White supremacy is a belief, not a state of affairs. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/white_supremacy https://www.britannica.com/topic/white-supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/white-supremacy https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/white-supremacy
There's no explicit biblical basis. There is arguably an implicit one. For example, the Tower of Babel story the people were one people, but then god deliberately scatters humanity across the planet. The end result was people were largely grouped together geographically with similar racial characteristics. Presumably god had his reasons for doing this. If we associate with the other peoples, form multiracial and multicultural societies, then we may be going against god's plan. The ultimate association available would be marriage and breeding.
Gravity would pull them toward the center of the great cylindrical disk. People could walk on the side of the great disk; Their feet facing the center of the disk. Then they can jump off to one side or the other, and thus fall toward the center of the disk at great speed.
That issue is a more fundamental one regarding exactly what the burdens of debaters are. I don't think Pro disagrees with me on that point based on what he has said here. So, the issue will likely be avoided by mutual agreement between Pro and Con, or he may drop it altogether. If not, then we can get in to it.
Resolution: "the entire expression of the human genome" "the variety of human physical traits we see today" "the variety of human physical expression we witness today"
"The human genome" refers to the human genome as it exists TODAY. It does not refer to the human genome the first time it "was already extant." REPEAT: "traits we see TODAY" "we witness TODAY" - In case you didn't miss it - TODAY TODAY TODAY TODAY TODAY TODAY TODAY - Key words - "TODAY" - This does NOT mean when the first point in time when it "was already extent." That is NOT what it says in the description. That is NOT what the debate description means.
Obviously I was referring to the outcome of his vote. You're going to lose anyway because you were wrong. You bet you'll get attitude when you start making threats. Blocked.
He didn't vote that way. Even if he did it wouldn't be a biased vote on arguments. Even if there was vote rigging, the only thing the mods would do is remove the vote because it's not a CoC violation. You're just mad because you lost.
Not even close. Soliciting votes is fine. His vote was not biased. I know the policy, and you know that there was no policy violation. I will continue to do as I please.
In any event a simple way to satisfy that would be to merely present Pro's theory + genetic admixture. It would be a "better theory" because it is the same in all respects except that it accounts for genetic admixture. This does not seem like a lot of work.
I see. I did not read that before starting this debate. That would be a deviation from the standard burdens within the community and should have been disclosed within the debate description. It is unfair to hold a contender to something like that unless he consents to it.
That is not my understanding of Con's burden in debates. My understanding is that Con's burden is to show that the resolution is not true and does not extend beyond that. If you have anything which is supportive of your position I will consider it and it would be appreciated.
Given the extremely disproportionate representation in the senate (which appoints the supreme court justices), rampant gerrymandering in the house of representatives, and electoral college bullshit America's pretty much a shitocracy.
Yeah it was a fun little debate. IMO best argument for UK would be its legacy. Wiki puts it well: "At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time, and by 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi), 24% of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, legal, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread."
The subject I was referring to was the weight // evidentiary value of Trump's housing discrimination in the late 60's / early 70's which was the subject of the fair housing act complaint.
Not really. Voting moderation policy is not to enforce rules that instigators make unless both of the debaters explicitly agree to them. Voters are free to disregard all of your rules. If your rule is stupid then don't be surprised if that happens. Your position that the housing case carries no weight is baseless. You have no evidence indicating that someone who was racist when he was in his 20s has zero impact on the probability of them being a racist when he was in his 70s.The housing case is relevant evidence. It merely carries less weight than it would if it had more recently. You want to see if he has changed since back then? Go look at his behavior back then and compare it with his behavior today. He hasn't changed in other respects. He's still a thin-skinned pompous liar, for example.
Trump was 27 years old at the time the housing case was filed. The housing case represented a pattern of racist and discriminatory housing practices that had been ongoing for years. Trump was working there since 1968 and the federal housing case was filed 5 years later.
Breaking debate rules doesn't always merit conduct points to the opposing side. If the rule isn't justifiable then voters may decide for themselves. In this case the rule is designed to unfairly exclude evidence damaging to Pro's position. Pro may argue that it was a long time ago. Incidents from long ago carry less weight because Trump may have changed during the interim period. Yet, it is not as though they carry no weight whatsoever. How much weight they carry, and evidence of whether or not Trump has changed, are issues which are fairly subject to debate. The fundamental purpose Pro's rule excluding that evidence is to give Pro an unfair advantage. Rules such as that have no place in debates and may warrant penalizing Pro's conduct.
Yes, it doesn't mean it's false research but the ulterior motive causes a credibility problem. Navigating studies to find the true facts is difficult and a lot of work. Never did the work so I really don't know what's going on, and TBH I'm too lazy to find out.
There's money funding the studies. Sometimes that money is coming from racists. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-lynn etc. Compare this to the situation with tobacco studies, where the tobacco industry actively funded bogus studies. There's a similar situation going on with climate change and energy companies.
Yes, but the Flynn effect suggests significant environmental factors are at play, and the IQ data you're referring to from multiple countries is probably coming from the Bell Curve etc., the proponents of which have biases and conflicts of interest. The Minnesota study does suggest a heridtary component and perhaps warrants further study, but it's not very conclusive because of the age of the children at adoption. Environmental factors which have substantial impacts weren't controlled for (e.g. pre-natal nutrition, breast feeding, etc).
The overwhelming majority of pro-life women who have a down syndrome pregnancy choose abortion.
White supremacy is a belief, not a state of affairs. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/white_supremacy https://www.britannica.com/topic/white-supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/white-supremacy https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/white-supremacy
I don't think what's going on rises to the level of war.
There's no explicit biblical basis. There is arguably an implicit one. For example, the Tower of Babel story the people were one people, but then god deliberately scatters humanity across the planet. The end result was people were largely grouped together geographically with similar racial characteristics. Presumably god had his reasons for doing this. If we associate with the other peoples, form multiracial and multicultural societies, then we may be going against god's plan. The ultimate association available would be marriage and breeding.
Gravity would pull them toward the center of the great cylindrical disk. People could walk on the side of the great disk; Their feet facing the center of the disk. Then they can jump off to one side or the other, and thus fall toward the center of the disk at great speed.
That issue is a more fundamental one regarding exactly what the burdens of debaters are. I don't think Pro disagrees with me on that point based on what he has said here. So, the issue will likely be avoided by mutual agreement between Pro and Con, or he may drop it altogether. If not, then we can get in to it.
I trust that you wouldn't delete votes unless you held a good faith belief that there was good cause to do so.
Tis too late
https://i.imgur.com/bWJAWnE.jpg
The skelly is hungry
Resolution: "the entire expression of the human genome" "the variety of human physical traits we see today" "the variety of human physical expression we witness today"
"The human genome" refers to the human genome as it exists TODAY. It does not refer to the human genome the first time it "was already extant." REPEAT: "traits we see TODAY" "we witness TODAY" - In case you didn't miss it - TODAY TODAY TODAY TODAY TODAY TODAY TODAY - Key words - "TODAY" - This does NOT mean when the first point in time when it "was already extent." That is NOT what it says in the description. That is NOT what the debate description means.
You continue to lie.
Obviously I was referring to the outcome of his vote. You're going to lose anyway because you were wrong. You bet you'll get attitude when you start making threats. Blocked.
He didn't vote that way. Even if he did it wouldn't be a biased vote on arguments. Even if there was vote rigging, the only thing the mods would do is remove the vote because it's not a CoC violation. You're just mad because you lost.
Why don't you go whine to the mods.
There is no evidence that his vote was biased.
Not even close. Soliciting votes is fine. His vote was not biased. I know the policy, and you know that there was no policy violation. I will continue to do as I please.
Likely opening case saving for later
Here are the first entries for "wet" from several reputable dictionaries:
Covered or saturated with water or another liquid.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wet
consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wet
Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water: a wet towel.
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=wet
Seems wet to me.
The mod made no mention of any problem with your arguments points. Perhaps you could re-vote it awarding argument points only.
Pull an infinitely long string 1 foot closer to you. Is the string longer now or the same size as it was before?
In any event a simple way to satisfy that would be to merely present Pro's theory + genetic admixture. It would be a "better theory" because it is the same in all respects except that it accounts for genetic admixture. This does not seem like a lot of work.
I see. I did not read that before starting this debate. That would be a deviation from the standard burdens within the community and should have been disclosed within the debate description. It is unfair to hold a contender to something like that unless he consents to it.
