Right wingers deny scientific facts more than left wingers

"You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others, and nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say that you can exercise your religion if it directly harms others. Why are we even arguing if we agree?"
The constitution states this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
No mention of harm or even close to it. Do read the 1st Amendment for yourself if you think I am lying about what the constitution actually says.

No, let me break this down to you.
Commiting to your beliefs is NOT a right granted by the 1st amendment. You cannot exercise your religion if it directly harms others, and nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say that you can exercise your religion if it directly harms others. Why are we even arguing if we agree?

"Freedom of religion doesn't equal freedom to do as you want."
Let me break this down for you.
Religion is a set of beliefs with an authority like God above it.
When committing to their beliefs they are exercising their right given to them by the 1st Amendment to do so.
The 1st Amendment does not say they are not allowed to stone gays since exercising their Religion can be stoning gays.
What part of this was wrong?

What do you not understand?! Freedom of religion doesn't equal freedom to do as you want. You're just arguing pointless semantics, when we agree on the issue!

"Why does everything I say fly over your head? I already said, I'm for the First Amendment. Don't use the black-or-white fallacy: "if you're for the first amendment, you support gays being stoned". Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that you can stone gays if your religion tells you to. Freedom of religion and freedom to do what your religion tells you aren't the same thing. If you don't understand me, read this article:"
You have called me out for a false fallacy and state my argument did not directly show how your position is so flawed. Even your article agrees that laws are more important than the constitution. Your source states:
"The Supreme Court has had to place some limits on the freedom to practice religion." Which means the person in charge values the Supreme Court more than the constitution. If that wasn't the case why the Supreme Court allowed to rule over and absolute. No law means no laws. This article has fooled you into thinking that was not an absolute. When I answer a yes or no question. When I say no I don't mean maybe.

"Allow me to make an analogy"
Read your analogy and it was not that good. No means no not maybe and the United States values the Supreme Court more than the Constitution which is why they are allowed to make laws which contradict the constitution.

Why does everything I say fly over your head? I already said, I'm for the First Amendment. Don't use the black-or-white fallacy: "if you're for the first amendment, you support gays being stoned". Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that you can stone gays if your religion tells you to. Freedom of religion and freedom to do what your religion tells you aren't the same thing. If you don't understand me, read this article: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-does-free-exercise-of-religion-mean-under-the-first-amendment/.

Allow me to make an analogy. In the US, the American Nazi Party is perfectly legal. They believe that Jews should be killed. And the government doesn't interfere. However, their beliefs don't protect them from punishment if they actually go and kill Jews. Same thing with religions: you are allowed to BELIEVE what you want, but you can't do what you want because of those beliefs. For example, ritual sacrifice and cannibalism are illegal. People are allowed to believe that sacrifice and cannibalism are good, they're not allowed to actually do them because it harms others.

Removed what I said here because I made a better point later.

"Safety of the citizens comes first of course, but we ensure safety by banning the crimes themselves, not the beliefs that such crimes are correct."
So you are against the first amendment?
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
So basically me exercising my Religion is stoning gays. You are for that if you are for the 1st amendment.

No, I think you completely missed my point. Freedom of belief doesn't equal enforcement of belief. You are free to believe that gays should be stoned, but you can't stone them. If gays aren't stoned, does that somehow affect your belief that they should be? No. Believing something and doing something because of your belief are completely different things. You can believe what you want, but you can't commit crimes.

Safety of the citizens comes first of course, but we ensure safety by banning the crimes themselves, not the beliefs that such crimes are correct.

That explains it. Guess my assumption was partly right. You did watch a YouTube then that was followed up by research. I failed to see how you are doing the same to Trump but lets stick to the things you support first.

How did I become an atheist? Long story short, my mother is a theist but doesn't believe in any particular religion. My dad's an agnostic. When I was in kindergarten, I asked my mother where God was, and she said he was everywhere. I believed that but when I told that to my friend, he laughed and said "Is God in your shoe, then?" I nodded, and he took my shoe and screamed "God? Are you here?" That was when I first began questioning if God really existed. After all, if he could hear us and if he was everywhere, why wouldn't he reply?
Then, about a year ago, I saw a great YouTube video by Dr Shaym which showed how the existance of a metaphysical God would be illogical. While I was an atheist before, with the video I saw many new arguments against religion and I became convinced that God can't exist. I began researching about religion and atheism more and more, and found that atheism posed many questions which no religion could answer. I read the Bible and saw how unreliable, anti-scientific, and homophobic it was. And that's where I am now.

"Of course I am for the Civil Rights Act. But remember, the FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the RIGHT TO ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS are two very different things. One is given by the 1st amendment and 1 is not."
Completely ignored my point which shows a contradiction. I will try simpler terms.
If my Religious belief was gays should be stoned. What comes first? The safety of the citizens or freedom of Religion? My Religion is not going to enforce it on you simply stone you. So basically that enforcement part has no part to play in my hypothetical. What do you say to that?

"400,000 illegal immigrants are apprehended (not the amount that cross the border, the amount caught) while crossing the Mexican border annually."
So you don't have data on how many illegal immigrants are in the US. I will move on because you failed to provide proof of undocumented immigrants so now my question would be why should we have a border wall?

"Rich are benefitting more than the poor". Nope, doesn't work that way. Everyone benefits from a better economy. Better economy=more jobs=cheaper products=more businesses=better economy. If taxes are lowered, companies spend more money on their business, which grows the economy."
You completely moved passed from my point of wage stagnation. An economy can still do good even if the poor is still poor. Simply have the rich profiting off the back of the poor. You have not rebutted my claim of wage stagnation. Since I want to move along why should we value a good economy instead of having people have good earning opportunities?

"Paris Agreement is not effective because all it does is oblige countries to do all they can to fight climate change. It doesn't set any limits to pollution, it doesn't punish countries that pollute a lot. It's just a waste of time. The US doesn't need to be in the Paris Agreement to fight climate change."
What do they need instead?

"What is pragmatic? Is making abortion illegal pragmatic? Many countries (Russia, for example) have laws banning abortion after the first 3 months, and only allowing it in medical cases. And it works perfectly fine."
Do you not see the cultural differences between Russia and the US? One has outlawed most of abortion whereas another has it legalised. Simply banning it would not work and how are you going to stop people from aborting babies anyway?

Continues...

Sure.
For illegal immigration:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration. 400,000 illegal immigrants are apprehended (not the amount that cross the border, the amount caught) while crossing the Mexican border annually.
"Rich are benefitting more than the poor". Nope, doesn't work that way. Everyone benefits from a better economy. Better economy=more jobs=cheaper products=more businesses=better economy. If taxes are lowered, companies spend more money on their business, which grows the economy.
Paris Agreement is not effective because all it does is oblige countries to do all they can to fight climate change. It doesn't set any limits to pollution, it doesn't punish countries that pollute a lot. It's just a waste of time. The US doesn't need to be in the Paris Agreement to fight climate change.
What is pragmatic? Is making abortion illegal pragmatic? Many countries (Russia, for example) have laws banning abortion after the first 3 months, and only allowing it in medical cases. And it works perfectly fine.
Of course I am for the Civil Rights Act. But remember, the FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the RIGHT TO ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS are two very different things. One is given by the 1st amendment and 1 is not.

"Wall on Mexican border (relatively cheap way to prevent around half of illegal immigration to US)."
First you must provide evidence of these illegal immigration because I am sure they are undocumented then you would have to provide evidence in how they actually get here. Do you have both?

"Lower taxes for small and large businesses (benefits economy)."
Have you heard of wage stagnation? How is it more important to have a better economy when the rich are benefiting more from it compare to the poor?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

"Leaving Paris Agreement (I think that climate change is a serious problem, but this agreement is not effective)."
Why is it not effective? Do you have something in mind that is more effective?

"Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv (I support Israel)."
Israel an ethnostate you support? Would you support an ethnostate in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Total_population

"I'm pro-life because I don't believe it's moral to kill fetuses that are conscious, unless it's a threat to the mother's health."
Is it pragmatic?

"I'm pro-gun because I think that law-abiding citizens owning guns is a good way to stop crime and for them to defend themselves."
Evidence?

"I'm for the 1st Amendment because I think that freedom of speech and religion are necessary for a free society, and it's not up to the government to determine people's beliefs."
You do know there have been laws passed that go against the 1st Amendment right? How about Religious hatred of homosexuals? Are you against a laws that curbs Religious freedom in return for equality? Basically are you for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

"No, I did not become Atheist because I watched a YouTube video."
How did you then?

"agree to disagree."
I have questions I want answers and I would like to know how you would rectify problems I have.

It is possible for rational people to support SOME of Trump's policies. Some of his policies/beliefs which I agree with:
Wall on Mexican border (relatively cheap way to prevent around half of illegal immigration to US).
Lower taxes for small and large businesses (benefits economy).
Leaving Paris Agreement (I think that climate change is a serious problem, but this agreement is not effective).
Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv (I support Israel).
And with some policies, like I already said, I disagree.

I'm pro-life because I don't believe it's moral to kill fetuses that are conscious, unless it's a threat to the mother's health.
I'm pro-gun because I think that law-abiding citizens owning guns is a good way to stop crime and for them to defend themselves.
I'm for the 1st Amendment because I think that freedom of speech and religion are necessary for a free society, and it's not up to the government to determine people's beliefs.
I'm for gay marriage because I see no reason to stop two consenting adults from marrying. Also, because I'm an atheist, I don't believe in all the my-religion-tells-me-to-hate-gays bullshit. I don't see how I was ever making a strawman. No, I did not become Atheist because I watched a YouTube video.

And finally I'd like to say that I shouldn't have said "I support Trump", I should of phrased it in a different way. I like him for some of his policies and that he's very straightforward and bold; but he has no experience and is a populist, which I dislike a lot. I'm a "Sometimes Trump" conservative. So come on, let's stop arguing and just agree to disagree.

"Nothing I support conflicts with my atheism."
I never said it conflicted. My problem was more so you were capable I am assuming to rationally think about your position yet you support Trump. I don't see how a single rational person can defend Trump. So my guess you had a severe lapse of judgement.

"I'm pro-life? That's because I don't like future babies being killed."
This can be more reasonable if you broke it down pragmatically and theoretically.

"I'm pro-gun? That's because I believe in the 2nd Amendment."
Wow great argument. Change 2nd Amendment to God and now you are a theist. Really difficult for me to believe you rationally thought about your position instead maybe being born an atheist or liked other people telling you what to think instead of figuring it out for yourself.

"I'm for 1st Amendment? Wow, what a shocker. That is so unatheist, right?"
Why are you?

"I'm for gay marriage? How does that conflict with atheism?"
Have a reason why you support this instead of making a strawman. If you actually read what I said I never said atheism conflicts with being a Trump supporter. My position is for you to I am assuming rationally evaluate your position on God but not have the same standard for Trump makes it seem like you are logically inconsistent. Maybe you didn't use logic and became an atheist on a whim while watching a YouTube video.

"I support SOME of Donald Trump's policies? Wow, I must be Christian and Republican."
Can you name me one of the policies you support and why?

Nothing I support conflicts with my atheism.

I'm pro-life? That's because I don't like future babies being killed.
I'm pro-gun? That's because I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
I'm for 1st Amendment? Wow, what a shocker. That is so unatheist, right?
I'm for gay marriage? How does that conflict with atheism?
I support SOME of Donald Trump's policies? Wow, I must be Christian and Republican.

There is a logically inconsistent way of seeing how he got there.
There is also the case where he has pretty much followed YouTubers online and just watched them for answers instead of verifying them to be true. The one that comes to mind where I found someone who is an atheist but always keeps ragging on the left while also not saying he is part of the left is styxhexenhammer666. There are many other examples but I came up with him first. He is an atheist which opposes the Paris climate change deal when Trump decided to withdraw and says really nothing bad about the right. So basically I think he has been watching videos without actually maybe I am wrong or maybe I should verify my sources.

"He is an atheist who supports Donald Trump. Let that sink in."

That seriously did sink in. You just blew my mind. I have no logical reason for this. But that's what happened, lol.

Where I found what he is for or against.
https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-Guns-Be-Legalized/1/comments/2/

He is really st*pid. I don't see the point in helping people who don't want help.
He is an atheist who supports Donald Trump. Let that sink in.
Even though he is not bound by the Republican by Religion and assuming he used reason to get to the conclusion God exits he fails to see how logically inconsistent he is being with other topics.
These are the things he stated he is for or against
Abortion (i'm pro-life)
Guns (i'm pro-gun)
Does God exist (i'm atheist)
1st amendment (i'm for it)
2nd amendment (i'm for it)
Gay marriage (i'm for it)

Fair point, but I'm not doing it for his sake. I'm calling him out for trying to spread lies and fake words.

Trying to have a conversation with an atheist Republican who supports Donald Trump.
I mean what we were you thinking?

I think you might want to slow down there a bit. Lumping communists and Antifa together is just plain foolish. What game your trying to play here? The definition game? That's a really silly game.

So you made the word up then?

he's a socialist, so that qualifies as alt-left

Antifa, communists... stuff like that

What is alt left? Like Antifa?

Don't debate with Type1, he's an anti-semitic alt-left nutcase that hates conservatives.

Of course, just not instantly.

Well dang. U gonna respond to the fake news debate?

Type1 has anger issues, I am simply surprised he finally defended me so I didn't say anything. Even if I am more intelligent than you, there's other things to strive for and be great at.

I was permanently banned on debate.org for reasons I am not proud but also not entirely ashamed of. It was a combination of being depressed at school getting bullied, having issues at home and wanting a fucking outlet for all that frustration. A guy shows up (imabench) and starts shit with me, really taunting me and stuff and then I did a wrong thing or two on PM and such and that's the short story of it.

I deserved the ban, I didn't deserve it being permanent. Airmax was a cunt who never punished Bench properly for his abuse of me and you will never be able to dig up all of it as it was 70% PM, 15% Forums where a lot got deleted and 15% google hangouts and shit (oh yeah it went off-site this was proper beef). I was alienated, made to feel like dirt and I hated my life anyway. I lashed out verbally and bypassed a ban and got what I deserved except not the length of the punishment; I spent years begging Airmax to let me back.

I was not great at debtaing when I began so I have no record to show off but I was easily among the legends of DDO, just the kind of Legend that never ended up on the 'hall of fame' thread due to me being banned and being basically a refugee on alts for a while before I ran away for a year or so. I stuck to CreateDebate and DebateIsland for a while, in fact whiteflame and me are the only reason DI properly solved its voting system, voting moderation and organised formal debates properly. WE helped the admin with ideas a lot; he just never gave us credit for it and never fucking thanked me either so this is my new 'home'. :)

the evidence is scientific research and the globe and maps and projected sizes based on evidence.

dang i just got so roasted, u don't even know me. I'm not being serious with this flat earth stuff. Judging based on this isn't a fair assessment. I was undefeated on DDO when it was actually good, in the top 100 leaderboard and top debater for my age group. I haven't debated a lot recently, but one of my best debates is my first one on this website on gun control. And honestly idc about people's opinions of who's smarter or better debater or wutever. We all have our different strenghts in subjects, and some might be more experienced then others, but is it for fame or wut? Who cares if ur top 5 or wutever? I use this as a community with friends like Alec and me and alec don't care who's better cuz we've both made some pretty darn good debates already and we help each other and educate each other with our different strengths on topics. And honestly, Alec is super smart especially for being autistic and i rly enjoy his debates as he usually is respectful but still roasts liberals. btw ik autistics brains are dif and in some parts they are slow to learn but i also think/heard they are exceptionally smart and their brain functions much higher than normal people on certain things as well. (correct me if im wrong)

It's not an opinion, I know him well as far as the internet goes and I can see that you are not as intelligent.

lol i won't rise to that bait but thx for ur opinion lmao

The funny thing is even though the earth is probably round RM is way smarter than you.

ok u make no sense but i have actually been converted to the #conspiracyillogicalflatearthsociety thanks to this video of evidence-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07O3Z8cQ4Ao

If from the East of the US, you fly to the Middle East usually stopping over at Dubai Airport and transfer to the next Emirates flight or whatever airline you're with and then fly to Australia, which would be a much shorter flight-path on the flat-earth model than the one that would happen if you went directly East.

If you are on the west of the US, you fly to Japan usually and transfer from there. Even if you fly direct, the clue is in the distance between Africa and South America, not significantly in the distance between Australia and either of the two.

Show me this evidence, please; the one regarding the size and depth of Antarctica.

ok now its confirmed ur trolling but y not for the fun of it-

so theres a bunch of snow around the world? Bud thats not how it works. No evidence to prove that. People have already been to antarctica and pictures have already proven the earth is round. Leeme ask u this....how do u travel from north america to aurstalia

The edge is deep into Antarctica and appears fake-transparent meaning you have no idea it's there until you touch it or whatever happens when you physically reach it.

Antarctica is an outer ring around the world.

lol thats cuz the balloon popped or the people did something to release it, its not some conspiracy "magnetic superbarrier." Thinking that a flat earth is real doesn't back up scientific evidence of the placement of everything in space and the axis the earth lies on. Again, when does a plane go when it reaches the edge?

Actually, you will find in the videos that the camera doesn't keep going up endlessly. It reaches some kind of magnetic superbarrier just above the sky where it spins so hard and fast until it drops back down into the Earth without any propellors or something to provoke it.

lol bruh the barrier is the different atmosphere's. There is no gravity in space so u can float wherever. The reason u couldn't see stars or planets is because it was too close to earth, directions on them vary, there was no distance perspective. It was too close to earth to see it was round. The earth is a big place. I think ur trolling, but if ur not, U STUPID LMAO

It's the internet. I can't tell if your joking or being serious. I'm not offended, but I tend to take what people say seriously on this site.

Actually the GoPro videos imply it's flat and that the sky is a strange thing where when you try to go out it has some kind of barrier that makes you spin like crazy. Also, when out of the sky all that was seen was the sun and darkness. No stars, no planets, no satellites.

I was joking. K? geez. Alec i never said all of them were. RM if u actually believe in a flat earth im lmao. Secondly, nasa isnt the only agency with earth stats. If you literally look up on youtube, "go pro go's to space", you can see the earth is round. Lemme guess thats prolly fake too, and there all a part of the illuminati. Third, science doens't support a flat earth. the way gravity, the moon, sun, and solor system wouldnt work with a flat earth. Airplanes dont travel to an edge and fall off the earth. It keeps going around. You are stupid.

RM does believe in a flat earth but he also believes we are in a simulation which is the only way to believe in it without being retarded.

"im pretty sure any flat earthers are trolls or flat out autistic" Not all autistics are flat earthers. RM and I are both autistic and I don't think either of us believes in a flat earth.