I started to compose a defense but I'm not sure any defense in comments would be fair to Mall. I think my reasoning as laid out in CON1R1 is quite explicit, rational, and justified. I'll be happy to revisit the question with you in PM or in comments after the debate.
A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device, and is the opposite of falsism.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” -TR
Fun Fact: The word flu is an abbreviation of influenza which is the Italian word meaning "influence" as in, under the influence of the stars, evil spirits, etc. If we define influential as flu-like then I think its fair to say that coronavirus is the most flu-like event in recent memory.
I think PRO wants to mean the coronavirus will likely have more influence over the next decade than any other event in the present decade. An easy K would be to say that coronavirus came in the final year of this decade and so had relatively little influence over the decade as a whole. I'd argue that Vladimir Putin had far more influence over the 2010's than coronavirus.
VOTERS can read the argument in 3 formats:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l696rwEbALex7jdyjGCMm07jaxnpsaC88yuN4UFV3xY/edit
or
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494/post-links/187318
or
cut and paste below.
The internal link is by far superior as it preserves most of the formatting.
And yet only allegations are offered, no observations.
Let's note that I can't reply directly to RationalMadman because he has me blocked in an effort to reinforce phony allegations made in other forums. One would expect that the act of blocking a fellow debater would at least restrain the blocker from constantly engaging the blockee but in the case of both DARTers who have me blocked, the degree of engagement and reference to me has substantially increased after the block, suggesting that the block is not employed for protection from engagement but as a tactical advantage is a campaign of increased engagement, a rhetorical sniper's nest. RM should either stop blocking me or stop having so much to say about me if we wishes to preserve any claim on fair-minded and good faith engagement, which principles ought to guide all debaters on this site.
After a couple of major obstacles,PRO has completed R3 argument.
VOTERS can read the argument in 3 formats:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l696rwEbALex7jdyjGCMm07jaxnpsaC88yuN4UFV3xY/edit
or
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494/post-links/187318
or
cut and paste below.
The internal link is by far superior as it preserves most of the formatting.
PRO thanks Jeff_Goldblum again for his forebearance and I apologize for any inconvenience to VOTERS and Jeff caused by my error.
Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
Let's recall that CON neglected to define JUSTIFIED in the description or in the opening round of the debate.
In fact, PRO's precise assertion has gotten increasingly fuzzy with each restatement of thesis.
CON's TOPIC="Americans Ought to Feel National Pride (PRO/CON)"
CON's RESOLUTION in DESCRIPTION: "Americans are justified in feeling national pride."
CON's R1: "I intend to defend the following statement: Considering the balance of US accomplishments, actions, and conditions throughout our past and in present day, Americans are unjustified in feeling national pride."
CON's R2: "I confronted Pro's attempt to reject my balanced approach to assessing whether we should be proud of the United States."
CON's R3: "I have contended that this debate is about whether we deserve to feel national pride."
If we settle on CON's latest standard as "DESERVE to feel", then we ought to note that CON never used the word DESERVE before R3.
If we use Oxford to define DESERVE as "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)" we find that we're still on the hook ethically. How do we evaluate whether all AMERICANS are worthy of collective punishment if we don't know what that punishment is ?
CON would say that any speeding ticket is justified so long as you were speeding, regardless of the consequences
PRO argues that if the penalty for speeding is death, then the speeding ticket is unjustified (or undeserved to use CON's standard)
In essence, we have two competing standards for what "justified" means in this debate. Pro has argued "justified" refers to the consequences, whereas I have argued that it refers to the facts of the case
PRO defined UNJUSTIFIED as ""not shown to be right or reasonable" citing Oxford in R2
PRO argues that PRO defined the term first and has used the term with consistency, while CON keeps offering new frames on thesis. PRO's has argued that an absence of any patriotism would prove unreasonable and wrong for the US. CON's latest standard, DESERVE, is nevertheless subject to tests of ethics (right and wrong) and reason. Ethical considerations and a rational evaluation of consequences are just as much "facts of the case" as CON's list of accusations.
Wiktionary defines JUSTIFIED as "having a justification"
JUSTIFICATION is then defined as "a reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.
" We ought to to favor my definition because it allows for a more straightforward understanding of this topic"
Set aside CON's lately conceived dichotomy of "deserve vs desire" and just go by the dictionary definition.
Is it right or reasonable for every citizen to participate in the state without any justified pride in that participation, especially when some citizens are entirely innocent of the failures delegitimizing pride?
Is a belief that all Americans must be punished for the crimes of some Americans reasonably excused by the magnitude of some past harm?
Let's recall that desirable is CON's word, PRO calls National Pride essential citing the self-harms that accompany failed self esteem.
"One can lack national pride and still arrive at the conclusion that a stronger, fairer, and more just democratic society should be pursued. One can observe the good and the bad in our country and resolve to increase the good and decrease the bad. They don't need to feel pride to do that."
one does not need to be proud of their nation to conclude that it is preferable that China and Russia be stymied in their attempts to spread authoritarianism
One does not need to be proud of their country to recognize that it is morally preferable for the state to continue functioning efficiently in service to the public good.
PRO calls this claim unfounded. Most other nations have a shared ethnic and geographic history that forms a nationalistic bond older than modern forms of government but the US is a land of immigrants drawn together by an experimental idealism. In our nation, Patriotism is the glue that holds us together.
The Founding Fathers thought so:
Benjamin Rush argued:
"Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families."
President George Washington reminded us:
"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations."
Encyclopædia Britannica likewise calls Patriotism the glue of democracy:
"At the heart of .... patriotism lies the belief that to be stable, democratic societies require a strong sense of allegiance on the part of their citizens. Not only does the high degree of pluralism that characterizes contemporary societies potentially give rise to tensions and disagreements among citizens that may destabilize the polity, modern democratic states committed to a degree of equality rely on the willingness of citizens to make sacrifices for the common good. Hence, in the eyes of advocates....of patriotism, stable democratic societies require a strong sense of solidarity.
it's not as if pride in the nation is the only source of emotional motivation Americans can draw on. As Pro has pointed out, we can be proud of the minorities who persevered and fought for their rights. We can be proud of our liberties today. We can be proud of the fact that we have peaceful and fair elections. We can use these sources of pride to continue pursuing the public good. (we can also draw on sources of shame as motivators).
CON concedes the debate again. CON defined NATIONAL PRIDE as "satisfaction arising from the accomplishments, behavior, and condition of the USA in the past and present."
American civil rights, liberties, elections, etc fall well within the circle of US accomplishments. If we are justifiably proud of these accomplishments as CON asserts, then we are experiencing NATIONAL PRIDE by CON's definition and CON disproved.
"The first question - which is the question we're addressing in this debate - asks us to consider the country in its totality (this is the "balanced approach" my opponent has maligned me for. I did not shift goalposts. See my R1 conclusion). The second question only asks to consider parts of the nation."
Again, CON is redefining a term defined by CON at the outset of this debate. CONs multiple iterations on thesis did not ask us to consider "the country in its totality," which word does not appear in CON's argument until R2. CON asked us to consider AMERICANS. Americans are 330 million individual parts of America who are individually capable of feeling shame and pride in one another and ourselves simultaneously. There is no American monolith that can only feel one way about itself.
The resolution that "AMERICANS are JUSTIFIED in FEELING NATIONAL PRIDE" stands proven.
In R2, CON agreed with PRO that Americans are justified in feeling ambivalent, including feelings of pride.
In R3, CON agreed with PRO that Americans are justified in their pride of civil rights, free elections, and liberty.
VOTERS should accept CON's confirmation of PRO's position as well as PRO's argument and find for PRO in this debate.
Well its my mistake and entirely Jeff's inconvenience so I will leave the decision up to Jeff. I would be willing to pre-concede conduct although this is winner selection debate.
Well- the only remedy I know is deletion/rebuild the debate using same args. I don't think the mods have the capacity to remove an argument or reset the debate to "debating" status. So, deference is a nice word for it but I'm really entirely at your mercy.
This was briefly on the hot debates list.....which is a reflection on number of comments, I guess. Does anybody know the standard that makes a debate “ hot”?
R4 SOURCES:
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John
Making US citizens the subject would be a lot more defensible on 2ndAmmendment grounds.
The context is “will not go extinct.” Consider heat death evidence showing all things go extinct eventually.
