Yeah, I have come to the conclusion that he actually thinks what he says. At first, I thought he was a white racist guy that was trolling by making the same arguments and only flipping the races.
Nope, just someone who likes spewing nonsense for attention.
The term "white supremacist" is meaningless, really. The definition that I was familiar with was that it is the belief that Whites should dominate and rule over other races. Merriam-Webster's definition is somewhat similar to that.
"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, not only must you believe that White people are superior, you must ALSO believe they SHOULD dominate society.
Similar to how nobody can agree on what "racism" means. Now you can't be "racist" to White people. Both terms that they are trying to change to fit a political narrative/now try to use to demonize conservative political opponents.
This was the entire reason the First Amendment was created. To allow true intellectuals to battle in the marketplace of ideas over such critical topics. Bravo!
Well there really wasn't such a thing as "gender identity" until some pervert psychologist had a boy's genitals cut off and forced him to rehearse sexual acts with his twin brother.
Maybe some day we'll have a similar event for those suffering from limb dysphoria. Then they can cut off their limbs without fear of persecution.
And I'm certain there is some real damage done when now-infertile people realize that they aren't "transgender" and made a really stupid decision at 18 years-old (or younger depending on your state) -well before their brain is done forming.
If I tell my doctor that I hate my hands, that my hands make me uncomfortable, and that I identify as a handless person, do you think they should chop off my hands?
Because if so, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on genital mutilation for the sake of "gender affirmation".
Well I'm seeing numbers that sexual harassment levels have stayed stagnant since the 1980s, despite having an enormous increase of women in executive roles(40% reported harassment). That being said, the numbers in studies go from like 20%-60%, so who knows. However, if we are assuming that men sexually harass women because they have power and there isn't a hormonal reason, are we to assume that women, if given power, would sexually harass men?
And you see, you are again drawing a false equivalence. A real equivalence to the depression treatment would be for a man with low testosterone to be given testosterone supplements. His body is BIOLOGICALLY supposed to have certain levels of something, but it doesn't have the right amount. Similarly, we are biologically supposed to have certain levels of serotonin to regulate our moods, which sometimes fails, so we are given supplements.
Conversely, a BIOLOGICAL teenage girl who may be confused by your propaganda or who just has an identity disorder related to their gender is not supposed to have the same levels of testosterone as a teenage boy. There is no psychological amount of testosterone to have- psychology is irrelevant for healthy hormone levels. Just because they may think they should have something doesn't mean they should have it. If a kid wants ice cream for dinner, you should not give it to them because it is unhealthy. Similarly, you shouldn't give kids hormone levels that will screw up their development, since that is also unhealthy
But go ahead, chemically castrate mentally ill people by pumping them with hormones and mutilating their genitals to own us bigoted conservatives.
You think that because men used to run things that women get sexually harassed? Nothing to do with different sex hormones affecting inappropriate sexual expression?
I never projected any beliefs onto you. I doubt you would consider yourself a "liberal". And sure, maybe almost nobody says "men and women are exactly the same", but when you listen to your arguments, there are only two inferences you can make: either they think that men and women would have the same exact outcomes and any disparity is because of oppression (the looney egalitarian option) or they are arguing in bad faith because they want special treatment.
I think that the depression treatment is certainly a false equivalence. The solution for depression is a pill that reduces uptake of serotonin, which the body is supposed to regulate naturally, but it is failing.
However, what are the supposed "treatments" for transgenders? Mutilate their genitals or pump their body with hormones in levels way over the dose they should have.
The way to deal with a mentally ill person is not to feed into their delusions. If some schizophrenic thinks they are Ted Kaczynski, you don't play along and say "Yes you are. Now go mail explosives to people". Similarly, if some 16 or 18 year boy old is like "I wanna chop my d*ck off because I think I'm a woman", you don't say "sure, go ahead, bud. You're so brave and special!"
Men and Women are basically the same in every way.
Also liberals:
Trans women are women and calling a trans women a women is very different from calling them a man because men and women are different.
