On a response to your actual critique. I wouldn't consider Politifact to be all that factual in most cases where fact checking has actually mattered.
Many times their sources are spurious or not all that rigorous. Just Facts tends to have better sources and a more solid methodology for fact checking than Politifact.
But, at the end of the day, one is conservative and the other is liberal, so you will get unconscious biases in both.
"I do not blame Trump for an international pandemic"
I don't blame him for a pandemic, but I do blame him for totally and completely ignoring the science and already-established protocols for pandemic responses.
I am sorry you feel Trump is targeting you personally. I, personally, think that the immigrants who eat cats and dogs are not remotely close to a true representative sample of all immigrants. All immigrants are not the same, and all immigrants are not even from Haiti.
I am the great-grandson of immigrants on my father's side. When I asked why I never learned much of Russia, my dad told me the same thing his father told him "you are American, not Russian." That truly stuck with me.
I guess what I'm saying is America is a land of immigrants. We can choose to identify as the cat eaters or as Americans. We can choose to vote however we please, for whomever we want.
My real, honest, assessment of 2024 is that both prospects are not good. But Trump is diet fascism while Harris is full-blown fascism. I will take diet fascism over full-blown fascism any time.
The Trump of 2016 was about deregulation, lower taxes, and more individual bodily autonomy. The Trump of 2024 is not about many of these same things. And with his handling of COVID, the only reason he has my vote is because he said he would never do it again. The other side has not said this. In fact the other side basically says we need MORE government involvement in this already putrid economy and supply shortage-ravaged landscape.
Reported the first vote for ignoring the debate rules when judging. The voter agreed that CON did not follow the debate rules and then said PRO lost anyways.
Also was biased when rating sources. Did not consider the merits of the sources bur instead voted based on their ideological leanings instesd of objectively weighing the sources themselves.
One poll doesn't equate truth. Polls are notoriously off. The aggregate data for all the polls we have shows a race within most polls' margins of error.
All debates have limits, though, by nature. Why would Americans nit consider their own wellbeing primarily when considering the best President?
Do we demand of Guatemala and Germany to vote based on what makes American citizens' lives better? Of course not! Because it is the government of their countries. It is their prerogative to choose leadership in their best interest as it is ours to choose leadership our best interest.
If you want to debate whether Karris or Trump are better for, say, Guatemalans or Germans, then that is your prerogative.
But, to be clear, Germans and Guatemalans do not vote for President unless they are American citizens or somehow manage to fool the vote clerks at the polls or with absentee ballots...
The U.S. Constitution says America is for "We The People"
What we do for other countries is secondary to the duties of government toward American citizens. The Government is supposed to provide for Americans' common defense and promote Americans' general welfare.
Now, don't take this to mean that foreign aid and interventionism are bad, because they are more of a case-by-case basis. But American government is for America, not for other countries. That is why other countries elect their own governments.
Thanks for explaining. I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't agree, but at least I understand. I think I established good standing, based on Thomas Paine, divine right of kings, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution, and other longstanding legal theory, on how rights were violated, which weren't mentioned at all in your RFD, but hey, that's the fun of these. People take away what they think was the better argument.
At the end of the day we were discussing a legal, not moral issue. Should the GOVERNMENT do something. But I guess I wasn't super clear. The answer was they could not so they should not.
At any rate, I'll admit this isn't my best debate. I didn't notice the time constraints and was super busy (I just started a substack right after I accepted doing the debate). That is my fault.
Savant, I would love another debate sometime with longer time constraints on another topic if you're up for it. It was fun!
"BoP is shared equally. Pro argues that a system in which the government grants entry to more immigrants is preferable to the status quo. Con defends the status quo as preferable to Pro’s proposal."
I fail to see why I have to respond to PRO in order to win the debate. I just have to establish why the status quo is better. I was not graded on this criteria at all and only graded on how I responded to someone else.
I don't think it is fair for me to have to justify PRO's is as an ought when he doesn't justify it himself. I feel like I was given unnecessary burdens that PRO did not have in your assessment. Byrden of proof for PRO's position is on him. I do nit have to accept his arguments if he did not establish them himself.
Just like with Oromagi, it feels as if you ultimately just said "one guy's argument matters and the other one does not, even though it adequately responded to the qualms."
They were medical doctors, delivery room medical staff, and gynecologists. All involved in pregnancy and human life. All trained in medicine and human biology.
Also, why does personhood matter? The debate is on whether abortion is murder, not on whether a fetus is a person. I feel you defaulted to PRO even though PRO did not really defend his positon all that well.
(btw, I am actually against abortion and do believe if is murder)
You said: "yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum"
Well, let's put on our thinking caps here...
If I comment regularly on religion in the forums, then how can a person assume I am shying away?
Have you ever considered that I didn't want to deal with sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments about God being "evil" for killing people who were, in fact, evil and unjust themselves?
Or run into the same atheistic unintellectual brain slop of "because evil exists there is no God" or "God is unfair because he doesn't align with my arbitrary, illogical views of right and wrong"?
I don't want to be dog teamed with stupidity and waste my time for no reason. So I don't post in the religious forums. But I obviously am VERY VOCAL about my beliefs in the forums.
How do you define the Status Quo, because immigration execution changes regularly. They always increase or decrease the amount, change which types of immigrants, they allow and from which countries, etc.
Basically I am arguing that your point is moot because they regularly change the amounts of immigrants anyways.
I am not trying to hide from anything. The times I tried to make forum posts to talk to one person people just started debating the topic amongst each other. It basically defeated the purpose.
I have had no problems with the PM system personally. The above reasons are why I suggested it.
I don't want to shy away over anything. I just want to discuss things with one person if they want a full discussion, not 10 or even 100 people, which is what the IM system is for.
Why do I need to create forum posts on topics YOU want to talk about? Where is the logic in that?
You said: "Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now..."
Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't, so I'd rather not exercise in futility. I could be Galileo to your flat earther world, but seeing as I don't have to be, I don't WANT to be.
I don't know who hurt you, but taking it out on random internet users doesn't really solve it all that well now does it?
Now, if you are open to an actual DEBATE on these topics then I am totally up for it... after I finish the two I am currently in and another one that I agreed to already via site messaging.
"Imo, you don't have the metal tools nor do you have enough knowledge of the bible to argue a single point when it comes to scripture."
I didn't say I personally agreed with all 3. You leveled a claim against "Christians" saying "we" never thought through the issue. I was simply saying you are wrong, and we have, and those are the 3 most popular responses.
"you haven't read the bible for yourself but instead have totally relied on and listened to the words of the Pastors and Priests"
It's funny you should say that, because I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself. You could learn to do the same, since your faulty, mostly-unreferenced thread on original sin speaks volumes of your complete lack of Bible knowledge.
You still haven't explained to me how abortion is ok when murder is wrong. Sounds to me that you are biblically illiterate, and running away from the truth, and not me.
Let the record show that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas, when asked, could not answer "no" to when he was asked if he was telling me to ignore the 10 Commandments.
idk what Christianity he claims to practice, but it obviously isn't authentic.
Welp, thanks to all one of you who casted a vote
The rant is against the sweeping and obvious inaccuracies in so-called fact checks, and he is right.
Most fact checks these days border on fiction.
On a response to your actual critique. I wouldn't consider Politifact to be all that factual in most cases where fact checking has actually mattered.
Many times their sources are spurious or not all that rigorous. Just Facts tends to have better sources and a more solid methodology for fact checking than Politifact.
But, at the end of the day, one is conservative and the other is liberal, so you will get unconscious biases in both.
"I do not blame Trump for an international pandemic"
I don't blame him for a pandemic, but I do blame him for totally and completely ignoring the science and already-established protocols for pandemic responses.
I am sorry you feel Trump is targeting you personally. I, personally, think that the immigrants who eat cats and dogs are not remotely close to a true representative sample of all immigrants. All immigrants are not the same, and all immigrants are not even from Haiti.
I am the great-grandson of immigrants on my father's side. When I asked why I never learned much of Russia, my dad told me the same thing his father told him "you are American, not Russian." That truly stuck with me.
I guess what I'm saying is America is a land of immigrants. We can choose to identify as the cat eaters or as Americans. We can choose to vote however we please, for whomever we want.
