I was unaware anything could be awarded as a penalty. Do you guys enjoy quiet riots, or maybe a supporter of military intelligence.
With respect to the art of debate. I thought anyone could offer a vote, without that vote being publicly eviscerated over formality and semantics.
Nevertheless, I didn't realize the knowledge base surrounding voting etiquette was so substantial and endless bureaucratic formalities. So, I will refrain from participating in any debate, vote, comment, or otherwise here at this site. Thanks for the new knowledge. Take care.
P.S Squabbling over technicalities and semantics is for Congress. It has no place over content and concepts. Solutions should be the objective of any debate. Not whoever gets the most formality points. Without a resolution to any topic,what would be the point.
This is my second debate, so I don't know what the etiquette is on commenting after arguments become closed. I accept the results based on the arguments given, and want my post comment to be inadmissible, and not considered evidence in this debate. However, after the debate was over, I came across a term I was unaware of. "Punitive Labour" this term describes labour as a punishment for a crime more accurately than "slavery" does. Both pro and con made the arguments that the prison system today is not like slavery that implies ownership over another person. My point, keeping the the 13th Amendment as is, is technically keeping slavery legal. The intention of the word "except", not only has the direct intention of making slavery legal, but implies that the institution now owns you if you commit a crime, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. That is the unintended consequence of the exception clause in the 13th amendment. There are 3 words both the pro and con agree on definition.
Slavery: ownership.
Except: Accepting when conditions met.
Punitive Labour: Work as a punishment for a crime.
If we can agree on these terms being defined accurately. Then we must agree with the premise that slavery is still legal is established and proven.
My intention is not to win a debate or save face. Instead I feel strongly about the issue. I believe that in my heart the exception clause is why the massive disparity of blacks being incarcerated 5 times the rate of white in the U.S even though they represent a sliver of the population. 12.2 %, which is the reason for intentional impoverishment, segregation, crack being distributed by the CIA, the incredible increase in heroine sales during Vietnam, the L.A Riots etc... The prison system is extremely profitable for a handful of people.
I just finished my first debate. I think I won because my opponent forfeited round 3 and 4. It's still up for votes if your interested. My opponent has a win % 94 in 77 debates.
I think i should further familiarize myself with concept of Kritik. But I believe that what the term is referring to is that my argument somehow will lead down a rabbit holes of it's no conclusions or even the old blame it on Canada technique. However I'm quite certain that my arguments and conclusion could be proven in court. I'm actually counting on it.
I was unaware anything could be awarded as a penalty. Do you guys enjoy quiet riots, or maybe a supporter of military intelligence.
With respect to the art of debate. I thought anyone could offer a vote, without that vote being publicly eviscerated over formality and semantics.
Nevertheless, I didn't realize the knowledge base surrounding voting etiquette was so substantial and endless bureaucratic formalities. So, I will refrain from participating in any debate, vote, comment, or otherwise here at this site. Thanks for the new knowledge. Take care.
P.S Squabbling over technicalities and semantics is for Congress. It has no place over content and concepts. Solutions should be the objective of any debate. Not whoever gets the most formality points. Without a resolution to any topic,what would be the point.
Peace.
My bad.
This is my second debate, so I don't know what the etiquette is on commenting after arguments become closed. I accept the results based on the arguments given, and want my post comment to be inadmissible, and not considered evidence in this debate. However, after the debate was over, I came across a term I was unaware of. "Punitive Labour" this term describes labour as a punishment for a crime more accurately than "slavery" does. Both pro and con made the arguments that the prison system today is not like slavery that implies ownership over another person. My point, keeping the the 13th Amendment as is, is technically keeping slavery legal. The intention of the word "except", not only has the direct intention of making slavery legal, but implies that the institution now owns you if you commit a crime, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. That is the unintended consequence of the exception clause in the 13th amendment. There are 3 words both the pro and con agree on definition.
Slavery: ownership.
Except: Accepting when conditions met.
Punitive Labour: Work as a punishment for a crime.
If we can agree on these terms being defined accurately. Then we must agree with the premise that slavery is still legal is established and proven.
My intention is not to win a debate or save face. Instead I feel strongly about the issue. I believe that in my heart the exception clause is why the massive disparity of blacks being incarcerated 5 times the rate of white in the U.S even though they represent a sliver of the population. 12.2 %, which is the reason for intentional impoverishment, segregation, crack being distributed by the CIA, the incredible increase in heroine sales during Vietnam, the L.A Riots etc... The prison system is extremely profitable for a handful of people.
I just finished my first debate. I think I won because my opponent forfeited round 3 and 4. It's still up for votes if your interested. My opponent has a win % 94 in 77 debates.
I think i should further familiarize myself with concept of Kritik. But I believe that what the term is referring to is that my argument somehow will lead down a rabbit holes of it's no conclusions or even the old blame it on Canada technique. However I'm quite certain that my arguments and conclusion could be proven in court. I'm actually counting on it.