The classic perps are aliens, cryptids, occultists, and bad government in order of popularity. I am refuting any of these as the major cause, which I believe is natural.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:weak efforts on both sides. Conduct to PRO for only forfeiting the first round
What’s easy about putting down your fellow citizens? The govt. is just people - civil servants and soldiers who take no ease in harming their neighbors, however wrongheaded or violent those neighbors might be.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:This is PRO''s most engaged argument which is saying almost nothing. I think PRO is arguing for a DART policy change to resubmit forfeited debates but he never describes his intention. Still CON skips PRO's plan and goes straight to challenging evidence- which might have worked out if PRO hadn't given a reasonable plan for verification (would have been better if he'd linked to cable provider himself- source points!) and CON hadn't forfeited the final four rounds while finishing with an excuse for forfeit that plays as better evidence for PRO than CON. Args to PRO. Conduct to PRO for CON's forfeits.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: fluff for fit
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 offering was pretty straightforward-
P1: User Ragnar always votes against user billbatard
C1: therefore, Ragnar is shown to be biased in debates involving user billbatard
PRO's single strand of evidence was instantly disproved with CON's link to a debate where Ragnar favored billbatard
As instigator and provacateur, BoP was 100% PRO's and he just didn't bother to assemble any case beyond the one faulty assertion
CON offered contradicting evidence and challenged PRO to prove state of mind, which challenge PRO did not accept. In fact, PRO never engaged.
Arguments to CON.
Sources to CON for refuting PRO entire premise with a link to a vote contradicting PRO's assertion.
S&G to CON for offering PRO the point if PRO would only adhere to DART formatting (as designed by CON). PRO ignored this generous offering.
Conduct to CON because PRO essentially used debates to dodge the "no call out thread" rules of DART. Judging by PRO's overall lack of conviction and effort, this VOTER finds that PRO's debate represent an effort to troll/provoke that was effectively nullified by CON's adherence to DART standards.
we should do flat earth some time. I haven't really looked into it and I'd like to better understand the underpinnings of recent round earth denialism. I totally do not understand that particular pop culture phenomenon and suspect it is mostly pose. No its not kind of cool to pretend what is real ain't real or suggest that our astonishing and valiant American Space program has just been a bunch of nerds lying but I expect that there's a better argument then that somewhere in there.
Of the 15 Open challenges- 11 are instigated by billbatard
Of the 47 debates in progress- 13 are being debated by billbatard
Of the 53 debates in voting- 17 are argued by billbatard
What is your resolution? Is the subject white people or white supremacists? You ref a DHS doc without citation are u just arguing that what the DHS says is true or what?
Singapore is the pricing centre and leading oil trading hub in Asia. The oil industry makes up 5 per cent of Singapore's GDP, with Singapore being one of the top three export refining centres in the world. In 2007 it exported 68.1 million tonnes of oil. The oil industry has led to the promotion of the chemical industry as well as oil and gas equipment manufacturing.
According to the Human Rights Watch, due to its role as a financial hub for the region, Singapore has continually been criticised for reportedly hosting bank accounts containing ill-gotten gains of corrupt leaders and their associates, including billions of dollars of Burma's state gas revenues hidden from national accounts.[74] Singapore has attracted assets formerly held in Swiss banks for several reasons, including new taxes imposed on Swiss accounts and a weakening of Swiss bank secrecy. Credit Suisse, the second largest Swiss bank, moved its head of international private banking to Singapore in 2005.
Singaporeans are ranked second in the world for per capita gambling losses $891.16 per person per year. Singapore ranks third in the world for gambling revenues per number of tourists. 44% of all Singaporeans gambled in 2014. If you look at all those famous Singapore skyline pics those are casinos lining the waterfront
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: not much engagement here. Both sides forfeit second half of debate. PRO argues that playing a politician on TV does not count as political experience. CON correctly points out that the Ukrainian President is a civilian position, that actors have successfully led nations in the past, that Zelensky's experience is superior to most civilians in that he has researched the job for his acting role and has training as a lawyer. Some evidence backing CON's case ought to have been presented but CON's arguments soundly refuted PRO single assertion. Args to CON
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: It is clear that CON misapprehended which side of the debate to take in R1 and then never made a serious job of contending against PRO's argument or defending POTUS (offering more args in support of PRO). PRO offered 3 solid arguments against POTUS fitness for office and CON seemed to agree. Args to 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:PRO gives a full and sufficient argument and CON makes no argument of any kind. In spite of PRO's departure and (off-debate) concession, this VOTER has to interpret the absence of any argument by CON across five opportunities as a 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: I for one am totally unimpressed with this popular assertion- the only reason the math works is because PRO shorthands the infinitely repeating decimal point. If PRO wasn't so lazy and instead took the time the fill the known universe with repeating nines it would be apparent to everybody that the integer 1 is quite different from the infinitely inexpressible .9999....
Nevertheless, PRO did the math and backed his argument with citations. CON offered one assertion without any proofs and that was easily falsified in certain creative contexts. PRO made his case.
Grammar to PRO for CON's misuse of the adverb "literally" which means 'verbatim'- no metaphor should be here read. This VOTER scoured the debate for some reference to the division of follicles and finding none, failed to comprehend CON's intention or cohere this statement to implied thesis.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: tie for flluf
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
RE: supadudz v dappermack
dudz rhymed some lines; dap blanked out back
just quietly full forfeited
it's fair to say mack horseshitted
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:Full forfeits are a social media construct
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:CON was way ahead after R1 but never engaged PRO's counters and never fleshed out points. Conduct to PRO for making an entry in every round.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: Fall fashion full forfeit
Thanks for the vote anyway, Yours, and welcome to the site. I hope you will continue to vote once you are eligible. Ragnar, thanks for voting and Virt thanks for all your efforts.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit by CON
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So we’re doing a great program. We have — Vice President Pence is very much involved. And we have a tremendous space program. If you look at our facilities, they were virtually closed up. There was crabgrass growing on the runways and now they’re vital.
And, you know, we’re doing — we’re doing — we’re going to Mars. We’re stopping at the moon. The moon is actually a launching pad. That’s why we’re stopping at the moon. I said, “Hey, we’ve done the moon. That’s not so exciting.” They said, “No, sir. It’s a launching pad for Mars.” So we’ll be doing the Moon. But we’ll really be doing Mars. And we’ll be — we’re making tremendous progress.
In addition, rich people like to send up rocket ships. So between Bezos and Elon Musk and others, we’re leasing them our launch facilities, which you can’t get. There are no launch facilities like this. This is big stuff. So we’re — in Texas and Florida, we’re leasing them our facilities so they can send up whatever they want to send up. It’s okay with us. And they’ve actually done very well. They’ve said they’ve had great success.
But rich people in this country — I don’t know about your country — but they like building rocket ships and sending them up, and it’s okay with us. (Laughter.)
Well, it is not a sin because only Mel Gibson is getting screwed and God hates Mel ever since he Mad Maxed Jesus in The Mashin' of the Christ. But it might be a teenie tiny little crime. Please don't crime on my debate. Also I will probably keep trying for a Braveheart debate so folks should look out for an opportunity to re-watch. It is certainly entertaining as hell. I don't need to re-watch because I re-live Braveheart in my head every time I get my hand stuck in the garbage disposal.
Fun fact: I have two second cousins from Ireland who were extras in the two big battle scenes in Braveheart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Portland_train_attack is what I was thinking of specifically, although I said Proud Boys, etc and was more generally thinking of that core group of 60 or so men who have been marching in Portland, Berkeley, Seattle, Austin, etc since the advent of Trump. I suppose you could argue that the Portland stabbings were really Patriot Prayer or that JJ Christian was no official member, he just attended their meetings and wore their uniform and marched with them a bunch but that kind of misdirection is right out of any violent radical group's playbook.
The classic perps are aliens, cryptids, occultists, and bad government in order of popularity. I am refuting any of these as the major cause, which I believe is natural.
I won't be arguing that most of these animals bled out before discovery.
Please note that for this debate natural has been defined as not made or caused by humankind
Chupacabra is a later version of the same phenomenon.
cut & paste, I assume
It is certainly a very debatable topic. I just kept wondering what argument a pilot would use.
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:
full forfeit favors Fruit flavors
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:weak efforts on both sides. Conduct to PRO for only forfeiting the first round
What’s easy about putting down your fellow citizens? The govt. is just people - civil servants and soldiers who take no ease in harming their neighbors, however wrongheaded or violent those neighbors might be.
Hey, drones have feelings too yknow. Thanks!
re: pix call me lyle cuz I love it
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 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:This is PRO''s most engaged argument which is saying almost nothing. I think PRO is arguing for a DART policy change to resubmit forfeited debates but he never describes his intention. Still CON skips PRO's plan and goes straight to challenging evidence- which might have worked out if PRO hadn't given a reasonable plan for verification (would have been better if he'd linked to cable provider himself- source points!) and CON hadn't forfeited the final four rounds while finishing with an excuse for forfeit that plays as better evidence for PRO than CON. Args to PRO. Conduct to PRO for CON's forfeits.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: fluff for fit
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 offering was pretty straightforward-
P1: User Ragnar always votes against user billbatard
C1: therefore, Ragnar is shown to be biased in debates involving user billbatard
PRO's single strand of evidence was instantly disproved with CON's link to a debate where Ragnar favored billbatard
As instigator and provacateur, BoP was 100% PRO's and he just didn't bother to assemble any case beyond the one faulty assertion
CON offered contradicting evidence and challenged PRO to prove state of mind, which challenge PRO did not accept. In fact, PRO never engaged.
Arguments to CON.
Sources to CON for refuting PRO entire premise with a link to a vote contradicting PRO's assertion.
S&G to CON for offering PRO the point if PRO would only adhere to DART formatting (as designed by CON). PRO ignored this generous offering.
Conduct to CON because PRO essentially used debates to dodge the "no call out thread" rules of DART. Judging by PRO's overall lack of conviction and effort, this VOTER finds that PRO's debate represent an effort to troll/provoke that was effectively nullified by CON's adherence to DART standards.
don't you want to go back and fix the 20 or so errors in R1 arguments before producing new erroneous statements?
[1]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
[2]https://www.universetoday.com/15055/diameter-of-earth/
[3]https://www.universetoday.com/19677/diameter-of-the-moon/
[4]https://www.universetoday.com/20489/moon-compared-to-earth/
[5]https://sciencing.com/area-part-square-circle-middle-8166634.html
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza
[7]https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/absolute_zero.htm
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy
[9]https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/womens-health/in-depth/menstrual-cycle/art-20047186
[10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cycle
[11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity
[13]https://theplanets.org/asteroid-belt/
[14]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit
thanks for your time & effort!
I'd also be willing to debate "there's no such thing as ghosts"
razzy-man-
we should do flat earth some time. I haven't really looked into it and I'd like to better understand the underpinnings of recent round earth denialism. I totally do not understand that particular pop culture phenomenon and suspect it is mostly pose. No its not kind of cool to pretend what is real ain't real or suggest that our astonishing and valiant American Space program has just been a bunch of nerds lying but I expect that there's a better argument then that somewhere in there.
Elon Musk says Starship should reach orbit within six months – and could even fly with a crew next year
https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/28/elon-musk-says-starship-should-reach-orbit-within-six-months-and-it-could-even-fly-with-a-crew-next-year/
Of the 15 Open challenges- 11 are instigated by billbatard
Of the 47 debates in progress- 13 are being debated by billbatard
Of the 53 debates in voting- 17 are argued by billbatard
That is an awful lot of hoo haw
What is your resolution? Is the subject white people or white supremacists? You ref a DHS doc without citation are u just arguing that what the DHS says is true or what?
Singapore is the pricing centre and leading oil trading hub in Asia. The oil industry makes up 5 per cent of Singapore's GDP, with Singapore being one of the top three export refining centres in the world. In 2007 it exported 68.1 million tonnes of oil. The oil industry has led to the promotion of the chemical industry as well as oil and gas equipment manufacturing.
According to the Human Rights Watch, due to its role as a financial hub for the region, Singapore has continually been criticised for reportedly hosting bank accounts containing ill-gotten gains of corrupt leaders and their associates, including billions of dollars of Burma's state gas revenues hidden from national accounts.[74] Singapore has attracted assets formerly held in Swiss banks for several reasons, including new taxes imposed on Swiss accounts and a weakening of Swiss bank secrecy. Credit Suisse, the second largest Swiss bank, moved its head of international private banking to Singapore in 2005.
Singaporeans are ranked second in the world for per capita gambling losses $891.16 per person per year. Singapore ranks third in the world for gambling revenues per number of tourists. 44% of all Singaporeans gambled in 2014. If you look at all those famous Singapore skyline pics those are casinos lining the waterfront
https://img.theculturetrip.com/768x432/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/gf70r2-1.jpg
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: not much engagement here. Both sides forfeit second half of debate. PRO argues that playing a politician on TV does not count as political experience. CON correctly points out that the Ukrainian President is a civilian position, that actors have successfully led nations in the past, that Zelensky's experience is superior to most civilians in that he has researched the job for his acting role and has training as a lawyer. Some evidence backing CON's case ought to have been presented but CON's arguments soundly refuted PRO single assertion. Args to CON
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: It is clear that CON misapprehended which side of the debate to take in R1 and then never made a serious job of contending against PRO's argument or defending POTUS (offering more args in support of PRO). PRO offered 3 solid arguments against POTUS fitness for office and CON seemed to agree. Args to 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:PRO gives a full and sufficient argument and CON makes no argument of any kind. In spite of PRO's departure and (off-debate) concession, this VOTER has to interpret the absence of any argument by CON across five opportunities as a 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: I for one am totally unimpressed with this popular assertion- the only reason the math works is because PRO shorthands the infinitely repeating decimal point. If PRO wasn't so lazy and instead took the time the fill the known universe with repeating nines it would be apparent to everybody that the integer 1 is quite different from the infinitely inexpressible .9999....
Nevertheless, PRO did the math and backed his argument with citations. CON offered one assertion without any proofs and that was easily falsified in certain creative contexts. PRO made his case.
Grammar to PRO for CON's misuse of the adverb "literally" which means 'verbatim'- no metaphor should be here read. This VOTER scoured the debate for some reference to the division of follicles and finding none, failed to comprehend CON's intention or cohere this statement to implied thesis.
Conduct to PRO for CON's single 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: tie for flluf
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
RE: supadudz v dappermack
dudz rhymed some lines; dap blanked out back
just quietly full forfeited
it's fair to say mack horseshitted
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:FF
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:Full forfeits are a social media construct
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:CON was way ahead after R1 but never engaged PRO's counters and never fleshed out points. Conduct to PRO for making an entry in every round.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: Fall fashion 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: Con forfeits fullaciously
Thanks for the vote anyway, Yours, and welcome to the site. I hope you will continue to vote once you are eligible. Ragnar, thanks for voting and Virt thanks for all your efforts.
https://ship.ralphs.com/img/Products/500/Kelloggs/Kelloggs-Special-K-Cereal-Original-038000016110.jpg
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 forfeits fully
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit by CON
Our topic is in the news:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So we’re doing a great program. We have — Vice President Pence is very much involved. And we have a tremendous space program. If you look at our facilities, they were virtually closed up. There was crabgrass growing on the runways and now they’re vital.
And, you know, we’re doing — we’re doing — we’re going to Mars. We’re stopping at the moon. The moon is actually a launching pad. That’s why we’re stopping at the moon. I said, “Hey, we’ve done the moon. That’s not so exciting.” They said, “No, sir. It’s a launching pad for Mars.” So we’ll be doing the Moon. But we’ll really be doing Mars. And we’ll be — we’re making tremendous progress.
In addition, rich people like to send up rocket ships. So between Bezos and Elon Musk and others, we’re leasing them our launch facilities, which you can’t get. There are no launch facilities like this. This is big stuff. So we’re — in Texas and Florida, we’re leasing them our facilities so they can send up whatever they want to send up. It’s okay with us. And they’ve actually done very well. They’ve said they’ve had great success.
But rich people in this country — I don’t know about your country — but they like building rocket ships and sending them up, and it’s okay with us. (Laughter.)
PRO's R3 source list
https://www.space.com/36800-five-ways-to-die-on-mars.html
+1 RM Reagan will always be my second wurst, even as my first wurst alters
Can I argue wurst president? He's so savagely sausage-y.
I think I could argue that a lobster’s death is less cruel than most chickens or pigs or even crabs. Man, I have whacked a lot of lobsters in my life.
Well, it is not a sin because only Mel Gibson is getting screwed and God hates Mel ever since he Mad Maxed Jesus in The Mashin' of the Christ. But it might be a teenie tiny little crime. Please don't crime on my debate. Also I will probably keep trying for a Braveheart debate so folks should look out for an opportunity to re-watch. It is certainly entertaining as hell. I don't need to re-watch because I re-live Braveheart in my head every time I get my hand stuck in the garbage disposal.
Fun fact: I have two second cousins from Ireland who were extras in the two big battle scenes in Braveheart.
or just turn AMC- sometimes it's like the 24/7 Braveheart channel
that's concision- pretty much sums up the crossed philosophy in a single sentence
PRO's R2 source list
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-definitely-have-not-found-life-on-the-moon/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cost-travel-moon-mars-beyond-044926516.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_soil
https://www.space.com/india-moon-lander-flyover-nasa-lro.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/06/23/space-investors-rejoice-worth-mining-moon.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Portland_train_attack is what I was thinking of specifically, although I said Proud Boys, etc and was more generally thinking of that core group of 60 or so men who have been marching in Portland, Berkeley, Seattle, Austin, etc since the advent of Trump. I suppose you could argue that the Portland stabbings were really Patriot Prayer or that JJ Christian was no official member, he just attended their meetings and wore their uniform and marched with them a bunch but that kind of misdirection is right out of any violent radical group's playbook.