THBT: There is only one sane way to interpret X but not sane in the literal sense, or sane as in the absence of mental illness... it's a loose kind of sane that I may or may not get around to describing.
"It's a bit difficult to vote on this because neither of you met your burden of proof."
I deny that CON had any burden of proof.
I stated up front that," PRO as instigator and challenger of status quo bears the entire responsibility of proof." PRO must have been fine with that arrangement since there was no objection.
"According to US Dept. of Justice statistics, male perpetrators constituted 96% of federal prosecutions for domestic violence."
HOWEVER, the victims are domestic violence are also men., so this doesn't mean that just women are affected by domestic violence
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
Setting aside the fact that The Guardian is reporting an advocacy group's interpretation of UK statistics rather than the actual stats, we should wonder why Dr. Franklin would refute a US Dept of Justice statistic regarding Americans with a UK stat regarding Brits.
I am a believer in over-defining debate terms since interpretation is everything and many debates come down who won the definition of terms. Once, an opponent claimed that "chimpanzees are smarter than humans" meant that if even one chimp was smarter than the dumbest human than the statement was sometimes true and so true. Recently Trent0405 claimed in a debate we did that "Massachusetts is greater than California" meant that it was better to be an average citizen of Massachusetts and size, population, economy, acheivements, influence, so forth merited less consideration.
To you I say, "why aren't you defining America?" What if I argued America isn't sexist and then defined America as the Emmy award winning actress America Ferrera? That's a much harder argument. I'm convinced that the debater who sets the terms first and best has a real advantage.
One obvious difference between birther claims and Trump/Putin collusion claims is the source. The source for the disproved birther claim was Andy Martin, a well known hyper-litigant in Illinois who was banned from the draft and the Illinois Bar for "defect of character" and mental illness. Martin also originated claims that Obama was a secret Muslim. Martin also claims that Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis, a well known black communist in the 1950s- of course this claim contradicts the birther claim but I've never encountered a sincere birther so contradictions are beside the point.
Most of the evidence linking Trump to Russia is circumstantial but the evidence is mostly coming from within the US Federal Govt. The Mueller report documents tens of millions of dollars paid to Trump by Russian Oligarchs in cash real estate transactions, many of which paid two and three times the asking price. DeutcheBank which has pled guilty to laundering $80 billion in Putin's money between 2010 and 2014 also loaned Trump $360 million during the same period of time. DeutcheBank employees have also reported handling concealed million dollar transactions between Kushner and Russian Oligarchs. When a Judge ruled 6 weeks ago that DeutcheBank would be required to release all documents concerning Trump, the former exec in charge of Trump & Kushner's accounts, Thomas Bowers, hanged himself.
We know with a high degree of certainty now that Obama warned Trump in Nov 2016 that Mike Flynn was on the Russian payroll and in regular communication with Russia's spymaster, Sergei Kislyak. Flynn himself admitted to Trump on Jan 4 2017 that he was a Russian agent. Nevertheless, Trump appointed Flynn National Security Advisor (US spymaster) 3 weeks later. When the acting Atty Gen Yates warned Trump three days later that our top spy was an employee of Putin's, Trump fired her. Even after Flynn admitted he was a secret agent and pled guilty, Trump still stands by Flynn and says he would like to re-appoint him.
The CIA admitted this fall that they pulled their highest ranking spy in the Kremlin in early 2017 because they were convinced that Trump was seeking that man's identity and Trump had already shared highly classified intelligence directly with Spymaster Kislyak on at least one occasion. That is, the CIA has been convinced that the POTUS could or would give up US spies to Russian intelligence. If the CIA is that suspicious that Trump is a Russian asset, why shouldn't we all be suspicious?
To my mind, the most damning evidence is Trump's fawning compliance with Russian foreign policy- anti-NATO, anti-UN, anti-EU, refusing to condemn or respond to Russian attacks on US personnel, refusing to condemn or respond to Russian attacks on US allies, refusing to condemn or respond to Russian assassinations, surrendering US forts and abandoning US allies to Russian forces in Syria, withholding military aid to Ukraine for 9 months during wartime, opposed to Russian sanctions and in favor of Russia's re-admission to the G8, etc, etc...
I know you have been refraining from debating for a while but this would be a good topic for us to disagree about and we never got a chance to debate.
