"Stolen" is your claim not mine. I would encourage you to set up the debate as a positive assertion and define all of your terms maximally in the DESCRIPTION so that I can review them and accept/reject. You must prove that Biden only won through fraud not just that there was some fraud. Much of Trump's fraud was more or less out in the open.
"P1- the government is run by political insiders who are out for their own best interests
Agreed. In 2020, the govt was run by Trump who was only out for his own best interest
"P2- trump is antagonist towards long time political insiders"
Objectively false. Trump's entire career has been schmoozing political insiders. If the Bush and Clinton families are the dominant political insiders of the past 30 years, then few Americans have given more money, attending more parties, invited them to more of his parties than Trump. Trump best friends were Roger Stone and Jeffrey Epstein, both introduced to him by Roy Cohn in the 1980s, both of whom spent every waking hour schmoozing Republican insiders. When the time came to write his political platform for the 2016 election, Trump took Romney's platform word for word except for dropping US support for Ukraine and dropping condemnation of Russia's invasion of Crimea. In 2020, he made zero changes to the Republican platform at all. Trump put it in writing that he thought that Republican principles in 2012 were just fine for 2020. No previous presidential candidate or president has ever been so well satisfied with the status quo.
"P3- political insiders have plenty of incentive to protect their own best interests and seeing as how they are both evil and also in complete control of the political machinery, they have the ability to commit treason completely undetected."
Trump was the ultimate insider from 2016 to 2020 and his many treasons were both super detectable and now starting to be referenced to our criminal justice system.
:C1- given the ability, motivation and ethics of political insiders to maintain power, there is a strong possibility that they would steal the election."
Your syllogism game really sucks.
A does B
C hates B
A does B
therefore
A does B
There's little doubt Trump did everything he could to steal the election but he was thwarted by the honest democratic participation of many good citizens.
"I want you to look at the court precedings from the orange revolution where an election was proven stolen. Most of the same arguments by the establishment there were also made by the Washington establishment in response to the same accusations."
Let's recall that Paul Manafort ran that election for the Russo-Ukrainian faction too. Manafort now admits that he gave Trump's election insider info to Putin in exchange for $30 million.
"The point I think that is more important though. Is whether it is ethical to attempt physical overthrow of a government if you do suspect there was election fraud." "Those people believed whether true or not that the government was stolen by an enemy force by unfair tactics. Were they justified if they were right?"
post-facto non-sequitur. The ease with which Trump followers were duped after the election has no impact on the facts of the election itself.
"Or should they have did what was done to overthrow the election in Ukraine? If that was not a feasible strategy, is violence acceptable?"
Obviously you haven't studied the Orange Revolution yourself or you would know that it was a bloodless revolution. You'll remember that that Yushchenko survived an attempted assassination by Russian agents, which united the fractured opposition against Putin/Manafort's candidate. The election day results were so obviously fake because the majority of election officials complained about fraud, all international observers complained about fraud, the exit polls were way off from the results. The majority of parliament refused to attend the swearing in ceremony. After two months of non-violent but economically devastating general strikes, the Supreme Court ruled the election was rigged and ordered a re-vote under much more free and fair conditions, which Yushenko won handily.
Just looking for somebody with the guts to explain why they believe the 2020 election was stolen. What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence and ALL of the evidence presented to claim fraud boils down to mentally ill conspiracy theories.
I have no reason to respect critiques from people unwilling or unable to stand up for the counterargument.
Well since you're getting your info from questionable sources like Western Journal, I am not surprised you display so much ignorance on the subject. I would be happy to remake this debate and even give you the exact same R1 argument for your advantage if you'd like to debate this.
"I am never taking a debate with a 5k wordcount again lmao"
The theory is to try to make debates a little more interesting by increasing the clash back and forth. Most object to the length of even 3x10kc so a 1/6th reduction to 5x5kc with improved capacity to reply more directly seemed supportable.
listen to novice's advice: define your terms and your burden of proof. The CONTENDER has the advantage of choosing his opponent and making final remarks, you have to mitigate that advantage by defining the scope of the debate so you are at least arguing on your terms.
