zedvictor4

What does internally inconsistent mean?
The pages are not consistent with the cover maybe.

A very ambiguous proposition.

Are you suggesting a flood as per the Biblical Myth, or just a significant flood event that would have been regarded as such?

And the Whale can dive better.

The Kangaroo bounces better than the Elephant.

Any criteria for this debate?

Aluminium or tin?

And GOD is an acronym. That represents both the left over relic and that which will eventually facilitate a new genesis.

And GOD created man and man will recreate GOD.

Whadya think Bro?

And you sound like someone with a huge chip on their shoulder.

And who do you think my people are?

All you have done is delineate a map rather than define an African.

Ok.

So what is your definition of an African?

You need to clarify your proposition, because It makes no sense as it stands.

In your mind:
When does an African become a European or vice versa?

Yep exactly.

Just say NO and jobs a good un!

Bearing in mind that the contender is expected to waive the second round.

The presence of the word "completely", completely alters the tone of the question.

The Contender only needs to say No in the first round and the debate's over.

When did the burden of guilt shift from Europe to the U.S.A?

Do you really think that you could change your mind?

One would assume that if OIT works, then it is a practical solution to a known problem.

Otherwise it would be a complete waste of time.

So wherein lies the debate?

So we should only apply criteria to the things that you say we can apply criteria to.

Are you actually Kim Yong-un?

And by the time you have read this I will have posted the argument that you're demanding, oh supreme leader.

All non First Nations people should be removed from North America.

All people of Hispanic/Portuguese decent should be removed from South America.

All non Aboriginals should be removed from Australia.

How many modern Nation States could we apply these criteria to?

So how is this a reasonable Two State Solution?

This is a One State solution that doesn't give a monkey's for the Palestinian people.

This is no more than U.S. Jewish led, racist policy.

How do you think; has Israel been able to survive and grow so successfully since 1948?

Would you say that there was or was not a strong Jewish influence in U.S international affairs?

No I'm in total agreement. Separation, Two States.

And my comments are about as non anti-semitic as you can get. (Anti-semitism is a cheap and defamatory allegation)

As for the inextricable link between the U.S. and the Israel. If it's not obvious then someone hasn't been paying much attention. But that is a different argument.

Tongue in cheek perhaps, but I simply attempt to point out that creating adjacent states in the same region is not a practical option and would do little to decrease regional tension. Mutual resentment is unlikely to just disappear.

Let's be honest:
The problem was created in 1948 and has been with us ever since and is unlikely to ever go away.

You might want to edit your last comment, it's just a bit super-contradictory.

It's not about obligation. It's about finding a practical solution.

There's an inextricable link between the U.S and the Jewish people.

So no NIMBYism please.

A "Two State" solution within the confines of the existing territory or within the greater region does not and will not work.

Yep.
I agree entirely.
That's why I proposed an Israeli enclave within the U.S.A.
It would solve so many problems.

Kill several birds with one stone.
Separates bitter enemies.
Palestinian homeland without border issues.
Your best friends living on your doorstep.
Save shipping all those arms to Israel
One less region of the World for the U.S. to worry about.
Removes a huge problematic factor from the Middle Eastern equation.
The Israelis can do all those jobs that you currently rely upon Mexicans to do.
The list of benefits is probably endless.

Because you love the Israelis.

Great idea.

Why not relocate all Israelis to the U.S.A.

Let them have Arizona and New Mexico perhaps.

Still too woolly.

You argue against "the" age of consent and refer to "the" standard, but not the standard. The use of the word "legal" only adds to the ambiguity of the proposition.

You're still not making clear what you actually want to debate. As such an opponent could only initiate a discussion rather than a definitive argument.

If someone is truly broadminded enough to enter into a multi-partner relationship, then why would they be bothered with the archaic concept of marriage?

If the Earth was flat it could still be described as round. Is the contender expected to prove that the earth is angular.

My vote was based upon a honest and objective appreciation of the discourse.

I'm guessing that the moderators appreciation was somewhat subjective.

It would be a shame if that were the case.

1) I fail to see who the moderator is quoting. (Out of context).

2) "Contenders rationality" was simply an observation of their willingness to stick to the parameters set by the proposition. In comparison to the instigators keenness to stray from these parameters. I think it fair to regard this as a notable difference in conduct.

A meteorite is extra-terrestrial. Therefore this debate would be untenable.

Noun or adjective?

Noun or adjective?