal was not kept with the Iran nuclear deal? This to me looks like BS and you are justifying countless of deaths just like other justified countless of deaths in Afghanistan, Syria and Vietnam. The list goes on but you get the point. History repeats itself and yet people like you don't understand the clear patterns when it comes to US intervention.
i think it's inevitable that iran gets nukes. eventually we'll get a pacifist president for something like eight years, and iran can just get em then.
A threat must first be seen before the US can justify another war. I doubt that will happen because of the war profiteers but it would be fair and what also would be fair is actually specifically targeting the threats not civilians.
there's no good reason for iran not to allow inspectors look at their nuclear program. once that is cut, it's time for an attack. israel would be totally justified in attacking as they had been planning seven years ago. and the usa would have to get its back, and should do it regardless of who joins in.
Guess when the US superpower comes knockin you better start obeyin. Who would have thought the very country that values freedom over everything has a hypocritical stance when other countries do the same? Iran is one such example and Israel is another. Iran is an enemy therefore they are not allowed to have their freedom. Israel is an ally so they can get away with what they are doing to Palestine and allowing the authoritarian Netanyahu to still be in-charge.
Created:
Does anyone else have actual evidence of Iran breaking the deal or are you all not going to give evidence?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Do you have actual evidence of Iran breaking the deal or are you not going to give evidence?
If that isn't the claim why should the US bomb Iran? You have already stated how much of an insignificant threat Iran is yet you still want to bomb them. Has Iran in anyway tried to bomb the US or is that an assumption that you have?
Created:
-->
@Alec
Still says this:
"I support the death penalty as punishment in at least one real or hypothetical or real instance. My opponent must be against the death penalty for all conceivable crimes. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."
Characters have changed though.
What you should add:
"I support the death penalty for murder and treason. My opponent must be against the death penalty for both of these crimes. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all others rounds are okay. The BoP is shared"
Created:
-->
@Alec
Alright fine. Am I allowed to rebut in the 1st Round or do I have to wait until the 2nd?I can make it 10,000 characters, but I like my new description better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The definition clearly lays out people who do not associate with male or female when it comes to gender are allowed under the very definition you use. You don't have a defense so you call me delusional.The first definition is the actual one. The one next to it solely describes what it means modernly. You have to be delusional if you think there are more than 2 genders
Created:
-->
@Alec
How about we agree here or in the debate itself that I don't straw-man you? That way I get the general description and you get me not straw-manning you. Can you also make it 10,000 characters I would be kind of annoyed if run out of characters. Don't think I will but less chance if it was 10,000.I think you would be strawmanizing me if I were to defend the death penalty for general crimes. I hope I'm not a straw man. I don't want to have to argue the death penalty for misdemeanors.
Created:
-->
@Alec
No because then I am forced to use those as the talking points for my side instead it can be more general like the one I proposed so that I can choose to defend my position in various of ways.So if I say, "I want the death penalty for murder and treason" and you have to prove that both of these are a bad idea, would that be a compromise.
Is this a good description?
I would like it to be more general which doesn't mean you can't use those arguments. It just means I have more to work with for my side instead of being forced to talk about murder and treason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
"denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female"Gender=either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
You made my point for me.
It is either of the two gender societal. You can choose another gender
I am guessing you meant you can't. Your very definition disagrees with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Penis or vagina. Thats a genderThere is nothing in between
Did you not understand? Sex is biological. Gender is not.
Facts do not care about your feelings
I don't see the facts. All I see are your feelings being used against what the definitions are.
Created:
-->
@Alec
What's the difference? I sense a trap.
The difference is I am not agreeing that you only have X amount of crimes you would want to have the death penalty for as an assumption before accepting the debate instead I will talk about it in the debate if you bring it up.
Created:
-->
@Alec
No this is what I want you to do to the description:
Original
"I support the death penalty as punishment in at least one real or hypothetical or real instance. My opponent must be against the death penalty for all conceivable crimes. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."
New one
"I support the death penalty. My opponent must be against the death penalty. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."
In your arguments you can talk about the instances were you agree with the death penalty. I want that to be apart of the discussion not assumptions I am agreeing to debate you on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Sex is biological.
Gender is social and culturally constructed AKA the environment.
What do you have a problem with?
Created:
-->
@Alec
How about a debate about gender? I know your stance as in there are only 2 genders. I will take the other. Make sure to add definitions.
Created:
-->
@Alec
"I support the death penalty as punishment in at least one real or hypothetical or real instance. My opponent must be against the death penalty for all conceivable crimes."
You are making me take the most radical position while you are not also. I would be against the death penalty in all cases but you are for the death penalty in one case. Make it like:
should we value the death penalty? You take the position pro and my opponent takes the position as con.
Change it to you support the death penalty and I do not then I will accept. I think that is fair because we both would be arguing the philosophical grounds and if you want to argue with data as well.
Can you change the word count to at least 10,000 as well?
Created:
-->
@Alec
Other debates I have looked at that you have been apart of so you can simply use those arguments but better are:
I'll put a joke one in as well:
Created:
-->
@Alec
Border wall. You can start by not forfeiting Round 1.I'm not backing down. What do you want to debate about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yes it does. Liberals are evil, hate filled bigots who ruin the lives of anyone not in on their agenda.
Your reply:
I agree with this statement. Forcing their agenda upon other people is corrupt
All liberals are evil because they are "Forcing" their agenda on others?
First 1 university is a representation of liberals?
Second how did Harvard force their agenda to these kids? D
Third how is it corrupt to an allege claim that Harvard forced their agenda?
Created:
-->
@Alec
I would enjoy debating you, but it would be too time consuming. I have an AP Chem test coming up and I have to study for it. I could debate you after May 9th.
Post #3 here.
So are you going to back down or change the "could debate you" to won't debate you? I would like a reason if you are backing down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Read my first response. I did critique what you said but guess you can't see.
Created:
-->
@Alec
What about me?
You did say you were going to debate me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not actually against my ideas instead point out a few key words. Do you have ADHD or something? Was my informative comment too much for a person like you? I think it is judging from my previous comments to you and how little you do to respond. Even your opening comments are copy and pasted. Guess you must have a disorder which makes you incapable of sitting through things that you don't find interesting. Oh well. Not my problem.All i see is squeaking and calling me propoganda
Created:
Posted in:
@Athias
An anarchist who thinks education has some sort of marxist agenda? Never thought I would see the day.
Your arguments are bad. Mainly based on what you are defending. When defending private healthcare you come with such lackluster arguments that are easily refuted. Thoht did that in DDO. RationalMadman did that here on DA. When will you learn? Oh wait your indoctrinated into the anarchist dogma. I would be more willing to challenge your ideas but most of the population consider anarchism a trash idea so I am not really gaining a lot. I'll stick to dunking on the conservatives before I even think about challenging dare I say it worse ideas than conservatives. At least conservatives want a government you don't and think private companies are in some way going to represent the people around them instead of their own interests.
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
2 swing states were outrageously wrong (wi and MI)
Proof?
That's why people don't trust polls, because it caters to the echochamber left that inherently wants to be counted in a poll.
I don't know if you want to fit in or not but the ones who have problems with academia like yourself are uneducated. If you want to be a voice for the uneducated go right ahead. Just want to inform you what position you are talking.
After reading the article, I also have a 3rd theory...that most of these polling businesses are based in urban centers, so they likely recruit a great many urban liberals to conduct the polls. Not only does this lend to obvious confirmation bias, but they would likely also hold disdain for the areas they would need to travel to and the people they would have to talk to in order to sample the smelly walmart deplorable Trump base. This would lead to the trump voters not being represented in the polls accurately.
Confirmation bias? Hypocritical coming from you. Clearly have post hoc rationalization about things you don't like and assume sources you like even if they are not true. Very rarely a hypocrite is right. This scenario isn't one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Neon Genesis Evangelion
Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood
Cowboy Bebop
Samurai Champloo
One Punch Man
Teen Titans
Bojack Horseman
F is for Family
Rick and Morty
The Amazing World of Gumball
I know I cheated when it was about Japanese cartoon but I haven't watched a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Poor boys. They need to protest for their rights. Call their movement man-minist. Who would have thought right wing propaganda was so good that they can make you believe contradictory things.
Are you against freedom of choice of a man to leave the education system? Are you for an authoritarian policy to force men into education? Choose one instead of being contradictory.
On one hand you believe in freedom but then on another you want to force education to make sure men stay in school.
If that is not your position. Stop fence sitting and tell me what you actually want or you know be like other right wingers. When push comes to shove they don't actually have ideas they want implemented instead virtue signal about what they want but don't actually do it. Unless of course the right winger propaganda has worked their charm so much that bad ideas are now considered good. Basically an internet tough guy who says he is going to do something but doesn't actually do it but when the competition becomes weaker then he decides to act courageous not when it is courageous to maintain what you stand for.
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
So tell me why ALL the polls had both Wi and MI in the bag for Hillary?Why did all the polls have the swing states in the margin of error for Hillary?
1 state out of every single other state was wrong? Must mean the polls are wrong (sarcasm). You really don't know what you are talking about when you say the polls are wrong even though majority of the time they are correct. In this scenario they were wrong about one thing yet you are still complaining. Shame you commit a special pleading fallacy when you don't have the same rigorous from Trump.
This assumed the polls were wrong. They didn't provide how it was wrong. They are assuming it. Why are you showing me something when my problem with the assumption made not what was said after the assumption?
(in other words...the silent majority isn't counted in the polls)
People who don't vote you know are difficult to measure on what they will do apart from not vote. What do you expect them to mind read the silent majority and know what will happen? No that isn't the case.
I don't agree the polls were wrong and neither does this link provide a case for them being wrong. It adds like you do a post hoc rationalization. Not explaining how the polls are wrong instead simply making excuses for their bad polling. You know what the polling institute do instead of making excuses for their bad polling with WI? Make sure it is more effective. That's if I agree that they need work. Sure anything needs work but to say the polls were wrong is a lie because they were good at predicating what actually occurred. I clearly laid out how they weren't wrong yet you give me an autopsy report of people making excuses for thinking Hillary would win if they took that position. That is their fault for not realizing both sides could have won because of the swing states.
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
Michigan had not voted republican since 1988..in fact there were many historic election results that had districts voting for Trump who have never voted red since 1988That's how terrible Hillary was.
You have clearly not stated how you derived at that conclusion. People can simply just like Republicans over Trump or have good things to say about Trump and nothing to say about Hillary. Since I have pointed out 2 different scenarios you would actually have to prove how these voted for Trump because of how bad Hillary was. I doubt you would even try correcting your mistakes instead of making another post hoc rationalization as in when I have showed how your arguments don't follow you pivot to something different. Removing yourself from what you said before as if it didn't exist. Not apologizing for your mistakes instead simply move the goalposts to something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
She. I'm a he.I keep thinking of Ilhan Omar every time I read your name, so I picture her behind the computer. Oops lol.
I guess we can have a discussion about her it you want. Feel free to make a forum topic if you want me to address your grievances of her. No worries about thinking I am female. I wouldn't know what a mharman is and if I did I would have thought that very thing are the gender of other Mharmans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think you mean chance. You haven't exactly said how NYT got to that conclusion instead simply missed out key information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Thanks. These are based on what this site considers to be reliable. They were only wrong about Wisconsin. Sorry about missing MI. Did check it twice so at least I know I only missed out one data but if I added that in. The polls would be correct about Michigan.I'll give you credit. You did your homework. I guess there are some reliable polls out there. I'm not going to say that all of them are though.
She only proved late state by state polls were reliable. She didn't prove the early polls were, nor did she prove the national polls were.
She? I am a he. The national polls were correct in a sense with what they predicated was accurate with what happened.
The national polls (https://www.270towin.com/2016-polls-clinton-trump/) state:
Hillary had a 3% lead against Trump. When we see what happened:
On the right hand next to the popular vote percentage she was 2.1% higher. I would still consider only being wrong about 0.9% as accurate.
If I am understanding what the national polls judge on that site. Which states "This page displays the current 270toWin Polling Average for each state." I think it polls for the popular vote then the electoral map the site decides to plot that in with the information they have gathered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Donald Trump became the president of the United States, with over 300 votes. He could have lost a couple of swing states and still won.
Yes Trump did win the election but who won the popular vote?
Not a couple since not all of the states have an equal amount of votes. Lets say Trump lost the swing states of Pennsylvania and Florida he would have lost. Depends on what you mean by couple.
Poll before 2016:
When the election was finished:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, without a soul-detector or soul-o-meter, the robot could claim they had a soul just as easily as the human could.
That is if I agree we even have souls. I don't but yes you are right that artificial intelligence can simply claim they had a soul just like a human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I am asking about the votes combined not specific state elections. Who won?It addressed a question you asked
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Is this addressed to me?Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in New Jersey, and lost the popular vote to Donald Trump in Kansas.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Created: