fauxlaw

Having looked at your debate, and you syllogism, I'll just note that most syllogisms allow non sequitur arguments to be considered logical, to wit;

P1 Camels walk

P2 Birds fly

C Therefore, butterflies swim.

It's simple A + B = C, but your elements must truly add up, and it is too easy to proposes elements that do not, such as your R1 argument's syllogism.

That said, observe:  https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/hubble-uncovers-the-farthest-star-ever-seen

That light has traveled 9 billion years, so says NASA. Your argument of "no past" is simply too simplistic because all depends on a point of view. Who's view?

The point was, the courts refused to hear the evidence; therefore decisions not based on lack of evidence, but refusal to hear it. The matter deserved it's day in court, but the court abdicated its proper role, including SCOTUS, in this case, the Court of first [and only] jurisdiction. So, stop spouting crap. Evidence refused to be heard is NOT evidence that there is no evidence. Does that make any impression?

I note that Benjamin preceded his argument, and did not conclude with God. Have reading comprehension issues? You don't comprehend DNA well, either. As I said, I have conversed face-to-face with one of its premier advocates; James Watson.  You?

The Trump you hate does not exist. He is your strawman.

Every president since Truman has promised to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Every one. Only one did it: Donald Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/trump-jerusalem-embassy-middle-east-peace.html

No Democrat or Republican President dared meet NoKo face-to-face until Trump did. That’s how diplomacy starts.  https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-trump-kim-summit-20180611-story.html

No President, Roosevelt through Obama, Republican or Democrat. Passed a tax cut package the size of Trump’s. His corporate tax cut was 43%, largest in a century. That’s historic enough for me. What? You’re not a corporation? That’s on you, Buff. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-history/trumps-tax-cut-wont-be-the-biggest-in-u-s-history-idUSKBN1D223O

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, under duress as a Southern Democrat facing loss of the South for his party, but my factoid was Black unemployment. No modern president since Roosevelt, at least, has achieved the unemployment rate reached by Trump. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/01/donald-trump-said-hes-done-more-african-americans-/
Not to mention that black poverty rate had never seen better numbers. Trump has cut Johnson’s black poverty rate by half. https://infogram.com/untitled-1hxr4znwq7m54yo?live

Carter’s Iran disaster was legendary. You suggest Oba’a made a great deal. He sure did; it ensured Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2025. Read the Deal? No? I did. It’s a disaster, caving to Iran in addition to giving them $1.3B plus $400M in cash. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/01/was-obamas-1-7-billion-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/
As for the deal itself, it took all of 3 months, from July to October, for Iran to begin violating the deal, multiple times. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran

Clinton declared a substantive deal in 1994 with NoKo, but never met with Rocketman’s father. The deal was violated by NoKo almost immediately, which was meant to deter NoKo’s advances in achieving a nuclear missile delivery system. They have it, and have had it since 2002. https://theconversation.com/why-the-uss-1994-deal-with-north-korea-failed-and-what-trump-can-learn-from-it-80578

Oba’a economy was so recovered that he never achieved a greater quarter-to-quarter growth rate above 2.5%. He declared, himself, that 2% GDP was the new norm. https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/07/obama-warns-of-new-normal-for-economy/

His economy was so recovered, he lost our AAA credit rating for the first time in history in 2011, costing us billions in new interest payments on the debt, and affected the world market downgrade. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-debt-downgrade/united-states-loses-prized-aaa-credit-rating-from-sp-idUSTRE7746VF20110807

The only effect of Obama’s increase in market value was by artificial infusion of cash from the Federal Reserve, but the market saw immediate rise, then precipitous fall, because artificial infusion cannot sustain the market, and it didn’t. People look at the rise of the market during Oba’a, but ignore its numerous falls. While overall, the market grew from 8,000 to 18,000, but, in the process, it also lost 6,000 points in his 8 years; a net gain of an ordinary 4,000 point gain. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=djia+today&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 look at the max view.

None of these highlighted presidents did anything that Roosevelt didn’t, but Trump did, as I said. I’ve cited the evidence. Cry me a river.

There's a difference between having no evidence, and a court's refusal to hear it, including SCOTUS.

As it happens, to date, neither this suit, nor the suit filed against Sidney Powell by Dominion has yet to appear on the DC District Court docket calendar.

Your mutual crowing is premature efactualtion

Satisfied?

I want to be sure I understand the award points;

Argument: 3 + points

Sources: 2 + points

Legibility: 1 - point

Conduct: 1 - point

Therefore, A debate participant who wins A is given 3 points, wins S is given 2 points, or each opponent may ties and each is given the appropriate points. Losers of L & C are deducted 1 point for each. Each participant is then awarded a total sum of points, positive and negative, and the winner with the most points is declared winner by that voter. Neither opponent "wins" 1 point each for good L & C. However, the voter can choose to ignore S, L,  or C and no points are awarded/deducted by a voter in any of those categories. Do I have that right?

Also, it appears the decision was made to shelve the idea of "kudos" points for a particularly superlative argument.

On sourcing [since I lost a debate on that subject, when even instruction on the debate page required it; [thank you DebateArt], and at a time when the Voting Policy did not explicitly make sourcing optional] it appears possible that a participant who legitimately sources could still lose the points to an opponent who does not source at all. I would appreciate a rationale for that outcome. Lacking same, I would argue sourcing is mandatory.

Then there is the matter of a voter awarding source points, under the current policy, to an opponent with a full forfeit. Rationale, please, because it appears that could still be a valid vote, as well. At the very least, it appears that scenario should now be considered a fluff vote, but appears to still be a loophole.

As a process analysis professional, I consider this "policy improvement" as a failure to improve. Sorry. I could take this proposal and apply a fully structured FMEA on it [an analysis of potential failure modes]. It's what I did for 40 years.

Wrong. There is about 50% of the DNA strand that we cannot read, and presume it is garbage. Until we learned to read Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I have, it was thought junk pictures, and not a fully developed syntax of complicated structure. It's a matter of proper approach. Perhaps there is junk, but until we know for sure, it is wrong to assume any of it is junk. I met and spoke with James Watson, co-Nobel Prize recipient, and first to have his genome read, when I was 17 when he lectured at UCLA in the mid-60s. This was his advice, way back then.  "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain.

Personhood is a legally contradictory fact. 1 U.S.C. §8 defines a person as born alive, regardless of state of development. But, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 defines a person as unborn at virtually any state of development, because it carries a murder charge, and murder is legally an unjustified act against another person, and nothing else. So, as long as the law is undecided and conflicted, you have no leg to stand on. Certainly not on science, because even before conception, if you agree that the DNA molecule defines personal characteristics, these are defined by the male and female gametes, in effect 2 unzipped, or RNA strands, that each can only be described as human, even before they ever join during, or shortly after coitus, so it is not even just at conception. What's your argument? A social factor? Not right for the part.

And you have just abolished the need for a calming Senate, leaving us with a rambunctious, immature House of Representatives. That is what makes the USA unique among democratic states of the world. Why mess with what works until a few get so power hungry, they're willing to subvert the system. Work the system as designed, it's the best in the world.

It's like my present debate challenge with people complaining that Christianity doesn't work. My argument is that it has never been properly tried. Same with American democracy. We don't give it a chance to work as designed. Maybe we should, for once.

That is a faulty argument because your fingernail is not expressive of your entire DNA molecule, but only of that part that is defined by the several genes that make your fingernails. Nor is your finger. The entire organism expresses the entire DNA molecule, regardless of what organism is expressed. You do not parse the organism and call it by its 'blueprint.' This is the truth behind the additionally faulty argument that the fetus is part of the woman's body because her DNA and that of the fetus, amniotic sac and fluid, the umbilical, and the placenta do NOT share DNA, and there is even a blood barrier between mother and offspring. Were it otherwise, as I've argued numerous times, if the fetus were part of the woman's body, it would not fall out of it when full gestation is reached, just as her tongue does not fall out when she opens her mouth, because that organ is part of her body. This is also true of that which you eat and is not absorbed as nutrients for your body's cells; the remainder is expelled because that is not part of your body, either.

As did Danielle at chicken shit

Look, sweetie, did I say my links were debate arguments? No.

Did I say I was going to debate the resolution via Forum? No.

Is your chicken shit really fertilizer, or is it just anger that you missed an opportunity you now want to engage? only you can answer that.

Sorry, as I did say, "you're too late."

No need to think hard. 

In May 2020, Joe Biden said: "I will beat Joe Biden." Well, his after-inauguration comment beat his campaign rhetoric, didn't it?

Oh, you're going to join the media apology, claiming Joe Biden did not say "I will beat Joe Biden," but really said, "I will be Joe Biden." But, that's even worse. If Joe Biden was not Joe Biden in May 2020, who was he? And when will he be Joe Biden? You voted for a guy who does not know who he is, according both Joe and his fawning media, who now have thrills up their legs, again. I'm so happy for them. You, too.

The lot of you are the third brand of people: make things happen, watch what happens, wonder what happened. Congrats.

By the way, I do professional voice-overs as a sideline. I have a sound studio with a voice analyzer. I've replayed the Biden comment. There is a definitive, plosive "t" following "bea..." that is completely distinguishable from the next plosive "B," as in "...iden."

Same response as to Dust.

You don't think I thought of counter-arguments? If I can, anybody can. It's easy to call it a truism now, isn't it.  But if there are arguments to combat the resolution, it's not a trusim, is it? It does take some thought. Isn't that what we are, allegedly; critical thinkers? Maybe not.  But, you're right, nobody wanted to take a swing. Game over.

You lost your chance to debate this. Do not do it now; that was not the purpose of my post. Does anybody read for comprehension anymore?

When must debates concern knowables? I see plenty of debates of unknowable subjects.

As I said, I'm not debating. If you wanted to debate the subject, it was your choice to take. You chose not to. Do not now say I am debating, or that you have debate points to make. Too late, my friend.

I reply, as you could have researched yourself, but choose, instead, to cite your mindless media:  https://joebiden.com/covid19/

There it is from your mindless horse's mouth. Satisfied in ignorance? Have a nice trip, wherever it is you're going. Canada, maybe? This time? Maybe you should have gone the first time.

Well, well, well. A consequence that is hardly surprising. I challenged a debate: «Resolved: In the United States, the survival of democracy depends on social censorship»

but no one wanted to take it up. Your prog leaders have said as much: Hillaryous Balloon Girl, Nancy Pelostomy, Chucky Shoofly, Barry Oba'a, and the utterly forgettable [he forgets himself half the time], Joe Hidin' Biden.  What, you don't like my monikers for these folks? Who among you use your own names? Including me.

So, I sit, waiting, in vain, for someone to take up your gauntlet. What, can't find the evidence that you know is there? Don't want to defend your heroes? Not even your current President, a former, two wannabes, and a mindless, defender of the faith who is happy to exhibit premature efactulation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOXFOpqkC88

Some defenders of the faith. You must be proud.

Or, does someone now, in the immortal, inciting words of Pelostomy, have "arrows in our quiver, and are ready to use them?"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pelosi-says-she-has-arrows-in-my-quiver-on-court-fight-but-unclear-what-they-are-11600725484

Sorry; you're too late. I've proven my point and am done.

Proving what? That CA is a blue state? Right now, yes it is. I never said it was not. Anything else that is unrelated to the point?

No, I'm pretty sure, based on your responses, that it is your misunderstanding evident here:

I. am nit asking for disagreement. I am asking for you to show me the evidence that Trump committed a crime. Evidence that will stand up in court, not your conspiracy theories.

So, until you do show me the evidence I'm asking fgor, it is you who will keep misunderstanding what I want. It's very simple. Don't let your media-filled wish balloon go flat. Blow you hot wind into it, not to me.

Would you have the same reaction had Trump said that? 

Then you have naught to say. Keep it that way.

I repeat:

Those hurdles, first. The rest of your grammatical quibble, from both of you, is just that. Show me an indictment. Until you have that, you have nothing. worlds without end. Why don't you learn, first, what the law does with allegations. Hint: nada. 

Trump's alleged erection [according to Shoofly] occurred on Jan 6. Apparently, he said some inciting words, and they are all on video, and released in print. Either they were positively inciting, or, 19 days later, DOJ is still researching dictionary definitions and consulting existing statutes for violation of free speech, and corruption of a peaceful society. More than six minutes, but no one at DOJ has an indictment.  Show me THAT, and you may have an argument. Without it, you're hot air and little else. Enough to fill your wish balloon. Start blowing.

Sure, I can take 6 minutes and find your articles. But, what backs up your articles? A wish balloon? I believe indictments. I do not believe six minutes of research will find any indictments. Six months of research will not find indictments. Show me EVIDENCE that will stand in a court of law. Your six minutes are ticking. Go.

12/21, Biden says, "There is nothing to worry about." He wasn't talking about the Super Bowl, bud. Do you hear anything but the buzzing in your own head?

WHO SAID IT? You'll apparently believe anybody with a mouth. WHO? Who are Trump's accusers? Where are the indictments? Due Process, bud. It means something. So far, you have squat. Show me the evidence you claim exists. 

According to whom? Crimes have been alleged from before his campaign began. No charges filed, no trial conducted. Cross those hurdles, bud.

Again, according to whom? DOJ policy, since Nixon, that a predident cannot be charged with a crime? Not according to the Constitution, so, which carries water? DOJ policy, or the Constitution?

Yep. Pelosi, Clinton, Shoofy, Biden, Oba'a have all said that Democracy was endangered by Trump, but none would say why, or cite a specific endangerment. Accusations must carry water to you, but, Justice says that doesn't cut it. Show me some evidence, not your weak claims.

I watched some angry people enter the Capitol, but who says they were Trump cultists? You? The media? Your heroes? Sorry, Show me the evidence of who they were. Seems Antifa is rioting in the streets now. Got an excuse answer for them?

Who will stop Trump from creating his own online network, along with his own service provider? The lefter coast? Congress? Biden? You pissants have no idea what you've created. Congratulations.