So long as overpopulation threatens the preservation of the human race (and other species), we ought not to indulge any prohibition against voluntary self-selective termination of unwanted individuals, which seems far preferable to any involuntary selection and gives the decision-making authority to the most relevant stakeholder. Give women complete control over baby-making decisions and I believe women will naturally, instinctively find the least destructive path to solving overpopulation.
Have you ever spoken to literal communists? they're ultimate sceptics. They deny everything.
That's because their communism is phony. To be a communist you have to believe that a viable economic model can be derived from stateless, voluntary organization of small communities around their own means of production. That takes powerful optimism in human nature.
You can say you like Bernie (I like him too) but unless you support raising your taxes 35-50% on day one of his administration, you can't say that you support his political plan because everything Bernie wants to do depends on that transfer of funds to the state.
there's a pretty vast difference between humans are not biologically compelled to rape or murder and "humans don't have immoral desires" There's really no reason to infer the later from the former.
I've never met a sincere Communist in my life. If you are educated about what Communism means then you realize it is an entirely unrealistic utopia. If you claiming to be a fan of Communism you almost certainly have a distorted view of Communism. As Marx said, "Well, if that's what Marxism means, then I am no Marxist!"
It's like the whole Bernie thing. All these dudes talk about Bernie and then you run through Bernie's number one agenda item, his tax plan, and you find 3% support among Bernie voters, less than 1% support in the Democratic. In other words, it is all just talk and there no serious political juice behind it.
I do believe that Republicans are more skeptical about human nature (sin if you like) and Democrats more optimistic.
Black widows eat their mates as they fuck. Hamsters eat their children. I don't think of those as human nature. I guess the definition I'm thinking of is something like "innate to species, inherent to species"
I don't think of rape including all pedophilia or murder as natural processes.
The fact mothers grief over their miscarried children shows they view it as an injustice that their child had to be hurt in such a cruel manner.
Women's reactions are a lot more varied than that and heavily linked to whether the woman is trying to get pregnant or not. Later term is usually more painful and emotional then early. First spontaneous abortions are usually more emotional than later ones. Women who've waited until relatively late to get pregnant sometimes worry that they might have blown their chance. Throughout most of human history, one fourth of children didn't live to one years old (my grandmothers first two children died in their first year) and half of all children died before 12 years old- so on the spectrum of grief, abortions ranked relatively low. I don't think there much evidence for fetal pain before the third trimester.
Sure but few people are going to think of a natural process that happens to them as violation a of norms or standards or think of themselves as doing something wrong. Dying of natural causes, for example, always implies a lack of foul play.
"almost all scientists, at some point in their life, got paid to lie about something or to cause deception and false ideas. "
OK, well that is a gigantic mentally ill conspiracy theory you have there. Your evidence will need to be copious and dead on to make any head way with such a kooky belief.
So when you say that "99% of scientists are liars and deceivers who oppose to pedophilia", you believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are bribed (including doctors, nurses, etc) to express an opinion contrary to their natural opinion. You believe that most people are just fine with pedophilia but are duped into believing that pedophilia is harmful?
All the more reason to link us straight to super credible well established science publications. As a voter, I'll assume the data backs to the bias expressed in Nature in a way I'd never do on NAMBLA, for example.
They got zapped when the timer expired. I gave Novice points for Arguments, Sources, and Conduct and I expressed considerable dissatisfaction with your whole approach to this topic. Essentially, I accepted Novice's kritik as valid and far more direct and reasonable than your thesis. I accepted his definition of CSA as far closer to the consensus of social science than yours. So his re-write of thesis as CSA is harmful became the framework. To the extent that he proved pain and pregnancy as real harms that you failed to persuasively counter, the win was his. I really hated the long cut & pastes and the way those sources never really backed up your claims. I sided with objections to links to boywiki. That site was obviously biased and felt marginally legal. In future, link directly to peer-reviewed scientific studies and take responsibility to resolve broken links. I didn't thinks Novice's args were any great shakes and certainly could have been far more comprehensive but he understood his mission and made it easy to find his thesis more persuasive than yours.
Wow so...hundreds of cops and lawyers and doctors and nurses and other professionals are all so afraid of black people that they'll fuck over their own professional standards to a man. Doesn't sound the least little bit like most of the cops and lawyers and doctors and nurses I've ever met. Sounds like projection to me.
Wow so...hundreds of cops and lawyers and doctors and nurses and other professionals are all so afraid of black people that they'll fuck over their own professional standards to a man. Doesn't sound the least little bit like most of the cops and lawyers and doctors and nurses I've ever met. Sounds like projection to me.
And all the coroners and paramedics and Minneapolis Police and State Police and DAs and ER doctors and nurses and eyewitnesses are all just making it up because they always put strangers before their colleagues in the police. If Chauvin was innocent why did he lie to his commander about kneeling on Floyd's neck and kept it out of his report until the video went viral? As soon as the video came out, the Chief of Police fired those four cops on the spot- no Internal Affairs investigation needed, no toxicology report needed, no concerns about Union lawsuits down the road. One view of that video was enough to tell the Chief that Chauvin could never be a policeman again. If Chauvin didn't think he did the wrong thing, why the cover up? And why would Chauvin now plead guilty to callous disregard and excessive force resulting in Floyd's death? Hundreds of people need to be secretly conspiring together against a colleague and in favor of stranger to make what you claim true.
"Stolen" is your claim not mine. I would encourage you to set up the debate as a positive assertion and define all of your terms maximally in the DESCRIPTION so that I can review them and accept/reject. You must prove that Biden only won through fraud not just that there was some fraud. Much of Trump's fraud was more or less out in the open.
"P1- the government is run by political insiders who are out for their own best interests
Agreed. In 2020, the govt was run by Trump who was only out for his own best interest
"P2- trump is antagonist towards long time political insiders"
Objectively false. Trump's entire career has been schmoozing political insiders. If the Bush and Clinton families are the dominant political insiders of the past 30 years, then few Americans have given more money, attending more parties, invited them to more of his parties than Trump. Trump best friends were Roger Stone and Jeffrey Epstein, both introduced to him by Roy Cohn in the 1980s, both of whom spent every waking hour schmoozing Republican insiders. When the time came to write his political platform for the 2016 election, Trump took Romney's platform word for word except for dropping US support for Ukraine and dropping condemnation of Russia's invasion of Crimea. In 2020, he made zero changes to the Republican platform at all. Trump put it in writing that he thought that Republican principles in 2012 were just fine for 2020. No previous presidential candidate or president has ever been so well satisfied with the status quo.
"P3- political insiders have plenty of incentive to protect their own best interests and seeing as how they are both evil and also in complete control of the political machinery, they have the ability to commit treason completely undetected."
Trump was the ultimate insider from 2016 to 2020 and his many treasons were both super detectable and now starting to be referenced to our criminal justice system.
:C1- given the ability, motivation and ethics of political insiders to maintain power, there is a strong possibility that they would steal the election."
Your syllogism game really sucks.
A does B
C hates B
A does B
therefore
A does B
There's little doubt Trump did everything he could to steal the election but he was thwarted by the honest democratic participation of many good citizens.
"I want you to look at the court precedings from the orange revolution where an election was proven stolen. Most of the same arguments by the establishment there were also made by the Washington establishment in response to the same accusations."
Let's recall that Paul Manafort ran that election for the Russo-Ukrainian faction too. Manafort now admits that he gave Trump's election insider info to Putin in exchange for $30 million.
"The point I think that is more important though. Is whether it is ethical to attempt physical overthrow of a government if you do suspect there was election fraud." "Those people believed whether true or not that the government was stolen by an enemy force by unfair tactics. Were they justified if they were right?"
post-facto non-sequitur. The ease with which Trump followers were duped after the election has no impact on the facts of the election itself.
"Or should they have did what was done to overthrow the election in Ukraine? If that was not a feasible strategy, is violence acceptable?"
Obviously you haven't studied the Orange Revolution yourself or you would know that it was a bloodless revolution. You'll remember that that Yushchenko survived an attempted assassination by Russian agents, which united the fractured opposition against Putin/Manafort's candidate. The election day results were so obviously fake because the majority of election officials complained about fraud, all international observers complained about fraud, the exit polls were way off from the results. The majority of parliament refused to attend the swearing in ceremony. After two months of non-violent but economically devastating general strikes, the Supreme Court ruled the election was rigged and ordered a re-vote under much more free and fair conditions, which Yushenko won handily.