My real, honest, assessment of 2024 is that both prospects are not good. But Trump is diet fascism while Harris is full-blown fascism. I will take diet fascism over full-blown fascism any time.
The Trump of 2016 was about deregulation, lower taxes, and more individual bodily autonomy. The Trump of 2024 is not about many of these same things. And with his handling of COVID, the only reason he has my vote is because he said he would never do it again. The other side has not said this. In fact the other side basically says we need MORE government involvement in this already putrid economy and supply shortage-ravaged landscape.
Reported the first vote for ignoring the debate rules when judging. The voter agreed that CON did not follow the debate rules and then said PRO lost anyways.
Also was biased when rating sources. Did not consider the merits of the sources bur instead voted based on their ideological leanings instesd of objectively weighing the sources themselves.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/
[2] https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-obamacare-so-expensive-how-lawmakers-could-help-lower-arizona-premiums
[3] https://www.aier.org/article/why-the-green-economy-is-suddenly-in-retreat-in-europe-america-and-on-wall-street/
[4] https://www.hoover.org/research/californias-electricity-nightmare-begins-and-will-only-get-worse
[5] https://www.aier.org/article/the-many-ways-bad-policy-worsens-your-daily-commute/
[6] https://www.cato.org/blog/minimum-wage-effects
[7] https://www.aier.org/article/193517/
[8] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts-daily/
[9] https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/washington-post-fake-news-passports-media-bias/
[10] https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/troubling-corrections-at-the-washington-post-new-york-times-and-nbc-news/
[11] https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/27/as-usual-the-washington-post-gets-an-election-story-wrong/
[12] https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/fact-check-bias-chart
[13] https://www.foxnews.com/media/politifact-job-listing-misinformation-team
[14] https://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/what_the_fact-checkers_get_wro.php
Round 2 Sources:
SOURCES:
[1] https://taxfoundation.org/blog/import-tariffs-affect-exports/
[2] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-tariffs#chapter-title-0-8
[3] https://www.justfactsdaily.com/washington-post-buried-proof-of-joe-bidens-bribery
[4] https://www.justfactsdaily.com/the-washington-post-grossly-understates-the-crime-rate-of-illegal-immigrants
[5] https://www.justfactsdaily.com/the-washington-posts-slander-on-hurricanes-and-climate-change
[6] https://www.justfactsdaily.com/washington-post-misportrays-the-death-of-michael-brown
[7] https://www.justfactsdaily.com/wash-post-repeatedly-botches-fact-check-of-trumps-state-of-the-union-address
[8] https://www.justfactsdaily.com/substantial-numbers-of-non-citizens-vote-illegally-in-u-s-elections
[9] https://www.justfactsdaily.com/quantifying-illegal-votes-cast-by-non-citizens-in-the-battleground-states-of-the-2020-presidential-election
[10] https://www.aier.org/article/government-intervention-in-health-insurance-falls-short/
[11] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718793115
[12] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289607000463
[13] https://www.thirteen.org/openmind-archive/education/the-dumbing-down-of-america/
[14] https://fee.org/articles/americans-are-woefully-uneducated-about-basic-history/
[15] https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/how-government-funding-is-destroying-american-higher-education/
[16] https://mises.org/mises-wire/feds-fiat-money-real-cause-price-inflation
The polls are within the margins of error. With the difference between the two being less than 3% we can't claim the polls are saying Kamala will win.
Even so, the polls have been consistently wrong since 2016.
One poll doesn't equate truth. Polls are notoriously off. The aggregate data for all the polls we have shows a race within most polls' margins of error.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/
"Trump is losing by 6 percentage points"
No he isn't:
https://www.realclearpolling.com/
Quality of life was never defined as solely economic means in the debate because it is a measure of ones life getting better or worse.
It appears you would have accidentally boxed yourself in inadvertently had you accepted the debate.
All debates have limits, though, by nature. Why would Americans nit consider their own wellbeing primarily when considering the best President?
Do we demand of Guatemala and Germany to vote based on what makes American citizens' lives better? Of course not! Because it is the government of their countries. It is their prerogative to choose leadership in their best interest as it is ours to choose leadership our best interest.
done.
It is my debate, after all 😂
If you want to debate whether Karris or Trump are better for, say, Guatemalans or Germans, then that is your prerogative.
But, to be clear, Germans and Guatemalans do not vote for President unless they are American citizens or somehow manage to fool the vote clerks at the polls or with absentee ballots...
Trump isn't losing badly in the polls. The percentages are almost all within the margin of error for the polls themselves.
Also, most people voted for Biden in 2020 but wanted Trump back by large numbers in 2024 because they believed were wrong.
The short of it is that popular consensus doesn't mean the best choice.
Here is the way I see it:
The U.S. Constitution says America is for "We The People"
What we do for other countries is secondary to the duties of government toward American citizens. The Government is supposed to provide for Americans' common defense and promote Americans' general welfare.
Now, don't take this to mean that foreign aid and interventionism are bad, because they are more of a case-by-case basis. But American government is for America, not for other countries. That is why other countries elect their own governments.
I deliberately made it more generic. I wanted to have some fun with it.
I don't think it is. I said "net quality of life" and for "all Americans and legal immigrants." So it is a whole-country thing, not individuals.
Yeah. It is for fun, emotions or not.
btw I saw you had quite a few more debates since I was gone. Nice job keeping your win streak.
Would you be open to debating something at some point or have you taken another hiatus from debating?
I understand. I disagree, but understand 🤣
Thanks for explaining. I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't agree, but at least I understand. I think I established good standing, based on Thomas Paine, divine right of kings, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution, and other longstanding legal theory, on how rights were violated, which weren't mentioned at all in your RFD, but hey, that's the fun of these. People take away what they think was the better argument.
At the end of the day we were discussing a legal, not moral issue. Should the GOVERNMENT do something. But I guess I wasn't super clear. The answer was they could not so they should not.
At any rate, I'll admit this isn't my best debate. I didn't notice the time constraints and was super busy (I just started a substack right after I accepted doing the debate). That is my fault.
Savant, I would love another debate sometime with longer time constraints on another topic if you're up for it. It was fun!
The description says:
"BoP is shared equally. Pro argues that a system in which the government grants entry to more immigrants is preferable to the status quo. Con defends the status quo as preferable to Pro’s proposal."
I fail to see why I have to respond to PRO in order to win the debate. I just have to establish why the status quo is better. I was not graded on this criteria at all and only graded on how I responded to someone else.
I don't think it is fair for me to have to justify PRO's is as an ought when he doesn't justify it himself. I feel like I was given unnecessary burdens that PRO did not have in your assessment. Byrden of proof for PRO's position is on him. I do nit have to accept his arguments if he did not establish them himself.
Just like with Oromagi, it feels as if you ultimately just said "one guy's argument matters and the other one does not, even though it adequately responded to the qualms."
But thank you for your vote.
Why didn't my sources fit while PRO's did?
They were medical doctors, delivery room medical staff, and gynecologists. All involved in pregnancy and human life. All trained in medicine and human biology.
Also, why does personhood matter? The debate is on whether abortion is murder, not on whether a fetus is a person. I feel you defaulted to PRO even though PRO did not really defend his positon all that well.
(btw, I am actually against abortion and do believe if is murder)
Well... how many of them actually have "America" in the title?
Welp... I learned something new today. We can make it immigrate AND emigrate so it is fair to both of us.
I didn't know immigrate was a word 🤣
May seem grammar nazi-esque. But the truth is I don't want to write "emigrate"and then lose the debate on a silly technicality 🤣
Immigrate means “come to live permanently in a foreign country.”
I am pretty sure the word is emigrate, not immigrate.
Sure. Just one thing. Change immigrate to emigrate and I'll accept.
So we are arguing purely over the amount of immigrants?
I would be arguing we should not raise the current quota and you would be arguing we should?
Or I am arguing we should lower the quota and you are arguing we should raise it?
You said: "yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum"
Well, let's put on our thinking caps here...
If I comment regularly on religion in the forums, then how can a person assume I am shying away?
Have you ever considered that I didn't want to deal with sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments about God being "evil" for killing people who were, in fact, evil and unjust themselves?
Or run into the same atheistic unintellectual brain slop of "because evil exists there is no God" or "God is unfair because he doesn't align with my arbitrary, illogical views of right and wrong"?
