And atheistic ideologies such as communism/socialism are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people. Left-wing people are less often religious and they are fine with millions of unborn babies being aborted. Christians are against both of those. :)
You would have lost the other debate without my vote. I was just protecting him from a vote bomb, which ended up not being necessary. You did very poorly in the other debate, so you lost. If you could substantiate your claims better, I would vote for you occasionally.
I personally wouldn't mind a mix or renewables and nuclear. My concern would be the new price of energy. The poor still need to be considered, and renewable energy is currently rather expensive.
I thought I mentioned rare earth metals for the creation of batteries to store the energy. That is needed because otherwise you could only get energy when the sun is shining for panels or when the wind is blowing if you are using turbines. Other forms of energy are made to meet demand because they don't depend on forces of nature.
The FBI doesn't really enforce those laws because so many people do it. They mainly go after people that create those sites and/or sell copyrighted material.
My google search I think was "disposing of nuclear waste". I did realize that their wording was very skewed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their facts are wrong.
I just said that us being a 1st world country with slavery had no significance. Why does it matter that we were a 1st world country? We didn't have a lot of influence on the world at the time.
Stalin and Mao were communists in name, but they were socialists in practice. They had state-control over all industries and it failed.
I'm not sure if stifling regulation or corporatism is worse. I support everyone getting less regulation. It helps small businesses. Why isn't that an option?
Well, it seems they typically bury it very deep. Apparently there isn't a lot of waste. The "commercial" industry since the 1950's has made enough waste to fill a football field less than thirty feet deep. That amount would obviously start increasing more rapidly, but I don't believe it would ever cause any real issues. Just have to make sure it isn't near water sources.
I'm wondering if by assault charges you are referring to the incident a few months ago in New York. Antifa members threw a bottle then got destroyed, and the Proud Boys got arrested.
Antifa is formed to seem unorganized and without a leader to avoid the label of being a terrorist group. They use group chats to coordinate.
I don't know what the higher wages are referring to. Government employees? We don't advocate for paying people less, we advocate for market wages.
I don't see why it matters if it is private-public or not. It is a $2 trillion deal, which is huge. Don't say you haven't heard of it, I provided the link ;)
Again, in what way was the south conservative? What are some small government policies they passed? How did they promote the free market?
I liked that you said "last 1st world bastion of slavery" lol. Ignoring the fact that dozens of other countries still practiced slavery(and still do). America is great for stopping that. It is great for promoting freedom(of methods of self-defense, speech, etc), which another party refuses to do. It has saved a lot of countries. It has done much more good than bad. Can't say that about the Dems :P
The USSR collapsed. They were much weaker than we knew, and had very little money. China only started growing after they began adopting free market policies. FDR prolonged the Great Depression, and SS is bankrupting us. Which libertarian policies have we adopted that are hurting us? We are spending billions more than ever before.
I'm not sure to what degree humans are responsible for it. I do believe that we should at least attempt to reduce pollution, which fossil fuels are a large cause of. Nuclear energy is super efficient and super clean, which is why I am a huge fan of it.
Not sure about all of the fear mongering about climate change. I don't think we will all die from it within the next few decades without change, though. I am going to agree with Christopher on this. Planting tons of trees and switching to mainly nuclear power would do wonders.
Also, as far as I know, there is not yet a way to recycle solar panels. They are extremely toxic for the environment.
Germany has to import a lot of their energy and a lot of poor people experience "energy poverty". They can't afford renewable energy because of its inefficiencies.
Mining can release gases, there can be seeping from the mining. Lots of negatives to consider.
https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-can-metal-mining-impact-environment
Well, I don't think we should entirely get rid of nuclear power. It wouldn't be a temporary solution. Look at how Germany failed trying to increase their renewables.
You need energy that you can depend on. The sun isn't always shining, the wind isn't always blowing, etc. If we use batteries, then you'll destroy the environment digging for rare earth metals to make them. Also, those drills use fossil fuels.
You really should put in the first round or (preferably) the description what your opponent's position actually is. That would help avoid these kinds of things.
out what you meant. Disregarded. Queen Elizabeth II's jewelry choice means black people had a big impact on Europe...
Pro: Defaming 104 million people because of 4 people will have serious bad consequences. White people have done tons of good, so this title is not merited. Walls don't point to losing political power, they have other benefits to explain the push for one. Correctly points out that he (as well as I) don't have to read the opponent's sources to figure out their argument. There aren't a lot of black statues, contrary to Con's claim. We should focus on terrorism rather than labeling to fix the problem.
Verdict:
Arguments: I will say this debate was difficult to vote on. So much talking past each other and Con trying to contradict the name of the debate. Pro provided some pretty good claims and backed them up with evidence. Pro did pretty well, but essentially won by default due to Con's inability to cite anything of (even remote) value until the last round.
