Are you the copyright owner? If not, then how do you know it's copyrighted and not in the public domain? What if the copyright owner gave permission for that website to allow people to download it, or what if that torrent site bought the copyright themselves so that they can they can legally allow people to download the torrent?
Also, I'm pretty sure copyright laws just says I can't HOST the copyrighted material. It doesn't say I can't LINK to it.
The film can be downloaded as a torrent from this website: https://yts.lt/movie/braveheart-1995
Once you download the "Braveheart (1995) [BluRay] [YTS.LT].torrent" file, you need a software like utorrent or bitorrent to extract the torrent and acquire the MP4 video file for the movie to watch.
I'm a bit busy with homework at the moment, but if you want to debate though, then sure, since billbatard doesn't seem to be taking this seriously anyways.
You need to slow the F down and try to do only 1 or 2 debates at a time instead of 6. https://web.archive.org/web/20190918011734/https://www.debateart.com/debates?_utf8=%E2%9C%93&status=challenge&order=votes
Are you seriously going to start a brand new gun debate when you haven't even finished this gun debate with me yet?? https://web.archive.org/web/20190918011624/https://www.debateart.com/debates/1373/gun-control
I backed up whiteflame's vote to web archive. It will always be preserved even if the original one does get edited or deleted. https://web.archive.org/web/20190916031135/https://docs.google.com/document/d/15ROnXaWVJBMRD97_QBx9W2dYwAIkvFRHPxYqLQ5ikgQ/edit
I also like how RationalMadman says "I also didn't want to help Pro realise ways to defeat me, so I allowed Pro to keep going down the line he was going"
That's smart. Napoleon Bonaparte once said to Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Virtuoso only saved half my vote, and deleted the rest, so I would have to re-type the other half, except I don't remember the other half :O
RationalMadman and Exile, should I just re-read the debate and type a brand new vote form instead of copying and pasting the old "wrong" one?
I'll admit I may have made a mistake on my part, and I didn't actually read the whole debate before typing my original vote form. I only read like Round 1 and then a little bit of Round 2 before stopping and going straight to voting.
I assumed it would be much easier to just create that bank robbery scenario in my head and then apply that to the debate to draw a simple conclusion.
I think I also may have noticed a spelling error on RationalMadman's part, and I may give Exile the spelling/grammar points, but first I have to find the actual spelling error.... in a debate that's dozens of paragraphs long too :(
Even if I don't personally use the radio app on my phone for "listening to USELESS music" there sure are other people that do.
Your article that you linked seems to be trying to imply that smartphones HELP the economy, not HURT it.
"Cell phones have had a profound impact on a number of different industries, helping to develop new communities and business networks in economies on a global scale. Not only are these devices able to connect people to their customers in a new way, they also allow those from different socioeconomic backgrounds to engage in consumer behavior without traditional financial institutions to help them."
"Cell phones help instigate and encourage economic growth in developed and developing nations. Increasing the access to and usage of cell phones, as well as the speeds with which people can connect with one another, helps improve the efficacy of businesses."
Also, no, they most certainly do not get rid of the use of things. These things like the calculator are still usable and still used today. It just so happens to now be in the form of a smartphone app as opposed to a physical bulky electronic that requires it's own set of batteries and whatnot.
Do you want to use Hillary Clinton's policies when referencing left-wing policies? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Do you want to use Trump's accomplishments when referencing right-wing policies? http://www.magapill.com/
I watched the video. There are two things you two can improve upon. The first thing is that it should be a little louder for Virtuoso. When bsh1 was speaking, I could hear him loud and clear, and then when it switched to Virtuoso, I had to turn my volume up to 100 to hear him, and then when it switched back to bsh1, it was too loud and I had to turn it back down, and then turn it back up when it went to Virtuoso again, and so on. This was very annoying.
The second thing is that both of you kept saying "um" and "uhh" throughout the video, to try and fill the void of silence. This is a bad habit that so many people have. Try to remember to take a moment to gather your thoughts and then speak. Judge Judy always says that "um is not an answer". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV26MvqHcEQ
Here is an article that teaches people how to break the habit of using those "filter words" http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/stop-um-uh-filler-words/
It takes practice. Just pay attention when you speak to people in your everyday lives and pay attention if you're using unnecessary filler words. Take a moment to think about what you say. Breathe. Think... and so on.
People can speak so much better when bad habits like this are fixed.
"I value life. The second amendment doesn't value the same thing since it is basically a right to bear arms."
The second amendment cannot 'value' anything. The second amendment is a piece of the constitution, not a living being with the ability to 'value' things like you and I can.
"This doesn't lead to life being protected, it leads to death."
I'd say it leads to both. The question is, does it lead to more death than life being protected, or does it lead to more life being protected than death?
"By removing said guns we can eliminate the problem."
I agree. If we can convince everybody to turn over their guns, INCLUDING the very criminals/gangsters who don't care about laws and are NOT GONNA just give up their guns that easily... then yes, we can eliminate the problem.
"I think the government should be put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens not give them things that can only harm their well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others."
Except guns are NOT 'things that can only harm well well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others'. Guns can also be used for useful things like hunting and self-defense, not just to harm well-beings. Can they be misused if in the wrong hands? Yes, but they aren't all-bad.
If guns are causing 'unnecessary fear among others' then those 'others' should man up and understand that a gun by itself is harmless and that someone needs to be behind the trigger in order for the gun to be scary.
Didn't Alec just say that "The 2nd amendment wasn't even made to reduce homicide. It was about protecting ourselves from the biggest mass shooter in history; a mass shooter that has slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century; tyrannical governments."?
Now, even if the original gets modified and/or deleted, the saved copy will be preserved.
I noticed that, in the debate, bsh1 said, and I quote, "Pro's google doc (which I am wary of citing since it can be edited by Pro)"
I would like to let bsh1 know that, when a google doc is saved to web archive, even if Pro (or anyone for that matter) DID edit it later, the original one would be preserved on web archive. So maybe next time, when people are citing google docs as sources in any future debate, they could create a web archive version of that google doc and cite THAT ARCHIVED COPY instead of the original google doc itself, since you can't edit an archive, and thus you don't need to worry about it being edited, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.
Web archive is also a great tool for people who wish to cite sites such as 4chan, 8chan, twitter, reddit, and facebook in their debates, since those sites tend to delete tweets/posts after a certain amount of time passes or for some other reason, and it could be helpful to preserve sites that tend to get edited or deleted.
Previously, there was a bug/glitch which was preventing web archive from saving and preserving google docs (you could get like a 404 error or something when you tried to do so) but this brand new beta version can do it: https://web.archive.org/save
Plus it has the option to "Save outlinks" and "Save error pages (HTTP Status=4xx, 5xx)"
Web archive is straight-forward and easy to learn and use. You simply copy and paste whatever you want to be preserved and click the SAVE PAGE button. Millions of people use it to preserve things that they fear could get modified or deleted.
The Rules and Code of Conduct specifically says, and I quote:
a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points.
PressF4Respect has failed to survey the arguments and counter arguments, or weigh them, and has instead simply stated a 1 word answer in their RFD Reason For Decision. PressF4Respect has viciously broken this rule and screwed up the outcome of this debate!
I believe that PressF4Respect's vote is invalid and should be fixed. His/Her reason for awarding "Better Arguments" and "Better Sources" to con was simply "Yes".
A voter can't simply state 1 word answers as to why they cast their votes. A voter needs to specify why they chose to award those, in more detail.
Fine. In that case, how about I use something, that is both physically and logically possible, as my example: moving.
Moving is both physically and logically possible, and is defined as changing positions/locations.
However, you yourself said this:
- When an something "changes", it moves from one state to another. It, essentially, becomes either "better" or "worse".
- To be "perfect" is indeed as "good as can possibly be" as you state
- So, if something that is "perfect" changes, then 1 of 2 things happen:
a) It becomes "less perfect" (worse)
b) it becomes "more perfect" (becomes better). But this, again makes no sense. If something is as good as possible, it can't become better (more perfect) because it is already, by definition "as good as can possibly be"-- there is no "getting any better".
- It follows that if something is perfect (all perfect), then it can't possibly change. If it changes then (a) it loses the perfection it had or (b) it gets better (which means/implies it wasn't "perfect' in the first place).
Also, I'm pretty sure that the Christian believes that God is "omnipresent" (which means to be literally everywhere) in addition to being "omnipotent". However, to be everywhere means that you cannot leave any one location and move to another, as being omnipotent would mean that you are already in the "perfect" location.
So that means God can't move at all; he's stuck, even though we can move around. I also highly doubt that moving would be against his nature too, so you couldn't simply say that it's just against his nature.
That means that God can't beat me in a game of basketball, soccer, or any other sport that requires some kind of movement, even though I'm a crappy basketball player.
That means God can't beat me in a race.
Take that.
Seriously though, this was a lame debate. Was hoping TheAtheist wouldn't forfeit 2 rounds in a row. Oh well.
So, according to you, omnipotence "means being able to do that which is possible (logically or has the potential for possibility)". Well in the bible, God has done tons of things that wouldn't be logically possible.
According to the book of Genesis, he created the heavens, earth, sun, and moon, waters, plants, and animals, by simply speaking them into existence (let there be light). That isn't logically possible, yet God was still able to do it.... all in one day, mind you.
Then it goes on about how God formed a man from dust in the ground and breathed into his nostrils to make him a living being (another logically impossible task).
Afterwards, God decided that the man needed a "suitable helper" and caused him to fall asleep somehow, taking one of his ribs and making a woman out of that (another logically impossible task).
Later, when they both disobeyed God, God banished them from his garden and put "a flaming sword" to guard it (which is also not logically possible).
In the book of Exodus, it talks about 10 different plagues that God created, which is also not logically possible. https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-are-10-plagues-egypt
The way God freed those egyptians from the pharaoh (dividing an ocean and making wheels come off of his chariots) would also be logically impossible.
Is God really limited to only "logically possible" things? If so, then how does God do all that in the bible, and so much more? If not, then he should certainly be able to do other logically impossible things like creating a married bachelor, right?
And those were just a select few examples out of the many of them.
You said that the Christian defines omnipotence as being able to do everything that is possible that is also not against God's nature, and, according to your idea of God's nature, he "is Perfect, Omni-potent, Eternal, Omniscient, All-Good."
The definition of perfect is "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be." https://www.google.com/search?q=define+perfect
You yourself said that God lacks the ability to lie or change, and lying and change can both be "desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics". Guess he isn't perfect then.
It cannot possibly be proven that God is eternal or omniscient.
Again, how can God be "all-good" when he does bad things? My problem with the whole idea of "all-good" is that you see it as all black-and-white, and that you don't take into account the fact that some things can be very good in certain situations, but also be bad in others. For instance, lying is bad when you know you did something wrong and that you could own up to it and just tell the truth, but what if someone yells "FIRE" in order to get attention and they need immediate help? Sure they lied, but that could be a good lie since it would lead to a good outcome.
What if someone tells you that they want to come for you in real life and harm you, and they ask you for personal information like your real name or address so that they can find you, but you lie and give them fake information so that you protect yourself and your safety. Sure, you lied, but it was for a good cause, right?
This is the problem with Aquinas's definition of omnipotence, and of God's nature. They're both either vague, cannot be proven, or don't take into account other external factors like what I just mentioned.
The outcome of this debate is going to rest on whatever/whosever definitions the audience/voters agrees with, and I doubt they're going to agree with the fuzzy one that you have given over the opponent's one.
That's the problem here. The Christian's definition of omnipotence is different from Aquinas's one, and they both contradict each other.
According to Aquinas's definition, "God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
According to "the Christian," "it is NOT possible for God to lie. Why? Because it is NOT in God's nature. The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect. The reason God can't lie is because it's inconsistent (Contradictory) with his All-Perfect nature."
Except Aquinas's definition doesn't specify that God can do all things that are possible that are also not against his nature. It just says that God can do all things that are possible, period (without including anything about God's nature).
If we go by Aquinas's definition, then God should be able to lie and do other harmful things like you and I can.
If we go by the Christian definition, then not only does God do many things that should also be against his nature, but then you also have to take that extra step and go through the trouble of explaining what "God's nature" is supposed to mean, since the Christian defines omnipotence as being able to do everything that is possible that is also not against God's nature, but doesn't define God's nature itself, and neither does Aquinas.
I'm trying to show you that, no matter what definition of omnipotence we go by, whether it's TheAtheist's, the Christian's, or Aquinas's, you would still easily be refuted based on any and all 3 of those different definitions.
Some versions of the bible will say that God told Adam he would die that day if he ate from the tree; other versions will simply say that God told Adam he would "surely die" when he ate it, without including "that day". Regardless which one is semantically correct, God still told Adam that something would happen when it didn't.
You also keep bringing up how "The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect." Again, that isn't how debating works. You win debates based on the facts that you present and how you counter the opposing side's arguments with facts and logic, not based on what your own personal religious cult/gang determines. I'm sure many other groups believe in Allah, Zeus the god of thunder, norse Gods, Athena the wisdom goddess, the flying spaghetti monster, bigfoot, and more.
According to you, "When reading a work from an author, if you want to know what it means, what was actually intended you go to the source". Fine then. Since the bible is the word of God, why don't you go ask God himself what he meant and then report back to us instead of just saying "oh but God meant this and/or that instead"? After all, he is 'the only one with the true "Authority" to explain what is meant in the words' right?
Lastly, I'm gonna need to you explain what "God's nature" is all about, because God has killed many, is jealous of many people, and does some other insane stuff in the bible, all of which would likely be "against His nature" too. https://io9.gizmodo.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429
My problem isn't when someone interprets the bible as whatever they want. My problem is when they are inconsistent with what they say, and that when they are refuted, they change the meaning of things so that it still looks like they are correct, even though they have been refuted.
Okay. So, according to you, "God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
So in that case, God is not omnipotent, because:
To be omnipotent means to be able to do all things that are possible.
You yourself said, and I quote, "God can not lie".
Lying is "logically possible". I can lie and say that 1+1=3, even though it isn't.
Therefore, because "God can not lie," God cannot "do all things that are possible". Therefore, God is not omnipotent.
Keep in mind that this is based on your definition of omnipotence, not mine, and even then, I have refuted you.
You then go on and say that "God is Omnipotent, with omni-potent including those things which are logically possible or do not go against God's nature." which is also very easy to refute. What exactly are the things that "go against God's nature" anyways? Lying? Well in Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat from the tree of life or else they would die that day, and when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, Adam did not die that day. So either God HAS in fact lied (which proves that he can and does lie) or that God simply didn't know that Adam would disobey him (which would, in that case, prove that God isn't smart and is thus not omnipotent).
Your argument is: "These may seem illogical to us, but we, as humans, with our small minds, have a hard time understanding and comprehending how this could be. I've hard the Paradox answer this way: God can make anything He wants, and He can lift anything he wants. Far it being from me to be able to explain how he is able to do it-- he's omnipotent, i'm not."
Dude, this isn't how debating works. You need to explain how "The Omnipotence Paradox is a flawed argument" based on facts, not based on "what the Christian believes" and not based on "literary techniques in their writings." How do you know that the inspired humans who wrote the bible were using literary techniques and not just making direct statements?
Remember what your opponent said; "you cannot just change your religion's definition of God to win an debate."
Also, you contradict your own statement by saying this: The Bible does in fact put limits on what God can’t do.
So this would mean that God is not omnipotent. Period. Debate over.
The contender here is probably just going to go, "but what if person A isn't sentient or person B is mentality deficient, do we kill them????"
Right now I can't vote cause I didn't fulfill all of the tedious requirements, but you can, so do you agree with instigator or contender?
If it were up to me, I guess I would:
Give arguments to instigator (both sides had strong arguments, but the instigator provided more strong arguments than the contender did, even though the instigator was drawing false lines at things)
Tie sources (although I recommend that the instigator avoid using nylon.com as a source, simply because it loaded with dozens of ads, pop-ups, fancy pictures, and links to purchase shoes, glasses, t-shirts, and other lame products, all of which can slow down certain peoples' browsers and computers; if it wasn't for my adblock plus, my computer probably would have frozen and/or crashed)
Tie spelling/grammar ('cause let's be honest, most people who vote aren't going to waste time checking every single sentence for a spelling error anyways, and vote moderators aren't going to waste time checking hundreds if not thousands of words and sentences to see if there is a spelling error)
Give conduct to contender (because like I said, instigator kept trying to draw false lines over and over for no reason, prompting the contender to keep applying it to live people, thus making the debate go nowhere)
I generally don't even like debates on whether or not abortion is "morally okay" because it just leads nowhere, and both sides of the debated get frustrated with each other.
I believe Ben Shapiro explains it best, in this short video where he debates with a university kid on abortion.
https://youtu.be/PbNYOyPRpgg?t=23
"The real question is where do you draw the line? You gonna draw the line at the heartbeat? Because it's very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat. There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker and they need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat. You gonna do it based on brain function? Okay, well what about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them. The problem is, anytime you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up a drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults."
Here the college student argues "I believe that sentient is what gives something moral value" and then Ben Shapiro responds with "When you're asleep can I stab you?" followed by "If you are in a coma from which you may awake, can I stab you?" followed by "You know what else is potential sentient? Being a fetus". Here, the college student realizes that he has failed to draw a proper line at the sentient of a baby, so he then tries to draw a new line at the level of burden that a fetus presents, which also fails.
Looking at this video, and then looking back at your arguments and the contender's arguments, we can see how you keep drawing lines at different parts, the same way that this college kid draws lines at different parts. The contender just keeps taking it and applying to something else. When it fails, you keep doing it over again, so the contender just refutes it again the same way.
You don't want to make the same mistake that this college kid makes. I also recommend that you keep your religious affiliations out of all debates, unless the debate specifically has to do with religion. The contender even made it clear that he does not debate from religious standpoints.
This debate is anyone's game. I can't wait to see the outcome.
Now I think the instigator did some things wrong too. One main piece of advice I would give the instigator is, be careful when using arguments like:
1) A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them
2) My definition of functions independently is this: Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves.
3) Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ
When you make arguments like these, you actually make the whole debate harder for yourself because your arguments went something like this:
"A fetus doesn't count as a person because a fetus lacks X"
then the opponent simply goes "but a person A lacks X too, so should we kill person A simply because they lack X?"
then you would say "but a fetus also lacks Y"
then the opponent simply goes "but person B lacks Y as well, so should be kill person B?"
"well, yes, but a fetus also lacks this and that"
"but person C lacks this and that too!"
This kind of interaction would go on back and forth, and would get nowhere.
Like, you would say "A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will" and the opponent responds "What about people on breathing machines? Should we kill them?" then you respond "People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts. It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma." and then the opponent goes "What if someone was in a coma and will wake up with amnesia, they also have to have breathing machine when they wake up to live, and their parents ditch them so they don't have people who love him."
See what I mean? Sometimes it's better to simply drop/abandon arguments like these that lead nowhere, shift gears, and focus on different and stronger arguments.
I think both sides could have debated this better. I'll start by responding to a couple of the contender's arguments from the last round.
"First off, rape is a very minute percentage of births so using that as an argument is deceiving."
So what if it's a small percentage? That doesn't mean that a woman who was raped shouldn't have an abortion simply because they are within that small percentage.
"There are plenty of children who are born who are unwanted, so do we kill all of them?"
Depends if it's legal or not and what laws that the area has. Some areas ban it outright, while other areas allow it during specific times and/or circumstances, as explained in this article. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws
"Who says the small children won't live a productive life? Perhaps some won't, but then you are also murdering the kids that will."
I don't think the mother is going to concern herself with whether or not the baby will live a productive life. She just wants to get rid of a baby that she doesn't want.
"Conclusion I have proven abortion is murder and it is wrong to end someone's life through murder, no matter what stage of life they are in."
The definition of murder, according to google: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The key word here, is unlawful. In other words, it doesn't count as actual murder if it is lawful and legal. I agree that it is wrong to murder, but as far as I can tell, abortion doesn't actually count as that. It's better to simply that you don't like killing babies no matter what stage of life they are in.
I'm not trying to convince the contender that abortion is okay. I believe that people should look at any upsides and downsides to abortion and then make their own judgement. I'm just responding to a few of these arguments that I find very weak.
I apologize if it looks like I'm spamming or something, but I just had to break my response down into three parts, because it wouldn't let me fit it all into one comment.
You say that "It seems illogical to object to the validity of BLM protesting one particular type of injustice simply because there are more substantial matters at stake" and I agree with this. However, that is not what pro was doing. Pro was not objecting to the validity of Black Lives Matter protesting one particular type of injustice. Pro was mainly arguing that (1) In addition to Black Lives Matter protesting against police brutality, Black Lives Matter should also be protesting against others kinds of violence and poverty, like blacks killing other blacks, as well as black children growing up without a father that they can look up to, and (2) The fact that Black Lives Matter is only focusing on white police killing black people really does make them come across as just another black supremacist group that wants to make blacks dislike whites.
Pro was never arguing that Black Lives Matter should outright ignore police brutality in favor of other issues, nor was he trying to deny that police brutality exists. Pro was arguing only that Black Lives Matter should focus on all of those issues, not just a few, and concluded that they are doing far too little, and ignoring many other issues that blacks face, for a group that seems to care so much about black lives.
Fnally, you say that "the insinuation appears there throughout the whole debate." even though pro wasn't really saying that outright. I really think you should have just asked pro what he meant if you wanted more clarification instead of just assuming that this was "the implication being made". That is what the comment section is for.
Your entire RFD (Reason For Decision) incorrectly assumes that pro is (1) Trying to "villainize" blacks, which he isn't and instead just wants whites to stop being villainized, and (2) Claiming that it's all blacks fault. Pro isn't denying that racism exists, he just wants them to focus on all those black issues instead of just a small amount.
You say pro is just throwing "an unending list of statistics" but then say that "he presents no evidence BLM brainwashes people to hate whites." Whether or not this is true depends on exactly what kind of evidence you are looking for, and whether or not we can find that connection that pro makes between the statistics that he shows and the Black Lives Matter group brainwashing blacks into hating whites.
https://i-sight.com/resources/15-types-of-evidence-and-how-to-use-them-in-investigation/
This article shows that there are at least 15 difference types of evidence, but I want to focus on just 3 of them: Analogical, Direct, and Statistical Evidence.
"Analogical evidence uses a comparison of things that are similar to draw an analogy." "The most powerful type of evidence, direct evidence requires no inference." "Evidence that uses numbers (or statistics) to support a position is called statistical evidence."
I think pro did a great job at presenting both analogical and statistical evidence. He utilized analogical evidence to compare the issues with police brutality that Black Lives Matter seems to stand for with the issues of black killing other blacks, and then, using statistical evidence, showed how Black Lives Matter was focusing too much on only a small part of the problem, instead of the whole problem.
The kind of evidence you seem to be looking for is the direct one, which is going to be much harder, if not outright impossible, for pro to provide. Are you sure that that will be the only kind of evidence that can possibly convince you of Black Lives Matter's true intentions?
Vietnam has more beautiful girls though
Are you the copyright owner? If not, then how do you know it's copyrighted and not in the public domain? What if the copyright owner gave permission for that website to allow people to download it, or what if that torrent site bought the copyright themselves so that they can they can legally allow people to download the torrent?
Also, I'm pretty sure copyright laws just says I can't HOST the copyrighted material. It doesn't say I can't LINK to it.
What laws specifically am I violating?
The film can be downloaded as a torrent from this website: https://yts.lt/movie/braveheart-1995
Once you download the "Braveheart (1995) [BluRay] [YTS.LT].torrent" file, you need a software like utorrent or bitorrent to extract the torrent and acquire the MP4 video file for the movie to watch.
I would have to download the entire film via torrent and watch it before doing this debate with you.
I'm a bit busy with homework at the moment, but if you want to debate though, then sure, since billbatard doesn't seem to be taking this seriously anyways.
I don't think Billbatard can win this on his own, so I'm gonna help 'em out, by refuting Viruoso's arguments for 'em.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190918050145/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OxfdlVsmDls4nTVTUPQ1o2BcvURHqhMJTnFDcVx1N7o/edit
Billbatard can just copy and paste this in the debate if necessary.
You need to slow the F down and try to do only 1 or 2 debates at a time instead of 6. https://web.archive.org/web/20190918011734/https://www.debateart.com/debates?_utf8=%E2%9C%93&status=challenge&order=votes
Are you seriously going to start a brand new gun debate when you haven't even finished this gun debate with me yet?? https://web.archive.org/web/20190918011624/https://www.debateart.com/debates/1373/gun-control
This debate made no sense. Nobody knows what an Azerbajan or Armenia is...
I backed up whiteflame's vote to web archive. It will always be preserved even if the original one does get edited or deleted. https://web.archive.org/web/20190916031135/https://docs.google.com/document/d/15ROnXaWVJBMRD97_QBx9W2dYwAIkvFRHPxYqLQ5ikgQ/edit
I also like how RationalMadman says "I also didn't want to help Pro realise ways to defeat me, so I allowed Pro to keep going down the line he was going"
That's smart. Napoleon Bonaparte once said to Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Oh man.
Virtuoso only saved half my vote, and deleted the rest, so I would have to re-type the other half, except I don't remember the other half :O
RationalMadman and Exile, should I just re-read the debate and type a brand new vote form instead of copying and pasting the old "wrong" one?
I'll admit I may have made a mistake on my part, and I didn't actually read the whole debate before typing my original vote form. I only read like Round 1 and then a little bit of Round 2 before stopping and going straight to voting.
I assumed it would be much easier to just create that bank robbery scenario in my head and then apply that to the debate to draw a simple conclusion.
I think I also may have noticed a spelling error on RationalMadman's part, and I may give Exile the spelling/grammar points, but first I have to find the actual spelling error.... in a debate that's dozens of paragraphs long too :(
I appreciate the advice
When what?
I just had a discussion on this very topic with dustryder on the forum not too long ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1272/post_links/107592
What's a contention heading?
Also I waived the last round 'cause he told me to.
Even if I don't personally use the radio app on my phone for "listening to USELESS music" there sure are other people that do.
Your article that you linked seems to be trying to imply that smartphones HELP the economy, not HURT it.
"Cell phones have had a profound impact on a number of different industries, helping to develop new communities and business networks in economies on a global scale. Not only are these devices able to connect people to their customers in a new way, they also allow those from different socioeconomic backgrounds to engage in consumer behavior without traditional financial institutions to help them."
"Cell phones help instigate and encourage economic growth in developed and developing nations. Increasing the access to and usage of cell phones, as well as the speeds with which people can connect with one another, helps improve the efficacy of businesses."
Also, no, they most certainly do not get rid of the use of things. These things like the calculator are still usable and still used today. It just so happens to now be in the form of a smartphone app as opposed to a physical bulky electronic that requires it's own set of batteries and whatnot.
Which left-wing policies exactly do you want to use for reference, if it's not Hillary's policies?
Do you want to use Hillary Clinton's policies when referencing left-wing policies? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Do you want to use Trump's accomplishments when referencing right-wing policies? http://www.magapill.com/
My bad. I must have read it wrong. I thought they were charging us money. I didn't realize it was just the prize money.
Why does Qallout charge people 5000 dollars? https://i.imgur.com/7IFF771.png
I watched the video. There are two things you two can improve upon. The first thing is that it should be a little louder for Virtuoso. When bsh1 was speaking, I could hear him loud and clear, and then when it switched to Virtuoso, I had to turn my volume up to 100 to hear him, and then when it switched back to bsh1, it was too loud and I had to turn it back down, and then turn it back up when it went to Virtuoso again, and so on. This was very annoying.
The second thing is that both of you kept saying "um" and "uhh" throughout the video, to try and fill the void of silence. This is a bad habit that so many people have. Try to remember to take a moment to gather your thoughts and then speak. Judge Judy always says that "um is not an answer". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV26MvqHcEQ
Here is an article that teaches people how to break the habit of using those "filter words" http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/stop-um-uh-filler-words/
It takes practice. Just pay attention when you speak to people in your everyday lives and pay attention if you're using unnecessary filler words. Take a moment to think about what you say. Breathe. Think... and so on.
People can speak so much better when bad habits like this are fixed.
"I value life. The second amendment doesn't value the same thing since it is basically a right to bear arms."
The second amendment cannot 'value' anything. The second amendment is a piece of the constitution, not a living being with the ability to 'value' things like you and I can.
"This doesn't lead to life being protected, it leads to death."
I'd say it leads to both. The question is, does it lead to more death than life being protected, or does it lead to more life being protected than death?
"By removing said guns we can eliminate the problem."
I agree. If we can convince everybody to turn over their guns, INCLUDING the very criminals/gangsters who don't care about laws and are NOT GONNA just give up their guns that easily... then yes, we can eliminate the problem.
"I think the government should be put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens not give them things that can only harm their well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others."
Except guns are NOT 'things that can only harm well well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others'. Guns can also be used for useful things like hunting and self-defense, not just to harm well-beings. Can they be misused if in the wrong hands? Yes, but they aren't all-bad.
If guns are causing 'unnecessary fear among others' then those 'others' should man up and understand that a gun by itself is harmless and that someone needs to be behind the trigger in order for the gun to be scary.
Didn't Alec just say that "The 2nd amendment wasn't even made to reduce homicide. It was about protecting ourselves from the biggest mass shooter in history; a mass shooter that has slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century; tyrannical governments."?
I saved your google doc to web archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190831010837/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEO-QIEwB1LmUlH1haJh3n495fqmxXAQ1Phrlj3YKf0/edit
Now, even if the original gets modified and/or deleted, the saved copy will be preserved.
I noticed that, in the debate, bsh1 said, and I quote, "Pro's google doc (which I am wary of citing since it can be edited by Pro)"
I would like to let bsh1 know that, when a google doc is saved to web archive, even if Pro (or anyone for that matter) DID edit it later, the original one would be preserved on web archive. So maybe next time, when people are citing google docs as sources in any future debate, they could create a web archive version of that google doc and cite THAT ARCHIVED COPY instead of the original google doc itself, since you can't edit an archive, and thus you don't need to worry about it being edited, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.
Web archive is also a great tool for people who wish to cite sites such as 4chan, 8chan, twitter, reddit, and facebook in their debates, since those sites tend to delete tweets/posts after a certain amount of time passes or for some other reason, and it could be helpful to preserve sites that tend to get edited or deleted.
Previously, there was a bug/glitch which was preventing web archive from saving and preserving google docs (you could get like a 404 error or something when you tried to do so) but this brand new beta version can do it: https://web.archive.org/save
Plus it has the option to "Save outlinks" and "Save error pages (HTTP Status=4xx, 5xx)"
Web archive is straight-forward and easy to learn and use. You simply copy and paste whatever you want to be preserved and click the SAVE PAGE button. Millions of people use it to preserve things that they fear could get modified or deleted.
I didn't know this was a troll debate. Maybe there should be an option to specifically label a debate as a troll debate, next time.
The Rules and Code of Conduct specifically says, and I quote:
a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counter arguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points.
PressF4Respect has failed to survey the arguments and counter arguments, or weigh them, and has instead simply stated a 1 word answer in their RFD Reason For Decision. PressF4Respect has viciously broken this rule and screwed up the outcome of this debate!
I believe that PressF4Respect's vote is invalid and should be fixed. His/Her reason for awarding "Better Arguments" and "Better Sources" to con was simply "Yes".
A voter can't simply state 1 word answers as to why they cast their votes. A voter needs to specify why they chose to award those, in more detail.
Personhood is usually attributed during birth. Period.
Fine. In that case, how about I use something, that is both physically and logically possible, as my example: moving.
Moving is both physically and logically possible, and is defined as changing positions/locations.
However, you yourself said this:
- When an something "changes", it moves from one state to another. It, essentially, becomes either "better" or "worse".
- To be "perfect" is indeed as "good as can possibly be" as you state
- So, if something that is "perfect" changes, then 1 of 2 things happen:
a) It becomes "less perfect" (worse)
b) it becomes "more perfect" (becomes better). But this, again makes no sense. If something is as good as possible, it can't become better (more perfect) because it is already, by definition "as good as can possibly be"-- there is no "getting any better".
- It follows that if something is perfect (all perfect), then it can't possibly change. If it changes then (a) it loses the perfection it had or (b) it gets better (which means/implies it wasn't "perfect' in the first place).
Also, I'm pretty sure that the Christian believes that God is "omnipresent" (which means to be literally everywhere) in addition to being "omnipotent". However, to be everywhere means that you cannot leave any one location and move to another, as being omnipotent would mean that you are already in the "perfect" location.
So that means God can't move at all; he's stuck, even though we can move around. I also highly doubt that moving would be against his nature too, so you couldn't simply say that it's just against his nature.
That means that God can't beat me in a game of basketball, soccer, or any other sport that requires some kind of movement, even though I'm a crappy basketball player.
That means God can't beat me in a race.
Take that.
Seriously though, this was a lame debate. Was hoping TheAtheist wouldn't forfeit 2 rounds in a row. Oh well.
So, according to you, omnipotence "means being able to do that which is possible (logically or has the potential for possibility)". Well in the bible, God has done tons of things that wouldn't be logically possible.
According to the book of Genesis, he created the heavens, earth, sun, and moon, waters, plants, and animals, by simply speaking them into existence (let there be light). That isn't logically possible, yet God was still able to do it.... all in one day, mind you.
Then it goes on about how God formed a man from dust in the ground and breathed into his nostrils to make him a living being (another logically impossible task).
Afterwards, God decided that the man needed a "suitable helper" and caused him to fall asleep somehow, taking one of his ribs and making a woman out of that (another logically impossible task).
Later, when they both disobeyed God, God banished them from his garden and put "a flaming sword" to guard it (which is also not logically possible).
In the book of Exodus, it talks about 10 different plagues that God created, which is also not logically possible. https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-are-10-plagues-egypt
The way God freed those egyptians from the pharaoh (dividing an ocean and making wheels come off of his chariots) would also be logically impossible.
Is God really limited to only "logically possible" things? If so, then how does God do all that in the bible, and so much more? If not, then he should certainly be able to do other logically impossible things like creating a married bachelor, right?
And those were just a select few examples out of the many of them.
You said that the Christian defines omnipotence as being able to do everything that is possible that is also not against God's nature, and, according to your idea of God's nature, he "is Perfect, Omni-potent, Eternal, Omniscient, All-Good."
The definition of perfect is "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be." https://www.google.com/search?q=define+perfect
You yourself said that God lacks the ability to lie or change, and lying and change can both be "desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics". Guess he isn't perfect then.
It cannot possibly be proven that God is eternal or omniscient.
Again, how can God be "all-good" when he does bad things? My problem with the whole idea of "all-good" is that you see it as all black-and-white, and that you don't take into account the fact that some things can be very good in certain situations, but also be bad in others. For instance, lying is bad when you know you did something wrong and that you could own up to it and just tell the truth, but what if someone yells "FIRE" in order to get attention and they need immediate help? Sure they lied, but that could be a good lie since it would lead to a good outcome.
What if someone tells you that they want to come for you in real life and harm you, and they ask you for personal information like your real name or address so that they can find you, but you lie and give them fake information so that you protect yourself and your safety. Sure, you lied, but it was for a good cause, right?
This is the problem with Aquinas's definition of omnipotence, and of God's nature. They're both either vague, cannot be proven, or don't take into account other external factors like what I just mentioned.
The outcome of this debate is going to rest on whatever/whosever definitions the audience/voters agrees with, and I doubt they're going to agree with the fuzzy one that you have given over the opponent's one.
This youtuber make a pretty good video explaining the benefits and downsides of a universal basic income. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XjHXYt8wQ
I don't mind setting the working age to 14. After all, more people will be able to acquire work experience and help improve the economy, right?
That's the problem here. The Christian's definition of omnipotence is different from Aquinas's one, and they both contradict each other.
According to Aquinas's definition, "God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
According to "the Christian," "it is NOT possible for God to lie. Why? Because it is NOT in God's nature. The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect. The reason God can't lie is because it's inconsistent (Contradictory) with his All-Perfect nature."
Except Aquinas's definition doesn't specify that God can do all things that are possible that are also not against his nature. It just says that God can do all things that are possible, period (without including anything about God's nature).
If we go by Aquinas's definition, then God should be able to lie and do other harmful things like you and I can.
If we go by the Christian definition, then not only does God do many things that should also be against his nature, but then you also have to take that extra step and go through the trouble of explaining what "God's nature" is supposed to mean, since the Christian defines omnipotence as being able to do everything that is possible that is also not against God's nature, but doesn't define God's nature itself, and neither does Aquinas.
I'm trying to show you that, no matter what definition of omnipotence we go by, whether it's TheAtheist's, the Christian's, or Aquinas's, you would still easily be refuted based on any and all 3 of those different definitions.
Some versions of the bible will say that God told Adam he would die that day if he ate from the tree; other versions will simply say that God told Adam he would "surely die" when he ate it, without including "that day". Regardless which one is semantically correct, God still told Adam that something would happen when it didn't.
You also keep bringing up how "The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect." Again, that isn't how debating works. You win debates based on the facts that you present and how you counter the opposing side's arguments with facts and logic, not based on what your own personal religious cult/gang determines. I'm sure many other groups believe in Allah, Zeus the god of thunder, norse Gods, Athena the wisdom goddess, the flying spaghetti monster, bigfoot, and more.
According to you, "When reading a work from an author, if you want to know what it means, what was actually intended you go to the source". Fine then. Since the bible is the word of God, why don't you go ask God himself what he meant and then report back to us instead of just saying "oh but God meant this and/or that instead"? After all, he is 'the only one with the true "Authority" to explain what is meant in the words' right?
Lastly, I'm gonna need to you explain what "God's nature" is all about, because God has killed many, is jealous of many people, and does some other insane stuff in the bible, all of which would likely be "against His nature" too. https://io9.gizmodo.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429
My problem isn't when someone interprets the bible as whatever they want. My problem is when they are inconsistent with what they say, and that when they are refuted, they change the meaning of things so that it still looks like they are correct, even though they have been refuted.
Okay. So, according to you, "God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
So in that case, God is not omnipotent, because:
To be omnipotent means to be able to do all things that are possible.
You yourself said, and I quote, "God can not lie".
Lying is "logically possible". I can lie and say that 1+1=3, even though it isn't.
Therefore, because "God can not lie," God cannot "do all things that are possible". Therefore, God is not omnipotent.
Keep in mind that this is based on your definition of omnipotence, not mine, and even then, I have refuted you.
You then go on and say that "God is Omnipotent, with omni-potent including those things which are logically possible or do not go against God's nature." which is also very easy to refute. What exactly are the things that "go against God's nature" anyways? Lying? Well in Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat from the tree of life or else they would die that day, and when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, Adam did not die that day. So either God HAS in fact lied (which proves that he can and does lie) or that God simply didn't know that Adam would disobey him (which would, in that case, prove that God isn't smart and is thus not omnipotent).
Which one was it?
Wouldn't a universal basic income mean that people get free money every month and thus don't have to work?
Your argument is: "These may seem illogical to us, but we, as humans, with our small minds, have a hard time understanding and comprehending how this could be. I've hard the Paradox answer this way: God can make anything He wants, and He can lift anything he wants. Far it being from me to be able to explain how he is able to do it-- he's omnipotent, i'm not."
Dude, this isn't how debating works. You need to explain how "The Omnipotence Paradox is a flawed argument" based on facts, not based on "what the Christian believes" and not based on "literary techniques in their writings." How do you know that the inspired humans who wrote the bible were using literary techniques and not just making direct statements?
Remember what your opponent said; "you cannot just change your religion's definition of God to win an debate."
Also, you contradict your own statement by saying this: The Bible does in fact put limits on what God can’t do.
So this would mean that God is not omnipotent. Period. Debate over.
The contender here is probably just going to go, "but what if person A isn't sentient or person B is mentality deficient, do we kill them????"
Right now I can't vote cause I didn't fulfill all of the tedious requirements, but you can, so do you agree with instigator or contender?
If it were up to me, I guess I would:
Give arguments to instigator (both sides had strong arguments, but the instigator provided more strong arguments than the contender did, even though the instigator was drawing false lines at things)
Tie sources (although I recommend that the instigator avoid using nylon.com as a source, simply because it loaded with dozens of ads, pop-ups, fancy pictures, and links to purchase shoes, glasses, t-shirts, and other lame products, all of which can slow down certain peoples' browsers and computers; if it wasn't for my adblock plus, my computer probably would have frozen and/or crashed)
Tie spelling/grammar ('cause let's be honest, most people who vote aren't going to waste time checking every single sentence for a spelling error anyways, and vote moderators aren't going to waste time checking hundreds if not thousands of words and sentences to see if there is a spelling error)
Give conduct to contender (because like I said, instigator kept trying to draw false lines over and over for no reason, prompting the contender to keep applying it to live people, thus making the debate go nowhere)
I generally don't even like debates on whether or not abortion is "morally okay" because it just leads nowhere, and both sides of the debated get frustrated with each other.
I believe Ben Shapiro explains it best, in this short video where he debates with a university kid on abortion.
https://youtu.be/PbNYOyPRpgg?t=23
"The real question is where do you draw the line? You gonna draw the line at the heartbeat? Because it's very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat. There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker and they need some sort of outside force generating their heartbeat. You gonna do it based on brain function? Okay, well what about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them. The problem is, anytime you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up a drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults."
Here the college student argues "I believe that sentient is what gives something moral value" and then Ben Shapiro responds with "When you're asleep can I stab you?" followed by "If you are in a coma from which you may awake, can I stab you?" followed by "You know what else is potential sentient? Being a fetus". Here, the college student realizes that he has failed to draw a proper line at the sentient of a baby, so he then tries to draw a new line at the level of burden that a fetus presents, which also fails.
Looking at this video, and then looking back at your arguments and the contender's arguments, we can see how you keep drawing lines at different parts, the same way that this college kid draws lines at different parts. The contender just keeps taking it and applying to something else. When it fails, you keep doing it over again, so the contender just refutes it again the same way.
You don't want to make the same mistake that this college kid makes. I also recommend that you keep your religious affiliations out of all debates, unless the debate specifically has to do with religion. The contender even made it clear that he does not debate from religious standpoints.
This debate is anyone's game. I can't wait to see the outcome.
Ahhh, so this is what a troll debate looks like. Cool.
Now I think the instigator did some things wrong too. One main piece of advice I would give the instigator is, be careful when using arguments like:
1) A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them
2) My definition of functions independently is this: Their skin is exposed to air and light, they take in nutrients through their mouth (Primarily), and they expel waste by themselves.
3) Fetuses that are aborted don't have XYZ
When you make arguments like these, you actually make the whole debate harder for yourself because your arguments went something like this:
"A fetus doesn't count as a person because a fetus lacks X"
then the opponent simply goes "but a person A lacks X too, so should we kill person A simply because they lack X?"
then you would say "but a fetus also lacks Y"
then the opponent simply goes "but person B lacks Y as well, so should be kill person B?"
"well, yes, but a fetus also lacks this and that"
"but person C lacks this and that too!"
This kind of interaction would go on back and forth, and would get nowhere.
Like, you would say "A person who has a life worth living has somebody who loves them/ takes the responsibility to care for them, a person who has breathed by their own will" and the opponent responds "What about people on breathing machines? Should we kill them?" then you respond "People on breathing machines have memories, people who love them/ want them, and their own thoughts. It is the same thing for the argument about a person in a coma." and then the opponent goes "What if someone was in a coma and will wake up with amnesia, they also have to have breathing machine when they wake up to live, and their parents ditch them so they don't have people who love him."
See what I mean? Sometimes it's better to simply drop/abandon arguments like these that lead nowhere, shift gears, and focus on different and stronger arguments.
I think both sides could have debated this better. I'll start by responding to a couple of the contender's arguments from the last round.
"First off, rape is a very minute percentage of births so using that as an argument is deceiving."
So what if it's a small percentage? That doesn't mean that a woman who was raped shouldn't have an abortion simply because they are within that small percentage.
"There are plenty of children who are born who are unwanted, so do we kill all of them?"
Depends if it's legal or not and what laws that the area has. Some areas ban it outright, while other areas allow it during specific times and/or circumstances, as explained in this article. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws
"Who says the small children won't live a productive life? Perhaps some won't, but then you are also murdering the kids that will."
I don't think the mother is going to concern herself with whether or not the baby will live a productive life. She just wants to get rid of a baby that she doesn't want.
"Conclusion I have proven abortion is murder and it is wrong to end someone's life through murder, no matter what stage of life they are in."
The definition of murder, according to google: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The key word here, is unlawful. In other words, it doesn't count as actual murder if it is lawful and legal. I agree that it is wrong to murder, but as far as I can tell, abortion doesn't actually count as that. It's better to simply that you don't like killing babies no matter what stage of life they are in.
I'm not trying to convince the contender that abortion is okay. I believe that people should look at any upsides and downsides to abortion and then make their own judgement. I'm just responding to a few of these arguments that I find very weak.
I mean, sure you can put the rapist in jail, but you still have to deal with a baby that nobody wants or asked for.
What is this so-called music battle about? What is the debate here?
I apologize if it looks like I'm spamming or something, but I just had to break my response down into three parts, because it wouldn't let me fit it all into one comment.
You say that "It seems illogical to object to the validity of BLM protesting one particular type of injustice simply because there are more substantial matters at stake" and I agree with this. However, that is not what pro was doing. Pro was not objecting to the validity of Black Lives Matter protesting one particular type of injustice. Pro was mainly arguing that (1) In addition to Black Lives Matter protesting against police brutality, Black Lives Matter should also be protesting against others kinds of violence and poverty, like blacks killing other blacks, as well as black children growing up without a father that they can look up to, and (2) The fact that Black Lives Matter is only focusing on white police killing black people really does make them come across as just another black supremacist group that wants to make blacks dislike whites.
Pro was never arguing that Black Lives Matter should outright ignore police brutality in favor of other issues, nor was he trying to deny that police brutality exists. Pro was arguing only that Black Lives Matter should focus on all of those issues, not just a few, and concluded that they are doing far too little, and ignoring many other issues that blacks face, for a group that seems to care so much about black lives.
Fnally, you say that "the insinuation appears there throughout the whole debate." even though pro wasn't really saying that outright. I really think you should have just asked pro what he meant if you wanted more clarification instead of just assuming that this was "the implication being made". That is what the comment section is for.
Your entire RFD (Reason For Decision) incorrectly assumes that pro is (1) Trying to "villainize" blacks, which he isn't and instead just wants whites to stop being villainized, and (2) Claiming that it's all blacks fault. Pro isn't denying that racism exists, he just wants them to focus on all those black issues instead of just a small amount.
You say pro is just throwing "an unending list of statistics" but then say that "he presents no evidence BLM brainwashes people to hate whites." Whether or not this is true depends on exactly what kind of evidence you are looking for, and whether or not we can find that connection that pro makes between the statistics that he shows and the Black Lives Matter group brainwashing blacks into hating whites.
https://i-sight.com/resources/15-types-of-evidence-and-how-to-use-them-in-investigation/
This article shows that there are at least 15 difference types of evidence, but I want to focus on just 3 of them: Analogical, Direct, and Statistical Evidence.
"Analogical evidence uses a comparison of things that are similar to draw an analogy." "The most powerful type of evidence, direct evidence requires no inference." "Evidence that uses numbers (or statistics) to support a position is called statistical evidence."
I think pro did a great job at presenting both analogical and statistical evidence. He utilized analogical evidence to compare the issues with police brutality that Black Lives Matter seems to stand for with the issues of black killing other blacks, and then, using statistical evidence, showed how Black Lives Matter was focusing too much on only a small part of the problem, instead of the whole problem.
The kind of evidence you seem to be looking for is the direct one, which is going to be much harder, if not outright impossible, for pro to provide. Are you sure that that will be the only kind of evidence that can possibly convince you of Black Lives Matter's true intentions?