Stonehenge

Sooo Is Stonehenge some ancient and mysterious archaeological find or was it built in 1954 by the British army core of engineers.

Here is a video stating "FACTS" about Stonehenge  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTwuKCqFwJY&t=108s

Here is a video showing detailed photographs of Stonehenge being built in 1954  by the British Army core of engineers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEG5gFR0CZg&t=5s

I think Stonehenge is a giant archaeological hoax, what say you?

We should debate this.  THBT: STONEHENGE was BUILT in 1954.  I'll take CON.

Why the hell would someone build stonehenge and then claim it is an ancient find? 

He is not interested in debating. He likes to sit around and complain about stuff.

is there a reason you capitalize various words within the resolution/debate, or is it just a style choice?

why isn't style choice a reason?

I suppose I mean a reason with utility

style has utility.  name branding, for example

not in this context

anyway, I'm guessing that's your way of answering my question

You don't think a recognizable writing style can have utility in this context?  I have argued that there should be style points in debate voting.   If nothing else, a distinct style helps people remember who they are reading.

my original intent was to CAPITALIZE every defined TERM every time it appears, to remind readers that this is a term with a specified meaning which may require an adjustment in the reader's natural inclinations towards that term.  Unfortunately, I am not very consistent with usage and many CAPS comes off as shouty.  Mostly, I just keep playing with CAPS to see if such usage improves clarity or concision.  In this particular, I suppose I hoped a distinctive style might help to emphasize or visualize that debate topic

See, now that's different. If that is truly the case, you've put at least a loose amount of forethought into which words are capitalized and which are not, with an intended goal that provides some actual gain. Before you clarified, we were operating on the assumption that most words were capitalized at near-random for no clear purpose other than to identify who you were. 

All right, I just thought this as an example of the utility of a distinctive style.

Here's a gimme debate that just finished

Obviously, my intent is humor and (you are free to correct me here) I think that my repetition of style adds to a sense of process or formality to my responses, which play into the humor.  What's funny is to see how a troll debate or a goof or whatever gets processed.  I think stuff like the overcaps and init's etc play up the humor here.

I don't think  many would argue that humor is not useful.

I mean, sure, humor has utility. I think I caused a rift in communication, sorry. To clarify, I've been talking mostly about serious, formal debates... and more specifically, the CAPITALIZATION habit within the context of one. I would agree that style, in general, is capable of having utility. 

I do stand by that it is undeserving of a voter category, though

If we added style points, debates would get more interesting to read.

I consider any conduct poor enough to merit a point poor enough to merit auto-loss.  Forfeiture mostly.

I'd get rid of spelling and conduct, keep grammar and add style

I'm not digging them up at this time of night, but I'm sure there are records of Stonehenge existing before 1954.

Bruh

The video is clearly from official sources when they were EXCAVATING IT. It's funny how you trust a random YouTube channel who can't even use grammar over official government sources. The video is clearly taken out of context.

get oofed by a bear

And a crocodile.

Seriously, why would someone build such a thing in 1954? For what purpose?

Piltdown Man.

Wow, you really are buying into the government propaganda rather easily aren't you? I mean come on... 1950's? The place was built in the year 1972. Stop buying everything the man sells you, man.

That's awesome. I love how the picture is taken with a camera, which is fairly modern technology, and that it is of horse and cart with an ancient construction in the background. It's like looking backwards through time.

Are you libleft?

LOL All I am doing is showing pictures of what appears to be Stonehenge being built in 1954. I am not buying into any govt conspiracy. The pictures are real as far as I have been able to research. No one is saying they are fake photo shopped photos. Pretty convincing evidence. No one has made an attempt to explain them away. But the usual personal attacks I can count on for sure. Are they fake photo's? If so what is the proof that they are? I personally would love to see the photos proven fake. Was Stonehenge moved from it's original location? That's a possibility.