In other words, the exact opposite of 2020.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Just looking for somebody with the guts to explain why they believe the 2020 election was stolen. What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence and ALL of the evidence presented to claim fraud boils down to mentally ill conspiracy theories.
I have no reason to respect critiques from people unwilling or unable to stand up for the counterargument.
Be happy to remake this debate for either of you.
I think I'd recommend that you summon the courage to complete one debate without forfeiting before calling other debaters cowards.
So you admit that Trump's "stolen election: claims are fraud?
I'm sorry you are feeling so much emotion about this. Are you willing to debate this question? Yes or No?
So show some balls and put a little skin in the game. If your understanding is correct, it should be an easy win for you.
Well since you're getting your info from questionable sources like Western Journal, I am not surprised you display so much ignorance on the subject. I would be happy to remake this debate and even give you the exact same R1 argument for your advantage if you'd like to debate this.
Thanks!
Please delete my vote here.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for reading!
Thanks for voting!
Your posts make it clear you haven't read the debate, where all your claims here are entirely disproved.
"I am never taking a debate with a 5k wordcount again lmao"
The theory is to try to make debates a little more interesting by increasing the clash back and forth. Most object to the length of even 3x10kc so a 1/6th reduction to 5x5kc with improved capacity to reply more directly seemed supportable.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
PRO's ROUND1 SOURCES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/due_process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unreasonable_search_and_seizure
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22131380-trump-warrant-unsealed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/trump-espionage-act-laws-fbi.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20220211142142/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/10/trump-records-classified/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816211232/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/trump-cipollone-philbin-interviews-fbi.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816211232/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/trump-cipollone-philbin-interviews-fbi.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816211232/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/trump-cipollone-philbin-interviews-fbi.html
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting, FLRW!
"Well, thats the most retarded argument I ever read. "
I guess that makes you the retard since you composed the argument and your argument bears no resemblance to my argument in any way.
listen to novice's advice: define your terms and your burden of proof. The CONTENDER has the advantage of choosing his opponent and making final remarks, you have to mitigate that advantage by defining the scope of the debate so you are at least arguing on your terms.
RULE#1: Don't ever forfeit.
Welcome to the site!
So long as overpopulation threatens the preservation of the human race (and other species), we ought not to indulge any prohibition against voluntary self-selective termination of unwanted individuals, which seems far preferable to any involuntary selection and gives the decision-making authority to the most relevant stakeholder. Give women complete control over baby-making decisions and I believe women will naturally, instinctively find the least destructive path to solving overpopulation.
Have you ever spoken to literal communists? they're ultimate sceptics. They deny everything.
That's because their communism is phony. To be a communist you have to believe that a viable economic model can be derived from stateless, voluntary organization of small communities around their own means of production. That takes powerful optimism in human nature.
You can say you like Bernie (I like him too) but unless you support raising your taxes 35-50% on day one of his administration, you can't say that you support his political plan because everything Bernie wants to do depends on that transfer of funds to the state.
there's a pretty vast difference between humans are not biologically compelled to rape or murder and "humans don't have immoral desires" There's really no reason to infer the later from the former.
I've never met a sincere Communist in my life. If you are educated about what Communism means then you realize it is an entirely unrealistic utopia. If you claiming to be a fan of Communism you almost certainly have a distorted view of Communism. As Marx said, "Well, if that's what Marxism means, then I am no Marxist!"
It's like the whole Bernie thing. All these dudes talk about Bernie and then you run through Bernie's number one agenda item, his tax plan, and you find 3% support among Bernie voters, less than 1% support in the Democratic. In other words, it is all just talk and there no serious political juice behind it.
I do believe that Republicans are more skeptical about human nature (sin if you like) and Democrats more optimistic.
"I think it's common sense to say most humans will be far more immoral if they can get away with it."
I think that's the main difference in outlook between Republicans and Democrats.
Black widows eat their mates as they fuck. Hamsters eat their children. I don't think of those as human nature. I guess the definition I'm thinking of is something like "innate to species, inherent to species"
I don't think of rape including all pedophilia or murder as natural processes.
The fact mothers grief over their miscarried children shows they view it as an injustice that their child had to be hurt in such a cruel manner.
