I would definitely encourage you to read ALL of any debate before evaluating a winner.
Also please take note that your personal disposition on any topic (e.g. false beliefs and liberal lies) is irrelevant to the criteria used to evaluate any debater's performance in any debate.
That's totally my style of debate topic- present some indisputable fact that FOX News viewers dispute every day and hope some fly can't resist the ointment
I could easily accept this debate and win based on your use of the present tense for the verb "violate." All provisions authorized by the Patriot Act are now expired and none are presently in effect. We can agree that the Republican's Patriot Act violated the Constitution but the Patriot Act violates nothing since it is no longer in effect.
"Writing my argument right now and bumping up against the word count, by "Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments", do you mean that I can just hyperlink and then post full links in the comments?"
Yep- feel at liberty to just hyperlink args (no numbers references or other needed) and then you list those sources in COMMENTS after.
Feel free to abbreviate or whatever you need to complete your thought.
Semantic argumentation is a form of argumentation in which a proponent modifies the meaning of a term, or introduces a new meaning, in order to support his or her persuasive goal. You are falsely manipulating the definition of child sex abuse as the sole rational instrument that justifies your argument and then request contenders not argue about your fucked up definition.
If I re-define theft to only mean the receipt of property voluntarily given away then yes, I can argue that the harms of burglary are exaggerated. If I re-define murder to only mean voluntary losses of life then yes, I could go on to argue that Ted Bundy's execution was excessive. But that is not what those words mean and to deny victims' harm by redefining victimization is both irrational and an abuse of any given culture's standard of justice.
Your argument begs for kritik and only for kritik: no rational debater should accept your definition as legitimate or ordinary understanding of the crime in question.
And still not one shred of "new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election." For some reason, you decided to tell lies in the comments of this debate and now you are desperately trying to change the subject rather than try to prove those lies.
With each post that you fail to offer anything that looks like "new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election" you lose credibility.
Unsurprisingly, none of these links seem to be about the 2020 Election or offer any proof that the election was fixed as you have claimed. On this debate site, linking to somebody else's argument instead of formulating your own opinion is the same thing as making no argument at all.
"new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election."
That's not only quite false but also the opposite of true. The Jan 6 committee is uncovering some new facts regarding Trump's disregard for election results and demonstrating that Trump was virtually alone in the White House in his determination to overthrow the government rather than accept his loss but new QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election are just a lame and easily disproved as the lie that Trump's legal team reprimanded for profound abuse of the law.
Why is it always that the guys who are blocking me want to have more conversation after blocking me than before? Blocking just seems so impotent as an expression of one's 'bate rage. If you want to have a conversation you should unblock me and do it in QUESTIONS. I still have a lot of QUESTIONs to ask and answer to get those last gold medals.
rationalmadman is apparently blocking me again but his concerns are easily addressed with the following edit:
change: "P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to vote CON."
to: " P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to be CON."
I don't see any other change to my VOTE needed to shut down RM's complaint about "lying"
I would also make this change:
ADD +1 point to CON for Better Spelling and Grammar
Reason: PRO's main argument was so poorly constructed that this VOTER actually mistook this gobbledygook "Not only do all the high rankers have an opposite tendency to all low rankers but there is even more consistency in voting for Con side when and if a skilled debater is on side Con than the inverse." to mean "high rankers are more likely to vote CON" rather than PRO's intended "high rankers are more likely to be CON."
Why would any VOTE on one your debates impact your honest analysis of any other debate?
I vote for and against your arguments all the time according to their quality and the quality of your opponent. You can't honestly argue that your recent troll debate wasn't super lazy shit fully deserving of a down vote. I read this as your confession that you are a dishonest VOTER generally, which goes a long way towards explaining why you so readily assume dishonesty in your associates.
Seems fair to ask that that VOTERS should refrain from VOTING on users' debates whom they have blocked. It stands to reason that if they are blocking that user for any honest cause, then they would also avoid that user's debates for fear of unfair prejudice. I'm forced to assume that either RM's reasons for blocking me (whatever they might be) are dishonest or his reasons for choosing to VOTE now are merely expression of prejudice with no genuine respect for objectivity.
PRO begins with a big claim here- speaking on behalf of a whole religion as if 1.8 billion people all have a monolithic opinion on one subject and PRO can speak on behalf of those masses.
PRO offers a definition of ISLAM that does little to help his case- ISLAM is a religion like any other. If we agree that much terrorism has been committed in the name of many religions then ISLAM is more implicated than exculpated by PRO's definition here.
PRO argues that famous Muslim terrorist groups like ISIS are not Muslim because the Quran forbids it but fails to connect this claim to thesis. We need a major premise here that shows that the moment you do something forbidden by the Quran you are no longer Muslim. We are left with PRO claiming that groups like ISIS fail to meet PRO's personal definition of ISLAM so while they are still Muslims officially, they don't represent Islam very well to PRO's mind: a long distance from thesis. PRO is again submitting passages in the Quran as authoritative but this voter has not read the Quran and assumes that old book is just as full of contradiction as similar old books like the Iliad or the Bible. I certainly can't see how a 1400 year old book can give any authoritative info on how a group of people do something now.
PRO argues that some TERRORISM is committed by non-Muslims. But this is total non-sequitur.
Some adultery is committed by non-Americans but that does not suggest that Americans therefore do not condone adultery.
CON is smart to start with a definition of TERRORISM
CON shows that some Muslims use the Quran to justify some acts of TERRORISM and are still recognized as Muslims so PRO's first argument is quickly disproved with the same amount of authority as it was presented.
I think CON makes a mistake to engage much deeper in the Quran and its definition of Holy War. Have we established that the Quran is authoritative in this question? Have we decided that meeting the definition of Holy War wipes out any stain of terrorism? I think not and by engaging CON seems to be buying in on some of PRO's presumptions.
PRO argues that no self-defense is TERRORISM because no self-defense is unlawful " Is self defense unlawful in government law or Sharia law?" I don't know about Sharia law but self-defense is a very narrow standard in US law. Many claim self-defense but far fewer succeed under law. We do not learn PRO's standards for self-defense.
PRO attacks CONs examples with arguments from purity- no true Muslim can be an extremist but as far as I can tell, disagreed with or not, Bin Laden and Qutb are still considered Muslims posthumously. If PRO is the final authority on apostasy he has not declared as much
CON counters that self-defense, like TERRORISM is subject to interpretation. CON correctly calls PRO on his "no true Scotsmen" approach
I think CON loses some ground by calling the Quran timeless, which concedes that books relevance to modern context and worse, stating that its words can be cited without regard to context ( a silly argument that never applies to any written words). The honest application of context is always relevant to any attempt to achieve understanding
I don't agree with CON's claim that PRO's "no self-defense is TERRORISM" is a straw man but CON is right that the question is subjective...and also undefined by either side. CON correctly argues that innocence (one essential standard for self-defense) is undefined. CON's rapid-fire demands for more citation is pretty weak in the final round, knowing no response can come. Still, CON is not wrong
Neither side discussed BURDEN of PROOF so by default that burden falls on PRO's shoulders. Ultimately, PRO's argument suffers from making a gigantic claim that would be very difficult to prove in long books, much less 10K characters. PRO really needed to define terms narrowly and narrow the scope of his claim to have any hope of winning this kind of debate. For example, it would be much easier to argue that x is not consistent with the Quran or not consistent with the teachings of x scholar, etc. PRO is essentially presenting his opinion as representative of all ISLAM when we all know that ISLAM cover the whole range of human experience like all international religions. Likewise, PRO's argument of no true Muslim would believe x in response to examples of contemporary terrorists must fail. PRO has not established such authority and nor should PRO merely count on the Quran's presumed authority
CON effectively engaged (he did drop the very weak "non-Muslims also do terrorism" argument) PRO on the essential questions, who defines self-defense and therefore holy war? Who defines innocence? If Muslims can be terrorists, doesn't that mean that some of Islam must condone that terrorisms. PRO wants us to trust his interpretation of the Quran as the final authority but aren't given any reason to trust the Quran as inerrant or PRO's particular interpretation
"I'm gonna be a Jedi, that's all my eyes can see
Victory is mine, yeah surprisingly
I've been laying, waiting for your next mistake
I put in work, and watch my status escalate"
"That's where I'd have to go back through the sources because I think both sides in this debate aren't very clear about how much damage that would equate to from the overall numbers that Novice_II was giving me"
In truth, there is no good breakdown. The problem with BLM label is that BLM started out as a hashtag, then became a slogan, then became a rallying cry. Black Lives Matter itself doesn't spend much time organizing so what qualifies as a BLM activity. There's no doubt that some rioters shouted that slogan but does that make them a member of BLM? Not really. Ultimately, I think the primary utility of blaming Black Lives Matter is that the first word is "black."
I, for one, did some personal reconnaissance during the riots in Denver in the first couple of weeks after George Floyd's murder. My personal experience was very much in alignment with ACLED, FBI reports.
*The people wearing BLM T-Shirts and carrying BLM signs deliberately went around protests sites in the hour before curfew telling people to go home and remain peaceful. Of all the different organization present at protests and riots, BLM was the most vocal proponent for peace- far more peaceful than the police.
*The rioters in Denver were almost exclusive white men under 30 years of age. There were some spray-painting BLM or "don't shoot' slogans but by far the most popular slogans getting spray-painted were anarchist or white supremacist in nature. There were more swastikas than BLMs, certainly.
*On the worst night of rioting, a mob of 3-400 charged up Colfax Ave, spray-painting and breaking windows. When they got to the main downtown police station, they left it alone and instead looted the liquor superstore directly across the street and then dispersed to drink. This then was NOT an anti-police protest, it was strictly opportunists looking for easy loot with little chance of consequence.
*The only significant fire was City Grille. It was right across from the Capitol and for weeks everybody assumed that rioters did it but it turned out it was homeless guy who held a grudge against the restaurant and used the riots as cover for his arson.
*The most significant assault on police came from a Trump voter whose car got tear-gassed and he was so angry he drove his car into a crowd of police at 90 mph.
*The rioters broke windows, covered buildings with graffiti and tore down the Civil War memorial (but not the Vietnam War memorial), doing more than a $1 million in property damage. By comparison, Denver Police has paid more than $14 million in damages so far to protesters who were lawfully upholding their First Amendment rights. This comports with my observations that the Denver Police were the most violent, least rational actors during the George Floyd protests, followed by white supremacists. There was one instance of a security guard for 9 News reporters who shot a White Supremacist biker gang member live on TV after continuous assaults on reporters with bear spray. There was so much violence by the biker gang caught on video that eventually all charges were dropped for the shooting.
*In my direct experience, calling that violence BLM violence is not just unfair, it is the polar opposite of the truth.
"I read some of that debate...etc"
I would definitely encourage you to read ALL of any debate before evaluating a winner.
Also please take note that your personal disposition on any topic (e.g. false beliefs and liberal lies) is irrelevant to the criteria used to evaluate any debater's performance in any debate.
Thanks for the feedback!
none of the BLM and/or ANTIFA rioters who did far worse
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3450-which-were-worse-the-blm-protests-riots-or-the-january-6th-capitol-protests-riots-atoromagi
I can re-issue this if you'd like
two day left
I've been writing a decision for an hour and just missed the fucking deadline. sorry.
That's totally my style of debate topic- present some indisputable fact that FOX News viewers dispute every day and hope some fly can't resist the ointment
[insert thumbs up emoji here]
I could easily accept this debate and win based on your use of the present tense for the verb "violate." All provisions authorized by the Patriot Act are now expired and none are presently in effect. We can agree that the Republican's Patriot Act violated the Constitution but the Patriot Act violates nothing since it is no longer in effect.
please.....
ump the bump
PRO's ROUND2 SOURCES:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/department-justice-closes-investigation-death-ashli-babbitt
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/uscp-completes-internal-investigation-january-6-officer-involved
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
{page 15, footnote]
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
{page 17}
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
{page 18}
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736
[7:20}
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736
{15:52}
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736
{20:28}
Looks good.
and btw- Welcome to the site!
Even if you're not complete when the timer runs out post whatever you got. Even an incomplete argument is way better than forfeit.
"Writing my argument right now and bumping up against the word count, by "Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments", do you mean that I can just hyperlink and then post full links in the comments?"
Yep- feel at liberty to just hyperlink args (no numbers references or other needed) and then you list those sources in COMMENTS after.
Feel free to abbreviate or whatever you need to complete your thought.
thx. Given that this debate is now engaged I'll refrain.
Semantic argumentation is a form of argumentation in which a proponent modifies the meaning of a term, or introduces a new meaning, in order to support his or her persuasive goal. You are falsely manipulating the definition of child sex abuse as the sole rational instrument that justifies your argument and then request contenders not argue about your fucked up definition.
If I re-define theft to only mean the receipt of property voluntarily given away then yes, I can argue that the harms of burglary are exaggerated. If I re-define murder to only mean voluntary losses of life then yes, I could go on to argue that Ted Bundy's execution was excessive. But that is not what those words mean and to deny victims' harm by redefining victimization is both irrational and an abuse of any given culture's standard of justice.
Your argument begs for kritik and only for kritik: no rational debater should accept your definition as legitimate or ordinary understanding of the crime in question.
wrong debate, ignore last comment
two weeks left to vote!
Three days left to vote!
3 days left to vote!
And still not one shred of "new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election." For some reason, you decided to tell lies in the comments of this debate and now you are desperately trying to change the subject rather than try to prove those lies.
With each post that you fail to offer anything that looks like "new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election" you lose credibility.
retweets are not counterarguments and nothing you have said supports your manifestly false claim:
"new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election."
Unsurprisingly, none of these links seem to be about the 2020 Election or offer any proof that the election was fixed as you have claimed. On this debate site, linking to somebody else's argument instead of formulating your own opinion is the same thing as making no argument at all.
"new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election."
That's not only quite false but also the opposite of true. The Jan 6 committee is uncovering some new facts regarding Trump's disregard for election results and demonstrating that Trump was virtually alone in the White House in his determination to overthrow the government rather than accept his loss but new QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election are just a lame and easily disproved as the lie that Trump's legal team reprimanded for profound abuse of the law.
Why is it always that the guys who are blocking me want to have more conversation after blocking me than before? Blocking just seems so impotent as an expression of one's 'bate rage. If you want to have a conversation you should unblock me and do it in QUESTIONS. I still have a lot of QUESTIONs to ask and answer to get those last gold medals.
Welcome to the site!
welcome to the site!
This was the TWO THOUSANDTH debate to be completed on this site!
rationalmadman is apparently blocking me again but his concerns are easily addressed with the following edit:
change: "P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to vote CON."
to: " P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to be CON."
I don't see any other change to my VOTE needed to shut down RM's complaint about "lying"
I would also make this change:
ADD +1 point to CON for Better Spelling and Grammar
Reason: PRO's main argument was so poorly constructed that this VOTER actually mistook this gobbledygook "Not only do all the high rankers have an opposite tendency to all low rankers but there is even more consistency in voting for Con side when and if a skilled debater is on side Con than the inverse." to mean "high rankers are more likely to vote CON" rather than PRO's intended "high rankers are more likely to be CON."
@RationalMadman
Why would any VOTE on one your debates impact your honest analysis of any other debate?
I vote for and against your arguments all the time according to their quality and the quality of your opponent. You can't honestly argue that your recent troll debate wasn't super lazy shit fully deserving of a down vote. I read this as your confession that you are a dishonest VOTER generally, which goes a long way towards explaining why you so readily assume dishonesty in your associates.
Seems fair to ask that that VOTERS should refrain from VOTING on users' debates whom they have blocked. It stands to reason that if they are blocking that user for any honest cause, then they would also avoid that user's debates for fear of unfair prejudice. I'm forced to assume that either RM's reasons for blocking me (whatever they might be) are dishonest or his reasons for choosing to VOTE now are merely expression of prejudice with no genuine respect for objectivity.
Oh, sure, I remember you and have read your debates before. Great to have you!
Debate.Org back in the day
Oh? Lot's of ex-DDOers here, including me. Did you have the same username on DDO?
Welcome to the site!
I would be sure to define those reasonable senses of the word WOMAN in the description.
PRO begins with a big claim here- speaking on behalf of a whole religion as if 1.8 billion people all have a monolithic opinion on one subject and PRO can speak on behalf of those masses.
PRO offers a definition of ISLAM that does little to help his case- ISLAM is a religion like any other. If we agree that much terrorism has been committed in the name of many religions then ISLAM is more implicated than exculpated by PRO's definition here.
PRO argues that famous Muslim terrorist groups like ISIS are not Muslim because the Quran forbids it but fails to connect this claim to thesis. We need a major premise here that shows that the moment you do something forbidden by the Quran you are no longer Muslim. We are left with PRO claiming that groups like ISIS fail to meet PRO's personal definition of ISLAM so while they are still Muslims officially, they don't represent Islam very well to PRO's mind: a long distance from thesis. PRO is again submitting passages in the Quran as authoritative but this voter has not read the Quran and assumes that old book is just as full of contradiction as similar old books like the Iliad or the Bible. I certainly can't see how a 1400 year old book can give any authoritative info on how a group of people do something now.
PRO argues that some TERRORISM is committed by non-Muslims. But this is total non-sequitur.
Some adultery is committed by non-Americans but that does not suggest that Americans therefore do not condone adultery.
CON is smart to start with a definition of TERRORISM
CON shows that some Muslims use the Quran to justify some acts of TERRORISM and are still recognized as Muslims so PRO's first argument is quickly disproved with the same amount of authority as it was presented.
I think CON makes a mistake to engage much deeper in the Quran and its definition of Holy War. Have we established that the Quran is authoritative in this question? Have we decided that meeting the definition of Holy War wipes out any stain of terrorism? I think not and by engaging CON seems to be buying in on some of PRO's presumptions.
PRO argues that no self-defense is TERRORISM because no self-defense is unlawful " Is self defense unlawful in government law or Sharia law?" I don't know about Sharia law but self-defense is a very narrow standard in US law. Many claim self-defense but far fewer succeed under law. We do not learn PRO's standards for self-defense.
PRO attacks CONs examples with arguments from purity- no true Muslim can be an extremist but as far as I can tell, disagreed with or not, Bin Laden and Qutb are still considered Muslims posthumously. If PRO is the final authority on apostasy he has not declared as much
CON counters that self-defense, like TERRORISM is subject to interpretation. CON correctly calls PRO on his "no true Scotsmen" approach
I think CON loses some ground by calling the Quran timeless, which concedes that books relevance to modern context and worse, stating that its words can be cited without regard to context ( a silly argument that never applies to any written words). The honest application of context is always relevant to any attempt to achieve understanding
I don't agree with CON's claim that PRO's "no self-defense is TERRORISM" is a straw man but CON is right that the question is subjective...and also undefined by either side. CON correctly argues that innocence (one essential standard for self-defense) is undefined. CON's rapid-fire demands for more citation is pretty weak in the final round, knowing no response can come. Still, CON is not wrong
Neither side discussed BURDEN of PROOF so by default that burden falls on PRO's shoulders. Ultimately, PRO's argument suffers from making a gigantic claim that would be very difficult to prove in long books, much less 10K characters. PRO really needed to define terms narrowly and narrow the scope of his claim to have any hope of winning this kind of debate. For example, it would be much easier to argue that x is not consistent with the Quran or not consistent with the teachings of x scholar, etc. PRO is essentially presenting his opinion as representative of all ISLAM when we all know that ISLAM cover the whole range of human experience like all international religions. Likewise, PRO's argument of no true Muslim would believe x in response to examples of contemporary terrorists must fail. PRO has not established such authority and nor should PRO merely count on the Quran's presumed authority
CON effectively engaged (he did drop the very weak "non-Muslims also do terrorism" argument) PRO on the essential questions, who defines self-defense and therefore holy war? Who defines innocence? If Muslims can be terrorists, doesn't that mean that some of Islam must condone that terrorisms. PRO wants us to trust his interpretation of the Quran as the final authority but aren't given any reason to trust the Quran as inerrant or PRO's particular interpretation
PRO's R3 SOURCES:
https://www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill/
https://www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill/
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/longstreet-james-1821-1904/
https://www.historyonthenet.com/grant-and-lees-winning-civil-war-strategy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
https://www.historyonthenet.com/general-lee
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Antietam
https://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/the-generals-and-admirals/generals-admirals-ulysses-s-grant-1822-1885
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Donelson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vicksburg
https://mwi.usma.edu/ulysses-s-grant-command-control-multi-domain-battlespace-future/
https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/us-grant-and-operations-0
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA603255.pdf
https://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CWGLBE73DSD3WYT
https://digmichnews.cmich.edu/?a=d&d=GrandTraverseGTH18850910-01.1.4&e=-------en-10--1--txt-txIN----------
PRO's R2 SOURCES
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Southern-Advantages-Three-Ways-the-Confederacy-had-the-Upper-Hand-in-the-Civil-War
https://www.ushistory.org/us/33b.asp#:~:text=The%20South%20could%20produce%20all,proved%20to%20be%20very%20resourceful.
https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
http://npshistory.com/series/symposia/gettysburg_seminars/16/essay2.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_and_the_American_Civil_War
https://www.acwrt.org.uk/post/gettysburg-day-3-areconsideration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_and_the_American_Civil_War
PRO's R1 SOURCES:
[1]https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/ulysses-s-grant-myth-unconditional-surrender-begins-fort-donelson
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Campaign
[3]https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Battle_of_the_Wilderness
[4]https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
https://ethanarsht.github.io/military_rankings/
https://ethanarsht.github.io/military_rankings/Robert%20E.%20Lee.html
[5]https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/best-generals-ranked-by-statistics?rebelltitem=10#rebelltitem10
[6]https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
[7]https://www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill.htm
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_and_the_American_Civil_War
[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shiloh
[10]https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/ulysses-s-grant-1#ulysses-grant-quotes
I agree. Looks like this debate merited some votes.
Thanks for voting!
Nice job, Christian! I hope to see more from you!
PRO's SOURCES for R3:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Clarke_Moore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
"I'm gonna be a Jedi, that's all my eyes can see
Victory is mine, yeah surprisingly
I've been laying, waiting for your next mistake
I put in work, and watch my status escalate"
-Gang Starr ft Big L
"That's where I'd have to go back through the sources because I think both sides in this debate aren't very clear about how much damage that would equate to from the overall numbers that Novice_II was giving me"
In truth, there is no good breakdown. The problem with BLM label is that BLM started out as a hashtag, then became a slogan, then became a rallying cry. Black Lives Matter itself doesn't spend much time organizing so what qualifies as a BLM activity. There's no doubt that some rioters shouted that slogan but does that make them a member of BLM? Not really. Ultimately, I think the primary utility of blaming Black Lives Matter is that the first word is "black."
I, for one, did some personal reconnaissance during the riots in Denver in the first couple of weeks after George Floyd's murder. My personal experience was very much in alignment with ACLED, FBI reports.
*The people wearing BLM T-Shirts and carrying BLM signs deliberately went around protests sites in the hour before curfew telling people to go home and remain peaceful. Of all the different organization present at protests and riots, BLM was the most vocal proponent for peace- far more peaceful than the police.
*The rioters in Denver were almost exclusive white men under 30 years of age. There were some spray-painting BLM or "don't shoot' slogans but by far the most popular slogans getting spray-painted were anarchist or white supremacist in nature. There were more swastikas than BLMs, certainly.
*On the worst night of rioting, a mob of 3-400 charged up Colfax Ave, spray-painting and breaking windows. When they got to the main downtown police station, they left it alone and instead looted the liquor superstore directly across the street and then dispersed to drink. This then was NOT an anti-police protest, it was strictly opportunists looking for easy loot with little chance of consequence.
*The only significant fire was City Grille. It was right across from the Capitol and for weeks everybody assumed that rioters did it but it turned out it was homeless guy who held a grudge against the restaurant and used the riots as cover for his arson.
*The most significant assault on police came from a Trump voter whose car got tear-gassed and he was so angry he drove his car into a crowd of police at 90 mph.
*The rioters broke windows, covered buildings with graffiti and tore down the Civil War memorial (but not the Vietnam War memorial), doing more than a $1 million in property damage. By comparison, Denver Police has paid more than $14 million in damages so far to protesters who were lawfully upholding their First Amendment rights. This comports with my observations that the Denver Police were the most violent, least rational actors during the George Floyd protests, followed by white supremacists. There was one instance of a security guard for 9 News reporters who shot a White Supremacist biker gang member live on TV after continuous assaults on reporters with bear spray. There was so much violence by the biker gang caught on video that eventually all charges were dropped for the shooting.
*In my direct experience, calling that violence BLM violence is not just unfair, it is the polar opposite of the truth.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
"this guy isn't a good debater in my opinion."
Let's agree that I am not a good debater. I have no education or experience in debating and have been schooled by my betters on many occasions.