I think education should be faster in elementary, middle, and highschool so you have more time to learn the hard stuff in college. I found highschool easy, but college is much harder.
I would support something like the BRI if America was the head of it. I don't like the idea of communist countries getting power over non communist countries.
Antarctica receives more rainfall than the moon and water can always be made by melting Ice. There are already big cities in the Sahara like Cairo, although the region could use more cities. I'd prefer colonizing either the Sahara or Antarctica before any extra terrestrial body.
I fail to see how the number of times the bible referring to an activity constitutes whether it is sinful or not. If there was a law that prohibited something, it doesn't matter how many times that law was made. If the law was made merely once, it was enough to be prohibited. If the bible mentions 1 time where an activity is banned, then it's banned according to the Bible. There are other things that the Bible prohibits that don't come up that frequently yet they are still banned. I think "Thou shall not kill" is only mentioned in the Bible once, and God breaks that commandment repeatedly. The bible mentions disapproving of homosexuality 6 to 7 times, and unless all of these verses were mistranslated into something else, it is safe to say the Bible disapproves of homosexuality.
If your living in China, you better watch out; communist government would jail you for speaking out against the Chinese state. I'm not saying this to censor you; I'm saying it so you don't get into trouble by the communist government.
"Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest"
If this was the case, then the verse would say something along the lines of, "You shall not lie with your sister as with your wife, for it is an abomination." But I think the verse was referring to homosexuality. I fail to see how a Bible verse that arguably refers to homosexuality could instead be referring to incest. The bible mentions homosexuality enough times in a negative light for it to be sinful, unless every single translation is out of context, which I highly doubt.
Granted, I don't hate gays, just like I don't hate atheists. An action being sinful does not mean it's practice is to be abolished, but if something violates the word of God, it's a sin.
This is one reason why I'm proud to be an atheist.
“ You know that people are still alive whose grandparents were enslaved right?? You do know that there are people whose PARENTS were fucking enslaved?”
There is not a single person in the US who has parents or grandparents who were slaves. Moreover the human species is able to recover from past injustice quite well. Otherwise Indian Americans would be failing due to the
British mistreatment a long time ago. Income mobility is very high in the US, maybe not compared to other countries, but it’s still pretty high.
As Ronald Regan said, “The problem with liberals isn’t that they are ignorant. It’s that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Blacks were slaves 160 years ago, and due to the race gap having a tendency to deteriorate, giving blacks reperations isn't needed and would bankrupt the US. Also, your an asshole for telling me to shut up on the basis of a political disagreement. Your like that Twitter liberal that is so angry at others while preaching tolerance.
Twitter Liberals like yourself: We believe in tolerance, but if you oppose BLM we won't be tolerant to you.
God: I love you, but I will burn you in hell if you oppose me.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=white+supremest&cvid=82cbf92eb6974d54b959039d59e74a4c&aqs=edge..69i57j0l6.3291j0j1&pglt=43&FORM=ANNAB1&PC=DCTS states the definition of a white supremist is:
"supporting the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people."
So it's possible for one to believe whites are smarter while not advocating for whites to dominate society. A person who believes this is not a white supremist.
What do you mean by migrants competing with workers? Do you mean competing for jobs? If that’s the case, America’s population goes up year after year and our unemployment rate does not grow. The unemployment rate is not tied to population growth.
I'm glad the pro open border side won for once. You'd figure if tthe stats on people that supported open borders were accurate, a supporter couldn't win. Yet I want more support for this idea.
Next time you want me to respond, put my account name as a receiver.
"In contrast, most African Americans can trace their family history back to generations of slavery, followed by a century and a half of systematic racism."
Slavery in the past would harm blacks today as much as marital rape laws in the 1960s (when it was legal to rape your spouse) would harm females today. Many groups in the US faced historical oppression. The Irish, Chinese, and Italians faced racism when they came to the US. But they didn't play the victim card, they made something good of themselves and they ceased to be victims. Blacks in the US right now earn a salary comparable to White Canadians. Black people are doing just fine in the US.
I'm pretty sure most Americans, even if they are religious would not understand what you said because most Americans don't know Kurdish. You could have addressed your main points in R2, but you didn't.
I think you mean, "year", so you claim Joe Biden only has 2 years left to be alive, whereas I claim that Biden will live for more than 2 additional years.
"the CDC report did indeed show that black people are more likely to be single BUT their definition of single was unmarried and 70% of black mothers are unmarried---https://www.givelegacy.com/resources/the-truth-about-black-fatherhood/"
If 70% of black mothers are unmarried, then they are going to raise kids that are more likely to commit crime since the kids won't be as disciplined since father figures discipline the most since they aren't as worried about retaliation as much as mothers are.
