I see what you're doing. Because of what happened in your debate,you are now picking certain portions of my argument and accusing that whole arguments of my debates are plagiarized. I don't know what to say to that.
Certainly not. It only contained those parts of his speech which contained references to other sources,such as FBI statistics. You are on a revenge tour due to what happened to you.
Actually,it's the Daily Wire's 6 facts,and I already cited that all of this is from the Daily Wire. Since you have had no arguments,you are going around trying to falsely accuse people of plagiarism.
1. Why did I not remove the chapter's title too? If I was trying to hide it,I would have done the job properly.
2. This debate is of 5 rounds. My own arguments were about to come in the later rounds.
3. I don't care what you believe. The site itself states that its users have received permission from the concerned authorities to post it on the Internet where everyone could use it. If you accepted the debate,what else did you expect? If you can't stand the heat,then get out of the kitchen.
4. The site's users have already written that they have obtained the necessary permission to post it on the Internet. So,there is certainly no theft. The only problem you seem to have is that it was too much for you.
I have no intention to concede anything. If you want,then I'll ask everybody to ignore R1 and award the conduct point to you. But,if you want to discontinue this debate in the later rounds too,it's you who'll be conceding this debate,not me.
It also said,""This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book". Keeping that in mind,I posted these passages. To avoid trouble,I had thought to declare it as Richard Spencer's work in the later rounds.
I request you to go to the website I posted downwards. You'll see it is a very rough-cut version with lots of spelling mistakes. Even you said that I edited it some. That's because I did so. I cleared the spelling mistakes and formatted it.
This is the website from which I used passages for my argument. It also says that,"This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book". Keeping that in mind,I posted these passages. To avoid trouble,I had thought to declare it as Richard Spencer's work in the later rounds. I had decided to write my own arguments later since I would have 4 more rounds to do so.
I also never claimed this writing to be my own. I had full intent to announce this as Richard Spencer's work in later rounds. To assume that I deliberately stole this and had no future intention to announce its sources is unfair,to say the least.
Wait a second,I was going to quote in my later rounds that this was the work of Richard Spencer. Since this was a 5 round debate,I opted to first quote some work from others before writing my own arguments. I did not do it with the intent of maligning somebody or stealing someone's work. I had full intent of writing in the later rounds that this work was of Richard Spencer's. The point is since this was a 5 round debate,I figured I would have further opportunities to write my own arguments. I was not aware of the fact that I had to write all my arguments without any references from others.
Progressives did far more than emulate the style of fascism; they also adopted its ideas. Progressivism was in line with fascist social policy, which mainly involved killing off undesirables and excluding immigrants. Progressives also embraced fascist economic policy—instituting citizen entitlements and then
using those to justify state control over the private sector—which shaped the contours of the New Deal.
After World War II, fascism—to put it mildly—fell into bad repute. It became politically impossible in decent company to profess an ideology that took on the odor of the Holocaust. So progressives dumped many of the social and political features of fascism—no more compulsory sterilization or racist immigration policies—while retaining fascist economic policy. Progressives quickly got rid of the fascist label and, in a creative move, they publicly pretended that fascism was the very antithesis of what they had always been about.
Now they portrayed fascism as somehow a conservative, right-of-center phenomenon. To this day, without bothering to define what they mean, progressives routinely accuse conservatives of being “fascists.”
Actually,When you think of fascism, often the images of Adolf Hitler come to mind; and along with it, Leftists accusations that fascism is a purely right-wing ideology. However, that could not be further from the truth.
One of the key components of both fascism and socialism is control and direction over the means of production, also known as central planning. Control of the economy by government bureaucrats in pursuit of some goal is carried out in the exact same manner by both socialists and fascists.
Not only do both have economic control, but they also have the same enemies: the bourgeoisie. Think Hitler was a friend of capitalism? Wrong!
In the speech of May 1, 2927, Hitler stated the following:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
I respect that and I would like to apologize too,if I offended you in some way. But at the end of the day,we're all just people indulging in free speech to voice our opinions.