Dr.Franklin is quite false in such assertion. Most presidents’ (since polling started in 1950s) impeachment polls grow slowly over time. By 2014, Obama had seen roughly 8 serious calls for impeachment and GOP support for impeachment By July 2014 GOP support for Obama’s impeachment was at 68%
The poll states 39% of all Americans- including GOP. So, in 2007, Democrats controlled the House and Senate and enough popular support to credibly begin impeachment proceedings and yet the Democrats refrained. Certainly, Bush merited impeachment for manufacturing evidence to justify the re-invasion of Iraq, for falsely reporting that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, for failing to ask Congress to declare war, for falsifying US budget by leaving out trillions in war expenditures, for authorizing the kidnap and torture of many individuals without benefit of trial or even habeus corpus, for authorizing spying on US citizens phone lines and emails without getting a warrant, etc., etc.
According to FiveThirtyEight, popular support for Trump's impeachment stood at 39.9%, the day Trump withheld $400 million in Congressionally approved spending until Ukraine manufactured false accusations against Trump's leading opponent in the 2020 election. Trump's own public account of the the July 25 phone call is certainly sufficiently damning to convict Trump of bribery, misuse of taxpayer funds, collusion with foreign nationals to corrupt the 2020 US Election, illegal use of security clearances to conceal evidence of a crime, etc.
Personally, I think Trump merited impeachment more than any other president once it became clear that Trump knew that Mike Flynn was a secret agent on Russian and Turkish payrolls before Trump gave Flynn the job of top US spy and covered up for that Russian spy by firing the acting Atty Gen Sally Yates- 3 to 4 weeks into his administration. I still can't understand why any American prioritizing US interests would not remove any executive for having so profoundly compromised National Security and have concluded that Trump supporters do not consider the preservation of the US a worthwhile endeavor.
The claim is that the Democratic Party has tried to impeach every GOP president since Eisenhower. The claim is 100% false. The only time before Trump that the Democratic Party supported impeachment was Nixon but since the GOP also supported impeachment would not be fair to represent that as Democratic Party only. Dr.Franklin mistakes some Democratic congresspeople for the Democratic Party and by that mistake arrives at another false conclusion.
It might be interesting to note here that my father's family traces one line of ancestry right back to the Pilgrims. One ancestor performed the blessing on the Mayflower when it left from Leyden and his son came to America on a later immigration. I am a direct beneficiary of the Wampanoags' destruction.
One could certainly argue that the value of family togetherness and communal gratitude far outweigh the value of legitimate but ancient resentments making the modern Turkey day a worthy feast celebrating American culture but that don't mean it ain't racist.
The second most popular argument is that the woman who successfully lobbied Abraham Lincoln to make Thanksgiving a holiday also wrote a book supporting the forced migration of black Americans to Liberia (which, considering that the position was predicated on the abolition of slavery was probably a more liberal position than a modern sensibility might suppose). The Mother of Thanksgiving was pro-segregation. Unquestionably racist today but hardly cause sufficient to call off a party, I'd say.
There are a number of facets to the charge but I think I'm in agreement with Dr.Franklin when he suggests that any 400 year old event is likely to be found racist to a modern sensibility.
The main argument is that the original 1621 event featured Pilgrims celebrating their salvation from starvation by the generous aid and instruction of local Wampanoag tribesmen. The Pilgrims took over ready made, abandoned houses and fortifications and farmlands because European disease had killed 95% of the people who lived there two years prior. There was an understanding that the Pilgrims would respect Wampanoag territorial claims and even prevent other European colonists from expansion in the area but as the decades passed these promises lost strength, there were more European immigrants and fewer and fewer Wampanoag's mostly due to European diseases like smallpox and alcoholism. Eventually things got tense and the Pilgrims demanded that the Wampanoags hand over all their guns, which started an outbreak of violence that expanded into King Phillip's War. Most Wampanoags were killed or enslaved and all territorial claims were ignored. From a Wampanoag perspective, the First Thanksgiving was the begining of the end for their people and way of life. If you define America as the white descendants of Pilgrims, then Thanksgiving Day was a win for America. If you define America as all the people who were living in America in 1621 than the First Thanksgiving was more like prologue to apocalypse. Of the 100,000 or so residents of Southeastern Massachusetts in 1600, only about 400 descendants were around 76 years later (about 2,000 survive today).
I tried to nail it down a couple of times but never really did. I started out working against CON's claim: ""Many conspiracy theorist believe that our politicians are lizard People. The real answer is not aliens but demons." It is not until R3 that CON makes it clear that he claims that Kerry consorts with demons, but is not himself a demon. The title is about aliens but CON had no actual claims regarding aliens. Mostly it just feels like PRO wanted to keep tossing out new outrageous and unsupportable claims and only lightly engaged or countered any rebuttal.
Thanksgiving is unquestionably racist but that has little bearing on whether or not to celebrate. If we gave up on every holiday with a racist past we'd have few or none to celebrate.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: Per PRO's own rules:
3. Pro cannot provide rebuttals during R2, because con cannot provide rebuttals during R1.
PRO's R2 was mostly rebuttal.
6. No forfeits
PRO forfeited last two rounds
8. Violation of these rules should result in full points being awarded to the rulebreaker's opponent
Full points to rulebreaker's opponent, as requested by PRO
"I make my arguments based on IMPERATIVE FACTS and not LIBTARDED FEELINGS.
#facts"
"LIBTARD" is a portmanteau of liberal and retard, conflating liberal ideology with developmental disability. Of course, dropping ad homs while advocating rational discourse is fairly obvious contradiction. PressF injects emotion into his claim in a clause dependent on the very sentence where he pretends to reason. I call PressF's claim self-disproved.
I would make all pacific territories & possessions part of Hawaii. All Atlantic t & ps a new state with San Juan as Capitol. I would make DC part of MD. And consolidate north and South Dakota with bismark as capitol. And Montana and Wyoming with Billings as capitol. Then I would make a new state out of all native reservations and federally managed land. Retain 50 states
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:0 arguments made by CON- full forfeit
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: PRO's metaphors were by far the most obscure. Dinklage wedding cake?
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: boosting RM's ego is always the wrong play
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: FF. The Putineers seems to like Yang- I wonder why.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: FF- Still hope to see Best's argument for this
Yes, PROB = problem. I try to keep abbrs to the obv but one man's obv = another man's wtf. In this context the ref is PROBs w/ the resolution. I think you addressed all 5 concerns pretty directly & succinctly in R2 for which you have my thanks.
hairy loners living out in the woods of the Pacific Northwest are typically quite racist. Randy Weaver was half Bigfoot. The unibomber’s paternal grandmother was 8’4” with 6” incisors.
THBT: There is only one sane way to interpret X but not sane in the literal sense, or sane as in the absence of mental illness... it's a loose kind of sane that I may or may not get around to describing.
"It's a bit difficult to vote on this because neither of you met your burden of proof."
I deny that CON had any burden of proof.
I stated up front that," PRO as instigator and challenger of status quo bears the entire responsibility of proof." PRO must have been fine with that arrangement since there was no objection.
"According to US Dept. of Justice statistics, male perpetrators constituted 96% of federal prosecutions for domestic violence."
HOWEVER, the victims are domestic violence are also men., so this doesn't mean that just women are affected by domestic violence
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
Setting aside the fact that The Guardian is reporting an advocacy group's interpretation of UK statistics rather than the actual stats, we should wonder why Dr. Franklin would refute a US Dept of Justice statistic regarding Americans with a UK stat regarding Brits.
I am a believer in over-defining debate terms since interpretation is everything and many debates come down who won the definition of terms. Once, an opponent claimed that "chimpanzees are smarter than humans" meant that if even one chimp was smarter than the dumbest human than the statement was sometimes true and so true. Recently Trent0405 claimed in a debate we did that "Massachusetts is greater than California" meant that it was better to be an average citizen of Massachusetts and size, population, economy, acheivements, influence, so forth merited less consideration.
To you I say, "why aren't you defining America?" What if I argued America isn't sexist and then defined America as the Emmy award winning actress America Ferrera? That's a much harder argument. I'm convinced that the debater who sets the terms first and best has a real advantage.
Dr.Franklin has asked me not to accept his debates but I guess he still feels free to toss rocks from a safe distance.
One obvious difference between birther claims and Trump/Putin collusion claims is the source. The source for the disproved birther claim was Andy Martin, a well known hyper-litigant in Illinois who was banned from the draft and the Illinois Bar for "defect of character" and mental illness. Martin also originated claims that Obama was a secret Muslim. Martin also claims that Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis, a well known black communist in the 1950s- of course this claim contradicts the birther claim but I've never encountered a sincere birther so contradictions are beside the point.
Most of the evidence linking Trump to Russia is circumstantial but the evidence is mostly coming from within the US Federal Govt. The Mueller report documents tens of millions of dollars paid to Trump by Russian Oligarchs in cash real estate transactions, many of which paid two and three times the asking price. DeutcheBank which has pled guilty to laundering $80 billion in Putin's money between 2010 and 2014 also loaned Trump $360 million during the same period of time. DeutcheBank employees have also reported handling concealed million dollar transactions between Kushner and Russian Oligarchs. When a Judge ruled 6 weeks ago that DeutcheBank would be required to release all documents concerning Trump, the former exec in charge of Trump & Kushner's accounts, Thomas Bowers, hanged himself.
We know with a high degree of certainty now that Obama warned Trump in Nov 2016 that Mike Flynn was on the Russian payroll and in regular communication with Russia's spymaster, Sergei Kislyak. Flynn himself admitted to Trump on Jan 4 2017 that he was a Russian agent. Nevertheless, Trump appointed Flynn National Security Advisor (US spymaster) 3 weeks later. When the acting Atty Gen Yates warned Trump three days later that our top spy was an employee of Putin's, Trump fired her. Even after Flynn admitted he was a secret agent and pled guilty, Trump still stands by Flynn and says he would like to re-appoint him.
The CIA admitted this fall that they pulled their highest ranking spy in the Kremlin in early 2017 because they were convinced that Trump was seeking that man's identity and Trump had already shared highly classified intelligence directly with Spymaster Kislyak on at least one occasion. That is, the CIA has been convinced that the POTUS could or would give up US spies to Russian intelligence. If the CIA is that suspicious that Trump is a Russian asset, why shouldn't we all be suspicious?
To my mind, the most damning evidence is Trump's fawning compliance with Russian foreign policy- anti-NATO, anti-UN, anti-EU, refusing to condemn or respond to Russian attacks on US personnel, refusing to condemn or respond to Russian attacks on US allies, refusing to condemn or respond to Russian assassinations, surrendering US forts and abandoning US allies to Russian forces in Syria, withholding military aid to Ukraine for 9 months during wartime, opposed to Russian sanctions and in favor of Russia's re-admission to the G8, etc, etc...
I know you have been refraining from debating for a while but this would be a good topic for us to disagree about and we never got a chance to debate.
Check that spelling, squid.
Dr.Franklin is quite false in such assertion. Most presidents’ (since polling started in 1950s) impeachment polls grow slowly over time. By 2014, Obama had seen roughly 8 serious calls for impeachment and GOP support for impeachment By July 2014 GOP support for Obama’s impeachment was at 68%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama?wprov=sfti1
The poll states 39% of all Americans- including GOP. So, in 2007, Democrats controlled the House and Senate and enough popular support to credibly begin impeachment proceedings and yet the Democrats refrained. Certainly, Bush merited impeachment for manufacturing evidence to justify the re-invasion of Iraq, for falsely reporting that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, for failing to ask Congress to declare war, for falsifying US budget by leaving out trillions in war expenditures, for authorizing the kidnap and torture of many individuals without benefit of trial or even habeus corpus, for authorizing spying on US citizens phone lines and emails without getting a warrant, etc., etc.
According to FiveThirtyEight, popular support for Trump's impeachment stood at 39.9%, the day Trump withheld $400 million in Congressionally approved spending until Ukraine manufactured false accusations against Trump's leading opponent in the 2020 election. Trump's own public account of the the July 25 phone call is certainly sufficiently damning to convict Trump of bribery, misuse of taxpayer funds, collusion with foreign nationals to corrupt the 2020 US Election, illegal use of security clearances to conceal evidence of a crime, etc.
Personally, I think Trump merited impeachment more than any other president once it became clear that Trump knew that Mike Flynn was a secret agent on Russian and Turkish payrolls before Trump gave Flynn the job of top US spy and covered up for that Russian spy by firing the acting Atty Gen Sally Yates- 3 to 4 weeks into his administration. I still can't understand why any American prioritizing US interests would not remove any executive for having so profoundly compromised National Security and have concluded that Trump supporters do not consider the preservation of the US a worthwhile endeavor.
The claim is that the Democratic Party has tried to impeach every GOP president since Eisenhower. The claim is 100% false. The only time before Trump that the Democratic Party supported impeachment was Nixon but since the GOP also supported impeachment would not be fair to represent that as Democratic Party only. Dr.Franklin mistakes some Democratic congresspeople for the Democratic Party and by that mistake arrives at another false conclusion.
Dr.Franklin: WashPo,NYPost complete liars, International Creation Ministries absolute truth.
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:RFD in Votes
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:Concession
It might be interesting to note here that my father's family traces one line of ancestry right back to the Pilgrims. One ancestor performed the blessing on the Mayflower when it left from Leyden and his son came to America on a later immigration. I am a direct beneficiary of the Wampanoags' destruction.
One could certainly argue that the value of family togetherness and communal gratitude far outweigh the value of legitimate but ancient resentments making the modern Turkey day a worthy feast celebrating American culture but that don't mean it ain't racist.
The second most popular argument is that the woman who successfully lobbied Abraham Lincoln to make Thanksgiving a holiday also wrote a book supporting the forced migration of black Americans to Liberia (which, considering that the position was predicated on the abolition of slavery was probably a more liberal position than a modern sensibility might suppose). The Mother of Thanksgiving was pro-segregation. Unquestionably racist today but hardly cause sufficient to call off a party, I'd say.
=> How is Thanksgiving racist?
There are a number of facets to the charge but I think I'm in agreement with Dr.Franklin when he suggests that any 400 year old event is likely to be found racist to a modern sensibility.
The main argument is that the original 1621 event featured Pilgrims celebrating their salvation from starvation by the generous aid and instruction of local Wampanoag tribesmen. The Pilgrims took over ready made, abandoned houses and fortifications and farmlands because European disease had killed 95% of the people who lived there two years prior. There was an understanding that the Pilgrims would respect Wampanoag territorial claims and even prevent other European colonists from expansion in the area but as the decades passed these promises lost strength, there were more European immigrants and fewer and fewer Wampanoag's mostly due to European diseases like smallpox and alcoholism. Eventually things got tense and the Pilgrims demanded that the Wampanoags hand over all their guns, which started an outbreak of violence that expanded into King Phillip's War. Most Wampanoags were killed or enslaved and all territorial claims were ignored. From a Wampanoag perspective, the First Thanksgiving was the begining of the end for their people and way of life. If you define America as the white descendants of Pilgrims, then Thanksgiving Day was a win for America. If you define America as all the people who were living in America in 1621 than the First Thanksgiving was more like prologue to apocalypse. Of the 100,000 or so residents of Southeastern Massachusetts in 1600, only about 400 descendants were around 76 years later (about 2,000 survive today).
I tried to nail it down a couple of times but never really did. I started out working against CON's claim: ""Many conspiracy theorist believe that our politicians are lizard People. The real answer is not aliens but demons." It is not until R3 that CON makes it clear that he claims that Kerry consorts with demons, but is not himself a demon. The title is about aliens but CON had no actual claims regarding aliens. Mostly it just feels like PRO wanted to keep tossing out new outrageous and unsupportable claims and only lightly engaged or countered any rebuttal.
"Frankly I'm not certain I've met a middle aged woman who DOESN'T get all Christmas presents on Black Friday or Cyber Monday"
Now if they just get all of us to do that they only need employees (6% of US jobs) a couple of weeks per year.
An army is only as strong as its commander, and America's commander is a Russian asset. Therefore RU is stronger.
Especially a flare gun on a house boat.
Thanksgiving is unquestionably racist but that has little bearing on whether or not to celebrate. If we gave up on every holiday with a racist past we'd have few or none to celebrate.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:FF
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: FF
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: Per PRO's own rules:
3. Pro cannot provide rebuttals during R2, because con cannot provide rebuttals during R1.
PRO's R2 was mostly rebuttal.
6. No forfeits
PRO forfeited last two rounds
8. Violation of these rules should result in full points being awarded to the rulebreaker's opponent
Full points to rulebreaker's opponent, as requested by PRO
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:the squid done did
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:RFD in Votes
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: Fluffy for fits
"Make it one week and I’ll be down"
Done. Down indeed.
"I make my arguments based on IMPERATIVE FACTS and not LIBTARDED FEELINGS.
#facts"
"LIBTARD" is a portmanteau of liberal and retard, conflating liberal ideology with developmental disability. Of course, dropping ad homs while advocating rational discourse is fairly obvious contradiction. PressF injects emotion into his claim in a clause dependent on the very sentence where he pretends to reason. I call PressF's claim self-disproved.
I imagine most debaters have well formulated opinions on this topic & need little time for research.
No debate in school. I learned "house" language on DDO.
I would make all pacific territories & possessions part of Hawaii. All Atlantic t & ps a new state with San Juan as Capitol. I would make DC part of MD. And consolidate north and South Dakota with bismark as capitol. And Montana and Wyoming with Billings as capitol. Then I would make a new state out of all native reservations and federally managed land. Retain 50 states
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:0 arguments made by CON- full forfeit
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: PRO's metaphors were by far the most obscure. Dinklage wedding cake?
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: boosting RM's ego is always the wrong play
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: FF. The Putineers seems to like Yang- I wonder why.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: FF- Still hope to see Best's argument for this
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: yeet
CON's R3 links to sources
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/
https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-mound-people/Content?oid=902673
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaco_Culture_National_Historical_Park#Ancestral_Puebloans
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Native-American/Native-American-history
https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24099
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-Columbian_inventions_and_innovations_of_indigenous_Americans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Writing_systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Agriculture
Yes, PROB = problem. I try to keep abbrs to the obv but one man's obv = another man's wtf. In this context the ref is PROBs w/ the resolution. I think you addressed all 5 concerns pretty directly & succinctly in R2 for which you have my thanks.
CON's R2 links to sources:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/major
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/technology
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/advancement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
https://books.google.com/books?id=vSCra8jUI2EC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=if+England+had+been+the+size+of+the+Triple+Alliance,+it+would+have+executed,+on+average,+about+7,500+people+per+year&source=bl&ots=p1DCa3umoH&sig=ACfU3U1y3JXTRrGjdO18zL71GEDU4HhkZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6nfj5l-jlAhWCu54KHekqDK0Q6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=if%20England%20had%20been%20the%20size%20of%20the%20Triple%20Alliance%2C%20it%20would%20have%20executed%2C%20on%20average%2C%20about%207%2C500%20people%20per%20year&f=false
https://xefer.com/text/cabezadevaca
https://books.google.com/books?id=tfyKg4rTGocC&pg=PA468&lpg=PA468&dq=In+the+memory+of+people+I+doubt+there+is+record+of+another+highway+comparable+to+this,+running+through+deep+valleys+and+over+high+mountains,+through+piles+of+snow,+quagmires,+living+rock,+along+turbulent+rivers&source=bl&ots=itYhL57xzN&sig=ACfU3U0-5n7quBwmPuEmofagTkTgeGS9Fg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbna_Ap-jlAhUKrp4KHZPhAL8Q6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=In%20the%20memory%20of%20people%20I%20doubt%20there%20is%20record%20of%20another%20highway%20comparable%20to%20this%2C%20running%20through%20deep%20valleys%20and%20over%20high%20mountains%2C%20through%20piles%20of%20snow%2C%20quagmires%2C%20living%20rock%2C%20along%20turbulent%20rivers&f=false
fret not
If by amendment you mean "fictive mega-fauna reamed orifice" then the answer is yes.
Don't dodge the question. Are you Randy Weaver's bigfoot lovin' mother- yes or no?
Don't dodge the question. Are you Randy Weaver's bigfoot lovin' mother- yes or no?
It's only ad hominem if you are a bigfoot and/or Randy Weaver's mom. Are you making some kind of confession here?
Last chance. No votes for a short well-contested debate.
I, too, don't think Weaver was necessarily racist just because he associated with white supremacists.
I do think Weaver was necessarily racist because he was running guns for the Aryan Nations terrorist network
and because his mother fucked bigfoots.
hairy loners living out in the woods of the Pacific Northwest are typically quite racist. Randy Weaver was half Bigfoot. The unibomber’s paternal grandmother was 8’4” with 6” incisors.