But redlining is over (I think) and segregation is over. 50 years later, what's causing the black community to fall behind is the absence of black fathers from the home. If historical segregation is the cause for modern day poverty among blacks, then Indians (another dark skinned ethnic group) would be in a similar situation. Yet Indian Americans earn higher salaries than any other ethnic group in the US. Indians don't have as bad of a single motherhood problem; they have more successful people.
What a lot of people on the left (whether it be on gun control, race issues, or other stuff) is they often forget about lurking variables, ie variables that would explain why for instance blacks are more likely to go to jail than whites. I found 2 lurking variables other than racism that explain why blacks are more likely to go to jail than whites.
1) Blacks are more likely to grow up in single motherhood homes. People that grow up in single motherhood homes are more likely to be in poverty and more likely to be in jail due to the lack of discipline they received as a kid and the poverty that comes with being in a single motherhood home. This is why I believe nobody should be raised in a single motherhood home. It's also why America's prison rate has been going up; because single motherhood is on the rise. People say that America's prison rate is 5x higher than other places because of the war on drugs. Yet drug crimes are only responsible for a minority of crime cases in the US(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.bM8nD2FPOd9WvNFzkfJO8wHaFj?pid=ImgDet&rs=1). A majority of crimes are violent or property. America's incarceration rate is higher not because America is a tyrannical place, but we got more people doing things that everybody believes should get you in jail. Things like murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, arson, property crimes. America's population is more violent.
2) Blacks are more likely to live in urban areas and people that live in urban areas whether black or white are more likely to commit crime because people in urban areas tend to be less happy and frustrated, angry people are more likely to commit crime. Given that there are pros and cons to living in an urban area, I would not be against it for everybody, but one con of living in an urban area is your going to be more frustrated and as a result, your going to be more likely to commit crime. One pro is you tend to earn more money although things are more expensive in cities.
How would sterilizing everyone do harm? Your literally preventing the birth of murderers so your saving lives. If people wanted kids, there could be a law that mandates the only way you can get kids is through adoption. Not only would it prevent murderers from being born, but if you adopt a kid, that kid is less likely to commit murder. This doesn't mean that this should be mandated because freedom is a trade off, whether that is the freedom to breed or the freedom to own a pitbull. I'm not ready for a rated debate yet. Maybe later.
I was making the claim that although 20 people die a year in the US due to pitbulls, there are way more dangerous things that should be legal. It would be like sterilizing everybody in the country because their kid might be a murderer(I know you oppose forced sterilization of people, so for you this stance is unprincipled). You would prevent 9x as many deaths from sterilizing everybody as you would from banning a dog breed. Most pitbulls aren't going to kill anyone just like most people don't kill anyone. The families of the 20 people that died would feel sadness and they might want the individual dog that did the killing to be put to death. This doesn't mean they want all pitbulls to be banned from every household in the US as the vast majority of pitbulls will never kill anyone.
I don't think I did new arguments in the final round and those weren't banned in this debate. All I did was addressed your single contention and this took a lot of space because I could afford the space.
Suppose that the only transgenders that transitioned were 16 or older as what you advocate for. If they need to be under hormones for 2 years to compete, they would be at least 18 by the time that is done. How can a transgender individual compete in high school sports if they are at least 18?
The overwhelming majority of transgender athletes would be unable to compete if they only transitioned when 16 or older and if they had to be on hormones for 2 years. The ones that could could only compete senior year and this is assuming that 16 years of age to transition and 2 years of hormones are enough. The experts might claim more time is needed to eliminate the testosterone advantage. I think you said that as much as 5 years are needed to eliminate the testosterone advantage somewhere ( I honestly don’t know too much about this so from my perspective I’m learning). If 5 years of hormones are needed, then this rules out transgender athletes from competing since there wouldn’t be enough time for the hormones to work if the trans individual starts out at 16.
I don't like China having influence, so I agree with you.
I just posted the 34500th comment on DART.
I really like this debate.
I think education should be faster in elementary, middle, and highschool so you have more time to learn the hard stuff in college. I found highschool easy, but college is much harder.
I would support something like the BRI if America was the head of it. I don't like the idea of communist countries getting power over non communist countries.
How do people come up with rhymes like this?
Of course RM picks a game that few people know about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp1Q-X-M-mI. This explains BLM and white SJWs perfectly.
Antarctica receives more rainfall than the moon and water can always be made by melting Ice. There are already big cities in the Sahara like Cairo, although the region could use more cities. I'd prefer colonizing either the Sahara or Antarctica before any extra terrestrial body.
Antarctica should be colonized before any celestial body.
Forfeited
I fail to see how the number of times the bible referring to an activity constitutes whether it is sinful or not. If there was a law that prohibited something, it doesn't matter how many times that law was made. If the law was made merely once, it was enough to be prohibited. If the bible mentions 1 time where an activity is banned, then it's banned according to the Bible. There are other things that the Bible prohibits that don't come up that frequently yet they are still banned. I think "Thou shall not kill" is only mentioned in the Bible once, and God breaks that commandment repeatedly. The bible mentions disapproving of homosexuality 6 to 7 times, and unless all of these verses were mistranslated into something else, it is safe to say the Bible disapproves of homosexuality.
If your living in China, you better watch out; communist government would jail you for speaking out against the Chinese state. I'm not saying this to censor you; I'm saying it so you don't get into trouble by the communist government.
"Leviticus 18 is almost entirely about condemning incest"
If this was the case, then the verse would say something along the lines of, "You shall not lie with your sister as with your wife, for it is an abomination." But I think the verse was referring to homosexuality. I fail to see how a Bible verse that arguably refers to homosexuality could instead be referring to incest. The bible mentions homosexuality enough times in a negative light for it to be sinful, unless every single translation is out of context, which I highly doubt.
Granted, I don't hate gays, just like I don't hate atheists. An action being sinful does not mean it's practice is to be abolished, but if something violates the word of God, it's a sin.
This is one reason why I'm proud to be an atheist.
What about Lectiviticus 18:22? Sorry I can’t spell, but I think you know what I’m referring too.
“ You know that people are still alive whose grandparents were enslaved right?? You do know that there are people whose PARENTS were fucking enslaved?”
There is not a single person in the US who has parents or grandparents who were slaves. Moreover the human species is able to recover from past injustice quite well. Otherwise Indian Americans would be failing due to the
British mistreatment a long time ago. Income mobility is very high in the US, maybe not compared to other countries, but it’s still pretty high.
As Ronald Regan said, “The problem with liberals isn’t that they are ignorant. It’s that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Blacks were slaves 160 years ago, and due to the race gap having a tendency to deteriorate, giving blacks reperations isn't needed and would bankrupt the US. Also, your an asshole for telling me to shut up on the basis of a political disagreement. Your like that Twitter liberal that is so angry at others while preaching tolerance.
Twitter Liberals like yourself: We believe in tolerance, but if you oppose BLM we won't be tolerant to you.
God: I love you, but I will burn you in hell if you oppose me.
Me: Aren't extreme people just so honest?
You already have a debate like this going. Do you intend to duplicate? I disagree, but I don’t have the motivation to debate.
Good debate; sorry Calculus got in the way.
Good luck in defeating a racist.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=white+supremest&cvid=82cbf92eb6974d54b959039d59e74a4c&aqs=edge..69i57j0l6.3291j0j1&pglt=43&FORM=ANNAB1&PC=DCTS states the definition of a white supremist is:
"supporting the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people."
So it's possible for one to believe whites are smarter while not advocating for whites to dominate society. A person who believes this is not a white supremist.
Epstein was killed by our lizard government.
If you drive drunk and you kill someone, you should get tried as a murderer. If you destroy their car, you should be tried as a thief.
I won't be able to respond the last round because of some summer work I have to do. Sorry about that.
If I did, it was a long time ago.
I won't be able to respond the last 2 rounds because of some summer work I have to do. Are you fine with this?
1st comment.
I want both Israel and Palestine to join NATO. Then they would stop fighting each other.
What do you mean by migrants competing with workers? Do you mean competing for jobs? If that’s the case, America’s population goes up year after year and our unemployment rate does not grow. The unemployment rate is not tied to population growth.
I'm glad the pro open border side won for once. You'd figure if tthe stats on people that supported open borders were accurate, a supporter couldn't win. Yet I want more support for this idea.
Next time you want me to respond, put my account name as a receiver.
"In contrast, most African Americans can trace their family history back to generations of slavery, followed by a century and a half of systematic racism."
Slavery in the past would harm blacks today as much as marital rape laws in the 1960s (when it was legal to rape your spouse) would harm females today. Many groups in the US faced historical oppression. The Irish, Chinese, and Italians faced racism when they came to the US. But they didn't play the victim card, they made something good of themselves and they ceased to be victims. Blacks in the US right now earn a salary comparable to White Canadians. Black people are doing just fine in the US.
Honestly, I want the easy win and I didn't know this was a joke debate when I accepted.
Please vote on this debate.
I'm pretty sure most Americans, even if they are religious would not understand what you said because most Americans don't know Kurdish. You could have addressed your main points in R2, but you didn't.
Jesus was alive when healthcare and starvation were bigger problems than now, so that would explain why Jesus lived less than Biden.
I think you mean, "year", so you claim Joe Biden only has 2 years left to be alive, whereas I claim that Biden will live for more than 2 additional years.
yil?
"the CDC report did indeed show that black people are more likely to be single BUT their definition of single was unmarried and 70% of black mothers are unmarried---https://www.givelegacy.com/resources/the-truth-about-black-fatherhood/"
If 70% of black mothers are unmarried, then they are going to raise kids that are more likely to commit crime since the kids won't be as disciplined since father figures discipline the most since they aren't as worried about retaliation as much as mothers are.
But redlining is over (I think) and segregation is over. 50 years later, what's causing the black community to fall behind is the absence of black fathers from the home. If historical segregation is the cause for modern day poverty among blacks, then Indians (another dark skinned ethnic group) would be in a similar situation. Yet Indian Americans earn higher salaries than any other ethnic group in the US. Indians don't have as bad of a single motherhood problem; they have more successful people.
What a lot of people on the left (whether it be on gun control, race issues, or other stuff) is they often forget about lurking variables, ie variables that would explain why for instance blacks are more likely to go to jail than whites. I found 2 lurking variables other than racism that explain why blacks are more likely to go to jail than whites.
1) Blacks are more likely to grow up in single motherhood homes. People that grow up in single motherhood homes are more likely to be in poverty and more likely to be in jail due to the lack of discipline they received as a kid and the poverty that comes with being in a single motherhood home. This is why I believe nobody should be raised in a single motherhood home. It's also why America's prison rate has been going up; because single motherhood is on the rise. People say that America's prison rate is 5x higher than other places because of the war on drugs. Yet drug crimes are only responsible for a minority of crime cases in the US(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.bM8nD2FPOd9WvNFzkfJO8wHaFj?pid=ImgDet&rs=1). A majority of crimes are violent or property. America's incarceration rate is higher not because America is a tyrannical place, but we got more people doing things that everybody believes should get you in jail. Things like murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, arson, property crimes. America's population is more violent.
2) Blacks are more likely to live in urban areas and people that live in urban areas whether black or white are more likely to commit crime because people in urban areas tend to be less happy and frustrated, angry people are more likely to commit crime. Given that there are pros and cons to living in an urban area, I would not be against it for everybody, but one con of living in an urban area is your going to be more frustrated and as a result, your going to be more likely to commit crime. One pro is you tend to earn more money although things are more expensive in cities.
How would sterilizing everyone do harm? Your literally preventing the birth of murderers so your saving lives. If people wanted kids, there could be a law that mandates the only way you can get kids is through adoption. Not only would it prevent murderers from being born, but if you adopt a kid, that kid is less likely to commit murder. This doesn't mean that this should be mandated because freedom is a trade off, whether that is the freedom to breed or the freedom to own a pitbull. I'm not ready for a rated debate yet. Maybe later.
I was supposed to waive the first round. I think I make a plan in my second round.
I was making the claim that although 20 people die a year in the US due to pitbulls, there are way more dangerous things that should be legal. It would be like sterilizing everybody in the country because their kid might be a murderer(I know you oppose forced sterilization of people, so for you this stance is unprincipled). You would prevent 9x as many deaths from sterilizing everybody as you would from banning a dog breed. Most pitbulls aren't going to kill anyone just like most people don't kill anyone. The families of the 20 people that died would feel sadness and they might want the individual dog that did the killing to be put to death. This doesn't mean they want all pitbulls to be banned from every household in the US as the vast majority of pitbulls will never kill anyone.
I would argue if your willing to ban pitbulls to save 20 lives a year, this isn't libetarian. Please change that on your profile.
Please vote on this; it's a very easy read.
I don't think I did new arguments in the final round and those weren't banned in this debate. All I did was addressed your single contention and this took a lot of space because I could afford the space.
I'm libetarian, but I don't approve of anarchy.
Suppose that the only transgenders that transitioned were 16 or older as what you advocate for. If they need to be under hormones for 2 years to compete, they would be at least 18 by the time that is done. How can a transgender individual compete in high school sports if they are at least 18?
The overwhelming majority of transgender athletes would be unable to compete if they only transitioned when 16 or older and if they had to be on hormones for 2 years. The ones that could could only compete senior year and this is assuming that 16 years of age to transition and 2 years of hormones are enough. The experts might claim more time is needed to eliminate the testosterone advantage. I think you said that as much as 5 years are needed to eliminate the testosterone advantage somewhere ( I honestly don’t know too much about this so from my perspective I’m learning). If 5 years of hormones are needed, then this rules out transgender athletes from competing since there wouldn’t be enough time for the hormones to work if the trans individual starts out at 16.
Thoughts?
I can modify my position based on what I later think.
I'm bringing this up just for fun.
Classic type1.
Bump