I failed to attribute this sentence:
[Quotation marks] "placed on either side of a word or phrase in order to identify it as a quotation, direct speech or a literal title or name."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English
I apologize for the oversight.
oromagi is the Yoloxóchitl-Chalcotongo word for "overkill"
I started to compose a defense but I'm not sure any defense in comments would be fair to Mall. I think my reasoning as laid out in CON1R1 is quite explicit, rational, and justified. I'll be happy to revisit the question with you in PM or in comments after the debate.
I failed to attribute this sentence:
A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device, and is the opposite of falsism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism
I apologize for the oversight.
SOURCES for R1:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page
https://www.wikipedia.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorsport
https://medium.com/@tpbesq/the-decline-of-americas-first-pastime-horse-racing-s-descent-into-irrelevance-bdd6866f3e24
https://tcdhorseracing.com/horse-race-betting-popularity/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harness_racing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny-farthing
https://www.evandalevillagefair.com/index.php/race-results/48-record-of-medals-won
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_D-Type
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible#Surviving_copies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Extinct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_in_the_wild
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/22/2020-predictions-decades-ago-self-driving-cars-mars-voting/2594825001/
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/07/what-is-the-probability-of-a-nuclear-war.html
https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/
https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2020/03/19/f1-monaco-grand-prix-dutch-spanish-covid-19-three-races-postponed/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
R3 SOURCES:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019&version=KJV
https://lifewayresearch.com/2018/12/04/most-churchgoers-see-sunday-as-sabbath/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
...or I could just accept the debate and state that I will never engage seldiora in a rap battle, making PRO’s thesis impossible to prove
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2037/artificial-intelligence-on-balance-is-biased-against-african-americans
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1740/anyone-reading-this-debate-should-help-or-create-a-future-super-artificial-intelligence
Thanks for voting, boss!
3 day bump
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” -TR
Fun Fact: The word flu is an abbreviation of influenza which is the Italian word meaning "influence" as in, under the influence of the stars, evil spirits, etc. If we define influential as flu-like then I think its fair to say that coronavirus is the most flu-like event in recent memory.
I think PRO wants to mean the coronavirus will likely have more influence over the next decade than any other event in the present decade. An easy K would be to say that coronavirus came in the final year of this decade and so had relatively little influence over the decade as a whole. I'd argue that Vladimir Putin had far more influence over the 2010's than coronavirus.
R2 SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+8%3A1-3&version=KJV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:13-27&version=KJV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/514/index.html
R1 SOURCES:
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://www.britannica.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
VOTERS can read the argument in 3 formats:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l696rwEbALex7jdyjGCMm07jaxnpsaC88yuN4UFV3xY/edit
or
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494/post-links/187318
or
cut and paste below.
The internal link is by far superior as it preserves most of the formatting.
"I don't hurl allegations, I observe"
And yet only allegations are offered, no observations.
Let's note that I can't reply directly to RationalMadman because he has me blocked in an effort to reinforce phony allegations made in other forums. One would expect that the act of blocking a fellow debater would at least restrain the blocker from constantly engaging the blockee but in the case of both DARTers who have me blocked, the degree of engagement and reference to me has substantially increased after the block, suggesting that the block is not employed for protection from engagement but as a tactical advantage is a campaign of increased engagement, a rhetorical sniper's nest. RM should either stop blocking me or stop having so much to say about me if we wishes to preserve any claim on fair-minded and good faith engagement, which principles ought to guide all debaters on this site.
R3 SOURCES:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/deserve
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/unjustified
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/justified
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/justification
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1395090/Benjamin-Rush-Patriotism-is-as-much-a-virtue-as-justice-and-is-as-necessary-for-the
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/quotes/article/citizens-by-birth-or-choice-of-a-common-country-that-country-has-a-right-to-concentrate-your-affections-the-name-of-american-which-belongs-to-you-in-your-national-capacity-must-always-exalt-the-just-pride-of-patriotism-more-than-any-appellation-derived-fr/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/patriotism-sociology
After a couple of major obstacles,PRO has completed R3 argument.
VOTERS can read the argument in 3 formats:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l696rwEbALex7jdyjGCMm07jaxnpsaC88yuN4UFV3xY/edit
or
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494/post-links/187318
or
cut and paste below.
The internal link is by far superior as it preserves most of the formatting.
PRO thanks Jeff_Goldblum again for his forebearance and I apologize for any inconvenience to VOTERS and Jeff caused by my error.
Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
HOW to UNDERSTAND "JUSTIFIED" in this DEBATE
Let's recall that CON neglected to define JUSTIFIED in the description or in the opening round of the debate.
In fact, PRO's precise assertion has gotten increasingly fuzzy with each restatement of thesis.
CON's TOPIC="Americans Ought to Feel National Pride (PRO/CON)"
CON's RESOLUTION in DESCRIPTION: "Americans are justified in feeling national pride."
CON's R1: "I intend to defend the following statement: Considering the balance of US accomplishments, actions, and conditions throughout our past and in present day, Americans are unjustified in feeling national pride."
CON's R2: "I confronted Pro's attempt to reject my balanced approach to assessing whether we should be proud of the United States."
CON's R3: "I have contended that this debate is about whether we deserve to feel national pride."
If we settle on CON's latest standard as "DESERVE to feel", then we ought to note that CON never used the word DESERVE before R3.
If we use Oxford to define DESERVE as "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)" we find that we're still on the hook ethically. How do we evaluate whether all AMERICANS are worthy of collective punishment if we don't know what that punishment is ?
CON would say that any speeding ticket is justified so long as you were speeding, regardless of the consequences
PRO argues that if the penalty for speeding is death, then the speeding ticket is unjustified (or undeserved to use CON's standard)
In essence, we have two competing standards for what "justified" means in this debate. Pro has argued "justified" refers to the consequences, whereas I have argued that it refers to the facts of the case
PRO defined UNJUSTIFIED as ""not shown to be right or reasonable" citing Oxford in R2
PRO argues that PRO defined the term first and has used the term with consistency, while CON keeps offering new frames on thesis. PRO's has argued that an absence of any patriotism would prove unreasonable and wrong for the US. CON's latest standard, DESERVE, is nevertheless subject to tests of ethics (right and wrong) and reason. Ethical considerations and a rational evaluation of consequences are just as much "facts of the case" as CON's list of accusations.
Wiktionary defines JUSTIFIED as "having a justification"
JUSTIFICATION is then defined as "a reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.
" We ought to to favor my definition because it allows for a more straightforward understanding of this topic"
Set aside CON's lately conceived dichotomy of "deserve vs desire" and just go by the dictionary definition.
Is it right or reasonable for every citizen to participate in the state without any justified pride in that participation, especially when some citizens are entirely innocent of the failures delegitimizing pride?
Is a belief that all Americans must be punished for the crimes of some Americans reasonably excused by the magnitude of some past harm?
Let's recall that desirable is CON's word, PRO calls National Pride essential citing the self-harms that accompany failed self esteem.
"One can lack national pride and still arrive at the conclusion that a stronger, fairer, and more just democratic society should be pursued. One can observe the good and the bad in our country and resolve to increase the good and decrease the bad. They don't need to feel pride to do that."
one does not need to be proud of their nation to conclude that it is preferable that China and Russia be stymied in their attempts to spread authoritarianism
One does not need to be proud of their country to recognize that it is morally preferable for the state to continue functioning efficiently in service to the public good.
PRO calls this claim unfounded. Most other nations have a shared ethnic and geographic history that forms a nationalistic bond older than modern forms of government but the US is a land of immigrants drawn together by an experimental idealism. In our nation, Patriotism is the glue that holds us together.
The Founding Fathers thought so:
Benjamin Rush argued:
"Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families."
President George Washington reminded us:
"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations."
Encyclopædia Britannica likewise calls Patriotism the glue of democracy:
"At the heart of .... patriotism lies the belief that to be stable, democratic societies require a strong sense of allegiance on the part of their citizens. Not only does the high degree of pluralism that characterizes contemporary societies potentially give rise to tensions and disagreements among citizens that may destabilize the polity, modern democratic states committed to a degree of equality rely on the willingness of citizens to make sacrifices for the common good. Hence, in the eyes of advocates....of patriotism, stable democratic societies require a strong sense of solidarity.
it's not as if pride in the nation is the only source of emotional motivation Americans can draw on. As Pro has pointed out, we can be proud of the minorities who persevered and fought for their rights. We can be proud of our liberties today. We can be proud of the fact that we have peaceful and fair elections. We can use these sources of pride to continue pursuing the public good. (we can also draw on sources of shame as motivators).
CON concedes the debate again. CON defined NATIONAL PRIDE as "satisfaction arising from the accomplishments, behavior, and condition of the USA in the past and present."
American civil rights, liberties, elections, etc fall well within the circle of US accomplishments. If we are justifiably proud of these accomplishments as CON asserts, then we are experiencing NATIONAL PRIDE by CON's definition and CON disproved.
What Does it Mean to Have National Pride?
"The first question - which is the question we're addressing in this debate - asks us to consider the country in its totality (this is the "balanced approach" my opponent has maligned me for. I did not shift goalposts. See my R1 conclusion). The second question only asks to consider parts of the nation."
Again, CON is redefining a term defined by CON at the outset of this debate. CONs multiple iterations on thesis did not ask us to consider "the country in its totality," which word does not appear in CON's argument until R2. CON asked us to consider AMERICANS. Americans are 330 million individual parts of America who are individually capable of feeling shame and pride in one another and ourselves simultaneously. There is no American monolith that can only feel one way about itself.
The resolution that "AMERICANS are JUSTIFIED in FEELING NATIONAL PRIDE" stands proven.
In R2, CON agreed with PRO that Americans are justified in feeling ambivalent, including feelings of pride.
In R3, CON agreed with PRO that Americans are justified in their pride of civil rights, free elections, and liberty.
VOTERS should accept CON's confirmation of PRO's position as well as PRO's argument and find for PRO in this debate.
Please VOTE PRO!
I'll do as you prefer. I'll start writing an argument now.
Well its my mistake and entirely Jeff's inconvenience so I will leave the decision up to Jeff. I would be willing to pre-concede conduct although this is winner selection debate.
Well- the only remedy I know is deletion/rebuild the debate using same args. I don't think the mods have the capacity to remove an argument or reset the debate to "debating" status. So, deference is a nice word for it but I'm really entirely at your mercy.
Its up to Jeff whether I have an opportunity to remedy or if the mistake stands.
yeah that my reads from the mafia game.
whoops that was unintentional
3-DAY WARNING......Cay-OOOO-gah!
thank u, intelligence
R3 SOURCES:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329123/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-dimensional_space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
R2 SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173508/
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/unjustified
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/on_balance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#1950%E2%80%931955
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
That "grand" in the last comment was supposed to be a joke, "grandmaster Jeff" after Thor Ragnarok but a truncated joke is worse than no joke at all.
R4 SOURCES:
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volequal.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=english+to+tagalog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Thx, Grand
R1 SOURCES
https://youtu.be/1NOjkmkanrc
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasas-three-billion-mile-journey-to-pluto-reaches-historic-encounter
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/LFE046218
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53296810
https://abcnews.go.com/International/election-monitors-allege-putin-referendum-unprecedented-ballot-fraud/story?id=71609348
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jul/11/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-claims-us-oldest-democracy-world-he-righ/
No thanks but thank you for the offer.
=>"When I debated someone who was a likely alt, even while I liked the quality I put in, I deleted it when they failed to rise above suspicion."
oh, you are a better man than I then. I would definitely have kept that one.
R3 SOURCES:
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
https://quotefancy.com/quote/857197/Mahatma-Gandhi-No-two-leaves-were-alike-and-yet-there-is-no-antagonism-between-them-or
https://www.google.com/search?q=english+to+tagalog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
This was briefly on the hot debates list.....which is a reflection on number of comments, I guess. Does anybody know the standard that makes a debate “ hot”?
R2 SOURCES:
https://www.google.com/search?q=english+to+tagalog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Wright
Thx, for acceptance. I look forward to an excellent debate.
SOURCES used in DESCRIPTION:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian#Adjective
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christianity#Proper_noun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29
I misvoted. Pls. delete for correction
u rite, I pooped
R1 SOURCES:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/online
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29
R3 SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/june/jutlands-place-history
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/01/15/norm-friedmans-new-book-on-the-naval-weapons-of-world-war-i-worth-the-price-just-for-his-handling-of-jutland/
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1505576.Distant_Victory
https://theconversation.com/jutland-why-world-war-is-only-sea-battle-was-so-crucial-to-britains-victory-59415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany#Effects_on_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Seas_Fleet#Subsequent_operations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany#Effects_on_war
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/82205.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919#Sailors%27_revolt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn