RE: "This debate has an Indian Government description, you sure you can defend this ?"
No. But Viggythepiggy challenged me directly, plagarized his whole debate description and seems to be arguing against his position in favor of mine. If VIggy actually wants a debate he's off to a difficult start. If Viggythepiggy was just experimenting or whatever and returns to ask for this debate to be deleted, I will cooperate. After all, we want new debaters to feel welcome. If Viggy does not return, I plan to take the freebie 6+ months from now.
Hi, El-Khe. I see this is your first debate but I think you will probably want a chance to refine your formatting. I've translated your description from Tagalog:
Rule: Students will have a debate. On the one hand those who say that everyone is equal, while others believe that people are not equal.
Which certainly sounds like an interesting and debatable topic. I would recommend that you write the debate topic in English and set some expectations for what kind of debate you are looking for in the description. I recommend that we delete this debate so you can restart without penalty
It may also seem relevant that truthbomb personally challenged me to this debate. He created an earlier public version which I commented on but did not accept.
1) that's not what obligated means
2) I don't really approve of personality debates. Either we're elevating or disrespecting fellow debaters, creating friction, factions, and fractions in our little DART community. Can't we find more interesting topics to discuss than ourselves?
3) I think voters should approach debates with as much impartiality as possible and VOTERs who have some interest in the debate should recuse themselves. Obviously, I could not possibly impartially judge a debate in which I am a subject of debate.
4) I'd prefer to see fewer debates of this nature in the future.
so that debaters did not know the topic until position was determined. You might have to argue against belief or on a topic about which you had zero information. Essentially, there was no guarantee that you had any advantage as you went in.
There was a debate site called edeb8 that never had much CPU power behind it but had some innovative ideas, one of which was a "secret topic" which means that the topic was pulled from this list http://www.edeb8.com/motions.txt after debaters had accepted.
A good kritik should avoid the perception of emotional provocation that I associate with trolling but imabench uses that word in many contexts that I wouldn't. I remember an Edward Snowden debate where I used 10 sources and Bench complained bitterly about my using sources in what he called a troll debate.
See? I tried to take away Bench's authority by using many citations and Bench took it right back by creating a new context, "troll debate" where he was the expert and I didn't know what I was doing.
Bench is a master at K. Don't debate imabench unless you are prepared to take a loss.
It makes me happy that somebody did this already. Kritiks are tricky. Ragnar has published some advice on the subject: http://tiny.cc/Kritik I think your position was winnable (in fact, the voting was close and there plenty of voters so you had support). In hindsight, I'd advise against starting off with an announcement of intent to manipulate. To pull off a K, you are saying "hey, normal debate conduct does not apply for this debate because of reasons x, y, x- we have to apply a new set of rules to fix the problem my opponent has created" If you're going to change the normal debate conduct you have to argue from a place of authority.
So, for example, I will say, "hey my opponent totally neglected to define terms" or "your thesis has no verb- how can we understand your intent without a verb?" I am projecting myself as an authority on proper debate conduct in the first or an authority on good grammar in the second. If I start out calling this manipulation, well then I have no authority by which to demand voters accept my assertion of terms or verb or whatever. Your concluding argument sets the right tone but by that time Nevets had dropped a whole lot of argument and asserted solid authority as well as expertise. This was always going to be a hard argument to win and you came very close to pulling it off. Nice work.
Since GOAT is never defined for this debate I would really have liked to have seen a K on goat.
Not only is Pele not THE goat, he's not even A goat, he's not even half goat like a satyr or Pan. Pele is a human. If Pele has any goat DNA it is virtually undetectable by phenotype- no trace of horns, for example. If Pele had little goat hooves propped up in those cleats I'm fairly certain Pele would have been disqualified from the sport.
I think shortening the argument time is good strategy for this style of debate. You clearly have already thought about this subject a lot and already have a pretty good idea of what you want you to say, which means you can lay down arguments relatively quickly. You've put together a complex argument that takes a lot of time and research to make a proper response so shortening the argument time is likely to give some advantage.
--> @User_2006
Firstly, yes they are, secondly Oromagi is less so and in my opinion he's not that good at mafia.
I agree and for roughly the same reasons I have trouble sustaining a squabble in the forums. In mafia and squabbles, the advantage is all in profligacy. It doesnot matter if what you say is unwarranted or irrelevant so long as you are constantly pursuing the last word, escalating every perceived slight and ignoring any valid ripostes. The thread and weight of real arguments gets lost in long games of what amounts to text pong and I just get so bored with it. I understand that I'm discounting the major activity on this site but text pong has never been much of an attraction for me.
This must be true since I can easily identify many debaters with greater skill than me but lower ELO. ELO measures win/loss relative to ranking but in no way surveys skill.
I think the blue ball is a fair thing especially for Mario cart I mean if you are last and you get a blue ball it will get you a huge boost. Power ups are the big thing in Mario cart it would just be another race game. I also think that the blue ball is fair because you would not want your friend beating you by 2 laps.
Can’t usually precludes should. For example, if your mother argued that you should bring your pet alligator to school today, wouldn’t it be valid to counter that school policy forbids dangerous animals and besides you do not own an alligator and besides you do not have access to lawful alligator transportation? Can’t is often a good reason that one should not.
really nice format in R1. I like the way you to keep re-applying the format in future rounds, even when your opponent doesn't follow it, even if you have to do a little shoe-horning to make it work. It makes following chains of counter-arguments that much easier to follow
"vacation is unconstitutional" is not the opposing view from the "house should vacate" although it is one argument against. Opposing views would be "house should vacate" vs. "house should not vacate" Whether vacation is unconstiutional depends on the definition of unconstitutional. The constitution does not mention such a power but gives the House the power to make the rules, including one presumes a rule for rettraction. So vacation is unconstitutional in the sense of non-constitutional but not in the sense of anti-constitutional.
DAs don't withdraw indictments just because the judge proved corrupt- I see no value to vacation except as an additional propaganda tool for use by an unchecked, destructive presidency.
FRANCIS: We're gettin' in through the underground heating system here, up through into the main audience chamber here, and Pilate's wife's bedroom is here. Having grabbed his wife, we inform Pilate that she is in our custody and forthwith issue our demands. Any questions?
COMMANDO XERXES: What exactly are the demands?
REG: We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State, and if he doesn't agree immediately, we execute her.
MATTHIAS: Cut her head off?
FRANCIS: Cut all her bits off. Send 'em back on the hour every hour. Show them we're not to be trifled with.
REG: Also, we're demanding a ten foot mahogany statue of the Emperor Julius Caesar with his dock hangin' out.
P.F.J.: laughing
LORETTA: What? They'll never agree to that, Reg.
REG: That's just a bar-- a bargaining counter. And of course, we point out that they bear full responsibility when we chop her up, and that we shall not submit to blackmail!
COMMANDOS: No blackmail!
REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah.
LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES: The aqueduct?
REG: What?
XERXES: The aqueduct.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.
LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO: Irrigation.
XERXES: Medicine.
COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...
COMMANDO #2: Education.
COMMANDOS: Ohh...
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1: And the wine.
COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Public baths.
LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!
bam bam bam bam bam bam bam
bam bam bam bam bam
MATTHIAS: I am a poor man. My sight is poor. My legs are old and bent, and--
JUDITH: It's all right, Matthias.
MATTHIAS: It's all clear.
JUDITH: Well, where's Reg?
FRANCIS: Oh, Reg. Reg, it's Judith.
REG: What went wrong?
JUDITH: The first blow has been struck!
REG: Did he finish the slogan?
JUDITH: A hundred times, in letters ten foot high, all the way around the palace!
REG: Oh, great. Great. We-- we need doers in our movement, Brian, but, before you join us, know this. There is not one of us here who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
COMMANDO: Uhh. Well, one.
REG: Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's one, but otherwise, we're solid. Are you with us?
BRIAN: Yes!
REG: From now on, you shall be called 'Brian that is called Brian'. Tell him about the raid on Pilate's palace, Francis.
ridiculous, irrational. I note that there have been tens of reports of cell phone towers attacked and destroyed in the last few weeks, few having anything to with 5g.
I’m curious but if all you have to prove is that some science surrounding coronavirus science is defective then I’d be a fool to accept. For example, Chinese doctors reported significant inhibitory effects on COVID from taking hydrochloroquine in late January but now, 3 months later we see that the drug probably kills more patients than it saves. Hypothesis is a legitimate step in the scientific method and we are likely years away from making satisfactory conclusions based on rigorous testing. I imagine it is easy to find defective science in any emergency room even among smart scientists doing their best. Perhaps we should focus on a specific faulty claim.
What's funny is that there are no rap battle debates in progress. A year ago, there were many rap battles going on all the time and now, when there are none, the objection arises.
Fame for evil is properly termed infamy, the opposite of fame. Fame used to imply not only well-known but also well-spoken of. I notice that this definition has changed during the age of internet, which prizes name recognition above a good reputation but in my book, famous for evil, true or false, is the opposite of fame.
Meghan Markle who recently married Prince Harry is a 25th generation direct descendant of Robert the Bruce (in fact, Bruce has many famous descendants because his children married into multiple royal lines). But that fact gets almost no play in America as a direct result of Bruce's ruined reputation in the US, exclusively due to the lies Mel Gibson told about Meghan Markle's Greatx24 Grandfather. Now, if Meghan Markle was a descendant of William Wallace, that fact would likely be well known in America even though the real Wallace was a mostly unsuccessful minor landowner.
Richard the Lionheart vs Bad King John is a classic example. Richard was easily one of the worst kings in history. Richard only went to England twice and both times came as a French invader killing English. He wasted the English treasury on fancy clothes and tournaments that he mysteriously always won. He tried to kill his father multiple times and started a war for seducing the Dauphin of France (Richard was super gay). He went on the crusades, lost a couple of battles and got imprisoned for years. John, on the other hand, lived in England his entire reign, rescued the treasury from bankruptcy, restored law and order, made peace with the barons (after some clashes, to be sure) and granted some Englishmen their first civil rights since Rome.
By any measure, John was a much better English King than Richard, any contemporary document would affirm as much. But mostly because of "Robin Hood" glam wastrel Richard is now better remembered than his objectively better little brother. That's defamation: even into modernity, English Royals won't name their children John- not because of true history but because of false fiction.
Alot of people would probably never heard of bruce if not for braveheart.
A lot of Americans, maybe. In Scotland he has always been the first free King of Scotland. Their George Washingto. Nothing about those lies made the movie better so why not make a movie with the same great battle scenes only telling the truth about the people who fought them. I know there are people who think famous is so important that its better to be famous for something evil than not to be famous at all. I would sooner be forgotten five hundred years from now than remembered as a traitor or a fink, personally.
I would go to a Trump casino on the Moon. I almost can't think of a place I'd rather be right now than a Trump casino on the Moon with french toast for breakfast and a moonminer for lunch.
[If Trump wins a second term, I predict he'll pass a bill to replace Franklin's face on the hundred dollar bill with his own]
I hate golf and all its blancopatrician traditions but a game of golf on the Moon would be awesome. Holes would range from 1,000 yards to 2.8 miles. Plasma powered jet pack caddies. Whoever shanks one out of orbit buys the vodkas.
that was quick
RE: "This debate has an Indian Government description, you sure you can defend this ?"
No. But Viggythepiggy challenged me directly, plagarized his whole debate description and seems to be arguing against his position in favor of mine. If VIggy actually wants a debate he's off to a difficult start. If Viggythepiggy was just experimenting or whatever and returns to ask for this debate to be deleted, I will cooperate. After all, we want new debaters to feel welcome. If Viggy does not return, I plan to take the freebie 6+ months from now.
this one too
I lazily assumed the topic was a typo of God and Satan
Thanks, Nikunj & fauxlaw for voting
Thanks croc- gg
Thanks to you all for voting
Thanks for voting, gentlemen
Hi, El-Khe. I see this is your first debate but I think you will probably want a chance to refine your formatting. I've translated your description from Tagalog:
Rule: Students will have a debate. On the one hand those who say that everyone is equal, while others believe that people are not equal.
Which certainly sounds like an interesting and debatable topic. I would recommend that you write the debate topic in English and set some expectations for what kind of debate you are looking for in the description. I recommend that we delete this debate so you can restart without penalty
I doubt I could beat RoyLatham on any topic. That dude was incredible
It may also seem relevant that truthbomb personally challenged me to this debate. He created an earlier public version which I commented on but did not accept.
No, I did not.
1) that's not what obligated means
2) I don't really approve of personality debates. Either we're elevating or disrespecting fellow debaters, creating friction, factions, and fractions in our little DART community. Can't we find more interesting topics to discuss than ourselves?
3) I think voters should approach debates with as much impartiality as possible and VOTERs who have some interest in the debate should recuse themselves. Obviously, I could not possibly impartially judge a debate in which I am a subject of debate.
4) I'd prefer to see fewer debates of this nature in the future.
so that debaters did not know the topic until position was determined. You might have to argue against belief or on a topic about which you had zero information. Essentially, there was no guarantee that you had any advantage as you went in.
There was a debate site called edeb8 that never had much CPU power behind it but had some innovative ideas, one of which was a "secret topic" which means that the topic was pulled from this list http://www.edeb8.com/motions.txt after debaters had accepted.
A good kritik should avoid the perception of emotional provocation that I associate with trolling but imabench uses that word in many contexts that I wouldn't. I remember an Edward Snowden debate where I used 10 sources and Bench complained bitterly about my using sources in what he called a troll debate.
See? I tried to take away Bench's authority by using many citations and Bench took it right back by creating a new context, "troll debate" where he was the expert and I didn't know what I was doing.
Bench is a master at K. Don't debate imabench unless you are prepared to take a loss.
It makes me happy that somebody did this already. Kritiks are tricky. Ragnar has published some advice on the subject: http://tiny.cc/Kritik I think your position was winnable (in fact, the voting was close and there plenty of voters so you had support). In hindsight, I'd advise against starting off with an announcement of intent to manipulate. To pull off a K, you are saying "hey, normal debate conduct does not apply for this debate because of reasons x, y, x- we have to apply a new set of rules to fix the problem my opponent has created" If you're going to change the normal debate conduct you have to argue from a place of authority.
So, for example, I will say, "hey my opponent totally neglected to define terms" or "your thesis has no verb- how can we understand your intent without a verb?" I am projecting myself as an authority on proper debate conduct in the first or an authority on good grammar in the second. If I start out calling this manipulation, well then I have no authority by which to demand voters accept my assertion of terms or verb or whatever. Your concluding argument sets the right tone but by that time Nevets had dropped a whole lot of argument and asserted solid authority as well as expertise. This was always going to be a hard argument to win and you came very close to pulling it off. Nice work.
Since GOAT is never defined for this debate I would really have liked to have seen a K on goat.
Not only is Pele not THE goat, he's not even A goat, he's not even half goat like a satyr or Pan. Pele is a human. If Pele has any goat DNA it is virtually undetectable by phenotype- no trace of horns, for example. If Pele had little goat hooves propped up in those cleats I'm fairly certain Pele would have been disqualified from the sport.
damn but its hard to get a vote around here
that was quickly argued. nice.
Thanks, croc and fauxlaw for taking the time to vote.
Thx again Nikunj for your timely subject and thoughtful argument
I think shortening the argument time is good strategy for this style of debate. You clearly have already thought about this subject a lot and already have a pretty good idea of what you want you to say, which means you can lay down arguments relatively quickly. You've put together a complex argument that takes a lot of time and research to make a proper response so shortening the argument time is likely to give some advantage.
gg! Thanks again for the interesting topic.
--> @User_2006
Firstly, yes they are, secondly Oromagi is less so and in my opinion he's not that good at mafia.
I agree and for roughly the same reasons I have trouble sustaining a squabble in the forums. In mafia and squabbles, the advantage is all in profligacy. It doesnot matter if what you say is unwarranted or irrelevant so long as you are constantly pursuing the last word, escalating every perceived slight and ignoring any valid ripostes. The thread and weight of real arguments gets lost in long games of what amounts to text pong and I just get so bored with it. I understand that I'm discounting the major activity on this site but text pong has never been much of an attraction for me.
This must be true since I can easily identify many debaters with greater skill than me but lower ELO. ELO measures win/loss relative to ranking but in no way surveys skill.
FYI: previous post was my 10 yr old nephew
I think the blue ball is a fair thing especially for Mario cart I mean if you are last and you get a blue ball it will get you a huge boost. Power ups are the big thing in Mario cart it would just be another race game. I also think that the blue ball is fair because you would not want your friend beating you by 2 laps.
Can’t usually precludes should. For example, if your mother argued that you should bring your pet alligator to school today, wouldn’t it be valid to counter that school policy forbids dangerous animals and besides you do not own an alligator and besides you do not have access to lawful alligator transportation? Can’t is often a good reason that one should not.
really nice format in R1. I like the way you to keep re-applying the format in future rounds, even when your opponent doesn't follow it, even if you have to do a little shoe-horning to make it work. It makes following chains of counter-arguments that much easier to follow
Great topic
"vacation is unconstitutional" is not the opposing view from the "house should vacate" although it is one argument against. Opposing views would be "house should vacate" vs. "house should not vacate" Whether vacation is unconstiutional depends on the definition of unconstitutional. The constitution does not mention such a power but gives the House the power to make the rules, including one presumes a rule for rettraction. So vacation is unconstitutional in the sense of non-constitutional but not in the sense of anti-constitutional.
DAs don't withdraw indictments just because the judge proved corrupt- I see no value to vacation except as an additional propaganda tool for use by an unchecked, destructive presidency.
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18
And David spake, "that is why Johnathan and I always do it standing up. Sometimes on chariots.... chariot sex is the best!" Samuel 69
6 votes. yippee
Wow, six votes. I never get six votes. Thx, people
FRANCIS: We're gettin' in through the underground heating system here, up through into the main audience chamber here, and Pilate's wife's bedroom is here. Having grabbed his wife, we inform Pilate that she is in our custody and forthwith issue our demands. Any questions?
COMMANDO XERXES: What exactly are the demands?
REG: We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State, and if he doesn't agree immediately, we execute her.
MATTHIAS: Cut her head off?
FRANCIS: Cut all her bits off. Send 'em back on the hour every hour. Show them we're not to be trifled with.
REG: Also, we're demanding a ten foot mahogany statue of the Emperor Julius Caesar with his dock hangin' out.
P.F.J.: laughing
LORETTA: What? They'll never agree to that, Reg.
REG: That's just a bar-- a bargaining counter. And of course, we point out that they bear full responsibility when we chop her up, and that we shall not submit to blackmail!
COMMANDOS: No blackmail!
REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah.
LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES: The aqueduct?
REG: What?
XERXES: The aqueduct.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.
LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO: Irrigation.
XERXES: Medicine.
COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...
COMMANDO #2: Education.
COMMANDOS: Ohh...
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1: And the wine.
COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Public baths.
LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!
bam bam bam bam bam bam bam
bam bam bam bam bam
MATTHIAS: I am a poor man. My sight is poor. My legs are old and bent, and--
JUDITH: It's all right, Matthias.
MATTHIAS: It's all clear.
JUDITH: Well, where's Reg?
FRANCIS: Oh, Reg. Reg, it's Judith.
REG: What went wrong?
JUDITH: The first blow has been struck!
REG: Did he finish the slogan?
JUDITH: A hundred times, in letters ten foot high, all the way around the palace!
REG: Oh, great. Great. We-- we need doers in our movement, Brian, but, before you join us, know this. There is not one of us here who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
COMMANDO: Uhh. Well, one.
REG: Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's one, but otherwise, we're solid. Are you with us?
BRIAN: Yes!
REG: From now on, you shall be called 'Brian that is called Brian'. Tell him about the raid on Pilate's palace, Francis.
FRANCIS: Right. This is the plan...
thank u folks 4 voting
thx4voting
good debate topic. Is UFO defined as "any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified ?"
ridiculous, irrational. I note that there have been tens of reports of cell phone towers attacked and destroyed in the last few weeks, few having anything to with 5g.
the longer the streak, the greater the fall
Danke schoen!
Many thanks for voting!
Many thanks for voting!
Many thanks for voting!
Many thanks for voting!
I’m curious but if all you have to prove is that some science surrounding coronavirus science is defective then I’d be a fool to accept. For example, Chinese doctors reported significant inhibitory effects on COVID from taking hydrochloroquine in late January but now, 3 months later we see that the drug probably kills more patients than it saves. Hypothesis is a legitimate step in the scientific method and we are likely years away from making satisfactory conclusions based on rigorous testing. I imagine it is easy to find defective science in any emergency room even among smart scientists doing their best. Perhaps we should focus on a specific faulty claim.
Welcome to the site!
What's funny is that there are no rap battle debates in progress. A year ago, there were many rap battles going on all the time and now, when there are none, the objection arises.
testing testing
No explanation needed cuz it just ain't so
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1945/robert-bruces-son-william-de-brus-is-on-the-falkirk-rolls-fighting-for-the-english-which-probably-means-robert-de-brus-robert-bruce-was-on-side-with-the-english
Fame is fame, even if its fame for evil.
Fame for evil is properly termed infamy, the opposite of fame. Fame used to imply not only well-known but also well-spoken of. I notice that this definition has changed during the age of internet, which prizes name recognition above a good reputation but in my book, famous for evil, true or false, is the opposite of fame.
Meghan Markle who recently married Prince Harry is a 25th generation direct descendant of Robert the Bruce (in fact, Bruce has many famous descendants because his children married into multiple royal lines). But that fact gets almost no play in America as a direct result of Bruce's ruined reputation in the US, exclusively due to the lies Mel Gibson told about Meghan Markle's Greatx24 Grandfather. Now, if Meghan Markle was a descendant of William Wallace, that fact would likely be well known in America even though the real Wallace was a mostly unsuccessful minor landowner.
Richard the Lionheart vs Bad King John is a classic example. Richard was easily one of the worst kings in history. Richard only went to England twice and both times came as a French invader killing English. He wasted the English treasury on fancy clothes and tournaments that he mysteriously always won. He tried to kill his father multiple times and started a war for seducing the Dauphin of France (Richard was super gay). He went on the crusades, lost a couple of battles and got imprisoned for years. John, on the other hand, lived in England his entire reign, rescued the treasury from bankruptcy, restored law and order, made peace with the barons (after some clashes, to be sure) and granted some Englishmen their first civil rights since Rome.
By any measure, John was a much better English King than Richard, any contemporary document would affirm as much. But mostly because of "Robin Hood" glam wastrel Richard is now better remembered than his objectively better little brother. That's defamation: even into modernity, English Royals won't name their children John- not because of true history but because of false fiction.
Alot of people would probably never heard of bruce if not for braveheart.
A lot of Americans, maybe. In Scotland he has always been the first free King of Scotland. Their George Washingto. Nothing about those lies made the movie better so why not make a movie with the same great battle scenes only telling the truth about the people who fought them. I know there are people who think famous is so important that its better to be famous for something evil than not to be famous at all. I would sooner be forgotten five hundred years from now than remembered as a traitor or a fink, personally.
I would go to a Trump casino on the Moon. I almost can't think of a place I'd rather be right now than a Trump casino on the Moon with french toast for breakfast and a moonminer for lunch.
[If Trump wins a second term, I predict he'll pass a bill to replace Franklin's face on the hundred dollar bill with his own]
I hate golf and all its blancopatrician traditions but a game of golf on the Moon would be awesome. Holes would range from 1,000 yards to 2.8 miles. Plasma powered jet pack caddies. Whoever shanks one out of orbit buys the vodkas.