Name one. The Mueller farce, aimed at Trump, had 30+ indictments, but no one named Trump. Inciting a riot [or, as Shoofly said over the weekend, "inciting an erection"] with words that wouldn't incite Shoofly's premature efactulation, when Pelosi, last fall, said "we have arrows in our quiver, and we will use them" speaking against Barrett's approval to be on then Bench? Her words were were metaphor, but Trump's were not? You have teeth on both sides of your mouth, I trust. Try using your other side.

Hidin' Biden told you he could solve Covid. Now he says he cannot. You voted for him. What did you elect? A liar? So, what's changed, in your book? Because he's your liar, it's okay?

May I suggest:  Peacemaker by Richard Heket

Either legislation makes sense and is truly good for all citizens, or it is a messy cesspool good for only a few. I favor 3R7AL's suggestion of 2/3 majority, but I'd impose it on all members of both Houses and not just "of members present," unless a member has a damn good reason to be absent [justifiably ill, etc.]. Legislation is their primary purpose, after all, "investigations" be damned, since those are to occur only for legislative purpose, and not as  an arm of the DOJ to uncover crime. legislation is why they are elected, yet they demonstrably use damn little time actually doing it. There is my beef with Congress; they're wasting our money to spend it more than they earn it.

Nope. At the root, reparations [effectively, punishing current citizens for the sins of 160 years ago, at a minimum, [we should really be counting 400 years, yeah?] happens to be unconstitutional. Article I, section 9, clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."  

Ex post facto is exactly what punishing the current generation is all about. Reparations to anybody for anything is not legal for the simple fact that we cannot be held responsible for the past. No other argument needed. Were the Framers prescient, or what?

Of course, we could always amend the Constitution...  Good luck with that. Twenty-seven times in 230 years does not inspire confidence.

Never read Marx, did you? Read anybody but Marvel Comics

only decades? And I'm still increasing my net worth? You? While progressives haven't thought since 1848.

Aye.

Pie's argument is sufficient for me. You've [Buff] managed to bore me. You've plenty of straw collected. Make a man.

Thank you, Pie.

Is turn-about suddenly not fair play? Seems Trump endured five years of crap. Time for somebody else, and Hidin' Biden fits the gap, Jack.

Not all poetry rhymes.

I don't use one when I rhyme,

It is not needed to save me time,

There's better uses for a dime

Than finding words that only rhyme

With a word like encephalogrime.

Here's my new visual poem, a celebration of inauguration day evening. I call it

I especially like the "6th stanza"

"When around others" is the CDC guideline for wearing masks, even outside, and according to his own EO. The above is Biden, around others, NOT wearing a mask. period. CDC be damned, he "says" by his actions, and in spite of his EO.  This guy is a moral pervert.

Aye.

I'm saying that legally, the definition of "human" is vague because 1 USC §8 [which says "human" begins at live birth, regardless of state of development, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act [2004], which implies humanity prior to live birth,  disagree with one another on the point of when humanity begins. As it happens, I believe the "beginning" doesn't exist, because both male and female gametes are already human by DNA, and alive, even before conception and before coitus. In essence, life, let alone humanity, never begins as it already exists before coitus conception.

Fair enough. By your words, then, we shall know you in time.

Poor reading effort. Poor comprehensiomn effort. YOU brought up CDC, not me. I never mentioned the CDC as the guideline Biden broke. I'm speaking of his EO #1. I even cited it in my #4. I never cited the CDC. Some buff. Cream puff, maybe.

"What's in a name. A rose by any other name would small as sweet." Romeo had it right. Does a name really mean that much? "Late for dinner" is a bit contrary, but, other than that, most names are merely labels. There is one, however, that is supremely and ultimately most important, and it needs to be on the tongue, but, more profoundly in our hearts and hands because there is where we will demonstrate our most worshipful and appreciative expression; a name you unerringly doubt.

Mostly, of late, I affectionately call him "Dad." Literally, because he is father to us all. And, I'm better equipped to ask him questions if I begin a little more informally, if gratefully.

you will, with experience, find BroDThom neither jocular nor serious [though he thinks of himself as the latter, but has a rather doubtful outlook on anyone's but his opinion.]

Yes, I, too, welcome you to the site, though I wish more of your profile were filled in. "Unknown" to me is hiding unnecessarily because none of us should know squat about others but by our own words, which should be guarded to an extent, and of which, many will tell you, I use with near abandon. 

What is that? I had to look it up, and, instead, found numenon, which also stumped me; had to read further. It's description looks like what you're talking about, and you make a great point. Related to phenomenon - the outside, sensible reality. "Sensible" as in, able to be felt by our senses.

I have. The Lincoln Memorial is a building and it is on Federal land. Biden's EO does not mention the distinction of "outisde" and you should not infer it, CDC be damned,  because Biden did stipulate federal buildings and land as being sites where masks must be worn.

According to definitions.uslegal.com, a "building" is “any structure intended for shelter, housing, or enclosure of persons, animals, or chattels." The Lincoln fits this definition, and it sits on federal land.