Wrap Battle

im a bit disappointed that this wasn't a joke about how there are rap battles here or there are no raps about wraps but then i realized that the title was just a typo

>>Yes but if we were being honest both sides of the opposite side can't be right. One side must be correct.

True, but that is what all the division is over. Who is correct. Both sides think they're correct, so it would be foolish to say who is right because that all comes down to personal opinion and that doesn't get us anywhere.

>>Yes but the majority of them use Region as the basis to do anything in life. Which means they valued emotion over facts. If it was a fact science would have proved the existence of God by know if the Bible was a good enough source to prove Yahweh's existence.

Christianity can be proven, but not in the typical ways you would think of. People have personal experiences with religion. Religion is not an emotion to an extent, with personal experiences you find out it is a fact. For example, a friend of mine worked for a Christian secret missionary organization, and they sent him to very dangerously minister to Afghanistan. While there, he instantly healed people's injuries with God's help. He also saw a women and God gave him a vision. He healed her back instantly. Before he approached her, God showed him a picture of the women's baby in heaven she aborted. He told the women gently that God showed him a picture of her your baby in heaven and God said that he forgives the women.

Science can't prove there is no religion either. Where did the big bang come from? Matter has to start somewhere. Therefore, it is very plausible a greater force is behind it and perfectly put us in place with the sun perfectly distanced and our cells and DNA perfectly in place.\

Religion is a cultural and lifestyle thing. You shouldn't attack it or make fun of it.

Wrick is actually rapping well for the first time, I am genuinely impressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XUAHhnEaRM

>>The thing is I have my facts and beliefs and you have your facts and beliefs, and failure to understand that both sides want a better America but have a different way of doing it is wrong.

Yes but if we were being honest both sides of the opposite side can't be right. One side must be correct.

>>Conservatives use logic too.

Yes but the majority of them use Region as the basis to do anything in life. Which means they valued emotion over facts. If it was a fact science would have proved the existence of God by know if the Bible was a good enough source to prove Yahweh's existence.

>>I agree with the second amendment and not banning guns and allowing concealed-carry to be legal. Dismantle it.

I need more than that so I ask more questions.
Do you value harm over being able to carry guns?

The thing is I have my facts and beliefs and you have your facts and beliefs, and failure to understand that both sides want a better America but have a different way of doing it is wrong. Conservatives use logic too.

I agree with the second amendment and not banning guns and allowing concealed-carry to be legal. Dismantle it.

>>What you fail to realize is that I think your positions are wrong as well.

The problem here is that I used logic to get my conclusion not emotion. Give me something you agree with as a conservative and I will logically dismantle it.

>>Both parties think the other one is wrong. It is all political opinions

It is more than that when public healthcare can save lives, war profiteers are committing genocide in Yemen for money and immigration because Trump said so without evidence.

>>and both sides can make good arguments.

If we were really specific then yes but in most cases progressives are correct for improving situations not regressing.

>>Both sides have their opinions and their evidence, and getting triggered that they don't change their mind is foolish.

I hope the person I am debating follows logic as well. If they do and we are on opposing sides without agreeing on who won then one of us much have been illogical. We can't still be both right when we are taking opposing sides to an issue.

>>That's not how politics works.

I do know politics if filled with a bunch of liars doing anything to be president or make money.

>>and it is your opinion that it would help countless lives, but would it be effective?

Yes.

>>Would it drive down doctors?

Where would they go?

>>Would it be too expensive?

No. Taxes can cover it if the US increases taxes on European goods like what Yang says. I think I am correct on this.

>>You have to look at all the possibilities and notice their are differing opinions and facts.

Yes there are different opinions but if we agree on what we values most then one side would have the facts and the other would not or not enough to have a more substantial point. Lets say if we both value human life then the option is easy public healthcare. This will make sure everyone will be treated and it will be funded through taxes instead of being forced to pay with insurances or on the point of being treated.

>>First comment. Because that's literally what I said.

No I asked how am I a conservative?

>>The problem is that you're attributing something to somebody that wasn't based on individual merit. the moment that happens. You're committing bigotry.

I don't understand this.

>>Would you be bigoted to people stopping public healthcare which would help countless lives, use war as a profiting scheme and use immigration as a scapegoat to real problems of the US?

You see, that is the problem. There is a debate to be had on those things, and it is your opinion that it would help countless lives, but would it be effective? Would it drive down doctors? Would it be too expensive? You have to look at all the possibilities and notice their are differing opinions and facts.

First comment. Because that's literally what I said.

Second. If I do, it's not intentional.

Third. No because being bigoted with have nothing to do with it. I can not like something without being bigoted. That's a lot different than committing a prejudice act. I think you're missing the point here.

The problem is that you're attributing something to somebody that wasn't based on individual merit. the moment that happens. You're committing bigotry.

"I do try to hear them out and show them how they are wrong but just like feelings over facts here just can't see how his positions are wrong. What am I supposed to do? Make the same point over and over again expecting a different result? You know that is insane right?"

What you fail to realize is that I think your positions are wrong as well. Both parties think the other one is wrong. It is all political opinions, and both sides can make good arguments. Both sides have their opinions and their evidence, and getting triggered that they don't change their mind is foolish. That's not how politics works.

>>I simply called the stance conservative,

How?

>>You have a profile for "conservative" in your head and when someone fits the profile, you add all of the stereotypes to them.

You don't do the same when you know what kind of person you are talking to is?

>>Now if you want to live your life that way, then cool. But just know that you're participating in bigotry if you do.

Would you be bigoted to people stopping public healthcare which would help countless lives, use war as a profiting scheme and use immigration as a scapegoat to real problems of the US?

I never denied your stance. I simply called the stance conservative, which is objectively true and you took issue with it. It wouldn't be such a problem for you, but you have it in your head that Conservative = X.

That's what makes it profiling and prejudice. You have a profile for "conservative" in your head and when someone fits the profile, you add all of the stereotypes to them.

Now if you want to live your life that way, then cool. But just know that you're participating in bigotry if you do.

>>And insulting them is somehow more effective? Because people totally admit they're wrong when you insult them right?

They didn't before I insulted them and when they can't even make a sound argument against me. They frustrate me.

>>Back to the reason for the skirmish. If you say that you hear them out first, then we do you need to profile them in the first place?

"Profile them in the first place?" What do you mean?

>>If you're going to suspend your prejudice just long enough to know them, then you don't practically need the prejudice.

Yes when having a conversation where both parties are not lying to one another about both of them making reasonable arguments. Turns out feelings over facts thinks his arguments are sound but they are not.

>>So not only do you fail on moral grounds. You fall on tactical and semantic grounds as well.

Why can't I do something for the fun of it or make my stance clear that I don't like what you are doing therefore don't expect me to entertain your not well thought through ideas?

Yeah, speedrace is no slouch. No rhyme is safe.

Are you really Type1? (joke)
Saw you got offended over it in some forum post.

And insulting them is somehow more effective? Because people totally admit they're wrong when you insult them right?

Back to the reason for the skirmish. If you say that you hear them out first, then we do you need to profile them in the first place?

If you're going to suspend your prejudice just long enough to know them, then you don't practically need the prejudice.

So not only do you fail on moral grounds. You fall on tactical and semantic grounds as well.

I do try to hear them out and show them how they are wrong but just like feelings over facts here just can't see how his positions are wrong. What am I supposed to do? Make the same point over and over again expecting a different result? You know that is insane right?

Ralph is winning so far but it's close

It just seems like a flimsy excuse. I really have no choice but to take you at your word, but it troubles me that you don't see the lack of logic within your method of handling conservatives.

>>meh

What? I want to see what people can come up with. I have failed to be entertained and it is getting boring doing whatever it is I am doing.

>>Who is doing this? It sounds like a liberal silencing college speakers.

Is the college a publicly owned or privately?
If publicly why isn't the community around the college not allowed to have a say who they have on? Are you against students having a say in who is allowed to have a platform?

>>Pretty hypocritical of you, considering you believe in physically assaulting people in public with whom your political beliefs don't align with.

Justify. Why can't you take my actual position? If someone threatened your livelihood or income is that person justified to do what is necessary to make sure they can survive?

>>No, you should tell your protester liberal friends who just shout and do nothing productive that. You should also assault them since they are incapable of having an actual discussion.

You said I would assault people who I disagree with so why would I assault people who are on the same side?
Using their right to protest is not a productive. Why is that the case?

meh

>>Surely you're not a slave to your emotions such that you have to stoop to someone else's level correct?

No but it is fun seeing what people will come up with as insults. Just want to see if any of them can create their own material. I found one saying I was still in grade school as an insult.

"Are you tolerant of people with awful viewpoints?"

No, you should tell your protester liberal friends who just shout and do nothing productive that. You should also assault them since they are incapable of having an actual discussion.

Pretty hypocritical of you, considering you believe in physically assaulting people in public with whom your political beliefs don't align with.

"Conservatives believe in freedom of speech so you can say whatever you want. They also commit a special pleading fallacy where people who they don't agree they don't keep the stance of freedom of speech. I don't."

Who is doing this? It sounds like a liberal silencing college speakers.

If you can acknowledge that they're not optimal, then why do you do it? Surely you're not a slave to your emotions such that you have to stoop to someone else's level correct?

They are not but since they resort to insults so will I. Not the best idea.

Why do you think insults are productive?

I listen to what they say. I tell them to explain it but they can't then I resort to insults like with feelings over facts,

You're not judging them based on their viewpoints. You're judging them based off the conservative archetype you think they fit. Bigotry is generally immoral and unproductive. Being prejudice against a conservative is just as bad as being prejudice to any other group.

How is being a bigot a bad thing to bad faith actors and people who don't actually think for themselves by parroting their idols?

Are you tolerant of people with awful viewpoints?

That's a bigoted approach.

If they sound just like their idols I can treat them as the con they are.

Typo on the last line "Must have said no" is what I meant to say.

Here's a whacky idea, how about we judge people as individuals instead?

>>You're creating a stereotype of what a conservative is. It's like stereotyping atheism.

I am creating it from the majority where it is led by bad faith actors like Steven Crowder, PragerU, Ben Shapiro and Turning Point USA or at the very least idiots.

>>Conservative just means you want to change things as little as possible.

Which means if they were able to they would go back to slavery or a time when blacks were unfairly represented like there are now in criminal cases.

>>This leads to certain majority views, but being a conservative by no means forces anyone to act the way you're describing

Yes based on the majority view. I don't make claims about a groups based on a minority or someone who isn't follow what the movement represents.

You're creating a stereotype of what a conservative is. It's like stereotyping atheism. Conservative just means you want to change things as little as possible. This leads to certain majority views, but being a conservative by no means forces anyone to act the way you're describing

perhaps it was too PUNgent for you to handle.

Conservatives believe in freedom of speech so you can say whatever you want. They also commit a special pleading fallacy where people who they don't agree they don't keep the stance of freedom of speech. I don't.

Not to be rude, but you've spelt rap wrongly in the title. It's just a reminder, don't take it too seriously.

That seems like a false narrative of the conservative mindset.

You want me to be held responsible for my words.

That's a conservative value.

Conservatives would say they don't want it but then do it behind your back.
I am saying what I want to happen.

Well aren't you conservative all of a sudden.

I can't condone this.
I would urge the moderators to send you to the hypothetical gulag.