I don't want to be dog teamed with stupidity and waste my time for no reason. So I don't post in the religious forums. But I obviously am VERY VOCAL about my beliefs in the forums.
How do you define the Status Quo, because immigration execution changes regularly. They always increase or decrease the amount, change which types of immigrants, they allow and from which countries, etc.
Basically I am arguing that your point is moot because they regularly change the amounts of immigrants anyways.
Thanks for your vote!
I am not trying to hide from anything. The times I tried to make forum posts to talk to one person people just started debating the topic amongst each other. It basically defeated the purpose.
I have had no problems with the PM system personally. The above reasons are why I suggested it.
I don't want to shy away over anything. I just want to discuss things with one person if they want a full discussion, not 10 or even 100 people, which is what the IM system is for.
If you are actually open to having am honest discussion, then I am more than happy to talk to you via the messaging system on here.
The forums are not really a great place for dialogue, more for juat saying your side and not taking into account other perspectives.
Why do I need to create forum posts on topics YOU want to talk about? Where is the logic in that?
You said: "Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now..."
Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't, so I'd rather not exercise in futility. I could be Galileo to your flat earther world, but seeing as I don't have to be, I don't WANT to be.
I don't know who hurt you, but taking it out on random internet users doesn't really solve it all that well now does it?
Now, if you are open to an actual DEBATE on these topics then I am totally up for it... after I finish the two I am currently in and another one that I agreed to already via site messaging.
"Imo, you don't have the metal tools nor do you have enough knowledge of the bible to argue a single point when it comes to scripture."
I didn't say I personally agreed with all 3. You leveled a claim against "Christians" saying "we" never thought through the issue. I was simply saying you are wrong, and we have, and those are the 3 most popular responses.
"you haven't read the bible for yourself but instead have totally relied on and listened to the words of the Pastors and Priests"
It's funny you should say that, because I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself. You could learn to do the same, since your faulty, mostly-unreferenced thread on original sin speaks volumes of your complete lack of Bible knowledge.
I meant religiously not ethnically. Though that is a bit of a useless distinction anyways.
There are 3 ways Christianity has thought through that issue:
1. Original sin. These people argue that all humankind is automatically guilty due to Adam. An early church council actually affirmed this.
2. God's foreknowledge and omnicience already knew what those babies were going to do, so he still made a just decision.
3. God's ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and we are not privy to all the information anyways.
I think all of them provide a robust response when extrapolated further.
Aren't you Jewish?
Just a friendly reminder that you have about one day to make your argument.
Once again you don't provide simple answers because you cannot square the circle. Keep in your error for all I care.
As usual. The fake televangelist using Christianity as a cover for their hatred couldn't answer a simple Bible question.
The answer, Mr. Thomas, is that it is impossible. Murder is always wrong. Abortion is murder. Therefore Abortion is always wrong.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
You shall not murder.
Abortions violate both of these.
So, now kindly piss off and spend more time in that Bible and less time spreading your disinformation.
Also, I didn't bring whiteflame into this. Lemming did.
"What part of my post #24 didn't you understand?"
Basically how none of it had to do with my question to you, honestly.
So I'll ask again. If murder is a violation of the 10 Commandments, then why are you advocating for murdering babies?
You still haven't explained to me how abortion is ok when murder is wrong. Sounds to me that you are biblically illiterate, and running away from the truth, and not me.
So, I'll take that as a "yes."
So, I'd now like to ask you how you support abortion as a Christian when it is murder?
We, as in you and I, are not allowed to murder. So abortion is wrong.
Are you saying I broke conduct? Or that Mr.BrotherD is harassing me?
I'll take that as a no, then.
Be consistent, man. You say we should follow the 10 commandments and then can't even say we shouldn't murder?
In which case, you still haven't disproven my position that abortion is wrong because it is murder.
Simple answer man. Yes or no.
Do you think we should ignore the commandment telling us not to murder?
Let the record show that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas, when asked, could not answer "no" to when he was asked if he was telling me to ignore the 10 Commandments.
idk what Christianity he claims to practice, but it obviously isn't authentic.
Are you saying we should ignore the 10 Commandments?