Grammar: Both sides had some spelling and grammatical errors.
Sources: Con didn't use sources for 2 rounds, used a poor source for round 3, and some okay ones for round 4. Pro used decent sources the entire debate and substantiated almost every claim with them. Win for Pro.
Conduct: Both sides had mediocre conduct.
are judged on a collective level. Tries to parallel nonviolent protesting blacks in the 1960s to black people now. He doesn't mention if the victims of these mass shootings are black. Didn't substantiate that no news outlets mentioned the "Burning building" speech until recently. Brings up Pro's shaming tactic of misspelling. I agree it was irrelevant, and voters can spot it by themselves. Then says white people are the biggest mass murderers without any citation. States 90% if murder cases in Chicago are unsolved. Doesn't cite. Also doesn't say that the murders mentioned by Pro were included in that stat.
Pro: Again casts down the claim that 32% of an entire country should receive a label based on four people. Mentions similarities again between races to say no meaningful difference could lead to such a classification. Proves that whites still run the country, meaning these shootings couldn't be because of losing political power. Proved that economic factors drove differences in populations and that they will level out, leaving nothing to fear, supposedly. Also throws out how judging on a collective would apply since only four guys committed the crimes and there are 104 million of them. Disproved the claim that more unarmed blacks were shot than unarmed whites. Showed how national emergencies aren't unique to things committed by white people. Said disease killed the Natives, not the white people's purposeful action. Combats the #1 serial killer/mass murderer claim with Mao as well.
Winner: Pro because he again cited sources and rebutted claims effectively.
R4
Con: All races have invented things. Building walls, voter supression, and gerrymandering are apparently proof of white people losing political power... Black people apparently didn't benefit from civil rights laws because other people benefit as well... Gave sources for the blacks' supposed saving of Europe. Didn't explain the points, and it is not my duty as a voter to read your sources and find
without substantiating. Counters claim of Muslim terrorism with mentioning the Oklahoma City Bombing. Says that the government was founded by racists without substantiating or stating relevance over a hundred years in the future.
Pro: Brings up again that people are not commiting terrorism because they are white, which throws doubt on the sustainability of Con's stance. States that only half of mass shootings are perptrated by white people, showing that it isn't specific to the race in question. Also shows how Muslims commit dispropportionate amounts of terrorism. Labels the opponent's posititon as racist for judging people by race. Brings up the valid fact that Con cannot see Pro's knees, and therefore couldn't know they are buckling. Shows how Con's argument that MLK was assassinated by whites is non-unique since people of other races do it too. Brings up the necessity for Con to defend calling all white men domestic terrorist based on Con's wording. Shoots down Con's Timothy McVeigh point by showing even worse terrorist events by Muslims. Shows how the FBI was created after slavery was abolished, which throws doubt on the FBI being founded in racism. Brings up why it is inconsistent to only view mass shootings when considering people as terrorists.
Winner: Both sides are kind of talking past each other. Saying that Muslims commit terrorism is irrelevant. Saying that calling black people are thugs is irrelevant. If white people are domestic terrorists, having Muslims also be domestic terrorists is a red herring. So is saying that people belittle blacks while your ENTIRE stance is to do the same to whites. Since Pro actually had some decent points and gave EVIDENCE for them, he wins the round.
R3
Con: Argues again that white men should be considered domestic terrorists because four white guys committed domestic terrorism in about a month span of time. Blames domestic terrorism on declining white birth rates.... Again doesn't substantiate why or how people
But isn't capitalism a right-wing economic structure while socialism is left-wing?
Based on government size, property rights, regulatory efficiency, open markets, etc India is ranked rather poorly.
India: #129
Kenya: #130
Uganda: #95
Somalia: N/A
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
How are those countries right-wing?
Nope, before and after. Hence being against communist and socialist genocides.
And atheistic ideologies such as communism/socialism are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people. Left-wing people are less often religious and they are fine with millions of unborn babies being aborted. Christians are against both of those. :)
When did a team of friends vote for me?
You would have lost the other debate without my vote. I was just protecting him from a vote bomb, which ended up not being necessary. You did very poorly in the other debate, so you lost. If you could substantiate your claims better, I would vote for you occasionally.
Lol the battle of the trolls. You might actually be able to take home a win, buddy!
I personally wouldn't mind a mix or renewables and nuclear. My concern would be the new price of energy. The poor still need to be considered, and renewable energy is currently rather expensive.
Idk lol. That is why I was asking. I am not prepared for a culinary debate.
I thought I mentioned rare earth metals for the creation of batteries to store the energy. That is needed because otherwise you could only get energy when the sun is shining for panels or when the wind is blowing if you are using turbines. Other forms of energy are made to meet demand because they don't depend on forces of nature.
Seal whacking is where it is at, bro.
That is really cool, actually. I might watch the movie, in fact. Sorry a troll accepted :/
I'm guessing your argument is a moral one and not about how tasty it is if you prepare it differently, right? lol
I've never really thought too much about this argument to be honest. I would have to do a decent amount of research before beginning.
This is a really interesting topic! I shall think about joining.
Public domain takes 95 years. (Thank you Disney)
It is highly improbable that the site could afford the copyright and then give it out for free.
It was more of a joke about the link.
The FBI doesn't really enforce those laws because so many people do it. They mainly go after people that create those sites and/or sell copyrighted material.
Well torrenting is the illegal download of copyrighted material. Then you provided a link, which would probably count as distributing it.
You seem to be violating piracy laws. Imma tell the NSA!
By voting for the clear winner of a debate, I got exposed? Oh no!
I looked on their profile. Apparently they have five votes total, so those will be easy take downs as well.
Reported the vote. Ineligible. No forum comments, no debates.
Need votes
Lol, Con already told me in an unbiased manner how points should be allocated. I should just listen :)
I just read between the lines. If it is true that this small amount of waste was created, then that is something I can work with.
Be careful. That might be cheating.
This debate:
10/10
-IGN
Yeah, I feel like Proud Boys can be d***s. I just think that Antifa is more d***ish.
My google search I think was "disposing of nuclear waste". I did realize that their wording was very skewed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their facts are wrong.
https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste
I just said that us being a 1st world country with slavery had no significance. Why does it matter that we were a 1st world country? We didn't have a lot of influence on the world at the time.
Stalin and Mao were communists in name, but they were socialists in practice. They had state-control over all industries and it failed.
I'm not sure if stifling regulation or corporatism is worse. I support everyone getting less regulation. It helps small businesses. Why isn't that an option?
I agree, this is getting stale. Later, n3rd :)
Well, it seems they typically bury it very deep. Apparently there isn't a lot of waste. The "commercial" industry since the 1950's has made enough waste to fill a football field less than thirty feet deep. That amount would obviously start increasing more rapidly, but I don't believe it would ever cause any real issues. Just have to make sure it isn't near water sources.
Woah, lol.
I'm wondering if by assault charges you are referring to the incident a few months ago in New York. Antifa members threw a bottle then got destroyed, and the Proud Boys got arrested.
Antifa is formed to seem unorganized and without a leader to avoid the label of being a terrorist group. They use group chats to coordinate.
A nation is its people. When investing in certain subgroups, you have to consider who you are taking money/opportunities from as well :)
I don't know what the higher wages are referring to. Government employees? We don't advocate for paying people less, we advocate for market wages.
I don't see why it matters if it is private-public or not. It is a $2 trillion deal, which is huge. Don't say you haven't heard of it, I provided the link ;)
Again, in what way was the south conservative? What are some small government policies they passed? How did they promote the free market?
I liked that you said "last 1st world bastion of slavery" lol. Ignoring the fact that dozens of other countries still practiced slavery(and still do). America is great for stopping that. It is great for promoting freedom(of methods of self-defense, speech, etc), which another party refuses to do. It has saved a lot of countries. It has done much more good than bad. Can't say that about the Dems :P
The USSR collapsed. They were much weaker than we knew, and had very little money. China only started growing after they began adopting free market policies. FDR prolonged the Great Depression, and SS is bankrupting us. Which libertarian policies have we adopted that are hurting us? We are spending billions more than ever before.
I'm not sure to what degree humans are responsible for it. I do believe that we should at least attempt to reduce pollution, which fossil fuels are a large cause of. Nuclear energy is super efficient and super clean, which is why I am a huge fan of it.
Not sure about all of the fear mongering about climate change. I don't think we will all die from it within the next few decades without change, though. I am going to agree with Christopher on this. Planting tons of trees and switching to mainly nuclear power would do wonders.
Could you delineate a few of those new ways to implement renewables?
Also, as far as I know, there is not yet a way to recycle solar panels. They are extremely toxic for the environment.
Germany has to import a lot of their energy and a lot of poor people experience "energy poverty". They can't afford renewable energy because of its inefficiencies.
Mining can release gases, there can be seeping from the mining. Lots of negatives to consider.
https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-can-metal-mining-impact-environment
Well, I don't think we should entirely get rid of nuclear power. It wouldn't be a temporary solution. Look at how Germany failed trying to increase their renewables.
You need energy that you can depend on. The sun isn't always shining, the wind isn't always blowing, etc. If we use batteries, then you'll destroy the environment digging for rare earth metals to make them. Also, those drills use fossil fuels.
What is your opinion on nuclear power?
Hehe. Very cheap, and botched less often than lethal injection. :)
You really should put in the first round or (preferably) the description what your opponent's position actually is. That would help avoid these kinds of things.
Botched executions are a myth...if you adopt the firing squad ;)
Lol, thank you my good sir. Perhaps you, Franklin, and I can meet up and smoke vapes, cigars, and pipes.
:D
I'm a cigar guy, myself
Ok, I Ctrl + F Proud Boys and didn't find anything. That was mainly what I was looking for.
My right-wing propaganda news sources say Proud Boys act mainly in self-defense, and I wasn't sure if there was an incident they failed to report on.
What is this about Proud Boys murdering?
out what you meant. Disregarded. Queen Elizabeth II's jewelry choice means black people had a big impact on Europe...
Pro: Defaming 104 million people because of 4 people will have serious bad consequences. White people have done tons of good, so this title is not merited. Walls don't point to losing political power, they have other benefits to explain the push for one. Correctly points out that he (as well as I) don't have to read the opponent's sources to figure out their argument. There aren't a lot of black statues, contrary to Con's claim. We should focus on terrorism rather than labeling to fix the problem.
Verdict:
Arguments: I will say this debate was difficult to vote on. So much talking past each other and Con trying to contradict the name of the debate. Pro provided some pretty good claims and backed them up with evidence. Pro did pretty well, but essentially won by default due to Con's inability to cite anything of (even remote) value until the last round.
Grammar: Both sides had some spelling and grammatical errors.
Sources: Con didn't use sources for 2 rounds, used a poor source for round 3, and some okay ones for round 4. Pro used decent sources the entire debate and substantiated almost every claim with them. Win for Pro.
Conduct: Both sides had mediocre conduct.
are judged on a collective level. Tries to parallel nonviolent protesting blacks in the 1960s to black people now. He doesn't mention if the victims of these mass shootings are black. Didn't substantiate that no news outlets mentioned the "Burning building" speech until recently. Brings up Pro's shaming tactic of misspelling. I agree it was irrelevant, and voters can spot it by themselves. Then says white people are the biggest mass murderers without any citation. States 90% if murder cases in Chicago are unsolved. Doesn't cite. Also doesn't say that the murders mentioned by Pro were included in that stat.
Pro: Again casts down the claim that 32% of an entire country should receive a label based on four people. Mentions similarities again between races to say no meaningful difference could lead to such a classification. Proves that whites still run the country, meaning these shootings couldn't be because of losing political power. Proved that economic factors drove differences in populations and that they will level out, leaving nothing to fear, supposedly. Also throws out how judging on a collective would apply since only four guys committed the crimes and there are 104 million of them. Disproved the claim that more unarmed blacks were shot than unarmed whites. Showed how national emergencies aren't unique to things committed by white people. Said disease killed the Natives, not the white people's purposeful action. Combats the #1 serial killer/mass murderer claim with Mao as well.
Winner: Pro because he again cited sources and rebutted claims effectively.
R4
Con: All races have invented things. Building walls, voter supression, and gerrymandering are apparently proof of white people losing political power... Black people apparently didn't benefit from civil rights laws because other people benefit as well... Gave sources for the blacks' supposed saving of Europe. Didn't explain the points, and it is not my duty as a voter to read your sources and find
without substantiating. Counters claim of Muslim terrorism with mentioning the Oklahoma City Bombing. Says that the government was founded by racists without substantiating or stating relevance over a hundred years in the future.
Pro: Brings up again that people are not commiting terrorism because they are white, which throws doubt on the sustainability of Con's stance. States that only half of mass shootings are perptrated by white people, showing that it isn't specific to the race in question. Also shows how Muslims commit dispropportionate amounts of terrorism. Labels the opponent's posititon as racist for judging people by race. Brings up the valid fact that Con cannot see Pro's knees, and therefore couldn't know they are buckling. Shows how Con's argument that MLK was assassinated by whites is non-unique since people of other races do it too. Brings up the necessity for Con to defend calling all white men domestic terrorist based on Con's wording. Shoots down Con's Timothy McVeigh point by showing even worse terrorist events by Muslims. Shows how the FBI was created after slavery was abolished, which throws doubt on the FBI being founded in racism. Brings up why it is inconsistent to only view mass shootings when considering people as terrorists.
Winner: Both sides are kind of talking past each other. Saying that Muslims commit terrorism is irrelevant. Saying that calling black people are thugs is irrelevant. If white people are domestic terrorists, having Muslims also be domestic terrorists is a red herring. So is saying that people belittle blacks while your ENTIRE stance is to do the same to whites. Since Pro actually had some decent points and gave EVIDENCE for them, he wins the round.
R3
Con: Argues again that white men should be considered domestic terrorists because four white guys committed domestic terrorism in about a month span of time. Blames domestic terrorism on declining white birth rates.... Again doesn't substantiate why or how people