Yeah,well if you paid as much attention in completing your debates as you do in reporting others' votes,you might have completed an argument about the gun control debate which you accepted.
Now,he had a perfectly logical and acceptable vote covering all grounds. But,his vote was removed because he hadn't posted 100 forum comments. What does that matter in voting? Does someone become a better voter by posting 100 forum comments? His vote was entirely sufficient. I have seen so many other votes in other debates which are vote bombs or put up by people without any valid reasons,including people who haven't completed all the given criteria. The vote he gave was perfectly valid and yet it was removed. And the reason? Not posting 100 forum comments.
Where did you get that idea that I was questioning his bias? The word bias or biased never even appeared in one of my comments. I just asked for explanation of the votes. Fine,I won't ask for that from now on.
Even if you buy? What does that mean? Are you saying the statistics are flawed? I don't know.....those are of the FBI........is the FBI racist too?
How is black-on-black crime irrelevant when it is responsible for 90% of blacks being killed? The only reason it can be irrelevant is it does not fit the agenda of BLM,which is why it refuses to make people aware of those facts. Why would someone do that if he is genuinely concerned about black lives? Someone will only do that if he hates the other side,which are whites.
Where is the "white supremacy"? Where are the racist cops? I posted a source from the liberal Chicago Tribune which shows black cops kill blacks the same as white cops. And moreover,61% whites are klled to 32% blacks. Where's the white supremacy in any of this?
I could understand if BLM protested against both whites and other problems like black-on-black crime,single motherhood,high school dropouts,etc. But the problem is,they don't,even going so far as to say that "we won't protest against black-on-black crime,it's not a major issue."
Let me say it again: I never said he is biased,and if anyone thinks that I said that,you are wrong. I only asked him on what basis he made his vote and on what basis he removed someone else's vote. Is questioning something equal to accusing someone of bias? Or am I not allowed to question certain things because I haven't posted 100 forum comments?
Wait a minute,don't put words in my mouth. I never said something like that. I just questioned on what basis he made HIS votes and on what basis he removed Dr.Franklin's and Our Boat is Right's votes. Questioning something is not accusing someone of being biased.
So,if next day,God forbid,you get cancer,and then you go to the hospital. There they tell you that it's nothing,just go home and take an aspirin. Would that work?
You ignored a lot of points that I made,when you cast your vote. If BLM doesn't protest the main problems and goes after something which has no impact on them,then obviously they are promoting a kind of hatred. Con actually said that BLM hates whites in one of his arguments.
You wrote in your vote that Con provided multiple examples of shootings by whites. Really? He provided 6 examples. I provided a source from the FBI,a whole year's worth of data that showed blacks are killed by more blacks,police kill more whites and blacks commit most of the crimes. You ignored this when voting. You are free to do that,of course,but it makes me wonder,why? The BLM ignores this and protests against white people. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out this is hatred.
There is also a considerable difference between anti-malaria charities and BLM,because anti-malaria charities don't go out,throw stones and start riots like BLM does.
Also,if you had read the arguments,you would know that under the Jim Crow laws,the single motherhood rate in the black community was 22% compared to the 55% now. Doesn't this have an impact on them? The real problems in the black community is black-on-black crime,dropping out of schools and black fathers leaving their children and blacks committing most of the crime. But which issue does the BLM go after? "White supremacy".
If that's not hatred,I don't know what is.
The only thing I can conclude is that you ignored most of my points and voted on the basis of your beliefs.
You are of course,free to vote the way you want based on your beliefs,but removing someone's vote which says the contrary? What does that achieve?
The United Kingdom has always had a lower homicide rate than the United States, even when British citizens could legally buy machine guns (Briton's modern era of gun control did not ramp up until the 1960s). The difference is cultural, not legal.
That's actually wrong. BUDDY. Because the FBI released a report with the help of 48 state police departments that blacks commit most of the crimes,not whites,with 52% of the murder committed by blacks.
A total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white.
Lol...this Omar guy said to me give me proof that BLM doesn't protest black on black crime. I said I can't give that proof because it has never protested against it,how can I give proof? And when I asked him to give proof because he said BLM protests black on black crime,he ran away like a true liberal does.
Maybe he didn't vote against you because of bias. If it was bias,he would not have given you a single point. Maybe he voted against you because he realized that you're talking nonsense.
Obviously not. I said those mean nothing in the way of conclusive proof that cops are racist and kill more blacks. They kill more whites,and 90% of blacks are killed by other blacks. But the BLM lies about that.
All this hate is gonna kill you,man. You could go sign up for the Black Panthers to vent out your anger,but I'm afraid they don't exist anymore. Deaths obviously mean something. All deaths. Not just deaths by cops as BLM says.
Typical BLM behavior again. When you can't debate properly because you're defending something that can't be defended,blame your opponent.
I see what you're doing. Because of what happened in your debate,you are now picking certain portions of my argument and accusing that whole arguments of my debates are plagiarized. I don't know what to say to that.
Certainly not. It only contained those parts of his speech which contained references to other sources,such as FBI statistics. You are on a revenge tour due to what happened to you.
Actually,it's the Daily Wire's 6 facts,and I already cited that all of this is from the Daily Wire. Since you have had no arguments,you are going around trying to falsely accuse people of plagiarism.
1. Why did I not remove the chapter's title too? If I was trying to hide it,I would have done the job properly.
2. This debate is of 5 rounds. My own arguments were about to come in the later rounds.
3. I don't care what you believe. The site itself states that its users have received permission from the concerned authorities to post it on the Internet where everyone could use it. If you accepted the debate,what else did you expect? If you can't stand the heat,then get out of the kitchen.
4. The site's users have already written that they have obtained the necessary permission to post it on the Internet. So,there is certainly no theft. The only problem you seem to have is that it was too much for you.
I have no intention to concede anything. If you want,then I'll ask everybody to ignore R1 and award the conduct point to you. But,if you want to discontinue this debate in the later rounds too,it's you who'll be conceding this debate,not me.
https://epdf.pub/politically-incorrect-guide-to-islam-by-robert-spencer.html
This is it.
It also said,""This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book". Keeping that in mind,I posted these passages. To avoid trouble,I had thought to declare it as Richard Spencer's work in the later rounds.
I request you to go to the website I posted downwards. You'll see it is a very rough-cut version with lots of spelling mistakes. Even you said that I edited it some. That's because I did so. I cleared the spelling mistakes and formatted it.
https://epdf.pub/politically-incorrect-guide-to-islam-by-robert-spencer.html
This is the website from which I used passages for my argument. It also says that,"This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book". Keeping that in mind,I posted these passages. To avoid trouble,I had thought to declare it as Richard Spencer's work in the later rounds. I had decided to write my own arguments later since I would have 4 more rounds to do so.
I also never claimed this writing to be my own. I had full intent to announce this as Richard Spencer's work in later rounds. To assume that I deliberately stole this and had no future intention to announce its sources is unfair,to say the least.
Wait a second,I was going to quote in my later rounds that this was the work of Richard Spencer. Since this was a 5 round debate,I opted to first quote some work from others before writing my own arguments. I did not do it with the intent of maligning somebody or stealing someone's work. I had full intent of writing in the later rounds that this work was of Richard Spencer's. The point is since this was a 5 round debate,I figured I would have further opportunities to write my own arguments. I was not aware of the fact that I had to write all my arguments without any references from others.
Progressives did far more than emulate the style of fascism; they also adopted its ideas. Progressivism was in line with fascist social policy, which mainly involved killing off undesirables and excluding immigrants. Progressives also embraced fascist economic policy—instituting citizen entitlements and then
using those to justify state control over the private sector—which shaped the contours of the New Deal.
After World War II, fascism—to put it mildly—fell into bad repute. It became politically impossible in decent company to profess an ideology that took on the odor of the Holocaust. So progressives dumped many of the social and political features of fascism—no more compulsory sterilization or racist immigration policies—while retaining fascist economic policy. Progressives quickly got rid of the fascist label and, in a creative move, they publicly pretended that fascism was the very antithesis of what they had always been about.
Now they portrayed fascism as somehow a conservative, right-of-center phenomenon. To this day, without bothering to define what they mean, progressives routinely accuse conservatives of being “fascists.”
Actually,When you think of fascism, often the images of Adolf Hitler come to mind; and along with it, Leftists accusations that fascism is a purely right-wing ideology. However, that could not be further from the truth.
One of the key components of both fascism and socialism is control and direction over the means of production, also known as central planning. Control of the economy by government bureaucrats in pursuit of some goal is carried out in the exact same manner by both socialists and fascists.
Not only do both have economic control, but they also have the same enemies: the bourgeoisie. Think Hitler was a friend of capitalism? Wrong!
In the speech of May 1, 2927, Hitler stated the following:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
"Being violent against people you don’t like, is indeed political violence (which fascists did), but not specifically fascist."
Yeah,and being Nazi means being a part of the National Socialist German Workers Party,so there are no Nazis in America today.
I'm sorry to say,I reached my character limit,so I could not address some arguments. I'll do that in the later rounds.
I guess no one can argue to the contrary.
I don't know how anybody can say that the British were beneficial for India.
Emotionally tormenting? Die trying?
What are we,five?
I respect that and I would like to apologize too,if I offended you in some way. But at the end of the day,we're all just people indulging in free speech to voice our opinions.
Man.....I must admit,my respect for you went up after seeing what you said.
He's going around every debate,posting random votes with the same reason: Eminem is the best.
He posted a vote on terrorism saying: Eminem is the best.
Yeah,well if you paid as much attention in completing your debates as you do in reporting others' votes,you might have completed an argument about the gun control debate which you accepted.
Now,he had a perfectly logical and acceptable vote covering all grounds. But,his vote was removed because he hadn't posted 100 forum comments. What does that matter in voting? Does someone become a better voter by posting 100 forum comments? His vote was entirely sufficient. I have seen so many other votes in other debates which are vote bombs or put up by people without any valid reasons,including people who haven't completed all the given criteria. The vote he gave was perfectly valid and yet it was removed. And the reason? Not posting 100 forum comments.
And you better thank God it didn't get removed.
Good day to you,sir. Good day.
It's not a "seemingly" higher priority problem. It is the ONLY problem.
Hey,you want to continue my debate about gun control that you accepted? If not,then tell me,because my time is being wasted. I'll start a new one.
Animal charities and human starvation? You are comparing apples and oranges.
Where did you get that idea that I was questioning his bias? The word bias or biased never even appeared in one of my comments. I just asked for explanation of the votes. Fine,I won't ask for that from now on.
Even if you buy? What does that mean? Are you saying the statistics are flawed? I don't know.....those are of the FBI........is the FBI racist too?
How is black-on-black crime irrelevant when it is responsible for 90% of blacks being killed? The only reason it can be irrelevant is it does not fit the agenda of BLM,which is why it refuses to make people aware of those facts. Why would someone do that if he is genuinely concerned about black lives? Someone will only do that if he hates the other side,which are whites.
Where is the "white supremacy"? Where are the racist cops? I posted a source from the liberal Chicago Tribune which shows black cops kill blacks the same as white cops. And moreover,61% whites are klled to 32% blacks. Where's the white supremacy in any of this?
I could understand if BLM protested against both whites and other problems like black-on-black crime,single motherhood,high school dropouts,etc. But the problem is,they don't,even going so far as to say that "we won't protest against black-on-black crime,it's not a major issue."
What is that if not hatred of whites?
Let me say it again: I never said he is biased,and if anyone thinks that I said that,you are wrong. I only asked him on what basis he made his vote and on what basis he removed someone else's vote. Is questioning something equal to accusing someone of bias? Or am I not allowed to question certain things because I haven't posted 100 forum comments?
Wait a minute,don't put words in my mouth. I never said something like that. I just questioned on what basis he made HIS votes and on what basis he removed Dr.Franklin's and Our Boat is Right's votes. Questioning something is not accusing someone of being biased.
So,if next day,God forbid,you get cancer,and then you go to the hospital. There they tell you that it's nothing,just go home and take an aspirin. Would that work?
You ignored a lot of points that I made,when you cast your vote. If BLM doesn't protest the main problems and goes after something which has no impact on them,then obviously they are promoting a kind of hatred. Con actually said that BLM hates whites in one of his arguments.
You wrote in your vote that Con provided multiple examples of shootings by whites. Really? He provided 6 examples. I provided a source from the FBI,a whole year's worth of data that showed blacks are killed by more blacks,police kill more whites and blacks commit most of the crimes. You ignored this when voting. You are free to do that,of course,but it makes me wonder,why? The BLM ignores this and protests against white people. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out this is hatred.
There is also a considerable difference between anti-malaria charities and BLM,because anti-malaria charities don't go out,throw stones and start riots like BLM does.
Also,if you had read the arguments,you would know that under the Jim Crow laws,the single motherhood rate in the black community was 22% compared to the 55% now. Doesn't this have an impact on them? The real problems in the black community is black-on-black crime,dropping out of schools and black fathers leaving their children and blacks committing most of the crime. But which issue does the BLM go after? "White supremacy".
If that's not hatred,I don't know what is.
The only thing I can conclude is that you ignored most of my points and voted on the basis of your beliefs.
You are of course,free to vote the way you want based on your beliefs,but removing someone's vote which says the contrary? What does that achieve?
First Dr.Franklin,now your vote too? I don't know what's going on here.......or maybe I do.
It's so convenient how only your vote keeps getting removed,isn't it?
The United Kingdom has always had a lower homicide rate than the United States, even when British citizens could legally buy machine guns (Briton's modern era of gun control did not ramp up until the 1960s). The difference is cultural, not legal.
According to the Dutch Ministry of Justice.
Sorry,I have real work to do.
Do I?
Ah....so acting on behalf of the law is hate crime now?
That's actually wrong. BUDDY. Because the FBI released a report with the help of 48 state police departments that blacks commit most of the crimes,not whites,with 52% of the murder committed by blacks.
A total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white.
Source: Burghart.
The sky is blue,man. The biggest proof of racism.
Oh sorry,I did not know that I have to read the rules of conduct to vote on a debate that intrigues me. Thanks for telling that.
That's the one thing BLM can do successfully: play the victim card.
Thank you for proving my point for me. BLM doesn't care about black lives.
I know,but he ran away at the exact moment I asked for proof....The timing is really suspicious.
Lol...this Omar guy said to me give me proof that BLM doesn't protest black on black crime. I said I can't give that proof because it has never protested against it,how can I give proof? And when I asked him to give proof because he said BLM protests black on black crime,he ran away like a true liberal does.
Maybe he didn't vote against you because of bias. If it was bias,he would not have given you a single point. Maybe he voted against you because he realized that you're talking nonsense.
Obviously not. I said those mean nothing in the way of conclusive proof that cops are racist and kill more blacks. They kill more whites,and 90% of blacks are killed by other blacks. But the BLM lies about that.
Be careful,buddy. You are providing proper facts. You might be a Trump cocksucker like this guy I'm debating with says.
All this hate is gonna kill you,man. You could go sign up for the Black Panthers to vent out your anger,but I'm afraid they don't exist anymore. Deaths obviously mean something. All deaths. Not just deaths by cops as BLM says.
Typical BLM behavior again. When you can't debate properly because you're defending something that can't be defended,blame your opponent.
I can agree with that.
Also,we should all just suck Trump's dick on advice of the BLM!