That is not my understanding of Con's burden in debates. My understanding is that Con's burden is to show that the resolution is not true and does not extend beyond that. If you have anything which is supportive of your position I will consider it and it would be appreciated.
TBH I think it's necessary in times of war to combat desertion and cowardice.
Given the extremely disproportionate representation in the senate (which appoints the supreme court justices), rampant gerrymandering in the house of representatives, and electoral college bullshit America's pretty much a shitocracy.
Re: A more full debate at a later time - No objection. Re: Terminating this debate - I do not consent to that at this time.
Is it gonna happen?
Sorry buddy. I lost interest.
Thank you for the vote. I had to cut out a lot due to the character limit.
Someone gotta vote
Being gay would suck because the majority of humanity won't accept you.
Yeah it was a fun little debate. IMO best argument for UK would be its legacy. Wiki puts it well: "At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time, and by 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi), 24% of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, legal, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread."
Ramshutu is a good voter
Ramshutu must decide which is greater, France or UK
You have no evidence, only conjecture and personal attacks. You can do better than that, can't you? Don't disappoint me.
The subject I was referring to was the weight // evidentiary value of Trump's housing discrimination in the late 60's / early 70's which was the subject of the fair housing act complaint.
You have no evidence supporting your position on this subject. That's a fact.
Not really. Voting moderation policy is not to enforce rules that instigators make unless both of the debaters explicitly agree to them. Voters are free to disregard all of your rules. If your rule is stupid then don't be surprised if that happens. Your position that the housing case carries no weight is baseless. You have no evidence indicating that someone who was racist when he was in his 20s has zero impact on the probability of them being a racist when he was in his 70s.The housing case is relevant evidence. It merely carries less weight than it would if it had more recently. You want to see if he has changed since back then? Go look at his behavior back then and compare it with his behavior today. He hasn't changed in other respects. He's still a thin-skinned pompous liar, for example.
Trump was 27 years old at the time the housing case was filed. The housing case represented a pattern of racist and discriminatory housing practices that had been ongoing for years. Trump was working there since 1968 and the federal housing case was filed 5 years later.
Breaking debate rules doesn't always merit conduct points to the opposing side. If the rule isn't justifiable then voters may decide for themselves. In this case the rule is designed to unfairly exclude evidence damaging to Pro's position. Pro may argue that it was a long time ago. Incidents from long ago carry less weight because Trump may have changed during the interim period. Yet, it is not as though they carry no weight whatsoever. How much weight they carry, and evidence of whether or not Trump has changed, are issues which are fairly subject to debate. The fundamental purpose Pro's rule excluding that evidence is to give Pro an unfair advantage. Rules such as that have no place in debates and may warrant penalizing Pro's conduct.
Your intention was to define "greater" rather than "great" - Is that correct?
Feel free to re-use my work. Pro's 10 year rule is there because he's scared of it. There's no justification for Pro's rule.
Antifa does have some terrorists. Though, it's not really an organization.
Yes, it doesn't mean it's false research but the ulterior motive causes a credibility problem. Navigating studies to find the true facts is difficult and a lot of work. Never did the work so I really don't know what's going on, and TBH I'm too lazy to find out.
There's money funding the studies. Sometimes that money is coming from racists. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-lynn etc. Compare this to the situation with tobacco studies, where the tobacco industry actively funded bogus studies. There's a similar situation going on with climate change and energy companies.
Yes, but the Flynn effect suggests significant environmental factors are at play, and the IQ data you're referring to from multiple countries is probably coming from the Bell Curve etc., the proponents of which have biases and conflicts of interest. The Minnesota study does suggest a heridtary component and perhaps warrants further study, but it's not very conclusive because of the age of the children at adoption. Environmental factors which have substantial impacts weren't controlled for (e.g. pre-natal nutrition, breast feeding, etc).
Yes, I agree oro will win. This is what I meant.
It's true that you argued over the rules, but the rules weren't the only thing you argued . You debated the topic in both debates.
Out of the 7 votes for arguments on the prior debates, only 1 has been in his favor. I'm content to watch him lose again.
TBH just forgot about the rule. A simple solution would be for me to not do any defense in my next post.
Thanks for taking the time to work it up, as always.
Cool story. Nobody believes you.