Me: You contradicted yourself."
I don't think this was really a strawman on your part, Alec. They argue that any difference in earnings is due to sexism and any difference in activity (spending more time with kids) is all part of some conspiracy that forces women to act a certain way. Essentially: women and men would do the exact same thing (go into STEM at same rates or whatever) and achieve the exact same outcomes(would work same amount of hours, take same time off, earn same amount, etc.) if it weren't for "muh evil patriarchy".
Then they act like there is some huge distinction to be made if some mentally ill person thinks they are a woman or a man when they aren't. Next, they say that calling them those now meaningless terms ('man' or 'woman' because what tf is a man or woman these days?) against their preference is "hate speech".... because it is a meaningful term with consequences now....
So, you said what liberals think, but I'll make it more concise:
Libs: *incoherent jibberish and reeing*
Rational people: men and women are different and you can't change what you are just because you want to and feel "different"
Since this is merely a practice debate, I'll ask this question: What did you mean in your most recent round about letting guilty people go instead of arresting innocent people?
By definition, all illegal immigrants are guilty of breaking immigration laws. Are you saying that they are "innocent" if they haven't committed subsequent crimes since arriving?
But his LGBT issues, family separations, DACA stance, border wall, and "mUsLiM bAn" were all good things. Why wouldn't you want Con talking about them? lol
I guess you don't believe we choose anything then. I'd say that all suffering is valid unless it is suffering caused by justified mistreatment (going to jail for murder)
And how does believing that attraction is a choice automatically make you afraid of or hate gay people? I feel like those two things are mutually exclusive.
The point of debate IS to arrive at the truth. Just because someone disagrees with what they're arguing doesn't make their position wrong. Other people might find the arguments convincing.
I thought it was an odd debate topic, but I was interested in seeing what Intel had to say.
I don't know if that is necessarily the case. Pro said that he thought his opponent's definitions were better, so I'll have to take him at his word (even if that is a possible cause that you asserted. Thought the comment section was very weird on this one, con talking about how enraged he was and how homophobic pro is. Seemed like unsportsmanlike slander, considering Intelligence is leagues away from what could be considered a 'homophobe'.)
But regardless, there is never a good reason to concede. At the very least, pro should attempt to take a good devil's advocate position to better learn a position he disagrees with. I've slightly changed my positions during some of my debates, but I stuck with my position and did my best. It is harder to argue points you disagree with and is good practice.
Whoever wrote that article really hates Giuliani lol. It didn't detail the joke, but it didn't sound that bad. She just wants to score pity points and get that #MeToo-era publicity. It is quite profitable to be a victim of the "patriarchy" or "white supremacy" or whatever other boogeyman can victimize people these days.
Your selective service act comment reminded me that there were women who opposed getting the vote because they thought they would be forced to be drafted or do volunteer firefighting, etc. I, for one, think that one of those privileges must go! Sign up or lose the vote! >:^)
Modern feminism is really only egalitarian in theory. They are more "cafeteria feminist" than anything, thinking they can pick and choose what they get.
I highly doubt they would elect a non-preferential policy for life boats. They say we need more female CEOs, but how often do you see them advocating for more female sanitation workers or construction workers? Probably never haha.
Terrorists: destroy stuff to intimidate people to achieve political ends. Had more riot damage than there is annual damage from all tornados. The leader of the "Greater New York Black Lives Matter" said: “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation,”
Sounds like a threat of violence for political ends to me.
BLM is a semi-organized movement. There are leaders who organize large crowds, they have a website, etc.
Communists: Co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-leader Alicia Garza as "trained marxists". In a now-deleted "about us" page that was up for months(or years, not sure how long before I saw it), they described their desire to disrupt(destroy) the nuclear family and replace it with communal parenting.
That is where I am getting: communist, terrorist movement. Perhaps I should have used the word "Marxist instead", my bad.
I am not saying all of the naive crackas marching with them know about these goals of the group or are Marxists themselves, but the overall leadership of the organization is.
Yeah, I haven’t done much research as to if they are the descendants. It really seems unrelated, as Israel is connected to the Jewish religion more so than the genetic ancestors in this case. I felt in the debate that it proved the point that returning to areas without the express permission of the current residents doesn’t really lead to happy relations, and Pro didn’t offer much info on how to appease those people.
I was surprised he didn’t mention that Ghana is openly calling for the return of black Americans to their country. That would have at least added a little feasibility to the matter.
Hardly free. Think of all of the food costs, healthcare costs, equipment costs, housing costs, and having to transport all of the slaves over. That costs tons of money. All it accomplished was holding our economy back and causing our bloodiest war.
The country isn’t made of cotton. Most lasting infrastructure, the entire political system, all foreign relations, exploring and settling the wilderness, and conquering areas don’t by almost exclusively: Europeans.
Would be if I had time lol
Yeah, I have come to the conclusion that he actually thinks what he says. At first, I thought he was a white racist guy that was trolling by making the same arguments and only flipping the races.
Nope, just someone who likes spewing nonsense for attention.
Looks like it took this clown 2 months to recover from his last a** whooping
The term "white supremacist" is meaningless, really. The definition that I was familiar with was that it is the belief that Whites should dominate and rule over other races. Merriam-Webster's definition is somewhat similar to that.
"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, not only must you believe that White people are superior, you must ALSO believe they SHOULD dominate society.
Similar to how nobody can agree on what "racism" means. Now you can't be "racist" to White people. Both terms that they are trying to change to fit a political narrative/now try to use to demonize conservative political opponents.
This was the entire reason the First Amendment was created. To allow true intellectuals to battle in the marketplace of ideas over such critical topics. Bravo!
I’m not reading all of that. Who is winning?
Sad to see an interesting topic snuffed out like that.
I suppose the debate will prove or disprove that. I will keep my eyes peeled.
Well there really wasn't such a thing as "gender identity" until some pervert psychologist had a boy's genitals cut off and forced him to rehearse sexual acts with his twin brother.
Maybe some day we'll have a similar event for those suffering from limb dysphoria. Then they can cut off their limbs without fear of persecution.
And I'm certain there is some real damage done when now-infertile people realize that they aren't "transgender" and made a really stupid decision at 18 years-old (or younger depending on your state) -well before their brain is done forming.
If I tell my doctor that I hate my hands, that my hands make me uncomfortable, and that I identify as a handless person, do you think they should chop off my hands?
Because if so, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on genital mutilation for the sake of "gender affirmation".
Well I'm seeing numbers that sexual harassment levels have stayed stagnant since the 1980s, despite having an enormous increase of women in executive roles(40% reported harassment). That being said, the numbers in studies go from like 20%-60%, so who knows. However, if we are assuming that men sexually harass women because they have power and there isn't a hormonal reason, are we to assume that women, if given power, would sexually harass men?
And you see, you are again drawing a false equivalence. A real equivalence to the depression treatment would be for a man with low testosterone to be given testosterone supplements. His body is BIOLOGICALLY supposed to have certain levels of something, but it doesn't have the right amount. Similarly, we are biologically supposed to have certain levels of serotonin to regulate our moods, which sometimes fails, so we are given supplements.
Conversely, a BIOLOGICAL teenage girl who may be confused by your propaganda or who just has an identity disorder related to their gender is not supposed to have the same levels of testosterone as a teenage boy. There is no psychological amount of testosterone to have- psychology is irrelevant for healthy hormone levels. Just because they may think they should have something doesn't mean they should have it. If a kid wants ice cream for dinner, you should not give it to them because it is unhealthy. Similarly, you shouldn't give kids hormone levels that will screw up their development, since that is also unhealthy
But go ahead, chemically castrate mentally ill people by pumping them with hormones and mutilating their genitals to own us bigoted conservatives.
I'll keep an eye on it. I've played my fair share of violent video games :P
You think that because men used to run things that women get sexually harassed? Nothing to do with different sex hormones affecting inappropriate sexual expression?
I never projected any beliefs onto you. I doubt you would consider yourself a "liberal". And sure, maybe almost nobody says "men and women are exactly the same", but when you listen to your arguments, there are only two inferences you can make: either they think that men and women would have the same exact outcomes and any disparity is because of oppression (the looney egalitarian option) or they are arguing in bad faith because they want special treatment.
I think that the depression treatment is certainly a false equivalence. The solution for depression is a pill that reduces uptake of serotonin, which the body is supposed to regulate naturally, but it is failing.
However, what are the supposed "treatments" for transgenders? Mutilate their genitals or pump their body with hormones in levels way over the dose they should have.
The way to deal with a mentally ill person is not to feed into their delusions. If some schizophrenic thinks they are Ted Kaczynski, you don't play along and say "Yes you are. Now go mail explosives to people". Similarly, if some 16 or 18 year boy old is like "I wanna chop my d*ck off because I think I'm a woman", you don't say "sure, go ahead, bud. You're so brave and special!"
I didn’t think what I said pertained to the debate. That being said, I haven’t read any arguments yet, so it could have
"Liberals:
Men and Women are basically the same in every way.
Also liberals:
Trans women are women and calling a trans women a women is very different from calling them a man because men and women are different.
Me: You contradicted yourself."
I don't think this was really a strawman on your part, Alec. They argue that any difference in earnings is due to sexism and any difference in activity (spending more time with kids) is all part of some conspiracy that forces women to act a certain way. Essentially: women and men would do the exact same thing (go into STEM at same rates or whatever) and achieve the exact same outcomes(would work same amount of hours, take same time off, earn same amount, etc.) if it weren't for "muh evil patriarchy".
Then they act like there is some huge distinction to be made if some mentally ill person thinks they are a woman or a man when they aren't. Next, they say that calling them those now meaningless terms ('man' or 'woman' because what tf is a man or woman these days?) against their preference is "hate speech".... because it is a meaningful term with consequences now....
So, you said what liberals think, but I'll make it more concise:
Libs: *incoherent jibberish and reeing*
Rational people: men and women are different and you can't change what you are just because you want to and feel "different"
Since this is merely a practice debate, I'll ask this question: What did you mean in your most recent round about letting guilty people go instead of arresting innocent people?
By definition, all illegal immigrants are guilty of breaking immigration laws. Are you saying that they are "innocent" if they haven't committed subsequent crimes since arriving?
So true!
Although be careful, Con can talk about things Trump didn't do (Bomb Cambodia like a Chad)
But his LGBT issues, family separations, DACA stance, border wall, and "mUsLiM bAn" were all good things. Why wouldn't you want Con talking about them? lol
I guess you don't believe we choose anything then. I'd say that all suffering is valid unless it is suffering caused by justified mistreatment (going to jail for murder)
Unless you think that oppression of Christians in countries such as Iran is invalid because they "chose" their religion.
That is ridiculous. It would only invalidate it if you think that being gay is bad and therefore merits a negative reaction due to the choice.
And how does believing that attraction is a choice automatically make you afraid of or hate gay people? I feel like those two things are mutually exclusive.
The point of debate IS to arrive at the truth. Just because someone disagrees with what they're arguing doesn't make their position wrong. Other people might find the arguments convincing.
I thought it was an odd debate topic, but I was interested in seeing what Intel had to say.
I don't know if that is necessarily the case. Pro said that he thought his opponent's definitions were better, so I'll have to take him at his word (even if that is a possible cause that you asserted. Thought the comment section was very weird on this one, con talking about how enraged he was and how homophobic pro is. Seemed like unsportsmanlike slander, considering Intelligence is leagues away from what could be considered a 'homophobe'.)
But regardless, there is never a good reason to concede. At the very least, pro should attempt to take a good devil's advocate position to better learn a position he disagrees with. I've slightly changed my positions during some of my debates, but I stuck with my position and did my best. It is harder to argue points you disagree with and is good practice.
Oh come on! Never concede!
Lmao. Welcome to the site, Mr. Far Right. What is your opinion on women working virtually from home? Is that also their place?
Whoever wrote that article really hates Giuliani lol. It didn't detail the joke, but it didn't sound that bad. She just wants to score pity points and get that #MeToo-era publicity. It is quite profitable to be a victim of the "patriarchy" or "white supremacy" or whatever other boogeyman can victimize people these days.
Your selective service act comment reminded me that there were women who opposed getting the vote because they thought they would be forced to be drafted or do volunteer firefighting, etc. I, for one, think that one of those privileges must go! Sign up or lose the vote! >:^)
Modern feminism is really only egalitarian in theory. They are more "cafeteria feminist" than anything, thinking they can pick and choose what they get.
I highly doubt they would elect a non-preferential policy for life boats. They say we need more female CEOs, but how often do you see them advocating for more female sanitation workers or construction workers? Probably never haha.
Lol, I don't think it is logical to let women and children go first. Just some chivalry from a time that no longer exists
Definitely a unique debate topic :)
Dang. Well done, king slayer!
I like to see good conservative debaters on the site.
If you are wishing there are marxist movements in your country, then I’m afraid you aren’t familiar with Marxism.
Terrorists: destroy stuff to intimidate people to achieve political ends. Had more riot damage than there is annual damage from all tornados. The leader of the "Greater New York Black Lives Matter" said: “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation,”
Sounds like a threat of violence for political ends to me.
BLM is a semi-organized movement. There are leaders who organize large crowds, they have a website, etc.
Communists: Co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-leader Alicia Garza as "trained marxists". In a now-deleted "about us" page that was up for months(or years, not sure how long before I saw it), they described their desire to disrupt(destroy) the nuclear family and replace it with communal parenting.
That is where I am getting: communist, terrorist movement. Perhaps I should have used the word "Marxist instead", my bad.
I am not saying all of the naive crackas marching with them know about these goals of the group or are Marxists themselves, but the overall leadership of the organization is.
Because BLM are communist terrorists....
I guess I’ll do my darndest
Bump
I feel like I would be too biased for a fair vote lmao
I just see "expert in critical race theory" and "PhD race issues" and my gut reaction is to completely disregard everything they say
Are we talking two adults in their own home or for filming and distribution purposes?
Why do you want me defending bdsm? Haha
I said to make it fair, I could just defend every kind of pornography if the voters thought I should
Thanks for the fun debate!
I don’t know, I’d say some of that stuff is pretty freaky.
But true, they aren’t the same thing
Well keep an eye on the debate, so I can prove to you why bdsm does not rock ;)
Votes are appreciated!
That is a very odd coincidence..... haha
How do you figure?
Die? What do you mean? Haha
Yeah, I haven’t done much research as to if they are the descendants. It really seems unrelated, as Israel is connected to the Jewish religion more so than the genetic ancestors in this case. I felt in the debate that it proved the point that returning to areas without the express permission of the current residents doesn’t really lead to happy relations, and Pro didn’t offer much info on how to appease those people.
I was surprised he didn’t mention that Ghana is openly calling for the return of black Americans to their country. That would have at least added a little feasibility to the matter.
What specifically?
Interesting debate (Mairj's always are). Very one-sided though (per usual) lol
Lol, making fun of European settlers?
Africans still don't have knowledge of agriculture lmfao. That stupid pos Mugabe BEGGED for White farmers to return because they were starving.
European-run Rhodesia: Breadbasket of Africa
African-run Zimbabwe: starves and has valueless currency
#GetRekt
Hardly free. Think of all of the food costs, healthcare costs, equipment costs, housing costs, and having to transport all of the slaves over. That costs tons of money. All it accomplished was holding our economy back and causing our bloodiest war.
The country isn’t made of cotton. Most lasting infrastructure, the entire political system, all foreign relations, exploring and settling the wilderness, and conquering areas don’t by almost exclusively: Europeans.
Slavery held the country back