Women's reactions are a lot more varied than that and heavily linked to whether the woman is trying to get pregnant or not. Later term is usually more painful and emotional then early. First spontaneous abortions are usually more emotional than later ones. Women who've waited until relatively late to get pregnant sometimes worry that they might have blown their chance. Throughout most of human history, one fourth of children didn't live to one years old (my grandmothers first two children died in their first year) and half of all children died before 12 years old- so on the spectrum of grief, abortions ranked relatively low. I don't think there much evidence for fetal pain before the third trimester.
Sure but few people are going to think of a natural process that happens to them as violation a of norms or standards or think of themselves as doing something wrong. Dying of natural causes, for example, always implies a lack of foul play.
CON's R1 SOURCES
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abortion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443861/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
PRO's ROUND4 SOURCES
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_of_appropriateness
"almost all scientists, at some point in their life, got paid to lie about something or to cause deception and false ideas. "
OK, well that is a gigantic mentally ill conspiracy theory you have there. Your evidence will need to be copious and dead on to make any head way with such a kooky belief.
So when you say that "99% of scientists are liars and deceivers who oppose to pedophilia", you believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are bribed (including doctors, nurses, etc) to express an opinion contrary to their natural opinion. You believe that most people are just fine with pedophilia but are duped into believing that pedophilia is harmful?
I'd be willing to believe that 99% of scientists oppose pedophilia. Your claim without evidence that 99% are liars strikes me as delusional.
All the more reason to link us straight to super credible well established science publications. As a voter, I'll assume the data backs to the bias expressed in Nature in a way I'd never do on NAMBLA, for example.
They got zapped when the timer expired. I gave Novice points for Arguments, Sources, and Conduct and I expressed considerable dissatisfaction with your whole approach to this topic. Essentially, I accepted Novice's kritik as valid and far more direct and reasonable than your thesis. I accepted his definition of CSA as far closer to the consensus of social science than yours. So his re-write of thesis as CSA is harmful became the framework. To the extent that he proved pain and pregnancy as real harms that you failed to persuasively counter, the win was his. I really hated the long cut & pastes and the way those sources never really backed up your claims. I sided with objections to links to boywiki. That site was obviously biased and felt marginally legal. In future, link directly to peer-reviewed scientific studies and take responsibility to resolve broken links. I didn't thinks Novice's args were any great shakes and certainly could have been far more comprehensive but he understood his mission and made it easy to find his thesis more persuasive than yours.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
PRO's ROUND3 SOURCES
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://camdencountypd.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/USE-OF-FORCE-123121.pdf
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/appropriate
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kei5CxR2VG0&ab_channel=TODAY
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-fbi-chief-chris-wray-to-face-questions-about-extremism-capitol-riot
https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/house-event/LC65965/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22capitol+attack%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=7
https://twitter.com/javmanjarres/status/1346906535344164865
much appreciated
less than 24 hrs left. zero votes
Wow so...hundreds of cops and lawyers and doctors and nurses and other professionals are all so afraid of black people that they'll fuck over their own professional standards to a man. Doesn't sound the least little bit like most of the cops and lawyers and doctors and nurses I've ever met. Sounds like projection to me.
Wow so...hundreds of cops and lawyers and doctors and nurses and other professionals are all so afraid of black people that they'll fuck over their own professional standards to a man. Doesn't sound the least little bit like most of the cops and lawyers and doctors and nurses I've ever met. Sounds like projection to me.
Such an argument alone would disqualify you from any jury in America.
And all the coroners and paramedics and Minneapolis Police and State Police and DAs and ER doctors and nurses and eyewitnesses are all just making it up because they always put strangers before their colleagues in the police. If Chauvin was innocent why did he lie to his commander about kneeling on Floyd's neck and kept it out of his report until the video went viral? As soon as the video came out, the Chief of Police fired those four cops on the spot- no Internal Affairs investigation needed, no toxicology report needed, no concerns about Union lawsuits down the road. One view of that video was enough to tell the Chief that Chauvin could never be a policeman again. If Chauvin didn't think he did the wrong thing, why the cover up? And why would Chauvin now plead guilty to callous disregard and excessive force resulting in Floyd's death? Hundreds of people need to be secretly conspiring together against a colleague and in favor of stranger to make what you claim true.
"I don't have to read all of the debate."
That's PREJUDICE by definition: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts