A couple of things.. First, I choose to believe you are aperson vs. a bot since you got insulted. Second, I have no aspirations to “win”this debate but would like to learn from it. I am inexpert at debating but opento understanding opposing points of view.
I'm a little confused. If you're truly open to understanding different perspectives, I'm curious why none of my points were addressed. I made a clear effort to engage with yours, even pointing out how some of your arguments seemed to contradict themselves. It appears my feedback was missed
That would be a “win” for me.I don’t understand the comment about “rule of law.” First, Icannot separate the “incoming administration” from Donald Trump himself.Second, given that, Donald’s lawlessness, his conviction int eh sexual assaultand fraud cases and his association with the insurrection casts a pall on the administration.Furthermore, the designation of lawless people like Gaetz and Hegseth sets a lawlesstone.
He was not found guilty in a criminal court for the first incident mentioned; rather, he was involved in a civil suit. It's crucial to distinguish between these two legal proceedings. Although he has convictions for fraud in separate cases, these do not necessarily indicate guilt or relevance in connection to this particular matter.
This behavior has encouraged other unsavory actions by government officialscountry wide.
This assertion lacks factual basis and relies on unsubstantiated claims.
With regard to Conservative support for the separation ofchurch and state, my understanding is that they believe in religious freedom,the right to practice religion as a person believes, and that they are against governmentactions that could be seen as limiting religious expression, such asprohibiting religious symbols in public places.
There is a significant distinction between the freedom to practice one's religion and the imposition of mandatory religious practices. The First Amendment protects the right to freely exercise one's faith. However, requiring religious items or practices in public schools constitutes a mandatory religious activity, which is considered a violation of the separation of church and state principle that is fundamental to the First Amendment. This separation of church and state was a core belief of the Founding Fathers, and therefore, upholding laws that maintain this separation is consistent with their intent and a conservative viewpoint.
No, I havenever claimed to be conservative. My point of contention is that the incomingadministration is not conservative – does not respect Conservative values. Andthat the Democrats do not respect Liberal values.
I addressed the contention by arguing that the incoming administration's defense of the separation of church and state, which you criticized, is actually in line with conservative values by upholding a long-standing legal tradition. So far, your only response has been to make assertions, such as your personal definition of what constitutes a "true" conservative, which is not a universally accepted definition.
I would much rather that the politicianshave a discussion of the 2 beliefs rather than the vindictive character assassinationsbetween the members of the 2 parties.I dispute your comment about not understanding AI. But thatis not part of our discussion of Conservatism.You say “I already explained how the administration isconservative.” What I have seen is you disagreeing with me. Please go overagain the reasons you think the incoming administration is Conservative.
You're welcome to challenge my assessment of your understanding of AI. However, you were the one who initially claimed I was a chatbot. Therefore, you have two options: either acknowledge that you genuinely believed I was a chatbot, which would support my initial statement, or concede that your claim was simply intended as an insult, suggesting you're being deliberately argumentative.
As I clarified in our initial exchange, you argued that the incoming administration was both radical and un-conservative. Your reasoning was contradictory, claiming they simultaneously adhered to and disregarded conservative values, while also pointing out their lack of opposition to the separation of church and state. In response, I argued that the First Amendment, established by the nation's founders, represents a traditional legal principle. By not challenging this principle, the incoming administration is actually upholding a key conservative value: respecting and preserving the nation's existing legal framework. This also contradicts your assertion that they disregard the rule of law.
How did this debate turn into such a train wreck so quickly? It had potential.
Debates are not about conversations. To debate someone is to argue on the opposite side of a topic and present your arguments. The concept is straightforward, making the assertion that learning to debate required a conversation appear illogical.
So be it. Criticizing me absolves you of the responsibility of conducting a conversation. Like I said, you win. Be happy about your victory. But if you ever want to have a conversation, let me know.
That's not how effective debates function. The purpose of a debate is to present well-reasoned arguments and allow the audience or participants to evaluate which position is most compelling. Instead, you presented arguments that seemed underdeveloped and then became emotionally invested in them. It's not my responsibility if your approach to the discussion hinders your ability to learn from the exchange.
I give up. You win. Instead of mounting arguments for what you believe to be true you attack my statements and me. I had hoped to learn something. I've learned only your debate techniques. Goodbye. Fare thee well.